Is Wladimir Klitschko a top 10 HW of all time? - Please remember to vote

King cherry picked a light heavyweight for Larry instead of fighting Pinklon Thomas. And he still got beat legitimately the first time around. That made him the first heavyweight champ to lose his belt to a light heavyweight champ in 60 years, and it was Spinks' first fight at the weight. Thankfully Tyson showed up to show what a crappy HW scene the early 80's really was.

Holmes was managed for profitability and getting to 49-0 once he had the title, and the plan backfired. I don't blame Larry for that because King's a money hungry twat, but it is what it is. Larry's a great fighter, and at least Larry got his cash and didn't wind up broke like so many ex-champs do. But let's not pretend he was managed for the sake of fanboys arguing legacy 30 years later and took all the toughest fights- he was the definition of "prize fighter".

 

Can't be bothered to respond to that lengthy post but this immediately cought my attention. I can think of numerous non-US boxers who are very popular in the US. Furthermore, I recall seeing the Klits on HBO rather often a few years ago. What happened to that? Blatant nationalism as you claim or simply low TV ratings as the Klits bored the HBO audience to tears?

 

Holmes and Joe Louis.

Beating Schemeling was a big thing, not because Schmeling was a great boxer, but because of what was happening at the time. Schmeling is more revered because of what he did outside of the ring then for what he did while inside of it. I equate Schmeling's win of Louis to that of Buster Douglas vs Tyson. He just had his number that night.

Holme's signature fights were against Ali and Cooney. Ali wasn't a great fighter anymore and Holmes beat Cooney, who was way to green and the big hype for the fight was more based on race then the challenger's actually ability.

Most greats lost to subpar opposition from time to time. Louis lost to Schmeling, Tyson lost to Douglas, Ali lost to Norton, Lewis lost to McCall and Rahman. Hollyfield lost to Moorer and Ruiz, Foreman lost vs Young. I believe both Sanders and Brewster would compete well with this crowd. Sanders did fight Rahman prior and the fight was supper close. I don't count Puritty, because Wlad was no where near his prime at the time.

Maybe Wlad needs to fight Holyfield? It would be about the same as when Holmes fought Ali. Or Johnson fought Jefferies.

 

What he won't mention is that HBO spent a massive amount of money on marketing Wlad. How many fighters get on mainstream TV in America these days? Yet HBO made sure Wlad went on several mainstream shows to market his fight with Ibragimov. That fight was around an anniversary at Madison Square Garden, so the owners of that building and HBO did a huge marketing deal about past fights there. They even got together a bunch of ex-fighters like Frazier, Holmes, Foreman and others, to help sell Wlad/Ibragimov which was paid for by MSG and HBO.

And the result? One of the worst fights in a long time which resulted in the heavyweights being thrown off HBO, boxing being shunned from New York and also boxing being rejected by MSG for a long time.

It's pure bull**** to say that people have ignored Wlad. HBO gave him a chance that you very, very rarely see fighters get. What did Wlad do with that chance? He blew it. To argue he hasn't been given a chance is a blatant lie.

 

Larry Holmes didn't lose until he lost a debatable decision against Michael Spinks. Spinks is not "weak opposition" and was in another league to Brewster and Sanders.

Joe Louis only lost to Max Schmeling when he was near his prime. Again, Schmeling was a excellent fighter, much superior to Brewster and Sanders.

Wlad has combined two things which is unprecedented amongst greats: One is that he's never beaten a great opponent, or even someone who is B-class. Secondly, he's lost to poor opposition who he should have soundly beaten.

 

Oh really? Haye, Byrd, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Peter are not even B level now?
Wasn't Haye was supposed to KO Wlad according to you?

 

As were Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman and Ali beaten by poor opposition that they should have beaten.

If you look at Schmelings record he was not as great of a boxer as everyone makes him out to be. He picked up on a flaw in Louis's defense that night and thoroughly exploited it. He was good fighter, not a great one.

You do have the point of Holmes not being beat by subpar opposition during his reign, but at the same point his opposition wasn't the best either and he never did have a win over a great fighter (like I said earlier, Ali was no longer great at the time).

 

No, I don't think they are. I think fighters like Quarry, Shavers, Baer, Young, Norton etc., are B-class. I think they are quite clearly better fighters than the ones you listed.

Would Haye beating Wlad be a shock? Is Haye inferior to Sanders or Brewster?

 

I could agree with this as well, but i believe the major point he was making (aside from where the champ is from i.e. states, ukrain etc) is that ones greatness comes from their marketing, and the marketing of their opponents. From what i understand Ali wasn't that exciting either, nor was he as dominant, but he did beat Liston who was condiered the guy at the time.

Also most champions on the top 10 list don't have more than 1-2 recongnizable names (who were at their prime) on their resume. Some of these all time greats don't even have one.

If you consider all factors H2H, Resume, lengh of title Reign then it is difficult to to rate Wlad lower than top 20. Sure his fights aren't exciting... he doesn't put himself at risk... but if a heavy came a long that everyone believed had a chance against wlad the fight would be exciting... just like the 1st Peter fight... or even the Haye fight.

I rate Wlad top 10 on my list for the following reasons

1) H2H - he is top 3 for me, i would only favor Prime Lenox(55/45) and Prime George Forman (55/45) against Wlad. I wouldn't favor anyone else... Tyson has power but too small, he might win but i wouldn't favor him
2) Resume - Top 15, he fought almost everyone out there, and i agree that team tagging with your brother does thin out the compittion, but if they didn't do that then vitaly wouldn't get any fights. They won't fight eachother because they are brothers... brothers from a good family don't fight (i know i have one, and i can't picture taking my brothers head off)
3) Title Reign, second longest fighting the best of a weakish Era...

 

I'm not saying every great fighter is either one or the other, I'm saying a combination of the two. Yes, Ali did lose to poor opposition in the latter part of his career but he beat some phenomenal fighters.

That's my stance and I've never said otherwise either.

I agree but as I've said all along, not every fighter can face greatness. It's not Wlad's fault that there isn't a Frazier or Louis out there for him to fight and it'd be foolish to criticize him for that. However, as in the case of Holmes, the only way to achieve greatness in a weak era is to be thoroughly dominant. Wlad simply hasn't been because he lost during his prime.

 

According to your logic Purrity is 10X the man Haye is.deal:deal

 

He lost during his physical prime but not through his styalistic prime... do you agree?

 

But still. How many hall of famers have the Klitschkos even beaten combined? 1? 0?

At least Tyson has Spinks and Holmes. And those 2 would give everyone in today's heavyweight division hell.

 

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with Jack that Wlad is a top 10 HW of all time is like arguing with Vlad23 that Wlad isn't a the number 1 heavy of all time. Both are deep set in their own viewpoints due to probably reasons that have nothing to do with Wlad in the first place and no amount of logic will ever change it.

 

Baer is a better fighter than Byrd :rofl