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

Maybe if he fights & beats Vitali.

 

If demarco dominated the division for ten years i'd happily put him above williams.

Erdei has never been the top lhw and he's barely beaten a ranked opponent, **** comparison.

 

Excellent point.
It is far easier to 'dominate' or 'clean' a division when you are cooperating with another partner ("Lets divide all challenges but never meet eachother...").
Therefore I cannot put Wlad above other great champions who DID dominate a division on their OWN (without the help from tag-partners). You have to respect that.

 

:rofl

Post your list of 35 better HWs, ******.

 

Dempsey above wlad? I don't see it.

Same with liston, fitz, tunney, jeannette, schmelling, baer and especially vitali.

Also wills and dempsey should rank much closer together.

 

I do love it when people make idiotic statements like this. YDKSAB

He has never been undisputed, never beaten the consensus #2 guy, shared opponents with the #2 guy & has unavenged losses to B level competition whilst in his prime. Vitali has been a massive help to his career but damages his legacy. Tagteaming isnt domination, its co-operation.

Add to that his constant, illegal clinching which is never properly punished. His total lack of variety, inside work, his terrible chin & fear of engaging even against the most woeful opponents.

He's simply not a top10 ATG heavyweight & never will be.

 

If he had fought and beaten Vitali while he was still in his prime I would say he is probably in top ten of all time. But refusing to fight number one contender years after years he is no way in top 10.

 

I have him about #10 or #11. Dunno what to vote really.

 

Dr Mo makes an interesting point about wlad's clinching.

Under more stringent refereeing it's entirely possible that wlad would never have been a champion in this era because his inside game is shite. However is it fair to punish someone for being allowed to get away with something borderline illegal?

I'm not so sure.

As for the undisputed thing, it's true some dispute his claim because of vitali, but I don't think there are ten more accomplished heavyweights out there. For instance holmes and dempsey had plenty of disputers to their thrones and they populate many a top ten list. It depends a lot on criteria really. I don't care so much about titles and such, I care more about who the number 1 is, who they fought whilst there, who beat them whilst prime and the depth of resume in context of an era.

The sanders loss hurts though as do any unavenged prime losses suffered by any fighter.

 

:rofl

What the ****.

 

Wow, your hypocrisy knows no bounds!

Let's discuss facts and opinions, shall we.

Fact: Win-Loss record
Opinion: Head to head
Fact: Length of title reign
Opinion: Quality of opposition
Fact: Number of title defenses

Now, before you jump down my throat, I believe both facts and opinions must be taken into account, but you can't just hand wave away the facts purely based on your opinions, just as sure as you can't judge a fighter based on his boxrec record alone.

 

I have him outside the top 20:

Ali_, Boyd, BunnyGibbons, CamelCase, Chex31, dalve, danieljenkins, Davo, Dee, emallini, expert_analysis, FrochFan, Hustle88, Jack, JeanPaulValley, Jon Saxon, keith, KingArthur, KingBenny, Knights144, lzolnier, Marciano, Maximus, MoneyMark, pecho26, Phill-Mitchell, Poonpuppy, rebboxer, slim, sosolid4u09, syldave, theboy_racer, trainer, wahoo, Zavy



99% Brittards/Alts :rofl

 

Then lets all rank Artur Grigorian alongside Roberto Duran. After all, he does factually have a good win/loss record, he does factually have a long title reign and he factually has 17 title defences.

The reason nobody gives a **** about Grigorian is because he was beat nobody. If he'd faced and beat Mayweather, Castillo, Corrales etc., then he'd deserved to be ranked highly. He didn't and because he didn't beat a single good fighter, much like Wlad, he can't ever be ranked highly.

 

Thanks for making my day, Brittard