Is Wladimir Klitschko a top ten heavyweight alltime?

I think he is trending that way. Define greatness any way you wish. Head to head, Ring Record, Top contenders beaten, longevity, or title defenses, Wlad is going to rate.

Spots #8-10 seem right for Wlad.

 

Again:

Tony Tucker
Oliver McCall
Nicolay Valuev
George Foreman
Evander Holyfield
Vitali Klitschko
David Tua
James Smith
James Douglas
Tim Witherspoon


Riddick Bowe
Tony Tubbs
Ikemefula Ibeabuchi
Lennox Lewis
Lamon Brewster
Henry Akinwande
Ross Puritty
Corrie Sanders
Wladimir Klitschko
Jameel McCline


Marion Wilson
Dominick Guinn
Michael Grant
James Tillis (without his allergy to eggs)
Jesse Fegusson
Mitchell Green
Gregorio Peralta
Mark Wills
Andrezj Golota
Orlin Norris


I find it hard to even justify him @ #19
In his case it is more due to speculative h2h due to size.
His best wins are: McCline (by far) followed by Haye, Wach, Shufford.
Hard to justify ranking him over Michael Grant, but I am trying to be nice so I use McCline as an excuse for putting him over Grant.
If they never fought McCline I would have had them in this order:
McCline > Grant > Wladimir

I know I omitted circus jokers and intra ring criminals, but this is this sport, or otherwise I would have it:

Jason Voorhees
Michael Myers
Bunnyman
The Golem
It
Doink
The Ultimate Warrior
Big Van Vader
Giant Gonzalez
Hong Man Choi


Semy Schilt
Fedor Emalianenko
Lex Luger
Gary Albright
Salman Khashimikov
Nubohiko Takada
Badass
Worf
Robocop
That actor from publ1c d1s9r@c3 whom costarred with Alisa Ramon (I thought he was James Deen, but he has Italian accent so he is not)

 

What the hell kind of list is this

 

NO

Ali
Joe Louis
Foreman
Holmes
Lennox
Dempsey
Jack Johnson-pioneer
Evander Holyfield
Marciano-only heavyweight in history to retire with an 0
10- 3 way tie, Frazier, Liston, or Tunney who only lost once, never KOd..

One could also.make a strong case for Tyson who had an amazing run from 86-90, and would have went a lot further if he wasn't doing so much stupid ****..

Klitchko is still active, this thread is kinda a moot point, but he's been violently KOd by 2 guys, stopped by Purrrity, they were tough guys but hardly elite, his stlye of holding, hugging, grabbing, pulling on the neck, leaning on the back is garbage, but tolerated in Germany, he would be Dqd here in the states, that **** wouldn't fly here..

 

For one, I believe many will rate Marciano above Wlad. I am curious if those folks are applying equal standards to both careers.

 

I currently rank h2h within divisions.

If wlad retired today there are atleast 10 I favour over him.

Ali
Liston
Louis
Tyson
Lewis
Holmes
Foreman
Bowe
Vitali
Frazier
Dempsey


Plus I'd favour Holy despite him being a cruiser.

 

Dempsey over wlad must be a joke

 

If it was a joke it wouldn't be a very good one.

 

I think it's close. If you go by his record it's hard not to have him in the top ten. If you look at his comp, it detracts from his record to some degree, and if you consider his H2H attributes, I'd say he's improved a lot since the Peter's fight. All in all, I think anywhere from 10-14 is a reasonable placement.

 

Ali, Louis... absolutely.

Lennox... fought a better level of competition. Also was KO'd twice in his prime.

Holmes, probably... I certainly like him better. Beat about the same or lessor level of opposition, tho. Bonus for not getting KO'd twice...

Foreman... Weak opposition on his way up. Took the title from a past prime Frazier, beat a chinny Norton... Did the impossible in reclaiming the title years later. Sure.

Dempsey... no way in hell. Fought a bunch of used up has beens on losing streaks (with the exception of Fulton) on his way to the title. Beat a horrible champ on a 4 year layoff. Had one of the worst and certainly most contrived title reigns in history. No ****ing way.

Jack Johnson... More important than almost any heavy. Actual accomplishments inside the ring, and certainly his title reign, not as impressive.

Holyfield... Brave tough fighter who almost always brought it. Losing to Bowe, Moorer, Ruiz and Lewis puts him down to the next level. Not as impressive a resume as Wlad.

Tunney? Dude only had about 6 fights in his heavyweight run, only one fight against a 200 pounder. How in the **** does he rate?

Marciano- Wlad's 8 year stretch from 06-14 is more impressive than Marciano's 8 year stretch. Oh, that's right, he was only champ for 3 years. Marciano's legacy is inflated due the small sampling of his championship fighting. I can't rate him above Wlad.

 

Wlad is a very good fighter who is utterly uninspiring. That's the problem I've always had with him.
I've tried to like his style, tried to warm to his kind of fighting, but in the end I get frustrated, angry and bored.
And you know, he could be a bit more exciting, a bit more adventurous. Take a few risks.

Look at someone like Pernell Whitaker for example. Nobody will ever say that Whitaker had them on the edge of their seat, but then Pernell never had much pop in his shots and was often fighting in a division one north of his ideal weight.
I like watching him overcome bigger, stronger guys with guile and class. Same with Chis Byrd.

But Wlad? He is a huge, strong, powerful man but he just does not take risks. He plays it safe every time, and hence the boredom.
The Haye fight...yes, Haye did not exactly take risks himself, but after all the hype and bluster, all the promises of 'knockout' from both Haye and Wlad, we got a sterile fencing match with neither man willing to take even a small risk.
I found Wlad's approach loathsome. To a slightly lesser extent, Haye's too.

To me, greatness really has to mean something. Be inspiring, exciting. Stand for something.

To have a nice long unbeaten run against a collection of mediocre fighters in mediocre fights is not enough.
It has to be about more than X number of years as champion and Y number of title defences.
People tend to treat those criteria as set in stone as a measure of greatness.
These are just indications, pointers if you will, to potential greatness but that by itself is not enough.
By that measure, Sven Ottke is a 'great' fighter. Or Daruisz Michalczewski.

What is the point of 20 title defences and 10 years as champion (or whatever he has, can't be bothered to check) if folks aren't tuning in to watch your fights? Is that 'greatness?'

Call him very good, call him excellent, but great is a word thrown about too often these days, probably because we as a society are quick to deify anyone who is above
average, or merely good, as great.

I'm not confusing popularity and greatness. Arturo Gatti was popular and fun to watch, but he wasn't great.
Greatness is an ethereal quality that is hard to define sometimes. But when I watch Wlad fight, there is nothing there that suggests greatness to me. He is very good. But he also is keenly aware of his flaws and it comes out in the way he fights. Far too much so.

I don't think he can ever convince me otherwise. Will there ever be a time when we see him go hell for leather, in a fight that he is behind in, and get a win? Will we ever see a battered and bleeding Wlad prevail against the odds?
Extremely unlikely.
For one, who is good enough to put him in that situation and two, if he is getting beat up he tends to capitulate.

Will we ever hear someone say 'boy, that Wlad guy had one hell of a fight last night.' No.
He doesn't inspire or excite.
He's had his chances to do so too. And he's blown it every single time.

Very good, but a long way off truly great.

 

I see your point though he isnt in my top 10.Has he been the best all that time ? Or did he overtake his brother about halfway through it?

He has dominated in recent years but the opposition has been dire imo.

 

Excellent post that I think defines the subject perfectly.:good

 

Trending?:huh