Is Wladimir Klitschko a top ten heavyweight alltime?

Norton didn't fight like he was used up and Holmes was carrying an arm injury .

Ruddock was a legitimate test for Lewis, many thought he would win.

I'll tell you what I don't celebrate, a man who gets kod by two guys and doesn't fight them again to put the record straight. Wlad is no Joe Louis, he's more Joe E Lewis.
Greatness isnt about entertainment ? No its about putting it all on the line when its needed and Wlad hasn't got that in him, he's a manufactured ,safety first panic driven, gunshy boxer who has perfected the art of peck peck away, leaning all over them if they get close, they either lose heart , succumb to exhaustion from having him climb all over them or give in out of boredom.I don't care if he fights till he's 50 and never loses, I'll never pay a penny to watch him.

 

Too bad he will be remembered for wacking his ol lady, and taking the cowards way out , than anything to do with boxing...:skull

He is where he belongs in the graveyard...

 

He was too good for his era and so he retired to become a legend.He's very big in Germany

 

If he beats Pulev, Jennings, Fury, the winner of Wilder-Stiverne, and Takam, would you rank him top 5 all time?

 

I think Vlad is a fine fighter and his challengers have been as good as many and not as good as some, the things that hurt him is 2 loses that he should have avenged.

I know his brother knocked off Sanders and then Sanders had another mishap but even Purity he should have rematched for what it was worth and I know his brother stopped Purity and Wlad beat Byrd 2x, since then he has had some good wins, Iggy,Chag,Byrd,Thompson,Haye,Povetkin but still has to finish and lets see how he does against Pulev (a good fighter IMO) and then the winners of Stiverne-Wilder Fury-Chisora vs Jennings-Perez ....I can understanding him quitting after Pulev or one more fight against that box-off he would be close to 40 and after all is said and done I will revisit

 

One could say they were used up, but Norton still gave a fine effort against Holmes and didn't give the title up without a fight. It was a good fight to coronate Holmes.
Did Norton look used up to you?

Ruddock was still a dangerous puncher and much more experienced than Lewis. In hindsight he had slipped, but to the point of used up? I certainly think he was damaged goods after Lewis. This fight announced Lewis in no uncertain terms.

It's a bit besides the point though, I feel. The original point was that Wlad has not inspired to this level.

 

There is no one single opponent who has the requisite quality to elevate Wlad yet further imo.
Jennings and Wilder are hardly proven heavyweights. I feel Wilder is more hype than anything, and I would be surprised if he gets past Stiverne. What would Wlad gain by beating Wilder and Jennings? Pulev is decent but not much more than that, and he's no spring chicken himself.
I have no idea who this Takam is.

But if Wlad were to destroy Pulev in impressive fashion, that would help convince me. But he'll fight as he always does - within himself - and give us another forgettable fight, whether he wins by stoppage or not.

 

Honestly,

Nowhere.

These were not the best fighters available. In fact, they were not even good fighters.

Marciano's claim is not just that he won them all, but that he won them all against the best men out there.

 

Dempsey is listed at 10, on the rings ALL TIME HEAVYWEIGHTS, , and 7 among it's top 100 greatest punchers..

I suppose your going to call the bible of boxing that's been around for 90 or so years a joke??

Dempsey was a cultural icon held the heavyweight title for 7 years, fighting sometimes 6 or 7 times a year, (Wlad couldn't do that if his life depended on it) he set American financial and attendance records, in America, AND often beat the hell out of men that outweighed him by over 50 pounds...

Dempsey was basically the Babe Ruth of boxing, they were tough hard men in that era, and often fought with gloves so small it was like bare knuckle fighting..

Dempsey had a set of Balls, Wlad could only dream of...:zzz

 

First--I rate Wlad in my top ten now.

Second--The issue of what would have happened to Marciano at 38 is legitimate, but doesn't alter the fact that he fought the best out there in his late 20's and early 30's and uniquely never lost. Losing as an old man would only prove he got old.

There seems to me to be two downsides to Wlad's career.

His longevity is certainly impressive, but

Who were the best heavyweights out there during his career? Well, I think Holyfield, Lewis, and Vitali. One might possibly add Tyson. What do these men have in common? Wlad fought none of them. This might not be his fault, and the reasons understandable, but it does somewhat undercut the domination factor.

An obvious difference between Wlad and many of the other top ten claimants is that he suffered crushing defeats when he was 27 and 28. He certainly was experienced. He was not old. This should have been his prime. These were not close losses to great opponents. They were very bad defeats to men whose credentials otherwise were so-so.

Had Wlad retired at 32, I don't think he would have had any case at all for the top ten. His case is built on his exceptional longevity.

 

everyone says this until wlad beats them, then they are no good and wont hack it any other era. classic section shouldnt debate heavyweight rankings, there too blinded.

 

this is all true and I am a big fan of Vlads, he since has had some good wins but Haye and Povetkin Thompson were more than likely his best wins

 

I agree with most of this, but I also think he's skill set improved over time. That said, after the Povetkin I've decided not to watch him anymore as that was one of the most embarrassing displays of fighting I've ever seen. I would have had more respect for the guy if he'd gotten KO's then the pathetic display he put on. So he's a hard guy to assess, at the end of the day, I don't really like him, but I do have to acknowledge his skill set and his longevity at to me that puts him just inside or just outside the top 10.

 

Aesthetically he is horrible to watch, and that style turns off many fans. However he produces results, dominating results. Very few fighters, in any weight class, have won more totally lopsided fights over such a long span as has Wlad; fighting the top men of the division he is allocated.
He has unified all belts save the WBC, has made 16 defenses dating back over a decade and hasn't come close to losing as champion. I disagree that he has not won a fight in which he faced adverse conditions, his Career was jeopardy and he climbed off the canvas to defeat both Williamson and more dramatically Peter (even if he was felled by illegal blows).
He will just never be the cup of tea some fans are looking for, and that is fair, he IS boring and he IS safety first, but he is also a Top 10 Heavyweight.
How can you not be when, you're the second longest reigning heavyweight of all time, have made the third most defenses, have unified and have faced all challengers. Yes he has bad defeats, and his era(which is becoming less of an argument since his era spans multiple eras in actuality) is poor. That prevents him from being the best ever but he should clearly make the top ten. People use the word longevity champ like it's a bad term, would you rather a brevity champ? Wlad fights punchers, boxers, southpaws, fast guys, big guys old and young. He may suck to watch, but that doesn't make him less great.

 

Wlad is top 5. Look at another individual sport, man against man, pro tennis. Pete Sampras has won the second most grand slam tennis titles in history, second only to Roger Federer. Idiots on this boxing website would argue that Pete Sampras might be in the top ten of tennis players historically. Laughable. Ring Magazine, a U.S. Boxing publication with nine decades of boxing coverage has Wlad as the second longest heavyweight champ in history, second only to the legend Joe Louis. It also ranks Wlad as a top five pound for pound fighter and has done so for years now. Clowns are discussing whether this great champion who was the youngest superheavyweight Olympic gold medalist in history at age twenty and has dominated the heavyweight pro game for a decade is MAYBE top ten. Idiocy. Why is this rubbish happening. I think we know, don't we?