My Ranking of Wladimir Klitschko presently.....hes got a long way to go

That's a good point that I never even thought of. In Liston's 54 pro fights, 28 of them are against fighters who weighed less than 200 Lbs, including two of them who beat him.

 

You can focus too much on weight here.

Some posters here would almost equate fighting Joe Louis to fighting Jean Mak Mormeck because they were both the best fighter of around that weight in their respective eras.

 

I'd like to see the full top 50.

 

Castillo did not put Wlad down at all. This is false information. Castillo got blown away. TOS did score an off balance knockdown. Wlad got up and won the rest of the round to the point of a 10-9 round being an option. TOS hit harder than Marshall by the way. I don't think Liston ever got off the deck to win fight.

 

Another way to look at it is this-

If Wlad falls under a bus tomorrow where would he rank in the pantheon of great heavyweights who never held the lineal title?

Would anybody have a case to be ranked ahead of him post colour bar and if so who?

 

[

I think I would still rate him rather generously. He wouldn't make my top 15, but certainly top 30. You can argue that he's not a lineal champion, but I think this title is typically given to a fighter by the concencus. Popular opinion has him listed as the best heavyweight of the last 4 years. Holmes never unified the crown, nor fought every top contender, and in fact was stripped of a title, as was Lennox Lewis, but both make most people's top 10 list. Therefore, we have to at least make some of the same considerations for Klitschko.

I'm not sure. What time frames are we talking about when we say post colour bar? If we're talking about anytime post Joe Louis, then I would say that quite a few would rank ahead of him in my own book, as I feel that most of history's best heavyweights lived and fought from Joe Louis's era onward.

 

Interesting discussion. certainly on a H2H basis Wald is anywhere between top 15 +/- 5 depending on how you think he'd react to getting hit, whether or not he would in fact get hit, and the offense he brings to the table. In terms of legacy I think he's pretty much in the top 20-25 range at the moment. He'd have a hard time cracking the top 10 ATG status given his losses, but he could possibly get into the top 15. That's my take on him anyway. Regarding the linear title, that technically stopped when Tunney retired, although I guess one can talk about the man who beat the man etc., more recently Lewis retired and closed that option.

 

Of course Ali was past his prime. Not since he was banned from ring action has he moved as gracefully in and out of trouble. In his comeback, that grace diminished and then later abandoned him altogether; it was through guile and determination that he ultimately achieved what he did in his return.

Just because his best wins were still ahead of him in 1973 doesn't necessitate that he was still smack in the middle of his prime years; that just proves that he was far from a shot fighter. Having plenty left in the tank does not equate to a full tank and you know it.

Foreman, Frazier and Norton, like so many wins and losses, happened past his best. He won against all of them past his prime and he lost to two of them past his prime.

 

Spoken like a true Ali fan trying to excuse his loses and close calls. Here's the deal. A post 1971 Ali was a better ring strategist, clincher, counter puncher, technician on defense, and power hitter. Ali had a string of good performances post 1971 leading up to the Norton fight in 1973.

The 1960's version of Ali was green on these skills, and faced weaker competition in general. While Ali's foot speed of the early 70’s was not as great, he was still fast. IMO, Ali from 1973-1975 was still in his prime. He was 31-33 years old in these years.

You might say Ali 73-75’ had plenty left in the tank, but not a full tank. My reply is, Ali tank grew in capacity in the ways I outlined above. Let’s not confuse tougher competition with Ali being past his prime as they are different things.

 

I'm not trying to excuse anything. I'm not even going to speculate on what Ali might have been capable of had he not been pulled from the ring in '67 because I don't need to quite honestly. On strategy, Ali relied solely on quickness of hand and foot whilst in his prime, and in every outing up to that point it worked! Upon his return maybe you were awed by his use of the rope-a-dope, his scientific clinching when faced with a relentless Frazier the second time around; these things were reactions elicited by the situation at the time. I'm sure you would not refute me when I say that Ali was a adapting fighter. Well, if you're not convinced that he exhibited these qualities in his earlier years, then I suggest you rewatch the Terrell and Chuvalo fights for reference. In the Chuvalo fight, he was darting in and out, constantly changing his approach round after round then switching back at will. These things could be classified as strategy, but to be honest, I think they're something more than that. Frankly, Ali was never possessed of the kind of conventional intellect that would enable him to be completely successful in a strategic match against the very best. If he was smart, for instance, he would not have used the rope-a-dope again and again to the point of obsolescence. Holmes, Lewis and Tunney had more strategic prowess at their disposal in my point of view. They're more systematic. Ali, for his part, had the kind of adaptive ability Dempsey had when in his prime. He was that kind of talent.

His defensive stance remained mostly unchanged through all the fighting years: gloves in front of the face in the classical position of defense. How exactly in your opinion did he improve in this regard? He had to forgo some of the techniques he had used in the past because he could no longer move with the same speed in fact! The way he parried Terrell with extended arms to prevent incoming blows to the head. You think Cooper and Banks scored heavily on Ali is that it?
How do you explain Chuvalo saying that Ali had not come out of the exile the same as he came in? He wasn't an avid fan. He had no reason to make his loss any more aggravating by telling the world he lost to an inferior article. Why were the scores closer the second time around, with George being mostly unaffected. Remember that Chuvalo suffered a cut in the first time and his face was very severely marked. Remember also that this was Chuvalo's last meaningful fight, happening well after his losses to Bonavena, Frazier, Mathis, Foreman and Ellis so he wasn't exactly fresh in there. This was a fight that happened while Ali was stringing up those good performances you mentioned. Why did the first opponent that had previous experience with Clay say that he was not the same?

Simple yes or no, Mendoza: can a fighter rake in a series of impressive wins while past his best? Shouldn't Ali, arguably the best heavyweight ever, be able to string along wins more impressive than the average Joe Blow-- say, wins against Frazier, Foreman and Norton?

Don't make the mistake of confusing his most noteworthy wins with his biggest wins; that has more to do with oppostion in a given era. You seem to be saying that since he hadn't yet recorded his career-making victories--the victories he had against his greatest rivals-- that he was still the same Ali that danced under the lights for fifteen rounds. He clearly was not.

 

Personally, I think he would have stopped both in his prime years.:good