Vladimir Klitschko, Top Ten Worthy?

You could argue he is top 10 either legacy or head to head. Legacy these days is world wide.

The intriguing part of the equation is he has some good years ahead of him. If Wlad had Steward at the start of his career, I think he has 1-2 less losses.

 

I dont think so just yet.

He's banging on the door due to achievemtns but his resume holds him back.

I believe I have him at number 12 behind Liston and Holmes. Those two I rank above him on H2H as they fall in the same tier.

 

The excuse of no real threats for him wont wear anymore as there are plenty of decent HWs out there now and he seems to want no part of them.
It also plausible he could suffer another loss.
The ranking is irrelevant otherwise guys ranked 50-100 could claim they are ATG's.
When its all said and done he just wont be known as one of the greatest of all time.

 

Nope. No. Uh uh.

 

As a student of boxing history, I would not have any problem with somebody putting Wlad in their top 10, based on his ring acomplishments to date.

I am not going to take the plunge yet, but if he keeps knocking off the ranked contenders the way he is, the question cannot be put off for ever.

 

He's banging on the door. Realistically he has done enough to surpass Dempsey. And he's genuinely right there with Liston, if he hasn't passed him already. However, there are still ten names ahead of him and having him crack that list would be tough considering their opposition and their respective eras. For example, Holyfield was inconsistent but who exactly did Holyfield lose to? Tremendous fighters. But look who did he beat. Let's be honest, Holyfield is a guy that's borderline top 10 HW for most people which is why I used him as an example. You make a good case and there's certainly a good argument. It takes time for fighters to get their dues and usually they get a more balanced ranking once they've retired. The same can be said of guys like Tyson & Lewis. I don't like ranking active fighters for that very reason.

 

Not yet for me

 

ATG but not top 10.

not yet.

 

I guess the question you have to ask, is when his title reign starts to compare to that of Larry Holmes.

 

But even Holmes has the luxury of going 48-0. And while Wlad is virtually unified (Barring his brother, which is a big crux against him), he still lost to multiple fighters. Brewster was a good, tough, strong, perhaps underrated fighter but not a great fighter. Not a fighter Wlad was supposed to lose too. Sanders had firepower, but he was pushing forty and Purity never should've happened.

It can be argued to some extent that Wlad has equal quality in his reign compared to Holmes. In fact, it could be argued to be superior considering his dominance in comparison to Holmes. It's an interesting prospect and point of reflection.

 

And that is how the question is likley to be played out!

 

Schmeling is a slow runt counterpuncher. He has no chance against Vlad, gets beaten like he stole something. Walcott absolutely cannot take what Vlad dishes out and doesn't stay away enough, Vlad by brutal KO.