Vladimir Klitschko, Top Ten Worthy?

David Haye is his best win ... and he was scared sh!tless to go 9 feet near him

Unless you want to put a hepatitis patient in Chagaev as his best win or a middleweight in C. Byrd

 

I'm glad this subject has come up as I do indeed have Wladimir there! I'm a bit torn though, one day I'll place him 9th on my top twenty list, and another I'll have him 10th or 11th when I weigh up other factors.

My opinion and criteria for him being 9th is as follows (both legacy values and in-ring value included):

• Takes care of all ranking contenders one at a time, in a similar way to Joe Louise and Larry Holmes.
• I don't see him losing in the next 3-4 years to anyone current or upcoming - this is testament to his longevitiy and skill. In my opinion, the fact this era of the HW division is weak isn't his fault. He is taking care of business, that's all that counts.
• In my humble opinion, is the complete package as a fighter. no boxer is perfect, but Wladimir is mindful of his own shortcomings and overcomes them, particularly with being as perfect at ring generalship that I'm likely to see in my lifetime in the HW division.
• He does not under-estimate anyone... I have ultimate respect for that, he is a model champion in my opinion.
• He learns and adapts to his mistakes. This is bizarre scenario but in my opinion, he theoretically beats any fighter in history in a rematch - despite whether he wins or loses the first fight. Can't believe i'm saying this, but this includes Lewis!

 

Yes Top 10 for sure.

 

I rank on a mix of resume and achievement with a consideration of who beats who.

His a achievement of this reign " Byrd - Present day" is as good as anything outside of Louis and Ali. His resume though is arguably the weakest of the great heavyweights. Maybe not the weakest playing field but the weakest in terms of contextual regard. He didnt beat the greats that came before him and it remains to be seen if he'll beat the greats that follow him.

I think liston and Holmes both beat him which pushes him just outside my top ten.

 

sure why not

 

I usually do not make that judgement until all is said and done but he is on the right track and who knows what questions will be answered in the next few years and what he will accomplish.....In present form he has some great talents and skills and now ring maturity

 

Top ten worthy! Based on what? He only fights nobody and bums, he has lost to guys he should have beaten clearly..he has all the tools to be a deadly offensive knockout machine, instead he fights scared and clinches guys like Mormeck to death...
Had he fought in any other era he would hardly have been a contender...
Top ten worthy? No way and NEVER..

 

Povetkin holds the Papar title.....Wlad won the WBA Title from Haye and was upgraded to the WBA's "Super Champion" while Povetkin holds what is the equivalent of the Intern title...

http://wbanews.com/artman/uploads/1/WBA_RATING_JANUARY_2013_1.pdf

 

No because he cherry picks his fights. You don't become a ATG by fighting undersized club fighters.

 

Why do people people talk about Wlad like he's two fighters? I can't remember who it was, but someone here posted young and old Foreman as two different fighters in their ATG list and got ripped a new one, and this is no different. Wlad's losses have to be held against him, just like every other fighter. Likewise his refusal to fight the only other man in the division that would probably beat him, his own brother. It's understandable that he won't fight his own brother, but no other fighter gets that pass. Imagine that they are not brothers, that title streak doesn't exist and he'd have one or two more losses on his card and he possibly wouldn't still be fighting at his age. No way will he ever be top ten worthy, but he may have been if Vitali was not in the same division. Take Vitali out of the equation completely and Wlad would have had to rematch or avoid Sanders and his career path would like nothing like it does now, not to mention he may have had to face Lewis at some point. His fans want it one way, but its the other way (© Marlo Stanfield).

 

He fought in a **** era and only fought half the fighters from the era (splitting the other half with his brother)....

It's an unprecedented level of shitness that we've got here.

 

This turned to **** when moved to general.

Max/Lunny, come on!

 

No, but you also can't give him a high rating based on nothing but assumptions either. The 5 best fighters Wlad has fought were Byrd, Haye, Sanders, Brewster and Chagaev. Two of those two, who were by no means elite, beat Wlad. The best fighter Wlad has ever beaten, Chris Byrd, would rank outside of a top 50 all-time list.

You mentioned Louis and Holmes in your post, and others will mention Tyson, but their opposition was far superior to Wlad's. Louis fought Max Schmeling, Max Baer and Joe Walcott, Larry Holmes fought Ken Norton, Ray Mercer and Tim Witherspoon. Mike Tyson fought Andrew Golota, Razor Ruddock and Michael Spinks.

In terms of heavyweight greatness, with fighters like Ali, Foreman, Johnson, Lewis etc., you can certainly argue that Louis, Holmes and Tyson fought weaker opposition. However, they still fought good fighters. They still beat guys who would easily be ranked over Chris Byrd, Wlad's highest ranking win.

The era of Wlad's dominance is an unprecedented low. He does not compare to other weak eras, simply because they were also weak. They were weak in comparison to strong eras of the heavyweight division, such as the 70s or the 90s, whereas the 'Wlad era' is weak in comparison to the 'Louis or Holmes era'.

Not only that, but Wlad hasn't fought the best around either. Had he faced Povetkin, Adamek, Arreola, Solis, Valuev, Sanders in a rematch etc., Wlad's legacy would be greater than it is. As it happens, Wlad has shared dominance over this era and there are other noteworthy names out there who he should have fought.

 

Well, there are virtually no champions that fight all of the name fighters of their era, Lunny. He didn't really split the relevant contenders down the line with his brother at all. He's the one that fought and defeated Byrd. He's the one that defeated Peter first, he's the one who defeated Chagaev. He's the one who defeated Ibragimov. He's the one who defeated Haye. He was actively reigning for about two and a half years while Vitali was simply gone.

Vitali got about two good, well-earned contenders during this time. Not exactly unprecedented for a long-reigning champion to miss two relevant contenders, is it? Or are we penalising Volo for not fighting...Kevin Johnson? Manuel Charr? ...Sosnowski? Briggs? Of the fighters who had clearly earned a shot even talented guys like Solis did not and tough guys like Arreola did not. So, I'm left to say that splitting half of the contenders with his brother is absolutely ridiculous. Sorry, mate. I don't see it. Good Niko, what would you say about Holmes who always had other defending titlists sharing challengers with him? Since the three titles came into effect, almost everyone who got a title technically was taking some of the challengers.

Talk about unprecedented ****, what about the days when the coloured heavyweight champion was taking all the best black challengers while the white heavyweight champion got to be "the man" and defend against only his group. That's a bit more like sharing half the contenders with someone else, if you ask me, brother. No, there's usually a few missing guys you'd like to have seen a long-reigning man in with, there's more than a precedent for that. It's actually the pattern. And just a few is all you've got for Volo, right now, in my opinion. And they lost their relevance after facing number two, to the point where no one called for it anyway. No issue for me.

 

Not top 10.. Top 15 or even 20 is more like it.