What achievements for Wlad to get in the top 10 HW of all time?

If he wins all of those, yes for sure. It will depend a bit on for instance how Boytsov, Solis, Arreola and other develop, but that would be a very long period of dominance. I don't think he can do it.

 

Wlad will have to keep winning for openers, but even if he does, quite a few historians will need to forget about those currently ranked ahead of him or die off. Some historians out there see boxers like Chares or Walcott as top ten heavies. Just a hunch, these two will not in the top ten by 2025.

By 2025 the old timers who had emotional connections with these guys will have passed, and new historians who view things with fresh and un-biased eyes on flim will view Klitschko as better than they were. Most boxing historians don’t realize how good guy is until he’s gone for a while.


If you compare statics such as Winning percentages, KO percentages, record vs top ten ranked fighters, and record in title bouts Wlad does rather well vs the field of past great heavyweights..

 

Its going to be rather difficult to be honest. I personally, wouldn't have a problem rating him among the greatest should he manage to go unbeaten over the next 4-5 years and unify the titles, but few people, particularly in the western countries will ever let him live down those losses to Sanders, Brewster and Purity. Additionally, the fact that we are living though an era lacking in charisma and truly exceptional talent doesn't help him either.

 

If he remained undefeated while defeating the top contenders in the division until say 4-5 years down the road, I would strongly consider him to be in the top 15. As for top 10, personally I think his previous 3 losses have already brought him to a point where I have trouble ranking him over the likes of Tyson, Holyfield, Frazier, Bowe, and the likes of them. I already leave out some great heavyweights while compiling my top 10, and I don't think Klitschko will ever reach their level.

What hurts Klitschko even more is that there isn't a fellow great heavyweight in the division to test his mettle against.

 

I dont think that he can do it unless either:

A. He posts a ridiculous number of title defences.

B. Some new heavyweight wrecking machine comes allong who he manages to beat.

C. One of his victims cleans up after he retires.

In summary it probably wont happen because there is not enough talent around and he probably wont get to fight the best of it for political reasons.

 

I can't ever see him making top ten he is just simply not quite good enough although he should be well inside the top fifteen if does well over the next three years which is all I give him. He is a quality fighter though so he may prove me wrong.

 

It would depend on the quality of his opposition.

If the guys he was defending against were ranked in the top 10 for the most part then you would have to recognise them as legacy wins whether you were impresed by those fighters or not. You would also have to regard those wins as being equivalent to wins over ranked fighters from other eras on paper.

There are two ways to get a top 10 ranking. You either beat a large volume of top fighters in a comparativley weak era or beat a small number of exceptional fighters in a strong era. The second way is not an option for Wlad but the first is possible in any era.

 

Thats what I was thinking, his defeats will hurt his placement IMO.

 

Ah, but in this very forum it seems like other ATG's get passes. Modern fighters don't. Its a horrible double standard. Wlad avenged his last loss.

 

Very true. The man has 3 losses in 53 fights. Lewis had 2 losses in some 45 fights. People never let them forget about it, but everytime a fighter who fought pre-1960 comes up in conversation, the fact that he has anywhere from 8-20 defeats is basically ignored by the classic advocates. We hear all kinds of **** like " he had no amatuer career, and fought tough guys early ". Or " none of the those losses came during his prime, they were either before or after ".

Some will make the critical observation that fighters of the old school had it harder when trying to acheive world class charismatic proportions, but I'm starting to disagree. At one point, boxing was a far more watched and popular form of entertainment during a time when there were no where near the number of media outlets, programs, sports, or shows for people to view. If you became a champion, everyone knew who you were, and it had nothing to do with fighters being necessarily better. In addition, For a champion to be considered great today, he has to beat multiple titlists, not just one. He has to start in the amatuers at a young age, and do well if he hopes to have any chance in the pros. He has to stay undefeated for as long as he can, or keep his defeats to a minimal, as losses are rarely forgiven these days. He typically ends up fighting to a later stage in his career in persuit of greatness. Fighters of decades ago certainly had a rough road, but so did their opponents. Its not like they were playing on an uneven field, where they had to work full time jobs and had no amatuer experience while their opponents didn't. Everyone had it the same. And losses were disregarded much quicker than they are today, regardless of weather or not they were avenged.