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

HAHAHAHA anythings possible..Haye will NEVER be a great heavyweight..gonna get his ass knocked out trying tho..for that i have some,well a little bit of respect for him

 

Wladimir Klitschko shouldn't really ever have a case for top 10 heavyweight of all time. He isn't in that class, and neither is his resume.

 

How can you make this assumption when the man's career is still in progress? He has already put together a fairly decent set of credentials as it currently is. He's 50-3, is 11-2 in world title fights, avenged one of his losses, and is the concencus best right now. Surely IF he manages to unify the belts, and goes for another few years without losing another fight, he has a chance to be rated among some of the best.

 

Old ATG's really fights the best Soviet union or Cuban fighters in pro..

 

If Wlad goes on to unify the title and defend it say 5-6 times I think he'd be close to making the top ten, if he does all this desisively. ie without getting knocked down or boring us to death, by simply doing enough just to win, I think the last 2-3 spots on most peoples top 10 are subject to change anyway, usually 5-6 fighters are considered for these spots. Wlad may end up adding his name to this group.

 

This is the typical boring classic poster style on current fighters.




Those current fighters are bums, i'm telling you!

 

I think I have the right suggestions to push Wlad in the general direction of greatness, and change some of the classic poster's opinions. Perhaps if Wlad losses another 12 or 13 fights, picks up a few draws, decides to only face white fighters, and sits on the title for three years, he will be qualified for a top 5 position....

 

There is nobody in the Heavyweight division right now that you could clame to be an all time great. All of the top 10 Heavyweights, as far as I know, have beaten great fighters. Wladimir hasn't.

There isn't any great fighters in the Heavyweight division. I'm of the opinion that the division is as bad as it's ever been, so I don't think the opportunity is there for Wlad to get a resume worthy enough of a top 10 place. Let's not forget how many great Heavyweights there have been in this sport that has over a 100 year history.

 

If he manages to clean out the entire divison of whatever is available, then it shouldn't matter. All we can ask of any champion is to beat the very best men who are around during the time of his reign. What we think of his competition is irrelevant. Nat Fleischer spoke ill of the talent that was around during the 30's and 40's as did many folks at the time, but this did not stop Joe Louis from being recognized as one of the very best the game has ever seen. Champions like Dempsey, Holmes and Patterson, all fought during weak eras, and what's worse DIDN'T even face all of the worthy contenders of their era. Yet they are all viewed as all time greats. The same consideration should be made for Wladimir Klitschko, should he manage to unify the titles and beat the very best men on the lot.

What's fair is fair, and we can't change the standards for anyone.

 

If you mean being a top 10 heavyweight means you have to simply beat another great than Wlad beating Holyfield into his grave would qualify. But if you mean beating another great fighter while that fighter is at or close to his peak than thats another story. And a lot of top 10ish heavyweights haven't done so.

Applying the same standards that Wlad needs to adhere to to reach top 10 status than let me ask what great fighter have the following top 10ish heavyweights beat- Holmes, Jack Johnson, Dempsey, Tyson, Lewis, Joe Louis, Jeffries, Marciano just to name some of the relevant ones. Most of the great heavyweight don't have the chance to face other great heavyweights but still rate in the top 10.

I don't think Wlad will reach the top 10 status but I think he has a shot at it. If we apply the rulels fairly across the board. Which seems to be a bit difficult for a lot of those who love fighters of yesterday.

 

Wladimir's own self consciousness of his ring safety has proven to continue to haunt his legacy.

After the shaky, but respectable Peter win, the rematch against Byrd was nothing special but he asserted himself, and blasting a game Calvin Brock was probably his most commendable victory to date. Soon following the quick Austin blow-out was the altogether uninspiring and cringe worthy, safety first, second and third against Ibragimov.

It was Waldimir's chance to shine against a completely, anatomically out matched contender/champion. If Wladimir asserted himself correctly, Sultan would have been hammered into the canvas from long range, but such was his phobia of conducting himself against a counter-punching southpaw that he was degrading into looking like he was learning the game all over again in a sparring session.

Mendoza made the point about men like Ezzard Charles and 'Jersey' Joe Walcott being shunned from a potential top ten slot soon in a few years, but this present era shall be put under the microscope in the future with the abundance of film and in Wladimir’s last fight all Ted Spoon saw was a lot of potential that does not know how to act like a champion.

Keep the defences coming and we'll talk, but the man needs to pick up the pace in his performances.

 

Don't count on it, new historians will always view vitali has the man who accomplished very little in his era, the man who quit ahead on the cards vs chris byrd.

Charles and Walcotts stock continues to grow over time now that we have proper film to see just how special they were, charles and walcott will always be rated over the fraud vitali klitschko. Many fighters in vitali's era will be rated over vitali. He will never be seen as great fighter. Walcott will always be seen as a great fighter and will remain a top 20 heavyweight of all time.

 

To answer the thread.........I do not think wlad could ever be top 10 heavyweight of all time unless he does exactley what you say which is very unrealistic. His blowout knockout loss to a 38 year old journeyman and stamina lack of mental toughness related knockout losses to B level ross purrity and lamon brewster prevent him from a top 10. Wlad still has yet to register a win over a very good heavyweight, let alone a great fighter.

 

I agree with this,

Wlad has good credentials and ones that may grow should he continue to win, but he has not looked very impressive as of late. The Sultan fight was one in which he had a cornered opponent who was terrified of him, and he couldn't seem to capitalize on it. In one of the rare instances that Wlad applied his right cross, he nearly sent Ibragimov through the ropes, giving us a glimpse of exactly what he was capable of had he been more ascertive and better utilized his full arsenal. He had better step it up a notch against Tony Thompson. Thompson is a tad up there in age, but he is a large hard hitting south paw who hasn't lost in nearly 10 years, has never been KO'd and has more power and experience than Ibragimov. If he fights Thompson the way that he did Sultan, he may end up losing or at least looking extremely unimpressive.

 

Agreed Wlad is a very good fighter but is just not top ten, it is the manner of his losses and some of his unconvincing wins especially against Peter which I think counts against him that said he did avenge his Loss to Brewster in excellent form.
In regard to hearing how poor Walcott's or Charles record is compared to Wlad's all I can say is what crap, fighters are managed to keep their records intact as much as possible now as we can see with fighters such as Valuev and Messi, now a fighter's record is not the same sort of guide to how good he is one of the reasons for keeping a fighter's record intact is for when he does get a big fight such as Mayweather/Hatten imagine trying to promote that fight if both men had lost early in their career even if they were now considered at their peak.