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

I am not gonna lie Magoo, you had me laughing out loud, that was funny!

 

A decent start, but i don't think it will get through untill HBO decides to broadcast fights in black and white with funny voices and orchestra music. Lederman sounds like a step in the right direction.

 

While a long period of dominance and unifying the belts would rank him higher than he currently ranks and deservedly so, I doubt he will ever rank among the majority of peoples top 10 list.

This is for 2 reasons, his previous losses which were against inferior opponents. Personally I think Wlad is a very different fighter now, just like Lewis shouldn't be ranked based on his early career and loss to McCall, I don't think Wlad should be ranked simply based on his early career when he is such a different fighter under Steward. Do we rank Pacquaio based on his early KO defeats? Nope, so I personally won't use that double standard.

For me the main reason he will most likely never rank among the top 10 ATG at heavyweight is because of his level of opposition. He has never faced a great heavyweight and probably never will. Which is very unfortunate for him but doesn't change the fact that I would struggle to find a fighter on his resume who would be a lock for the HOF let alone an true ATG. Lewis had Holyfield and Tyson, Holyfield had Tyson, Tyson had Holmes, Holmes had Ali and Norton. Wlad has no such opponent available.

 

Wlad never beat older ring legands fort most part. Smart historians see vs Holmes and Lewis vs Tyson for what it was. Big event type of fights where one guys is well past his prime and get's blown out. If should not count much for legacy's, but for some reason it does.

 

Lets see who he need to skip with the current top17 (in no particular order):

Ali, Holmes, Marciano, Louis, Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Jack Johnson, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Jeffries, Bowe, Wills, Charles, Walcott

He won't ever beat a truly great HW, so he needs to have a long dominant run and clean out the division. Even then dispossesing 6 of the above HWs is a tall order with his defeats

HWs he could have an argument to disposses if he dominates the best opp for another 5years (in no particular order):

1. Dempsey - weaker opposition, less defenses, also has embarassing defeats pre-prime.

2. Bowe - didnt fight the best opposition, didn't hold onto his title long, but when he lost, lost to 1 of the best in Holy

3/4. Charles/Walcott - both have very good opposition, Wlad has a chance to have a better overall resume and be more dominant in his era

5. Jeffries - because Wlad may have a longer run and beat better technical fighters

6/7. Foreman/Frazier - both have very short reigns, but for good reason, they fought the no1 and pushed him hard

8. Wills - arguably better bigger opposition if he dominates for another few years

Right now I have Wlad around top25, he hasnt done nearly enough to be up there yet. Holmes also didnt beat great fighters (a 1980 Ali wasnt great), so Wlad could be on that sort of level

 

PowerPuncher, where do you have Holmes?

 

There is a lot of substance to your post M,fighters popularity ebbs as their contemporary fans die off,but Wlad has a lot of work to do at the moment,for my money he hasnt beaten a great fighter yet ,or even a very good one ,and he has devastating kos on his loss sheet ,its not inconceivable he might dominate the field ,but they are a pretty mediocre bunch ,imo ,and with his chin ,I doubt he will stay unbeaten for more than a couple of years at most.

 

I haven't looked at my list in a while, I made a top100 that needs some serious adjustment in top echelons (its hard work when you get past 30). I rate based on oppositions, achievements and dominance

I have Holmes lower top10 or perhaps just out of it, I used to rate him higher BUT when looking at his opposition and close calls he has to drop down.

Holmes will rate over Wlad anyway because Holmes was more dominant, beat better fighters (I dont think Wlad has got anyone on the level of say a Norton) AND went undefeated for so long.

Holmes/Wlad/Wills will be in similar positions legacy wise - long reigns against very good but not ATG opposition (Langford at 5'6 and 180lbs isnt quite in the ATG zone)

 

Wlad will NEVER be on Holmes's level.

Wlad was KO'd by Sanders and Brewster, (who were fringe contenders), when he was in his prime.

Holmes fought 'til he was 50, and only TKO'd once, way past his prime, against a prime Mike Tyson, a genuine world champ and KO artist.

Wladimir Klitschko and his contemporaries are relatively ****.

That's right, these heavyweights are crap, rubbish, garbage, compared with the likes of Larry Holmes.

And all you on here in who say otherwise are FULL OF ****.
:good

 

Currants should be in buns ,not bums.

 

Yeah, I suppose I can make some concessions for Wlad's loss to purity given that he was very inexperienced and facing an exceptionally dangerous journeyman. The Sanders and Brewster losses are another story however. He was in his late 20's with over 40 pro fights, and even had Emanuel Steward in his corner for one of those bouts. A similar argument can be made for his flat performance in 05' against Sam Peter where he was floored some 3 times. Some fans try to claim that he has since improved, therefore should be labeled as being in his prime now, but I'm not so sure that I can buy that one. Three to five years ago, Wlad was 27-29 years old, with well over 40 bouts, and had a reputable trainer in his corner. If a man is not at his peak under those circumstances, then I couldn't define what peak really is. He is now 32 years old, and looked extremely unimpressive against Sultan Ibragimov. He has also spent the better part of the last several years fighting men who are in their mid to late 30's and never very good to begin with.

 

Holmes is more fluid, a better mover, more natural, better under pressure, faster and a better boxer. Wlad is bigger, better finnisher, hits harder while being very well schooled and relatively fluid himself, at his best

Yes Wlad is in a weak era, but Holmes was in a weak era himself

 

Agreed, but I think the point Sonny was trying to make is that Wlad had some very bad losses during his prime to lower level opponents that Holmes did not. Yes, both men have fought weak opposition and neither has/had unified their crowns, but Wlad's knockout losses are what sets them apart in my ( and Sonny's ) opinion.

 

These losses will count against Wlado, and I factor this in and have it as a reason to never have Wlad above Holmes most likely.

BUT Dempsey and Walcott all have equally bad losses. Lewis has some hurtfull losses, Holyfield has some bad losses (Moorer is quite damaging)

Frazier has a bad loss to Foreman that doesnt look as bad because its Foreman but its a very bad loss

Most fighters lose but it doesnt get in the way of Wlad building an impressive legacy and the top20 is beckoning

 

It would be a tough pull and I think very unlikely, but if he pulls off 20 some straight wins over the top men around, he becomes a contender.
I don't think he does it, though. As for evaluating his legacy now:

1. He is pulled down by three crushing ko defeats. I would not give him a pass on any of them. He was an Olympic champion with 24 fights under his belt when he was stopped by Puritty.

2. He still does not have a career defining victory. He did not fight the best of the previous generation--Lewis and Holyfield--when they were still forces to be reckoned with and he was moving up. And, of course, he did not fight Vitali. His biggest early win, over Byrd, was matched in spades by Ibeabuchi. He was down three times in his biggest later win against Peter.

3. If he aims at a top ten position, he better start making his push now. Tony Thompson will do little for his legacy. He is a 36 year old fringe contender who, as far as I can see, has not beaten a consensus top ten man. Wlad must fight Chagaev, Valuev, and a rematch with Peter soon, to have even a long shot at top ten status.

4. On the positive side, Wlad has beaten at least ten men who were ranked in the top ten at one time or another. That is a decent total, better than some ATG's, and he still has time to build on it.

As for some of the names mentioned in this thread:
1. Jeffries--Did not lose until 35, beat the best of the previous era and the early part of his own. Only downside is not fighting Johnson in 1904 or 05. I don't see Wlad ever surpassing Jeff for most.
2. Holmes--Another fighter who did not lose until he was 35. Did not clean out the division like Jeff, but continued to fight effectively well into his forties. Did not lose to any but top men until he was close to social security age. Out of reach, I think.
3. Walcott & Charles--erratic records give Wlad a shot and makes comparision difficult. Both did fight the best of their time, though, and scored bigger wins than Wlad has so far.
4. Schmeling--not mentioned here, but great win over Louis plus wins over other top men such as Uzcudun, Stribling, Risko, and Hamas put him over Wlad right now, but Wlad still has a shot if he keeps adding to his legacy, as Schmeling was also erratic.