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

Mendoza, can you please start speaking for yourself, rather than always trying to speak for boxing historians. It is getting annoying. Are you a valuable member of the IBRO who has the right to use an expert's opinion? I don't think you are, I doubt you are a member of the IBRO.

 

Well vitali had this type of fight........against well past his prime 38 year old out of shape overweight lennox lewis.....instead of blowing away lennox, vitali lost by TKO.

 

Wladimir isn't good enough for a top 10 place. He has been knocked out by 2 B level Heavyweight's in the past, and with a chin as vunerable as his, it will happen again.

Wladimir will never have a case for top 10. My opinion.

 

I love fighters of yesterday because they were generally better, and proved it against the top opposition.

Wladimir isn't good enough for a top 10 place. It will make a mockery out of the sport having his name up there with the greats. He is a paper champion.

 

You're still ignoring the fact that his career is not over with, and assuming that he will get KO'd again. Additionally, you are focussing only on what you feel pertinant as his recent accomplishments, but omitting a big part of the story. Evaluating fighters, and issuing ratings needs to go beyond personal liking or disliking for a fighter. Few good historians are able to do this effectively. When looking at Wlad's resume on paper, its easy to see that he lost a couple fights to B level opponents, but if we're going to discect his credentials, then we need to look at the positives as well. He has beaten 50 out of 53 of his opponents. I can name several great fighters who did not acheive this. He is 11-2 in title fights, and I won't except the claim that his title was a worthless fragment as a rebuddle.

 

If we were to make this decision today? Yes. But legends are generally not made until AFTER their careers are over. The man's career could end in his next fight, or it could go on for another 15 years. How can you possibly rate a man's legacy until you've seen his entire life as a boxer in full? Traditionally, the greatness of a champion has always been determined by weather or not he defeated the best men available in his era, and not weather or not those men could be sized up to other great fighter's comp. Just because Wlad never faced someone like Joe Frazier or George Foreman, does not necessarily mean that he can't acheive greatness. At the moment, there are still a few good fighters like Chagaev, Povetkin, Peter and Valuev out there. If he manages to beat a few of those guys, and keeps the losses off his record, then I see no reason why he can't be considered a great fighter.

 

Lets stick to top10 ranked opponents, 35-45 of his opponents are pretty much worthless

 

Add Haye and Arreola (dont think hes all that but hes getting hype) to that list

 

I'm well aware that technically he could still achieve things that could make him in the top 10 heavyweights of all time. But he is to vunerable to show any consistancy against good opposition. That's all I'm saying.

If he goes throughout his career now undefeated, taking on all comers, all contenders,and retireds with only 2 losses on his record, he'd have a case..obviously.

 

Originally Posted by Mendoza
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.

What I said is true. Smart historians do not see Tyson's win over an older and inactive Holmes as a career defining fight for Tyson. Ask anyone it the IBRO and they will pretty much agree with me.

I do not think you need to be in a group to state an opinion. If I were in the IBRO, ( maybe I am, maybe I'm not ) you should think no more or no less of what I say. Rather you should judge what I say by itself.

The IBRO is a group of gentleman. You should live up to that standard. IE, no flaming.

 

I am a member of the IBRO. If too you being in the IBRO makes your opinion that much more respectable, perhaps you should give listen to my opinions more carefully.


Vitali did fighter a older past his prime past his prime legend.....lennox lewis. Instead of doing what tyson did to larry holmes, vitali LOST to lennox by TKO.

 

Wlad, at this point, isn't touching the top 10, and I doubt it if he ever gets there. But his career isn't over and him someday being on people's top 10 lists is a possibility. Who on this section doesn't love fighters of the past? I thought thats why we were on here. But I would make a point of not letting any biasedness get in my way when evaluating fighters and careers. And just because a fighter fought in the past doesn't make him automattically better. That, again, hints at being biased.

 

Then ask them and find out if they agree with you or me.

" Smart historians do not see Tyson's win over an older and inactive Holmes as a career defining fight for Tyson. Ask anyone it the IBRO and they will pretty much agree with me. "

 

Regardless of any group someone belongs to I don't know too many, if any boxing person who credits Tyson a whole lot for beating Holmes. He was 38(I think) and hadn't fought in close to 2 years. I also think he took the fight on somewhat short notice.Tyson was at his peak, Holmes stood no shot and eveyone I know, knew it at the time.

Beating that version of Holmes does carry some weight largely because of the manner Tyson took him out. I think the version that Holyfield beat was a better version of Holmes despite the additional years on Larry.

 

Wlad used to be one of the best offensive fighters ever, but he is not that way now. If he could get his offensive prowess back and mix it with his defense, and destroy the current champion and Haye, he could get there in a few years.