Where do you rank Wladimir Klitschko currently amonst list of Heavyweight greats?

Good question.


Probably not much would be my answer.

He has already achieved Domination for a decade. You cant take that away.

I would be hard pressed to name 10 heavyweights that can be favored to beat him H2H. That and his longevity pretty much ensures he holds a top 10 spot for me.

 

How would these Champions fare against him.

ALI
Foreman
Frazier
Louis
Lewis
Marciano
Holyfield
Tyson
Holmes
Dempsey

Are they all favored to beat him?

 

id think he would beat frazier, holyfield and Dempsey.
doesn't disgrace himself against the others either. foreman, Tyson lewis stop him

 

1. Tucker
2. McCall
3. Holyfield
4. Tua
5. Foreman
6. James Smith
7. Valuev
8. Foreman
9. Bowe
10. Douglas


11. Witherspoon
12. Vitali Klitschko
13. Akinwande
14. Lewis
15. Pinklon Thomas
16. Nate Tubbs
17. Brewster
18. Puritty
19. Sanders
20. Wladimir


21. McCline
22. Grant
23. Guinn
24. Mitch Green
25. Golota
26. Ribalta
27. Tillis
28. Ferguson
29. James Broad
30. Mercer


31. Tony Tubbs

 

Well, They are some consensus top tens in most peoples list.

I pretty much agree with your assessments with few arguments, so we can leave that alone.

But I think it is pretty clear that for some reason Vladimir gets dissed, and people are biased against him.

I gave 10 opponents, and most people will agree some of them lose to Vladimir. THEN add in the second longest reign in history.

WHAT possible reason could anyone have to not put him in their Top 10? Most cannot name 10 champions that beat him, and none but Louis have longer reigns.

 

1. Ali.... Transcended the sport.
2. Marciano... Unbeaten.. Nothing more can be said
3. Louis... Longest reign, great fights
4. Dempsey .... the first rockstar of boxing
5. Foreman ... Oldest champ. huge punch.. intimidates
6. Holyfield ... He fights anyone, any era... about 50/50
7. Tyson... Youngest champ.
8. Wladimir Klitschko... H2H beast, second longest reign. Monster.

He moves up past Tyson and Holyfield upon breaking record for title defenses. His Era keeps him out of top 3 for good though.

 

He has to rank highly for his dominance. My one question is how has he overcome his earlier stamina problem? Frank Bruno had the same problem and never overcame it, so how has Vlad found it possible? Pacing could account for some of it but I have suspicions.

I have a hard time ranking the modern fighters because I think some are having "help". I find it hard to rate Holyfield, too, due to him looking like something out of a Marvel Comic. I just think it very naive to assume boxing is clean when cycling, athletics, etc are rife with cheats.

When someone radically improves in one area and has a superhero's body my suspicion's deepen. But, based on his career and dominance of his era, he has to be top ten, surely?

 

Without Tommy Morrison this list is bad.

 

Does Sven Ottke's dominance make him greater than Marvin Hagler?

 

How can you make an objective claim that one era is weaker than another? A dominant champion wont allow other fighters to become great.

Louis was so dominant that the era seems weak, same thing with Ali in the sixties, the other fighters werent allowed to blossom because he beat them. The 70's was a great era, but that was because Ali was forced to retire allowing Frazier to become great, when Ali came back he was still great but no longer standing head and shoulders above the comptetion. Tyson fought in a weak era because he destroyed his opposition, but 90's is considered great because no one dominated. My point is that if there is a dominant champion the era will seem weak, because noone else is allowed to become great. If it wasnt for Wlad we might have had a great era were the title changed hands quite often in competetive fights, the same goes for other eras where there was a dominant champ.

In my opinion you can only judge a figher based on what he does in his own era, claims on what era was stronger will always be subjective because there is no safe way to measure this. Wlads losses and the fact that he never faced th number 2 heavyweight drags him down, but he should still be in the top ten.

 

In the top ten for sure based on head to head, legacy, statistics and longevity.

Wlad is approaching Joe Louis record for title defenses. If he ties or passes that mark, you had to move him up from wherever you have him right now.

He’s in the #7-#9 spot for me.

 

I think he fits into the 8 to 10 spot right now, dragged down by those bad defeats in his physical prime.

A couple of more bad defeats could hurt him a bit. It will be interesting to see how high he goes if he breaks Louis' records for longevity and defenses.

Top five?

 

I chose the 11-15 option, but have no real problem with anyone who has him just inside the top 10 at around 9 or 10. I don't see him ever making top five though. When we combine the two elements of the earlier defeats to lesser fighters along with his not so stellar opposition then it really prevents him from breaking that barrier.. Also he basically shared part of an era with his brother who between the two of them, helped avenge each other's defeats or eliminated potentially threatening challenges who were less than palatable to the other.. Not my definition of a true title reign.. Lastly, his claim to having 22 title fight wins or whatever it is should have an asterisk next to it.. Several of those were WBO title wins back when that organization had no real recognition in the sport and a lineal champion currently presided.. His fighting tactics should also be factored into the equation, as some of them may not have been universally tolerated depending on which region he fought in and who was officiating. If he picks up another two or three defenses and leaves the sport without acquiring another loss, then having him somewhere between 7-10 might be reasonable. But I can't ever see him ranking higher than about 7, unless he goes on to having a Bernard Hopkins type career that takes him to the age of 50.