Where does Wladimir Klitschko rank among ATG HWs?

Voted 16-20 but an argument for 11-15 could be made.

 

I think the term "great" is the problem here. I don't consider Haye a "great" fighter but he was a "great" cruiserweight, mainly because the division is very young and Haye would rank in the top 10.

 

holyfield was supposidly past it aswell..tyson lost to williams.he lost to douglas in his so called prime and please for the love of god dont tell me douglas was good or ill lose what ever respect i have left for you..tyson never beat an atg in his prime either he beat past it champions..just like byrd and iggy and just like helenius is doing now..at the end of the day your starting to base your logic on up and comers coming through and beating guys who are past it just like helenius is doing now..wlad didnt fight them he fought the guys who already beat them...and you once said someone who beats vitali and has some wins against the same opponent as wlad is good and wlad beating him makes wlad good..byrd has done it.he beat an atg and he beat vitali..wlad schooled him twice

 

The reason why I rank him so high is because I am a believer in age superiority. Meaning that athletes from 2011 are better than athletes from 1971 simply because of the Incredible advances in pharma and training methods. Plus a safety-first approach that Lennox instituted and Wlad perfected. That, combined with size, make Wlad and Lennox that much harder to beat for even the best of the earlier decades.

Realistically, most top fighters that boxing experts rank in their top 5 are CRUISERWEIGHTS, some are even light heavy. Imagine how those guys would fare against fighters 40 + pounds heavier than them, and a good 6-8 inches taller than them. It would NOT be critical if guys like Wlad and Lennox were simply big guys, but they are big guys with incredible skill, speed, athletic ability and fitness level. That combined with a LOT of experience (Wlad has 55+ fights + olympic gold), great stamina and extremely powerful punch make Wlad a nightmare for most fighters.

My top 10 of All time, H2H only:

Lennox
Vitali
Forman
Wlad
Ali
Holy
Tyson
Bowe
Frazier
Liston
(With exception of Holy, all of those are natural heavies or close to natural heavies (Ali could have easily been a cruser) )

Yea, Dempsey, Liston, Ali, Holmes, the Great Rocky Marciano, they were all incredible fighters and a dominant force in their time. I am sure that if they trained now, they would be a much bigger threat. Imagine Ali on PED's that athletes of today are on, including HGH, he would be a BEAST. Imagine a guy like Liston being put through today's training, with today's pharma + food additives + quality team with strength conditioning coach and a trainer like Roach...He would be an all time beast/monster. But unfortunately, top fighters of previous decades got by on natural talent, determination and desire to get out of poverty + inferior early versions of steroids. I simply wouldn't put my money on them against the top dogs of today, and ultimately, those lists are only as important as your faith in betting REAL MONEY on the guys you put above others.

 

Despite his terrific reign at the top of the division I'll place him in the # 11 - 15 category. With Wlad I just get the feeling he won't be able to turn the tide when a great fighter begins to dominate him. He just ain't a fighter at heart.
I'd put brother Vitali higher up at # 6 - 10 inspite of his CV not being as impressive as Wlad's.

 

No **** you have a problem with the term "great". By your logic Louis, Patterson and Marciano are "great" cruiserweights as well because their level of competition above 200lb is comparable to Haye's.

 

Solid post and well reasoned.

 

Then please explain how George Foreman, a 1970's HW, could win the HW title in 1994?

 

This list is laughable.

Prime Tyson, Holyfield, Foreman and Bowe KO the Klitschko sisters. Ali wins on a WIDE UD.

 

Regardless of weather or not you agree with his placement of the guys on that list ( and I disagree with some of it as well ), the logic in the rest of his post is fairly sound.

Because he showed that he actually could, whereas no one else did. Also, if you notice he had Ali, Frazier, and Liston included on his list of best head to head guys, so he doesn't necessarily dissmiss the 70's.

 

Logic?

Where?

His whole "age superiority" reasoning isn't based on any sound logic. Athletes in 2011 are *not* necessarily better than athletes from 1971.

Case in point; if Joe Frazier were in his prime today, he'd be a Cruiserweight. Now, name me ONE Cruiserweight of the last 20 years that you'd pick to beat a prime Joe Frazier.

Yeah, that's what I thought...

Of cource he does. How in the hell can you rank *untested* and *unproven* fighters above guys who have gone balls to the wall and showed their champions heart time and time again? How does that work?

Ali is known for finding a way to win in great adverstity and beating some ATG heavywiehgts.

Wlad is best known for beating a string of BUMs, STIFFs, Tomato Cans, NO HOPERS and Ole Men. He's also known for getting KO'ed by guys who probably wouldn't have qualified for Joe Louis' "Bum of the Month" club.

Vitali holds the distinction of being the most popular HW in history whose WHOLE legacy is built on two LOSSES.

And I'm supposed to believe that these two imposters to the throne can defeat the likes of a prime Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Foreman and Ali?

GTFOOHWTBS.

 

Top 15.

 

Around #10

 

Sensational post Nay_Sayer. Elite stuff. One thing that these nuthuggers cannot handle is cold hard irrefutable fact. Salutations.:goodhappy:deal

 

Vitali Klitschko.

#1 heavyweight for not even one year.
Lost to the two best fighters he ever faced.
Best win is over a fat semi-retired golfer.

But he's one of the best ever! Honest!:roflatsch