Where does Wladimir Klitschko rank among ATG HWs?

Yes and not one of them will agree with you, which is why that 93 consists of morons and not the intelligent posters on ESB. Ask on the Classic or British forum and you'll see very few people consider Wlad a top 15 heavyweight.

Well, good for you. I don't care whether a boxer is from either but that has nothing to do with anything. Rating Wlad in the top 10 is impossible because he hasn't achieved more than what any other potential top 10 fighter has. It really is as simple as that. It's laughable that anyone would consider him top 10, when he hasn't had a single great win.

I keep putting this challenge out but nobody will accept it. Name me a single fighter who has lost to poor opposition, like Wlad has, hasn't been a great fighter, like Wlad hasn't, and yet is still considered great. Just one.

Yes, we do. If you want to go down that road, then I think you'll find many Klitschko fans are the bigots rather than the other way round.

 

Thank you Although I ranked Wlad 4th I believe, my #1 would have to be Lennox the LION Lewis (not to be mistaken with Alexander "the white lion cub" Povetkin".

PS: Every time I see tough talk online, it reminds me of Charlie Zelenoff :rofl

 

I don't have Wlad in my top 10, but top 15 to top 20 isn't unreasonable.. While its fair to say that he lost to lesser men, you should also consider that its been nearly 8 years since his last defeat and has compiled 12 title victories since that time, along with beating just about every top fighter within that time frame, except his brother. He's also not the first man to be called "great" with a few earlier losses on his resume... Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, and Sonny Liston suffered an early defeat here and there as well. And while Lamon Brewster and Corrie Sanders are not exactly elite opponents, there are worse things in life than losing to guys of that calibur. Hell, there might have been a brief period between 2004-2006 when Brewster was the best heavyweight in the world... Corrie Sanders was a hard hitting big man with a south paw style, fast hands and early starting ability who was facing a ( probably ) complacent Wlad.. A lot of great fighters could have blown it against these men on any given night, and I think Klitschko has polished up his game a bit since then..

 

I'm not switching anything. My argument has stayed the same throughout the entire thread. Go back and read any of my other posts on the subject and you'll see my entire argument. I'm not going to post my entire argument when it's not relevant to the post I'm quoting.

So we should give Wlad a pass because there are no good heavyweights out there? Why? That's pure ignorance. It would be nice to see how Wlad matches up against great fighters but the fact is, we'll never see that. Other heavyweights have fought greats in the past and whilst it isn't Wlad's fault that he hasn't, he shouldn't be given a pass for that and thrown into the top 10 because he has no control over the quality of opposition he has fought.

 

The comparisons to Dempsey's, Johnson's and Liston's early losses can possibly be compared to Wlad's loss to Purrity but not his losses to Sanders and Brewster. Liston lost in his 8th fight, Johnson lost in his third fight and a few more shortly after which would likely have been robberies and Dempsey lost in his 9th fight, including a few other bad results around the same time. They were all losses down to inexperience and I think it's fair to say the same about Wlad's loss to Purrity.

That loss will be forgotten in time, as it rightly should be. However, the Sanders and Brewster losses are quite different. This was Wlad in his 41st and 45th fight. People may say that he wasn't in his absolute peak, and that's true, but he was close enough to his peak that they are very relevant losses. This

I agree, Wlad is better and he likely wouldn't lose to both, though Sanders' style may always give him problems. However, that is all by the by. Fighters are judged by 'what ifs' at the end of their careers, they are judged by the cold, hard facts. The fact is, Sanders and Brewster were never better than a guy like Oscar Bonavena and yet they both knocked a close to prime version of Wlad out.

 

I actually like Wlad but that isn't the reason why you think I'm obsessed with him.

Ultimately, I'm a boxing fan more than a fan of any particular fighter and ranking Wlad in the top 10 all-time isn't just being pro-Wlad, it's being ignorant of the sport. It's ignorant of fighters like Johnson, Fitzsimmons, Sullivan, Louis, Frazier, Tyson, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Liston and many more, who genuinely did enough to earn the title of 'greatness'. I'm not being anti-Wlad when I argue that he's being overrated, I have the opinion that I do because I know about the sport of boxing and it's history, and I respect the true great champions to defend them.

It's simply ignorance to say that Wlad is a top 10 heavyweight and this may sound brash or whatever, but I don't care. Anyone who rates Wlad in the top 10 all-time, either does not respect boxing history and isn't a boxing fan, or they're simply stupid people. I say "stupid" in it's literal meaning because a person would need to be idiotic to think Wlad has done enough.

My stance pretty much rests on one point that I've made several times in this thread and nobody has taken the challenge up. Name me a fighter who is considered a great despite losing to average fighters near/in his prime, and also despite the fact they didn't beat a single great fighter themselves in their entire careers. If you can do that, then we can debate it but if nobody can, then they should agree that Wlad should be treated like every other fighter in history and be judged on what he's actually done.

 

His 16 -20 at this time. If VK was not his brother I would fully expect Vitali to have brutally demolished Wlad and any argument from fans for top 20 to evaporate.

 

Why not stay on topic Joe rather than trying to dismiss through some allegation of obsession? Who gives a **** how many posts someone makes on a topic that is obviously a popular point for the board?

 

:good Exactly. That's the only basis for comparison. Everything else is bunch of smoke, bias and rose-tinted glasses.

 

I'm a terrible poster as opposed to you who was exposed at multiple occasions at Klit trolling? I'm no Klit hugger and my post history proves that. I just see an absolutely legit argument for Wlad to be top 10 if he manages to keep his streak and retire undefeated from now on. His resume would be not bad but his longevity is simply outstanding.
You are no different than Koman600 or pre-Haye HENDO but you're more carefull wording your stupid brain farts compared to blatent haters like the aforementioned. And yet trolling is trolling and you're easily one of the worst and unfunniest trolls on ESB.

 

losing when your past it and losing when your green in my book is kind of the same (and notice i said kind of AND not EXACTLY)..and was tyson done when he lost to ****ing douglas or was he exposed and then matched well untill he had to face the big boys to which he lost again...**** off jack..you obviously wernt following the whole convo if you didnt pick up what was being talked about..

 

hey bro i was just being sarcy...