Where does Wladimir Klitschko rank among ATG HWs?

jack no one follows you around brother..youve just talked that much shite everyone has noticed it and gives you abuse for it and rightly ****ing so your one bias **** who im starting to think hasnt got a clue about the fight game..i speak abit of shite myself and by no means know everything (i know very little compared to some infact)but you brother are a tit..and not even a nice perky one...your one that sags down and covers your unseen to vagina

 

Wlad there top16-20 NOW, longevity does count... look At Spahn, Nolan Ryan compare Koufax 5 good years!! Wlad doesnt fit mold of now modern fighter. Guys from EURO we used t laugh at. But TODAY THEIR THE Jews of 1900,Blacks any era(except now go for hoops,nfl)Itallians ,Irish 1920-1930s.HEs huge(theyll have make Super heavies division),there Caucasion(people dont expect them to be rough tough GOOD)There smart ,Latinos took baseball over for now,wait till Chinese get into boxing if they do,I look for MMA cage fights to make BOXING dorment!!!!

 

Squire you make some great points ,Jack you make me!!!!

 

The weighted average so far is 15.184,
So we can state that Wlad being #15 ATG is an ESB consensus opinion.

 

For all this talk, nobody is willing to make a counter argument to what I've said. That's the reason why I don't care about people saying I'm a **** poster or whatever because it's clearly not true. If anyone wants to discuss boxing, reply properly.

 

Blinding post.
:deal

not surprised a lot of klit lickers are ignoring this.

Wladimir is a great champion of this era. because he has been totally dominating for a few years now. However when you talk about ALL TIME great fighters, you need more than that. If wlad hadnt lost to Brewester or Sanders, there is absolutely a case to be made for him to be one of the greats. That DIDNT happen though! and to say ''he fought naively'' is not an excuse! The fact that he fought so naively SHOULD count against him!

What REALLY annoys me is that when i say wlad is 20-25 all time, that is a big complement to him! I dont see in what world, being the 20th greatest fighter of ALL TIME is a bad thing! Im not hating on the guy. When you bring up good points like you did, the counter argument is just ''oh if he was black youd love him'' or ''your a brit no wonder'' or ''lennox lewis is over rated'' or ''david haye is a fraud''. wtf has that got to do with the current argument?!?

Another thing i'd like to point out is that Mike Tyson didnt have a much better era than Wladimir did. And he had a loss against an average opponent, Douglas. BUT the fact that he completely BLEW AWAY all of his competition, endeared him to not just the boxing world, but to the general public aswel!!! That shouldnt necessarily be a criteria for greatness, because Wlad looks just as dominant but doing it over 12 rounds. But it certainly helps when being judged in the eye of the public and boxing fans! im NOT criticizing Wlad's style. Its clearly working and made him hard to beat. I personally dont like it too much i feel he could go for the kill a lot sooner due to being so much stronger and more skilled than anyone else. But of course there are people who will enjoy it. But it doesnt do him any favours in the eyes of the public.

IMO it would make a difference if people were talking about a 6 foot 7 Ukranian MONSTER who is absolutely obliterating and knocking people out within 6 rounds. Instead, we are in a sad sad state where even talk show hosts dont know who the **** Wladimir Klitschko is. and that is a proper shame! BUT he sells out 50,000 people venues so hes still attracting crowds. But i feel if he showed more controlled aggression and took guys out quicker in a more devastating fashion, he would be a lot bigger name

 

i find it hard to list 20 heavyweights greater then wlad...

i put wlad around 15-20 imo

 

thats fair enough.

off the top of your head (doesnt have to be exactly in order) who would your top 20 be

 

im not really good at naming stuff streight off the top of my head.. but i do have a document somewhere where i put my top 30 boxers in each division.. ill try and find it.. and then i will list them

 

Don't hold your breath too long. You're debating a known troll who will say anything to get a reaction from you

 

Very good post, mate :good

You're spot on about top 20 all-time being a compliment. To me, this is where ignorance comes into it because if it's seen as an insult that a fighter isn't recognised as a top 20 all time, then whoever thinks that has no knowledge of who that top 20 is and why they are so highly regarded. I rank Wlad behind: Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, John L. Sullivan, Jack Dempsey, Muhammad Ali, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Harry Wills, Sonny Liston, George Foreman, Gene Tunney, Bob Fitzsimmons, Rocky Marciano, Max Schmeling, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, Jim Jerries, Sam Langford, James J. Corbett and Jersey Joe Walcott and this is seen as an insult? No way. Not even in the slightest. To be ranked behind those fighters, is like saying your supercar is slightly slower than a Bugatti Veyron. It's not an insult, it's a compliment! If I was ranking guys like Ingemar Johansson ahead of Wlad, I'd be making a nonsensical argument but I see the top 20 as being almost untouchable, not because I dislike Wlad but because all of them are genuine greats and as time goes on, it'll become even harder to break that top 20.

To get into the top 20, a fighter has to make a case for greatness and I don't think Wlad has. To me, greatness can be achieved two ways: 1, through absolute dominance (Larry Holmes, Carlos Monzon etc.) or 2, from beating a great (Joe Frazier, Max Schmeling etc.). Wlad has done neither of these and unlike the very elite (Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis etc.), he certainly hasn't done both. So what exactly is the criteria for considering Wlad as a great fighter? He's only been the undisputed champion since beating Chagaev, so he doesn't have longevity, he hasn't beaten a great opponent, he has lost to poor opposition....so how is it remotely possible to consider Wlad as a great fighter?

It simply isn't.

The funny thing is when you criticize Wlad for not stopping his opponents, is that his fans will say "He does what he has to do". That's right, yes, but nobody wants him to "to what he has to do" against a guy not fit to lace his boots. The people who should want it the absolute most are his fans anyway! They should want Wlad to crush everyone in a round or two and yet they're accept for his poor performances or even praise him for winning in a boring fashion.

And you're right, it would make a difference if Wlad was slaughtering all of his opponents in a few rounds. Look at the Haye fight. Before the bout, every single Wlad fan was talking about his power, Haye's chin and coming to the conclusion it'd last a few rounds with Haye possibly being knocked out by a jab. That didn't happen and the reason I mention this result is because I find it baffling people don't hold it against hiim. He is supposed to be a knockout artist, Haye factually has a poor chin and yet Wlad didn't hurt him once, so how can that not be held against him? Yeah, you can say that Haye ran or whatever, but the fact is, if Wlad hits as hard as people say and if he was as good as people say, Haye wouldn't have lasted the distance.

The truth is, I genuinely don't dislike Wlad. I think he's a nice guy, I've supported him on ESB for years, I rated him very highly in the past but I simply don't think there's an argument to say he's a top 15 heavyweight. Not yet and it's unlikely I ever will consider him one. If he can break into the top 20, I think he will have had a very good career and I think he'd agree with that.

 

You don't have to. Simple answer this question. Name me one fighter who is considered great despite never beating a great opponent himself and also despite the fact they lost to poor opposition.

 

Like I expected, you ignore the question, deflect the issue and rant about something completely besides the point.

 

Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks weren't great fighters? You learn something new every day.

 

Would Wladimir be "great" if hed beat Holyfield or Bowe today?

Sultan Ibragimov is "great". He beat Holyfield and only lost once to Wladimir, who is not a bum.

Ibragimov<W Klitschko