Where does Wladimir Klitschko rank among ATG HWs?

No, it tells you that there are a bunch of obsessive Klitschko fans on ESB who have spammed the poll, to give their man an undeservedly high rating.

There isn't a single boxing historian who ranks either Klitschko highly.

 

You're right, they don't exist and that's why making such a case is illogical.

 

So you don't even think he's top 20?

Geez, the classic forum has no obsessive love for the man by any means and he still finished top 20 in our poll.

Success is success.

 

There's every chance that will change in the future. If Wlad keeps winning, he'll end up in the top 20. Right now though, he's not done enough for that. He's not done enough to be considered a great.

There is no possible criteria for such a high ranking. Wlad hasn't dominated without blemishes, he hasn't beaten a great fighter, so how can he be ranked so high? It's baffling.

 

True, but we do have yardsticks to compare them, Like in the case of Larry Holmes, Holmes went 13 rounds with Cooney who is comparable in size to Wladimir Klitschko but with far less skill than Wlad. So logic tells us Wladimir would do much better.

 

Well, styles make fights. Cooney was a different fighter to Wlad and Holmes' style would be more suited to Wlad's. For that reason, you can't just look at one fighter, decide Wlad is better than Cooney and say it means anything.

If that was the case though, then every fighter who hits hard would have a case to knock out Wlad, purely on the basis of 'If Sanders/Brewster did...'. If a tough left hooker like Brewster could knock Wlad out in 6, how many rounds would it take a tougher, harder hiting Joe Frazier? If Corrie Sanders could knock Wlad out in 2, how many rounds would it take Tyson? 1? If Thompson could have some success, surely a much better fighter than Thompson, Ali, would have no issues with Wlad?

 

He is one of the most successful heavyweights to ever lace them up, if that isn't a criteria for greatness I don't know what is.

 

Successful @ what exactly?

WHO has Wlad beaten?

 

16-20 for me.

Pros: Long undefeated run & a unified champion

Cons: Poor losses early on & no great wins

 

What part of "Your not worth my time, I'm never discussing boxing with you again" did you not understand? You have proven to be clueless and biased on the subject Mr. "Vitali is Not Great but He is Lewis' Defining Great Win". Why are you so desperate for my attention that you will swallow your pride and come back to me on your knees like this? Pathetic. Your not even a boxing fan. Get off my shoes, beggar. No hand outs today.

 

Might have already been said but the K's beat everyone that showed any spark early and I think that is why no one ever developed into a contender that most would rank against the "old timers". People where trying to cash into a payday before they could have not just the hype but the record to back up being a good win for either K.

 

Great point. You have to look at everything in the context of its time.

Because of the War and Economic factors, the contenders of the 40s were forced to fight each other over and over again in a short amount of time. They have far more losses on their records than other contenders from history, yet Walcott, Murray, Moore, Bivins..etc are some of the finest to step into the ring.

But their records would look like crap journeyman in the modern era, even though they were outstanding in such a stacked busy timeframe. You can't apply the standards of one era to another, just doesn't work, way too simple.

 

Don't respond to him. He doesn't even watch boxing.

 

Dominant in a terrible era. The worst, by far, in heavyweight history. It should be noted as well, that when the division was stronger, Wlad suffered losses, although that's slightly unfair as he has certainly improved.