Where does Wladimir Klitschko rank among ATG HWs?

I think Wlad is one of the best head-to-head heavyweights in history, and probably belongs in the top 15 greatness-wise as is.

With that being said, several of the fighters you mentioned lost less frequently as Wlad did at or near their primes. A "green" Louis suffered a loss like "green" Wlad did, but it took Max Schmeling to accomplish the trick. Tyson lost once in his prime (not 2-3 times as Klitschko did, depending on when you consider his prime), but Douglas wasn't a journeyman as you suggest. Ali lost twice at something remotely close to his prime -- once to Norton (about on Brewster's level by the era's standards, maybe a little better) and once to ATG Joe Frazier. Lewis is a bit closer, of course. Rahman / McCall were better than Sanders / Brewster, but it's not a big gap. Wlad's early loss tells against him a bit more, though.

With that being said, Wlad has already shot past guys like Bowe, Patterson, and Tunney greatness-wise, and he's slowly approaching Frazier, Liston, and Foreman. We'll see what happens.

 

If Mormeck knocks Wlad out, would you still hold the opinion he deserves to be ranked ahead of Bowe, Patterson and Tunney?

 

Wladimir will knock the **** of Mormeck just like he would Bowe, Patterson and Tunney. And there's nothing haters can do about it!:yep

 

Wlad will beat Mormeck, yes. He wouldn't last 4 rounds against prime Bowe.

That's not the point though. I'm not sure whether you have the faculties to understand that.

 

There was an excellent fighter called "Evander Holyfield" who Riddick Bowe beat. He was a great cruiserweight and had a brilliant career at heavyweight too, beating excellent fighters. If you type his name into Google, have a look at his BoxRec page. He was a terrific fighter and it's a shame you don't know who he is :good

 

Maybe. Tunney ranks high based on a single fight against a past-prime Dempsey. Patterson's reign was lackluster, and he got destroyed twice. Even Bowe met his own difficulties with Golota -- a fighter who managed to lose every major fight despite a considerable amount of talent.

Still, a Mormeck victory would be a pretty awful black mark on Wlad's resume. Why do you ask, though?

 

Top 15 now,maybe higher. Bowe pummel Wlad in 4,Jack slow down on the bourbon!!!!atsch

 

And there was a nut called "Golota" who humillated prime Bowe and made him look like a fool.

 

We were talking greatness.

Regardless, I think Schmeling would have a good chance against Sanders. He was a very canny, sophisticated counterpuncher despite his low weight. Sanders has the size advantage, but Schmeling was just a better fighter. Craftier, too -- and in a fight between counterpunchers, that isn't an advantage to sneeze at.

Wlad would beat Schmeling pretty easily, though. Even Wlad from the Sanders fight.

McCall? No. He was about at Sanders' level, really. I'd lean toward "a little better" than Sanders, but it's not a slam-dunk either way.

Rahman? Yeah, he was better on his best night than Brewster. Brewster was darn good, though.

That's true. Boxing's two greatest traps are blind nostalgia and modernist arrogance, and both afflict the fanbase in roughly equal measure. I admit that I often find myself falling into both at times, much as I try to avoid it.

This all sounds reasonable.

 

I think a loss to Mormeck would be catastrophic and would make it impossible for Wlad to ever enter the top 20 after such an embarrassing, inexcusable loss.

The reason I asked is because I think active fighters have to be judged on facts, rather than assumptions, and due to the fact their careers still aren't decided, I think ratings should be cautiously low in the event of a loss. I don't really like the idea of giving a fighter a placement ahead of certain greats, saying he was better than them and then taking it back if that fighter loses, you know? I think it's much fairer to give an active fighter a ranking they can only go higher than, rather than one which you'd regret in 5 fights time.

I think it's only in reflection that you can judge ATG lists and I don't agree with ranking active fighters highly, when a loss would make that ranking look out of place.

 

Bowe demonstrated two things in the Holyfield fight. First, he showed the ability to beat an ATG fighter. Holyfield, while smaller, was about as "good" as Wlad. Second, Bowe showed that he had the tools to beat a fighter like Wlad (inside fighting ability, a good jab, durability, stamina, and lots of aggression).

What Bowe didn't demonstrate was a combination of those two things: he never used the tools against a fighter on Holyfield's level who fought like Wlad.

So we can't know for sure, but the Holyfield fight still demonstrates strengths that could give Bowe a good chance against Wlad. From there, your prediction depends just how far you want to extrapolate.

 

It cuts both ways, though. If Wlad lost to Mormeck, future historians would cite various signs of his "decline" from 2011 and 2010, if not earlier.

Also, I'm not so sure about where a Mormeck loss would place him. Catastrophic, yes, but realistically speaking he's already done enough to make that loss look like a fluke. Even if Mormeck dominated him and KO'd him, he's still the guy who beat a bunch of RING Top 10'ers. He didn't suddenly transform into a different fighter overnight. We know he can (and did) beat a lot of good guys, so we'd just downgrade his standing to compensate.

If Baer had won the number of fights against top 10 guys that Wlad has, and then proceeded to drop fights to second-raters as he occasionally did, he'd still rate pretty decently. Every heavyweight champion has his apologists.

 

If he continues like this and becomes undisputed when The Frankenstein Monster retires,maybe we can stick him at #15-20

 

I'm about to go to bed so I can't make a long post but I will say that I do agree with what you're saying, just not in Wlad's case.

With a fighter like Ward or Martinez, if they lost their next fights, what you say would be right. Historians would talk about the wins over top 10 fighters and the loss wouldn't be huge. The difference for me, is that since his loss, Wlad hasn't beaten a great fighter or even anyone who is that good. I think Haye was his best opponent in recent years and as a Haye fan, I'll say that he wasn't a very good heavyweight and Wlad should have knocked him out.

Rather than historians saying "Yeah, he lost but look at who he beat", I think they'd say "He lost and he only beat....". The weak era he has dominated may prove to be what hurts his legacy the most. If he loses to someone like Mormeck, he may go down as a 'good' heavyweight who dominated a very weak era.

How times change, by the way. I remember arguing against you as a Klitschko supporter on the classic forum a few years ago, whilst you had an opposite stance :good