Why doesn't Wlad have a spot on most people's Top 10 ATG HW lists?

2026 TOP 10 ALL-TIME HEAVYWEIGHTS SURVEY | Boxing News 24 Fan Forum
If that's info from this topic, then I'm glad to hear it; I haven't counted.

 

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Marciano
4. Wlad
5. Johnson
6. Dempsey
7. Lewis
8. Holmes
9. Foreman
10. Usyk

 

I also placed him 4th

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Wlad
Marciano
Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Dempsey
Foreman

 

That's too high, with that chin. And he fought to protect it ever since. Which wasn't really that great and got him kicked off of HBO for it cuz he looked suck ass.

 

Not top 10 in my opinion, he has the skills to trouble many fighters but sooner or later against the very top echelon of heavyweights he's going to get hit..and do you think a guy with a chin that Ross Puirty cracked will be upright ? Of a generally accepted top ten list I think Wlad has the ability to pull off a couple of wins. I doubt Marciano would have a chance and he'd trouble Holyfield some but there's a lot of guys who can get to him to keep him out of the top 10, close but no cigar

 

Wlad was heavyweight champion for 11 years the longest champ second only to Joe Louis in terms of years.
He made 18 consecutive title defenses 3rd only to Joe Louis and Larry Holmes.
He fought a lot of prime heavyweights, at their best during the modern era, many with extensive amateur pedigree. He also faced a wide variety of styles. Including his first reign with a belt he also appeared in most title matches ever for division.
I find it absurd to keep him off a top 10 list.
Was his style boring Yes.
Could his 3 losses before his great run hurt his standing somewhat sure. But he was 64-3 at one point, dominating top competition for a full two eras of fighters.

I think it will be a long long time we see a heavyweight win 18 straight title defenses and rule as long as Wlad did. I hope I see it in my lifetime but I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

That's not too wrong either. I'd say he's like 10 to 15.

 

First we must consider what top ten ATG MEANS.
Then we can disagree about what it SHOULD mean.

What measure is it relative success in an era?
How much how good guys would be H2H?
Historical impact & effect on the sport & world?

If it is just or mostly H2H, I cannot see how guys who would compete at rehydrated LHWs or small CWs would do so well.
Even if you do not believe that boxers got better overall-despite the clear progression of science, training, objective records, massive expansion of available population...even if you think boxers are not getting the best guys & fighting too seldome & less competitive-if it is effectively matching guys from several divisions apart you cannot expect the best who were in ring under 200, let alone in the 180's to beat even many contenders of later eras, let alone the best champions.

I also dispute the premise that Wlad does not make most top 10's.
And I see no justification for not having him there!

How well he fought as a contender & that Vitali was not even active during most of his reign must be added into a DECADE as champion with 23 defenses.
And how he would be very high indeed H2H.

I never liked him getting away with mucho K/Clinch-co in some fights.
And while the prime losses should mean something, virtually EVERY fighter has things like that, & it does not deny guys like Lewis from being so high.
Those with a better prime record have other demerits-such as Marciano's size & the quality of his competiton & (like Frazier) never meeting a great slugger except Foreman who eviscerated him twice...

Even having Wlad outside of the top 5 or so is difficult to justify.
Say you have one of the rare fighters who was champion even remotely as long lower-Holmes.
Then maybe you could drop Wlad near #10, since you do not value longevity as much or total wins.

BUT if you have Holmes high, I cannot see how you do not have Wlad HIGHER.

1) Holmes overwhelmingly did not grant rematches as champion. The exception Shavers had the slugger vs. boxer match up disadvantage, & how dangerous was he when to put is mildly a somewhat past it Ali beat Shavers.
2) He never unified.
3) Guys were inconsistent in his era, some self-destructed...
4) He likely got at least one gift decision, Williams. You likely know who else is arguable.

So triangulating here...Unless you give a disproportionate amount of credit for his 2nd career as a contender, it is hard to not rank Wlad at least a little higher than Holmes!

 

Just curious, who do you consider to be his best win?