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

MaccaveliMacc · Aug 31, 2026 at 1:25 AM

slash said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

If anything, achieving this level of success with an average chin should be even more of an accomplishment.

slash said: ↑

They stopped showing boxing on HBO because of him. We have Wladimir Klitschko to blame for that. That's how bad he looked.
Click to expand...

HBO showed most of his fights. Anyhow, tens of millions of people were watching him outing after outing so he did good in terms of numbers.

BadmanIsRobbin said: ↑

Cause there's more than ten better than him.. H2H he isn't the best in his own family
Click to expand...

Of course he is. He beat better boxers and more styles than Vitali.

thistle · Aug 31, 2026 at 1:33 AM

Sangria said: ↑

You're preaching to the choir my good man.

Wlad was a cure for insomnia.

Please elaborate.

Edit: How do you pronounce your name?
Click to expand...

I was referring to an earlier mention of Fury, not Wlad...

Thi s-tle - the Thorny Thistle, the Plant,

the Flower of Scotland,
or more accurately the beauty of the Healing Balm of Truth, the White Thistle, that is truly beautiful.

my Avatar was taken on my phone, the Sun was blinding white through a doorway on an ancient Stonewall, you couldn't even look through it. I had to step to the side to see better what I was looking at to get a picture and when I looked at the photo, I nearly died. a Blood Red Cross.

now for anyone who knows the area, it is St Peter's Church in Heysham, Lancashire... and through that door is the Ruin of an older Chapel, and the Stone Graves, also featured on Black Sabbath's Album cover, but more importantly it is an old Sacred Monastery.

the Victory of Our GOD and His CHRIST, always just a whisper away for those in pursuit of His Presence on & in this, His Creation. Amen.

Jel · Aug 31, 2026 at 1:45 AM

TipNom said: ↑

I think there's a few reasons.
1. He and his era were boring. Even hardcore fans subconsciously fall victim to the idea that for a fighter to be great they need to have had several incredible performances or incredible fights. Wlad won and often won with highlight KOs but his fights were almost always awful to watch. He was effective at the cost of entertainment and people resent him for it and allow it to influence their overview of his career and accomplishments. His era also had no real standout heavies apart from him and his brother. There was Povetkin, but he didn't really become recognised as a true standout until later. And even then Wlad's win over him was in an atrocious fight. I don't think it's a coincidence that his reputation amongst casuals and hardcore's alike took such an uptick after he had a great fight against Joshua. You'd think it wouldn't matter much as he still lost but people's last memory of him being him giving a top guy of the next era hell in a great fight did wonders for his PR.

2. His losses. He took a few too many losses while he was still a young man. People can excuse his losses to Fury and Joshua because he was older but the losses to Sanders, Purity and Brewster came when he was still in his physical prime even if he hadn't yet developed into his overall prime. He also didn't avenge 2/3 of these losses.

3. He wasn't American. He came around at a time where heavyweight boxing in the US was on the decline. A lot of American fans didn't really respect it think highly of Lennox Lewis until he had beaten Holyfield and Tyson. Meanwhile Wlad didn't have a Holyfield or Tyson to show the US fans just how good he was, and with how often dismissive American fans are of fighters from outside the US, Wlad would never really be able to get the respect he deserved from that market. The sport was expanding and many of the guys he'd fight wouldn't be American so in American fans eyes they wouldn't be any good and thus he himself wouldn't be any good. His boring style and losses didn't help in this regard either. It might not seem like this would be something that affected a hardcore fans view of him, but public perception means a lot. It's why Dempsey was and still is to a lesser extent considered to be a bonafide heavyweight great despite his lacking resume and accomplishments.

4. Anti recency bias. He was active recently enough to where people can still remember the bad parts of his reign. All the holding, the weak opposition, In 10, 20, 30 years people will phase the bad out and likely only remember his highlights while comparing him to whatever the crop of heavies looks like at that point. His brutal KOs, his total dominance, his great effort against Joshua at 41. I think we're already seeing this happen to an extent. If a poll had been conducted about the top 10 heavies ever at around the point he lost to Fury he'd likely be on even less lists than he is today.

5. His weak resume. Maybe the one that most would point to, but one that I don't think is really fair. His era was weak and he didn't have any great dance partners. His brother was around but obviously he's not going to fight his actual blood brother (not like Shakur and Keyshawn not wanting to fight because they're pals or whatever). Still he did what he was supposed to do in a weak era. He dominated. Like Louis and like Holmes did who are considered locks for the top 10 and even top 3. He reigned for longer than Holmes and I think little less than Louis, and made just one or two less defences than Holmes. With those two fighters people recognise that their long term dominance and consistency made up for not having any real prime heavyweight greats on their resume. Even a phenom like Tyson failed to have as long a reign as those three in a similar era (if he'd beaten Douglas he would've entered the 90s as champion which was a FAR better era, but ultimately he lost to a guy like Douglas). To reign for as long as Wlad, Holmes and Louis did is an incredible achievement but often isn't treated as such for Wlad.

This isn't to say I rank him as highly as them. I don't. but if they are locks for the top 5 heavies then I think Wlad should be a lock for the top 10. He beat the best guys of his day. Certainly beat more contenders than fighters like Foreman and Marciano even if his top wins weren't as good.
Click to expand...

This is a great post and point 1 (the entertainment part in particular) is a really good one that I’m going to explore in a separate thread.

BCS8 · Aug 31, 2026 at 1:54 AM

TipNom said: ↑

I think there's a few reasons.
1. He and his era were boring. Even hardcore fans subconsciously fall victim to the idea that for a fighter to be great they need to have had several incredible performances or incredible fights. Wlad won and often won with highlight KOs but his fights were almost always awful to watch. He was effective at the cost of entertainment and people resent him for it and allow it to influence their overview of his career and accomplishments. His era also had no real standout heavies apart from him and his brother. There was Povetkin, but he didn't really become recognised as a true standout until later. And even then Wlad's win over him was in an atrocious fight. I don't think it's a coincidence that his reputation amongst casuals and hardcore's alike took such an uptick after he had a great fight against Joshua. You'd think it wouldn't matter much as he still lost but people's last memory of him being him giving a top guy of the next era hell in a great fight did wonders for his PR.

2. His losses. He took a few too many losses while he was still a young man. People can excuse his losses to Fury and Joshua because he was older but the losses to Sanders, Purity and Brewster came when he was still in his physical prime even if he hadn't yet developed into his overall prime. He also didn't avenge 2/3 of these losses.

3. He wasn't American. He came around at a time where heavyweight boxing in the US was on the decline. A lot of American fans didn't really respect it think highly of Lennox Lewis until he had beaten Holyfield and Tyson. Meanwhile Wlad didn't have a Holyfield or Tyson to show the US fans just how good he was, and with how often dismissive American fans are of fighters from outside the US, Wlad would never really be able to get the respect he deserved from that market. The sport was expanding and many of the guys he'd fight wouldn't be American so in American fans eyes they wouldn't be any good and thus he himself wouldn't be any good. His boring style and losses didn't help in this regard either. It might not seem like this would be something that affected a hardcore fans view of him, but public perception means a lot. It's why Dempsey was and still is to a lesser extent considered to be a bonafide heavyweight great despite his lacking resume and accomplishments.

4. Anti recency bias. He was active recently enough to where people can still remember the bad parts of his reign. All the holding, the weak opposition, In 10, 20, 30 years people will phase the bad out and likely only remember his highlights while comparing him to whatever the crop of heavies looks like at that point. His brutal KOs, his total dominance, his great effort against Joshua at 41. I think we're already seeing this happen to an extent. If a poll had been conducted about the top 10 heavies ever at around the point he lost to Fury he'd likely be on even less lists than he is today.

5. His weak resume. Maybe the one that most would point to, but one that I don't think is really fair. His era was weak and he didn't have any great dance partners. His brother was around but obviously he's not going to fight his actual blood brother (not like Shakur and Keyshawn not wanting to fight because they're pals or whatever). Still he did what he was supposed to do in a weak era. He dominated. Like Louis and like Holmes did who are considered locks for the top 10 and even top 3. He reigned for longer than Holmes and I think little less than Louis, and made just one or two less defences than Holmes. With those two fighters people recognise that their long term dominance and consistency made up for not having any real prime heavyweight greats on their resume. Even a phenom like Tyson failed to have as long a reign as those three in a similar era (if he'd beaten Douglas he would've entered the 90s as champion which was a FAR better era, but ultimately he lost to a guy like Douglas). To reign for as long as Wlad, Holmes and Louis did is an incredible achievement but often isn't treated as such for Wlad.

This isn't to say I rank him as highly as them. I don't. but if they are locks for the top 5 heavies then I think Wlad should be a lock for the top 10. He beat the best guys of his day. Certainly beat more contenders than fighters like Foreman and Marciano even if his top wins weren't as good.
Click to expand...

^ Pass round the hat for this post. Go upvote it.

OddR · Aug 31, 2026 at 2:19 AM

MaccaveliMacc said: ↑

If anything, achieving this level of success with an average chin should be even more of an accomplishment.

HBO showed most of his fights. Anyhow, tens of millions of people were watching him outing after outing so he did good in terms of numbers.

Of course he is. He beat better boxers and more styles than Vitali.
Click to expand...

They showed 22 of his fights BTW.

Only one between 2009 and 2012 however. But 22 is plenty.

Jel · Aug 31, 2026 at 3:00 AM

BCS8 said: ↑

^ Pass round the hat for this post. Go upvote it.
Click to expand...

Already have - terrific post!

Log in or Sign up

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

MaccaveliMacc Boxing Addict Full Member

thistle Boxing Junkie

Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member

BCS8 VIP Member

OddR Boxing Addict Full Member

Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

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

MaccaveliMacc Boxing Addict Full Member

thistle Boxing Junkie

Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member

BCS8 VIP Member

OddR Boxing Addict Full Member

Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member