Why is Wlad Klitschko Considered an ATG

I don't think he was that dominant. Not that dominant.

People say "dominant" now to mean "dominant in the ring against the opposition he faced". That's fine. But it's not "dominating an era". Dominating an era is about dominating the best fighters of that era. In Wlad's case that means Lennox Lewis, Vitali Klitschko, Chris Byrd and Ruslan Chagaev.

Lewis, I don't think I attach any "blame" to Wlad for the Lewis fight not coming off. It was timing, it was one of those things, and . Vitali, no, no blame. But the fact is that these were the only two heavies capable of really testing Wlad, of discovering his roof perhaps.

Worse, in Vitali, there has been a guy boxing for much of his prime who could claim, reasonably, to be better than him. And we'll never know.

So he was absurdly "dominant" against the guys he faced and yes that's worth something, but he didn't "dominate" his era like Louis did.

And as to Louis did - people on here - and they are some of the people above who have written "dominance" for Wladimir - criticise Louis because he didn't fight Elmer Ray. Who, I believe, was Louis's #1 contender for about six weeks. Wlad hasn't done well for top contenders at all up until very recently, when he's done great work.

Personally, I think he's inarguably great, but i think he's only proven that beyond hope of contradiction in the last couple of years.

 

Nobody has said that it is.

But this is the way it goes.

I point out the true meaning of dominance and you immediately switch the argument to quality of opposition and race. It's already been pointed out that dominance isn't about quality of opposition but dominating the era by beating the best. Neither race, nor quality of opposition is relevant here.

But, as long as we're talking about it, I think that Wlad's era is arguably better yes - but only if you include Lewis and Vitali, neither of whom he met.

He thrashed all these guys. He destroyed Godoy. He beat Farr clearly. He started Galento bleeding from mouth, nose and eye with only two punches and beat him unconscious.

The way you scrabble around for ways to criticise Louis just because he was mentioned once relative to Wladimir is embarrassing. And yes, Louis was clearly more dominant than Wlad because a) while he was champion nobody else in the world came close to seeming a better fighter until his 25th defence, resolved by his 26th b) he beat a huge number of top - very top - contenders. Wlad didn't take on a #1 contender until he met Povetkin. YES I KNOW THERE ARE VALID REASONS FOR THIS. But in a discussion about dominance that is prevalent.

Yes, these reasons hold even though Louis lost more rounds than Wlad. Dominance isn't about winning rounds. It's about beating the best fighters which Louis did with greater consistency than any fighter in history.