Wlad Klitschko's top ten...

How is Wlad's Head-to-Head ability being gauged against physically over-matched opposition with limited, mediocre ability - many of whom took Wlad deep into the latter half of his bouts and sometimes the distance?

Compared to Wlad's resume? Disagree.

Wlad's losses to unranked opposition in his prime set him back to start with.

And, when talking about a demonstration of Head-to-Head ability, Tyson's manner of victory against more seasoned, more capable and/or more dangerous opposition leaves Wlad even further behind.

Each to their own - but there are levels and, in my opinion, Wlad's bar isn't all that high.

 

It’s better than Holmes’ resume.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/mike-tyson-had-a-better-career-than-larry-holmes.669560/

 

Avenging losses is always good for your legacy. You should want to get revenge.

Joe Louis was the gold standard for heavyweights and he said he felt like he still wasn't champion even after he won the belt because Schmeling was still out there.

Now were the circumstances ideal for Wlad to rematch Ross or Sanders? No, but I was simply addressing things he could have done to make his resume better.

 

1. Physically overmatching opponents is part of head to head ability. Why should he get graded on a curve for being 6'6 240lbs lol.

2. I'm not comparing Tyson and Wlad with eachother, just using him to make a point. Heavyweights are very overrated when compared to other weight classes in a p4p sense anyway.

I also don't rank Wlad very highly to be clear.

 

Apart from height, reach and weight advantages not being abilities, in and of themselves, I think you have missed the point.

Why mention Tyson's resume to make a point, if not to compare it to Wlad's?
Whether you intended to or not, you invited a comparison (or, in the case of Tyson and Wlad, a contrast).

Regardless of what one thinks about Heavyweights being overrated in general, my point was that there are relatively distinguishable levels across the division's history.

 

That win got Wlad the lineal title and Chagaev was undefeated. Chagaev had beaten Drummond a few months earlier after returning. And after losing to Wlad Chagaevs only loss was to Povetkin.

 

Since the 1910s all eras of HW were bigger than Marcianos. That era in particular was dominated by bloated LHWs or fighters who could fight at LHW. It was not a lineal progression earlier eras were bigger too.

 

You can rate it, but Chagaev looked horrible and had some questionable circumstances going in.

 

Considering the dominance of the performance his wins over Schulz and Mercer could be among his best but I think his best opponents beaten on paper are:

Byrd 1, McCline, Williamson, Peter 1, Brock, Ibragimov, Thompson 1, Chagaev, Chambers, Haye, Povetkin, Pulev, Jennings