Sure it would. But it won't propell him into the top-three all of a sudden He can only go so far up the ATG rankings no matter what he does. Fighting his own brother is overkill in this sense, believe it or not. Not worth it even in the historical point of view, not to mention that it's plain wrong from a family perpective.
Other way round dude. It's vitali's legacy that suffers because he's number two and history will show he spent most of his career as number 2 and lost to the best two guys he fought. Wlad is the champ the onus is on vitali to challenge that position. It's not all that complicated, imagine you're adamek. Which victory gets you ranked higher? Wlad or vitali? If he beats vitali will he go to number 1? Of course not. To be number 1 you have to either beat wlad or usurp his claim by beating better opposition than him.
Both of their lagacies are suffering because they are brothers and to prove it i'll ask the question again. If Vlad beat Vitali in a fight next month would Vlads Legacy P4P rating and ATG status go up?? Spin it any way you want but it would - it would also be Vlads best opponent by some margin
Wlad's era is no worse than the eras of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes, or Mike Tyson. Not every era can be a deep as the 70's or 90's were. Imagine how bad this division would be if the Klitschkos retired? We'd probably have some pretty good fights but no true champ. Consider yourself lucky.
:roll: Yes, Vitali holds the WBC title if you want to get technical but he won it by KOing Peter, who Wladimir already beat TWICE.
if Vitali retires, then Wladimir could win the WBC title too. so why is the word "never" in the thread title, even if he already is? of course, must be a joke thread
Ofcourse it would, but it would improve vitali's legacy a damn sight more. Wlad is accepted as the champion. Until he loses or someone beats better opposition this won't change.
Some you can acknowledge that when comparing legacies across era - We must give more credance to fighters who fought their number 2 contenders of their respective eras, against fighters that didnt.
You're right. But like I said, it wouldn't move either of them all that far up the ladder. Just like not fighting each other won't hurt their final standing all that much
How far back do ya wanna go? Sullivan never fought godfrey nor jackson. Jeffries never defended vs johnson Johnson never defended against langford, jeanette, wills, mcvey nor gunboat. That's his top 5 contenders! Willard never defended against firpo, langford, wills nor fulton Dempsey never defended against wills nor greb Tunney never defended against sharkey The 30's was a golden era imo and the big guns all took each other on. Louis never defended vs bivins nor ray Charles and walcott did the business. Marciano never defended vs valdes Ali did the business. Frazier never fought young, norton shavers nor holmes Foreman never fought shavers nor holmes Holmes never fought frazier, page, thomas, coatzee Spinks never defended against anyone notable after holmes. Tyson did the business. Douglas and holyfield did the business Bowe never fought lewis. Moorer never fought tyson, lewis nor bowe Briggs aint worthy of a mention. Lewis never defended against wlad nor byrd Vitali never defended against byrd nor ruiz So who does that leave us with? Corbett Fitzsimmons Sharkey Schmelling Carnera Baer Braddock Charles Walcott Patterson Johanneson Liston Ali Tyson Douglas Holyfield And even they could well have gaps on their championship resume.
I would like to point out that the thread startter never actually said Wlad Klitschko would never be heavyweight champion just that Wlad. This could be one of thousands/millions of people named Wlad who in fact will never be heavyweight champion.