Wladimir Klitschko is now the greatest heavyweight who ever lived, according to Boxrec.

It's been adjusted and Wlad sits at 6th for heavyweights on it currently.

 

If anything I find some of earlier boxers more suspicious for PED's use when you look at how often they were fighting as well as the punishment they were taking. I am pretty suspicious of most elite boxers being on them to be honest.

They wouldn't be the same quality as today's PED's but perhaps quite a few fighters would have cycled on them even more.

 

You say Wlad never had a win over a "true all-time great in their prime," but aside from Ali, who had Foreman(Frazier was arguably past his best by the time Ali beat him), who exactly did Louis, Holmes, or Lennox beat that fits that description?

Also, claiming Holmes is better based on "who they beat, how they beat them, and the level of competition they faced" seems odd, considering his level of competition was about the same as Wlad’s, yet he struggled with it a lot more. Wlad, during his peak, was far more dominant.

 

Good points, but there’s important context that needs to be factored.

Louis, Holmes, and even Lennox weren’t necessarily beating "prime ATGs" either, true. Heavyweight history doesn’t offer many chances for that because eras rarely overlap perfectly. But they beat a deeper group of contenders who were more dangerous relative to their eras and more consistently.

Louis fought during a time where he cleaned out literally everyone available, often rematching the best guys. Holmes came through an era loaded with dangerous, young, motivated heavyweights, Weaver, Witherspoon, Snipes, Norton, Cooney, guys who were flawed but could really fight. Lennox beat prime contenders like Tua, Morrison, Briggs, Ruddock, Vitali (not prime but near it), and handled multiple generations of danger.

Now on dominance:
Yes, Wlad was cleaner and more dominant round-to-round during his best run, but against who?

• 2000s-early 2010s heavyweights were weak historically.
• A lot of his challengers would’ve been fringe contenders or B-level names in stronger eras.
• And even during that "dominance," he fought very safe: low output, heavy clinching, cautious survival-first tactics after getting KO’d by Sanders and Brewster.

Holmes sometimes struggled but he fought fights, not sparring sessions. Wlad fought to limit risk at all costs. Big difference between looking smooth because you’re taking minimal chances vs actually fighting through hard moments.

Wlad's run deserves respect, but when you dig into era strength, style risks, and level of danger faced, Holmes' résumé holds up better historically.

 

The only thing with the all time great is at least when it comes to heavyweights there aren't a lot of boxers who fit that bill.

Especially by the extremely high standards boxing fans have for a all time great. That being said Wlad could have really done with the AJ win that's another type of career defining win he could have done with against a great fighter who would appear in following era who matched his physical attributes and athletic ability and he nearly pulled it off.

 

Let’s focus on Holmes specifically since I can agree that Louis and Lennox fought better opposition overall.

You do a lot to downplay Wlad’s era, but if you actually look at the fighters he faced, it’s not nearly as weak as you're making it out to be. Byrd, Povetkin, Chagaev, Haye, and Pulev were all skilled, credible contenders and champs who would hold their own in any era. Writing them off just because they fought in the 2000s feels like pure speculation not based on what they actually achieved or how they fought.

And Wlad didn’t just beat these guys, he dominated them. He knocked most of them out and barely lost rounds during his peak. Other solid contenders like Thompson, Peter, Chambers, Brock, and Jennings weren’t elite, but they weren’t bad either. They’d be solid B-level guys in any era, exactly the kind of fighters Holmes was fighting too.

Now, look at Holmes’ résumé. His best wins are Norton, Witherspoon, and Mercer, good fighters, but not clearly better than Wlad’s best wins. And Holmes struggled in the fights against Norton and Witherspoon(though I do think he edged both). Beyond that, his notable wins are guys like Cooney, Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, Shavers, Smith, and Carl Williams (a fight he probably should lost) solid names, but again, not a huge gap over Wlad’s list.

And here’s the thing a lot of those ‘70s-80s fighters you’re holding up would be fringe contenders or B-level names in other eras too, simply due to their size and style. That doesn’t mean Ali or Holmes shouldn’t get credit for beating them. You judge fighters by who they beat in their era, not by guessing how those opponents would do in some imagined future era. If we start disqualifying wins because we think “that guy wouldn’t cut it today,” we’d end up invalidating almost every resume before the modern era which I'm sure is something you don't really intend to do.

As for Wlad’s style sure, it wasn’t exciting, but since when is that a knock on greatness? A fighter’s job is to win, not entertain. Wlad found a style that maximized his strengths and minimized risk, especially after rebuilding from tough losses. He didn’t take unnecessary chances and that’s exactly why he was able to dominate for so long. Penalizing him for being "too effective" doesn’t really make sense.

 

Fair points and I get where you’re coming from. You're right that we shouldn't erase wins just because eras evolve. Byrd, Povetkin, Chagaev, Haye, Pulev, all skilled, credible guys for sure.

But here's the thing: none of Wlad’s opponents were truly complete, all-around heavyweight threats at the elite level.

• Byrd was a small, defensive fighter who struggled badly anytime he faced size and strength.
• Haye was a blown-up cruiserweight who relied more on speed and athleticism than heavyweight fundamentals.
• Povetkin was solid, but smaller and easy to clinch and lean on.
• Pulev had a good jab but was stiff and one-dimensional.

These weren’t bad fighters, but they weren’t the same kind of multi-dimensional, battle-tested heavyweights Holmes had to grind through either. Weaver, Norton, Shavers, Witherspoon, even if flawed, brought different kinds of threats and styles that Holmes had to deal with under way less "controlled" conditions. No super-heavyweight clinch-and-spoil blueprint, just fights that actually got messy and dangerous.

About dominance:
Sure, Wlad figured out how to fight to his strengths after his losses and he became hyper-effective. But when a guy clinches every time there’s trouble, jabs safely, slows the pace and uses size to neutralise threats, you can look clean without really facing the same kind of sustained danger. Holmes didn’t have that luxury, he had to fight through adversity, take shots, come from behind and gut out wins.

It's not about penalising Wlad for being effective, it’s about acknowledging what he had to survive versus what Holmes had to survive. There's a difference between dominance through smart risk management and dominance through hard-fought wins against varied threats.

Wlad deserves his place in the top heavyweights conversation, no question. But head-to-head resumes, depth of competition and quality of wins under real pressure? Holmes still edges it.

 

Fair enough, I respect the reply and I can see where you're coming from, but I still think there’s a bit of selective framing going on here.

Yeah what you pointed out about them is true: Byrd was small, Haye was a blown-up cruiser, Povetkin was clinchable, Pulev stiff, etc… but you could just as easily break down Holmes’ opponents the same way. Shavers was all power and nothing else. Cooney folded the moment he got pushed back and couldn't make it to the championship rounds without gassing. Snipes, Berbick, Smith were all pretty limited fighters while Weaver was pretty good all around he was inconsistent hence his double-digit losses. Witherspoon was solid, but raw when he fought Holmes only having 15 fights at the time and still gave Holmes hell. These guys weren’t exactly well-rounded elite threats either.

And while you talk about Wlad clinching and controlling fights, that’s not a knock that’s just using the tools he had. Ali did it, Lennox did it, Hopkins did it, Ward did it etc Wlad just did it better than most. Saying he avoided danger is kind of the point, he made fights look easy because he was that dominant. Holmes had to fight through adversity because he couldn’t shut guys down the same way, that’s not automatically more impressive.

Also, let’s not ignore that Wlad’s average opponent was significantly bigger than Holmes’. Holmes was fighting guys in the 210–220 range. Wlad was facing 230–250+ pounders with real size, reach, and strength which presents a completely different kind of challenge one that Holmes never had to face.

And Povetkin wasn’t some pushover he was undefeated, an Olympic gold medalist, 225 lbs, a strong inside fighter. Wlad made him look like an amateur. Haye was a world champ with speed and power, and he was used to dealing with giants, Wlad shut him down completely. Byrd was a stylistic nightmare for a lot of guys, even gave Vitali a tough fight, but Wlad dealt with him twice without issue. Taking points away from Wlad for not struggling with these fighters, like Holmes often did with his, feels counterproductive. We should be praising dominant champions, not criticizing them for being too dominant.

I get the Holmes love but let’s not pretend his opposition was so much more dangerous or multidimensional. Wlad beat everyone he had to, did it dominantly, and did it against bigger, more physically bigger fighters and didn’t need to dig deep to do so, he shut it down before it got there.

 

Fair reply honestly, you make good points and I don’t disagree with a lot of it.

Yeah, you can absolutely break down Holmes’ opponents too if you go deep enough. Shavers was raw, Cooney folded when pushed and Witherspoon was still green when he pushed Holmes close. Definitely not flawless opposition. You’re right that no heavyweight champ ever gets a perfect murderer’s row every fight.

And I get what you’re saying about Wlad too, dominance isn’t a flaw. If you can shut guys down and not even let it get messy, that’s still a skill. Wlad made a lot of good fighters look ordinary.

Where I still lean Holmes slightly is just in the kind of fights they had to survive. Holmes had to fight his way out of holes, off the floor, under real pressure. Wlad, after his rebuild, basically built a style that didn’t allow much danger at all, which is smart, but it’s a very different thing than winning tough wars. It’s not about penalising dominance, it’s just recognising how the dominance happened.

And yeah Wlad’s opponents were bigger, but bigger doesn’t always mean better, sometimes it just meant slower targets. Holmes fought faster, more dangerous smaller guys who brought different problems, even if they weren’t 240 lbs.

End of the day though, you’re right, both had flaws on their resumes, both beat everyone they were supposed to and it mostly comes down to what you value more: consistent clean dominance or surviving messy fights against wild threats. I think Holmes showed a bit more under fire, but I respect Wlad’s run too.

Good debate either way.

 

Holmes actually missed more contenders than Wlad. Klitschko only has his brother in this column and Valuev who wanted no parts of him. Holmes has guys like Tate, Page, Pinklon, Dokes. Holmes started to cherry pick after 1982. Wlad fought his number 1 contender as late as his last fight (Fury) and even in 2014 he beat Pulev, who was the best out there at the time. Wlad was therefore not only reigning longer than Holmes, he was fighting top contenders up until he lost the crown. By the time Holmes got beat, he hadn't fought his best avialable opponent for longer than 3 years, which was Cooney. He lost his title to a cherry pick as well.

 

Yeah, no doubt Holmes missed some good names in the early 80s, that’s true. Page, Dokes and Tate were definitely guys who would have fleshed out his résumé more. You’re right that Wlad, especially post-2006, was a lot more consistent about cleaning out his mandatory challengers and beating whoever was next in line, whether they were exciting fights or not. That’s one thing he doesn’t get enough credit for, it wasn’t always pretty, but he stayed active and handled his business without much drama.

Where I still slightly separate Holmes is the style of fights, not just the scheduling.

Holmes was fighting younger, faster, sometimes rougher contenders, guys like Norton, Witherspoon, Williams, even Weaver, and a lot of those fights turned into real battles. He had to dig deep multiple times. Whereas Wlad, even when he was beating solid opponents, usually controlled things on his terms through jab-and-grab tactics that made the fights much lower risk. It’s not a knock on Wlad’s dominance, it’s just a different type of career.

Both guys definitely had their flaws and gaps, Holmes with the missing names, Wlad with the early knockout losses, and like I said before, it really depends what you personally value: dominance and consistency, or resilience and fighting through more chaos.

 

I think beating Peter while being down 3 times can be considered digging deep and showing resilience. Wlad showed a lot of heart that night which helped him mature into a dominant champion.

 

I don't think Wladimir lacked heart because he always tried to keep getting up when he was floored.

The issue was the way he fought he relied on clinching and fighting in a very cautious manner which some could say he sometimes looked worried about getting hit on the chin.

Wladimir couldn't exchange punches like Lewis, Holmes, could that's why for me he's not as great. Because I feel like even defensive boxers like Mayweather, Whitaker, could sit in the pocket and trade punches Wladimir could never do that.

Not that I'm saying Wladimir's style wasn't successful for him so you can't fault him. But that cautious style wouldn't work against other great fighters who would be forcing him to fight and could Wladimir stand up to that ? I really don't think so.

 

Wlad said he had learn how to fight were as Vitali was a natural fighter.

I think there is massive truth to this. But Wlad's heart was always underrated. Despite his chin not being the best and him being knocked down multiple times against big punchers he always got up and never stayed down for the count.

 

But hypotheticals irrelevant when we're talking about his resume and all time rankings. You can only rate a fighter for what he actually did in his era not what he could have done or how he would fare with others. The point about Peter was a counter to the argument that Holmes was better because he had to go through tough moments and still managed to win. Wlad did that too in the Peter fight. And I'm not saying Holmes wasn't better, I personally rate him higher.