Wladimir klitschko is slaughtered for his level of opposition

No but if a 240 pound guy of solid muscle wins the HW title and then defeats 16 (could be 17) next month guys in a row who don't have 9 or more losses and/or weigh less than 200 pounds, maybe, just maybe we should take that into consideration.

 

Louis mostly fought guys who weighed under 200 pounds and/or had nine or more losses. :yep

 

Sure they are. :yep

I'm sure a guy like Louis' last win (Jimmy Bivins) at 5 foot 9 and 180 pounds and a 78 and 20 record would defeat guys like Povetkin and Haye with ease. :rofl

 

No hence why I said I rate LOUIS over wk but due to sheer size difference wk would beat Louis capish ?

 

Yes

 

As always, the size discussion with Wlad is so overblown. Being a giant “modern” heavyweight with skills and athleticism is a very rare thing. Historically, the giants (approx 6’5"+ and 240+) have always been overrated. Either lacking in the skill department (Carnera, Grant, McCline) or the athleticism department (Willard, Valuev, Mathis), only 4 heavyweights have really successfully combined both (Bowe, Lewis, the Klitschkos). Great or even very good smaller heavies have often been able to overcome the giants, and Holyfield, for example, had been able to fight on mostly even terms with the first two “complete” giants. But as a rule, being enormous is usually a disadvantage, not an advantage. Speed, stamina, even punching angles can be tougher when one greatly outsizes an opponent. Yes, there are more giants now than in past eras, but there have still only been 4 “complete” examples. Huge, skilled, and athletic doesn’t happen much, even in this modern era of larger people. One cannot fault Wlad for not fighting the types of opponents that don’t exist. The only plausible one he could have fought (Lewis) didn’t pan out, due to the obvious Sanders loss and his brother’s own challenge more than a decade ago. Fine. But the fact is, the best (other than the aforementioned rare giants) in this or any era are “smaller” men. Skills and athleticism usually happen more often in sub 240 pounders.

Still, guys like Chagaev, Povetkin and Haye are not “small.” All three are around the same size (or even a touch larger) than recent-ish prime linear champs Holmes, Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield, and Moorer. No, I’m not saying they are as good as those guys, but they are among the best of the current era. And all three have defeated larger men than themselves.

Wlad isn’t just big. Really big is usually a disadvantage. Wlad is intelligent, skilled, athletic, experienced, and powerful. He also happens to know how to use his size. Just having that size isn’t necessarily enough.

He fought the number 1 possible contender in the division (Byrd, Chagaev, Haye, Povetkin, and soon Pulev) 4, and soon 5 times over 8 years. He also took on legitimate top ten opponents in that span in Peter, Brock, Ibragimov, Thompson, and Chambers. Hall of Famers, no. But, still, good fighters, bringing different skill sets and problems to the ring. To dismiss them as “fat,” “small,” or mere “cruiserweights” doesn’t tell the whole story. Throughout the modern boxing era, most non-great (but still good) contenders had flaws that a nitpicker could critique. So what? The best fight the best available, and Wlad has done so. In fact, his 14 wins over Ring-rated top ten opponents is one of the best records in the last 20 years, pound-for-pound. I suggest taking into context the fact that many ATG heavies fought men no more dangerous overall than Wlad’s opponents, and that he has pretty much always gotten around to his top challengers. You may not think much of them, but most are more formidable than you realize. Bigger, too.