Wladimir Klitschko Should Be More Appreciated

Wlad rebuilt his style after devastating losses and went to dominate the division for decade. It wasn't always pretty but this is something to be appreciated because it is incredibly hard.

Also, Wlad would outpoint Usyk. Bad style matchup. He never had problems with smaller technical boxers.

 

He's behind Ali and Louis. He's fourth all time. There simply isn't an "on and on." Tyson is at five because he lost at the halfway point of Wlad's reign.

And if you want to play this game, Ibragimov, Haye and Povetkin get the best of Baer, Walcott and Schmeling. Erase Liston because he hurt his shoulder and the second fight was poorly officiated. Foreman gasses out against some of the bigger, more durable guys who Wlad fought and Povetkin had 25 pounds on Frazier, with better technical skill than Foreman. Holmes in 88 might've lost a decision to prime Pulev. And Spinks wasn't out of their league.

 

Wlad was 40 years old when he lost to AJ. Dubois is not even 30. Plus Wlad fought an undefeated confident AJ, not a weak minded, unsure man child.

 

"Get the best" is meaningless, even if true, which is in and of itself debatable. There is a certain degree of evolution that goes on, and what is important is that Baer, Schmeling, and Walcott meant far more for their own day then Ibragimov, Haye and Povetkin.

Wlad does not have the big wins, and that IS his fault, because he split the era with his brother, which leads to guys not being properly built up. Had he rematches Sanders, for example, and won, and they had a rubber, it would be a great series between two fighters that both might have gone on to be remembered as great, Sanders in the Graziano, Norton type role.

 

Wlad is top 10 lock. To fight in an era where everyone is big enough to clip you with one single shot - and rule the division for nearly 11 years and make 18 consecutive title defenses. Takes a special fighter to pull that off, and considering where he was after the first Brewster fight, he may be the greatest comeback story in the history of the division.

 

Overly so imo.

 

You're totally dishonest with yourself.

The guys who saw multiple top 5 annual Ring rankings during Wlad's best ten straight years (05 to 14) are as follows: Peter (twice), Chagaev (twice), Povetkin (eight times), Vitali (five times), Valuev (twice at five spot), Haye (three times), Fury (two times), and Adamek (four times).

He went 5-1 against that bunch, losing at about forty years old to Fury while outside the ten year window. Vitali was his brother, Valuev declined and lost to Haye, and Adamek dropped off after losing to Vitali. And he took the top spot from Byrd.

How many guys did that well?

 

I have him top 15 but not top 10. I saw him iced decisively, twice, in his physical prime when everyone's was saying he was the next big thing. To his credit he rebuilt from disaster and had a long reign (which is what elevates him into the discussion for me) but he did, IMO, preside over a largely weak era where he generally had size and home advantages. If anything, I feel he is often rated slightly too highly now.

 

He is regarded as one ATG, all right.

But it doesnt mean we are going to sugarcoat his padded resume, his boring boxing style and the overall lack of competition during one of the dullest boxing eras.

 

The era was weaker though. Only quality heavy outside wlad was vitali. Thats why they both ha e weak resumes but reigned for years and had skills to be considered atg. Im sure if you put them in this era they would still be champions.

 

That’s nonsense. The seventies had a long list of crappy fighters who cracked the top ten and the average contender in the 80s snd 90s was no better than during Wlad’s reign. Tony Thompson potentially would make the top ten in any era.

 

I find it comical that a truly global sport (and one of the oldest sports of all-time) such as boxing would have these so called droughts of bad fighters. Especially ones that last ten years. Foolishness.