Wladimir klitschko surpasses HW greats if...

Where do you rank Louis?

Why is this era weak? This is such a terrible argument.

Most boxing fans would say the best eras for HW boxing is the 70s & 90s, right?

Let's take a look at them:

70s: Muhammad Ali makes his triumphant return after suspension and loses to Joe Frazier who is the HW champ at the time. He then fights Frazier again and wins. He then fights the HW champ at the time George Foreman who already beat Frazier. Ali then fights Foreman and wins; becomes champ and beats Frazier in the trilogy.

90s: Mike Tyson makes his triumphant return after his incarceration and loses his biggest fight of his career against Holyfield.

Notice anything similar? You have 2 great, entertaining fighters who after years off come back and their generation of boxing is considered the best ever.

This content is protected

Look at the fighters now. Many of them have a significant amount of amateur experience which helps their development significantly. Fighters now range in experience (some with over 100 amateur bouts and plenty of worldwide top tier tournaments like the World Amateur games and the Olympics).

Boxers now a days are much more experienced than they were in the past without getting damaged as early.

I can't see how someone would think that a record (which is probably the biggest record in boxing) if broken would not warrant a fighter to become the best fighter ever when in fact the fighter who owns that record is considered the greatest by a considerable amount of fans and boxing publications. If Wlad did break it, he would also have his time as WBO champ which would break ANOTHER major record (JCC world title bout wins, who is ANOTHER arguably p4p top 10 great).

So Wlad breaks 3 of the biggest records in boxing (length of time as Champ is the other one) by 2 of the best boxers ever and he is not considered the greatest? Something seems off to me.

Another thing: "Wlad comes absolutely nowhere near the best 5 fighters of all time. Neither on resume or talent."

How do you know that? His resume of breaking 3 different major boxing records is nowhere in the top 5? His talent isn't either when he would clearly be the most accomplished fighter of all-time?

Give Wlad a little more credit.

Post your top 10 HWs of All-Time.

 

I don't have hard and fast ranking because, as I described earlier, I think that there are a lot of factors built in that people weight in various ways. If is somehwhat--not entirely, but somewhat--subjective.

That being said, I would put him at two based on the record and the number of ATG fighters he defeated, but anwywhere in the top four would be acceptable.

There are mitigating factors. He did not fight the black fighters between Lewis and Walcottt, and there were some very good ones he skipped. Head to head, he would be more properly a crusier today than a heavy, and he has a couple of dodgy decisons (well, at least one to Walcott). So again, 2-4 would be about right to me.


Look, some of us can appreciate the enthusiaism for Wladdy, which we share, but to make statements like my oppinion is stupid and asking me what is wrong with me make you look like a jack ass.
Claiming that breaking the record should make him top five PforP, and it would be "unanamous" that he would be considered number 1 is absurd, when a vanishingly small number of people share those oppinions.

 

Its not. And you repeating it won't change it.

He fought Prime Peter (in the best shape of his life), Ibragimov, Byrd, McCline (also in the best shape of his life), Monte Barret (prime), Prime Brewster in their first fight that didn't go so well, Jennings in his best form ever, Wach in the best chemically possible shape, the list goes on and on and on and on.

You either don't know boxing or don't know math. Which one is it?

 

People need to stop down-rating Povetkin. He is a very solid top tier heavyweight.

Hell, I am 100% certain (as in, betting my house on it certain) that he would beat many legends that are worshiped while Sasha is getting downplayed just because he lost to Wlad in arguably the ugliest, most foul-infested fight of the century.

 

I rate Sasha highly. I think that he's better than he was when he first fought Wlad. I think that he's still the biggest threat to Klitschko, currently.

 

Keep calm. Wlad is fighting Tyson Fury and not Prime Mike Tyson.

 

What do you mean by top 20 HW's?

It seems that their names are mostly been thrown around as supposed "all time greats" to make Louis' record look better.

Do you seriously think that an ex-light heavyweight Schmelling, who got knocked out in 1 round by a guy with 25+ losses and lost to various low-level fighters, is better than Alexander Povetkin?

 

No , you're stupid.

Primo Carnera has 89 wins and more knockouts than any other HW in history.
Brian Neilson has 64 wins and only 3 loses to his name. 2 of those losses were to ATGs Tyson and Holyfield. Where are those 2 in the ATG ranks

What ATGs beat Wlad? It didn't take any ATGs to destroy Wlad 3 times.

Avoids no one? He broke every rule in the book to avoid having to box Povetkin. He wasn't good enough to go back in with a 90's left over who had stopped him easily in 2 rounds.

If he was getting sparked out by 90's fringe contenders in the 00's , what do you think would have happened to him IN the 90's- against those fringe level guys in their prime - never mind the champs of that era.

Anybody who goes life and death with Sam Peter and is fully deserving of a DQ loss is no ATG or Legend.

 

How Wlad can be ATG if he didn't fight with champions since 2011?

 

I stopped taking the O.P seriously when he mentioned Ali ....

/thread plskthxbye.

 

And yet ... yet he fought and dominated this fighter that he was supposedly avoiding so hard.



Dino needs to drink a gallon or two of sugar water, Wlad is making him so bitter. :yep

 

Every era is weakest when its going on. Reality is that there is nothing weak in this era.

 

brb,

I'd have to think about it. I'll post my top ten HW's another time.

Just to note, I'd have Wlad in the top ten, and I wouldn't argue with you if you personally had him in your top 5. At the end of the day, we're all entitled to our opinions.

The problem I have, is where you've said he should automatically be considered the greatest ever due to his statistics.

Now his stats are very, very impressive on paper.

But I could never look at him and say he was better than Ali, Lewis, Holmes and his brother etc.

I just can't.

I don't know what your criteria is for ranking someone, but stats alone don't cut it for me.

Are you kidding me?

Deontay Wilder is universally recognised as the 3rd best HW on the planet.

Who the hell's he beaten?

Bermane Stiverne.

Who's he beaten?

Chris Arreola for a vacant title.

Tyson Fury is universally recognised as the 4th best HW on the planet.

Who's he beaten?

Dereck Chisora.

Stiverne and Jennings are in the top 5/6.

A 43 year old Tony Thompson is in the top 10.

Antonio Tarver has recently been in the top 10.

I'm a big fan of Tyson Fury's. But when he and the likes of Pulev are considered the best HW's on the planet, you know it's a weak era.

And that's all that happened in those two decades?

Look at some of the fighters who fought in those eras, and look how competitive they were.

70's:

Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Norton
Holmes

90's:

Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Lewis
Bowe
Bruno
McCall
Golota
Ibeabuchi

So what?

How many of today's top guys would have found success in the 70's, 80's and 90's?

Why?

Again, because statistics don't allow for circumstances.

I like Wlad. I think he's great. He's had a great career. His longevity is outstanding, and it deserves an awful lot of respect. But longevity is only one factor to consider, along with many others.

I'll tell you why I don't think he could ever be classed as the greatest HW of all time:

He was knocked out by three non great fighters in his 20's.

Only one of those defeats were avenged.

His biggest wins to date were against Byrd, Povetkin, Chagaev and Haye.

His statistics wouldn't be as impressive if Vitali hadn't have retired for four years.

His statistics wouldn't be as impressive if Vitali was still active today.

This era of HW's is weak.

I don't think he'd have enjoyed the same amount of success had he fought in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

I don't believe he would have beaten the likes of Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Bowe and Vitali (obviously they could never have fought) when they were at their best.

Now feel free to disagree with what I've wrote above. But those are my honest opinions.

I don't care what records he breaks. He's never beaten a great fighter, and I don't think he was a better fighter than the guys who I've mentioned.

What seems off?

Look beyond the stats.

How on earth could he ever be the most accomplished fighter of all time??

Has he had any truly GREAT wins?

No.

Can you say he possesses the best skills of any HW who's ever fought?

No.

Can you say he possesses some of the best skills of any boxer, at any weight, who's ever fought?

No.

A guy like Ray Leonard doesn't make most people's top 5, and look at his skills and resume.

He beat peak versions of Benitez and Hearns. He beat Duran. He came off of a three year lay off and beat Hagler at MW.

Wlad doesn't have any wins that even come close to those, nor does he possess the talent that Ray had.

And that's just one example out of many.

You've got Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles and Roberto Duran etc.

The entire Fab Four.

The stars of the 90's etc.

Wlad doesn't belong in their company.

I give him a huge amount of credit.

But if he hasn't had any GREAT wins, and I don't think that he's the most skilled HW of all time, along with the fact that I personally have him losing to a number of the past greats, then I can't label him as the greatest HW who's ever lived, despite how many records he breaks.

It's you who's giving him too much credit.

Again, you seem blinded by the stats.


:good

 

Wilder, Pulev and Fury, are classed as 3 of the best 5 HW's on the planet.

So what more needs to be said?

 

Throw in Povetkin, and you've got a top 5 that's competitive, win some - lose some, with any other in any given year

Or are we going to do that thing where we take the best fighters of an entire decade, make a top 5 of them, and pretend they were all peaked at exactly the same time?