Wladimir Klitschko - the next Joe Louis?

Wladimir Klitschko is a good fighter, but frankly I can't see any basis for rating as an all time great, or least not until we see how the rest of his career pans out. He has 3 bad knockout losses, one of whom was to a journeyman, another to a 38 year old fighter, who was fighting on average once per year and juggling a golfing career, and one to an okay fighter. He avenged his loss to the last one, but only after Brewster had fought once within a two year period.

Wlad's best wins are against fighters who were decent, but against none who particularly stand out as being legacy builders for a great champion.

 

Agreed. He didn´t beat one great fighter until now, but let´s wait and see, he´s only 30 years old...

 

Thus far, he has but 3 defenses of the IBF crown, and has previously held the WBO which I have not, nor ever will consider to be a true world title. A 243 pound Samuel Peter floored him, and has yet to recieve a rematch. I suspect Wlad will continue to accumulate title defenses given that there's no one available at this time who I can rate as a truly qualified contender.

This is not a fighter who I can draw comparisons to Joe Louis with. If he manages to stay on top of the boxing world for another 7 or 8 years, then perhaps we'll have something to go by, but that's a pretty big IF.

 

Tyson and Marciano would make Wlad their big goofy girlfriend.

 

Pretty good analysis :good

 

Further consider that knockout percentage isn't nearly as relevant as the other two, and Wlad's still-inferior "title fight" record is made up of phony title fights.

I think this one's a little unfair- I'll agree Wlad's style is better-suited to small boxer types than Louis', but Louis was obviously much better at handling durable/aggressive puncher types

Um, if Wlad has the better offense and they're even in the "defense/chin" category(which apparently also includes footspeed, stamina, heart, etc.), then how could you possibly account for the enormous gap in their results? Louis has two stoppage losses in 71 pro fights, both to world champions and Hall-of-Famers and one while he was nearly a decade over the hill. Wlad, who has only 52 fights to date and is still very much in his prime, already has not one, not two, but three stoppage losses to run-of-the-mill opponents.

Slightly in favor of Louis? Louis fought eight world heavyweight champions and two light heavyweight champions. Around three-dozen(or about half) of his total fights were against currently-ranked opponents. Wlad has never fought a linear heavyweight champion, and has fought only four paper champions(two of whom had their paper titles because they beat Wlad, and one of whom was a shot 41-year-old). Wlad has had around 15 fights against currently-ranked(by any credible body) opponents, or about 30%. Louis is on another planet in terms of opposition faced from Wlad.

You're obviously ignoring the fact that he was 36-37 years old coming out of retirement after a 2-year lay-off to pay up the IRS when he lost to Charles and Marciano. Counting those losses against Louis would be silly and biased.

This is not something to skirt around. Wlad has been knocked out, in his prime, healthy and well-managed, three times, by opponents of no historical consequence. This is a far, far cry from Louis, who was only beaten by Hall-of-Fame champions and only once while in his prime.

The gap between these guys is enormous at the present time. If Wlad were to continue dominating the division for at least another six or seven years, then this might become a conversation.

 

Both guys can hit. Give Wlad those 6 oz punchers gloves and pit him vs the bum of the month guys, and he's a life taker. Don't you agree?

This is because Louis jab was not good enough to keep smaller boxers off him, and his footwork and defense could be exploited. Put Wlad in there vs Simon, and Carnera, and I bet you he tee-'s off and finsihes them faster than Louis did. There is no way guys like Farr or Pastor go the distance or make the fight close vs Wlad.

This is because Wlad fought more skilled punchers. Sanders, and Brewster, for example are far more skilled than the Galento's and B.Bears of boxing. They hit harder, have faster hands, and far better finishing ability. Louis had enough to get " off the hook " vs the other guys, but like I said they were not as talented. Switch dance partners between the two, and perhaps WLad has one less KO, and Louis has one more.

Linear does not define competition. Most of Louis title defenses are no better than Wlad's. As I said before, Louis best opponents were Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, and Marciano. In these 6 fights, Louis has a 2-4 record if you give Walcott the first fight on points. While Louis does have a great win over Max Bear, the wins over past their prime guys like Sharkey, and Carnera are but " name " wins over past their prime fighters.

Yet, Marciano and Charles were 2 of the 4 best fighters Louis meet. While Louis was older, he had many warm up fights.

Louis chin to me is not much better. The difference is in the skill and speed of the punchers the two faced. It only takes but a cursory glace of the films to see what I am talking about.

 

Bump

 

Great to see the comments from these old boxing sections. Still Wlad at 18 in a row was still quite far away from Louis's 26 in a row which might never be broken at heavyweight ever again.

 

You've earned your flowers good sir here they are.

 

You can see the general lack of enthusiasm in the comments of the heavyweight division from that time even in this comment section. But I imagine in Germany and Eastern Europe were Wlad was very popular during his reign the narrative would have been quite different even though I am not 100% sure on that completely either even though I would imagine so.

 

Some great fighters ride into town on a tiger because of their exciting style, but others have to earn their respect by making the statistics undeniable.

Wlad falls into the latter category.

It also didn't help him, that he had suffered some devastating losses, before his run that made him great.

He had been buried under the rubble three times.

Having said that, he picked himself up off the ground, and got back to work.

In the end he made the statistics undeniable.

 

I think generally people have a higher opinion of Wlad today then they did in those days. I stuck with my ranking though 4th best heavyweight of all time.

 

This topic aged like fine wine for the OP. Well done sir. Wlad would real off another 15 consecutive title defenses from the point this thread was created. And he was already beginning to receive praise for his run when at just 3 defenses. While he didn’t catch Louis in consecutive title defenses he certainly put together a great undeniable run that locks him into the ATG discussion.

 

I wonder if Wlad equalled it if people would have ranked him with Louis. I imagine not but possibly a decent chunk considering how much more credit Wlad gets these days.