wladimir klitschko's dominance is out of this world

So, it would take the theoretical peak versions of Hall of Fame heavyweights, copied and pasted, to produce similar or superior results to what Wlad actually did over a 10 year portion of his career.

That's saying something.

So, who replicates the entire thing (in the context of an actual career, not just taking the best night's version and repeating it every time) and goes 66-3 or better?

 

I respect what you're saying.

But this era is the weakest in a long time, IMHO.

Just list the top 20 guys today, and then look at other eras.

Wlad deserves a lot of respect for his ten years of dominance, but I just don't think he'd have had ten years of dominance in other eras.

 

Well, it's silly really, because again, everyone has different circumstances.

But I've put the hall of fame fighters in at their respective peaks, because according to his fans, Wlad's been at his peak within the last ten years.

If Lennox had fought the exact same fighters, at the exact same time, we don't know what his record would have been.

Likewise, we obviously don't know what would have happened, if Wlad had fought all of Vitali's opponents at the exact same time.

Lewis didn't go ten years undefeated, because he got caught a few times like Wlad did.

Holyfield didn't go undefeated for ten years, because he ran into Bowe and Lennox.

Tyson didn't do it, because he went off the rails.

Vitali didn't do it, because he ran into Lennox and was injured and retired.

Holmes didn't do it, because he got beat by Spinks.

Every fighter has a different set of circumstances surrounding them.

You can't do like for like comparisons.

But most Wlad fans will completely ignore his losses in his 20's, and claim that since Manny rebuilt him, he hit his peak.

They then look at his stats and his last ten years of dominance, and it wows them.

But for me, it doesn't tell the whole picture.

Again, he's a great fighter, but certain circumstances have fallen in his favour.

But you've got fans saying that no other HW went ten years undefeated, hardly any other HW has got better stats, and then they proceed to call him the GOAT because of it.

I don't buy it.

Again, it's circumstances.

If you put the Wlad of the last ten years into a time machine, and then dropped him in the 70's, 80's and 90's, would he have gone ten years undefeated?

I'm going to say definitely not.

 

Nonsense. Wlad would have dominated in any era. Current era is just like any other era except Wlad is GOAT and that diminishes the rest of the pack.

 

Laughable!

Wlad would have dominated the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's?

I don't think so.

What are you basing this on?

He was knocked out three times while in his 20's, against non great opposition.

He didn't avenge all of his defeats.

He also struggled in periods with Sam Peter.

Manny worked on his defence, and he rebuilt his confidence.

Since 2004, he's mainly fought in an ultra cautious manner.

Again, his ten years of dominance deserves a lot of respect.

But who's he beaten in the last ten years?

Who's he beaten, to make you confident that he'd have dominated ANY era?

The current era isn't like ANY other era!

List today's top 20 fighters, and then list the top 20 fighters from both the 80's and 90's.

There's a big difference.

I'll list them if you want?

It's laughable how you think that he'd have dominated eras like the 90's.

 

60's and 70's were populated by LHWs and CWs. Wlad would mow them down easily. Frazier was smaller than Eddie Chambers for crying out loud.

 

Pure ignorance!

A guy like Frazier would have brought relentless pressure.

He's not mowing a guy like that down easily.

He couldn't mow a guy like Peter down easily, and look what Sanders etc did to him, and he wasn't a baby then, he was in his mid to late 20's.

Are you telling me with confidence that Wlad would easily have beaten Sonny Liston, a peak Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton and Lyles etc?

What about the 80's HW's? Holmes, Tyson and Spinks etc?

What about the 90's HW's? Lennox, Bowe, Holyfield etc?

If so, what are you basing it on?

 

Wlad has 50 KO's which is in Elite Company only a handful of other Heavyweight Champions accomplished that Baer, Foreman, Dempsey, Louis, Carnera, etc. sure I am missing one or two more.

He is likely to have 20+ title defenses

He will have a reign of 10 years or so

this is all provided he can go another 2 years

Who else has ALL these credentials that is currently in the top 10?

Joe Louis is the only one. It depends on how you reward something like 'Longevity'. Seems to me Louis and Holmes are considerably rewarded for it but Wlad isn't by to many on here. You can't have double standards like that. Wlad's opposition isn't much different than what Louis and Holmes had and they took care of business. On the other side Wlad's opposition sure is heck isn't like Ali or Frazier's was.

There is all kind of criteria you can throw in to make certain fighters look good or bad. It can be done for any of the current Top 10.

I personally am taking a wait and see approach with Wlad until he is retired. One more loss would change everything.

 

:good

 

Wlad is impressive. Time was when I thought he was only winning because he's huge, but if you think about it he's only 240-ish and any heavyweight under 225 could make cruiser.

Guys like Pulev, Thompson, Joshua, Price, Fury, Wilder have shown or will show that he's just really damn good and it isn't his fault.

 

A lot of those guys were considered big and they fought like big men... I can't see Holmes, Ali, Liston, Foreman, Norton, and Lyles having any success aside from landing a bomb, which is considerably harder to do to Wlad than ANY other heavyweight champ. His defense has to be the best the division has ever seen (Currently. He's significantly better than he used to be).

 

There's nothing great about Pulev, Thompson and Price.

Fury hasn't achieved anything as yet.

Joshua looks great, but has only had a handful of fights.

Wilder will answer some questions in the next few weeks.

 

I didn't say they were even good. I'm saying the excuse that he's a superheavyweight in a division of midgets no longer holds water.

At worst, he's just got a weak era.

 

I respect your opinion.

But a Liston fight would have interested me a lot, and I think Foreman, Ali and Holmes, would have beaten him.

But I'll tell you what bugs me.

We know that the versions of Wlad, from when he turned pro in 1996, until 2004, would not have beaten all of the greats from the past. We know this, because of what happened to him. That wasn't Wlad at his best, and he lost to Puritty, Sanders, and Brewster.

So his fans, quite rightly, aren't going to put those versions forward of him, in any fantasy fights with the greats of the past. Because again, he wasn't at his best then. His best came from after the Brewster defeat, when Manny had rebuilt his confidence, and tightened his defence.

Therefore, the evidence that his fans are putting forward, to claim he'd have dominated any era, is the period between 2004-2014.

Now look at who he's fought from 2004-2014?

He's beaten some good-very good fighters.

But from looking at who he's beaten from that period, how could anyone be confident that he'd have beaten Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Spinks, Tyson, Holmes, Lennox, Holyfield and Bowe etc?

Bremen has claimed he'd have dominated any era.

So he's obviously based his opinion, on wins over the following fighters:

Williamson
Castillo
Peter
Byrd
Brock
Austin
Brewster
Ibragimov
Thompson
Rahman
Chagaev
Chambers
Peter
Haye
Mormeck
Thompson
Wach
Pianeta
Povetkin
Leapai
Pulev

Again, those were good-very good wins.

But is it enough, to claim that he'd have dominated ANY era?

Not in my opinion it isn't.

 

I see.

Fair enough.

:good