Would Wladimir Klitschko have gone as far without Vitali Klitschko?

I wasn't saying he was protecting but asking how people may have felt it would have gone in that if you lost to a Klitschko it seemed that the opponent lost to both and was out if the title running.
For example at smw lost to ward but got a straight shot at bute, but if you lost to a Klitschko that was as if you had lost to both

 

I'm not so sure about that
Vitali first won a wbc title from Sanders who wlad didn't rematch
Vitali won his next wbc title from peter who wlad didn't rematch at that sort of time when peter was still on form. Wlad had beaten peter but it was a tough fight for him and I don't know if he was in any rush at that time even though peter was wbc champ

 

I don't necessarily think one was saving or protecting the other but was asking how the landscape may have looked without the eliminated by a Klitschko scenario

Do I think they were working together? Well after listening to things that I watched where an opponent said something about the contract like if he were to have beaten one he had to face the other next and then if he won that, have to rematch the other. Something like that and it being like a 3 fight contract if he won. I don't know how true that all is but I recall an opponent saying something along those lines but could be wrong

 

I could see how it benefited but not quite in the way you are seeing it.
When a fighter lost to a Klitschko it seemed that they had lost to both fighters rather than just the one.
Molina lost to Wilder but got a shot at Joshua not long after as an example of HW boxing now that the champs arent related or thought of as one fighter to a degree. I had a feeling from posts I had read that Breazeale could be facing Wilder next which if that happens is another example of the above.
Now as written at the start of the thread. I dont think Wladimir didnt have the ability to beat any of the HWs Vitali beat but with having them beat, freed him up to fight another champ.
Lets say Vitali hadnt have been around. Would Wladimir have wanted to have the rematch with Peter when WBC champ at that time after the tough fight? I dont know either. Now if Vitali had not have been around there would have been more contenders for Wlad to face who may have passed the other 2 titles around which may have prevented Wladimir getting some of the bigger fights.

This content is protected

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/6801081/haye-confirms-contract

That appears a benefit to me in that if one chooses not to fight, you could end up fighting the other at short notice and thats your title shot even though they are two seperate entitys.
You have lost to Klitschko but they are two seperate fighters. That is only my opinion and there are good counter points and im not saying that is set in stone but a bit of a feeling I had

 

I think Lewis is one of the best HWS ever and would favour Lewis to beat Wladimir. Had I not watched Lewis against Vitali I would favour Lewis there also but upon seeing that fight realised that I think Lewis would always struggle with Vitali and am not sure he would always be able to beat him whereas I think Lewis would beat Wladimir more times than not.
That said I do hold Wladimir in the same breath as Lewis as Wladimir has been a great dominant HW champ who has an excellent resume. I think you could make an argument for either having a greater resume however you want to spin it..
I cant see why you would rate Bowe above either.
Holyfield was a tough brave warrior but I dont know if resume wise at the time of some of the fights overall I would put him above Wladimir or have favoured him to have beaten him or Vitali, though Holyfield has got the good names on his resume like Tyson, Bowe, Lewis Draw on paper, Moorer, Foreman, Ruiz, Holmes.
I do wonder if Bowe and Holyfield were fortunate to be around before the fighters who appeared after the iron curtain came down came to become a factor. Different eras I guess and Holyfield was my favourite fighter for a while at one time