Where do you rank Wladimir Klitschko among the all-time great heavyweights?

[ross]

So you rank Vitali higher than Wlad?

[Dark Lord Al]

So you rank Vitali higher than Wlad?

That is a difficult question, as they have never fought , however do I think Vitali would beat Wlad prime for prime , who has the better legacy well that is up for debate.
Wlad is a bit like my favourite boxer Tommy Hearns , he can dominate certain fighters with ease , however some fighters styles are just a nightmare for them , and they lose brutally.

[powerpuncher]

i do agree that vitali being around hurts wlads legacy. i too agree that vitali beat wlad.

i do want to hear peoples reasoning for wlad being in the top 10 though because i literally cant think of a reason, even if i were giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he would be top 10. maybe people just arent familiar with the history of HW boxing. and thats not meant to be an insult, its just an observation.

and i totally disagree that wlad would give any HW a good fight. i could name a lot of HWs that i think would easily dismantle him. i think he hits hard obviously and has good basic fundamentals, but to be a top fighter, you have to be able to handle diversity well which wlad hasnt been able to do in his career. he folds under pressure.

[Vendettos]

I could squeeze Wlad in at 11-15.

It's all the more impressive because he has a weak chin, but has developed ways to not get hit a lot.


But I don't see him top ten.

A young George Foreman walks through him, same with Tyson, I don't see him lasting a round with those 2.

But you can make a argument for him against people like Fraizer, Marciano, Dempsey, due to his size advantages.

[erics44]

people tell me there is rule bending throught the history of the HW division and the champ often gets away with a lot which i can understand

wlad does an outragious amount of rule bending that multiplies lots and lots when he is in with someone dangerous

there is clearly money driven corruption going on, for this reason i find it hard to place him

i personally dont think he would still be champ if made to fight anywhere near within the rules

he was clearly a high level contender in that generation of when he became champ (prior to the excessive rule bending obviously) tho

[Fenster]

Being the "Klitschkos" instead of individuals greatly hurts their position in history. Unless you allow them to be boxings first ever tag-team?

Since 2008, when Vitali came back from retirement, the brothers have been rated as the top two at heavyweight. During this time they've had 20 fights between them with just ONE common opponent. 19 different challengers.

How can you establish a pecking order of the worlds best heavyweights if the top two are facing completely different opposition?

It's farcical enough that you can crown a champion without him beating his most strongest rival, let alone having virtually no formlines to compare, because they might as well be operating in different divisions.

[El Kabong]

There are always questions that arise when considering greatness. Are we pitting greats vs greats or are we looking solely at records and what has been accomplished during their eras or are we doing a mix of the two. Also one HAS to consider the fact that there used to only be 1 belt and now there's a billion of them and it makes it difficult to compare and contrast title holders because you don't fight the exact same competition if you have the WBC belt or IBF belt or WBA belt. To his credit Wladimir did make the WBO a LEGITIMATE heavyweight title based on his performances as it's champion.

This is why Joe Louis is ALWAYS my A#1 Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time. He fought anyone and everyone, he fought quality AND quantity, and he had the longest run as Champion AND he had years of his prime taken away due to World War II (which nobody ever mentions the way they mention Ali's layoff).

Now looking at Wladimir, he's a flawed heavyweight. He has had losses, but everyone (bar Marciano) on the list of Greats has suffered losses. Some shocking like Lewis-Rahman I, some understandable Ali-Frazier I or Tyson-Holyfield, and some were just bad calls Lewis-Holyfield I & II. Wlad's defeats were shocking, but all the more shocking is his ability to reinvent himself as a fighter, paper over the cracks in his game and become the dominant champion AFTER such shocking defeats...I mean the only other guys to get smacked down like Wlad did and bounce back to become even more dominant are Joe Louis (Schmeling I) and Lennox Lewis (Oliver McCall I). Wlad has had a reign as champion longer than everyone but Joe Louis, he's now been in more title fights than Muhammad Ali, he's defended his titles 14 or so times, he has held the IBF, WBO and IBO Heavyweight Championships longer than any other fighter in history, and he has defended those titles more than any other fighter.

He is an all-time great based on his accomplishments during his era, to deny it is to deny history. He can only fight who is in his era, and he has been willing to fight them all. Is Wlad "The Greatest", no and I don't think anyone is making that case, but he IS an All-Time great, there's very little to argue about when considering that just given the stats he has. He fights all the time, he defends his titles, he's undefeated in rematches, he wins by KO/TKO more often than not, what more do you want? Maybe he could fight in a more exciting manner, but shit if you're winning why change something that is working? Nobody asks Hopkins or Mayweather Jr to change their styles.

I'd put Wlad in the top 10

[erics44]

There are always questions that arise when considering greatness. Are we pitting greats vs greats or are we looking solely at records and what has been accomplished during their eras or are we doing a mix of the two. Also one HAS to consider the fact that there used to only be 1 belt and now there's a billion of them and it makes it difficult to compare and contrast title holders because you don't fight the exact same competition if you have the WBC belt or IBF belt or WBA belt. To his credit Wladimir did make the WBO a LEGITIMATE heavyweight title based on his performances as it's champion.

This is why Joe Louis is ALWAYS my A#1 Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time. He fought anyone and everyone, he fought quality AND quantity, and he had the longest run as Champion AND he had years of his prime taken away due to World War II (which nobody ever mentions the way they mention Ali's layoff).

Now looking at Wladimir, he's a flawed heavyweight. He has had losses, but everyone (bar Marciano) on the list of Greats has suffered losses. Some shocking like Lewis-Rahman I, some understandable Ali-Frazier I or Tyson-Holyfield, and some were just bad calls Lewis-Holyfield I & II. Wlad's defeats were shocking, but all the more shocking is his ability to reinvent himself as a wrestler, paper over the cracks in his game and become the dominant champion AFTER such shocking defeats...I mean the only other guys to get smacked down like Wlad did and bounce back to become even more dominant are Joe Louis (Schmeling I) and Lennox Lewis (Oliver McCall I). Wlad has had a reign as champion longer than everyone but Joe Louis, he's now been in more title fights than Muhammad Ali, he's defended his titles 14 or so times, he has held the IBF, WBO and IBO Heavyweight Championships longer than any other fighter in history, and he has defended those titles more than any other fighter.

He is an all-time great based on his accomplishments during his era, to deny it is to deny history. He can only fight who is in his era, and he has been willing to fight them all. Is Wlad "The Greatest", no and I don't think anyone is making that case, but he IS an All-Time great, there's very little to argue about when considering that just given the stats he has. He fights all the time, he defends his titles, he's undefeated in rematches, he wins by KO/TKO more often than not, what more do you want? Maybe he could fight in a more exciting manner, but shit if you're winning why change something that is working? Nobody asks Hopkins or Mayweather Jr to change their styles.

I'd put Wlad in the top 10

just one littel ammendment, other than that well done

[ross]

There are always questions that arise when considering greatness. Are we pitting greats vs greats or are we looking solely at records and what has been accomplished during their eras or are we doing a mix of the two. Also one HAS to consider the fact that there used to only be 1 belt and now there's a billion of them and it makes it difficult to compare and contrast title holders because you don't fight the exact same competition if you have the WBC belt or IBF belt or WBA belt. To his credit Wladimir did make the WBO a LEGITIMATE heavyweight title based on his performances as it's champion.

This is why Joe Louis is ALWAYS my A#1 Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time. He fought anyone and everyone, he fought quality AND quantity, and he had the longest run as Champion AND he had years of his prime taken away due to World War II (which nobody ever mentions the way they mention Ali's layoff).

Now looking at Wladimir, he's a flawed heavyweight. He has had losses, but everyone (bar Marciano) on the list of Greats has suffered losses. Some shocking like Lewis-Rahman I, some understandable Ali-Frazier I or Tyson-Holyfield, and some were just bad calls Lewis-Holyfield I & II. Wlad's defeats were shocking, but all the more shocking is his ability to reinvent himself as a fighter, paper over the cracks in his game and become the dominant champion AFTER such shocking defeats...I mean the only other guys to get smacked down like Wlad did and bounce back to become even more dominant are Joe Louis (Schmeling I) and Lennox Lewis (Oliver McCall I). Wlad has had a reign as champion longer than everyone but Joe Louis, he's now been in more title fights than Muhammad Ali, he's defended his titles 14 or so times, he has held the IBF, WBO and IBO Heavyweight Championships longer than any other fighter in history, and he has defended those titles more than any other fighter.

He is an all-time great based on his accomplishments during his era, to deny it is to deny history. He can only fight who is in his era, and he has been willing to fight them all. Is Wlad "The Greatest", no and I don't think anyone is making that case, but he IS an All-Time great, there's very little to argue about when considering that just given the stats he has. He fights all the time, he defends his titles, he's undefeated in rematches, he wins by KO/TKO more often than not, what more do you want? Maybe he could fight in a more exciting manner, but shit if you're winning why change something that is working? Nobody asks Hopkins or Mayweather Jr to change their styles.

I'd put Wlad in the top 10

Are you forgetting that Vitali is also fighting young undefeated boxers and dominating them?

What is your deffinition of dominating?

Mine in boxing is a fighter that fits everyone and beats everyone. Wlad hasnt fought everyone has he. Vitali is at least equally as good so how can Wlad be dominating? He isnt. Hes only one of 2 fighters that are hard to seperate apart from Vitali proving himself against Lewis and beating Sanders and not having to grab and lean which to me proves Vitali is the better fighter of the two.

Joe Calzaghe had a long u defeated run but he was only ever called dominant after he had taken out the other threats and proved he was the best in that division.

[Fenster]

There are always questions that arise when considering greatness. Are we pitting greats vs greats or are we looking solely at records and what has been accomplished during their eras or are we doing a mix of the two. Also one HAS to consider the fact that there used to only be 1 belt and now there's a billion of them and it makes it difficult to compare and contrast title holders because you don't fight the exact same competition if you have the WBC belt or IBF belt or WBA belt. To his credit Wladimir did make the WBO a LEGITIMATE heavyweight title based on his performances as it's champion.

This is why Joe Louis is ALWAYS my A#1 Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time. He fought anyone and everyone, he fought quality AND quantity, and he had the longest run as Champion AND he had years of his prime taken away due to World War II (which nobody ever mentions the way they mention Ali's layoff).

Now looking at Wladimir, he's a flawed heavyweight. He has had losses, but everyone (bar Marciano) on the list of Greats has suffered losses. Some shocking like Lewis-Rahman I, some understandable Ali-Frazier I or Tyson-Holyfield, and some were just bad calls Lewis-Holyfield I & II. Wlad's defeats were shocking, but all the more shocking is his ability to reinvent himself as a fighter, paper over the cracks in his game and become the dominant champion AFTER such shocking defeats...I mean the only other guys to get smacked down like Wlad did and bounce back to become even more dominant are Joe Louis (Schmeling I) and Lennox Lewis (Oliver McCall I). Wlad has had a reign as champion longer than everyone but Joe Louis, he's now been in more title fights than Muhammad Ali, he's defended his titles 14 or so times, he has held the IBF, WBO and IBO Heavyweight Championships longer than any other fighter in history, and he has defended those titles more than any other fighter.

He is an all-time great based on his accomplishments during his era, to deny it is to deny history. He can only fight who is in his era, and he has been willing to fight them all. Is Wlad "The Greatest", no and I don't think anyone is making that case, but he IS an All-Time great, there's very little to argue about when considering that just given the stats he has. He fights all the time, he defends his titles, he's undefeated in rematches, he wins by KO/TKO more often than not, what more do you want? Maybe he could fight in a more exciting manner, but shit if you're winning why change something that is working? Nobody asks Hopkins or Mayweather Jr to change their styles.

I'd put Wlad in the top 10

Wlad is a champion in an era that his brother helped to dilute. He hasn't fought the best challengers, he's fought SOME of them. Vitali has fought the others.

Wlad enjoys a luxury virtually nobody else in history has, not only was he able to avoid the "next best guy," that guy has also helped wipe out top competition.

Alphabet defenses are irrelevant. Chris John has defended the "world" featherweight title a thousand times, will he go into history as an all-time great? No.