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

[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.

[El Kabong]

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.

What luxury is there? Who has Vitali fought that Wlad would lose to? Sure we could bring Sanders up again, but #1 That was a long time ago and #2 Sanders is sadly dead so there's no hope for a rematch and redemption.

JC Gomez, Kevin Johnson, Cris Arreola, Derreck Chisora, Tomaz Adamek, Odlanier Solis, Albert Sosnowski, Shannon Briggs, Manuel Charr

Who in that group beats Wlad if you're so confident of your point?

[Fenster]

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.

What luxury is there? Who has Vitali fought that Wlad would lose to? Sure we could bring Sanders up again, but #1 That was a long time ago and #2 Sanders is sadly dead so there's no hope for a rematch and redemption.

JC Gomez, Kevin Johnson, Cris Arreola, Derreck Chisora, Tomaz Adamek, Odlanier Solis, Albert Sosnowski, Shannon Briggs, Manuel Charr

Who in that group beats Wlad if you're so confident of your point?

Some of those guys have been ranked much higher, and considered much better, than some of Wlad's opponents over the past 5/6 years. That is a fact. Therefore, Wlad would have been expected to face some of them if Vitali wasn't around to do the job for him.

Whether or not you believe Wlad would have beat those guys is irrelevant. If Wlad had never faced Corrie Sanders and I now claimed Sanders would smash him to bits inside two rounds you'd call me a moron.

[Rantcatrat]

Were the last ten years really the worst heavyweight era ever in the heavyweight division? I'm not sure that is true. Certainly, I agree that it isn't a good one. I don't think we'll ever see another good one either.

Will David Haye make the Hall of Fame? Is he Wladimir's best opponent?

I have Wladimir in the top 15 and his career isn't over.

The difference with Chris John is that during this era there have been many great featherweights that John hasn't faced. Gamboa, Garcia, Salido, JuanMa, the list goes on. Point is that there have been many other featherweights that many people considered The Man. In Wladimir's era of heavyweights, other than Haye, only his brother is someone that people considered The Man. And in Wladimir's defense, he completely outclassed Haye.

Are Gamboa, Garcia, Salido and JuanMa in a p4p sense equivalent to Povetkin, Chagaev, Ibramigov etc.?

[Rantcatrat]

I actually think we'll get to see Wladimir face Arreola and Chisora at some point. The rest of the guys don't pose any threat, at least subjectively.

For the people who rank Wladimir and Vitali outside the top 25 heavyweights, can you put up a list of 25 heavyweights that you would rank higher?