Wlad is an ATG...um'kay

I've just finished watching the David Haye Vs Wlad Klitschko fight again. And I'm willing to say there isn't a heavyweight in history who could beat today's version of Wlad (except maybe Lewis)

Forget about his losses years ago. He's a different fighter now. What a talent. His concentration is frightening.

When circumstances conspire against dominant greats, so that they are left untested in their era (for instance Marciano), we must either penalize them or rely on simplistic imaginary head-to-head's when rating.

I expect some flack for this, but I genuinely think Wlad is a Top 5 ATG!

I think with a lack of agreed criteria for making ATG lists then it is unfair to penalize Wlad for the lack of a career defining fight, his early losses, or the era he fights in. The guy is a true great. Forget blood and guts; this man is a clean and clinical surgeon. Truly Amazing.

Get outta here

No really.

I'm not hitching a ride on the Azania combine harvester of controversy.

I think he's immense.

He is immense and he'll probably be rated as an atg but I don't think as high as 5. Probably about 12-15ish and i.d probably agree with that. He'd probably beat alot of the ATG but he does have poor losses on his record . Just because it was a different and poorer wlad doesnt excuse them. Same for Lewis althought he would make the top ten

I think, in reality, 12-15 is where he'll be rated too.

He must find it galling fighting in this era. It's frustrating he's unable to test his metal against a worthy contender. However, IMO he would mostly beat anyone in history. And if this is in fact a results business, as many claim, then he should be rated higher than his achievements or opponents allow.

I think being beat early in a career, in whatever manner, is similar to going on too long.

We shouldn't attach much weight to it when ranking, especially in this case; where a fighter adapts into a entirely different fighter (measured, precise and unbeatable Vs Gung Ho, Aggressive and vulnerable).

Based entirely on his ability to beat anyone in history (and marking him down only very slightly for a lack career defining fight and era) I rate him top 5.

However, I understand, if I change the mythical criteria to suit, then my rankings are not the robust when they come under scrutiny.

Still ATG top 5 though.

"Wlad is an ATG" I could possibly be with you up to this point. But only Lewis would beat him and hes a top 5 HW. Get out of town. I can only hope given the lateness of your post that it was alcohol induced good sir.

First of all Haye isn't a great HW so to base part of this on revisiting Wlad's dismantling of him is a disservice to some of the HWs you are putting Wlad above. Haye showed no guts, heart or willingness to get in there and exploit the weakness that Wlad protects so well. Even a great but limited HW like Marciano would give Wlad hell and go down swinging (I would back Wlad to win all day long). Haye did nothing.

Off the top of my head I cant think of a really great HW that Wlad has beat so to say he'd be favourite against all bar Lennox really is a massive leap of faith. True he's a different fighter to the won that lost a few times but I also think he hasn't met anyone good enough to test how he'll fare when put under real pressure. With his size, athleticism and boxing skills Wlad gives most a good fight but would win some and lose some against the great HWs of years gone by.

A list of HWs Id make at least 50-50 against or favourite to beat Wlad (not even all of these are ATGS).
Lewis, Tyson, Bowe, Holmes, Foreman, Ali, Vitali, Liston. I might even throw Holyfield in there.

Oh you've posted since backing it up so ignore the alcohol bit even though it was partly in jest

I rate Wlad quite myself, increasingly so as time goes on. But I struggle to place too much emphasis on hypotheticals or what ifs when it comes to ranking fighters. I find it easier to measure what has actually been acomplished than on what I speculate might have happened against other fighters in other eras.

Invariably this leads my rankings to contain anomalies such as having certain fighters rank above ones I think were better. In head to heads I think I had Wlad 8th. But there are a number of fighters in there both above him and below I would find it really hard to call with any real confidence. On overall career probably 12th-15th. His competition will always hamstring him though both in allowing him to place highly and in trying to determine just how good he really is.

It's always going to be difficult to judge this one as he's in an era which doesn't have a list of viable competition. As a result, he's a victim as his own successs which makes it difficult to rank him.

Having said that, I believe Vitali Klitshko deserves to be ranked higher than Wlad when it's all said and done. For one reason only, and that's because he doesn't have poor early losses on his record.

Vitali is immense too. I just find it hard to rate him, simply because his style is so un-aesthetically pleasing. As you can see, my rating's are victim to my own preferences and idiosyncrasies. If I like what I see I ignore what I don't want to see. If I don't like what I see; I see a sea of evidence to discredit the fighter. I think as fans we are all guilty of this; we can't get away from our subjectivity.

PP out of that list..I see only Lewis, Bowe, Vitali as being capable of putting his bait up.

Out of the others, George would be out-boxed (telegraphs too much). Liston would just be out boxed. Tyson would be out-boxed (but have the best chance of catching him cold).

And here is the big one....ALI.......would be OUTBOXED!! (really)

3 inch height difference, and about the same on reach - with Ali much faster handspeed and foot. I think its an awkward ugly affair but Ali wins comfortably.

Shah I'm pushed for time, so I'll keep it short: if Norton can beat him, Wlad can.

Ali's footwork was great but a lot of it was simply natural flair. Instinctive movement which carried him around the ring rapidly., Wlad, on the other hand, is a little more cultured with less wastage, his foot movement is repetitive but it's equally, if not more, effective.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

PP out of that list..I see only Lewis, Bowe, Vitali as being capable of putting his bait up.

Out of the others, George would be out-boxed (telegraphs too much). Liston would just be out boxed. Tyson would be out-boxed (but have the best chance of catching him cold).

And here is the big one....ALI.......would be OUTBOXED!! (really)

I've no issue with you rating him so highly. When you combine his sheer size with his boxing ability he is a difficult opponent for most. Give him Vitali's chin and he'd be near on unbeatable. Its that one little thing that makes him beatable for many.

The likes of Bowe, Vitali and Lewis could match him for size which is important. I'd still back him against Vitali but think Bowe's inside game and Lewis jab would make things interesting and give Wlad a tough night.

I think Liston had the jab, reach, chin and power to give Wlad an awful night. Holmes would also be interesting and has the tools to beat Wlad. Foreman and Tyson as you say would be there to be outboxed but I'd favour both to take him out. By the way I'm not saying Wlad couldnt beat these guys as I can see arguments for him.

If you had to put your house on anyone beating Wlad who would it be? I actually think Liston is a nightmare for Wlad and would pick him (although im less confident now that the house is on it...)

I also rate Wlad above Vitali and much prefer to watch him in action.

I think Wlad probably matches up quite well against Ali as much one can. Given Wlads competition I think there will always be question markd over how good he is but one thing I think is certainly immense is his jab. Its a very formidable weapon and I genuinely wouldnt be surprised if it was in and amongst the best in history. In matches fought at range, which suit Wlad I think, then this is going to be very difficult to beat. Even Ali I think would find it difficult to negotiate. But with guys like Foreman or Tyson, they like to get in closer and work and if they succeed against Wlad then they hammer him on the inside where he is vulnerable.

True but if you are talking best for best then Norton doesnt realy come into it. Ali may have done bigger things in his latter career but the first career he was at his physical peak - relatively speaking as I think we missed out on it. Norton and Frazier were both elevated as a result on giving Ali all he could handle - I suspect it might not have been the case had it been a younger Ali. Norton was also an unorthodox fighter with an excellent jab and counterjab - Wlad has the former but not the latter and is severely orthodox.

Seems the k bros are getting a bit of a love in these days. I've always thought their sheer physicality would mean they'd fair off ok in these mythical head to heads I also think that when we talk of weak and strong eras, sometimes one fighter makes the era look weak.

That's one argument, I think given that the best us athletes go to other sports these days, this era is as weak as any there has been. Both k bros are worth top 15 status, but at the high end. Interesting you pick the haye fight as a master class mackem, I thought wlad looked a little gunshy and the fight was poor, he was winning the rounds, 1 jab to nil, or on good old fashioned Las Vegas, 'the man going forward'

I needed a laugh today, Wlad beating Ali is one of the more ridiculous comments i've seen posted, it goes back to the same point everytime that it's easy to look good and keep concentration when fighting crud. Compare that to Ali who has about 10 wins on his record that outdo anything on Wlads, i'd like to see him keep his concentration when consistently fighting the likes of Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Shavers, Young, Lyle, Quarry, Patterson, Chuvalo, Ellis, Bonavena, Terrell and Folley.

Foreman could be outboxed but it took a very special talent in the aforementioned Ali to do it, put Wlad in with pre Ali Foreman and he's going to run a mile, doing well against a gunshy Haye is a far different proposition to doing it against a fighter who wont stop coming forward and throwing.

wlad fought the poorest version of haye we have seen and the injury was a massive factor in haye being so poor , plus how many times does he get away with blatent fouls? i counted 18 last time i watched it! the way he is allowed to use his forearm is shocking! everytime haye closed the distance wlad would use hes left forearm to push haye head down and this is aganst the rules , i agree wlad is an atg and is a credit to the sport but he will never get beat beat by haye or anyone unless the ref implies the rules of the sport.

Might say the same about foreman, he pushed frazier around 20 times in his fights. As soon as frazier got close he pushed him away. Haye was so poor because he thought Wlad was crap and lost his nerve in the ring. Hayes toe didnt prevent him from getting so close - Wlads jab did. Haye was quite happy to use his feet to dance in and out, so I doubt it was anything more than a minor hindrance. Especially as he managed to get a few shots in - just didnt find the will to win.

Wlad fights scared, he pumps a "stay away from me" jab, if someone can get inside it he is done.

He is a fighter who has not faced an ATG tho.

I'm sorry to say this as I'm sure you've got very sound reasoning behind your points, but I just can't imagine a possible world in which Wladimir Klitschko has the beating of Muhammad Ali in his athletic prime. I think people have a tendency to assume that if a fighter is tall and has a decent jab then a shorter fighter has to fight on the inside to win. Obviously my opinion is only as good as yours in a hypothetical matchup context, but I really think Ali would tie Wlad in knots if he tried to control the fight with his jab. One of the things that I think made Ali such a force in his first title years was his abillity to almost effortlessly avoid the jab, he's the best at it I've ever seen, ever. Wladimir is a fine fighter and I hope history is kind to him as it's not his fault the quality of the era is poor, but I really don't believe he could outbox Ali.

BoxingFan88 wrote:Wlad fights scared, he pumps a "stay away from me" jab, if someone can get inside it he is done.

Everyone who's fought him probably thought the same.... but his six inch push off, at the same time combined with a defensive jab, stops his opponent dead (and should they roll and charge he'll tie them up).

He trains day in, day out, to stop people from doing what you propose, this gives him the advantage. It'ss similar to how training against orthodox fighters each day gives southpaws the advantage.

You can't beat him at range because of his physical attributes and ability, and, you can't get to him on the inside because of his well rehearsed strategy and tactics.

Those facts make it almost impossible to solve the Klitschko conundrum.

If you're a walking blob of lard or a gunshy Haye then yes it's an impossible conundrum to solve but if you've got the class of Ali, Foreman, Liston, Holmes, Tyson, Louis or Lewis then it's not such a daunting task.

I guess we'll never know for sure

Top 5 ATG? Sorry my old mate but thats a load of cobblers.

I can understand why you'd think he'dbe a nightmare fight, and you'd be right as I could make a case for Wlad beating the likes of Tyson, Marciano, Frazier, Norton etc but I just can't see him beating Ali, Lewis, Holmes, Liston, Foreman, Louis or most of the other top 10.

We have to go on achievements and their fights, otherwise we'd call Buster Douglas an ATG top 10 based on the one version we saw one night in Tokyo.

Wlad would eat Lewis' jab all night, if we're talking about the best Lewis we saw. He'd also be bamboozled by Ali, because Wlad is quite ponderous with his footwork, and gun shy when under fire. Foreman would out bomb Wlad and Liston had the attributes to make Wlad have a breakdown in the ring.

I accept he is phenomenally talented, and we will be talking about him being a top 10 ATG if he manages to beat Fury, Price, Wilder and the other prospects before he retires, but I've seen nothing that alows him to beat any of the top 10 yet.

Mackem I have to give you credit. Even I wouldn't come up and defend something like this.

Thing to consider with any possible Liston match up is that Wlad would be in against a fighter with a fairly significant reach advantage of 3 inches so don't see how he wins a fight on the outside when he's going to have his head jabbed off it's shoulders.

Jab,

I'll not accept Wlad's footwork is ponderous. Efficient, effective and purposeful... yes. Ponderous.... no.

For me, footwork is one of his strong points, he cuts the ring off well and never brings his feet together.

But most of all he's mastered the six inch push off to perfection and he times it to his opponents attacks flawlessly. It's repetitive but it works time and time again so he needn't attempt anything more elaborate. Whats more is that, this move combined with a simple jab means he doesn't waste energy by needlessly transporting his massive frame around the ring (it's this, and not exclusively his reach, that negates Liston's jab).

I understand if fancy footwork and flair are your thing (it's my thing BTW). However, its not the most energy efficient means of defense. What Wlad does is not only the most energy aware method of defense it's also the most effective and simple.

I disagree with the outcome of a Wlad/Ali fight. But there seriously isn't any need to be hyper critical of Wlad. He is a superb boxer with a first class jab. Probably the top 5 in terms of jab ever. Great and economical footwork to enable him to get in range. Everything he does maximises his physicality to the nth degree. A class boxer. Just a boring gaseous emission.

Watch his shoulder warm up from 3:20min to dispel the rigidity rot (This is a shoulder warm up, not his actual punching action, his fluidity is self evident).

From 4:51min he begins light shadow work, this is then briefly interrupted at 4:59min for 10 seconds of side steps (where he brings his feet together, again only a warm-up not his actual foot action), thereafter, he recommences his shadow boxing.

You must agree, he's pretty nifty for a behemoth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX1C8qxZFYk

I don't agree he's boring.

I understand why most would, but for me, his subtlety is sublime and I genuinely find it fascinating to watch. Very understated.

That's it. He is fascinating. I want the HW champ to be a bit more that fascinating.

Fair point.

Hard to place him in the top 5 when we can't even say for certain that he's the top man in his family.

Ouch!

I think Tyson would be able to roll under the jab and flatten him. Another thing is, it takes him a while to get going, his jab only has authority later in the fight. If someone can take him in to deep water early, he will drown.

Great fighter, but there are many heavyweights of the past that would flatten him in my opinion.

Ayup Mackem - how is the little'un?

I'm actually one of Wladimir's biggest defenders on here, and I think of him a hell of a lot more highly than some others do, but I can't find a way to make him a top five all-time Heavyweight regardless of which criteria we use.

If we're looking solely at head to head match ups with other top class Heavies, then I agree he's a formidable opponent for plenty of them and, at the very least, a good work out for others. In that respect, I reckon I'd have him on the cusp of a top ten, perhaps just inside it.

And of course, while he didn't pick the era he's boxed in, there's no way you can make him a top five man in terms of resumé and achievement.

I always think, to rank a fighter accurately in an all-time sense, you need to combine all of these elements and strike a balance in any case, rather than using just one or the other. If I had Wladimir at, say, eighth in terms of head to heads, and then fifteenth or so in terms of record and achievements, then I'd say putting him somewhere in between (let's say thirteenth for argument's sake) would be about right, all told. Behind the Alis, Louises, Tysons et al, but ahead of the Walcott, Charles and Tunneys of this world, roughly.

Against the smaller heavyweights he would cause them problems but against the likes of Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Holmes and Liston I genuinely don't see him lasting more than a few rounds, four at most, he would be go into his shell and just try pumping out his jab which against the best isn't enough. Out of all them I see Liston and Holmes having the easiest night as they would dominate the battle of the jabs as would Lewis if he's on form whereas Tyson and Foreman would tear into him with such ferocity he'd wilt before the first bell rang. I can see an argument for him beating Frazier, Dempsey and Marciano although I think the first two get to him, smother him and ultimately knock him out while Louis' and Alis timing, efficiency and punching brilliance would make mince meat out of him regardless of size advantage.

Once you get into the second tier like Tunney and Charles it's his size rather than his ability that would cause the most problems, with neither being the heaviest of punchers it becomes easier for him to establish his jab and get into a rhythm.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Against the smaller heavyweights he would cause them problems but against the likes of Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Holmes and Liston I genuinely don't see him lasting more than a few rounds, four at most, he would be go into his shell and just try pumping out his jab which against the best isn't enough. Out of all them I see Liston and Holmes having the easiest night as they would dominate the battle of the jabs as would Lewis if he's on form whereas Tyson and Foreman would tear into him with such ferocity he'd wilt before the first bell rang. I can see an argument for him beating Frazier, Dempsey and Marciano although I think the first two get to him, smother him and ultimately knock him out while Louis' and Alis timing, efficiency and punching brilliance would make mince meat out of him regardless of size advantage.

Once you get into the second tier like Tunney and Charles it's his size rather than his ability that would cause the most problems, with neither being the heaviest of punchers it becomes easier for him to establish his jab and get into a rhythm.

Have you seen Wlad go into his shell?

Almost every fight, he fought scared against Haye for christ sake, imagine what he'd be like against a puncher like Liston or Foreman. He is very much a defensive minded fighter who uses his size to overcome overmatched opponents, a harsh statement but its reality, he's not going to knock out any of the top men as he simply wouldn't commit to throwing anything big.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Almost every fight, he fought scared against Haye for christ sake, imagine what he'd be like against a puncher like Liston or Foreman. He is very much a defensive minded fighter who uses his size to overcome overmatched opponents, a harsh statement but its reality, he's not going to knock out any of the top men as he simply wouldn't commit to throwing anything big.

When I watched it live I thought he fought scared. I watched it back last night, and he fought sensible, not scared. I was unaware just how dominant he was first time through. Each time Haye caught him he made sure he returned the favour three times over. That is not the mark of a scared fighter, just a very good one.

Haye catching him is one thing but getting caught by Liston, Lewis, Louis or Foreman and it's fight over and there is no chance in hell he avoids them for 12 rounds let alone 3 or 4.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Almost every fight, he fought scared against Haye for christ sake, imagine what he'd be like against a puncher like Liston or Foreman. He is very much a defensive minded fighter who uses his size to overcome overmatched opponents, a harsh statement but its reality, he's not going to knock out any of the top men as he simply wouldn't commit to throwing anything big.

I don't see him dominating Haye as fighting scared. I don't call moving away from a punch and fighting to your strengths as fighting scared. I see it as intelligence.

Look, Foreman and Liston would beat him. No argument from me there. He will try and avoid getting hit....until they eventually land. In his fight with Haye, it was Haye who looked like the one fighting scared.

Wlad reminds me of Lewis in that they take their time to dissect an opponent to the point where they both have the confidence in looking for the KO. You may as well accuse Lewis of fighting scared against Holy 1. He had him rocking and rolling in the 5th roundbut was too scared to look for the KO.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Haye catching him is one thing but getting caught by Liston, Lewis, Louis or Foreman and it's fight over and there is no chance in hell he avoids them for 12 rounds let alone 3 or 4.

It depends on how they catch him. If not for his chin issues, I;d pick Wlad over Lewis. Technically he is the superior boxer with far better fundamentals than Lewis. Then again, Lewis did have chin issues himself so its a pickem for me.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Almost every fight, he fought scared against Haye for christ sake, imagine what he'd be like against a puncher like Liston or Foreman. He is very much a defensive minded fighter who uses his size to overcome overmatched opponents, a harsh statement but its reality, he's not going to knock out any of the top men as he simply wouldn't commit to throwing anything big.

I don't see him dominating Haye as fighting scared. I don't call moving away from a punch and fighting to your strengths as fighting scared. I see it as intelligence.

Look, Foreman and Liston would beat him. No argument from me there. He will try and avoid getting hit....until they eventually land. In his fight with Haye, it was Haye who looked like the one fighting scared.

Wlad reminds me of Lewis in that they take their time to dissect an opponent to the point where they both have the confidence in looking for the KO. You may as well accuse Lewis of fighting scared against Holy 1. He had him rocking and rolling in the 5th roundbut was too scared to look for the KO.

You could say the same for barrera Vs Naz, except you'd be wrong. I agree with Az, intelligence is different to fighting scared.

You beat me to it, Az. I can understand that Wladimir's no-risk style doesn't always endear him to fans, but it does rile me up a wee bit when he's excessively criticised for doing precisely what Lewis did against Holyfield and a shot to pieces Tyson. If you're going to take such a harsh view with Wladimir, fine, that's the individual's decision. But there should be consistency.

I'm amazed that a fighter takes so much criticism for adapting his style out of necessity, to be honest. Any sensible fighter, after the losses to Sanders and Brewster, would do the same. Seems to me that people would rather Wladimir fought stupidly and rushed at any puncher he faces so that he can be knocked out, allowing them to say "See, I told you he was no good all along."

Brewster and Purrity were losses down to conditioning more than anything else. Hes not the most durable of heavyweights but I do think his chin problems are slightly over exaggerated.

He didnt pace himself well in the past and I think he goes into fights now with the full 12 rounds in mind which is partly why I think he is more measured now. He doesnt like to risk being punched out. He is much better fighter under Stewards tutelage though in my opinion. Doesnt get hit as much anymore now and has a more competant inside game.

Isn't Klitchko's inside game grabbing hold of you for dear life?

He grabs, leans and ties up now which reduces the threat significantly and also puts his massive size to use. In earlier times this aspect of his game wasnt as developed and he was far more vulnerable when someone got in close.