Wlad is an ATG...um'kay

First topic message reminder :

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.

Fighting cautiously against Tua, Holyfield or Tyson is far different than doing it against the likes of Thompson, Haye or Chagaev, reputation plays a big part and I don't recall Lewis fighting in such a way against his lesser opponents. Golota, Briggs and Grant all of whom would be good names on Wlads record were blown out the water by a Lewis who didn't respect them, Wlad wouldn't have done that.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Fighting cautiously against Tua, Holyfield or Tyson is far different than doing it against the likes of Thompson, Haye or Chagaev, reputation plays a big part and I don't recall Lewis fighting in such a way against his lesser opponents. Golota, Briggs and Grant all of whom would be good names on Wlads record were blown out the water by a Lewis who didn't respect them, Wlad wouldn't have done that.

Add extra cautious against McCall. So cautiously it was borderline cowardice (for a boxer).

If Lewis didn't impose himself immediately, he went into his shell PDQ.

True, Ghosty, but my point is more that Lewis can't be totally free of the 'fighting scared' tag if we're going to apply it to others. Lewis did it less than Wladimir, but still did it all the same. I'm extremely confident that the 2011 version of Haye would have beaten the 2002 version of Tyson with something to spare, as it goes, so I really don't see why Lewis' safety-first and measured performance should avoid criticism if Wladimir's against Haye doesn't, regardless of how big a name Tyson was.

You mean he went into his shell against Holyfield but pretty much no one else, despite fighting fairly conservatively against Tua he still threw the kitchen sink at him in right hands but to no avail. I let him off McCall as there was too much going on with McCall to suggest he should go all out, it was a fairly humane act which admittedly the likes of Tyson or Dempsey wouldn't have adhered to.

88Chris05 wrote:True, Ghosty, but my point is more that Lewis can't be totally free of the 'fighting scared' tag if we're going to apply it to others. Lewis did it less than Wladimir, but still did it all the same. I'm extremely confident that the 2011 version of Haye would have beaten the 2002 version of Tyson with something to spare, as it goes, so I really don't see why Lewis' safety-first and measured performance should avoid criticism if Wladimir's against Haye doesn't, regardless of how big a name Tyson was.

Regardless of the condition of Tyson it was still Mike Tyson he was in the ring with and his reputation preceded him, he could still punch if we're honest all he had left was his punch so to me it's different than dominating any version of Haye and not trying to close the show at any point. Lewis did at least eventually up his game and knock Tyson out, a harder proposition than knocking Haye out.

Ah, you let him off McCall! And Lewis was being a humanitarian. I suppose Lewis said so himself. Come off it Ghosty. Don't be so naive. You let him off against Holy 1&2 and all other fights where he boxed conservatively. When the opponent was over-matched, Lewis got rid of them. When the came in with a rep, Lewis fought scared. That is the long and short of it.

Ultimately yes but no one Wlad has faced has had any sort of reputation to start with, I don't see Wlad jumping on Golota, Ruddock or Grant from the off and finishing the way Lewis did. Lewis could up his game which Wlad can't unless it's Jean Marc Mormeck.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:True, Ghosty, but my point is more that Lewis can't be totally free of the 'fighting scared' tag if we're going to apply it to others. Lewis did it less than Wladimir, but still did it all the same. I'm extremely confident that the 2011 version of Haye would have beaten the 2002 version of Tyson with something to spare, as it goes, so I really don't see why Lewis' safety-first and measured performance should avoid criticism if Wladimir's against Haye doesn't, regardless of how big a name Tyson was.

Regardless of the condition of Tyson it was still Mike Tyson he was in the ring with and his reputation preceded him, he could still punch if we're honest all he had left was his punch so to me it's different than dominating any version of Haye and not trying to close the show at any point. Lewis did at least eventually up his game and knock Tyson out, a harder proposition than knocking Haye out.

I'd disagree that knocking out a 2002 version of Tyson was a harder proposition than stopping a 2011 Haye. For all the criticism his performance got, Haye did at least show some classy defensive skills at times against Wladimir, and was certainly much harder to catch cleanly than Tyson was when he fought Lewis. I have little doubt in my head that the Wladimir of today would have dealt with that version of Tyson just as easily, and certainly would have closed the show inside schedule, too. Two fights later Tyson was being stopped by Danny Williams, to put his 2002 condition (defence included) in to context.

Anyway, my general point is that Wladimir tends to have stricter views applied to his career and style than just about all other great Heavyweights have. There always seems to be an angle to make those views and opinions adjustable for the likes of Lewis, but with Wladimir it seems everything always has to be either black or white.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Ultimately yes but no one Wlad has faced has had any sort of reputation to start with, I don't see Wlad jumping on Golota, Ruddock or Grant from the off and finishing the way Lewis did. Lewis could up his game which Wlad can't unless it's Jean Marc Mormeck.

Its not his style to jump on them. Ali couldn't put Norton away whilst Foreman jumped on his and took him out. Styles etc.

How do you know Wlad can't up his game? That's a wild and probably inaccurate guess based on the fact that you do not like him. On paper he had him beggest test against Haye. He totally dominated him from the first second to the last. He certainly upped his game. He showed exceptional footwork, command of time and space and supreme athleticism. Personally his style and personality bores me to tears, but there is no doubting his skill. Only a blind hater would doubt his undeniable skills.

I think by the end of his career he can be in the top 8, in terms of the whole package the only thing Wlad doesn't have which that's excellent is his chin. He moves superbly, by far the best of anyone his size i've seen, he's light on his feet, is one of the hardest punchers in HW history and has the best jab in the business. Having said that he's not a natural fighter and fight's relatively poor opposition (not his fault) so that will be against him.

my way of looking at it is this, i think a prime vitali is slighter better than wlad, and vitali lost to lewis, who was old and slow. haye is wlads best win, and he is a blown up cruiser untested seriously at hw. with that perspective i dont think wlad could roll with the likes of ali, foreman, tyson, bowe, lewis, holmes or most other atgs. heavys like bruno and holyfield seem about his current level.

that said wlad is young enough to climb above vitali, and with the likes of price, fury, pulev, mitchell, wilder, cameron, povetkin, helenius and solis about i think if they fight each and 2-3 top contenders appear, and wlad can deal with them all he can really define the end of his career and make top 10 atg (vitali will be about 15th for me).

cant really say im a massive fan of wlad, i appreicate his skills but do think his defence is over played sometimes. his defence is simple but very effective because of his size. which is keep out of range because he's taller than everybody and hasnt ever fought anybody his own size who's decent. then when they get inside tie him up by all means necassary, which he always gets away with fighting in germany more often than not. he has good footwork for a heavy (showed this well against haye in that every time haye came forward a simple step back and he's out of range again) but i do think he looks brillant at this because the total lack of foot movement by most of the other heavies today.

i think someone like a tyson would have been a nightmare for wlad and got him out there more often than not. speed, power and better foot work than wlad. he wouldnt have got away with holding tyson down all fight either, skill set wlad edges over vitali for me but often have vitali doing better in the head to head simply because of his better chin. i think any of the great powers hitters (tyson foreman etc) have a great chance against wlad and the likes of holmes and lewis beat him easily enough aswell imo

Decent fighter among a sea of terrible heavies, cant regard someone who has been been badly by 3 fairly average fighters and who's best win came against a blown up Crusierweight as a great Heavy though. Any number of fighters from the past who never won a world title would be just as dominant as Wlad and his brother if they were lucky enough to fight in the knackers yard passing for the heavyweight scene of the last 5 years. Even though he is number 1 now, I dont even think he has been the best fighter of this era, at his best i would have put my house on Vitali blowing him away pretty quickly if they had fought.

I don't buy that Wlad isn't ponderous Mackem mate - he's not exactly swift is he? He is effective, which doesn't mean he's terrible, but he is ponderous as when under pressure he steps backwards or to the side out of range, or forward and ties up. I'm not saying that he's bad, quite the opposite, I believe his performance against Haye was masterful, but to say his footwork is comparable to that of Ali et al. Nah, can't see it. He's effective at cutting off the ring, but can you honestly see Tyson, Dempsey or Frazier caring? They'd just go to smash through rather than engage in the chess match, and Ali would slip that jab all night and make Wlad look slow and ponderous.

Vitali > Wladimir. The way Corrie Sanders dropped Wladimir will always lower my opinion of him.

An exceptionally average HW in a sea of awfulness doesn't make him unbeatable.

He can't fight going backwards!!!!!!! What would someone like Tyson do to him, who would just keep coming and coming? Or Big George.... christ the latter would get him out of there inside the opening minute.

Pumping a long piston jab against the most mediocre oppo in HW history doesn't do much for me. Doesn't rate inside the top 30 HWs of all time for me.

Would be genuinely interested to see what thirty Heavyweights you could place ahead of him, Coxy. If you don't consider Wladimir an all-time great, then fair enough, but to call him "exceptionally average" is just ridiculous. I'm wondering what he has to do just to be acknowledged as a 'good' fighter, at times.

Have said this before but even on the IBRO list which is compiled by guys who have forgotten more about the sport than many of us will ever know once you get into the lower reaches of the top 20 you have guys like Corbett, Walcott and Fitzsimmons, is it really beyond the realms that Wlad ranks below those guys if we apply consistent criteria.

Have to say when you hear people saying there are 30 guys who deserve to rank above him it is pretty preposterous. He cannot be blamed for the weakness of his era, all you can ask in such a circumstance is that he clears out the best the era has to offer and outside of him having a fight with his brother he has done this, not only done it but over a seven year period whilst barely losing a round.

Have said it countless times but it does appear to me people let their dislike of the guys style to cloud their judgement of his abilities as a fighter. I agree there are question marks over how well he would do against a guy who can get inside and operate in there but is hardly his fault nobody in this era is good enough to answer that question. He has found a style that utilizes his best assets and protects his weaknesses as a fighter and it has bought him success, surely that is what a fighter is meant to do.

I agree with the general thrust that his era is just too weak to justify him being top five and the losses have to count against him but maintain that when the dust settles on his career a top 15 place is not beyond him and top 20 is absolutely nailed on.

88Chris05 wrote:Would be genuinely interested to see what thirty Heavyweights you could place ahead of him, Coxy. If you don't consider Wladimir an all-time great, then fair enough, but to call him "exceptionally average" is just ridiculous. I'm wondering what he has to do just to be acknowledged as a 'good' fighter, at times.

In no order, and I'm a tad bit busy and just coming off lunch (edit: and here's 25 as i really have to go)

Lewis
Ali
Holyfield
Tyson
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Dempsey
Johnson
Louis
V Klitschko
JJ Walcott
Baer
Patterson
Wills
Jeffries
Bowe
Schmeling
Frazier
Charles
Jeanette
Tunney
Langford
Liston
Jeanette

coxy0001 wrote:
Jeanette
Jeanette

You have him twice. That was the only quibble I could find with your list, Coxy.

The rest of it is faultless....

Some odd enough suggestions within that twenty-five, Coxy, so I'd hate to see what other five names you'd offer to complete your thirty.

Jeanette? Baer? Patterson? Wills? Langford? Really?

I'm actually amazed that anyone could place those names ahead of Wladimir. The likes of Patterson and Langford would have stood virtually no chance of ever beating Wladimir, have weaker and less consistent records as Heavyweights etc. Baer beat a lumbering ox (sorry, Rowley) for the title and then dumped it to a small-ish career middler in his first defence. Wills is more rated, strangely enough, thanks to never getting a shot at Dempsey rather than his actual achievements inside the ropes, which don't compare with Wladimir's.

I could go on, but you get my point. That list is remiss, I think, and shows a complete disregard for properly considering Wladimir's abilities and career record.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:
Jeanette
Jeanette

You have him twice. That was the only quibble I could find with your list, Coxy.

The rest of it is faultless....

He missed big Frank as well.

Wlad would knock out Paterson with a jab.

What happens when a heavyweight is dominating such as Wlad has been doing for 6 years he get's a ridiculous amount of stick, much like Lewis used to get in his prime. When their gone and retired fans start to appreciate them a lot more, i think if Klitschko can get the WBC belt and defend all the titles to when he's about 40 i would have him at 8 or 9 maybe even higher depending on how well he beat's the young up and comers.

Realistically of those 30 80% wouldn't have a hope, far far to small to especially when asked to take Wlad's punches.

88Chris05 wrote:

I could go on, but you get my point. That list is remiss, I think, and shows a complete disregard for properly considering Wladimir's abilities and career record.

I'm full of admiration that you even bothered to critique his list, Chris.

The point is he hasn't given any consideration to Wladimir's abilities, he has just posted a list of the first 25 heavyweights that came into his tiny brain, no doubt with the intention of vainly arguing for their inclusion after the event.

88Chris05 wrote:

I'm actually amazed that anyone could place those names ahead of Wladimir. The likes of Patterson and Langford would have stood virtually no chance of ever beating Wladimir, have weaker and less consistent records as Heavyweights etc. Baer beat a lumbering ox (sorry, Rowley)

No offence taken Chris, based on the list I suspect the lumbering ox would have been in the final five making up the 30

What a ridiculous list. Just random names of past HWs (and current) thrown together to be controversial.

Most of those guys (especially those pre war and Rocky) would get slaughtered. I can't believe any serious boxing fan would ever dare to suggest that Patterson beats Wlad. This is a man who got squashed by Johanson and decked by a dude making his pro debut.

And Wills

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

I could go on, but you get my point. That list is remiss, I think, and shows a complete disregard for properly considering Wladimir's abilities and career record.

I'm full of admiration that you even bothered to critique his list, Chris.

The point is he hasn't given any consideration to Wladimir's abilities, he has just posted a list of the first 25 heavyweights that came into his tiny brain, no doubt with the intention of vainly arguing for their inclusion after the event.

I'm not going to argue with this, you pretty much nailed Coxy's list.

You can't just spout every famous heavyweight you know of as being better than Wlad, objectivity puts him around 18/19 now and probably 13/14 in a couple of years if the Fury's and Prices are dealt with.

Did I say they'd beat him? Nope. Someone like Burns has a superior HW record but would get smashed. He'd probably also lose to someone like Valuev, but who would you rate higher in career rankings? I rest my point. Ish..:

It was RECORD based. Idiots.

Please explain how you can rank Paterson higher than Wlad.

Some of you can't read, where in "all time great HWs" did I respond to "Who would also beat WK"?

Read what is being presented to you before getting above your station, your intellect and most of all your self importance and learn to read first before jumping the gun and actually argue against points that were never made.

Many thanks

azania wrote:Please explain how you can rank Paterson higher than Wlad.

Now, that would've saved me 2 minutes of wasting my time. A period in my day I'll never get back and as a result will have to stay behind for those extra 2 minutes longer:

Beat HoF legend Achie Moore. And can harp on about LHW this and that, but Moore outweighed him (from memory by a fair bit).

How many fighters has Wlad got on his record that compare to him? Would probably go far as saying that he doesn't even have a Chuvalo or Johannsen on there either.

And yes, there hasn't been much for him to beat. But he did get cleaned up 3 times in the process by stupidly average fighters, something you couldn't level at his brother who would knock 7 shades of brown stuff out of him if they weren't brothers.

Hilarious stuff. Wlad beat the second greatest CW in history. Does that qualify?

I have to give you credit for being a huge attention seeker though. Nice one mate

Chuvalo was just a journeyman with an iron chin. Wlad has beaten several fighters imo superior to GC.

He got cleaned up 3 times yes, twice to do with gassing and once by the man with one of the highest inside 3 rounds ko records in HW history. Why is it past champ's get away with rubbish defeats on their resume but Wlad doesn't?

Lewis to McCall and Rahman, Tyson's complete beatdown against Buster Douglas even Ali losing to the garbage that was Cory Spinks.

monty junior wrote:Chuvalo was just a journeyman with an iron chin. Wlad has beaten several fighters imo superior to GC.

He got cleaned up 3 times yes, twice to do with gassing and once by the man with one of the highest inside 3 rounds ko records in HW history. Why is it past champ's get away with rubbish defeats on their resume but Wlad doesn't?

Lewis to McCall and Rahman, Tyson's complete beatdown against Buster Douglas even Ali losing to the garbage that was Cory Spinks.

Leon Spinks.

But agree 100% with you. Coxy has premature ejac when it comes to the oldies. All manner of excuses are given. Can you imagine Wlad losing to Johanson?

Dear god i should really proof read my posts.

Nobody is more in thrall to the old timers on here than me, and my views on the subject are pretty well documented but does seem some inconsistency on rating fighters on here. Struggle to imagine if Wlad was to beat a 45+ year old light heavy, even one as fine as Archie we would cream ourselves over it but for Patterson we put it forward as a fine win that trumps the seven years of unbroken defences Wlad has.

Got to laugh seeing Jeannette on the list, would have to wonder if we would be so forgiving of Wlad if he fought a series of fights with a guy of 5ft 7 and struggled to get the better of him

rowley wrote:
Got to laugh seeing Jeannette on the list

You must have laughed twice then.

Doesn't matter if it's based on achievements or a head to head, Coxy. The likes of Burns, Patterson, Wills, Langford, Schmeling, Jeanette and so on have no business being ahead of Wladimir regardless of which method you use, and I don't think saying that makes me an "idiot" either, by the way.

Yes, Patterson beat Archie. But history shows us that Archie was nowhere near as dangerous a fighter as a Heavy than he was at 175 lb. As champion, Patterson was then promptly steered away from all comers rather than taking them on; Liston, Williams, Folley, Machen etc, all of whom were the leading contenders during Patterson's reign, were ignored in his championship tenure in favour of the Rademachers, Jacksons and Londons. When Floyd eventually broke his ties with D'Amato to take Liston on, the two hammerings he took simply proved what many had already suspected - that Patterson was never, ever the best Heavyweight in the world, and that the title of 'Heavyweight Champion of the World' flattered him immensely.

With the understandable exception of his brother, Wladimir and his team have at least gone to the trouble of defending the title against the best and most established names available.

Burns is perhaps an underrated operator, but a better record than Wlad? Which of Burns' victims do you see Wladimir even struggling with, never mind losing to? O'Brien is arguably the best name on Burns' record as champion, and there is an unpleasant stench surrounding those fights to this day.

Hey, I'm all for the modern guys. This is just about Wlad who I don't think has much of a say against the list I mentioned, well - in my eyes anyway. What he's missing is a marquee name, and yes through no fault of his own. But where he does fall down is he got his arse whooped by 3 journeymen, something you couldn't accuse his old 'n better brother of doing.

And to balance out your views of my opinion on the oldies - the only fighters that beat Lewis in a "best of 3" scenario are Ali & Foreman.

coxy0001 wrote:the only fighters that beat Lewis in a "best of 3" scenario are Ali & Foreman.

Holmes

coxy0001 wrote:the only fighters that beat Lewis in a "best of 3" scenario are Ali & Foreman.

Louis

As well as Wlad, Lewis beats Ali too.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I don't buy that Wlad isn't ponderous Mackem mate - he's not exactly swift is he?

Jab,

I didn’t infer Wlad was as fleet footed as Ali.

If you watch the link later in this post (and at the times stated) then you'll see something that doesn't fit into any definition of ponderous. I can't think of many 6ft 6inch 250lb men that move like that????

I think ponderous is sometimes confused with the purposeful rationing of movement.

Anyway,

I will re-post what I wrote earlier….

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.

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.

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

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.

coxy0001 wrote: But where he does fall down is he got his arse whooped by 3 journeymen, something you couldn't accuse his old 'n better brother of doing.

Well Lewis got dumped on his arris by two ordinary fighters, and similarly Sam Langford who you also have above Wlad managed to get losses along the way to Young Peter Jackson, Fireman Jim Flynn, Ed Gunboat Smith and Larry Temple amongst others.

Coxy knows some old timers and decided to post their names. Nothing else. We should expect that from him .

There are actually a fair few similarities between Wlad and Lewis I think. Not a million miles apart in style, both gigantic heavyweights, gold medal olympic winners, came onto the pro scene as highly rated but suffered setbacks and weaknesses in their game were exposed against ordinary fighters. Both went to Steward and imporved alot but suffered criticism over lack of excitement and lack of defining fights. Both never really got to meet their main rival(s) when it mattered most through circustances not really of their own fault.

I think Lewis existed in a better era but what made a massive differance I think was that he was in there when America still had names in the division and he had rivals that generated alot of interest.

Charley Croxon, Black Bill, Sandy Ferguson, Ben Taylor, Dan "Porky" Flynn

Some of the all time greats Joe Jeannette managed to lose to.

The way the dynamics of the heavyweight division has changed I think also plays a part in how fighters are seen and ranked. Realistically over the last decade when you have giants like the Klitschkos or Lewis holding the title it has basically shut off the light heavyweight division as a supplier of challengers when in the earlier eras this was fairly normal.

If you go back to some of the earlier eras then its closer to light heavyweight and cruisers (by current standards) fighting it out for the title. Most of the biggest names of Jeffries ledger arent heavyweights at all. The best guys Dempsey fought were probably Gibbons and Tunney who were more natural light heavyweights. Same with Marciano. I think because the size gaps were smaller in the past it had the effect of widing the pool available. Somebody like Dempsey gets credit for wins over guys like Gibbons or Carpentiers but would the likes of Lewis or the Klitschkos get anything like the same for beating Jones or the likes of Hopkins/Calzaghe for arguments sake. Its far fetched the fights would even happen in the first place but if they somehow did they would be viewed as mismatches I think and do nothing for their legacy.

rowley wrote:Charley Croxon, Black Bill, Sandy Ferguson, Ben Taylor, Dan "Porky" Flynn

Some of the all time greats Joe Jeannette managed to lose to.

But there is the golden counterweight to the arguement Rowley, of which JJ has one whereas Wlad doesn't. Does he?

He has several coxy, he has longevity, consistency, establishing himself, in as much as can reasonably be expected, as the man at his weight, none of which Jeannette can boast. If you don't rate Wlad fair enough but I genuinely struggle to see what objective criteria you can apply which sees the likes of Baer, Patterson or Jeannette above him