Time to consider Wlad Klit to be a top 10 ATG Heavy ??

Starting to think looking at the rest of the top 10 criteria I have been down on Wlad.........Maybe I need to re-evaluate........

I have Louis, Holmes and Johnson in my top 5...........and is Wlad really that far behind ??

Louis criteria is he dominated at the top for ten years.."Cleaning up" as Haz points out...........Wlad has dominated for a similar amount of time........Sure he isn't quite undisputed but neither was Holmes and he is in most top 5 lists !!.(won more titles than Holmes!!)......Yes he did beat Weaver who was WBA but He was only one WBA champion and he made sure he didn't fight another in Page !............Wlad beat Haye who was his rival claimant...........Haye was better than Weaver..........

No one can doubt like Holmes... Wlad is the greatest heavy out there..........

As for Johnson he is three on my list but did he really beat anybody of substance ??................

Did Holmes ???????......An old Ali beat Shavers.............Witherspoon his greatest other win was very controversial.............He did however beat some future champs...........Crusher and Berbick...(Average talents)........But then again I'm not suggesting Wlad goes above them in the top 5 but that he's maybe top 10..........

Anybody see Spinks beating Wlad ??

As for losses Wlad addressed Brewster as Louis did Schmelling...........Sanders was taken care for him which is a problem for sure.......But not a big one .......Lewis had his bad defeats....................Louis however got lucky against Conn and was decked a plenty............Holmes too had his moments...

If Louis , Johnson and Holmes are top 5 and Dempsey top 10..........Then longevity is a big factor............Wlad has it and he also has a top class win in Haye..............Who for me beats all Louis and Johnson opponents..........and guys like Berbick and Crusher......

Thinking Wlad is close to top 10..........

PS I'm p**ing off back home tomorrow so I will wish you all a happy festivity..............and all the best for the new year..........

If I've offended anybody.....................I'm glad!!  

Cheers..

You make a good case, although I think you're being slightly too harsh on Louis.

I'd have no issues with Wlad in the bottom end of a top 10, I have him around 12/13 personally.

Louis is my number 2.............Hardly harsh..........

You think Haye loses to Braddock ??

Na, not for me.

On paper, he's racked up a lot of alphabet defences but he's only just clinched linear status with the TBRB (whose ratings aren't perfect but are about as good as you'll get these days).

I'd argue he wasn't even the best man in the division for the majority of his title tenure. Vitali seems the tougher brother -- I'd take him in a head-to-head.

Add in that Klitschko isn't a great fighter (effeicient, yes, but lacking in character). Holmes proved he was great against the likes of Norton, Shavers and Snipes -- he had guts and heart as well as being technically proficient.

Klitschko is a good on top fighter but seems terrified whenever a fighter hits him back. I'd take any quality heavyweight (natural heavyweight) to beat him up. Tyson, Holyfield, Johnson, Holmes, Louis -- you name them.

Spinks must be high up in your list If you care about linear titles.........

1985-88.........

Linear is bollox.........for me.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Spinks must be high up in your list If you care about linear titles.........

1985-88.........

Linear is bollox.........for me.

Spinks was the heavyweight champ after beating Holmes -- no doubt. However, many doubted he was the best man in the division in light of Tyson's meteroic rise and his reign was poor. The Holmes rematch was contentious and he had just two fights in two years before Tyson wiped the floor with him.

Similarly, Foreman was the heavyweight champ after knocking out Moorer, however, his claims became diluted when he elected to take on a line of (what Arum believed would be) easy opponents. After Briggs took home a dodgy decision over the old boy, no-one suggested Briggs was the heavyweight boss.

These days, though, the real champs are Klitschko, Stevenson, Ward, Martinez, Floyd, Garcia etc. What's bollox about that?

I do know who spinks is...........But are you saying Tyson only became champion in 88 ?? and had just two defences.........

Linear for me is meaningless in an alphabet age..........I imagine Curry had only one defence against rodriguez......

Is an interesting question and as a rule I don’t like to rank fighters who are still active because who knows what will happen in the immediate future. This is particularly difficult with Wlad because if he was to rule the roost for another three years it would not come as a surprise to anyone in particularly, however on the flipside was he to get starched it would not come as a huge shock, although in his defence it has not looked likely to happen too frequently in the last few years.

Would have to think if he does reign for another three years and hits 10+ years as a champion and when you look at it from a purely statistical basis it would seem he has a pretty strong claim to be in the top ten. However there is a counter argument to this and whilst the statistics look good for him it has to be acknowledged that even by the standards of the heavyweight era this particular era does represent a nadir in terms of the talent pool. When Haye stands out as one of the better heavies around you know things are grim. We have had debates on here in the past where the level of opposition for Tyson and Lewis have been questioned but we would love to have the likes of Tua, Mercer or Tubbs around now.

Would have no idea where to put Wlad at the minute, would certainly have him in the top 20, even if he never fights again, but when I look at guys battling it out for the lower top ten places for me such as Tyson, Holyfield and Frazier I am not too sure I can make much of an argument for him being above those guys.

For what it is worth as well the linear thing is nonsense, pretty much ended the minute Jeffries retired, from recollection it only reentered the consciousness of fans when promoters were trying to legitimize Foreman’s second reign.

Rowley wrote:Is an interesting question and as a rule I don’t like to rank fighters who are still active because who knows what will happen in the immediate future. This is particularly difficult with Wlad because if he was to rule the roost for another three years it would not come as a surprise to anyone in particularly, however on the flipside was he to get starched it would not come as a huge shock, although in his defence it has not looked likely to happen too frequently in the last few years.

Would have to think if he does reign for another three years and hits 10+ years as a champion and when you look at it from a purely statistical basis it would seem he has a pretty strong claim to be in the top ten. However there is a counter argument to this and whilst the statistics look good for him it has to be acknowledged that even by the standards of the heavyweight era this particular era does represent a nadir in terms of the talent pool. When Haye stands out as one of the better heavies around you know things are grim. We have had debates on here in the past where the level of opposition for Tyson and Lewis have been questioned but we would love to have the likes of Tua, Mercer or Tubbs around now.

Would have no idea where to put Wlad at the minute, would certainly have him in the top 20, even if he never fights again, but when I look at guys battling it out for the lower top ten places for me such as Tyson, Holyfield and Frazier I am not too sure I can make much of an argument for him being above those guys.

For what it is worth as well the linear thing is nonsense, pretty much ended the minute Jeffries retired, from recollection it only reentered the consciousness of fans when promoters were trying to legitimize Foreman’s second reign.

The linear thing is the way boxing should work. One champion -- man who beat the man. Win and lose your championship in the ring.

Jeffries retired but came back (and was whupped by Johnson). Same deal with Ali and Holmes. Lineages will be broken (Tunney, Lewis) however, a fighter can re-establish themselves as top man and the lineage can continue.

Foreman beat Moorer, who beat Holyfield, who beat Bowe, who beat Holyfield, who beat Douglas, who beat Tyson.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I do know who spinks is...........But are you saying Tyson only became champion in 88 ?? and had just two defences.........

Linear for me is meaningless in an alphabet age..........I imagine Curry had only one defence against rodriguez......

The alphabets muddied the waters. Had there been a single crown, there'd have been no dispute as to who the heavyweight champion was -- it was Spinks.

However, the IBF allowed Spinks to fight who he pleased (when he pleased) which undermined the concept of lineage (same deal with Foreman years later).

When do you suggest Tyson became champion? When he beat Berbick? What about the other titlists?

I'm not a big fan of valuing a fighters recorder higher because they held the lineal title. Dariusz Michalczewski was lineal champ although he was dumping belts right and left. He wasn't number 1 by any stretch of the imagination.

As to Wlad he isn't Top 10 because his record is rubbish. Holding up a charlatan like Haye as if that's providing some sort of credibility is an embarrassment to the great HW champions of the past.

And Louis never got knocked bandy by journey men to the point he lost a fight.

Pick sanders and Brewster to beat Schmelling.

I knew you'd come around eventually Trussy... Trust you'll start with PR work for the Ukrainian Democratic Party for Reform soon.

Just looking at Louis, Holmes and Johnson.........I can't see much difference in records really.......

Last few years he's been a commanding champion !!.........

Rowley pops at Haye and maybe rightly so.......But I'd love to see Louis try taking Haye's punch If Conn staggers him........

Sanders is the only real drawback apart from quality of opponent........and Louis didn't have that either.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pick sanders and Brewster to beat Schmelling.

That's why they are in the Top 20 ATG heavyweights.

Schmelling was the only fighter to beat Louis before his 1st retirement even if Louis was an 18 month novice pro being matched very hard.

Schmelling was HW champ when there was only one belt.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just looking at Louis, Holmes and Johnson.........I can't see much difference in records really.......

Last few years he's been a commanding champion !!.........

Rowley pops at Haye and maybe rightly so.......But I'd love to see Louis try taking Haye's punch If Conn staggers him........

Sanders is the only real drawback apart from quality of opponent........and Louis didn't have that either.

Conn out boxed Louis at times but certainly not for 12 rounds ad Louis was never anywhere near being relieved of his senses.


Louis had far better opposition than Wlad. The wicked web of deceit has become very entangled around here.

Think the big thing with Wlad is that until recently, most people wouldn't have picked him to beat big brother. Big brother lost to Byrd... So it is difficult to rate the guy unless you rate his brother.

I think the Haye victory is a lot better than many give him credit for. I don't think there are too many ATG's that would have knocked out Haye when he gets in his bike, as chasing Haye indiscriminately is actually a very dangerous tactic, as Wlad nearly found out late in the play.

Louis was staggered all over the place............Leave it out....

Conn went for the finish because Louis was a ok.........

I actually think Sanders is a strange loss to mark against him. Had Sanders trained a little harder, he could have had Vitali out of there in their fight. Rahman said Sanders is the hardest hitter he faced (from a guy who faced Tua, Lewis, etc) . and Sanders went through an eighth round TKO from Vitali where he took umpteen flush shots without dropping. So the guy was tough as nails and hit like a train... All time fighters shouldn't generally lose to guys like Sanders, but you're selling him very short if you think he's worse than anything Louis faced