Wlad and vitali who ranks the higher in the all-time lists ?

viatli has and had more potential and is more aggressive but has wlad trumped him with his win over haye ?

my article got timed out twice so my reasoning is now to be said in shorter chunks.

wlad has a better resume - peter twice , chageev , igrahmiov , mercer, jackson , schulz plus chmabers byrd , bareet , botha

vitali only has solis (unsatisfacory ending and attitude), briggs, peter , johnson, arreloa, hide m, donald butterbean

Purely on paper acheivement its got to be Wlad. However I still think most view Vitali as the better heavyweight overall so with this in mind he may still edge ahead in an all time sense as things stand now.

viatli scores higher on his losses - byrd only due to injury and lennox won on cuts . vitali certainly gave lennox a torrid first 4 rounds but lewis had turned the tide an dwould likely to have won in the end anyway maybe be stoppage.

wlad losses to 2nd class fighters but decent punchers like sanders, purriity and brewster drops him down a few places (espacially as lennox is villified for his avneged losses to mccall and in particular rahman )

Wladimir, and by a considerable distance. Much gets made of Vitali's dominance over many of his opponents and the fact that he's often looked a lot less vulnerable than his brother - but what gets forgotten is that he's had nowhere near as many world title fights and, since his comeback, has consistently taken on the lesser challengers out of the pair of them. Throw in Wladimir's unification of three out of the four major belts, and it's a no-brainer, for me. Wladimir clearly outranks Vitali in terms of resume depth and achievements, and as such ranks a few places ahead of him in the all-time scheme of things.

Think part of Vitalis problem is that nobody really wants to face him when there are other belts to target. Because he has a more vulnerable brother most fighters prefer to go down that route rather than the face the tougher and more aggressive option. Haye basically summed this up. If given the choice, nearly all contenders would prefer to face Wlad. Hes been vulnerable in the past with chin/conditioning and hes not a natural finisher.

also in wlads favour is his consistency post 2004. double digit defences of his title , while vitali lost almost half a decade due to his leg injury .

up to saturday night i would have given vitali the edge in a hypotethical match up (now i am re-considering due to wlads performance and viatlis age - ho many expect foreman, archie moore and b-hop has won much significantly over 40 - which vitali will be in a couple of weeks ?)

if vitali wins against adamek it may go down as his best name and win , but how much longer can he go on ?? will haye be a risk too big - the brit would only bring money and fame to the table can wlad at 35 get other big names to beat by the end of his career ?

can al time postions be based on potential as well as achievment ??

Vitali by a considerable distance for me, nothing to suggest Wlad could compete at the top level while Vitali would fair far better

I think when they were younger, Wladimir was genuinely seen as the better of the two, certainly had more potential. That was right before the Sanders fight however, where the chinny accusation started. I think except Vitali's chin, Wlad has everything else on him, problem is he doesn't often bring it to the table. Both have alot of power and of course height, but Wlad controls fights better,jabs better and in general has a better variation on his punches. Where as Vitali is a pretty straight forward yet effective fighter, there's more chance he could have lost to the likes of Byrd or Chambers, especially with his age. Haye however would be ideal for him.