Is Vitali Klitschko A Nailed On ATG Top 20 Heavy Weight

Just wondering what peoples opinions are on Vitali's All Time standing.

Here's Monte Cox's Top 2O as a starting point.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. Sonny Liston
8. Jim Jeffries
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Mike Tyson
11. Rocky Marciano
12. Joe Frazier
13. Riddick Bowe
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Sam Langford
16. Gene Tunney
17. James J. Corbett
18. Ezzard Charles
19. Jersey Joe Walcott
20. Max Schmeling

On the cusp, I'd say, but probably just outside it by my estimations. One unfortunate fact he'll (probably) never shake off is that he's never really had a spell as the generally accepted top man in the division, whereas all those names in (for instance) Cox's list have, Langford being the very understandable exception.

Would maintain, however, that Vitali has the beating of many of those featured names. Vitali not far off, but a few spots behind his brother for me, who does feature at the lower end of my own top twenty.

88Chris05 wrote:On the cusp, I'd say, but probably just outside it by my estimations. One unfortunate fact he'll (probably) never shake off is that he's never really had a spell as the generally accepted top man in the division, whereas all those names in (for instance) Cox's list have, Langford being the very understandable exception.

Would maintain, however, that Vitali has the beating of many of those featured names. Vitali not far off, but a few spots behind his brother for me, who does feature at the lower end of my own top twenty.

Interesting that Vitali had the job of beating up the fighters that little brother failed to deal with. I have always seen Vitali as the superior of the two fighters. Its almost like he let Little Bro collect the baubles.

Not for me just a little bit outside for me, you need little more on your record than a decent loss to a past it Lewis, a victory over Corrie Sanders and a procession of wins against heavyweights who in any other era would be no more than fairly good journeymen. I do rate him and its not his fault the division is so poor but i see nothing thats really special about him other than his size and strength. He is certainly above his brother though how anyone can make claims of greatness for a bloke who has been KOed by the likes of Ross Puritty, Sanders and Brewster as well as been decked 3 times in one fight by the very limited Peter is beyond me.

I think the pair of them will slot in around the 15 mark in the near future, but in the distant future I dont know because the criteria for measuring and evaluating fighters is constantly evolving.

I think they will surpass the likes of Charles, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Schmelling, Walcott,, Bowe and possibly Tunney and Langford.

I dont agree with the argument that Vitali dealt with Wlads challenges. The only time it happened was when Wlad lost to Sanders. Sanders vacated his WBO to fight Vitali for the vacant WBC and lost. But equally when Vitali lost to Byrd it was Wlad who beat Byrd at a later point. When the book is closed on both of their careers it will be Wlad who has probably beaten the better competition and spent more time higher up in rankings.

To answer the question, no.

To answer the question properly, there is too much room for debate in the bottom half of the top 20 to say that he is nailed in to it. Arguments can be made on both sides (and frequently are), and they all have validity. Therefore, personal opinion comes in too much into this equation to make it cut and dry.

I have long argued that it is not out of leftfield for either to sneak into the top 20 and in Wlad's case for me it is a racing cert. Think it is often easy to be a little selective in what we choose to see when it comes to old timers, truth be told nobody is more guilty of it than me but if we take for example a guy like Corbett, now a hugely significant figure in the game but if we look at it coldly is beating an ageing virtually alcoholic fighter in Sullivan, beating Mitchell before dumping your title to a middleweight,albeit a truly exceptional one really form that should guarantee him a placing above either or both brothers for the rest of time?

Id be honestly shocked if Vitali didnt manage to displace at least a single one of those fighters with the majority of boxing sources.

I mean Max Schmelling? Joe Walcott? Jim Corbett? Surely Vitali has done enough to displace one of these guys?

hogey wrote:He is certainly above his brother though how anyone can make claims of greatness for a bloke who has been KOed by the likes of Ross Puritty, Sanders and Brewster as well as been decked 3 times in one fight by the very limited Peter is beyond me.

Well as I alluded to, Hogey, I'd probably agree that Vitali is a more formidable foe than Wladimir in a one-off scrap; Vitali beats more of those twenty names listed above than Wladimir does, I'd wager.

But Wladimir has established himself (for a considerable period of time, to boot) as the number one Heavyweight in the world, with 'Ring' recognition and a few extra belts to show for it. Vitali hasn't. Would add, also, that Wladimir, while having a couple more low moments than his brother, has generally beaten the better competition.

As for writing off any remote claim to greatness based on two or three disappointing losses in the first half of his carrer; well, in that case, probably best to write off Walcott, Dempsey and Schmeling as top class Heavyweights too, I suppose?

What I think will be interesting is to see what impact things external factors have in their rankings. Its more or less been done to the death over the last few days but at least in my view and the view of many their humanitarian efforts, political involvements and general status as "good guys" that promote good values. I can see even after both have retired they will continue to involve themselves in this kind of thing. Will this be considered?

There has also been an interesting dynamic during their long careers which has seen The home of the big men move house from the U.S to Eastern Europe for the first time in history. The East was traditionally closed off during Communism in the pro game and 20 years later we have now seen a big shift. Much is specualted on how much the Klitschkos failure to capture America has hurt their status but how much consideration will be given to the European opinion which invariably will hold them in higher regard? It would appear given the enthusiasm for the big men in Europe and the fact Americas locker seems pretty bare that this trend is set to continue for at least the immediate future. It could end up being quite historically significant and the Klitschkos seen as the men who brought the heavyweight division from West to East. I think it will be interesting to see how this political kind of angle is considered by many in the years after they retire.

[quote="88Chris05]
But Wladimir has established himself (for a considerable period of time, to boot) as the number one Heavyweight in the world, with 'Ring' recognition and a few extra belts to show for it. Vitali hasn't.
[/quote]


If Mummy Klitschko hadn't banned Vitali from fighting his younger brother I think, barring injuy, Vitali would be holding all the belts right now.

Am i the only one to think wlad wins the head to head?

I think it depends at what point in their respective careers Vitali and Wlad fight. Pre hiatus Vitali would be my choice to win. Post hiatus I make the Wlad the favourite.

At the very present would certainly go with Wlad to just outjab his big brother in the chess match.

The big question is peak v peak who would win. I used to firmly be in the Vitali camp for that but Wlad has gone a long way over the last couple of years to make me doubt that choice and I wouldnt be convinced either way.

One other factor I think Vitali does not get enough credit for is he is in his 40's and is still fighting and winning on a regular basis and at world title level, guys who have done this in the history of the division are few and far between. Too easy to say he had a few years out because the same is true of Ali and Dempsey and neither of them were winning and defending the title into their 40s.

Think on the back of what Foreman did it is often to easy to overlook how rare an acheivement what he is doing in, if nothing else even his staunchest critics would have to say this speaks well of his lifestyle, conditioning and commitment to the game.

Strongback wrote:If Mummy Klitschko hadn't banned Vitali from fighting his younger brother I think, barring injuy, Vitali would be holding all the belts right now.

Key word there - if. If Jack Johnson hadn't infuriated middle America so much during his career then maybe Harry Wills would have reduced Jack Dempsey to being a mere footnote in Heavyweight history. If Holmes-Shavers II was refereed by a more cautious official, Larry could have lost his world title via a TKO.

You may well be right, Strongback, but I'd say in this case solid fact has to outstrip guesswork. Wladimir's had the better career, for me, with more distinguishing moments behind him.

88Chris05 wrote:

Key word there - if. If Jack Johnson hadn't infuriated middle America so much during his career then maybe Harry Wills would have reduced Jack Dempsey to being a mere footnote in Heavyweight history.

If Jack Johnson had grown a set Sam Langford may have reduced him to a footnote in heavyweight history (sorry couldn't resist it, don't even believe it)

Same here ragarding Wlad - i've always though he'd get ko'ed by vitali but recently been having doubts - he really is a superb athlete and boxer within what he does and I cant help but see him jabbing himself to victory.

When the dust has settled both fighters' careers are analysed, I believe Wlad will rank above his brother and Wlad is already a top 15 ATG in my opinion. A superb boxer who possesses one of the best jabs in HW history. Excellent footwork and terrific at controlling range, timing. His only downfall has been the calibre of opposition and his chin.

I dont see why Foreman is rated 4th and the other boxer ranked 11th.

They both should be ranked above Walcott and Schmelling.

I'd have Lennox higher. Only because he's my favourite boxer though.

Both Vitali and Wlad break into that list as far as I can see. I'd rank them higher than Walcott and Corbett, perhaps Schmeling. Vitali one space above Wlad.

I don't think he is, it's all about opinions. I feel if any of the brothers had fought in a different era they would have a few losses on their record. I'm not at all impressed by the level of opposition, it's not there fault but it's what i'll judge them by.

I recall in the 1980s many were calling the HW fighters far and useless. Tubbs, Witherspoon, Page, Smith etc etc etc. But now we look at that era with nostalgia. Who is to say we wont be looking at this era with nostalgia in 20 years time. Early 1950s was a very poor era also.

Top 10 heavyweights Vitali and Wlad imo, you can't beat everybody who's in front of you consistently but not be rated high, i share the view in Boxing Monthly last month, that they would of given any heavyweight problems. Sugar Ray Leonard would of ripped through the welterweight/light middle divisions today imo, but Mayweather, Cotto, Berto, etc don't get slated for it, re the former heavyweights and today's division.

steven24 wrote:Top 10 heavyweights Vitali and Wlad imo, you can't beat everybody who's in front of you consistently but not be rated high

They are being rated highly. The majority of people are saying they will be in the top 20 heavyweights of all time when the dust settles on their careers. That is somewhat of an achievement.

Top 10 is a bit of a stretch though. Who would you take out to make way for them? You might think, for example, that Vitali beats 6 out of the top 10 on a head to head basis, but this can't be enough on it's own to promote them so highly. It is too subjective.

Based on your reasoning above, you should have Marciano at number 1? He beat everyone he faced. Azania will no doubt agree with you.

I think he'd be around the Schmeling mark, the longevity of the pair is actually quite similar, Max was there or there abouts at the top of the heavyweight division for about 10 years beating some very good and one great fighter in that time. He had a few losses in that time but not against anyone that really harms him, Sharkey, Baer and Louis are far superior fighters to those around today, not to forget the controversy surrounding the Sharkey fight. He obviously gains a fair bit for the Louis win not mention beating Neusel at a time he was being groomed as the heir apparent in the eyes of Hitler.

Schmeling is remembered for his battles with Louis but he proved many times he was a top class heavyweight.

Vitali Klitschko really needs to retire unbeaten (in his second stint) to be regarded as a top 20. If he keeps pushing it into his forties a loss would be disastrous for his overrall standing in the sport because his record is not filled with top names.

K2 as a unit will probably be regarded as legendary. However, as individul boxers their legacies are harmed by the fact there's two of them power sharing the division.

Safe to say I disagree with Monte Cox's opinions by and large where HWs are concerned.

For me - Vitali is good enough to be worth a top 20 place - but I don't think he's above his brother. He's better than his little bro - but his brother has prolonged dominance.

As Ghosty has helpfully pointed out - for both men their opposition has been awful - so prolonged defences are really going to move you up the table.

Wlad has made 17 defences of a HW title - 11 consecutively.

That's quite a lot really.

Monte Cox has Liston at 7 - Liston only managed 1 defence.

I'd put my house on Wlad only having one defence too if he faced Ali in his second defence but that's just me but for me the biggest difference is that he's defended A version of the heavyweight title not THE heavyweight title.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'd put my house on Wlad only having one defence too if he faced Ali in his second defence but that's just me but for me the biggest difference is that he's defended A version of the heavyweight title not THE heavyweight title.

True - but we're in danger of going into an az zone here. Defending any version of the HW title 17 times is impressive.

Defending THE HW title 20+ times is mighty more impressive.

I was arguing for Wlad's elevation, rather than Liston's depression.

It's a different playing field, I tend to see Wlads defences post Chagaev and the ones before become slightly irrelevant, certainly no different to Schmeling beating Neusel, Hauser or Uzcudun, it's often overlooked how strong the german heavyweight scene was during his era.