Is Wladimir Klitschko a top ten ATG heavyweight?

[Loki]

My trouble is I have about 25 top ten heavyweights

It's hard enough to say whether Larry Holmes is better than Lennox Lewis, never mind trying to factor in fighters of 100 years ago. I'm prepared to accept that Jack Johnson was an amazing heavyweight back in the day, but how do you possibly compare him with say Floyd Patterson never mind some 6' 6" behemoth like those around today? (I'm not saying Johnson would beat Patterson or vice-versa I mean that literally ... how do you compare?) I cannot conceive of how Sam Langford goes about tackling Wladimir Klitschko (to give a topical example) even if I can imagine him making a monkey out of another 2 metre fighter in Jess Willard.

Rocky Marciano was a hell of a fighter but can you imagine him at 185lbs overpowering the likes of Mike Tyson or Joe Frazier? I certainly can't. At least comparing say for example Mickey Walker and Nino Benvenuti they at least weighed about the same being both Middleweights, but a typical Heavyweight of the early 1900s would be conceding weight to a modern Cruiserweight. It makes more sense to consider Marciano against Usyk not that I'd want to stick my neck out on that match up either.

It's fun to speculate but no one should take these kinds of ratings that seriously, and certainly no reason to attack anyone for their choices.

Excellent post. I hate people comparing era against era, there are just too many variables. I will say one thing, like it or not, athletes get better as time goes on. Better training, knowledge, faster, bigger and stronger.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Better training never ceases to crack me up.

[candyslim]

That’s certainly true Loki but to balance it a little we have become softer and more pampered. Even top boxers today don’t know what it’s like to have no food in your belly and to know that if you don’t win this fight and start earning a little more money, your kids might lose the roof over their heads.

I think fighters of yesteryear had a toughness about them that we today can mercifully only dream about.

[candyslim]

I didn't comment before as somehow this escaped my attention but this is an excellent post in my opinion, and most persuasive. I think it bears repeating : I used to hate the fact that politics would forever deprive us of seeing the awesome Teofilo Stevenson pursue a professional career.

Yes, Wlad is definitely a top-10 heavyweight, arguably top-5 and higher.

In terms of the length of his reign (which was just over 10 years where he was champ and undefeated before losing to Fury), it's extremely impressive. In terms of # of consecutive championship defenses, he is #2 behind Joe Louis for all-time record. There is also truth to the comment that boxing today is more globally and internationally competitive than at any time in previous history. It's important to remember that many of the Greats of The Past such as Louis and Ali, had it easy in the sense that boxing was much more of a North American sport at that time, with some Western Euros (Brits, Germans, but not many). They weren't really "world champions" in the sense that the actual world was competing. Many Ukrainians, Russians, and Cubans in those times were not able to turn pro and properly compete with Americans. Had they done so, many of the old American greats possibly would have lost and never been great. Maybe not a popular opinion but its the truth.

Wlad Klitschko was a decade-long, dominant champion who rarely lost a round in his 10 years. He scored some scintilating KO's of some very decent opponents at the time, he also had a knack for KOing undefeated challengers. So, yes, he's absolutely top-10, probably top-5 as well. It seems the "consensus" viewpoint puts him in the top-10.

Unfortunately, you can ruin your legacy by continuing to fight after you become old. Roy Jones Jr, was fantastic in his day, but many fans will remember him in his final years as a journeyman and forget how great and special he used to be. It takes away from his legacy. Bernard getting KTFO of ring also takes away from his legacy. Same could happen to Wlad if he continues.

[Loki]

My trouble is I have about 25 top ten heavyweights

It's hard enough to say whether Larry Holmes is better than Lennox Lewis, never mind trying to factor in fighters of 100 years ago. I'm prepared to accept that Jack Johnson was an amazing heavyweight back in the day, but how do you possibly compare him with say Floyd Patterson never mind some 6' 6" behemoth like those around today? (I'm not saying Johnson would beat Patterson or vice-versa I mean that literally ... how do you compare?) I cannot conceive of how Sam Langford goes about tackling Wladimir Klitschko (to give a topical example) even if I can imagine him making a monkey out of another 2 metre fighter in Jess Willard.

Rocky Marciano was a hell of a fighter but can you imagine him at 185lbs overpowering the likes of Mike Tyson or Joe Frazier? I certainly can't. At least comparing say for example Mickey Walker and Nino Benvenuti they at least weighed about the same being both Middleweights, but a typical Heavyweight of the early 1900s would be conceding weight to a modern Cruiserweight. It makes more sense to consider Marciano against Usyk not that I'd want to stick my neck out on that match up either.

It's fun to speculate but no one should take these kinds of ratings that seriously, and certainly no reason to attack anyone for their choices.

Excellent post. I hate people comparing era against era, there are just too many variables. I will say one thing, like it or not, athletes get better as time goes on. Better training, knowledge, faster, bigger and stronger.

Yes, Muhammad Ali with his primitive, 50 year old skills. Not a patch on a modern artist like Deontay Wilder. If only Muhammad had had better training and "knowledge", he could perhaps have improved on his speed to catch up to modern fighters like Tyson Fury.

Really - can anyone legimatley say a fighter from the 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s beats a fighter from 00s and 10s. Nobody, regardless of their boxing knowledge can accurately say with any degree of certainty. I'm not suggesting Fury is better than Ali - you complete tool. My point is if Ali was born in the 80s, just think how good he would be. You can argue, if you wanted to make an intelligent post, the competition probably wouldn't have been that good.

If you compare any athlete, nowadays they run faster, jump higher and last longer than 50 years ago. That is a fact.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[Loki]

What are you laughing at?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

What are you laughing at?

Your post.

[man]

If you compare any athlete, nowadays they run faster, jump higher and last longer than 50 years ago. That is a fact.

i saw somebody doing a documentary
on sprinters. jesse owens ran 100m in
10.3 on ash, which is significantly slower
than modern tracks and he started out
of an inferior position compared to now
as well. there was more to that which i
cannot remember, but the essence was
that he would be quite in the mix today
if he ran under today's technical circum-
stance. or to put it the other way round,
usain bolt would not be much faster than
jesse if he ran today on ash, with these
starters and owens' shoes.

so indeed you can make your case, but
it is not as clear cut as you might assume
it is. regarding ali, well, you just need to
watch the tapes. no heavy before or after
moved like that, avoided punches and
danced so quickly and fluently in and out
of punching distance. he looked like a
welter.

plus he had this superhuman absorption
power. what george foreman landed on
him and his mid section in zaire was
insane and from what i know never seen
again. would he walk through wlad on
the latter's best night? probably not,
no one would against this giant. but
would the early version of ali dance in
and out of range driving wlad crazy?
well, i can see that.

[Loki]

If you compare any athlete, nowadays they run faster, jump higher and last longer than 50 years ago. That is a fact.

i saw somebody doing a documentary
on sprinters. jesse owens ran 100m in
10.3 on ash, which is significantly slower
than modern tracks and he started out
of an inferior position compared to now
as well. there was more to that which i
cannot remember, but the essence was
that he would be quite in the mix today
if he ran under today's technical circum-
stance. or to put it the other way round,
usain bolt would not be much faster than
jesse if he ran today on ash, with these
starters and owens' shoes.

so indeed you can make your case, but
it is not as clear cut as you might assume
it is. regarding ali, well, you just need to
watch the tapes. no heavy before or after
moved like that, avoided punches and
danced so quickly and fluently in and out
of punching distance. he looked like a
welter.

plus he had this superhuman absorption
power. what george foreman landed on
him and his mid section in zaire was
insane and from what i know never seen
again. would he walk through wlad on
the latter's best night? probably not,
no one would against this giant. but
would the early version of ali dance in
and out of range driving wlad crazy?
well, i can see that.

I think you've all missed the point and you are looking at it from the wrong way around. I'm not claiming that all and every person nowadays generally piss all over anyone from yesteryear. If anything, quite the opposite.

Two questions:

If Ali was born in 1980? Would he be better or worse than being born in 1940s?

If Jesse Owens (who didn't run on ash, grass or in quick sand in Berlin 36) was born in 1980, would he be quicker than being born in 1913? Plus, if he didn't smoke 40 a day.

Get the point. Talent and ability is a gift, modern day training, supplements, conditioning, nutrition, enlightenment make the vast majority of sportsmen better.

There will be exceptions, Monzon etc.

Getting back the original point, it's useless comparing fighters from different eras because there are too many variables. These include completion, supplements and genetics. FFS, humans are living a lot longer nowadays, it's called errr progress.

[man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

[Counter-puncher]

What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

[Loki]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

You're obviously a clever chap, man. But, interesting as that is, doesn't that prove my point.

BTW, where's his PHD? I have one, granted it's in nothing to do with this, but nevertheless.

[Loki]

What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Interesting point. Did fighters from a earlier generation complete as much sparring as they do now? A lot of the reason why there are so few fights are because it's damage limitation. Nobody wants to end up like James Toney.

[Counter-puncher]

What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Interesting point. Did fighters from a earlier generation complete as much sparring as they do now? A lot of the reason why there are so few fights are because it's damage limitation. Nobody wants to end up like James Toney.

The reason there are so few fights today has little or nothing to do with damage limitation.
It's because the fighters can get more money, so fight less often.
Fighters now spend less time in the ring and ultimately probably less time in the gym, and spend less of that time in the gym working on skills I imagine (more on 'strength and conditioning')

[man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

You're obviously a clever chap, man. But, interesting as that is, doesn't that prove my point.

well, maybe i misunderstood your point.
i for one think muhammad ali would be
very, very competitive today.

[Loki]

What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Interesting point. Did fighters from a earlier generation complete as much sparring as they do now? A lot of the reason why there are so few fights are because it's damage limitation. Nobody wants to end up like James Toney.

The reason there are so few fights today has little or nothing to do with damage limitation.
It's because the fighters can get more money, so fight less often.
Fighters now spend less time in the ring and ultimately probably less time in the gym, and spend less of that time in the gym working on skills I imagine (more on 'strength and conditioning')

You can only learn so much, some talents are given by God (if there is one). I stand by my point, the further we develop in sports, although relative to each fighter, the better we get.

[Counter-puncher]

'Better' measured in what way?

[crusader]

What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Guys in the early 1900s fought all the time, but from much of the footage I've seen the technique was awful.

Also, I'm not sure that fighting so much is more of a benefit than a drain on the body.

[Loki]

'Better' measured in what way?

Apologies, gotta bounce. TBC. Just realised this is Wildly off topic.

[Loki]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

You're obviously a clever chap, man. But, interesting as that is, doesn't that prove my point.

well, maybe i misunderstood your point.
i for one think muhammad ali would be
very, very competitive today.

Of course. He'd be so good if born in the 80s, it would be ridiculous. That is my point.

[Counter-puncher]

What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Guys in the early 1900s fought all the time, but from much of the footage I've seen the technique was awful.

Also, I'm not sure that fighting so much is more of a benefit than a drain on the body.

I wasn't referring to guys from the 1900s, different gloves different rules different sport

[crusader]

Which period?

[Loki]

'Better' measured in what way?

Generally. Don't take my word for it, listen to Mike.

https://youtu.be/BF-sxSipAMs

[Counter-puncher]

Which period?

50s/80s I guess

I agree that too many fights probably isn't beneficial to the body- though more ring experience seems to have a direct relationship to how relaxed a fighter can be in the ring which then impacts greatly on ring skills in my view

But as much as there is a level where too many fights might not be optimal, too few is definitely not optimal when it comes to the development of skills. One or two fights a year and a couple of 10 week camps simply does t produce skilled fighters in the same way the schedule of someone like say Arguello- not every month like Robinson
but often enough

Then there's the fact that too many of the early fights nowadays are meaningless gimmes and not competitive enough at all. Leading to guys getting to world level having never learned a lot of the important lessons in terms of ring craft.