Where do you rank Vitaly Klitschko all time amongst heavyweights?

[Dr. Z]

Well shoot, I didn't remember that at all!! I stand by my opinion that his resume just isn't very good. And as of yet no one has shown me a reason why it is compared to many other great heavyweights. Hence, why I have created this thread. Without our opinions on how he may or may not do h2h. he falls behind a lot of guys. Honestly the guy is a class act, just like his brother. I wish someone could change my mind....but I think that would only happen if you changed the facts.

Like I said you move goal posts, but let's talk about his resume. By the standard of ring magazine who's ratings are is as good as any, Vitali by my count is 8-2 over top ten opponents and sources back this up. If you want to uses someone else's he says 7-2. There are sources like Box rec and the Wayback machine which agree with my claim. And the count of 8-2 does not include Kirk Johnson who I think was ranked the time Vitali beat him. I leave the possibly of being wrong on the point of Kirk Johnson. He was in the ring in magazine ratings as selected by The Ring magazine in the May 2003 for the 2002 annual rankings. They fought on 12-2003. This is an excellent winning percentage vs. ranked opponents. Few have better, maybe 3 men did have better winning percentages vs. ranked heavyweight fights by ring magazine.

Anyway this 8-2 recored of ranked ring magazine fighter's does not included wins over former lineal champion Briggs, or alphabet title holders Hide and Norris. It does not include Bean who fought for the title. It does not include his round won to rounds lost in his career either which is the best in history. He was never down either, in all of his professional boxing matches. He crushed all of these former champions and guys who fought for world titles and lost. The totality of which is impressive and factors in to a resume.

Vitali's resume if you add up his opponents records and winning percentage towers over most. Match it that way. Go ahead and do it. Try. You will see what I am talking about. Now I'm not saying small men below 210 pounds who were rated 50-100 years ago couldn't compete today at heavyweight, I'm saying their opponents winning percentage doesn't match Vitali opponents winning percentage. Got it?

I agree with you. Let's not change any facts. Let's drill down and examine them.

If you think men who are 210 pounds and below can compete win more than they lose in ranked matches at heavyweight today, all I can say men this size who were ring ranked in past decades have not appeared in the rankings for 20 years. Why? If that size is ideal, why not fight at heavyweight there? Okay maybe you can find 2 exceptions, but the point stands. Sorry to offend anyone, but at heavyweight things like height, weight, and reach matter. As do skills, power, punch resistance, defense, footwork , hand speed , and stamina Now I'm not saying the best in history could not have a winning record today vs. ranked men, I am saying the amount if men is very few, less than 10 for sure.

Vitali's resume is that good and not behind " a lot of guys " as you put it. It is not the best partly because an unfortunate happening when he got injured and tore a rotator cuff which required surgery and he did not get rematch to avenge his loss to Lewis either on a cuts loss with was halted by a doctor. Lewis balked at the re-match he said he would give and the money was up. He was winning both matches if that counts. Great fighters get credit for these type if losses and good fights vs. top competition correct? As stated Vitali offered fights to Haye and Valuev. They declined and were highly rated guys.

Anyway I voted for top ten historically and head to head for the reasons above reasons stated, and look forward to the discussion. Where we can examine the names and their ring records of here? Then debate the in detail. I can't change you mind, but you examine the facts you might change perspective. I do at times.

- Dr. Z

[Ivich]

Just historically.

Then 21-30.

[mattdonnellon]

11-20

[Willow The Wisp]

11th during the past 50 years. Clean record, acheived top 2 in the world status, impressive numbers, focused and disciplined, great height and weight, well conditioned, well schooled, excellent power, good chin, very good resume but certainly not "great", clearly lacking that historic win that other, more legendary fighters can claim, never fought for the top spot, failed in his one attempt at the world title. Excellent fighter and an even better success outside the ring. Certainly a roll model and compelling character.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. George Foreman
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Mike Tyson
6. Wladimir Klitschko
7.Tyson Fury
8. Joe Frazier
9. Deontay Wilder
10. Evander Holyfield
11.Vitali Klitschko
12.Anthony Joshua
13.Ken Norton
14.Rid**** Bowe
15.Jerry Quarry
16.Jimmy Young
17.Ron Lyle
18.Earnie Shavers
19.Jimmy Ellis
20.Tim Witherspoon
21.Gerry Cooney
22.Andy Ruiz Jr.
23.Mike Weaver
24.Gerrie Coetzee
25.Joe Bugner
26.Michael Dokes
27.Frank Bruno
28.Pinklon Thomas
29.Ike Ibeabuchi
30.Joe Joyce. Tie
30.David Tua

[QueensburyRules]

Well shoot, I didn't remember that at all!! I stand by my opinion that his resume just isn't very good. And as of yet no one has shown me a reason why it is compared to many other great heavyweights. Hence, why I have created this thread. Without our opinions on how he may or may not do h2h. he falls behind a lot of guys. Honestly the guy is a class act, just like his brother. I wish someone could change my mind....but I think that would only happen if you changed the facts.

- - At least you're honest about your limitations...

[Willow The Wisp]

All-Time (Modern Era) 1893 - 2023 130 years

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. George Foreman
6. Lennox Lewis
7. Larry Holmes
8. Sonny Liston
9. Mike Tyson
10.Rocky Marciano
11.Wladimir Klitschko
12.Tyson Fury
13.Joe Frazier
14.Deontay Wilder
15.James J. Jeffries
16.Evander Holyfield
17.Gene Tunney
18.Sam Langford
19.Ezzard Charles
20.Harry Wills
21.Vitali Klitschko
22.Joe Jeanette
23.Luther McCarty
24.Anthony Joshua
25.Rid**** Bowe
26.Ken Norton
27.James J. Corbett
28.Max Schmeling
29.Sailor Tom Sharkey
30.Max Baer
31.Jerry Quarry
32.Jess Willard
33.Jersey Joe Walcott
34.Floyd Patterson
35.Sam McVey
36.Cleveland Williams
37.Jack Sharkey
38.Ron Lyle
39.Zora Folly
40.Jimmy Young

[QueensburyRules]

I expected Queenie to vote the way he did with no explanation. But I find it absolutely hysterical to see a poster (Match maker) with no posts to his name vote and not explain why.

- - You trolling for more pearls before swine...priceless...

[Dr. Z]

11th during the past 50 years. Clean record, acheived top 2 in the world status, impressive numbers, focused and disciplined, great height and weight, well conditioned, well schooled, excellent power, good chin, very good resume but certainly not "great", clearly lacking that historic win that other, more legendary fighters can claim, never fought for the top spot, failed in his one attempt at the world title. Excellent fighter and an even better success outside the ring. Certainly a roll model and compelling character.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. George Foreman
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. Mike Tyson
6. Wladimir Klitschko
7.Tyson Fury
8. Joe Frazier
9. Deontay Wilder
10. Evander Holyfield
11.Vitali Klitschko
12.Anthony Joshua
13.Ken Norton
14.Rid**** Bowe
15.Jerry Quarry
16.Jimmy Young
17.Ron Lyle
18.Earnie Shavers
19.Jimmy Ellis
20.Tim Witherspoon
21.Gerry Cooney
22.Andy Ruiz Jr.
23.Mike Weaver
24.Gerrie Coetzee
25.Joe Bugner
26.Michael Dokes
27.Frank Bruno
28.Pinklon Thomas
29.Ike Ibeabuchi
30.Joe Joyce. Tie
30.David Tua

Well that is your opinion then. Wilder ranked above Vitali is something few here would agree with! Fury's career is over yet either and his resume is currently weaker than Vitali's. I have never seen Foreman rated so highly. You must have skipped his match with Jimmy Young and war where he could have lost to Ron Lyle. And many of his 38 -48 years old fights.

[Willow The Wisp]

Like I said you move goal posts, but let's talk about his resume. By the standard of ring magazine who's ratings are is as good as any, Vitali by my count is 8-2 over top ten opponents and sources back this up. If you want to uses someone else's he says 7-2. There are sources like Box rec and the Wayback machine which agree with my claim. And the count of 8-2 does not include Kirk Johnson who I think was ranked the time Vitali beat him. I leave the possibly of being wrong on the point of Kirk Johnson. He was in the ring in magazine ratings as selected by The Ring magazine in the May 2003 for the 2002 annual rankings. They fought on 12-2003. This is an excellent winning percentage vs. ranked opponents. Few have better, maybe 3 men did have better winning percentages vs. ranked heavyweight fights by ring magazine.

Anyway this 8-2 recored of ranked ring magazine fighter's does not included wins over former lineal champion Briggs, or alphabet title holders Hide and Norris. It does not include Bean who fought for the title. It does not include his round won to rounds lost in his career either which is the best in history. He was never down either, in all of his professional boxing matches. He crushed all of these former champions and guys who fought for world titles and lost. The totality of which is impressive and factors in to a resume.

Vitali's resume if you add up his opponents records and winning percentage towers over most. Match it that way. Go ahead and do it. Try. You will see what I am talking about. Now I'm not saying small men below 210 pounds who were rated 50-100 years ago couldn't compete today at heavyweight, I'm saying their opponents winning percentage doesn't match Vitali opponents winning percentage. Got it?

I agree with you. Let's not change any facts. Let's drill down and examine them.

If you think men who are 210 pounds and below can compete win more than they lose in ranked matches at heavyweight today, all I can say men this size who were ring ranked in past decades have not appeared in the rankings for 20 years. Why? If that size is ideal, why not fight at heavyweight there? Okay maybe you can find 2 exceptions, but the point stands. Sorry to offend anyone, but at heavyweight things like height, weight, and reach matter. As do skills, power, punch resistance, defense, footwork , hand speed , and stamina Now I'm not saying the best in history could not have a winning record today vs. ranked men, I am saying the amount if men is very few, less than 10 for sure.

Vitali's resume is that good and not behind " a lot of guys " as you put it. It is not the best partly because an unfortunate happening when he got injured and tore a rotator cuff which required surgery and he did not get rematch to avenge his loss to Lewis either on a cuts loss with was halted by a doctor. Lewis balked at the re-match he said he would give and the money was up. He was winning both matches if that counts. Great fighters get credit for these type if losses and good fights vs. top competition correct? As stated Vitali offered fights to Haye and Valuev. They declined and were highly rated guys.

Anyway I voted for top ten historically and head to head for the reasons above reasons stated, and look forward to the discussion. Where we can examine the names and their ring records of here? Then debate the in detail. I can't change you mind, but you examine the facts you might change perspective. I do at times.

- Dr. Z

The desire for a fair and balanced metric is understandable. However, use of the Ring monthly ratings to achieve this, without factoring the Ring panel proclivity for pushing prospects before proof over established contenders; and the quality of available active fighters to rank relative to other five year generation blocks, with consideration of quantified depth (an inevitable dynamic), the meaning of your method is critically flawed, which has, with my apologies, produced a specious argument on your part.
I've explaned that in another thread, and all the debate points counting Vitali's opponents ranked by the Ring were scuttled from that moment.

To be plain spoken about this, the era in which Vitali worked was comparatively Weak. Many of the top 10 contenders that the Ring listed in those years would fail to crack the top 10 or 15 today. (I've already posted a slew of such names).

Where I've ranked Vitali above over a 50 year and 130 year span, legacy or head to head, is fair.

I'm a bottom line guy, and that's the bottom line.

[Dr. Z]

11-20

Hello Matt. Welcome to the board. Can we see your list? I am curious to know where a season historian like yourself ranks them in general. For all we know you might have Vitali at 11th or 20th. For those of you who don't know Matt is a good historian / author and one who researches his subject material very well.