Why will Wlad never be considered a great HW?

[Steak]

How often did Ali fight 6'5"+ HW's and make them look easy?

How about Lewis? Mavrovic? TWELVE rounds!??! At least Wlad KO'd Thompson.

'Undeniable'

Tony Thompson outlanded Klitschko and marked up his face pretty good. and to think, Thompson was coming off of a huge layoff...it took him forever to get the fight with Wlad...

so Im glad you agree with me, Tony=ATG heavyweight.

[Sin City]

there is no one really for him to fight

[S.G.]

Because he's not good enough

Simple as that folks

[Knighte]

He was KO'd by 3 bums. His best win is Peter. In that fight he was knocked down 3 times.

Very hard to deny this.

[roujinziro]

All of the above. It does say something about his character that he was able to come back from 3 brutal KO losses, and work his way back to the top. He's cleaning out the division one boring fight at a time, but he is winning. He's only 32 which isn't too old, so if he keeps on winning, people will have to aknowledge that he is the best HW since LL.

[squealpiggy]

Seems to be pretty much the standard fare for the last 50 years - you've only got to look at the **** Marciano has to put up with. You can't get recognition if you're a top white HW boxer - it's in the (unofficial) rules.

Marciano is widely regarded as being in the top five heavyweights of all time despite his relatively small stature and his tendency to be rather square and flat footed. The reason he is highly regarded is largely because of his tremendous heart, the absence of which is the reason Wlad is less regarded. Marciano would find a way to win when it was easier to lose. Wlad would just lose.

Wlad's got serious flaws but he'd dismantle Frasier/Foreman/Marciano & Louis no doubt.

Frazier, Marciano and Louis would destroy him. Frazier and Marciano are all wrong for Wlad. Hard hitting pressure fighters who don't back off... Louis is in my opinion the greatest heavyweight of all time. Foreman is a different matter. Wlad has the ability to beat either incarnation of George Foreman but again his weakness is in his convictions on those occasions where he gets hurt.

to those saying wlad isnt a hall of famer...please..yes he is...52-3 46 ko's 6 title defenses..2 time champ..sure fire hall of famer hands down

Wlad took a fast progression in his early 20s and stumbled a few times.

Wlad was brought along slowly. His first tilt at a world title was his 36th fight as a professional! Fast progression is not 15 8 round fights. Wlad's first loss came when he was an experienced professional with a regional title, it wasn't the case of some kid who hasn't found himself becoming unstuck. He should have known better with the experience he had.

He throws a perfect cross and a near perfect hook.

He doesn't throw them often enough.

He is an extremely technical boxer, which is not appreciated by many who just want to see a no talent slug fest.

I'd like to see someone throwing a variety of punches, or maybe slipping and countering, or maybe using good movement to make the opponent miss, or to press the advantage when they have it. I am less interested in seeing somebody with generally overwhelming physical advantages using those advantages without even attempting to exert themselves. Wanting professional athletes to make something of an effort does not make me an inferior boxing fan to you, and pretending that refusing the throw any punches is the same as showing technical boxing skill is not going to change that.

If you like Mayweather there is no reason not to like Wladimir. Unless you are white hating racist, which many of you are

Mayweather is a ****, but he is more entertaining to watch than Wlad because he uses the ring, he slips and counters, he throws a variety of punches. Wlad just uses his height and reach to jab jab jab hold.

[kayjay]

Agreed. He said before that only one race follows boxing under 130

I don't know what race has to do with it, but I did in fact say I don't follow midget boxers, just like I don't follow women boxers or the Special Olympics.

[aether]

cause he's white

i win

[nathan_nall]

A "great" is designated by credit given to them. We have loaded guns on both sides of the argument, ready to fire with reasons why someone IS great or IS NOT great. If we want to discredit someone, we say "They are boring", "they don't take chances", "they are too technical", or "their division is so soft now". All of these things have been said before. Lewis was criticized by Joe Frazier for not taking chances. Larry Holmes was criticized for being too technical and relying on his jab and keeping his distance. Was it any wonder Tyson became the sensation he did in such a short time? Just look at the HW division at that time, soft as Jessica Alba's ass!!!

What happens in the ring has SO LITTLE to do with a fighter being great or not, and that is a travesty. Wlad could decision The Creator himself and people would still say "God created the world eons ago, He is way past his prime! Wlad should step up and face a PRIME immortal!"

[jisi]

but it has 0 to do with his record or resume..cause he's cleaning out the division and ko people like a heavyweight champ should so hey

He is the real heavyweight Champion! And he will be consdered as a great one!

All of the above. It does say something about his character that he was able to come back from 3 brutal KO losses, and work his way back to the top. He's cleaning out the division one boring fight at a time, but he is winning. He's only 32 which isn't too old, so if he keeps on winning, people will have to aknowledge that he is the best HW since LL.