Reason's Why Wladimir Klitschko Is Not An ATG

[D-MiZe]

He has a better win than Lennox, Holmes or Foreman. Does that put him above all of those?

No, other factors come into play.

But one thing that stands true with every fighter I listed and especially with Bowe, as it's so glaringly obvious, is that an ATG requires at least one career defining win.

[Huxley]

Wlad's biggest accomplishments is his longevity and domination. And we shouldn't forget that he's still active and can work himself up even higher in the all time rankings. A win over Povetkin alone would enhance his legacy, for instance. Lots of good fights left for him.

[Huxley]

No, other factors come into play.

But one thing that stands true with every fighter I listed and especially with Bowe, as it's so glaringly obvious, is that an ATG requires at least one career defining win.

I believe the first Peter fight, Ibragimov, and the Haye fight are career defining for Wlad.

[yoz]

I believe the first Peter fight, Ibragimov, and the Haye fight are career defining for Wlad.

I'd rank Peter and Ibragimov over the Haye win.

[D-MiZe]

Wlad's biggest accomplishments is his longevity and domination. And we shouldn't forget that he's still active and can work himself up even higher in the all time rankings. A win over Povetkin alone would enhance his legacy, for instance. Lots of good fights left for him.

Yes, if Wlad was to beat Povetkin and then after retiring, Povetkin reigned as the man for the next several years then that would obviously look good on his resume. A lot of Wlad's wins are going to get better retrospectively.

[Simurgh]

No, other factors come into play.

But one thing that stands true with every fighter I listed and especially with Bowe, as it's so glaringly obvious, is that an ATG requires at least one career defining win.

What's Holmes career defining win. Ken Norton is good, but beating Ali on SD while Ali had broken jaw alone doesn't put you in HOF/ATG status.

Wlad's defining win was over Peter. It wasn't his best win but it was career defining. everyone should be able to see it.

Now Wlad's problem is he is just too good to have career defining win. He makes it look too easy. It should have been Haye, but he schooled him so it isn't. Same will be with Povetkin...

[Huxley]

Yes, if Wlad was to beat Povetkin and then after retiring, Povetkin reigned as the man for the next several years then that would obviously look good on his resume. A lot of Wlad's wins are going to get better retrospectively.

That's an interesting way to look at it. True.

[D-MiZe]

What's Holmes career defining win. Ken Norton is good, but beating Ali on SD while Ali had broken jaw alone doesn't put you in HOF/ATG status.

Wlad's defining win was over Peter. It wasn't his best win but it was career defining. everyone should be able to see it.

Now Wlad's problem is he is just too good to have career defining win. He makes it look too easy. It should have been Haye, but he schooled him so it isn't. Same will be with Povetkin...

Career defining meaning that when he beat that opponent, that solidified his greatness. So, what is Wlad's win that would suggest he's great?

Haye isn't that good, never was and is a 6-fight heavyweight veteran. Povetkin, as I mentioned, will be determined in hindsight. Wlad's problem is the division is too weak to have a career defining win. Essentially though, it's not Wlad's problem, it is what it is. Weak era? So what, he'll most likely go down as a HoFer, but great? No.

Holmes is a great example, take away a couple of his wins and he's on par with the likes of Wlad. But in those wins he proved his greatness, Wlad's greatness can only be speculated.

[Simurgh]

Career defining meaning that when he beat that opponent, that solidified his greatness. So, what is Wlad's win that would suggest he's great?

Haye isn't that good, never was and is a 6-fight heavyweight veteran. Povetkin, as I mentioned, will be determined in hindsight. Wlad's problem is the division is too weak to have a career defining win. Essentially though, it's not Wlad's problem, it is what it is. Weak era? So what, he'll most likely go down as a HoFer, but great? No.

Holmes is a great example, take away a couple of his wins and he's on par with the likes of Wlad. But in those wins he proved his greatness, Wlad's greatness can only be speculated.

So what is Holmes career defining fight, that 'solidified his greatness'?


Division is weaker, but not as weak as people are trying to point out. You just have two brothers who have been much better than the rest and who had beat everybody else.

Wlad showed his greatness against Byrd, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chambers, Mercer, Haye, Brewster, Peter... and it was not just he beat them it's how he beat them...

He is already ATG regardless you admit it or not.

[Huxley]

There will be the question of defining 'atg' in general. Everybody has their own definition. To me, an ATG needs to have longevity and dominance, he needs to have special attributes (boxing skills), and he not least needs to have wins over other 'good' or 'great' fighters. Wlad's has all of these, although you could say he doesn't have the strongest resume when it comes to names. He doesn't have that win over another great boxer that perhaps means he's just missing one leap in many people's minds.

For example, had Vitali beaten Lennox, he could surely have been considered an ATG.