Klitschko in Top 10 If...?

[PainfromUkraine]

MMMM, lookin back at it, it may have been more stamina issues than hurt but Wlad did show a reluctance to come back after KDs in previous fights and looked more like David Price in the second TT fight.

You think he looked like Price in the Brewster fight when he was down? I dunno man...I don't know all the facts, it's just things i've picked up from different sources who have covered the incident, the whole ending was so messy...I mean he tripped over the refs leg after the round ended! Don't even know if it was a KD, I think the ref just decided he wasn't in a fit state to continue. From the way he looked - that's fair! I mean he was shaking his head and all sorts...glazed eyes...and in the Klitschko film they talk about it, showed him in the corner with the doc afterwards...couldn't even keep his head up, pupils dilated...they really thought he was gonna have some serious brain injury.

Don't think it's comparable to Price, and i'll definitely give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of perhaps wanting to continue, but simply not being able to because of a mixture of fatigue and severe concussion or whatever it actually ended up being.

Think that taught him a hell of a lot though...pacing has become a primary element of his game, good on Steward for finally instilling it into him.

[Long jabber]

Tyson,Wlad,Holmes all fought in terrible eras..but when the 90's got hot Tyson failed and failed badly...

he was a completly different fighter at that point.

under kevin rooney they trained in a specific style that works to his advantage under a strict regimen of exercise diet and sparring/training

he wasnt 1/10 the fighter he was post rooney.

look at the douglas fight he doesnt even pressure anymore by that point like he used to.

while i dont rate tyson highly on atg list because of his resume i rate him highly personaly because of his preformances during the rooney years. he literally never was in serious trouble with rooney and blew out almost all of his opponents

[PainfromUkraine]

I wonder how Wlad or Vitali would be seen if they had accumulated some wins to make their resumes seem stronger on paper/for casuals by beating guys like Holyfield or Tyson in the early 2000s (around 04) when they were faded...a lot of guys in other eras like Holmes etc have those wins v a former ATG(s) way past prime, but what does it really add to their resume?

[beez721]

he was a completly different fighter at that point.

under kevin rooney they trained in a specific style that works to his advantage under a strict regimen of exercise diet and sparring/training

he wasnt 1/10 the fighter he was post rooney.

look at the douglas fight he doesnt even pressure anymore by that point like he used to.

while i dont rate tyson highly on atg list because of his resume i rate him highly personaly because of his preformances during the rooney years. he literally never was in serious trouble with rooney and blew out almost all of his opponents

I agree. tyson was a much more complete fighter under rooney. he always jabbed his way in back then and had much better head and upper body movement

[Long jabber]

I wonder how Wlad or Vitali would be seen if they had accumulated some wins to make their resumes seem stronger on paper/for casuals by beating guys like Holyfield or Tyson in the early 2000s (around 04) when they were faded...a lot of guys in other eras like Holmes etc have those wins v a former ATG(s) way past prime, but what does it really add to their resume?

well beating holy or tyson even in the early 2000s would of been great for there resumes simply because they werent shot to **** and could still beat highly ranked guys on good nights. it would of really sky rocketed the klit brothers in atg rankings

[soul_survivor]

I wonder how Wlad or Vitali would be seen if they had accumulated some wins to make their resumes seem stronger on paper/for casuals by beating guys like Holyfield or Tyson in the early 2000s (around 04) when they were faded...a lot of guys in other eras like Holmes etc have those wins v a former ATG(s) way past prime, but what does it really add to their resume?

I think if either of those guys had fought Tyson at 03/04, it'd look like a good win cos Tyson, pretty much shot, still possessed power and especially for Wlad, it would be seen as taking a real dangerous test.

Holyfield wouldn't benefit either as his career was already viewed as a joke at this point.

[LacedUp]

Ali had ****ing parkinsons and looked terrible...and Spinks was a damn light heavyweight..Holmes fought in a terrible era..He won his title from a old drunk looking Ken Norton and solidified it with a win over a half ******ed Ali..His resume is no better then Wlads

It clearly is better than Wlad's.

No doubt he has a lot of bums just like Wlad, but Holmes' best wins are better than Wlad's best wins.

[SN!PER]

I'm not sure where I would rank him... have to think about it some more.

But if he wins the WBC belt and becomes undisputed, that moves him up.

[Makunouchi]

I think he makes top 10 I'd guess around seven or eight. I think longevity is a big deal and people who rank him below a lot of ATG heavyweights don't take his physical characteristics into account. He is, in my opinion, the best giant to ever grace the ring. Unlike most men of his size he doesn't seem to possess a lot of the physical drawbacks that come with the height. He's not built too thin, doesn't have weight troubles, doesn't have bad stamina, and his hand speed is tremendous for someone that size. I think he would give most ATG competitors a lot of trouble, including everyone's highly lauded Tyson who always had trouble with actually skilled taller fighters who fight tall. Tyson has said himself he doesn't think he could have beat him.

[PainfromUkraine]

I think if either of those guys had fought Tyson at 03/04, it'd look like a good win cos Tyson, pretty much shot, still possessed power and especially for Wlad, it would be seen as taking a real dangerous test.

Holyfield wouldn't benefit either as his career was already viewed as a joke at this point.

You could be right - but here's a hypothetical for you about Vitali - where would you rank him if he beat Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson in the early 2000s, and continued to be active 04-08 which means he would have broken Louis's record at his time of final retirement? (adding to KO/never knocked down/round winning % records). I know this gets a bit pointless with the what ifs and the extreme nature of this possibly, just interested lol. Anyone else feel free to also give your opinion.

Or: had Wlad beat Holyfield and Tyson, and if Vitali had beaten Byrd and Lewis and retired undefeated, where would you rank both?

And if Wlad beat Tyson, would that make you decide to place Wlad ahead of him or would you look at the relative past accomplishments of Mike still?