Wladimir Klitschko would NEVER had reached his prime in a tougher era.

[SterlingStained]

you have to admit its been a rancid heavyweight era that the kbros dominated.

guys cant even get rid of beer bellys. its not a very professional division.

the first real threat live bodies ive seen in a while is deontay wilder and bermane stiverne.

wlad needs to forget briggs and go for one if not both of those guys.

it would be a nice ending to his career.

[M Bison]

Remember, the only way to conclude that it's a "weak era" is to have a great fighter come along and dominate the hell out of the opposition for nearly a decade.

This "weak era" cannot be exposed by an "average fighter". It takes a great one to do it. However, Wlad's ability to own fighters one-sidedly by applying the same style over and over shows us that his prime size/skill combination is almost unbeatable, which should seep over to other era's. We do not even need to compare him to the absolute TOP guys like Ali, Lewis (which in my mind are his toughest mythical match-up's), but these B-listers who are considered great (I.E. Mike Tyson) but have their own fair share of flaws that have been exposed.

It's not like he has had to "adjust" many times (though he did just that against Pulev, throwing different punches when the usual ones weren't effective). What Wlad offers in the ring has never been truly beaten. Sure, he ran out steam and gassed out once. Sure he got caught and got KO'd. But nobody actually ever figured him out and outboxed him. That alone should make him one of the absolute top guys of ALL-TIMES.

Apparently having a few hiccups in your career is what defines whether you're a great or not to some of these bias idiots lol.
Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, George Foreman and Sonny Liston are the only four I'd maybe say I'm not sure who'd win in a mythical match up against Wladimir but against Vitali all four of those guys would likely lose.

But absolutely you're 100% correct.

[M Bison]

you have to admit its been a rancid heavyweight era that the kbros dominated.

guys cant even get rid of beer bellys. its not a very professional division.

the first real threat live bodies ive seen in a while is deontay wilder and bermane stiverne.

wlad needs to forget briggs and go for one if not both of those guys.

it would be a nice ending to his career.

I guess we can say similar things about the past heavyweights who apparently were out of their prime when they were hitting their late 20s and early 30s.

There was less reason for those past heavyweights to be carrying a bit of flesh because they were by far smaller yet a lot of them did carry a good bit of fat Earnie Shaver notably.

[cupocity303]

What's happening here is that guys are operating on this faulty logic when they criticize Wlad's 3 losses to his 63 wins.

What they're really saying is that Wlad should be 66-0 right now. Think about that. Not only is he dominant in almost every one of his victories, but if you erase the 3 loses to lesser foes, he would be 66-0. Not only a 66-0 but a dominant 66-0 who barely loses any rounds. That's unheard of. That would basically make him the greatest of all time right there. This is an argument for perfection and a unreasonable one in a 66 fight career (and still going), whereas some guys retire after 40-something wins.

Now sure, in an ideal world Wlad would only lose to an "ATG" of sorts, and maybe go on to secure 2 out of 3 wins in a triology that "theoretically" would enhance his legacy even more, and put his opponent on the ATG pedestal as well by having been part of a "great rivalry" that HBO Legendary Nights can only tell us about.

But things almost never go down like that. Great fighters lose to lesser fighters all the time for one reason or the other, IF they have loses on their records. In fact it's worse when you conclusively lose to another guy who has your number (i.e. mosley losing to Winky Wright and trying again and losing once more). That means that you have such a ***** in your armor that that guys can actually beat you with the right game plan or style. What can future opponent learn from Wlad's loses? Nothing. Other then try to go for the KO and keep telling themselves that he has a weak chin and maybe some stamina issues ---NOTHING. Zilch!.

[IronDanHamza]

What's happening here is that guys are operating on this faulty logic when they criticize Wlad's 3 losses to his 63 wins.

What they're really saying is that Wlad should be 66-0 right now. Think about that. Not only is he dominant in almost every one of his victories, but if you erase the 3 loses to lesser foes, he would be 66-0. Not only a 66-0 but a dominant 66-0 who barely loses any rounds. That's unheard of. That would basically make him the greatest of all time right there. This is an argument for perfection and unreasonable one in a 66 fight career (and still going), whereas some guys retire after 40-something wins.

Now sure, in an ideal world Wlad would only lose to an "ATG" of sorts, and maybe go on to secure 2 out of 3 wins in a triology that "theoretically" would enhance his legacy even more, and put his opponent on the ATG pedestal as well by having been part of a "great rivalry" that HBO Legendary Nights can only tell us about.

But things almost never go down like that. Great fighters lose to lesser fighters all the time for one reason or the other, IF they have loses on their records. In fact it's worse when you conclusively lose to another guy who has your number (i.e. mosley losing to Winky Wright and trying again and losing once more). That means that you have such a ***** in your armor that that guys can actually beat you with the right game plan or style. What can future opponent learn from Wlad's loses? Nothing. Other then try to go for the KO and keep telling themselves that he has a weak chin and maybe some stamina issues ---NOTHING. Zilch!.

No I'm quite sure no one is saying he should be 66-0.

[Suckmedry]

what really astounds me is the way Wlads losses often get written off or swapped over to wins like they were close, disputed decisions or outright robberies. He got fcking stopped 3 times. By so so Hw's. End of story.

They've been doing this **** with vitali-lewis too now for like a decade. Its crazy.

[////]

If you can imagine Joe Frazier making it beyond journeyman (with a losing record) status today in the HW division then you have a dramatically different world perception than I do.

[////]

what really astounds me is the way Wlads losses often get written off or swapped over to wins like they were close, disputed decisions or outright robberies. He got fcking stopped 3 times. By so so Hw's. End of story.

They've been doing this **** with vitali-lewis too now for like a decade. Its crazy.

Lewis got stopped by so-so heavyweights and people almost universally consider him one of the ATG heavyweights. Wlad's stoppages are still used to depict him as a glass chinned weakling.

We all know the real main difference between the two, why people politely refrain from criticizing one and pour acid on the other no matter what he does, outside of continental Europe anyway.

[beez721]

what really astounds me is the way Wlads losses often get written off or swapped over to wins like they were close, disputed decisions or outright robberies. He got fcking stopped 3 times. By so so Hw's. End of story.

They've been doing this **** with vitali-lewis too now for like a decade. Its crazy.

hes also had over 60 fights. youre bound to have a few bad nights

[LacedUp]

Lewis got stopped by so-so heavyweights and people almost universally consider him one of the ATG heavyweights. Wlad's stoppages are still used to depict him as a glass chinned weakling.

We all know the real main difference between the two, why people politely refrain from criticizing one and pour acid on the other no matter what he does, outside of continental Europe anyway.

Lewis avenged all of his losses and draws.

That's got to be respected.