Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
So, what --- he has no defensive ability and no chin? Call me naive, but I think you'd need at least one of those to be ranked in the top10 for more than 12 years.
Reading the above post you'd think Wlad is worse than Tex Cobb, for ****'s sake. No feinting? Have you even watched a single Wlad fight? He constantly feints, which is why no one can get away from the jab and/or big right hand. He also blocks and slips, but you only need to do so much of that when you're tall and have good footwork.
At least explain this to me. If Klitschko has no defensive skills at all - just an open target - how come he rarely loses a round? You'll now probably say "his opponents aren't as great as the mighty Ledouxes, Evangelistas and ****ells of yesteryear!". Then explain to me why Joe Louis, Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson, who fought their share of lesser opponents, still found themselves losing more rounds? Despite them not being wide open like Wlad (
), them having the ability to block, slip and feint, why aren't they as dominant in winning rounds?
Just so you know, I agree with your reasoning 100%. He's this dominant against all fighters he faces because, quite simply, he's a great heavyweight too. Fighters only rarely dominate their eras this conclusively. Wlad hasn't been seriously challenged, much less pushed, since Sam Peter I. That's an incredibly streak of pure can't be touched unstoppable dominance.
But I'd contribute that a big reason Wlad is more dominant is because he's the best clinching heavyweight of all time
. When he gets a hold of you, its better to just wait till the referee pries you off; He's called, in only half jest, the octopus. Just brute strength, or tenacity when he's holding on, which I dont know, but it's incredibly stifling.
Nobody has a prayer at range, and they don't have the strength to work inside. You aren't going to win many rounds.