Could Wlad win a close and real "fight"?

First off I think Wlad is a great fighter and this isn't a hate thread. Clearly due to skills and size he's dominant vs all the current crop and would be competitive Vs most past fighters. However, with all the threads putting him down Vs ATG's I was wondering if it's just the fact that people don't think he could win a close "fight" e.g. one where he couldn't easily dominate with his jab and there were equal exchanges in both directions.

A recent thread was Wlad head to head with Lewis, Tyson and Holyfield. Most people picked Wlad to lose to all three. However, is this because we think to ourselves "neither would allow Wlad to dominate with the jab all night, there would be meaningful exchanges and there would be moments of real "fighting" deep in the trenches as opposed to "boxing" so this = Wlad loss"?

Wlad has never had the chance to prove he could win a real fight as he has always been so dominant (unless knocked out). I think if he had a tear up with someone, got hit with bombs, got knocked down, got back up, survived and pulled out a win he'd actually do better in these mythical match ups.

Thoughts?



Edit: to be clearer as some people keep bringing up Peter 1; "could Wlad win if he couldn't clearly outbox his opponent and dominate the majority of rounds behind his jab"? I think this is the thinking behind most people that think Wlad gets beaten by past ATG's i.e. if they can get past the jab they will win. I believe the thought process goes "will this past ATG opponent be jabbed all night and be unable to land their own shots? No = Wlad loss.

This could be too simple a thought process, which is why I'm posting the thread and opening it up for discussion, but since Wlad hasn't been able to prove it either way he suffers in the mythical H2H threads.

Probably a bad title.

 

Yes, he was knocked down 2 or 3 times, but he basically clearly won every round he wasn't dropped in and there were rounds where SP didn't hardly land a punch I believe.

That fight is relevant to this thread, but I was mainly thinking of fighters that he couldn't easily "outbox" and it's not a given he'll win every round (that there isn't a knock down) e.g. the mythical match ups he's always put up against on this forum. You can't really compare Sam Peter to those guys.

Almost impossible for Wlad to prove right now as it would only be the Sam Peter scenario with the current crop i.e. Wlad outboxes, gets hit, goes down, gets up outboxes.

 

Yeah that was a good section of the fight. How about if someone had the will, skill and size to make 6, 8 or 10 of the 12 rounds like that?

The Haye fight wasn't an answer though as Wlad won all rounds bar 3 max in my eyes and I'm a haye fan! A few of the rounds Wlad won were close, but not in a both landed many shots type of way, more like neither landed,

 

It wasn't close in the rounds where there was no knockdown. Sam Peter didn't win any round he didn't knock Wlad down in and went many rounds without landing!

Think "could Wlad win if he couldn't clearly outbox his opponent"?

Wlad has clearly outboxed all his opponents, but people don't think he could clearly outbox the ATG's and I'm questioning if that's why people don't rate him in these mythical match ups i.e. close fight, even exchanges, not a huge skill divide = Wlad loss?

This isn't a Wlad hate thread so hopefully it won't get too defensive from Wlad fans. It's actually questioning those people that don't rate Wlad highly as to their thinking.