Is Wlad the most underrated ATG

I agree that you don't have to beat a great fighter to become one yourself, if that were the case there would only be a handful of great heavyweights.

I think most would say the current run Wlad is on marks his prime years and has been very dominant. He hasn't lost in 8 years and 16 fights, most against top 10 guys that he has completely dominated.

His losses hurt his all-time standing and he doesn't have any great wins(few heavyweights do) but the way he has dominated his opposition the last 8 years added with some of his better wins before this current run put him into the top 20 probably even 15 right now.

 

how are dempsey, pattersn, and liston greats then?

 

fing liston defended the belt twice. thats right twice. pathetic

 

I agree that his dominance is impressive. Had he not lost to Brewster and Sanders, I think he'd be a great fighter. I don't consider the Purrity loss because it was so long ago, but those other two losses are key.

Right now, I have him outside my top 20. That could change in two directions. If he keeps winning, he'll enter the top 20 or maybe top 15. If he loses, he will be remembered as the best of a poor era and nothing more.

 

Do us all a favor and kill yourself you pathetic bitter butthurt Brittard.

 

haters, intelligent people, whatever

or maybe you have to be near a heavy bag to talk boxing

 

Definitely a future HOF and an ATG probably in top ten and yes underrated because of his nationality and dominant style.

 

I honestly believe he would kick Ali's butt jabbing his face into submission.

 

I also don't put too much stock into the Purrity loss, it can't be totally ignored but that was nowhere near a prime Wlad.

The Sanders and Brewster fights are what hurts him and will limit how high he can actually rate. I think both guys were solid enough heavyweights but nothing great and Wlad shouldn't have lost to either one, I think the current Wlad beats both handily.

I just think Wlad has beaten enough good heavyweights, and usually dominantly, to still move into the top 20 and possibly 15. He has a lot of wins over guys like Byrd, Haye, Chagaev, Chambers, Sultan, etc and I think those type of guys are contenders in almost any era. This hasn't been a great era for heavies but I think its comparable to a lot of others since the heavyweight division is usually thin during its history.

I agree with you in that Wlad could still move up if he keeps winning fights but he could also move down if he loses, again, to someone he shouldn't.

 

I've noticed a trend in discussions like this of posters that consistently attack Wlad's quality of competition and bring up the relatively small sizes of his opponents (thus indirectly, or sometimes directly, saying that the only reason he wins is because of size and a lack of ability in his opponents). Such criticisms are perfectly valid of course when assessing a fighter's career, provided they don't exclude the fuller picture, but then such criticisms are equally valid when discussing fighters like Holmes and Louis, who are almost routinely held in extremely high regard by the same posters. All of which leads me to question either their impartiality or their ability to objectively and accurately judge a fighter's place in history.

 

Why don't you talk like this when you are on vladimir23?

 

there are only 3 kinds of people who think this current HW Era

is a 'strong era'


******s
white supremacy racists
Ukrainians


maybe a mixture of the 3 in the case of King Khan and Vladimir23.


The truth is

this era is ****, but these two robot ****s have managed to dominate this era of **** so huge props to them


Wladmir on the ATG List?

I don't know, some where below Lennox and above Peter Mcneeley

you take your pick

 

Ken Norton ?

Riccick Bowe ?

Michael Spinks ?

No Dempsey?

whatta joke

 

Everyone rates him pretty accurately, a great HW in a lackluster era.

 

I think you underestimate the difference between the Wlad who lost 3 times with the more mature version who, for example, did a number on Chagaev a couple of years ago. He was obviously physically prime for a lot longer than he has been at his peak in terms of the complete package. Does prime have to be based on age and how many fights a guy has had, or can it just be when a fighter is at his peak? People don't seem to mind as much when the situation is reversed- i.e. Tyson.

I'm not trying to completely disregard his losses. He lost three times, and it affects his ranking. But I don't see those years as the prime Wlad when you compare to now. Who would you rather fight? The Haye fight showed Wlad is better in that he isn't as open to being blown out early, and the first Peter fight showed he learned from Brewster and Purrity to pace himself.

I can't believe you have Bowe ahead of Wlad. Take his two wins over Holyfield away and he's nowhere near an ATG list. Just a good contender level fighter who got his **** pushed in by Golota twice. Those 'wins' showed he would never have dominated an era as champion. Also, doesn't his avoidance of Lewis hurt his legacy? If Wlad's can be hurt by not fighting Vitali then what makes Bowe so special? I don't think he's one of the 15 greatest heavyweights ever