Is Wlad a bit like Joe Louis in re-matches?

Hard to think that most people were writing him off after Brewster I.

 

I always thought that taking the Peter fight was a do or die gamble.

The coming Pollack biography will doubtless flesh out the details of this episode.

 

Well more specifically

Byrd: coming off gifts against Golota and Oquendo, faded, old, would be dominated by Povetkin and a LHW in subsequent bouts

Brewster: coming off a layoff after a career ending loss to Ibragimov which made him blind in 1 eye or some sort of eye damage

Peter: slower and fatter, but perhaps an improvement here from Wlad

Thompson: 40 years old

 

There was 3 years between the Brewster fights.
There were 4 years between the Thompson fights.
There was 5 years between the Peter fights.
There's 6 years between the Byrd fights.


To say a fighter is 'better in re-matches' really implies that the improved performance is down mostly to learning from the first fight, and adapting to be most effective against the opponent.
But when there is so much space between fight 1 and fight 2 obviously it could all mostly be down to other factors.

Wlad should be commended on his overall longevity and overall improvement and continuing progress.
That's what these results show. Not necessarily that he's some sort of wizard at adapting. He's just maintaining, perhaps improving and certainly outlasting other fighters of his era.

 

As pointed out Thompson, Byrd, and Brewster was a case of Wlad getting better overall while his opponent got worse.

Peter was up and down after their meeting, but actually showed up in great shape and motivated for the Wlad rematch. Of the four examples, its the only one where we do see a strategic adaption as Wlad and Steward figured out in the first fight Samuel can eat straight punches all night but is vulnerable to left hooks and uppercuts.

Wlad doesn't have anything like Schemling, Godoy, and Walcott on his resume just yet. To be fair, Buddy got hit by a car before their rematch but showed up to protect the gate so don't think that counts.

 

The 2 years between the Louis-Schmeling fights disqualify that one for me too.
Schmeling was shelved for 18 months following the first fight, which was a long layoff even by his standards. The guy was past his best. And Louis was probably improving generally.
If Louis and Schmeling had matched again in 1936, who knows.

Obviously the Billy Conn fights are even less relevant.

Louis's best actual adjustment was probably the Godoy fights. I think Godoy was more or less the same in both fights, but Louis changed things up.

 

Ruhlin had been half killed by Fitzsimmons 15 months prior to fighting Jeffries, he was bed ridden for a week haemorraghing from the nose ,and ears, all night after the fight , there were real concerns he might die. Ruhlin was ruined by that fight. Jeffries beat a severely reduced Ruhlin.

 

Fair points, can't disagree at all.

 

exaggerate much?

Schmeling knocked out world heavyweight title challenger harry thomas in 8 in 1937, then beat steve dudas in 5 in 1938. No evidence schmeling was past his prime in 1938. In 1939 he knocked out 71-7 Adolf Heuser in 1 round

 

-Yeah, it was actually Liakhovick who deteched Brewster's retina with a left hook in their fight.

-He took 15 months off, had surgery, and was suppose to be recovered, but he looked like a beaten man before the opening bell of the Wlad rematch. I would say it was the combined punishment of the Wlad I, Krasniqi, and Liakhovick fights that really broke Brewster down. Just not going to have a long career, fighting that way.

-He didn't actually lose sight in his eye until the Helenius match.

 

Brewster was fine. He weighed in trim vs Wlad II. Wlad destroyed him, ruined him.