Is it safe to say Wladimir got the worst chin of the top 10 heavyweights?

So dead that Wlad cleared $30 million in 2011... basically the Haye fight and endorsements.

I wish I could that kinda dead end money.

 

Yea thats ONE fight.There was a time when they common.

 

Tyson earned $20M against Spinks, if memory serves. That was pretty damn large for the day.

The Euro sway in the division has certainly lost the American audience but it has picked up a lot in Europe and beyond.

 

Wlad's chin is probably slightly below average for a heavyweight of his calibre, but he still has a better chin than 90% of the fighters out there. I think his biggest issue is freezing up when someone applies fast pressure or lands a hard shot on him. Similar to Norton, in a way.

Emanuel Steward has taught Wlad how to fight at his absolute most effectiveness; making it very hard for any fighter to even catch Wlad clean with a shot that has any real muster on it.

I'm not a big fan of today's heavyweight scene (sorry Magna), but Wlad would definitely be a threat in any era to any champ. His consistency over the past 7 years can't be argued with and he's won in 1 sided fashion in nearly every title defense.

I see Tyson, Lewis and Foreman knocking Wlad out quick, Louis breaking Wlad down, and Ali and Holmes outboxing him to win decisions. Holyfield-Wlad would be extremely interesting, but I'd favor Evander because he's more fluid, has iron will, and will be willing to throw heavy leather in combinations at Wlad, which Wladimir wouldn't react too well mentally to.

Like I and some others said, Wladimir's real "chin" weakness is his mentality, not the chin itself.

 

Yea good point. But there was bigger money over a decade ago, I believe if Vitali had of continued and we switch the belt situation with Wladimir the HW divison would be a lot more active. Vitali is a entertaining fighter with awesome character but he's happy to see his little brother get all the attention,money,fame etc. After the Klits go the HW divison looks in misery, the majority are a bunch of buffoons who feel the need to trash talk and set bad examples.

 

I'm 40 years old, man, I've been a part of like five heavyweight scenes. And yes, this one would be the weakest, all around. Lots of fat, slovenly hacks. But the champs are damn good.

 

7 years at the top of any division is an amazing accomplishment. Amazing. If it were easy, the other guys you listed would have managed it.

Elite fighters are still elite fighters. I think there are LESS of them around the heavyweights today, but they are still here. Incredibly decorated amateurs, kayo artists, cruiserweight champions, ex-champions, guys who just seem to win...His resume has all of them. I don't have him in my top 10 yet, but if he knocks off some of this young class of up and comers before his 40th b-day, his dominance has been Joe Louisesque, and that is worthy of attention.

And I've worked with damn near everybody who has been anybody in the last 20 years. Biased? Probably, because I prefer the guys who were good, solid dudes. But I know talent when I see it, it's bludgeoned me in the face enough times.

 

Baer's standing as top puncher in Louis's era can be easily argued for. When you widen the canvas however, he just doesn't look like as devastating a puncher as the many huge punchers who've come after him. When comparing eras, what one era's fighters have to say about their contemporaries becomes irrelevant; only video footage and a certain amount of educated guesswork can give you a good idea. Baer on film simply doesn't look as devastating as the likes of Tyson, Tua, Morrison, Cooney, Wlad, Lewis etc. Hardest puncher of Louis's era? Sure, I can go with that. Hardest puncher ever? Nah, sorry.

 

A tremendous hitter in Louis's era, perhaps. But he wouldn't even crack the top ten today. That he dropped Louis isn't so bad, I suppose, considering it was a flash knockdown, but the fact that he dropped him at all is pretty shocking considering how crude he was.

Conn was very far from a heavyweight, though, wasn't he? Under modern rules he could have fought as low as Light Middleweight, taking into account modern weight draining methods. And the fact that he didn't drop Louis is by the by. He badly hurt him and was on the verge of possibly stopping him. I think that's perfectly relevant to the debate.

No, I don't. I already mentioned that Simon was neither fast nor explosive, and I also mentioned that he didn't seem to possess the general size or strength to account for any brute heavy handedness. That he could hurt you is not in doubt. That he was a tremendous hitter (in a historical sense) is more than a stretch.

I've explained my reasons for stating the above in several threads already, and I don't really care to go over them again here. It's also not really pertinent to the discussion at hand, which seems to have evolved mainly into a comparison of Louis and Wlad's chins, and hence the relative punching power of the opponents who dropped/hurt/stopped them.

Whether he would blitz Louis or not comes down to stylistic factors. I certainly think he could drop and badly hurt him though, considering the rather tame punchers who accomplished just that.

 

Sanders didn't have a particularly successful career outside of his win over Wlad, but he was a huge hitter and very very dangerous in the opening rounds for just about anybody, as Vitali found out. If he hit you and hurt you, you were in deep trouble.

So does Sanders. Really, Galento was an awful oaf, with absolutely ridiculous boxing ability. He literally lifted himself off the air with some of his shots, toughman style, and seemed more interested in wrestling than any application of the sweet science. That he got as far as he got can be put down to two reasons: an absolutely flagrant disregard for the rules, and a generally weak era that allowed such a limited contender a degree of fame.

Sanders was crude as a cucumber, but compared to Galento he was smooth as butter.

 

Exactly. A fighter can be downed (and hurt) for any number of reasons, not necessarily related to the power of their opponent. Odd angles of attack, off rhythms, underestimating an opponent, or sheer bad luck can all play their part. Sven Ottke managed to knock Mundine unconscious with a singe punch, but was otherwise a very underwhelming puncher. My guess is he simply caught Mundine sleeping on the night with a perfect shot. It happens.

 

Those are exceptions to the rule though. In general a larger fighter is going to be more durable and hit harder than a smaller fighter. In general

I doubt anyone, except for absolutely hardcore Wlad fans, have ever tried to big Sanders up to be something he isn't. But what he is is very obvious, he was a hugely dangerous fast and aggressive puncher. His record is not really what's up for debate here. The fact is, he could punch like a mule, and therefore getting hurt by him does not mean as much as getting hurt by, say, Chris Byrd, a much more skilled and successful fighter in a career sense.

 

Honestly, I think most of the biggest punching heavyweights would be stacked in the last three decades. And the most durable as well. Wlad, Lennox, Tyson, Tua, Cooney, Morrison, Ruddock, Sanders would all be on my list of top punchers, with Foreman and possibly Shavers bigging it up for the old school guys. Of durable fighters I think there's a more even stack, with Mercer, Tua, McCall and Evander stacking up against Ali, Holmes, Cobb and Chuvalo.

I don't mean to be controversial here, but I honestly believe that steroids have had a big impact on the explosiveness of punchers, whilst toughness (which is both a mental and physical trait) has more or less remained the same.

 

Considering how good Wlad is and how few people have been able to stop him, the fact that Sanders was able to blitz him the way he did speaks volumes for his punching ability and general offensive prowess (in the early rounds at least). If anything is circular logic, it's trying to prop up Louis's opponents by measuring them against other opponents of their era, and then applying those same standards to a more modern era in which the general size and athleticism of the combatants has improved.

I think you're losing sight of the main point of the discussion here, which is of one's physical and mental ability to take a shot. A hard puncher does not necessarily need a killer resume to still be considered a hard puncher. Resumes speak for one's skill level and general ability to win when the pressure's on; they have very little bearing on punching power or one's ability to hurt other fighters. Tua was a ginornmous hitter, but never possessed the skills or mentality to really hack it at the very top. I'd still rather be hit by a baseball bat swung by Chris Byrd than have to take one of Tua's left hooks though.