When did Wlad suffer his defeats?

Pre-prime everything considered. He became a better fighter following the first Peter fight, peaked around the Chagaev fight as has been said earlier in this thread, and is still performing at a prime level right now.

 

The poll is pretty clear.

Wlad has not lost in his prime.

Interesting.

 

Are you ****ing drunk or something?

44% is not bigger than 56%. how is the poll clear.

A 'clear' poll is the Wlad vs Lewis poll...... 70% is a clear poll.

56% thinks Wlad lost in his prime........... it's not a 'clear' poll. not to mention even if 99% think Wlad never lost in his prime.. it don't change the fact he did.
stupid ****ing moron

 

Wlad lost twice in his prime 1.0
He's now in this prime 2.0

This is how I see it.

 

He was in his physical prime when Sanders and Brewster stopped him, he also had quite a lot of experience at that stage, he just needed a few fine tunings before he became the boxer who dominates the division today.

 

He hit his prime when he first faced Byrd. So I say he lost twice in his prime.

It's funny seeing people refer to sanders as a step up though. Clearly weren't around at the time of the fight.

 

He wasn't green by far. He lost during his Physical prime yes. You are never faster then when you where 25-30.

But he refined his style and made it more effective. He has learned to protect his chin very well and using his height better. So for me his prime is acually when he went with Emmanuel steward and if I don't recall completly wrong he lost once under his training against Brewster.

So for me one.

 

Thing is, as much as Wlad has refined his style to make him a far more effective fighter, I still think that version of Sanders gives him hell if they thought tomorrow.

Styles.

 

How does this work now, Khan changed trainer if Virgil improves him these KO losses doesnt mean ****, he wasnt prime or something atsch get over it Wlad lost 3 times, first one he was green other 2 he was prime, did he improve yes but he was prime!!!

 

Hey please asnwer this.

How do you define prime?

Atleast I define someones prime when they looked their best regardless of age. Boxing isn't like track and field where a young 25 year old is almost set to be better then a 35 year old.

 

Wlad was in his physical prime and had plenty of fights so was hardly green being a top contender if not the top contender at the time of the losses to Brewster and Sanders.

But he wasn't at his peak, much like when Barerra changed his style after the Junior Jones so did Wlad. He's a drastically different fighter now. Just look at his stance, it's totally different he used to have his feet wide apart and so was immobile now he has a narrower stance and so is more elusive. He has learned to pace himself, clinch on the inside and looks to box instead of just overwhelm his opponents with power and aggression.

The current version of Wlad would not have lost to Brewster or Purrity, though I think Sanders would have still been dangerous early but after 4 rounds Wlad gets to him and stops him in the middle rounds.

 

Good analysis, Brighton bomber. I agree with all points.

 

Ones' prime usually doesn't contain the worst parts of their career.

So, obviously, his losses weren't in his prime.

Physical prime perhaps, but boxing prime no.

Otherwise Joe Walcott and other late bloomers lost a lot in their prime but all of their greatness was achieved after their prime? I just don't think that way...

 

He lost 3 times in his prime. He was 24-0 and an Olympic gold medalist when he suffered his first defeat.

If Fury had lost to Cunningham at 19-0 nobody would of made any excuses for him.

Nobody claimed Khan was pre-prime when Prescott demolished him at 18-0.

He's not a different fighter today. He just doestn't take any risks and has not been tested.