The term super heavyweight with skills has no official guideline. Here's mine

But as on other threads I don't fully buy into the notion that SHW's are going to always rule going forward. I still think someone with Holmes skill set (6'3"), perhaps Foreman's skillset (6'4") can still win titles. Perhaps even a bigger version of Tyson could as well.

 

This is exactly right. I'm surprised that there is so little consensus over some of this basic terminology here.

 

How does he have an all time jab when he was out jabbed by Fury?:huh

 

Ive seen them. Answer me this. Who was the best jabber he ever out jabbed??

All time jab is a big claim. Back it up.

 

lolololol

Haye had NO jab. NONE. And Wlad could barely land his own jab on him.

Fat shot to bits Mercer ?atsch

Chambers wasn't a HW. He had a tiny reach and Wlad had a 6 inch height advantage on him.

He had the same physical advantages over Byrd and neither of them were known for having quality jabs.

Pretty sad if this is the level you judge a great jab to , or is it just that you're a dishonest fan girl?

Wlad had a 20% jab connect rate against Sam Peter. He threw 271 and landed just 53.
A pitiful stat against a lump of an opponent who walked forward in straight lines.
The more you look into this , the more your argument unravels.

Video shows him throwing more clinches than jabs. Its indisputable.

Holmes and Ali fought and beat great jabbers in their careers , Wlad didn't , thats the difference.

Homles out jabbed MaCall at 44 years old and very nearly won the fight using hardly any punches apart from his jab.

At 39 Wlad was completely out jabbed by an inexperienced Tyson Fury.

 

How can you disagree when you agreed to everything I said. I never said the majority of titlist would be below SHW just that it's possible not to be a SHW if you have a good enough skill set to over come the height and weight disparity.

 

Where I disagree is that you can list all the punching skills Wlad has you'd likely be correct. But fighters also have intangible skills such as a willingness to risk getting knocked out, so they can knock out their opponents. Willing to turn a boxing match into a street fight (Lewis vs Vitali) if the situation warrants it. In otherwords to try and win by any means necessary, (within the rules) .

That is an intangible I personally don't think Wlad possesses.

Maybe the rematch will prove me wrong, but as many others have said both Vitali and Lewis would very likely have fought a much more aggressive fight against Fury if that's what it took to win the fight. They still might have lost, but the effort would have been utilized in a much more aggressive manner.

 

Clinching to me is NOT boxing and unless a fighter is hurt and hanging on for dear life, penalized.

 

The word “skills” seems to be the sticking point here.

What some people call the “modern superheavyweight skillset” is in its fundamentals, a very basic if effective skillset.

Early superheavyweights didn’t necessarily lack skills, but they often fought more like medium sized heavyweights, this negating some of their advantages.

For that, they might have been more technically skilled, than their modern counterparts.

Ironically, you could argue that Jess Willard and Primo Carnera are fighters with the modern superheavyweight skillset, while Rid**** Bowe was an exceptionally talented old school superheavyweight.

 

I'm with you, what the hell has clinching got to do with fist fighting? It should be penalised more, a hell of a lot more.

 

Tbh Wlad is one dimensional but it's an incredibly tough dimension.

Walk through him or out-out-fight him. Only a tiny percentage would be expected to do that.