The Most 1 Dimensional Lineal Heavyweight Champion Ever?

Then explain his multi-faced game and how it was proven against the best fighters of his day.

Again, obviously no world champ, no matter how poor their competition or how gamely they ducked better challengers, is merely one-dimensional. However, some guys lack a lot of imagination and are able to find suitable foils so that the same couple tricks are sufficient.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think young Foreman may be the right answer here (not that the old version was Sugar Ray Robinson reincarnated, but he had a higher ring IQ and fought smarter) if we're rating the lineal champs that were worth their salt and not just cherry picking out the weakest ones overall.

There was a lack of adaptability beyond "Foreman smash!" tactics, even for something like energy management, which any championship level fighter ought to have down pat. I don't think he had terrible stamina, but he managed it poorly. That's actually a bit worse than just having subpar stamina in the first place.

Granted, he was a monster at that one dimension with the right hand and the uppercut. But he was in trouble if he couldn't knock you out, and there weren't many countermeasures he was capable of if you forced him to find a plan B.

 

Width and depth than. Clearly at least 2 dimensional. Even height in case of Fury despite the latitude. That's three than so, there. Now Hearns on the other hand.

 

I know Wlad was rated p4p. How does that stop him being one dimensional?

 

I think the issue is 1 dimensional doesn't mean a negative thing. It can mean they only ever needed that one dimension.

 

Rocky Balboa, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang. All one dimensional. Literally.

 

Or you can be a multidimensional mediocre ABC ham'n'egger too, yeah.

 

Max Baer gets my vote.

 

Yeah, there are certainly different ways to interpret it.

 

Huh? Wlad is a pound for pound boxer.

World class jab and right. Devastating hook. Good speed. Good footwork. Good defense, good clinching if needed.

If we are talking most one-dimensional linear champion, Ingo or Frazier can be discussed. And then there is Braddock who didn't even have something great that was one-dimensional.

What is your definition of being one dimensional? Wlad actually had two careers.

1 ) Destroyer type

2 ) Boxer type who uses his size and skills to their maximum as an out fighter.

A one-dimensional type champion to me is a fighter who did just one thing very well.

Tua if he was a champion would be a good example. He was short and slow a foot with little defense, but great power.

 

I don’t think you will find a fighter who has had tangible success against much bigger men, at the very highest level of the sport, who qualifies as being one dimensional.

They by definition, are the men who have to have many dimensions to their game.

 

He had good defense. He would've been knocked out otherwise. Lewis said so.

 

Definitely. Like Adrian Broner seems to be multi faceted but he's not really good at anything. Same with Juan Manuel Lopez.

 

Pre Steward he showed a lot to his game. Lightning qyick, light on his feet, punches in bunches, lots of movement, but also lots of openings and expended energy.

Post Steward, prime Wlad, that's what I'm talking about. Regardless of his opponent he fought the exact same style, people figured him out, he never had to figure them out. The one exception was Pulev who he hurt with every single punch and capitalised on that advantage. Yes he had to be able to throw killer hooks om the back foot, he had to have a very quick jab and quick upper body movement, he had to have enormous strength to help him in the clinch, but these were all attributes that combined led to his jab and grab dimension and he didn't deviate from it in his prime.

 

Burns often boxed off the backfoot and moved. Othertimes he fought agressively, doing the forcing. And other occasions he fought cagily, setting traps.