Heavyweights. Old timers vs modern.

Those names I mention plus Joshua are the exception, not the norm.
That is not true that all big men in this era can beat the oldies. Granted not the ones from the 30's cause I agree they are too small. But I pick Ali and Holmes to clean up everybody modern heavies, the only ones that stood a chance are Lennox and the Klitschkos, not because they are modern or huge in size primarily, but because they're also ATG heavyweights with good skill.

 

Of course he has. For years the excuse was Wlad could fight inside but he chose not to.
How many times does he get away with the Povetkin wrestling performance? 9/10 he gets DQ'd. And what if he was in past era where the pressure fighters are better than Povetkin? What hope would he have with zero ability to inside box?

He lost to Brewster because he had no close quarters skills. Its why he struggled so badly with Peter and why he then lost again to Fury. Watch the Fury fight again and only pay attention to Furys body work , ignore everything else. Fury landed more body shots alone than Wlad landed entire punches. People tend to forget that or just didn't pick up on it.
Body shotting will always be integral to boxing. It brought Whyte success against Joshua and if he was in better condition he could have piled the pressure on and won the fight. If people like Wlad who are going 10 years without throwing body shots and uppercuts , its because they simply aren't skilled enough.
A body attack is part of the complete package and that separates 1D boxers from multi dimensional boxers.

 

Well he got away with it enough times for it to remain a valid tactic for him for nearly a decade. The Povetkin fight was just the culmination of years of refs turning a blind eye to the point where he felt he could push it to the absolute limit.

Like I said above skill isn't a static set of techniques, it's about what works as well as what you can get away with. Wlad got away with clinching like a mofo because it worked for him and no one called him out on it. It's pointless arguing if he'd get away with it in previous eras. Either he would or he wouldn't. If he wouldn't he'd either adapt or lose. It would no longer be a useful technique in either case.

Techniques are evolving all the time. No one set of techniques can claim absolute mastery over their environment, only a higher than average rate of success. Sooner or later someone comes along that negates the current wisdom. Now that Wlad is deposed we might begin to see a shift in the types of skills that fighters train for in order to win, which might involve a greater emphasis on bodywork from taller fighters. Up until that point Wlad's skill set was perfectly good enough to keep him at the top of the tree.

Not really, unless you want to claim that Ali was one dimensional too.

 

To a degree . Ive always thought Holmes was more versatile and had more tools than Ali , but Ali's foot work and hand to foot coordination was greatest in the sport. His jab , hand speed and defence made him more than one dimensional.

He was forced to clinch a lot at times , but that was against Frazier and Foreman. Wlad was hugging and leaning on everybody he fought as an offensive strategy a weak era . Ali won plenty fights without clinching and there's a difference between a clinch and leaning your body down on guys backs.
Ali would also fight himself out of the clinch and was excellent at mid range. Wlad can be seen over and over reaching out and grabbing even from mid range.

I don't see how techniques are evolving all the time. You learn from the past. No boxer is doing stuff now that has never been done in the past. If anything its the opposite. Usyk is a hot commodity today and he is being trained old school by Bashir who said there are no good trainers around anymore.
Respected trainer Adam Booth is nothing but a dietitian to celebrities and was called a joke by Bashir. He also said Povetkins team were a bunch of amateurs.

 

I'd argue the same is true of Wlad as well, though he lacked the flair and adaptability of Ali and many other historically great champions. What he did have was an obsessive perfectionism towards those small range of tools he'd found to work for him and the athleticism and physicality to make them work against the best of his era. His jab, hand speed, accuracy, timing, and impeccable command of distance made him more than one dimensional as well.

Yes, but he got away with it and it was effective for him. No one said it was pretty.

When I say evolving I don't mean getting better or more refined. I mean changing to suit the environment. Fighters aren't doing stuff that they've never done in the past but there has been a shift in the types of tactics used and therefore the types of tactics commonly taught and drilled. Back in Louis's day fighters would in-fight. Clinching was more rigorously enforced and there was a greater pressure on them to fight on the inside, regardless of their size. Buddy Baer could have improved his chances against Louis if he'd adopted Wlad's method but more likely he would have been DQ'ed or so mercilessly criticised in the public and press that he would become mentally crushed. Nowadays a level of clinching from big men is expected, and while it still draws criticism (rightfully so) it's not going to lead to the same sorts of repercussions it would have in Louis's era.

Sometimes of course tactics simply get forgotten about or go out of fashion for no good reason. Often though there's a more practical reason they fall off. Ultimately trainers and fighters are at their liberty to use whatever they like and if it finds success with them then great. It's silly to just criticise modern guys because they aren't fighting exactly the same was as the old timers though.

 

Wlad is the very definition of one dimensional. He's programmed to do the same thing over and over. He doesn't fight to win , he fights to not lose and there's a difference.
An impeccable command of distance is Larry Holmes against Shavers. Lewis against Tua. Vitali against Peters.
Peters ran Wlad all around the ring and made him hold on for dear life. You can't be an expert at controlling range when your entire construct as a boxer is to hit and hold or even hold and hold.

Vitali and Helenius kept Peter on the outside without a clinch. Vitali never clinched at all and he was bigger than Wlad. Fury wasn't looking to clinch Wlad , he was trying to work inside , all Wlad did was hold on. Fury lead Chisora around the ring and hit him with every shot in the book. Wlad would have been all over Del Boys back something rotten. There are are endless examples. Endless hugging isn't directly associated to all big men , only Wlad as its the only way he could stay ontop.

 

If Wlad is one dimensional then it's a dimension he's honed to perfection. Look at the Haye fight for a more up to date and representative example of how good Wlad's distancing was.

Of course he fights to win. Baffling statement.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, to be honest. Wlad did what he did because it was effective and worked for him and because he wasn't penalised for it. That's it. No one's saying it's a necessary tactic for all big men.

 

Already?

 

It is going to take some Topping...

 

Vitali would knock Joshua out, so would Lewis.....................

 

Heard of a cruiserweight called Steve Cunningham? Think he's better than Ali?

 

He's beaten someone better than Whyte.

Top ten heavyweights? Perhaps some of the weaker or more flawed ones. They would need to bulk up though, or find themselves badly outmuscled, and who knows what effect that'd have on their overall effectiveness. Look at Adamek.

Of course they would, because it's not what they train for. Might as well say that older heavyweights would struggle against the clinch happy giants of today.