41 year old Wlad in a series of fantasy fights

Okin129,

You have now gone off topic.

I'm not ignoring anything.

I appreciate what you've wrote above, and I appreciate the abilities of Wlad.

What I'm saying is: It's unrealistic to have favoured him to have beaten peak versions of Ali, Louis and Liston etc, especially by knockout at 41, when he couldn't knock out guys like Haye and Jennings etc when he was younger. It's illogical.

This is just pure ignorance.

They'd have wrecked all of the fighters of the 70's?

They wouldn't even have had a chance?

Really?

The likes of George Foreman and Larry Holmes etc, wouldn't have had a chance of beating Lennox or Joshua?

And you want me to agree?

Ha!

Come back to me after you've calmed down.

 

I favour the specific version (yes, the 41 year old) who fought Joshua with such heart. I am aware that won't go down too well with boxing purists as Ali is their god (good choice) and I am picking an old man to KO him when no-one else managed to.
Wladimir didn't show much in the way of mental weakness on Saturday and obviously has the power to knockout anybody so it basically boils down to do I think he catches Ali? Given Ali's cavalier defence I think he would if he fought in that same aggressive manner (even if he gets clowned for a few rounds).

(I did a little delete/edit job on my post earlier where I wet my knickers and started getting personal with a guy I haven't had any interaction with before. I read your reply to the original post and felt like sh!t. Not convinced Wlad doesn't go KO monster on the past greats yet but at least you won the 'bigger man' trophy )

 

George Foreman looked good because he fought against smaller fighters, he had always a physical advantage.

And a fighter like Haye would be at least a competitor in the 70s, he would be a big heavyweight with exceptional
footwork, speed and power.

Smaller fighters are not worse than 40 years ago this is nonsense, the smaller fighters from the 70s didn't have
to compete with 250 pound beasts.

Smaller fighters today like David Haye, Alexander Povetkin, Oleksandr Usyk and a lot more would be top 5
heavyweights in the 70s.

 

If only things were as simple as what you've portrayed.

I think you need to look back at Wlad's career in its entirety, before making these sorts of comments.

 

Havana Willard
Tokyo Douglas
South Africa Rahman
Dusseldorf Fury
Wembley Wlad

 

I have fella, we just disagree

 

Wlads way too big and even powerful for that lineup, Its not even close to fair fights

 

They're level with anything Joshua beat in his first 18 fights, and one way of looking at it is that at age 41 Wlad joins those ranks! So it is relevant pal.

 

Maybe he could deal with Johansson rather than Johnson, maybe he deals with Rahman Ali rather than Muhamad, maybe he handles Marvis rather than Joe but the others beat him. The guy is 41.

 

LOL well it's not at all is it, AJ hardly lost a round prior to Wlad and then get dropped and imo he was down on the cards until he got the stoppage late on.

Wlad compares to AJ's opposition like a Presa to a shitty chocolate lab.

 

And still better than anyone on the list not named Ali.

 

I understand why you think this. It is logical to assume the size difference as being too big a factor and in a way it is, for normal fighters. The greatest ever fighters are not only "not normal" but also often dealt with bigger fighters with what would be considered an astonishing level of success today but was just normal then.

Now, you can say but the bigger fighters are just as great and just as "not normal" as before because they are great in their own right. And this also is true.

However, this must be measured (since we are measuring one era against another) with what has changed since the time where the fighter from the past came from. And if that's the only difference that you can come up with or it is responsible for the modern fighter to be what he is today then it must be written off since it is an unfair advantage that was not available to the other party.

Without it we are left with seasoning, experience and the ability for 200 pounders to give away weight and beat great fighters who happen to be bigger physical specimens.

At this point we could be watching jack Dempsey and Joe Louis knocking seven bells out tall 250lb giants again.

 

Wlad certainly was a giant step up from josh's previous opposition but he remains at age 41, alongside Garry Cornish, Eric Molina and Charles Martin among a short list who also lost to josh whether you like it or not. He's joined their club now. It matters not anymore what he previously represented. Together they all lost to the same guy. It's up to Joshua (rather than his fans) to add more names on that list to help Wlads legacy, because until he does, 41 year old version of Wlad just lost to a 18-0 prospect.

 

Joshua lost the prospect tag when he became champion.

And your logic doesn't work. Just because Wlad lost to Joshua does not put one of the top 5 heavyweights on level with previous Joshua victims....tell me which previous AJ victims have the second longest reign in heavyweight history and multiple victories over ranked opponents.....Infact going by your logic Pacquaio after losing to Mayweather is on the level of Berto LMFAO.

 

No it does not put Wlad on that level overall, just the version that lost to Joshua. Nobody can take away what Klitschko previously achieved, I think you misunderstand me.

I meant it in a "Once Ali lost to Trevor Berbick it was time to retire" kind of way. Berbick went on to become a kind of champion later on but he obviously never went on to eclipse Ali either. I don't know what on earth made you think that. But that version of Ali that Trevor beat does join to ranks of the guys Berbick beat like John Tate and Greg Page.