Takam, Stiverne, Pulev. Rate these guys.

Pulev's coasting on his reputation of a few years back. His only legit opponent in years is Chisora who was just recently beaten by Agit Kabayel. Other than that he's fought the following world beaters: Kevin Johnson, Maurice Harris, George Arias (the crap one), and Samuel Peter (where the hell did he dig him up from?). He's not even looked particularly impressive in any of those fights, having to clinch excessively to shut down fighters' inside work.

Sure, he's only got one loss on his record, but that's because he's fought utter garbage since getting splattered by Wlad and is terrified of testing himself in any way. I don't see why that puts him above Takam who's given hell to some of the best heavyweights in the world and fights like a warrior every time out.

 

Well, in theory I match pretty much everyone else here in having Pulev>Takam>Stiverne. But Pulev outside of Chisora hasn't really done anything of note for a little while. The same is true for Takam really in terms of wins but he has at least put some good showings in, so I won't moan too much about how those two are placed.

Stiverne at one point was okay but that version we last saw, well I don't think anything else has to be said.

 

Takam's what you get when a fighter isn't afraid to fight anyone but doesn't quite have the ability to win every time out. Pulev's what you get when someone is only looking to game the system by carefully matching themselves against the least threatening opponents to retain a certain ranking and cash out at the earliest opportunity.

Pity, as he used to be quite a warrior himself. Wlad beat the dog out of him.

 

Is that Sharon Tate?

 

Watching Femi Superior vs Takam I think Pulev is a live dog. Has a better jab than Takam and equally as tough. Could easily hurt Lake Femi like Whyte did.

 

You slate stiverne now but give it a month and he will be given the WBC mando spot.

 

H2H you could make an argument that Pulev would beat Takam. He's certainly got the tools and ability to beat him. But Takam's clearly as fearless as they come and now has a wealth of experience under his belt which he'd bring to bear against Pulev. Provided the ref doesn't allow Pulev to excessively clinch then I'd pick Takam to wear him down over the stretch and beat him on points after perhaps a few back and forth rounds.

I just think Takam's the superior fighter overall. He's like a super-Chisora, whom Pulev had problems with.

 

Pulev would get splattered by Joshua worse than he did by Wlad. He has literally nothing but his jab to keep Joshua off him, fights straight up, has terrible defence, no infighting ability, not much power and is readable as hell. He also doesn't take a punch nearly as well as Takam, nor does he ride shots particularly well.

He'd get utterly destroyed. I thought that before the fight and I think it now. I also knew Takam would give a much better go of it prior to the Joshua fight, so his performing better than many expected doesn't have any bearing on Pulev unless you still want to hold to the belief that Takam isn't very good.

 

Can’t belive this is up for discussion,Stiverne is awful,we always knew this and the difference between the three is that Stiverne somehow had ranking points without doing Nish whilst the other two have wins.

 

'It's Ovah' is tarking pure rubbish!

 

Simple thread and Simple answer, Pulev obviously.

 

Pulev is a quality top 5 heavyweight with a great jab who won every round against Chisora and destroyed decent big men in Tony Thompson, Ustinov and Dimitrenko.

The other two are not top 10 heavyweights. Takam gets credit for being a durable loser for some bizarre reason, he never won a round against AJ and didn't really try to win.