Takam, Stiverne, Pulev. Rate these guys.

Pulev

 

right now? I think its takam,pulev stiverne... if all 3 in there primes? I say pulev takam stiverne... I just don't think pulev is as good as he was 3-4 years ago I think takam has passed him.

 

1. Pulev
2. Takam
3. Stiverne

Anything different exposes some sort of agenda and I guarantee you could tell who they hype and fanboy for if they did say otherwise. While it is somewhat decisive in my opinion, there isn't too too much between them. Quantity of respectable opponents beaten maps out where they fall.

 

But Takam has lost all fights when stepping up and his recent wins are also garbage. He might be more fun to watch than Pulev but I can't see him ranked higher because of that.

 

Pulev and Takam are pretty much interchangeable now.... Stiverne is useless and shot to bits.

 

That can be pretty damn hard. You need to have at least a basic knowledge about boxing to be able to spot the differences.

 

Joshua fans be calling Takam "sort of like a Joe Frazier" like Wladimir fans did for Leapai.

It's actually funny. I couldn't get any of you same guys to give proper respect when he battled Perez or when Povetkin went to war with him.

 

Headvetkin is a ****en bum and anyone who has him ranked as the 2nd best heavy is suspect in my book. And ranking Pulev third!!!??? You're talking about his agenda? Lmao. Foh

 

Between your belly fat and his head, Andre The Giant(RIP) comes to mind.

 

I don't hate the guy. Hate is too strong a word. I strongly dislike his current fighting style and choice of opponents and don't believe he's sincere in wanting to fight Joshua or indeed any top fighter after the absolute splattering he received from Wlad. I believe he's become gunshy and desperate to maintain an artificial rating by doing just enough to scrape by. For what end goal I don't know since he clearly wants no part of Joshua.

I may be being too harsh on him, but that's partly because I used to be a big fan and it's galling to see what he's become, plus I'm just sick to death of padded fighters clogging up the rankings in the heavyweight division. Pulev, as far as I'm concerned, needs to earn his way back to the top the hard way, by beating someone decent to get there. He still has the skills but does he have the mentality?

Sorry. Strongly disagree. Results against common opponents (Thompson, Arias, Sprott) all favour Takam, so you'll need to try harder to convince me of your statement than that.

I wouldn't even say Pulev looks better on the eye test. He now looks like a sloppy, slower version of Wlad, right down to the excessive clinching and one-dimensional style. He also strikes me as incredibly readable, while Takam is one of the trickier more cerebral fighters out there at the moment, part of the reason he's overachieved despite meagre physical gifts.

Well, time will tell whether that's true or not.

Me included. But those performances were all many years in the past. Since then Dimitrenko's been splattered by Parker, Ustinov's gone off the radar (we'll see how much he has left this weekend) and Thompson went on to get even more emphatically beaten by, guess who?... Carlos Takam!

Chisora, his best win in years, was recently beaten by an unknown Agit Kabayel, who really doesn't look that great in all honesty.

Meanwhile Pulev's resume consists of who exactly? Samuel Peter, Kevin Johnson, Maurice Harris and George Arias. And he really hasn't looked brilliant in any of them.

Like I said, I used to be a big fan, but that was a good while ago now.

He was dropped by Joey Abell and hurt by Travis Walker. That doesn't necessarily mean he has a glass jaw, but it doesn't mean he has a great one either.

And I'm sorry but repeatedly getting hit by the same shot again and again, as happened in the Wlad fight, does not speak of a great defence or a great level of boxing IQ.

If Parker isn't a top fighter then this discussion is pointless. Let's assume for the moment he is and focus on Takam's performance against him. Did he beat Parker? No. But he gave him a hell of a contest and had him digging deep to grit out the win. Prior to that Takam had done exactly the same with Povetkin, who is undeniably a top fighter. Prior to that he beat up Mike Perez in a ludicrously scored draw (Takam won). So that's three top fighters he's given hell to, and despite the scorecards he was giving Joshua problems as well.

So yeah, why not give him credit for performances like that? No one's crediting him with wins he never earned, but I'd much rather a fighter take on the best time and again and fall just short than feast on a string of washed up hasbeens/neverweres to maintain a pointless record for the sake of rankings.

Bookies go with whatever will make them the most money. They aren't an infallible source of boxing knowledge. No, we likely will never know how Pulev will do, but if the Wlad fight is anything to go by he would have been destroyed and early.

Takam has way more than just a chin, but you seem to be stuck in a certain mindset so I won't waste my time.

You know that Takam gave Povetkin one of his most competitive fights, right? I'll let you work that one out.