Disagree on that. Wlad wasn't shot but he wasn't peak either. Moreover he'd been having some serious issues at home that had been messing with his training and his mind. I do agree that Fury is a difficult style for Wlad especially given his size. Wlad is used to being the big guy and the master boxer and Fury challenges him on both counts. However the performance Wlad had on the night was extremely flat. He basically phoned it in. The rematch would have told us a lot but it never happened.
I’ve acknowledged in the past that he had personal issues in the build up. That must have been extremely difficult for him. Nobody knows how difficult. However, I don’t believe for a second that that was the reason why he could only fight aggressively in the final round. Yes, a rematch would have been extremely interesting. It’s a real shame that it didn’t happen. I’d have loved to have seen if Wlad could have changed his tactics etc. Wlad may have been far more confident and aggressive. Tyson may not have been anywhere near as motivated. Anything could have happened. It’s a shame. The only thing I disagree with though, is that Tyson ducked the rematch. I can’t believe that.
Wlad looked very poor against Jennings in his prior fight where people were calling him shot and widely predicting he would lose to Fury and Wilder. The rbr thread is illuminating. The effort against Joshua has also aged very poorly. If you think he was prime for Joshua and Fury I would have to radically reevaluate his legacy.
I was mainly talking about HWs. The point I was making is that the SHWs of the past 25 years or so would be difficult for prior generations to deal with. This thread is about Wlad's style against Ali's style which I believe would benefit him. But if we forget Wlad for a second, Lennox had a somewhat similar style and I think he would have a good chance against Ali as well.
Personally also I think they would be difficult for Ali, but that's because they're big and good, not because of style. Ali always found the stand up straight style with little head movement easy to deal with. It's that these guys are so good, not their style as such.
The new era involved the main figures only fighting once a year and largely ducking their contemporaries. I don't know if the era will even be remembered because so little ended up happening. 2016 to 2023/24 has got to be one of the most forgettable periods in the divisions history To make things worse Wilder and Fury who ended up getting much of the hype are leftovers from the previous era.
This is a stupid cliche that has no bearing in real life. A boxer that thoroughly dominated his opponents is far better than one that was in trouble and somehow mannaged to win. It shows that the first boxer was good enough to never have trouble in the first place. Wlad would beat him. He's bigger, stronger, hits harder and knows how to use his size to his advantage. All of them. He dominated more than they did. Only Louis had a similar reign. Liston was in his early 40's when he fought Ali. He went into their first fight carrying a shoulder injury and barely trained. Took a dive in the second. Patterson went into the 1st Ali fight with an injured sacroiliac joint. Plus he wasn't a natural HW. There's no magic to Ali whatsoever. He's an average boxer skill wise, who feasted vs much smaller opponents most his career. All the big heavyweights he beat were mostly flat-footed sluggers with no head movement. Ali had many weaknesses and made many tactical errors in the rings: he did not know how to properly hold his hands, or how to duck (he pulled back or sidestepped), nor did he know how to parry or to block a jab. Technically, Ali wasn't a very good fighter, it was due to his physical gifts (speed, reflexes, stamina) that he was able to get away with things that would have gotten most fighters beaten up. Ali’s mouth puts him in the top ten of fighters, not his boxing ability.
He does make it, he's 2nd greatest after Louis. But it's a top 10 greatest, not a top 10 H2H. For determining greatness, I look at how good a boxer was for his era, and what he achieved in his era. I also factor in impact on the sport, that's why Ali is so high. But for H2H I only look at skill, and more modern boxers have a big advantage. Ali is not in my top 5 H2H.
I’d agree that Wlads jab and grab style would pose Ali significant problems because there weren’t many Heavyweights in that era of any at all that were clinchers the way that Wlad was. Wlads style was uncommon in those days.
That's your opinion, but for me, a boxer needs to show adversity and win, especially a truly great one. It's not a stupid cliche; it's literally the essence of the sport and what makes boxing so interesting. If it didn't matter, then boring jab and grab fighters would dominate the sport, and they don't. Foreman was bigger, stronger, hit harder, and knew how to use his size, but he lost to Ali; boxing isn't just about technique. A few people have already put it a lot better than I have in this thread, so there's no point revising it. Basically, when Wlad had his back to the wall, he absolutely crumbled. The idea that he'd have stood tall against a prime Foreman when a 37-year-old, overweight Corrie Sanders smashed him all over the place in front of his own crowd is hilarious. This happened multiple times; it wasn't just a one-shot KO from the Gods in the way Lennox lost. Wlad disappeared mentally; it was a proven pattern of behaviour, and it was world-level journeymen who smashed him all around the ring on 3 separate occasions, and he didn't bother avenging 2 of them. Dominating B-rate fighters in a dog**** era doesn't compete with the true killers of the 70s or the 90s. If Wlad's "reign" started 10 years earlier, he wouldn't have gotten a sniff at the title, he'd have lost to Holyfield because he doesn't have the heart, he'd have been flatlined by Lennox, and even the likes of Tua would've had him terrified before the bell even went for round 1. Wlad himself would laugh at the idea that he's above Ali. I'm not actually sure if you are trolling with those Ali takes now. How can you think Wlad is the second coming of Jesus Christ with all of his flaws, and then say Ali only beat flat-footed sluggers, when his resume is head and shoulders above Klitschko's? Wlad didn't even hold the WBC belt during his "indomitable" reign; it's smoke-and-mirrors BS.
I like to take note of the oddsmakers. They are usually on top of trends and longer term type insights. Wlad was a 7-2 fave. The general forum doesn't do much of anything for me because a large portion are bottom rung fans and/or posting on emotion. There's a good sized segment that cannot give fighters they hate any credit and their little faves can do no wrong. The scoring discrepancies are mind boggling. Where in gods name did i say Wlad was "prime" for Joshua and Fury? Open that second eye.