The last great heavyweight....!

Fury emasculated Wlad so bad he shat his pants instead of giving him the rematch and went into hiding for years, lol.

 

Fury would have beaten him again.
Wlad forgot how to throw a punch v Fury. Fury was the only borderline great that he ever fought and he barely landed a decent punch.
This tells you all you need to know about the myth of Wlad.

 

Wouldas don't exist. Fury ducked the rematch and was lucky he got Wlad while 39, unmotivated and rattled psychologically due to his problems outside the ring. Even in this condition he landed only 3 punches more a round. And there is no myth of Wlad - one of the greatest champions in the history of the sport and his resume speaks for itself. If Fury was twice the champion he was, he wouldn't be half the champion Wlad was.

 

Maybe Fury should have got Wlad when he was 28, or 26, or 22?

 

No, he should have got him when he was 40 after the first fight in the rematch.

 

Why do you think it would go any different in the rematch ?

 

Wlad wouldn't be surprised by the antics and tactics, would be more motivated, wouldn't have to deal with his wife depression outside of the ring and he was always better in the rematches. I'm not saying he 100% wins, but he deserved the shot to reclaim the crown.

 

LMAOOOOO

 

You could say Usyk, and of those who ended their careers, Wlad. It's obvious that both are great. AJ and Fury, despite their athletic potential, probably not.

 

This is becoming more than just a little bizarre. Nothing you posted here contradicts my actual position. In fact, you seem to be agreeing with it to such a significant degree that it makes your post appear a noisy and without relevance.


On the one hand you are making statements like the following...

I've already clarified that I am not arguing a case in terms of "fan perception", so why are you continuing to bring this up?


But, in any event, you then on the other hand state the following...

...which is exactly the type of argument I have been making. The question is then about the relative merit of those wins, which is where discussion can be had. Thus, it doesn't make for the whole argument but it is a significant indicator of a fight – in this case, Dubois – being proven.


You're also misreading me or otherwise finding reasons to misrepresent my explanations, which are really simple and not difficult to understand.

You state:

No. I am not.

What I have said is that:

"longevity isn't everything in the 'Greatness' stakes, IMO."

AND

"When I look at Wladimir's opposition, I see that he faced a good number of unproven types and others that were barely proven."

AND

"Even those who had shown some promise were a couple of years removed from having had a significant win."

AND

"This doesn't mean the wins are fundamentally bad wins; just that they're historical worth is questionable."

AND

"At the same time, the modest level of challenge available to him meant that his performance ceiling didn't reach a high point."

I also implied that his style contributed to him losing out on some better-looking outings. The Povetkin bout is an example of that.

He has a few good wins but most of that longevity is sustained over modest-to-poor opposition. Granted, similar arguments could be made against Holmes. And, in some ways, that is also the point, in that it forces us to evaluate the strength of the ledgers in terms of the performances, not just the numbers, and I wouldn't rest everything on Holmes longevity alone.

While his opposition leaves something to be desired I would wager that he met a good number of Top-100 Heavyweights of All-Time, suggesting that, regardless of the dominance of Holmes (and Tyson alike), he faced historically proven contenders.


It's these types of detail that help place longevity into context.

Fine - we'll leave it there then.


But, before I go...

...I never said this...

OR THIS...

What I have done is disagree with your contention that a fighter cannot be proven if there is a dominant champion by suggesting that:

"A dominant champion does not prevent top-rated fighters and potential contenders just outside the rankings from competing with each other to produce proven contenders."

AND

Where you stated:

I've responded again with: "If the claim is that a dominant champion literally prevents contenders from proving themselves, then I disagree. Contenders can still establish a pecking order below the champion."


As I said up top, you are arguing a case I never made (fan perception) but making case a for Dubois based on the points I did make. That seems like an agreement on the main point. However, at the moment, it's not clear as to whether you realize this.

Once you've figured that out, we can maybe chat some more about the relative strength of opposition.

 

If Fury brought the same level again I think he would still be favored to jhave won again.

But at that stage I don't think getting in that same stage he was in Dusseldorf was happening. But either way Wlad still had plenty left in the tank as we saw 17 months later against AJ when he was even older.

 

My due. FAN PERCEPITON is literally the determined factor. Like ,if we are not talkng about fan perception, who are we talking about then? I am just gonna block you, not because you are rude, but just because you are not making any sense.

You are using a lot of big words, but they don't amount to anything.

This is what YOU said:
"When I look at Wladimir's opposition, I see that he faced a good number of unproven types and others that were barely proven."
"Even those who had shown some promise were a couple of years removed from having had a significant win."
"This doesn't mean the wins are fundamentally bad wins; just that they're historical worth is questionable."
"At the same time, the modest level of challenge available to him meant that his performance ceiling didn't reach a high point."
"While his opposition leaves something to be desired I would wager that he met a good number of Top-100 Heavyweights of All-Time, suggesting that, regardless of the dominance of Holmes (and Tyson alike), he faced historically proven contenders."

So all this boils down to Wlad is crap. I talk about Povetkin and one of his biggest wins and you go "I also implied that his style contributed to him losing out on some better-looking outings. The Povetkin bout is an example of that."

I am blocking this guy, so can anyone please, in english explain what this dude is saying? None of this makes any sense.

He just uses a lot of big words with contradictions in it

 

When I'm replaying your own words back to you and you're unable to make sense of them, then you probably have issues outside of my expertise.

You should probably change your handle to simply: "Challenged".

 

Completely agree on both points.

Wlad had his flaws as a fighter, and there are obviously several black eye losses on his record. However, his decade plus unbeaten run and complete dominance over the division earn him a prominent spot in history. You'd have to pretty much ignore the entire period between Lewis and Fury/Joshua/Wilder to argue that Wlad wasn't a "great heavyweight".

He gets knocked for his "shared reign" with his brother, but that was for less than half of his unbeaten run. Wlad also clearly fought the better opposition, and his resume is better than given credit for.

Any talk of great heavyweights has to factor in that nearly all heavyweights have patchy records and question marks, particularly once you go outside of Ali and Louis.

 

Frazier wouldn't have been "just another contender".

For a start, he was an Olympic Gold Medalist.

If an Ali fight had occurred some time in '69, after his stoppage of Chuvalo (the first man ever to achieve this), and adding Mathis, Ramos, and Bonavena (a second time) to his ledger, he would have been the #1 rated contender and 21-0, going into the Ali fight, with a record of 4-0 against universally rated opponents.

That's what one might refer to as a proven contender.