Who's the Smallest-Ever Fighter You'd Pick to Beat Current Wlad 6+ Times Outta 10?

Even Benton said he had the worst body of any heavy champ he had ever seen.

 

That is just the point though he isn't.

He is a one dimensional fighter who just jabs and holds and dosnt have much else to bring to the table quite frankly.

He is a limited fighter specificaly when fighting sombody who poses a threat to knock him out. He gets away with it only because there isnt anybody around good enough to expose his imitations.

Put him in an era with some real talent and he is going to run into trouble.

 

Exactly right! :good

 

Maybe you havent seen his Right hand of Left Hook?

 

Marciano

 

The skill set of truly big men is vastly different than those of the Louis size heavyweight. The combination of the two simply does not or could not work. Every fighter, if taught well, is taught to maximize their advantages, as does Kiltch, as did Lewis. And if you think Wlad clinches a bit, go watch some 70's Ali footage. Holding behing the neck, grabbing the ropes, clinching needlessly after minimal output. Ali was king at that.

 

The fighters with the most chance to beat Wlad are Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis, followed by Ali, then Liston. All these fighters should be heavily favored over Wlad Klitschko. I also expect Holyfield to out-grit him, but based on history, I don't reckon he'd do it consistently over a series of fights; I think Klitschko would also win his share of fights. Louis and Foreman would most likely knock him out, but I wouldn't consider them heavy favorites-- at least not in the way Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Ali, and Liston are.

On the flipside, Wlad might be considered a slight favorite over Dempsey, who I believe has the right style to beat him only I think Jack might be lacking in size. He certainly has ring presence, which might be enough to push Wlad back, and his game does not rely solely on keeping the fight in close like a Frazier or Marciano; he can dart in and out.

Frazier and Marciano, in my view, are the underdogs. They possess great hooks which has always been a danger to Wlad, and they can pressure just about as good as any heavyweight I can name, but since they tend to languish on the inside, I feel that Wlad might just brush them off and reset with the jab (Frazier has a great chance of evading the jab but in the end I don't believe it is enough). Expect these two to get their licks in but Wlad weathers the storm more often than not and wins on a smart gameplan.

 

Foreman was never immediately warned for the pushing, shoving and wrestling tactics. Even in the subpar condition he was, Frazier did OK against Foreman in 1973 for the first minute landing some solid punches until Mercante turned a blind eye and let George get away with his illegal tactics.

It wouldn't have mattered against the prime conditioned Frazier of 1967 - 1970. George may have this version of Frazier on the canvas once or twice early, but he wouldn't be able to keep him there or push him back for more than a couple of rounds before fatigue sets in and Frazier takes control of the fight. Too much emphasis is placed on the notion that styles make fights and Frazier would never beat Foreman regardless of condition.

I'll give prime Frazier more credit than a lot of people on this forum who simply write him off as a limited fighter with only one punch being the left hook. Joe was one of the very best at making his opponent miss punches with his head movement, while at the same time landing hooks on either side to the body. Ali never missed more punches in his career than when he fought Frazier, especially in the FOTC.

Frazier showed pretty good boxing skills against Ellis, Foster, Quarry, Chuvalo and Bonavena. He was much better than decent against Chuvalo and Quarry, throwing more jabs and straight rights, using footwork, less pressure and circling Chuvalo when he was pressured himself. Frazier used none of these tactics against Foreman. He stood up right in front of Foreman, in the power zone, thinking his experience would get him by, but it didn't. Only Bonavena had Frazier in trouble early, the first time they fought, but most boxing experts would put Bonavena right alongside Quarry as two solid contenders that could have been heavyweight champion in other eras.

 

Corrected.


As for Frazier beating Foreman if he was in better shape - that's just speculation. Fact of the matter is that he was annihilated twice and got hit plenty during the first few rounds in any stage of his career.

 

This is a fairly balanced point of view which pretty much mirrors mine. The only possible exception is I'm not sure how Foreman would do against Wlad, he'd either hurt him fairly easy or loose convincing, one of the other. If he could hurt him in one fight, he very likely could hurt him often in a 10 fight competition, especially if he hurt him in the first fight, relatively early. Interesting enough, no one added Sanders to the list, who may be one of those who could beat Wlad consistantly. Hard to say based on one fight, but it was a fairly conclusive win.

 

Originally Posted by round15

This content is protected

Only Bonavena had Frazier in trouble early, the first time they fought, but most 70's fans would put Bonavena right alongside Quarry as two solid contenders that could have been heavyweight champion in other eras.

Bonavena doesn't even make the top 10 in HW division today.

 

To be honest I dont subscribe to the argument that Wlad is a less durable version of Lewis.

In Lewis I see a far more complete and well rounded fighter who in adition to the long range arsenal brings a fine suite of infighting skills to the table. He can box but he can also fight.

Simply a fighter with far more levels to his game.

 

Bonavena was a tough, durable fighter that would KO, TKO or decision many of today's heavyweights. Bonavena came from an era when fighters train hard for twelve rounds, stretching it to fifteen. Sure gave the "greatest" one of his toughest fights in his comeback. There's no denying that he would be a tough assignement for any modern 12 round heavyweight.

 

Then you need to brush up on your boxing history because he was a serious contender in the golden age of boxing in the '70's. Today's division is the weakest in history and Bonavena would certainly hold a belt or two today.

 

This is the fantastical bull**** that makes this forum laughable. Tell me, where is the analogous fighter to this 5-10, 200 lber today? Where has he been for the last 20 years? There are millions of dollars waiting to be made in the heavyweight division, yet I am supposed to believe that the supermidgets of yesteryear have died out as a breed and the true giants are playing sports that have existed for decades, and in fact flourished in the halcyon era of the 70's?

Nothing personal to anyone here, but these discussions have more merit for comedic effect than anything else.