Wlad's all-time status?

Good points, except I would like to touch upon something.

While Wlad certainly improved under the instruction of Steward, he still continued to struggle. He was beaten by Lamon Brewster and looked terrible against Sam Peter - both fights occurring with Steward in his corner. He did not look overly impressive against Ibragimov or Thompson either. As for his pre-steward career, I have to agree with Fogey that its difficult to give him a pass for still being a " work in progress. " Being an olympic gold medalist with a 23-0 record does not make for very many excuses in losing to a 23-11 journeyman who just about everyone and their brother was beating at the time. Being 27 years old with 40 wins hardly buys concessions for getting hammered by a 37 year old, unranked fighter who was only lacing up the gloves on average maybe once per year.

Now, I do feel that he has made some progress in redeeming himself, but his chances of cracking the top 10 are going to be very slim.. He's going to have to reign for as long as he possibly can and regularly fight the best possible challengers he can get, along with trying to sport some impressive performances to go along with it. There is no longer any room for facing shells like Rahman or mediocrities like Austin. At the age of 33 and with the next generation of young hopfuls rising, Wlad's time is running out. He needs to be both effective and efficient with every move from this point forward..

 

It was a good display of heart, but in all honesty, Sam Peter was an unproven opponent and one that would never amount to much. He was fortunate to have cought Maskaev at a time when he was on a severe decline, and at times during the fight, got hit with some shots that nearly took him out.. I give Wlad credit for composing himself and coming back from some very bad defeats to put together a winning streak.. But, its a rather weak streak against less than talented opposition, and in fights that he hasn't looked particularly impressive in.. As I said before, he is still not completely black balled from all time great status just yet, but he's going to have to establish one of the most dominant reigns of all time from this point forth in order to make a case. If he were to call it quits tomorrow, or worse yet, lose his next fight, then there's no way I'd have him anywhere near a top 10 list...

 

Which frankly, doesn't say much.

Maskaev was 39 years old, hadn't fought in 15 months, had spent much of the previous year nursing injuries and nearly had Peter out on his feet. The only thing that makes this fight valuable to Peter was that there was a title on the line, but asside from that, the win doesn't do that much for him..

Well it depends. If we're going to credit him as being a TRUE world champion by virtue of his reign as the WBO titlist, then we have to award the same status to every man who either held the same WBO belt or some other alpha strap in the past. This list would include Francesco Damiani, Ray Mercer, Tim Witherspoon, Tony Tubbs, Greg Page, Pinklon Thomas, Bruce Seldon, Tony Tucker, and a whole myriad of others. Given that many of the posters in the classic section don't view these men as champions, then I don't know if we can all of a sudden change the standard...

I don't think he'll do it either. But for argument sake, if he does, then those 7 wins need to be against the division's absolute best. There is no longer room to be facing shells of old fighters or mediocre fringe types. From here on out, it needs to be the best prospects and mandatory contenders available. compiling 7 wins against Ray Austin and Hasim Rahman calibur fighters is simpy not going to cut it...

Assuming of course, that he meets this criteria.

 

Seems like there is a couple fighters coming up with the right style and attitude to test Wlads weaknesses. Problem is the rest of the division is so bad its really hard to tell how good they really are.
For example if Chris Arreola fought Wlad and completely dominated him and knocked him out, could you say that guy was great?
The guy looks like a fat version of F. Murray Abraham. His defense is horrible, he takes a lot of punches, and his overall skills seem to be ok. Only thing is he has a brawling style, which brings a little interest to him and the divison which is filled with a bunch of passive straight up European styled boxers.
Bottom line the division has to be far more established than it is now to mean anything, and right now its only established as being very shallow.

 

The straw man came about when I saw just how many people were giving him no chance; the question wasn't "Will Wlad become top 10?", it was "How many more years of dominance would it take to reach top 10?".

So, when 50% of voters vote "never", it sticks in my craw a little bit considering the book isn't closed on what will happen from here on out and that response gives the impression that Wlad could dominate for years and still never receive that accolade. The likelihood of it was never in the question- it was simply what'd he have to do to win over the reader. Half the voters voting "Never" just reeks of stubbornness and shows that while fans complain about fighters being matched too easily, the fans own attitudes today towards losses are exactly why that happens.

He got beat 3 times- big deal. Any other fighter who fights at the Championship level for a decade with a record like 53-3 still deservedly gets called great. If he continues this for another 3 years, he'll have a level of continued dominance that hasn't been seen since Larry Holmes- and that's just including what he'll have done since the Brewster loss.

 

Well, don't forget he has three knockout defeats. That is more than Sullivan, Jeffries, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Lewis, and Bowe had in their entire careers, and it is also more than Vitali has.

And he is only 33. How many knockout defeats did the other top ten contenders have to that age--Sullivan, Jeffries, Tunney, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, and Bowe had none. Dempsey, Louis, Holyfield, Foreman, and Lewis had one. Johnson had two. Only Joe Frazier suffered three knockout defeats to that age and his were to Foreman and Ali, not second-tier fighters.

And Wlad suffered all those ko defeats in his twenties and he was not green for any of them.

And he has not actually beaten the very best out there for most of his career--a younger Holyfield, Lewis, Vitali.

He has a very steep hill to climb. He will have to be very impressive into his boxing old age.

To make the top ten all time the fighter not only has to be matched tough, he can not lose often or badly. He doesn't have a lot of slack because that is the standard these other men set.

 

All very valid points, which is why it's too soon to place him that highly right now IMO. The way he bounced back and overcame those losses is still something I give him credit for, because it's all too common to see a HW fighter go through that and either fall off the map completely or never be the same. Bowe took the Golota beatings, and that was that. Foreman had to take a decade off to recover from a couple bad losses (that they occurred vs great or good fighters was irrelevant to the impact it had on him). Smokin' Joe never really recovered. Liston went from champion destroyer to afterthought practically overnight. Louis is the best example of someone coming back from an ugly KO loss to achieve greatness, Dempsey as well, but Wlad's up there with Lennox as far as recent examples of guys clawing their way back after ugly defeats where everyone then writes them off to become better fighters. Tyson, while still entertaining and accomplished, never looked quite the same after the Douglas fight. It's a personal bias on my part, but I like to see that in fighters.

That's not to say Wlad will continue winning as lopsidedly as he has been, but we won't know for sure how to rank him until he hangs 'em up, especially since now is when we're going to see him fighting the next round of up and coming contenders. We shall see where he goes from here and how long he can keep it up :thumbsup.

 

I really do not consider this with an active fighter but Vlad is trying to fight the best. He has to fight the best and get out when the time is right. There is a war waiting for him, but at this point he makes it look easy...Brock,Thompson,BYRD,AUSTIN,Sultan,Ruslin,Brewster,Rahman,Peter...No one as of yet has got past his defense....I would like to see Toney get in shape to see if he can make a fight or get blown out also Shannon Briggs but he dont train....at the end of his career we can evaluate but right now its too soon

 

And you set up a group of possibilities, from he's top ten now, to 7 wins in 3 years or so. NONE make him necessarily top ten by any means.

There are too many things missing. For example, not counting himself, has Wlad beaten anyone who had a strong claim to being the #1 or #2 heavyweight of any decade. I think not. Lewis beat such a man from the eighties (Tyson), nineties (Holyfield) and 2000's (Vitali). Louis the thirties (Baer and Schmeling), forties (Walcott) and perhaps fifties (Walcott), Ali perhaps the fifties (Patterson), sixties (Liston), and seventies (Frazier and Foreman), Marciano the thirties (Louis), forties (Louis and Charles) and fifties (Walcott or Charles). Beating a whole slew of second-stringers might not get Wlad over the top.

 

If you make it THAT open ended. I didn't interpret it that way. Of course, I suppose Oleg Maskaev COULD also make the top ten if he goes undefeated until 2025 or so and knocks out 35 straight men. That kind of performance might put almost anyone pretty high.

Realistically, I think he has to beat someone who would be viewed other than himself as probably the best heavyweight of the 2010 to 2020 period. The horse is out of the barn about not beating a top man. He hasn't done that yet. I think he must.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1XcFbLCjjA