Can You Make A Case, For Wlad Klitschko Beating Lewis?

Given it's Classics little imaginary hub of fiction, both i reckon.

 

The forum is playing up with my replies to your post…suffice to say the thought of Steward rushing from corner to corner after every round is making me laugh more than I should

 

Wlad could certainly beat Lewis and anybody who thinks that one of the hardest punchers and best technical fighters in the history of boxing has no chance of crumbling a guy with an iffy chin knows nothing about boxing. Now whether you think Wlad should be favoured to beat Lewis is another story entirely and a different argument. I myself think that Wlad wins the battle of the jabs handily simply because he was so damn good with it. His footwork is better too. If he can keep it technical he probably wins. Lewis needs to take risks and turn it into a dogfight at a closer range and I'd favour him in a big sloppy brawl. But I think Wlad's infamous grab manages to shut down most of his attempts to mix it up. Other people may disagree on that. Wlad on points for me.

 

I'm really liking your take on this!!!!!

 

Of COURSE a huge ATG who was champion forever might win.
Others made most all the salient points.
You can find flaws with both, but even if Wlad did not get away with too much clinching...

The only rational ranges of responses is to say at most I favor one man.
Lewis had lackluster even prime performances-even a few wins.

Fair referee I favor Lewis, but it is no easy fight or definite win.

 

Haha! I’m actually imagining it like a scene from a “Carry On” film with Sid James playing the part of Emmanuel Steward!

 

Lewis arguably needs Steward more than Wladmir in this fight. Lewis lost the same way twice, and Wladmir had a very long and dominant career long after Steward died.

 

I can't say I have a firm idea of who would win, but of course you can make a case for peak Wlad.

He had KO power both in the left and the right and a great boxing brain. The only one Lewis faced on that level would be Vitaly and, of course, he did win that. But it wasn't easy.

 

Excessively hugged due to lack of versatility. No ability to adjust mid fight and never had a plan B. Never attacked the body. Uppercutted himself in the face.
There's no evidence of this "great boxing brain" you speak of. . His ring IQ was extremely average.

Example. Not going to the body against a gassed out AJ

 

You're mixing a couple of things here. Yes, technically he had deficientsis, like not being a body puncher and being reliant on holding for defence, but he adapted his style to make them as little an issue as possible and he did that extremely well. It wasn't exciting to watch (and Lewis wasn't always either tbf), but it was efficient.

 

Yeah but you can make a much stronger one for Lennox.

 

Adapted his style meaning he changed the rules to allow him grope, maul and back hump his opponent whenever he needed. .
Example - the wrestling / boxing hybrid he was allowed use to beat Potevkin.

In the Takam fight , Povetkin was outboxed cleanly by Takam thru the first 4-5 rounds. Wlad couldn't win a single round vs Povetkin with clean boxing. . Great boxing brains don't rely on rule changing and copious fouls to win fights

 

Lot of whingeing about Ali, Wlad etc breaking the rules, but give me one fighter that's been DQ:ed for that kind of holding? Or for the kind of mauling Fury does? The thing is that those tactics works, whether we like it or not.