Wladimir Klitschko was no better than AJ, he just had a weaker era.

Vlad fought in the worst era I've ever seen but cmon, his natural skills were a level above AJ

 

I ask myself one question, what would 36 year old Wlad vs Jake Paul have looked like?

It would have been over very quickly.

 

Wlad is good to watch when he lets his hands go. Pulev and Joshua even later in his career.

 

Yes, however he laid an egg (excitement-wise) in his biggest fights when he had the most eyes on him. Ibragimov, Haye and Povetkin were huge events and all 3 fights were boring

Even in his title reign he was overly cautious in the Brewster rematch and even guys like Rahman and Chagaev went much longer than they should have.

I was a Wlad fan, I'm not talking as a hater but he turned fans off even in fights where he eventually put the other guys lights out

 

Not disagreeing. I am actually implying it's a shame he didn't let his lands go like in those examples were he couk. I feel like it was partly mental and that frustrated Manny from time to time.

 

Being smaller has Stamina and usually speed advantages.

 

There are weight classes for a reason.

 

Oh it definitely does power and reach together can be hard to deal with. but there are advantages you can have when smaller with good power which Haye used in his Heavyweight career for one example.

 

Haye is probably not the best example. I respect the guy, but his heavyweight career was partly truth, and partly fiction. You aren't entirely wrong, but again, we have weight classes for a reason, and there are reasons that we laud guys who go up in weight, and castigate weight bullies.

 

Yeah, well I guess I could say Holyroid instead, but yeah they are the exception not the rule ( though when I think about being above 235 unless you aren't 6'4 at a minimum its probably a hinderance.

( Oh on Haye yeah great power and speed and could be dangerous, but I believe he should of lost to Valuev and the hype never matched the results, he hyped himself into a fight against Wladamir then got dominated.

 

All this and you really don't even talk about the era, which is the basis of the thread.

 

Most overrated in history? When you post stuff like this, all it shows is your lack of historical knowledge.

 

He didn't fight in a worse era than Louis and Holmes, not much worse anyway. Not to mention the Marciano or Patterson days or 1930's. It just seems like it cause he was so dominant.

 

What?

He beat Vitali up and got a stoppage

This was while he was kind of past it and out of shape

Whats the Vitali nonsense on this forum ?

Where does his reputation come from

 

We've have this conversation before
We just don't agree