Why Wlad will never be considered even a great heavyweight

though i still think wlad is just out of the top 12

 

The bottom line is Wlad is ruling the division that's really not that bad...tooo much BS nastalgia...you're telling me that he wouldn't give a fight to anyone in history...he would give them all they could handle and more. but to compare to the old days is ******ed and unfair to the old guys...Marciano? Great fighter ATG but would he stand a chance against Wlad? No way...it's a different era, the sport is changing...it's not the sluggfests of the 80's with no defense and no technical skill...whether you like it or not it's different and comparing it is useless...

All Hail Wlad king of the HW.....Cheer and listen to the haters whine!

 

Yes wlad and lewis have relatively weak chins

 

Too late.

 

Hey thread starter... get off that crack you are apparently smoking.

Clearly you haven't noticed that since the losses to Sanders, Brewster, and Purrity, Wlad did this crazy thing called IMPROVE. He no longer punches himself out going for early KOs.

And just to correct you on another erroneous point you made... Wlad did indeed avenge his loss to Brewster, brutally. Ross Purrity was already a journeyman with no upside, there was no need to go back and fight his fat ass... Corrie Sanders got flat out retired by Vitaly.

Another thing, Sam Peter scored 2 of his 3 knockdowns of Wlad in their first fight on RABBIT PUNCHES. At the end of that fight it was Peter on ***** street, not Wlad.

Look, I'm not gonna sit here and start comparing Wlad to Holmes and Tyson and (god forbid) Muhammad Ali.. But the man has absolutely crushed everyone put in front of him in the last 6 years. Since his last loss he is 13-0 with 11 KOs. You can't ask for anything more from the guy except for to take some more risks and throw more combinations earlier in his fights to make it more exciting.

 

WK is doing good at the moment but he is biding time until his defining fight (probably with Haye) where he will sink or swim in historical terms.

There is no doubt that the Haye fight will be explosive and dangerous.

However even the haters have to admit he is getting better.

 

Right on the button.

:thumbsup

 

'Got his ass handed to him'

It's called styles, plus Ruiz was near on 4 years closer to his prime.

 

Wlad knocked Peter out with the uppercut, try again. :hi:

 

He's dominant, keeps winning and has fans. I'm not one of them though. I find him terribly boring to watch, especially lately. Watching boxing, particularly heavyweights I like to be entertained and WALDO just doesn't do it for me. He can be so frustrating to watch and his fights are all the same - partly due to just how awkward he is to fight and his opponents not being good enough to cope.

 

Chagaev beat Ruiz fair & square, no controversy whatsoever. Keep spinning.................

 

Chagaev and Ibragimov are pretty good fighters, not D level.

Which was Joe Louis' toughest defense? Billy Conn, an ex light heavyweight. Who beat Louis? Ezzard Charles.

Fame has nothing to do with the level of a fighter.

Wlad wasn't in his prime in 2000-2005.

Wlad rematched Brewster and offered a rematch to Sanders.

Wlad also beat Byrd (who beat Vitali) and Rahman (who Vitali "ducked").

The 1990s was probably the third best heavyweight era, after the 60s and 70s. And 2000-2005 is similar to 2005-2010.

 

Your statement is clearly biased and lacking objective analysis. You say a small cruiserweight would be the favorite against anyone on Wlad's resume? You refer to Haye, who is bigger than Louis and Ali, generally consideres 1 and 2 ATG's at HW. Haye dwarfs Frazier, Macriano and is as big as a rpime Foreman, in height and weight. And he would not be favored by everyone against Byrd, Chambers, Sanders and Brewster, whom I would slightly favor to beat Haye.

Wlad doesn't have the big career - defining win. Neither did Larry Holmes, whoe greatness was accomlished through great consistency. Frazier has the immortal win against Ali, but as Norton revealed, that version of Ali was no longer the greatest. I would give a prime Holmes a decent chance to beat that version of Ali. I don't give Frazier a chance to be champion for seven years like Holmes, in any era. The immortal big win is more spectacular, but consistency is probably moire difficult to accomplish. Wlad has barely lost a round in five years. How good or great someone or someone's opponents are is subjective eprception and has a lot to do with media hype. If Wlad was American, the US boxing press would be drooling over him. If he had a savage personality, his KO percentage would be seen as the sign of a true killer. People who actually like classy, educated boxers who have a respectful conduct can see that he is a great fighter.

 

There's only one reason why he cannot be considered as a Top5 ATG and that is the weak heavyweight division. That's not his fault, but it is what it is. If we're talking about the fighter Wlad Klitschko without looking who he fought, then he's for sure one of the very best. He has everything it takes to be one of them.

 

Oh, and that shitty argument about the much greater 90's:

Axel Schulz was robbed against 90's champ Foreman, Wlad absolutely raped Schulz. The same Schulz who went 12 close rounds with Moorer, who beat Holyfield... People forget Bruce Seldon, how irratic Holyfield's career was, how a 45 year old who couldn't box well became champ against a former LHW...yes, there were some great, exciting fights in the 90's. Doesn't mean that H2H everyone from that era was better than today's fighters.