Can someone explain to me how Wlad has a better resume than Wilder

Wlad has 900 points on boxrec for a reason.

 

/thread

 

I think there's several active fighters that could run through Wilders resume undefeated with the exception of Fury as well. Probably have a similar KO ratio. That kind of talk doesn't mean anything.

 

Very few elite HWs have historically been above six two. Louis, Frazier, Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Patterson were all there or below that. Ali, Holmes and Foreman were all around six three. If you want to claim that all those guys were **** poor because of their height then that only really leaves you with a handful of great HWs or great HW wins. Who and what would they be in your opinion?

 

Yeah, people like to post a lot of chit on the internet.

 

Ray Mercer was an unranked cherry pick.

Mike Tyson's last ever fight was his loss to McBride in 2015. The last time Tyson had a top 5 win was all the way back in 1991 against Razor Roddock.
Thats 14 years since Mike had a top 5 win. And it would also be his last top 5 win.

In the few years before fighting Fury , Wlad had beat
#1 Povektin
#2 Pulev
#5 Jennings.
He was Champion of he division.. Mike wasn't even ranked in the top 10.

 

I've never been a big fan of Wlad's, but who didn't he fight who he should have done?

You can't penalise him for being bigger than most of his best opponents. It's just circumstances. Also, guys above 6ft aren't midgets.

Guys like Byrd, Haye and Povetkin, were very good and relevant fighters of his era.

Unless he'd only pursued the smaller guys and he'd purposely avoided a host of bigger and better guys, it's a poor criticism of his resume.

I think he had the best resume that he could have hoped for.

He was never going to fight Vitali, his early losses probably cost him a fight against Lennox, and Evander was already past his best in the early 00's.

You can say that his era was weak, but you can't say he didn't fight almost everyone from it.

I think his resume is very good.

 

I agree with what you're saying an that my post probably comes across as a bit gung ho, but Wladimir Klitschko's opponents were largely relatively poor in quality, coupled with their relatively small size made them tailor-made for Wladimir Klitschko. Most of these opponents were beaten before they even got into the ring with him. His record really isn't as good as people claim.

At the time, everybody was moaning about how **** poor the division was, and now, people look back on his reign as some kind of colossal achievement. It was a good achievement, but he conveniently had the best excuse not to fight the best in the division at the time. How many other heavyweight champions can avoid fighting their brother, who would have likely knocked him for the count?

 

True.

Those early losses really scarred him.

He'd never have fought Povetkin like that when he was younger.

 

If he was as good as people claim he is, he would have ended up with a resume a bit closer to Vitali Klitschko. Of course, Wladimir Klitschko had more fights, somewhat due to Vitali Klitschko's first retirement, but Vitali Klitschko never would have been brutally knocked out 3 times against questionable opposition. I think Vitali Klitschko lost something like 7 rounds in his entire career.

I think it's funny how Anthony Joshua can be ripped to shreds for being KO'd by Andy Ruiz in a much less dramatic fashion than Wladimir Klitschko was KO'd versus Lamont Brewster. Imagine if Anthony Joshua then went on to be KO'd by someone good like Daniel Dubois in the way Corrie Sanders KO'd Wladimir Klitschko, he'd be written off and proclaimed to be overrated, rightly or wrongly.

People look back on Wladimir Klitschko as some kind of solid top 10 all-time great for his reign where he beat the likes of Alex Leapai, Jean-Marc Mormeck, Francesco Pianeta, fouled his way to a win over Alexander Povetkin, Tony Thompson x2, Calvin Brock and the rest. All of that doesn't outdo being knocked out 3x by questionable opposition and then being absolutely schooled by Tyson Fury. I'd give him a pass for the Anthony Joshua loss because he was inactive at the time and clearly his stamina was failing him.

 

Wanna know the difference? Imho Klitschko can teach superbly THEORY of boxing in a college and PRACTICE in a gym...Wilder can only teach brawlers how to throw a single punch.

 

Whilst what happened to his wife couldn't have been at all easy for him, I don't believe that it had any bearing on his performance against Tyson.

Tyson psyched him out both inside and outside of the ring.

Wlad had never seen such a character before.

Tyson made him do uncharacteristic things such as lose his temper and swear, as well as shaving his hair.

Wlad couldn't handle him either physically or mentally.

Tyson broke him and made him hesitant.

Psychology plays such a huge role in a fighters performance.

You can't say that Wlad would have beaten Tyson had he have given him the fight that he gave to Joshua. Tyson stopped him from letting his hands go, and Joshua is a completely different character with a completely different style.

 

That's why I was never a big a fan of his. But he was knocked out three times early on in his career and it obviously had a huge affect on him mentally.

Most of the second half of his career was fought in a cautious manner.

His early fights were much more entertaining.

 

I don't think he lost just due to his age. But yes, we have to give him credit for his longevity and his dedication to the sport.

Tyson will never have that same longevity. But at 40, I hope that Tyson has a much better resume than he has currently, with added names like Joshua on it.

 

I think Sanders, Haye, Byrd and Povetkin could all have been problematic to Wilder.