Classic Poll : Wlad v.s. Louis ...

"Maybe that's largely Haye's doing"--? You think many guys on the street can name the HW champion? That's a real stretch, man. Ask them in a week -after the Haye fight is mercifully forgotten.

American boxing is shrinking, no doubt, but then again, it's bells seem to have been tolling since the 50s if you listen to the cranky pundits that have always indulged in their cynicism. But that isn't my point.

If you think Wlad is good for boxing, then there's nothing more to say. I think that view is nutty.

Your overstating your position again. Holyfield showed considerable skill. As did Holmes, Lewis and Golota at times, and Bowe -albeit briefly. I'm not so sure that Wlad understands technique better than Primo!

Nah -you're a damn good poster but you aren't looking closely enough at Wlad and what is happening and what isn't happening in his title defenses.

Take it from a middleweight who fought professionals weighing from 135 through 250 -it's a helluva lot easier in that class, generally speaking, than you think. The big boys are more often poorly conditioned, less coordinated, much slower, and rely more on strength and power instead of skill. Their toolbox is usually half-empty. They rarely have an unofficial pedigree as well -no experience with violence and the unique stresses that it forces on a man because their size is a natural deterrence.

 

Absolutely.

 

I saw a body-shot in the first 30 seconds. A lot of things have changed. For the better for him, but so far to the other extreme to the worse in ways as well.

Steward, "Right here you can see Klitschko is opening up." When do you ever hear him say that now?

 

So you think both basically got away with it because they were bigger than their opposition?

 

:good I agree......the fight with McCline is a great example as well.....

 

Barring Peter, what fights have you been watching. Honestly? This is exactly what people are talking about when they say it's impossible to get on the inside of this guy. They actually believe Wlad opponents are trying to do things that they are clearly not... or clearly don't have the tools to do. Your Bird-Wlad comparison is laughable.

Yes, Haye, Chageaov, and Ibraginov discovered the immensity and complexity of trying to outbox and counter-punch a giant, fast, powerful technician. That's not going to make a fighter look more dominant than he is.

As if Frazier can't get inside Wlad. He's too small, and not durable enough. The guy is going to look look a big target who's ponderous in comparison to Ali. No no no he can't get inside that Godly jab. He's not good enough. The athletes and skills of today's HWs like Ibraginov, Haye, Chageov are proving how difficult of a task it is to beat and get inside that jab of Wlad. They aren't even trying to! Yea, the lumbering oaf Peter attempts it. Too bad he doesn't have half the skill, speed, and reflexes of a Chageov or Haye. Oh well, guess it can't be done.

I'm more inclined to think you don't know what you're watching if this is your assessment. This stems the repetitive, over simplified assessment of many Wlad fans who talk like he has immense skill and does things that his opponents don't want to do when they aren't even trying to do it! Amazing. Any talk or comparisons of Carnera or Baer will put them in an outrage. Yet, they still don't have the balls to pick Wlad against Louis. Why? Because he's an opponent that would actually slip the jab, get into range, and then punish? A fighter with the skills, power, speed, and understanding and mindset on how to beat giants? But... he's only 200 pounds! Whatever happened to Wlad being a big skilled man that imposes his fights on opponents who don't want to fight that fight. Louis would counteract things many of Wlad's opponents failed to even try, let alone knew how to do.

 

Wlad really seems to bring some anger out of some people. Anyway, that´s funny.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnL5dZ2eBk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

Be inclined to think what you like. I am not insecure in my knowledge of or experience in the game. Your posts are shrill exercises in hysterics, immensely tedious and frankly a little embarrassing.

I picked Louis over Wlad, really? Egad. I picked the greatest heavyweight who ever lived over Wlad Klitschko. Bold ass, pick. You are correct. So, we agree a fighter with the skill, power and speed of Louis can beat Wlad. Such a specimen ought to be really easy to find.... given that he was merely the best there ever was in the division's history, which is proven (now pay attention) in the ring and his borne on his record. The same place where Wlad has proven his worthiness, and wherein that proof is quantified, to be considered a top 10 ATG.

 

He's not bad for boxing.

Wladimir shows almost as much skill as Lewis, or Holyfield, but doesn't show the variety.
(And I've explained what I mean by skill.)

To dominate fighters like Eddie Chambers, Sultan Ibragimov, Sam Peter, Chris Byrd, Ruslan Chagaev, David Haye - not particularly good fighters by any means -- still suggests skill.
Compare to Lennox Lewis - who dominated who that was much better ?
Struggled with a fat Ray Mercer, dominated Tua (who was even more out-sized than Wlad's opponents, and criticised for being just as inept in his challenge), dominated Mavrovic on the score cards (who was Mavrovic), was in a more reckless slugging match with the limited Briggs, most the others you could say he over-powered.

Results and the dominance of the performance speak of skill. Unless you think Lewis's crop were a big step up from Wlad's.
Lewis was almost as boring as Wlad anyway, if we're honest.

Holyfield went to war with everyone, guys like Alex Stewart and Bert Cooper gave him a hard time. I'm a great admirer of Holyfield skill, his ability, his style, everything. But he struggled with some guys who Wlad wouldn't even allow to show their skill.

Wlad doesn't use the same variety as Holyfield or Lewis, but he's mastered what he does use to an extreme degree.
Honestly, apart from the exception of Holyfield and maybe Vitali, Lewis largely feasted on the same sort of "stumblebums" (by your standards) as Wlad does.

Wladimir is a lot more skillful than Primo, not necessarily in his technique, but certainly in the skill it takes to impose himself and control the fight.
Primo did even less well as men who were generally smaller than the ones Wlad fights, again showing that "using one's size" at that level so consistently should not be dismissed as something easy and basic.

I think we're both looking closely, and both seeing the same thing.
But drawing different conclusions.

I agree with some of that, and that's always been the case. They also fight under conditions where even many of the less-than-ordinary men in their class can render them unconscious or inflict sudden damage on them, more so than at lower weight divisions. Avoided that fate becomes imperative to develop skill. Plus they have to adapt to fighter men of far more varied sizes, some bigger, some smaller.
So, all told, skill is still the priority and the primary decider in what makes a consistent dominant fighter.

 

For the record, I pick Louis over Wlad.
Could be a tough fight though. This guy Wlad is pretty good, y'know.

 

Tedious and embarrassing are always your code words for exempting yourself from the discussions whenever you don't know how to handle them. You're the crabby old man that comes here to set the record straight. To dispel any nostalgia and prejudices you see affecting posters judgements. You probably see yourself as a white knight of truth for the classic forum. Whenever the discussions shift into details or substance, you re-enter pretentious vocabulary stage, and dub other posters, or a group of posters for having poor judgement or double standards. Just like in our last engagement where you made the point of classic assigning different standards of excellence for certain fighters. Only problem is do you the exact same for the fighters you see fit for being over or underrated. You're the classic cynical naysayer so worked up over other people's assessments that you barely have a grasp of your conclusions on the subject. I've seen you basically call almost every ATG HW overrated in one way or another. It's amazing.

Now that we got out of the way of my shrill exercises of hysterics. Why don't you tell me how the majority Wlad's opponents really try to shorten the length of distance. Ibragimov, Haye, Chageov all the fought the wrong stupid fight. The question isn't just if Wlad is dominant at imposing his own gameplan and will. The question also is, does his opponents even know how to even engage Wlad the right way. I know you're not insecure of your knowledge. So let's get passed the wordy descriptions, and get into some detail or substance on why you think that. Why the content I wrote was wrong, and into specifics. Shouldn't be difficult considering how embarrassing my hysterics are. Should be interesting, I know getting into the content and substance of things isn't your MO around here.

As for Wlad in the top 10. That's your prerogative. I have no man in my top 10 that hasn't at least beaten the second best guy of his era.

 

Great point. :good

I would've liked to see Peak Wlad tested against a Peak Brewster ('04 Wlad to '06 Liakhovich), but sadly the '07 rematch was a bad indicator, because i'm certain the ridiculously brutal slugfest war Brewster had with Liakhovich clearly ruined the both of them, but at least they gave us a great fight to remember. :!:


Note: I'll reply to your PM tomorrow.

 

Thanks, I feel that for every discussion about Wlad's skill or lack of skill. What's even more important is dissecting his dominance. People are attributing more credit to Wlad's dominance than I see fit. I feel like in these discussions we have people on two different wavelengths. One camp thinks Wlad's stunting his opponents from doing what they want. The other side thinks Wlad's fighting opposition tailor-made to showcase his dominance. Since Wlad has nearly beat every opponent he could, this is a question that ponders the era and its decline in talent, and more importantly its decline in trainers and what's being taught. A super-heavyweight with some power, skills, and technique in an era of declining in-fighting is going to see fit a very dominating champion.

Boxing is a two way sport. I just don't see his opponents doing the right thing, or knowing how to do it even if they know what to do. I see him beating fighters that are smaller versions of himself. Fighters that are limited, smaller, like to jab, like distance, punch worse, and lack any inside dimension. In this scenario painted, Wlad is going dominate and hardly lose rounds. Against Peter and Brewster. Yeah, 6 years ago... but the point doesn't change.

A Peak Brewster would be far more interesting than seeing Chambers, Ibragimov, and even Haye try. I literally see there being only one way fit to beat Wlad. Attack him, press him, slip the jab, go to the body, double the jab, etc. The only man that could possible beat Wlad by boxing him from a distance is probably only the greatest HW of all time, Muhammad Ali. Doesn't that say a lot about Wlad's dominance at what he does well. Hell, I'd even loved to have seen Arreola fight Wlad in 2009 in LA, and not Vitali. It would have at least showed me something about Wlad that I haven't seen in awhile.

 

you chose ali who never threw a body punch on purpose. i highly doubt his limited skill set of an effective body attack would be able to chop wlad down. he'd outspeed him.

louis could do those things you speak of. his body attack was devastating. he closed the distance and exploded. wlad could do nothing to stop it.

 

huh?