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

0 ?

 

Wlad cannot be considered great yet. You dont have to have a defining fight but you do have to have credible opposition, and he simply hasnt. Not to Lewis', Holmes', or Tyson's standards, not even close if you want to compare to fighters who havent had defining fights.

 

If thats the case, the "great" Wlad had no business losing to the likes of Purrity, Sanders or Brewster. Larry Holmes comeback consisted of more credible opposition than Wlad's entire career. :hi:

 

Besides his brother, he's fought the best available.

 

He has, but its not good enough. I called Lewis great for being consistent and showing a little more dimension to his game against a mediocre group, but I believe his comp and ability far exceeds Wlads. Even the small glimpses of infighting with Haye showed that vulnerability is still very much there in Klitschko, Haye was just not capable of exposing it because hes just as bad as the rest only he talked like he could actually fight.

 

Povetkin has thus far refused to fight him, so it's a stretch to call him "available".
Roy Jones Jr.'s one-fight excursion into the heavyweight ranks occured in 2003, while Wlad himself suffered the defeat the Sanders.

Since 2006, when Wlad best Byrd for the IBF title, the likes of Toney and Ruiz were clearly on the downside - I think Wlad fought fighters just as good, or better.

Of course, he didn't fight every contender, but he beat some of the best available.

 

Lewis was probably better than Wlad.
I disagree on the point that his comp and ability "far exceeds" Wlad's.

Haye, Byrd, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Brock, Thompson et al. are not stellar comp, but nor were Briggs, Mavrovic, Grant, Mercer, Morrison etc. ..... all Lewis really has on Wlad are the fights with Holyfield.

 

Yeah.

Maybe he did.
Wlad's sheer dominance in most of those fights shouldn't be held against him though - as some seem to do - and should actually be his credit.

If his comp is a clear notch below Lewis's, many of his performances are arguably more dominant - as they are supposed to be.
So he can't really be faulted too much, IMO. He's doing his bit.

 

Agreed.
I wouldn't put it at five years though.
If he goes 3 - 5 more fights ( 2 - 3 years) without slipping up, people will seriously have to start rating this guy.

If longevity-reign-consistency means as much to some people here as they claim it does, there's going to be a hell of a lot of explaining to do if they omit or down-mark Wlad.
It's near enough that sort of situation now, IMO.

 

This content is protected

 

I remember reading through that thread. A hell of a discussion, I thought. There's definitely a line somewhere between a fighter being too mechanical & technical, and a fighter being too creative, straying too far from technique (Jones). I'm a believer of a fighter needing creativity and spontaneity. His fundamentals and technical prowess shouldn't be so apparent that he looks robotic. Whatever of it remains should almost appear instinctual. Fighters should be cerebral. That's what keeps boxing analogies to jazz, poetry, and art. I think that's why many posters take a liking to Charley Burley. Even though as a fighter he kept his hands and fight unorthodoxy, although doing so in a classic stance. However, I have zero idea where that balance between technical and creative lies. After all, one of the most scientific of fighters was Ezzard Charles. And he beat cerebral fighters like Burley and Moore repeatedly. The ultimate technician. Like Bernard Hopkins, who's also perceived to be the greater, more technical, more fundamentally skilled fighter of his generation (As opposed to Jones Jr and Toney).

This is a good point. Things are never quite as simple as they may seem. A valuable story.

Wlad & Pacquaio are antithesis of each other. That's why one is so revered, well known, and marketed. The little guys, albeit more skilled, where never perceived to be as exciting as the HWs. Things have changed, though.