Does any active Heavyweight have a good resume?

Only wlad, out of the active heavyweights, has a resume that will stand the test of scrutiny.

All other fighter have one or two decent wins but nothing that will hold up.

 

The Klits have Ph.D.s. That is good enough resume.

 

In the one post you have lumped Wlad's resume together with Haye's.

Do you see how that could be seen as a little silly?

 

May not have agreed with you before. I think you are 100% correct with the statement above.

 

First off I like the klitschko's. I have never said they are the best or better than Lewis and all kinds of other **** I see. Example : Wald would ko Tyson in 3 (That is a ****ed up statement if you ask me). I have defended them against those that I felt unjustly put them down and where biased haters. In the last few days I have come to realize, I can just ignore the biased haters, comment with those that have inteligent comments to make and have a much better time on ESB.

I think Wald's resume is good. He can only fight those that are fighting in his era, (Nothing he can do about that). I still don't think he has cracked top 10 yet, mabye he won't, mabye he will, have to look back after he retires to make a good judgement call on that.

Peace

Ps- Think Lewis's resume is better. Every fighter has a few fights against low lever fighters though, and I think Lewis has had a few to.

Just my thoughts!

 

The both fought some low end fighters in my eyes as well, Especially Tyson.

 

Remind me what prime great win Tyson has on his resume SportsLeader?

 

Very good post.

 

:good thanks, and you are right, on esb are so many dumb haters who just wanna hate, so i made the conclusion to ignore them, because you don't get upset and have more fun on esb if you just comment to smart and unbiased posters. especially if i see threads wlad would lose to everyone from the 80s, or k2 are only champs because the era is **** or the best thread of all is mike tyson via ko against everybody in the world in the first round......atsch
the classic forum is very good but the topics are mostly about past fighters, i wanna talk about our fighters right now. i think that you have good boxing knowledge so i can ask you, what you think about the martinez vs dzinziruk fight? imo dzinziruk will win a close ud and surprise a lot of people on esb, because they all believe way to much in the american hype machine...

 

Obviously a fighter can't be faulted for fighting during a weak era, but what is key for those who do, is they must be dominant to build up an exceptional resume. People like Louis, Marciano and Holmes are always mentioned when we talk about weak eras, but the difference between those and Wlad, is that Louis was 57-1 when he retired, with the only loss being to the great Max Schmeling. Rocky Marciano may have fought in a weakened era, but he beat several great fighters and retired undefeated. Larry Holmes was 48-0 and past his prime before he lost to the brilliant Michael Spinks.

That's why those fighters get away with it and aren't judged too harshly. The fighter can't control the quality of his opposition, but the key to greatness in a weak era, is ensuring that you are truly dominant.

Wlad just hasn't been. The only loss I listed above, was Louis' to Schmeling, a great fighter. Compare him to the fighters who beat Wlad. Sanders, Purrity and Brewster? Come on. All three are would-be journeymen in another era. Sure, Wlad has beaten his fair share of good fighters, such as Chagaev and Byrd, but the thing which goes against him, is the fact he hasn't looked unbeatable. Louis in his prime was, Marciano retired without a loss and Holmes only got beaten after his prime. You can't say the same about Wlad and even now, when he's at the peak of his abilities, people talk about overmatched opponents such as Chisora and give them a chance. That tells you something about Wlad's flaws. Wlad hasn't got the same aura of invincibility that the other great heavyweights who fought in a weak era had. There's always the suspicion that if Wlad fights a genuine opponent, he may get beaten and it's fair to have those suspicions because Wlad hasn't proven he's fixed his flaws yet.

As I said though, the difference between Wlad and the other heavyweights who fought in a weak era, is dominance. Wlad, whilst dominant, still have three losses to mediocre fighters and that hurts his legacy.

As for Haye and Adamek, they have a legacy at cruiserweight but not heavyweight. If anything, Adamek's successes at heavyweight are proof of what a weak era this is. And Vitali? He has no legacy to speak of and is too old to add to it.

 

This: [thread]287354[/thread]

 

Canada Gooses/Grey Lag Gooses
Big Difference!
Learnt the sport:good

 

agree!:yep