Is it fair to say Wlad is generally not that entertaining a HW?

Never understood that opinion. They will eat canvas in any case. Big deal if Wlad annihilates them in the 2th or 7th.

 

I don't see any point in letting a clearly helpless and overmatched opponent last four more rounds than he should.

 

If the opinion is based upon how exciting they are to watch, then for some people it makes the difference.

 

After the first Brewster fight Wlad was sick of how it felt to lose. Thats what made him change, not Steward. Wlad makes sure the opponent never gets in the fight. Even a very good offensive boxer like Haye was barely able to land at all. I agree it's kind of boring, I just cant blame him for it.

 

I know why he does it. I just find it very boring.

 

That they do. I dont know if they just honestly havent got around to updating it or if they're intentionally omitting the Klitschkos.

There are problems abound on that list anyway... Particularly Michael Spinks ( 1985-88 ) and George Foreman (1994-97). Neither had any interest in demonstrating their claim as the division's best after winning the "lineal" title.

 

Depends on what you watch for.


It's fair to say he's not entertaining in the same way people called Larry Holmes boring.

 

yes

 

this, wlad is boring in the ring and out.