Is Wlad even top 20?

Wlad is top twenty and still has a good part of his career before him, if he wants it.

When Wlad was down and complaining about being poisoned, which I did not agree with, I identified to Wlad's fans several things he had to do to win my respect- unify titles, have a lenghty reign, avenge defeats, defeat big punchers- there were a few others.

The point is, he has done ALL of these things. The fact that he had a tough time early on makes me respect him more, just tthe same as a Manny Pacquiao, Freddie Pendleton, Mike Weaver, etc. Not everyone is perfect. It takes a real man to come back more determined than ever- shades of LL.

Don't be a keyboard warrior. Give the man his due. He could almost certainly kill any of you.

 

What???

First of all, I've left the WBO out of this. That heavy belt hasn't really meant much until Wlad won it THIS time around. Shannon Briggs FFS.

Rahman.

Beat Sanders when both were actually in the mix, and young.
7 title fights. (2-4-1) Was linear HW champ by beating the real champ by KO. (that should be end of argument right there)
The last fight v Wlad was really poor. Rahman has been done for some time now, and was a last minute replacement.
Also has fought guys like Tua, Maskaev, Holyfield, Wlad, Lewis, Corrie Sanders, Ruiz, Meehan, Toney, Barrett.

Yes, he's had mixed results, but has fought A LOT of fights at contender or higher level.



Brewster.

His losses on the way up were against guys like Shufford and Ettiene.
1 title fight ( a loss v Wlad)
(IF you count WBO at the time, he's had 6 fights, with a couple of losses)
Best wins were a drugged Wlad, , a Don King paid for win v Meehan, old Golota (still an OK win) and Krasniqi.

Hasn't fought at anywhere near the level of Rahman for anywhere near as long. Really fought at a level lower than contender level for the majority of his career.


Don't get me started on McCall. McCall has fought at the top level for so long it's not funny. Won the WBC belt when it was worth a ****.

Corrie Sanders can't hold a candle to Rahman or McCall. Rahman KTFO Sanders out when it mattered. McCall would have done exactly the same.

McCall was beatable on points, by a good boxer. unfortunately, Corrie Sanders doesn't fit that mould in any shape or form.

 

I can understand people putting Vitali in on a H2H basis, based on pure size against old timers.

But when people say on achievement???

Vitali has a title fight record of 4-1.

5 title fights.

The WBO meant sweet **** all when Vitali had. YOu can't say it's worth a lick now, so it was back then. It was a minor belt, and everyone knows that.

Who is his best win?

Gomez?
Sanders? 38 and fat?
Larry Donald? Herbie Hide?

Seriously, Vitali has fought 2 guys that can be considered OK or better in terms of top level fighters.

He lost them both. For whatever reason, he lost them.
1 was injury, 1 was from having his face turned to mincemeat.


Yes, he's got a great KO record. Yes, he'd be a hard matchup for anyone (that's why I say H2H).

But in terms of actual, in the ring achievements??

No long term career at contender level (not long before he fought Lewis he was still fighting guys like PUrrity and Hoffman), and only 5 title fights.

 

Poor performances did you watch his losses? He was dominating brewster before he enixplicably couldnt even stand up.. Same with ross purrity fights he was dominating before he gassed... the only fight he wasnt wining was the sanders fight where he was caught early in the first and was tko'd in the second...

 

My modern era rankings (Joe Louis and Later). I never really deviate on #1-10. I'd move Wlad to #10 with two wins over the following: Chambers, Povetkin or Valuev/Haye winner. That would be NINE wins over Ring top 10 fighters since 2005.

1-Ali
2-Louis
3-Marciano
4-Lewis
5-Holmes
6-Foreman
7-Holyfield
8-Tyson
9-Frazier
10-Charles
11-Liston
12-Wlad
13-Walcott
14-Bowe
15-Vitali
16-Patterson
17-Norton
18-Byrd
19-Moorer
20-The Hayemaker :yikes

right on the edge...Lyle, Witherspoon, Shavers, Quarry, Spinks

 

Vlad is top 20 by all means.

 

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ6_BPrWdN4[/YT]

Don't forget Nate Tubbs liquifying Corrie at the 5:25 mark. Loved seeing Corrie beat the **** out of Wlad but he was never considered all that good.

McCall is a much tougher prospect and the Klits have been wise to avoid giving him any shot at their chins.

Rahman is far better than Lamon Brewster.

 

If McCall had won against Gomez then he would have won the WBC #1 spot and fought against Vitali in a mandatory defense.

But he lost. Twice.

Rahman better than Brewster? Oh please.

 

Dude, why bother? I've read some of your posts and you don't know **** about boxing. Don't bother responding to my posts with your idiocy.

Your opinion is worthless.

How can you even post such tripe and ignore that whatever McCall did at 40 and 42 years of age is irrelevant in rating his career or him as fighter? Are you that ignorant of the effects of age? Oliver is 44 and still fighting. When McCall was right he was an especially dangerous puncher. McCall was no one's first choice as an opponent.

Brewster better than Rahman? Get a clue. Lamon is a full class below Rahman.

 

Wasn't it you who said that the Klits were ducking McCall?

Then I show you how McCall had a chance to box Vitali but he lost the eliminator to Gomez. Then you attack me how I didn't know "this McCall was already 40 or 42 years old".

So were the Klits ducking McCall or was McCall too old? What is it, kiddo? Why didn't McCall box for an eliminator to face the Klits when he was 35-38? Maybe because he spent much of this decade boxing tomato cans and losing all his important fights (Gomez, Williamson) that could have landed him shots at the Klits?

Time to take your meds you clown.

 

Are you suggesting that becoming someone's mandatory is somehow the same as being selected as a fighter's opponent? Wake up.

You have trouble with the English language and comprehension?

My statement is clear. McCall was a tough prospect for the Klits and they would have intentionally avoided choosing him as an opponent (when there were so many far less dangerous opponents (bums) to pick from) in the late 90s and early 00s.

Facing a post-40 year old McCall would hardly be the stuff of legend would it? With the difficulties McCall was going through the Klits could have gotten him into the ring easily in the late 90s when they were fighting other American and European bums. Imagine the version from the first half of the 90s if you want to rate McCall as an athlete.

Get it now?

 

If you had any clue about boxing you'd know that McCall was damaged goods for any TV station after the McCall Lewis II drama. No TV station would sign McCall for a voluntary title shot. NO CHANCE. Too risky. What if McCall breaks down again and starts crying?

This has nothing to do with the Klits ducking him. Even if they WANTED to fight him they'd have problems with the German and US TV stations supporting the decision.

McCalls only realistic chance for ever getting a title shot again was going through an elimination bout and getting a mandatory title shot.

Very simple but quite hard for you to grasp apparently.

 

See you are a ****ing clueless idiot.

There was no major American TV distribution going on that would have been a factor behind their fights period in the late 90s and early 00s. The Klits were fighting 99.9% of their fights in Europe. They could have easily gotten McCall into the ring. No German TV promotion would have been a factor in accessing the legitimacy or adequacy of a Klit opponent. McCall's personal issues were irrelevant to that decision if the Klit's promoters wanted him in the ring and believed he was fit. Their promoters had all the pull necessary to make the determination as they were often selecting the BUMS from American and Europe. These were non-title, EBU, and later WBO fights. McCall was entering the ring in the US and specially in Vegas in the 00s he wasn't persona non grata in the place he had his breakdown much less in Europe. He wasn't precluded from travel ya idiot - certainly not during this period of time (and not even in 2006 during his later troubles).

 

So let me get this straight.

The Klits were DUCKING McCall and the evidence is that the Klitz promoter (Universum Boxing) didn't import McCall in 1997/1998/1999 as McCall was busy knocking out the bum of the month in Nashville, Tennessee after refusing to fight and mentally breaking down against Lewis.

The fact that the Klits didn't hunt McCall down in 1998 in Nashville, Tennessee and invite him over to Europe so they could face him is your EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE ACTIVELY DUCKING HIM? Hunting down an ex-WBC champ who went into hiding and disappeared into obscurity until 10 years later?

By 2000, Wlad was busy fighting (then) top 20 guys like Bostice, Byrd, Barrett and Jefferson, as mandated by HBO.

Tell me: Were the Klits also ducking Larry Holmes in 1997. Or George Foreman in 1997? Certainly there's no evidence the Klits were busy trying to track down these two ex-champs in the late 90s, so they were ducking them, too? You have a twisted sense of logic.

It is entertaining to see you cling to your ridiculous "ducking" theory as you are driving yourself deeper and deeper into the hole. You're certainly one of the biggest psychopaths on this board.

 

Some people refuse to give Wlad his due because his competition is not good enough.

They say you can't be great without beating a great. But that makes no sense. A great fighter is still the same fighter even if their opposition is poor. It's just that they don't have the same opportunity to prove it.

So where is the proof? If Wlad demolishes only B level fighters for the rest of his career, where is the evidence of his greatness?

I think that a prolonged reign as champion, beating the best that the division offers is evidence enough. Why? Simple. Because of the law of averages.

If Wlad is simply a good fighter, slightly better than the B grade opponents, then sooner or later he will run into a stylistic mismatch. B grade or even a C grade fighters can beat A grade fighters if they are a stylistic nightmare of a mismatch.

The fact that Wlad has beaten all sorts of fighters points towards his completeness as a boxer. The longer his reign continues, even if he never beats a true great, the more he establishes his credentials in the only way possible for him to do so.