I think he might be. Two wins over Byrd, one over Ibragimov, and another over a solid joruneyman in Koch. Has any heavyweight beaten a better collection of south paws? Off topic, I posted an article on Wlad's defense on the main forum. [url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49194[/url]
Alexis Arguello defeated Jim Watt, Cornelius Boza Edwards, Bazooka Limon, Rolando Navarrete, Andy Ganigan, Rey Tam and Bubba Busceme. The first five were all world champions. Tam was 22-0-1 when Arguello repelled his SF challenge, and Busceme was 27-3, with an eleven match winning streak when Alexis defended the LW title against him. Where heavyweights are concerned however, there has really been very, very little in the way of quality southpaws. Moorer finally broke through after over a century of Queensbury boxing. Prior to that, there's really very little to choose from. Ali had more trouble with Mildenberger than would have been the case had Karl been orthodox, but still pretty much shut him out over 12 rounds. Jerry Quarry's most impressive knockout win may well have been his wipe out of Jack Bodell, which ruined Bodell's recently promising career. Mildenberger had the better resume of those two southpaws. Since Chris Byrd may well be the best southpaw in the history of the heavyweights, and as Wlad is the only one to beat him twice, he could virtually back in by default as the owner of this distinction for his division. (Gene Tunney and other old timers would argue that recent southpaw successes are indicative of the overall decline in contemporary boxing skill. Back in the day, being a southpaw was considered a handicap, not an asset.)
The Byrd win I'll give him, but Ibragimov and Koch are not anything to get exited about. Wlad was also badly beaten by a 38 year old south paw who was fighting on average 1 per year and spending more time on the green than in the gym
And Sanders was at his peak weight, which he hadn't been in for years on end. He came into that fight motivated.
True, he definately showed up to fight, but his recent ring activity wasn't much, and nor had he beaten a true world beater. Although Sanders was a dangerous fighter who could have potentially troubled anybody, we can't call Wlad a destroyer of southpaws given that he lost so badly to a good, but not great man like Sanders.
Bottomline. What i would say is that Wlad is one the best heavyweights against defensive fighters. I can't see any defensive heavyweight in the history of boxing beat him.
Just for conversation sake, can you list some great or very good defensive heavyweights that you feel Wlad would beat?
I can't. And for what's it worth, Wlad's next opponent is also a southpaw. I enjoyed redaing Lobomoty's post on southpaws. One minor correction if I may. Lobomoty says, This is not how I see it. Back then, the feeling was southpaws were awkward and did not make great fights, so the trainers often converted them to orthodox. I have read this before. Being a southpaw is an advantage in boxing. It is a reverse angle thing, much like the lefty pitcher vs the righty batter in baseball, except in boxing instead of a ball coming at over a plate from a reverse angle it is the punches and blocks come at a different angle and order. In addition, the circling / footwork is different than what the orthodox fighter is used to.
You name it, i think he beats em. Tunney, Young, Machen, Byrd, Johnson, etc. If you lack the power to put him away, you're in deep deep trouble.
