Wladimir too often gets discredited by saying he is "boring". the double standard with which fighters get measured are really bothering me. if hopkins has a tactical fight where he doesn't take any chances, he gets credit for being a smart fighter. if wladimir doesn't ko his opponent inside four rounds or his opponent runs away he is boring. let's face it: everybody has less than exciting fights - holmes had a few stinkers, lewis didn't always push it to the max - it happens! so here is a list of some good and/or exciting wlad fights for which he deserves credit: schulz barrett byrd I jefferson shufford mercer mccline (a bit tactical but still good) sanders (he lost, but no one can say it was exciting) brewster I (one of the most bizarre endings i've seen) peter byrd II brock
The McCline fight was pretty boring, Wlad didn't really do all that much in this fight until what the 10th round when McCline was gassed. The Brock fight was kinda lame until Wlad landed one of the most devastating hooks I ever seen, from his fist to his forearm landing on Brock's face. I agree with basically all other matches you threw up there.
I agree that the criticism goes over the top; Wlad wins consistently, and for that he deserves a lot of credit. The boring fights are mostly some of the recent ones, and people have short memories. But, I think the gist of it is that he is sometimes too cautious against opponents that don't deserve it. It's one thing to box a tactical and cautious match against a dangerous opponent, it's another to do the same against a guy he could simply blow out at any time.
I agree. And knock out does not look nature if you if you spinning to slow. But Wlad sad once by himself that fans are annoyed cos of short wins. BTW both brewster fight's where awesome
