McILVANNEY Picks Wlad

I think we're all guilty of looking at past boxing eras through rose tinted spectacles.For somebody of his standing as a boxing author/journalist to dismiss Wlad so easily,is pure ignorance.I would never consider Wlad anywhere near an ATG,but the man keeps winning,and considering his mental state after a couple of KO losse's,he's regrouped and shown at least at this moment in history,that he's the best heavyweight in the world.

 

I think what he meant by ordinary is Wlad would not have did anything significant if he came around in the tyson era or ali era. he would of only been a footnote in there reigns

He may have struggled to get near a title in days gone past. he has been beaten by guys that werent even top 15 or 30 in his era. Losses like that in tghe past ended guys contendor days. they would be dumped by promotors

I remember reading about Hagler defining fight being against a tough middleweight in his early years *munroe who already beaten him I think). After 2 losses, if hagler hadnt of won his chances of makiing anything would of been over

Lets be honest wlad has hardly set the world alight and has left a lot of doubts. He's really been jekyl and hyde

 

Then again,where would anybody rate Rahman and McCall in the grand scheme of things ?

 

I don't think we really need McIlvanney to tell us Wlad Klitchko isn't that great.

Just watch some of his fights.

I wonder how many posters on this site have studied the careers of Dempsey or Marciano in enough depth to make a sound judgement?

 

When you've got wins over the likes of Holyfield, Tyson, Tua, Grant, Klitschko, Morrison, Bruno, Mercer, Rahman, Briggs and Golota, it doesn't really matter.

Lewis' worst wins are more credible than Wlad's best.

 

Look at the resumes of all the older fighters.

A good portion of them have lost to lesser fighters before their title reign.

Let me do a recap for you.

Louis - KO'd in the 1st by a guy that was 48-7-4...before his title reign.

Liston - Loses by SD to a guy that was 18-5-2...before his title reign.

Johnson - Lost several times before a championship shot.

Dempsey - Ditto.

 

Most people who Tyson fought who weren't afraid got knocked the **** out. What about guys like Green? They weren't scared.

Bowe wasn't scared of Lewis and was a tremendous warrior.

Liston was a fighter at heart, without question.

Foreman was mentally strong.




A fighter showing weaknesses is completely different to being weak.

 

First point - how can McIlvanney be an English version of Bert Sugar when he is Scottish? Second point - Hugh McIlvanney has probably forgotten more about boxing than most people on this forum. He is one of the most respected, as well as most eloquent, boxing journalist's in the world. In fact he is regarded as one of the greatest writers around per se. So I would prefer to take note of his opinion, rather than Wlad's deluded fans. W Klitschko will not go down as one of the leading ATG's in the heavyweight division, as he has suffered losses to average fighters, has a weak chin, is fairly limited and one dimensional (although what he does, he does well), and is pretty boring to watch. He does not exactly inspire people to engage with heavyweight boxing. McIlvanney was also on the money by saying that, as a fighter, Vitali is better.

 

Was thinking the same!:good

 

Wasn't it McIlvanney who said Byrd would Annihilate Wladimir??

 

This is true. McIlvanney is a great boxing and sports writer. None of which means he can pick a fight. All it means is he can write down his thoughts and beliefs in a more elegant way than wot we does.

 

Semantics.

Please explain these two points that were made by such an eloquent writer then:

1) If Wlad is too big and strong for a 6'3" 215 pound Haye, then he's too big and strong for most past champions too.

2) Why didn't he explain why Wlad is "distinctly ordinary"?

 

I will answer both points at the same time as they are connected. McIlvanney's column in the Sunday Times is relatively short and he normally covers more than one topic, so there is not much space for him to elucidate. He is saying that he believes Wlad to be too big and strong for Haye, not that Klitshcko is too big and strong for past champions. This is more a reflection on Haye, who is a former cruiserweight moving up, than on the strength and power of Wlad. Remember Haye came into his last fight at 15 stone or so, which is fairly light. Also, Haye has a suspect chin. So in not rating Wlad highly compared to some of the past Heavyweight champions, which I agree with, he is also not rating Haye all that highly (at least as a Heavyweight), which I also agree with.

Remember, many of the top champions from the past were natural at the weight, had better chins, and fought a better level of competition. At their best, I would take Lewis, Foreman, Tyson, Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Liston, Marciano, Louis, Schmeling, and probably several others over Wladimir Klitschko. That is why he cannot, and is not, regarded as among the top ATG's in the division.

 

Do me a favor and go look at all of who you mentioned sans Lewis fighting weights throughout their career, especially when they started.

Then compare that to Haye.