Old Foreman vs Wlad Klitschko

Make up your mind Seamus.

You wrote that a champion doesnt remain dominant because they benefitted from a "weak era" and that modern fans always call the most recent era weak. Especially if they dominate as long as wladmir did.

So by your logic Joe Louis fought in one of the greatest eras. The same arguments your making to defend wladmirs horrible opposition can be used to defend Joe or Holmes!

 

So Chagaev, Ibragimov and Povetkin represent the elite of the era then?

OK...

...In their respective, professional careers:-

- Chagaev went 2-2 against ranked opposition;
- Ibragimov went 1-1 against ranked opposition;
- Povetkin has gone 2-2 against ranked opposition.


To put this into perspective (and because you've been around long enough, you'll appreciate this) even Chuck Wepner managed to go 1-3 against ranked opposition in the '70s and two of his losses were against Liston and Ali.

 

Really is amazing how long Wlad dominated the division. 11 years, 18 consecutive title defenses. Multiple ring ranked opponents in their prime. That’s not counting his wbo run. Impressive.

 

Wlad never dominated much of anything as long as his brother was around. The whole 11 year thing is hyperbole as he never beat the best or second best heavyweight in the world depending on where you sit. A great many favor Vitali H2H, probably the majority. So Wlad didn't truly dominate much at all when talking proven best in the world.

It's unfortunate and i don't expect them to have fought each other but the plain fact of the matter is that the top of the division was open for many many years and it plants an * on the entire run, or much of it.

 

I'd favor Vitali, H2H.

It's also amazing that Wlad was never able to establish himself as the undisputed Heavyweight Champion, despite his longevity.

 

Yes, and Holmes and Louis I rate above Waldo. What is your point?

 

I'd favor Vitali as well. I think his size, durability and output would trouble Wlad. Wlad has more weapons and is in many ways a better fighter but Wlad has that huge durability advantage.

 

Let me get this straight.

Louis & holmes era=great and >>> wlad whose era was >>> the 70's?

Thats is an incredibly unusual and bizzare opinion. Im not saying louis and holmes werent great as champions or h2h, but the way u judge their eras is extremely puzzling.

I'm of the opinion the top 4 boxers of the 70's (Ali, Frazier, foreman, Norton) would decimate the majority of the boxers in louis and holmes' eras and could give louis and holmes serious problems h2h.

There are a handful of guys in wladmirs era who could pose a serious threat in other eras h2h (like povetkin, Brewster, haye, Byrd, etc) but the vast majority of wladmirs opponents would be low B level at best in most other eras.

Wladmir had many things going against him that i dont blame him for. His best "names" were either way past their prime (ray Mercer, hasim Rahman) or he himself was past his prime when he faced them (fury, Joshua). The #2 guy in his own division was his own brother whom he refused to fight. Wilder showed up with the wbc toward the very end of his career and no one shoukd blame him that it didnt happen given his brave last hurrah agaunst Joshua.

I respect wladmir for having such a long run and being a major h2h threat, but johnthomas is right: he was never undisputed and was never the clear #1 of his division. His opposition was lackluster and even his wins were often ugly and painful to watch. He also had many prime losses and unavenged defeats. I think these are the main reason why his fans feel the need to exaggerate to compensate his obvious flaws and tear down whoever he's being compared to. Frankly, wladmir h2h and legacy discussions get really boring really quick because most people cant be honest and objective. I thought i was being very fair saying he had a good chance of beating foreman even tho i saw it as a clash of styles favoring foreman in some areas and favoring wlad in other areas but because I didnt take the extreme position that wlad would "easily win without getting touched in 12 rounds" people called me a "hater" and questioned my boxing knowledge. Lol. I'm done here.

 

Yea it's amazing being his brother was the other champion and the protected Stiverne under King swerved Wlad after the WBC was vacated and Wilder under Finkels thumb wouldn't be allowed to fight him ?

I'm not sure who's more oblivious out of you, Thomas or the glass cobra? It's a tough call ?

simply Amazing! Lol

 

I disagree. First off as you correctly state you can’t expect him to fight his brother. Second his brother tore his Achilles in 2004 and missed 4 years- during that time Wlad was clearly the best - then his brother retired for good in 2012. Wlad ruled for another 3 years before Fury fight. So that’s a full 7 years where his brother wasn’t on the scene. During his time away Wlad established himself as the best. Vitali never fought the competition during his return to merit a standing over Wlad.
I understand some people’s concern but I believe it’s misleading

 

Amazing the wbc kept Stiverne away from Wlad lol.

 

Wlad was ko'd by Brewster in 2004 so Wlad clearly wasn't the best in 2004 - this is inarguable. He had just 3 fights in 2005-2007 so there's certainly no dominance yet established. He avenged the Brewster loss in mid 2007 then started to establish himself as the best. Vitali was back in late 2008 thru to the end of 2012 so we have 2008-2012 as a complete grey area. He was clearly best or second best in the world again.

I'm not seeing this great dominance. The only times he was undisputed best was when his brother wasn't there and we certainly can't gift it to him in 2004 when Brewster knocked him out.

He was rated #8 by Ring in 2006 for heavens sake. In 2007 he pushed to #1. He and his brother were #1 and #2 early 2009. You could give him maybe 2yrs in that lot and only as his brother was injured. Vitali retired in 2012 and was still rated Ring #2 in 2013. You could gift Wlad 2013 forward until he lost end of 2015.

So you could look at him being undisputed best for 5 years, maybe - with gaps. He also avoided the wear and tear that multiple matches against the best or second best heavyweight of the era would have caused.

 

Wlad’s back to back wins over Peter and Chris Byrd by all intent purposes solidified Wlad as the best heavyweight in the world, something his brother was never able to reclaim post his first retirement.
You claim he only had 3 fights from2005-07. That is simply inaccurate.
In 2005 he fought Castillo (coming off his win over Michael Moorer), and top contender Samuel Peter. In 2006 - Chris Byrd (long time top contender) and Calvin Brock top rated young American contender. Then in 2007 he fought - Ray Auston and the Brewster rematch. That’s not mention the Davryl Williamson match at the end of 04 after the Brewster match.
So wins over Williamson, Castillo, Sam Peter, Chris Byrd, Calvin Brock, Austin and Brewster - clearly had Wlad as the top Hw in the world before his brother returned.

 

I am obviously not including 2007.... 2005 - (to) 2007. I missed one - he had 4 fights. Certainly not enough to have him as some dominant established champ pre 2007.

I also clearly stated Wlad was the top heavyweight at a point prior to his brother returning. Of course Vitali never made himself #1 after returning from a break. How could Vitali establish himself over Wlad at that point without Wlad fighting him?

 

Well Vitali could of made a stronger case had he fought better competition after he returned and Wlad could of tripped up and lost relinquishing his claim, but he never did. Two brothers controlling the division is a unique situation. Wlad however was the number 1 and I can’t fault him not fighting Vitali.