Perspective on Wlad, and the HW division

And i said you can't be just good/great and be HW champion over 8years,you have to be amazing..you said Wlad is just good/great.

and i didn't say you called Wlad opponents as bums.

We have really strong champion,so we don't really know how strong the top 10 is really.

If Wlad would be even slightly worse,this era would be viewed little bit stronger.it would make Povetkin of worlds look better.Wlad dominance in some weird way,does only harm to him.

Just my two cents,i could be wrong.just opinions.hard to prove either is right.

 

Per the title of the thread, a true perspective on today's division would look back to the midgets and no-hopers that Jeffries and Johnson defended against, thru Dempsey's trumped title run (which included a 3 year lay-off and avoiding his two best contenders), Joe Louis' Bum of the Month Club, Marciano taking out the local Old Folks' Home, Patterson's forgettable opponents, Ali's late 70's line-up of Coopman, Evangelista, Spinks and Dunn… Holmes picking on one of the most green and forgettable line-up of defenses… The cocaine champs and contenders of the 80's… There is some perspective.

The truth is that the division is rarely hot. It is just about the worst division in the sport, in fact. Still, through all the doldrums, very, very few have approached or bettered what Wlad has done.

 

Nor would you have guessed that Gatti was HOF material after watching his fight with Floyd.

Nor that Margarito was a feared KO artist after watching him face Pac.

Nor that Tua was a top five HW KO artist with a 37-1 ( 32 KO ) record, when he got shut out by Lennox.

The point is, if one fighter is a lot better than the other, they can make them look uncharacteristically poor.

 

Loudon, he's a great fighter. Full stop. (Period, if you're American)

I'll take it from the emoticon that you're kidding here.

'cause if you're not, I'm afraid there's no point in discussing any of this any further.


(And I'm a big fan of Roy)

 

Yes, the 1990's were one of the best eras for the division. Still, Wlad would have done very then. Sure, he would have lost a few times during his prime run… but then pretty much everyone did… Holy, Bowe, Foreman, Lewis...

More and more I am thinking his power is something truly exceptional… when he is willing to risk using it.

 

He turned pro in 1996, do you expect him to dominate at the top only a year or two into his pro career?

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--2000s

Have you forgotten that Lennox Lewis was 1 punch TKO'd by a crackhead and brutally KO'd by a 20-1 underdog in 21 less career fights? Neither of those guys were considered great but this doesn't seem to diminish his legacy.

As we know Wladimir has 2 unavenged losses

Let's just compare that to a small sample size from some of the venerable ATGs:

Ezzard Charles: 17 unavenged losses
Sugar Ray Robinson: 13 unavenged losses
Archie Moore: 12 unavenged losses
Jersey Joe Walcott: 12 unavenged
Jack Johnson: 8 unavenged losses
Floyd Patterson: 7 unavenged losses
Larry Holmes: 6 unavenged losses
Mike Tyson: 6 unavenged losses


Unavenged losses are not uncommon in the sport of boxing, even at the highest level. The more pro fight the higher chances of a loss.

Many of these losses go unavenged for many reason(e.g opponent drops out of the ratings, retires,ducks a rematch etc).

In the entire history of pugilism there isn't a boxer with as many HW title fights with less unavenged losses than Wladimir Klitschko.


People like you point to Lennox Lewis avenging his loses as a boost to his rep but you forget that Lennox was EXTREMELY LUCKY to secure the rematches that he did. He only way he was able to fight the crackhead again was because Mike Tyson vacated his WBC title to not fight him and Lewis and the crackhead fought for the vacant strap.
If..

1. Tyson had manned up and excepted to fight Lewis
2. McCall went on a losing skid and loses his ranking
3. The corrupt WBC didn't put pressure on Tyson to fight Lewis

Then Lewis-McCall 2 never happens.

If heavy underdog Hasim Rahman had not signed a rematch clause in the contract(a bizarre move) then Rahman would have been successful in running from a rematch.

If Lewis hadn't been so fortunate to be able to get into the ring again with those opponents, would you think less of his abilities as a fighter?

 

Wlad wasn't sparked by Purrity and Sanders because those years were more competitive. He fought much better guys later on in terms of resume, head to head skill and beeing prime. Sanders had some talent but Purrity was crap. One of the lesser contenders Wlad ever faced.

Considering rematches it's hard to figure out what went on inside the Klitschko camp, but they never seemed to bother about settling scores. I can't see any specifik pattern in the way Wlad was matched. They threw him in with Brewster shortly after he was flattened by Sanders, so it doesn't seem like they protected him. According to rumors they were nervous when he got it on with Samuel Peter, who was a very aggressive fighter with good power and crazy chin. But at that point Wlad had developed as a fighter and was able to keep his cool while he boxed and spoiled himself out of the tight spot.

 

If Lewis never avenged his losses, I will definitely think less of him as a fighter. In fact those are massive holes in his resume if he never avenged his losses. They can always use Mccall and Rahman as boogeymans and strawmans against Lewis.

Can Lewis beat Rahman? He proved that he can.
Can Wlad beat Sanders? He never proved that he can. So we don't know.

Can Lewis avenge all his defeats? He proved that he can.
Can Wlad have avenged all his defeats? We will just never ever know.