Prime Lewis vs Prime Wlad Klit

Wladimir by late KO or UD.

 

I wonder why so many people pick Lewis? Is it his dull points win and draw against an ancient washed up Holyfield or the laboured 8th round KO of Mike Tyson's phantom (which went on to lose more emphatically to Williams and McBride) which sways people?

If only Wlad had climbed similarly huge mountains in his career, maybe he too would be held in such lofty esteem.

 

Lewis would destroy Wlad inside 4 rounds, total mismatch.

 

That version of Holyfield would beat Wlad and shot Tyson lasted longer with an in shape, motivated Lewis than prime Vitali lasted with an out of shape, unmotivated Lewis.

 

Maybe the majority favour Lewis to have beaten Vlad simply because he was a much better fighter than Vlad has shown himself to be. One is a great, the other one isn't

 

if Wlad was willing to unload early on he has a punchers chance. But he never is anymore, so that's not going to happen. And moreover, he would lose the rematch by brutal KO.


but trying to outstrategy a master strategist is certain doom.

instead of trying to make up mythical H2H abilities for Wlad, you ought to celebrate his strengths of longevity commitment and role model public image. Noone tries to make out that Lewis was some public role hero for Britain or fully committed to boxing, there is no need. Don't feel the need to invent stuff with Wlad.

 

Because your garden variety boxing fan usually has no firsthand experience with boxing and bases his opinions more on end results instead of actual ability. He sees the big picture but doesn't understand he is actually looking at a mosaic.

They don't realize how significant the ability to move left and right is or how significant cutting off the ring is. They estimate handspeed, quite often inaccurately, but don't consider that timing is more important than speed.

It's like Joe Louis is considered so great but people ignore the fact he was fighting bums.

Or a certain fighter won so many fights but don't remember during those victories his opponents were largely cardboard cutouts with wins over fighters who had never beat opponents with winning records themselves.

Or that their favored fighter may have won but he was eating punches from light hitting opponents not comparable to the KO power the other guys has. This is kind of difficult to figure out because of tomato can and cardboard cutout victories. A tomato can is a boxer who is supposed to lose. What I mean by cardboard cutout is a boxer who has a great looking record but has only fought tomato cans.

 

spot on about wlad. your best post.

 

I don't see Lewis as a master strategist especially after his refusal to engage Vitali in a chess match, seemed kind of insecure. They could play now but I think Lewis would still refuse.

 

you don't see Lewis as a master strategist in boxing because he refused to play Vitali in a chess match?


LOL

highly ironic that you were just posting about people who know nothing about boxng.

and you were serious about your point too - you funny guy. shame, laughing at you now, not with you.

 

Why and how would Holyfield have beaten Wlad? Same old bull****. If Wlad had beaten Holyfield you'd find someone else that he hypothetically couldn't beat.

That version of Holyfield struggled with and was beaten by John Ruiz yet somehow Wlad has no chance?

And Vitali didn't 'last' six rounds against Lewis, he beat the **** out of Lewis and was stopped by a cut in a fight he was winning, any other night and Lewis would have got stopped himself.

This nonsense really has to stop, it is getting ridiculous.

 

true he didnt last six rounds, he got stopped before it, I believe?
But now do tell how many rounds did he last then, according to you? spill the beans mate.

tell us exactly how many rounds he lasted. post the non-ridiculous number of rounds, just the number. go on, you can yourself forever stop the nonsense as you so eagerly wan to, by posting one single figure.

 

The rounds aren't the issue, it's the 'last' bit I have issue with. To 'last' 6 rounds with someone implies pure survival, it is not an apporpriate term to use when describing a fight where the guy who 'lasted six rounds' beat the **** out of, wobbled, outboxed and outpointed his opponent only to be annoyingly stopped on a cut technicality then promised a rematch which never took place beacuse Lewis' mum didn't want him to.

Don't you see?

 

I don't see Lewis's mum, no. Should I phone her? Lend me her number.


you've not posted the number of rounds he lasted yet.

come on mate, you can stop the nonsense you so eagerly want to do by posting the TRUE unrevealed number of rounds he lasted.

 

I just explained though, that he didn't 'last' any number of rounds because 'last' is an inappropriate word to use in this situation. It's basic English.

Also, why do you need Lewis' mum's number when Lewis himself said his mum told him to retire?