Reason why I'll never rank Vitali's bro above Lennox

well..Wlad has the technic. The athletisim. the speed (especially for a guy of his size). The power too...

Unfortunately , (and yes , i know it's a cliched thing to say)
but this guy's chin is garbage.

If Wlad had Tua's chin...I'd probably already rank him in the top 5 atg.
A guy of his size...and technic...there never was such a thing during Ali's era either...

Unfortunately , his chin is even more fragile than Lennox's...

Wlad vs Vitali....I'd still go for Vitali to win because even though He's not as polished as wlad is...At least He's more endurant and has a super solid chin..

 

Here's a repost.... (worse in what way?...because americans aren't dominating?)...

Here's the thing...Boxing's history could've been dramatically changed during the Henry Cooper vs Ali fight...
Cooper owned Ali in that fight...
but fortunately for him , His corner was a fast thinker...and saved his ass by gaining some time and gave Ali the time to recuperate...

If Henry Cooper was able to pull that ****...

just imagine what most of these eastern euros would've done..especially big and skilled ones too...

there was no russian invasion back then.. If you're not being biased about it.
You can't even call some of boxing's legends "best of the world" since 99% of their competition came from the united states...

Hell even Lennox's record is slightly more international...(even though he only had to fight 2 or 3 eastern euros in his entire pro career)..

It's all relative really..

 

maybe so , but you're a part of it.
I'll never change my view on this issue. Wlad's chin is too fragile. that's a huge weakness.

 

(read above...my repost)..

btw , if someone's gonna beat him , Povetkin is the man for the job.

 

Let's just talk about the Heavyweight division. forget De La Hoya or mayweather. And just answer me this...
I'm serious here...

I truely believe that it's still "all relative".
Tyson's era was poor as **** too but no one was ever bitching about it.

Why is that?
Really , let's talk about tyson's so called "prime" for example.
Sure He used to look good at beating nobodies , no one's denying it but when you actually take some time to look at some facts...

a prime Tyson never had to fight anyone as big & skilled as a Lennox Lewis or a vitali Klitschko. Not only that 95 or 99% of Tyson's competition came from the united states.

Not only that...some of his opponents...Well..
Let boxrec do the talking
http://www.boxrec.com/record002971.html
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=003051
(and many more)...

We can argue and say that Tyson was super dominant because all his opponents were monumental cans too...

And AGAIN...Imagine this...Henry Cooper.
(that guy would be a nobody by today's standards)
Almost had "the" Muhammad Ali...Ali should've lost that one but Ali's corner purposefuly wasted minutes and gave his fighter time to recuperate...

Just a imagine for a moment...If Henry cooper could pull this...
Imagine the 70's with a russian invasion (but there was no such thing back then).

We can argue and say that other eras had veyr uneven competition too..On one side , you had top fighters , on the other...just cans..

which is why , you had extremely dominant fighters..

Is there really that much of a difference?
Only difference is see today is that fighters in the HW division are physically bigger (most of them) , most of the dominant ones used to be totally absent from the boxing scene (eastern euros).

Was Foreman's era any better?...for example during his come back?
The guy beat Gerry Cooney....who the **** is Cooney by today''s standards? another "white hope"? not even that...prime for prime...that guy would get raped even by the new comer (povetkin).


which era is really better?...hard to tell cause today's HW division is finally.."international".