Takam, Stiverne, Pulev. Rate these guys.

Forget Stiverne the mans a joke. I actually think a fight between Pulev and Takkam would be a real good one, good clash of styles. Could go either way. So i dont know who is the best. But im very clear on who is the worst.

 

I guess I agree with this Blizz then.

Don't take comfort in numbers when dealing with opinion. Most people, and I don't give a damn what subject you're on, most people have strong opinions based on weak to no research. Common knowledge is some of the dumbest **** in boxing that survives just because it's common and when you find it's root it tends to be a whole lot of unchallenged nonsense that quickly falls apart to any honest scrutiny of causality. In other words, no one ever lost a current fight because they lost a fight past fight. No one ever won a fight based off having beaten a different fighter in the past. Yet most of what fans talk about as evidence of greatness is who beat who not what caused what.

How is it obvious to you given Bermane didn't have time to do ****? Are you telling me Pulev's guard is so impregnable he wouldn't have had his gloves split? How about Takam? Are you saying Bermane did something wrong to be KO'd? He made a mistake that Wilder capitalized on did he? You're sure Wilder didn't force an opportunity for himself through a sequence no one in the division has shown a defense for? How many times has Takam defended having his gloves split? AJ was trying was he? How about Pulev? His ability to hold his hands low and apart while he walks into jab after jab and left hooks from hell repeatedly against Klitschko showed he has the technical expertise to know what to do when Wilder covers half the ring with a punch that so accurate it slides between two gloves that are so close they're touching? Nope, you have no analogues and yet yer ready for a compare and contrast? My dick, there's a reason why you and yer cohorts have nothing but semantics to share and circle jerk over.

All anyone can possibly get out of Bermane's last showing is Wilder's damn accurate when he wants to be. That's it, end of. Anything beyond that and you're just lying to yourself. My proof of the lie is look at the semantics used to justify what is being said. There is no semantics in got them gloves split. Pulev tried real hard doe against Wlad is some semantics, it's worth is whatever the group decides it is not intrinsic. Wilder splitting gloves has intrinsic in inarguable value. Takam and Pulev's win have whatever value y'all decide. There's a huge difference.

You can tell me but top ten doe like y'all don't pick and choose who of the top ten you honor and who you discredit but we all know better. I big group of assholes agreeing this performance or that had anything to do with Wilder's last outing doesn't impress anyone but other likewise surface dwellers happy to share and argue semantically while steering clear of anything that actually reflects cause.

 

The poll only makes you feel better but it tells nothing. Floyd lost a landslide vote to Pac in terms of who was greater. Floyd lost polls to Pac where Floyd was clearly the greater fighter.

 

Stiverne is still the most accomplished out of everyone on the list. Pulev's best accomplishment is being a punching bag for a old semi-shot Wlad that easily destroyed him. Takam is another guy that consistently gets easily dominated by top competition, but gets praised for it. Takam landed tons of flush shots on Povetkin and Joshua and couldn't phase them one bit. When Povetkin got tired of carrying Takam he easily finished him. Joshua most likely would've finished the fight several rounds earlier if not for the headbutt.


Stiverne at his best won a title and was a top 3-5 fighter and knocks out both Pulev or Takam.

Stiverne after the first Wilder fight seemed to have lost any motivation to fight anymore and clearly just showed to get paid in the most recent fight against Wilder, which is why Wilder and even Stiverne's own manager didn't want Stiverne to take the fight. Random dudes off the street would've knocked Stiverne out that night.

 

You still seem to think Femi is some kind of superman. I don't. Boiled down he's a flat footed over muscled one dimensional slugger who was knocked down just as heavily by a shot version of Wlad as Pulev was by a still prime version and struggled to deal with a smaller dude, last minute stand in, throwing feints in his last fight. The Femi brand is not as shiny as it was and he is ripe for a KO from anybody with a punch and a gameplan. If Takam had had any power he would have had him in serious trouble.

 

Keep squirming you forum slug, lmao

Dont forget boxing always comes full circle.

 

Holy crap you're full of lots of stupid.

 

Address me properly then and break down where I'm going wrong.

 

Ugly, hairy, bum. In that order.

 

You seem to have an agenda and hate the guy.. and I disagree with almost everything you said about him. you are talking like Pulev is an absolute bum, when he was a top amateur and has been a top pro who has only lost to the greatest heavyweight of this era.

You claim Takam is better than Pulev when he's not , surely you are trolling. Pulev is clearly better, ability wise it's as clear as daylight.
You claim he's a *****, - when he was injured.
You claim he's never looked impressive.. there's been plenty of impressive performances..He's not always good to watch, but he dominates opponents with that great jab he has. I had him winning 11 rounds of out 12 against Chisora I don't think anyone apart from Fury in their second fight has dominated Chisora that much, he also looked very good against Dimitrenko, Thompson, and Ustinov.. a lot of people thought he was gonna be a real test for Wlad and rightly so.
You claim he has a terrible defence and doesn't take a good shot - both very incorrect. Apart from the Wlad fight, I've never ever seen him hurt.

You claim Takam has given hell to some of the best heavyweights in the world... when he never won a round against Joshua!!! and Parker isn't one of the best. Takam gets credit for being a durable loser/gatekeeper, he aint never gonna beat anyone of note.

You claim he would have had no chance against AJ and wouldn't have given him as good a fight as Takam. When Takam did nothing but be a punchbag, all Takam has is a chin that's it.
We'll never know now probably how Pulev would have done, but the huge difference in the bookmakers prices between Pulev's price and Takams price tells you all you need to know.

If we were putting all the current heavyweights head to head.. I'd have Povetkin and Joshua the top two, out of them two who's best.And Pulev 3rd that's how highly I rate him.