The post Lewis and pre Joshua/Fury era

That was the worst thing with Wlad: his deliberate bet on mediocrity.

If he was so good and dominante, then why he had to be so boring.
If you are truly the top dog, then show it. Be an Ali, a Tyson, a Louis. Win in commanding fashion. Beat your opponents with style.
But Wlad was like a conservative portfolio manager "minimum effort, minimum risk".
With Wlad it was always the impression that he was just making the minimun possible effort to win.
Boring....

 

He knocked out most of his opponents don't see how that's minimum effort.....

 

Likewise. I think the years at the top are noteworthy and should, naturally, be recognized - but that's really where Wlad and any relationship to Greatness ends, in my opinion.

 

13 stoppages in 18 title defences, barely losing a round. How's that not dominating in style?

 

Besides his brother probably the best fighter he didn't fight during his second reign was Valuev. Other than that he really got to everybody and its hard to describe him as not taking any risks there were none to take. Povetkin, Haye and Chagaev were his best challengers and he dominated them.

During his second reign he was never knocked down and whenever someone took him the distance they seldom scored a round. During said reign he had 5 decisions and won them by 23,24,36, 45 and 19 points respectively. He knocked Povetkin down 4 times. He wasn't going for early knockouts but he wasn't a point fighter at all. Its hard to expect someone Wlads size to fight like Tyson who was 8 inches shorter and whose gameplan was taking out fighters right away and preventing an extended firefight. Wlad was bigger than most everyone else there was no reason for that he was trying to avoid Corrie Sanders knocking him down right away and riding the momentum to a win. Louis and Ali are better than Wlad but Wlad has a higher KO%.

Wlad was boring no questions there. His dominance was a big part of why he was boring his presence killed all suspense in the division. But boxing wise the flaws we'd find in a Holmes reign aren't there at least in his second reign. He fought the best and they did not put up serious resistance thus his fights were not very interesting.

 

Exactly my thoughts.

There was nothing inherently wrong w/ Wlad's era compared w/ many other HW eras IMO. Fighters like Haye, Chagaev, & Ibragimov were all good-looking, well-respected contenders/titlists w/ only a single loss between them heading into their fights w/ Wlad - writing them off b/c they couldn't do anything w/ Wlad is basically circular logic. I seriously doubt that Wilder or Joshua could simply walk through Wlad's opponents w/ the same ease or consistency as he did. Conversely, fighters like Joe Parker & Andy Ruiz would've likely been smoked by Wlad & just written off as more of his "usual" victims.

If Povetkin had retired after his fight w/ Wlad, he would've been viewed as just another in a long litany of unbeaten or once-beaten challengers that Wlad vanquished. It's only b/c fighters today are still struggling w/ him years after his prime that he's presumed to have been a cut above Wlad's other challengers, when in reality, his continued success is arguably more of an indictment on today's era.

When CW champs like Haye & Adamek moved up to try for the HW title, the Klitschkos humbled them & put them in their place. Conversely, today's entire division has been humbled BY a CW champ.

The notion of an MMA fighter making his pro debut & finding immediate success at the world class level would've been unthinkable in Wlad's era, & yet today...

 

I always felt like Pov was overrated and well protected.

People talk about him like he was a gatekeeper for Wlad, but, the fact is pretty much everyone who fought Wlad for the title became a top ten after Pov, did not have to fight Pov for elmin or mando, remember Wlad only fought mandos so securing the Wlad fight was all positioning not today's deal making bull, and then fought Povetkin after Wlad had beaten them.

Pov wasn't a gatekeeper, he was the clean up crew for guys who got to live out their dream, got beaten by the champion, and still had a top ten rating because for most of them their only recent loss was Wlad.

I think he was positioned in a way to make sure he stays top ten so fans will brag him up but doesn't fight anyone dangerous in any respect. His resume, performances, and titles reflect this.

I don't think there's any reason to believe Pov was any better than Pulev, just more protected.

 

It wasn't a very strong era. Then again the era after Wlad's was probably the worst HW era in my lifetime (I'm 45). Usyk's era seems like it's an uptick (so far).

And just because you have 1 or 2 standouts don't mean the era isn't crap. It just means the crappy era has 1 or 2 standouts.

 

Haye was a capitulating paycheck collector who'd done a nice job of talking himself into a title shot, only to spend a couple of years seemingly looking for a way out (or looking for a bigger paycheck).

He appeared, survived, and got paid.

If Haye is considered one of Wlad's best challengers, then that's quite sad.


Chagaev was a fair scalp in that he at least tried against Wlad and put in a good effort - BUT, again, how seriously could his chances have been taken at the time? They were severely limited due to him not really having the tools, the size or the conditioning for the job.

Chagaev had a reasonable left hand but next to no versatility or power in his right. He didn't really look all that good, physically - more like an out of shape cruiserweight. He was past prime, with illness and injury having probably taken his best from him already and he'd appeared a little more than faded against massive underdog Matt Skelton, a year and a half earlier.


Povetkin probably was the best of Wlad's challengers but the Wlad/Povetkin bout itself was a travesty.

It is likely the worst World Heavyweight Championship performance ever recorded. It's certainly the worst I have ever seen and, at best, should really be viewed as an embarrassment for Wlad.

This content is protected

A couple of reasons to believe he was could be that Povetkin was at least proven in the division, going 3-3-0 against Ring-Rated opposition.

Pulev has never beaten a rated opponent and that he was ever rated himself remains a mystery.

 

I don't miss it very much.

 

Haye legitimately earned the shot at Wlad by going to Germany & beating the largest HW titleholder in history, then following it up by handing John Ruiz only the 2nd stoppage loss of his career. The fact that he just fought to survive vs. Wlad isn't a negative reflection on either Wlad or Haye's credentials heading into the fight - that would be akin to dismissing a Tyson victory every time one of his opponents was too intimidated to fight.

 

Haye was referred to in the post I was replying to as one of Wlad's best challengers (alongside Povetkin and Chagaev).

He obviously wasn't. Period.


Btw - If you think Haye's stoppage of a 38 year old Ruiz, who hadn't been rated since 2006 and had gone 3-4-0 in seven fights over the prior 5 years, is worthy of note, then you're all too easily impressed.

 

Ruiz was ranked #10 by The Ring heading into the Valuev rematch in mid 2008, & his losses even at that stage of his career were typically close &/or controversial (except for the Toney loss that was overturned due to Toney juicing). I don't deny that he was past his prime when Haye got to him, but stopping a fighter whose main claim to fame is taking contenders/titleholders the distance & giving them close/hard fights is still a notable feat IMO.

 

Not in mine.

Ruiz was 38 and Haye was the last fight of his career, having won 3 out of his last 8. He was done. Haye just confirmed it.

As for Haye, he was widely considered, at best, a good salesman and at worst, a fraud.