Everyone has Walcott beating Louis and call it a robbery, Wlad just doesnt have a win on the level of a Louis or Charles, Wlad does have more longevity at the top
John Garfield who was live at ringside called it an outrageous robbery. Even YOU admitted walcott won the fight, so if you dont give walcott credit your a hypocrite. Walcotts victory over louis in 1947 is by far better than any win Wlad has. Byrd is not that good, and byrd was far past his prime the 2nd time. Walcott has much better wins, and make a separate thread if youd like. How did Charles began to slip a little? Charles wasa 29 year old Heavyweight Champion who had not lost in THREE YEARS and his last 25 pro bouts.....Charles was not only on the best winning streak of his career but the champion. Walcott dethroned him with 1 punch. Charles was at/near his prime....Wlad has NEVER beat a heavyweight on the level of Ezzard Charles. 1. You are wrong. Walcott staggered charles numerous times in the 2nd fight. The fight was alot closer than the scorecards indicate 2. The 3rd Walcott-Charles fight took place ONLY 4 months after the 2nd charles fight, so are you telling me Charles suddenly aged in only a 4 month span? Walcotts wins over Louis, Ray 2x, Johnson, Charles 2x, Murray, Bivins, Gomez, Baksi, Oma, Hoff, Sheppard 2x, Maxim 2x, Reddish ARE BY BY FAR better wins in both Quality and Quantity than Wladimirs best wins. Walcott had beaten 4 different Hall of famers? how many has wlad beaten?
Honestly walcott has beaten better competition than wlad and its not even close. walcott holds the edge both in quality and quantity. Wlad has never beaten a heavyweight nowehre near the level of Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles..... Elmer Ray, lee Q Murray, Jimmy Bivins, and harold Jonnson rate over Ruslan Chagaev, Chris Bryd, Sam Peter, Calvin brock Even if we take the 2nd teir contenderrs both beat walcott has the edge Give Wlad some time...but hes got ways to go
you mean the man with a detatched retina who was coming off a boxing lesson from sergei liakhovic? it was a clear win for sergie 116-111 in my book.
His losses are always going to make it tough for him too squeeze into top 10, but let's wait and see. I have some other guys firmly in my top 10 or even top 5 with bad losses (Lewis being the prime example), so it should not be impossible. The sharpness of his straight punches are really a joy to watch. Very good footwork as well. But I like to see him win over a really good pressure fighter before I go overboard on him. Let's see what the Haye fight brings.
H2H? Frazier Bowe Wills Charles Norton Patterson Walcott I'm beginning to think he's much better than most give him credit for being. I believe that in 20 years he'll be a consensus top-15 HWY H2H and will be venerated on a similar level to Lewis. I bet if Wlad fought 100 years ago he'd be spoken of today as some kind of myth. He's a very sound fighter with tremendous tools, he just crumbles on the inside against pressure sometimes, and he used to gas and panic. I think he has the ability to beat any heavyweight in history, I'd probably favor him against all but 10 or 15 fighters in history. On his best night.
If he starts getting guys out of there the way Lewis got ride of Golota, Ruddock, and Grant you're probably right, he could conceivably crack the top 10, but unless his wins become explosive then I think he'll end up between 11-20 on most peoples list.
I'd agree with that last post.... But then again, the level of opposition available barring his brother is painfully bad.
Most of those are pointless WBO title defences when Lewis was champion that shouldnt really count. Not unless you also want to say that herbie hide is 2 the time world heavyweight champion and the youngest champ ever, not Tyson! Wlad fought for that belt so as to stay out of the rankings for the real belts so as not to have to fight Lewis. When Tyson was champ Damiani was the world champion! Thats how bogus the WBO title is.