Wlad/Lennox - Why The Hypocrisy ?

Yeah, it definitely seems to be the case that "time heals all wounds".

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Lewis wasn't near anybody's 3-4 before he retired.

 

Well its not quite the same because first off Lennox avenged all his losses, Wlad got his brother to avenge 2 of his, which doesnt count. Second off Lennox beat far better competition, Lewis probably has 10 names that are better than anyone Wlad has beat.

Yes Wlad will be rated better in time, I think he has a shot of being rated above Dempsey/Patterson/Norton/Jeffries/Wills putting him solidly in the top15 and if you greatly value longevity/resume depth you might also rank him over Foreman/Frazier/Bowe/Liston

 

I think that in the light of history the casual fan will look at his early losses and his subsequent winning streak and simply conclude that his winning streak represented his prime. It is basicaly what we do with historic fighters.

Brewster will be seen as being better than Sanders who in turn will be seen as being better than Purity, so the losses get incrementaly less bad.

 

Because Lewis beat world beaters and Wlad hasnt?

 

This is the correct answer here.

Lennox was ripped a new ******* after losing to McCall and especially Rahman; anyone who denies that has a very short memory. He only has the ranking he has now because he clearly proved that he was capable of improving and being better than everyone who beat him.

No hypocrisy; Lennox just did something Wlad didn't quite do.

 

Lewis kinda got careless and paid the price -- with Wlad, it seems he is liable to panic when faced with fast-handed pressure fighters.

I like Wlad, I think he's an offensive machine and an intriguing specialist. But he will always be reliant on that left jab to guard him. One wonders what he'll do if he ever breaks that hand in the ring.

 

There are four key differences between their situations:

1. McCall and Rahman - even if marginally - are better than Brewster and Sanders. Purrity is a clear level below any of those;

2. Lewis avenged both defeats by dominating TKO and KO. Wlad only avenged the Brewster loss (also by dominating win), but not the Sanders or Purrity ones;

3. Throughout his career, Lewis has beaten a tremendous amount of punchers, proving that he's able to beat big hitters and take their best shots. Although Wlad beat a few sluggers, he isn't half as proven in that department;

4. Human psychology. We're wired to appreciate things/people to a larger extend when they're gone. Lewis' stock has risen a lot, and rightfully so, after he retired. Even so: as it is, Lewis is far ahead.

 

The thing with Wlad is that he has shown huge flaws against those men that he has never really proved he has eradicated or would be able to stop from hampering him severely against the elite throughout history.

Wlad has just fought a lot more conservatively against still poor opposition.In that sense he reminds me more of Chong-pal park the Korean supermiddle champ and a serious offensive talent, who did the same to protect his glass chin.He was actually nicknamed something like "the glass jaw" and seen as something of a joke(unfairly really)by his countrymen because of his tedious performances and vulnerability.

 

There is no hypocrisy.

Vlad lacks the bottle now to fight with his potentially awesome offence because he does not trust his chin.

Lewis had an alter-ego called Lummox that would show up every now and again and cost him because he did respect the sport. Whenever Lennox was around, we had a brilliant top class fighter.

 

I think Wlad's being grossly overated, just as Lewis is.

 

Jack Johnson had all kinds of marginal/suspect/underwhelming bouts and he is basically given the keys to the palace by the self-anointed historians.

Let Wlad wait a century and they'll love him.

 

I doubt it.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of the point you're trying to make, when Jack Johnson was world heavyweight champion the title really meant something. He was considered a great man and a great boxer in his own time just on the strength of that status.
Not to mention the rest of the story, being the first black champion and all the legend and baggage surrounding him.

 

Wlad might be rated quite highly by the end of his career but the general public will enver fully take to him as he doesn't seem to want to go to war if going to war is needed either to win the fight or the crowd over.

 

Wlad will never be on the same level of Lewis because the competition will never be there for him to prove it against, nor will he ever be capable of winning a fire fight when boxing goes out the window.
Although Lewis's era was relatively weak, Wlads is weaker, and he has failed to show more dimension to his game, something Lewis was forced to and succeeded at.
The only thing Wlad and Lewis will have in common is their ability to consistently win, somewhat unattractively, for a long period of time and it has more to do with their competition than their abilities as complete fighters.