Wlad v Dempsey

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Feb 5, 2013.



  1. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    53,664
    32,406
    Feb 11, 2005
    Talking to guys who have shared the ring with Wlad, and reading interviews with those who have, they all seemed to think that Wlad could be handled... as they viewed him from outside the ring. Once inside, all seemed surprised by the power and accuracy of his jab and how much ground he could cover quickly. Also, his strength is mentioned often.

    His is not a pleasant style and some may argue that the refs need to be harsher with his clinching... but he has been almost uniquely effective over the past 8 years. I don't think you are the first one to suggest that fighters need to take chances with him. And a lot try it for a few rounds. Hell, Povetkin was still wading in late in the fight.

    And I will take issue with you on Povetkin, who is a fairly dynamic mover from the waist up when in shape. He throws accurate and creative combos... and carries quite a bit of pop. He may look a little like a slob but upclose he really is a big athletic guy.

    We will see if the era of dreadnaught heavies will relegate the swarmers to second class... This dilemma is one of the reasons I spend so much more time on the lower weight classes. The fighters are just far more equally matched in the physical sense. Anyone discrediting the advantage of 40-60 pounds of athletic weight is in denial. Yes, there will be the occasion victory of David over Goliath, but it will not be the general trend.
     
  2. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,913
    5,215
    Feb 10, 2013
    The problem with picking Sharkey over someone as consistent as Wlad is that Sharkey at his absolute best was a good at most everything but not great at any one thing. He was well rounded and thats not a knock, quite the contrary. BUT, Sharkey was notoriously inconsistent at every phase of his career. You never knew which Sharkey was going to show up. The guy was a head case. When you combine that inconsistency with the face that he doesnt really have an x factor in any one area I just dont see him overcoming a major hurdle like Wlad would present. At least with Dempsey you can say "He was very fast, and he could hit very hard." So maybe, just maybe, you can hand your hopes on Dempsey getting inside quick and delivering enough bombs to do the trick. Sharkey wasnt the fastest guy. He had decent speed but nothing special. Sharkey wasnt the hardest hitter, he had ok power but nothing that made your eyes bug out of your head. He was a good boxer but not somebody that made you sit up and take notice. He was in good shape but he wasnt the most athletic guy. etc etc. In this era, with these big freaks we have that are good athletes, in great shape, coordinated (and thats a big thing), can hit very hard, have speed, footwork, etc. You better have something special. Something thats above and beyond the norm and something that REALLY sets you apart. You better be a Mike Tyson, or an Ali, or somebody that has that extra something special. Jack Sharkey, at least to my view, was really the antithesis of that. Very solid, very workmanlike, well rounded, nothing really special. Let me add one caveat to all of this and the discussion Ive had above. The only fight, THE ONLY fight that to me gives any of these mythical matchups credence is the Brewster fight. I give Wlad a pass on Purrity because he was young and basically wore himself beating on Purrity and collapsed. Rookie mistake for a fighter they probably knew very little about. I get that. Sanders, big guy, big punch, and unpredictable. The guy could show up and look average or he could land a punch that could knock a building down and change everything. I get that, in HW boxing it happens. But Lamon Brewster... I dont get that. Lamon Brewster was (in todays terms) an average sized HW with a padded record and an overrated punch (due to his padded record). The first time I saw him fight was years ago on KO Nation or whatever that show was HBO put out to bring young fans into the sport against glass jawed Clifford Etienne (nobody knew he was glass jawed at the time but he was). Brewster just stayed in a corner the whole fight and took a pasting. A few months later he lost a clear decision to Charles Shufford who was nothing special either. Then he went and fought nobody before getting the Wlad fight (Im not even sure how he got that fight) and knocks Wlad out... I will never understand that. Frankly Im amazed that he KOd Golota as well. But either way thats the one fight that would make me question my support of Wlad against Dempsey and Sharkey because I think Brewster was ****.
     
  3. Odins beard

    Odins beard Fentanyl is one hell of a drug.... Full Member

    20,458
    12,573
    Apr 13, 2014
    It's not just because he's bigger.

    He's stronger, better fundermentals, more powerful, better footwork, better jab, better hook, better right hand. Then we can talk about him being bigger and taller.

    Dempsey wouldn't see the fourth.
     
  4. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    57,005
    17,354
    Jul 21, 2012
    :patsch

    Like who. The Tank Williams who called him a big cry baby. Dillion Whyhe who got fired for getting the better of him.
    Reality is a hard taskmaker but no reality is harder than the harsh truth of the camera eye and this is where Wlad never matches up to the mythical figure that is posted about him by fanboys.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq8zQEmCjic

    The great Wladimir.

    Bested by Purity, Sanders, Willaimson, Brewster , went life and death with Peter and never beat an elite or great fighter in his life. Somehow is the h2h greatest of all time:rofl
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    108,010
    38,435
    Mar 21, 2007
    Byrd and Brewster did both stress he was better the second time around though. And in Byrd's case stressed his excellence and his power.
     
  6. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    57,005
    17,354
    Jul 21, 2012
    “The loss to Brewster was particularly troubling. Afterward, the Klitschko camp claimed that their fighter had been drugged. Brewster took a contrary view. Wladimir Klitschko is a great athlete, ... But Wladimir Klitschko is not a great fighter. There's a difference.”
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    108,010
    38,435
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yes, but after Wladimir BEAT Brewster, in a rematch, he said he had improved.

    So did Chris Byrd.

    Chris Byrd, especially, stressed his excellence and his power.
     
  8. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    57,005
    17,354
    Jul 21, 2012
    Primo Carnera had power.

    Byrd should of been 2-9-0 since his victory over Holyfield to his last ever fight. Byrd also stressed them being corrupt after he was forced to fight Wlad after beating Vitali
     
  9. UnleashtheFURY

    UnleashtheFURY D'oh! Full Member

    70,859
    36,080
    Sep 29, 2012
    Dinovelvet has so much hatred, and spite towards the Klitschkos that he can't think straight while talking about them. Nothing he says really holds any weight..... He's been saying the same old crap for years.
     
  10. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    57,005
    17,354
    Jul 21, 2012
    What did I do now? Im quoting what other people have said. Nothing I ever say is a non-truth.
    I don't make these threads. I just post in them.
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    108,010
    38,435
    Mar 21, 2007
    Right, but the good things that have been said about them should be as admissible as the bad things that have been said about them. And I think that more bad things were said about him earlier in his career and more good things were said about him later in his career.

    Although both bad and good things have been said about him, in both portions of his career, if his career is divided in two.
     
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,516
    15,572
    Sep 15, 2009
    That's fine, I have no issue with people thinking wlad is better. That's extremely arguable.

    I just have issue with those thinking wlad wins because he's bigger.

    For what it's worth though I think Dempsey has better hand speed, better in fighting, better at closing the range, better head movement, more punch variety.

    I think both can end the fight with one clean punch but Dempsey is more likely to throw that killer punch. Wlad can coast behind his jab and all it takes is one lazy punch and Dempsey can roll in and throw a deadly hook.

    I don't rule out a wlad victory. I think he should he the favourite as he's achieved more and beaten a better class of oppositon imo. Howeve to think Dempsey will score the come from behind knockout to secure the upset.