Wlad's all-time status?

"Chagaev wasnt a chump ,no one has ever outclassed him like this".
This is the first real decent fighter he's been in with, he sucks .
And your last vestiges of credibilty went out the window with this abysmal display from a challenger who
1 Did not fight to win
2 Had no idea how to go about doing so
TOP FIVE,MY BOLLOCKS!

 

As Mike Tyson aptly put it, they all have a plan until they get hit. Chagaev took several head snapping jabs, and a bone rattling right hand in round two that would have likely lead to a finish of most heavyweights.

If you watch boxing, you notice that Chagaev was in a no win situation. Wlad's jab is never ending, and as soon as he moved into range, BAM, the right hand followed. Being a merely 6' tall with a 74" reach, meant Chagaev could not reach Wlad, who if you noticed had perfect position with his footwork, and has become rather hard to hit as of late.

If Chagaev wasn't fast or skilled enough for you, Chris Bryd was. Like Chagaev he was never in the fight either.

Chagaev's defense has been good in most fights. His high guard, tucked chin, and some head movement served him well...until he meet Wlad. Chagaev could not counter, match Wlad's foot speed, or work his way in without eating leather.

Wlad is like a 21st century matador in there, except he has the judgment of distance, technique, and footwork of the matador, and the strength and size of the bull.

If the fighters gets into range, Wlad can clinch like Jack Johnson or Ali. He can lock the other guy up, lean his weight down upon his head, or push off and reset.

Had Chagaev opted to press it more, he would have been Ko'd sooner.

 

It depends on who those names are and the other side of the coin, who he will lose to, how old he is by then and under what circumstances.

If (and this is a big if) he beats Povetkin (current IBF mandatory still) and Haye, plus two more minor top10 opponents, say, the level of a Thompson, and then retires, i think he has a case for the top10. His dominance of the last years has been quite good. The level opponents is not great, but neither was Holmes' or Tyson's.

Some things to weigh compared to Tyson and Holmes:

The negatives:

-Wlad has suffered several KO losses to lesser opposition
-He won't fight (for good reason) the #2 of his era, his brother Vitali
-(at this moment) He has not dominated as long as Holmes did, though he approaches Tyson in that regard

The positives:

-He has been dominant in nearly every win he had, unlike for instance Holmes who struggled with Witherspoon, Norton and Williams. And even when he lost, he gave away very, very few rounds
-Holmes missed a lot of top opponents of his era and refused to unify
-Tyson suffered an embarrassing loss to Douglas and failed to regain form ever since.... Wlad is 33 and just had the best performance of his career. He is slowing down a bit, but his advantage is that his style can cope with it. And his footwork is still top notch.
-His stopping ability is among the very best. Everyone he landed on has been hurt, knocked down, knocked out or on the end of mercy corner stoppage.

 

Old Fogey and MF are needle sharp on this one. Some great posts.

 

From 2000 to 2009.

I think a good case for Wlad is number 2 imo.

Lewis is tops.
Than Wlad.

After that it relly drops.
Old Holyfiled, James Toney, Old Tyson, Danny Willams? Chris Byrd? The gaint Vaulv. John Ruiz. Fat out of shape David Tua(This was not 1990's Tua)

Yeah I put Wlad number 2. And thats not even trying.

 

What about Vitali? Isn't he in the top three? If not, why not?

 

He hasn't beaten anyone who would rank in the top 30 of the gloved era, he hasn't faced his best contemporaries (Lewis, Vitali), he's lost to three fighters who wouldn't make the top 50, two of them while he was already an established veteran top contender, and his record, while undeniably excellent, is not really historically uniquein any substantive way as of yet. Wlad most definitely does not merit a top 15 all-time ranking at this stage, and probably not top 20, in my estimation.

I agree Chagaev is not a "chump," but he is also far from a world beater, as I, and most other fans along with me, could have told you beforehand. He isn't any monstrous puncher, he isn't a master boxer, he's not especially fast or exceptionally strong or imposingly big or active or aggressive or tactically brilliant- he's simply generally solid in a lot of departments. He seems to only have one gear- his cautious, circling, pot-shotting style- he is inactive and often lethargic in the ring, his punches lack zip, and he has no exceptional asset to offset any of this, nor does he seem willing or capable of substantially adapting his style to suit his opposition (he clearly had to fight a pressure style if he even hoped to have a chance against Klitschko, but appeared utterly stuck in the same mid-range peck-and-paw strategy he always employs). He is good enough to soundly dismiss journeymen and to eke out close decisions over even less active, slower contenders like Ruiz and Valuev, but he brings nothing special to the table which could challenge a guy with a genuinely great toolset such as Wlad possesses, or such as many of the past champions who you seem to poo-poo these days possessed.
Unlike Chagaev, these men displayed special, exceptional athleticism, skill, power, and other strengths which, added onto their equally solid skillsets, made them actual championship-caliber fighters and separated them from the Chagaevs of their own eras.

Looking at the film, this was not really among the most monstrous shots Wlad has produced- he didn't commit to the punch, or most any of the punches he threw in that fight, and the knockdown was not especially severe. I think this is an intelligent strategy on his part, mind you, as it keeps him safely out of harm's way in leaving no openings for counterpunching and is ultimately effective as a part of his broader effort to sort of peck his opponent to death, but I don't see any cause to believe the measured, low-commitment shots he's throwing these days are especially devastating in world-class terms, so much as they are strong and authoritative enough to grind shorter men down from long range.

Anyway, regardless of the efficacy of this particular punch, it is a little presumptive to assume Haye would have been in the same position Chagaev was in to take it. Haye may bring something more of an X-factor to a meeting with Wlad than a guy like Chagaev, in that he is a genuinely exceptional athlete, a fluid mover, fast and hard-hitting, and might be willing to commit more to the pressure style which will be necessary against such an opponent. Haye is certainly still the underdog, mind you, but he does possess some of that speed/power/dynamicism quotient that Wlad hasn't come up against since Sanders.

If the titles are phony plastic straps (Wlad may now build a legitimate championship reign, but does not really have much of one to his credit just yet) and the winning percentage is built without facing the best of one's own era, instead consisting of wins against and losses to second-and-third-raters, then no. Statistical bean counting such as "rounds-won-to-rounds-lost" and "KO%" might serve as a sort of tiebreaker if all else is equal, but are certainly not some major criteria for historical greatness and were never proposed as such before they became advantageous to your efforts at promoting the Klitschkos.

As I say, I think it would take something really special in terms of quantity and longevity for Wlad to garner a serious case as one of the top 10 of the gloved era if he continues facing the kind of opposition he's been up against, while the emergence of some serious rivals could put him on the fast track within the next two or three years.

 

I picked option #3 " A handful of wins over the next two years or so. "

But, I don't think that its so cut and dry though. in order to redeem himself for the early losses as well as to try and compensate for fighting in such a weak division, he needs to really be selective and take the very best of the best. I don't think he'll ever fight his brother, but men like Haye, Valuev, Arreola, Povetkin, and a few others need to be on there. If the man were fighting in a top era and didn't have losses to men like Sanders, Brewster or Purity, then I wouldn't be sitting here saying that he needs to fight everyone including Jesus Christ almighty, but under the circumstances if he's going to make a case for being a top 10-15 fighter then that's the way it has to be...

 

To be slightly on the conservative side, I voted that he'll need about 7 wins over the next 3 years, assuming he continues to fight the best competition he can find. If he does that, you're looking at an 8 year unbeaten streak, a title record of over 20 wins with 2 defeats, the Ring champion for a few years running, and Lineal champion.

I'm certain at that point there will still be detractors pointing to his 3 losses, or the lack of an "ATG" opponent, but that shouldn't diminish the big picture that he's a great, dominant fighter with longevity at the top level most fighters only dream about. That he came back from the losses he suffered to achieve what he has should be looked at as a positive that he could bounce back from the adversity, instead of the unforgivable punishment that some will continually use them as.

The irony, and I truly mean this with all due respect to the Classic posters, is that most people champion fighters who did the exact same thing Wlad did- fighting absolutely anyone, even if it meant a few losses in the process, and bouncing back from those losses to achieve greatness...yet when it comes to discussing Wlad, they're doing the exact same thing they complain about in contemporary boxing- putting too much weight on the losses and not the big picture. Since when was 3 losses out of 56 fights something that had to be defended?

I can't believe half of the voters would never put him top 10 ,no matter what he accomplishes from here on on...then again, I'm glad the poll was made because I think it illustrates the double standard with Wlad that that many people would completely write it off in the middle of a long-term dominant stretch because of what happened 5 years and longer ago. Nothing like slamming the book shut before we know the ending, I suppose.

 

Its not just early losses...Wlad had two losses after his 25th pro fight and one of them was with Emanuel Steward in his corner. Also these 3 losses didnt come to top contenders...They came to three UNRATED fighters.....to get stopped by 3 unrated fighters not in top 10 by ring magazine is not good for your legacy. At least Mccall and Rahman were top 10 fighters when they sparked Lewis.


I still think Wlad can make top 15 and I hope he does! Go Wlad!

 

Unbelievable post Maghoo. I agree 110%.

 

Sanders and Brewster were not rated on the particular night they beat Vlad, but it is very clear that they were both -- at the time -- top 10 fighters in terms of sheer ability. It is utter folly for anyone to deny this.

 

I go 80% on the basis of the fighter's proven ability in the ring -- his demonstrated physical and athletic abilities, and what that strongly suggests about his ability to have defeated past great fighters.

The longevity of the fighter's reign as champion is not so important to me, as many mediocre boxers have enjoyed long title reigns. For me, it's all about physical prowess.

You hit the nail on the head...a few early career losses mean absolutely nothing if, in later years, the fighter proves himself to be utterly brilliant in the ring. After all, Jack Dempsey himself lost numerous bouts to so-so opposition in his early years, but he later matured into a monster of a fighter.