Anyone else warming to Wlad?

First topic message reminder :

He's coming accross really well in the build up.
Ok, ok, his jokes about twitter fell flat as he has doesn’t have the comic timing of paul merton, but he's a very likable guy.

I've always wanted to see haye knock his head off, and will be heavily supporting haye in the fight but im warming to Wlad and he's presenting himself very, very well.

Haye's playing the same old angry man doing his best to save boxing from the boredom. In fact, every interesting thing he's said about this fight was said 2 years ago when it was first made. Now it's the same old story over and over. Wlad isnt getting wound up, or isnt letting on that he is, he's joking and smiling and you wouldn’t think he's got the biggest fight of his life in 2 months.

This is the video of Wlad on bbc news, wooing the studio and even planting a kiss on Sian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/13357472.stm

WelshDevilRob wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:I thought he was trying too hard to be nice. I think he wanted to show or pretend that he's not angry at Haye but it seemed false.

The Press conferences have been interesting for the amount of acting going on on both sides.

Have I warmed to Wlad? No, he is still an overated fighter who has avoided too many fighters and settled for fighting hasbeens and nobodies.

Just out of curiosity Rob, which fighters do you think Wlad has avoided?

Avoided is probably the wrong word.

But if we look at the time period that he's been at the top of the division. No Golota, Tua, Ruiz, Holyfield, Grant, Mercer and Rahman (when they could still fight), Maskaev, Briggs, Valuev off the top of my head.

People give Larry Holmes a hard time for missing fights. Lets not forget that the best fighter Wlad has beaten in his reign is either Eddie Chambers or Calvin Brock. I don't rate the Chagaev win as that man was clearly not the fighter he had been due to his illness.

He was never at the top when Rahman, Golota, Mercer and all these fighters were prominant. How old do you think he is?

He won his first world title around 2000/2001 but he was hardly at the top of his game then. He was just a belt holder. His level of competiton was mixed then before losing his title.

Its only around 2006 that he becomes recognised as the best heavyweight and as seen to be at the top of his game. Since then his level of competition has been strong beating top ranked opponents regularly - Chambers, Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Brewster, Byrd, Brock - all of whom were top rated by the Ring when he fought them. Povetkin avoided him and the WBA belt was kept on ice with the Valuev/Chagaev problems and Valuevs blatant decision to duck a rematch with Chagaev in order to keep his belt.

I watched him in a Sky Sports news interview yesterday and now I actually want him to win over Haye. He was really charismatic and dropping subtle insults towards David Haye, it was so funny

i cannot see past Wlad to be fair, I also think he is genuinly a nice fella but I will be cheering Haye.

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:I thought he was trying too hard to be nice. I think he wanted to show or pretend that he's not angry at Haye but it seemed false.

The Press conferences have been interesting for the amount of acting going on on both sides.

Have I warmed to Wlad? No, he is still an overated fighter who has avoided too many fighters and settled for fighting hasbeens and nobodies.

Just out of curiosity Rob, which fighters do you think Wlad has avoided?

Avoided is probably the wrong word.

But if we look at the time period that he's been at the top of the division. No Golota, Tua, Ruiz, Holyfield, Grant, Mercer and Rahman (when they could still fight), Maskaev, Briggs, Valuev off the top of my head.

People give Larry Holmes a hard time for missing fights. Lets not forget that the best fighter Wlad has beaten in his reign is either Eddie Chambers or Calvin Brock. I don't rate the Chagaev win as that man was clearly not the fighter he had been due to his illness.

He was never at the top when Rahman, Golota, Mercer and all these fighters were prominant. How old do you think he is?

He won his first world title around 2000/2001 but he was hardly at the top of his game then. He was just a belt holder. His level of competiton was mixed then before losing his title.

Its only around 2006 that he becomes recognised as the best heavyweight and as seen to be at the top of his game. Since then his level of competition has been strong beating top ranked opponents regularly - Chambers, Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Brewster, Byrd, Brock - all of whom were top rated by the Ring when he fought them. Povetkin avoided him and the WBA belt was kept on ice with the Valuev/Chagaev problems and Valuevs blatant decision to duck a rematch with Chagaev in order to keep his belt.

Manos, not sure about that. I believe he was being lined up to fight Lewis in a massively anticipated fight when someone sparked him?

He was lined up to fight Lewis AFTER he'd taken care of Sanders.

I recall the commentator's trying to emphasise how much of a shock it was.

(paraphrasing) "Remember, this is the man they think is second only to Lennow Lewis, well, they did until about three minutes ago!"

WelshDevilRob wrote:He fought Mercer and Rahman but like I stated they were past it. Why not fight them earlier when they had something to offer?

Ruiz, Maskaev and Grant at points were names as were Golota and Holyfield.
Why wait to fight fighters once they are completely washed-up?
Briggs is a fine example but he's a Vitali opponent.

Yes, fighters lost to other fighters but then so did many on Klitschko's record. Byrd for example was destroyed by Ike Ibeabuchi a year before Byrd beat Vitali.
Corrie Sanders was Ko'd by Hasim Rahman but he was good enough to defeat Wladimir. Lamon Brewster lost to Clifford Ettienne but again he was good enough to defeat Wlad.

I don't see any comparison with Lennox Lewis resume. With Lewis only one opponent got away and that was Michael Moorer who didn't want to fight him. Some say Byrd and Ruiz but Lennox was at the end of his career and only wanted challenges rather than lowkey defences. Wlad on the other hand has had years to try for the WBA belt but only now is attempting to get it.

I find it ironic that you dismiss Wlad's victory over Chagaev due to the Uzbek's health issues, yet consider an old Holyfield and Briggs to be legimiate and credible challengers (despite both men having health problems too).

From a purely boxing perspective, what on earth do you see in the likes of Ruiz or Maskaev that you think could have troubled Wlad?

At the end of day, if the boxers you listed had gone up the divisional rankings, they could have got themselves into a mandatory title shot just like Chambers, Austin etc were able to do.

Anyway, as I've said, you could pick holes in any boxers record.

For example, looking at Haye's CW resume:
Cunningham
Banks
Bell
Adamek
Wlodarczyk

Judging by your criticism of Wlad, I assume you would also agree that Haye avoided these men at CW?

Michaels, Sean wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:I thought he was trying too hard to be nice. I think he wanted to show or pretend that he's not angry at Haye but it seemed false.

The Press conferences have been interesting for the amount of acting going on on both sides.

Have I warmed to Wlad? No, he is still an overated fighter who has avoided too many fighters and settled for fighting hasbeens and nobodies.

Just out of curiosity Rob, which fighters do you think Wlad has avoided?

Avoided is probably the wrong word.

But if we look at the time period that he's been at the top of the division. No Golota, Tua, Ruiz, Holyfield, Grant, Mercer and Rahman (when they could still fight), Maskaev, Briggs, Valuev off the top of my head.

People give Larry Holmes a hard time for missing fights. Lets not forget that the best fighter Wlad has beaten in his reign is either Eddie Chambers or Calvin Brock. I don't rate the Chagaev win as that man was clearly not the fighter he had been due to his illness.

He was never at the top when Rahman, Golota, Mercer and all these fighters were prominant. How old do you think he is?

He won his first world title around 2000/2001 but he was hardly at the top of his game then. He was just a belt holder. His level of competiton was mixed then before losing his title.

Its only around 2006 that he becomes recognised as the best heavyweight and as seen to be at the top of his game. Since then his level of competition has been strong beating top ranked opponents regularly - Chambers, Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Brewster, Byrd, Brock - all of whom were top rated by the Ring when he fought them. Povetkin avoided him and the WBA belt was kept on ice with the Valuev/Chagaev problems and Valuevs blatant decision to duck a rematch with Chagaev in order to keep his belt.

Manos, not sure about that. I believe he was being lined up to fight Lewis in a massively anticipated fight when someone sparked him?

Post Vitali, Wlad was mentioned as a possible opponent. But Wlad was nowhere near at the top then. In 2003 when Lewis was retiring, Wlad was still just creeping into the top 10 ratings. After he lost to Sanders he wasnt even ranked in the top ten.

A fight with Lewis was never realistically viable, unless Lewis opted to avoid retiring. In which case the obvious fight would be a remtach with Vitali.

Even if a match with Lewis had gone ahead it would be a Wlad that was far from at the top.

Michaels, Sean wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:I thought he was trying too hard to be nice. I think he wanted to show or pretend that he's not angry at Haye but it seemed false.

The Press conferences have been interesting for the amount of acting going on on both sides.

Have I warmed to Wlad? No, he is still an overated fighter who has avoided too many fighters and settled for fighting hasbeens and nobodies.

Just out of curiosity Rob, which fighters do you think Wlad has avoided?

Avoided is probably the wrong word.

But if we look at the time period that he's been at the top of the division. No Golota, Tua, Ruiz, Holyfield, Grant, Mercer and Rahman (when they could still fight), Maskaev, Briggs, Valuev off the top of my head.

People give Larry Holmes a hard time for missing fights. Lets not forget that the best fighter Wlad has beaten in his reign is either Eddie Chambers or Calvin Brock. I don't rate the Chagaev win as that man was clearly not the fighter he had been due to his illness.

He was never at the top when Rahman, Golota, Mercer and all these fighters were prominant. How old do you think he is?

He won his first world title around 2000/2001 but he was hardly at the top of his game then. He was just a belt holder. His level of competiton was mixed then before losing his title.

Its only around 2006 that he becomes recognised as the best heavyweight and as seen to be at the top of his game. Since then his level of competition has been strong beating top ranked opponents regularly - Chambers, Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Brewster, Byrd, Brock - all of whom were top rated by the Ring when he fought them. Povetkin avoided him and the WBA belt was kept on ice with the Valuev/Chagaev problems and Valuevs blatant decision to duck a rematch with Chagaev in order to keep his belt.

Manos, not sure about that. I believe he was being lined up to fight Lewis in a massively anticipated fight when someone sparked him?

Very true. He beat Monte Barrett on the undercard of a Lennox fight to showcase him. That was in 2000. The same year he won the WBO belt.

People forget how long Wlad has been around.

manos de piedra wrote:

Michaels, Sean wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:I thought he was trying too hard to be nice. I think he wanted to show or pretend that he's not angry at Haye but it seemed false.

The Press conferences have been interesting for the amount of acting going on on both sides.

Have I warmed to Wlad? No, he is still an overated fighter who has avoided too many fighters and settled for fighting hasbeens and nobodies.

Just out of curiosity Rob, which fighters do you think Wlad has avoided?

Avoided is probably the wrong word.

But if we look at the time period that he's been at the top of the division. No Golota, Tua, Ruiz, Holyfield, Grant, Mercer and Rahman (when they could still fight), Maskaev, Briggs, Valuev off the top of my head.

People give Larry Holmes a hard time for missing fights. Lets not forget that the best fighter Wlad has beaten in his reign is either Eddie Chambers or Calvin Brock. I don't rate the Chagaev win as that man was clearly not the fighter he had been due to his illness.

He was never at the top when Rahman, Golota, Mercer and all these fighters were prominant. How old do you think he is?

He won his first world title around 2000/2001 but he was hardly at the top of his game then. He was just a belt holder. His level of competiton was mixed then before losing his title.

Its only around 2006 that he becomes recognised as the best heavyweight and as seen to be at the top of his game. Since then his level of competition has been strong beating top ranked opponents regularly - Chambers, Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Brewster, Byrd, Brock - all of whom were top rated by the Ring when he fought them. Povetkin avoided him and the WBA belt was kept on ice with the Valuev/Chagaev problems and Valuevs blatant decision to duck a rematch with Chagaev in order to keep his belt.

Manos, not sure about that. I believe he was being lined up to fight Lewis in a massively anticipated fight when someone sparked him?

Post Vitali, Wlad was mentioned as a possible opponent. But Wlad was nowhere near at the top then. In 2003 when Lewis was retiring, Wlad was still just creeping into the top 10 ratings. After he lost to Sanders he wasnt even ranked in the top ten.

A fight with Lewis was never realistically viable, unless Lewis opted to avoid retiring. In which case the obvious fight would be a remtach with Vitali.

Even if a match with Lewis had gone ahead it would be a Wlad that was far from at the top.

Not in the Top 10 in 2003? Despite the fact he held the WBO belt in 2000 by beating Chris Byrd. You seem to have missed part of his career, mate.

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Michaels, Sean wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:I thought he was trying too hard to be nice. I think he wanted to show or pretend that he's not angry at Haye but it seemed false.

The Press conferences have been interesting for the amount of acting going on on both sides.

Have I warmed to Wlad? No, he is still an overated fighter who has avoided too many fighters and settled for fighting hasbeens and nobodies.

Just out of curiosity Rob, which fighters do you think Wlad has avoided?

Avoided is probably the wrong word.

But if we look at the time period that he's been at the top of the division. No Golota, Tua, Ruiz, Holyfield, Grant, Mercer and Rahman (when they could still fight), Maskaev, Briggs, Valuev off the top of my head.

People give Larry Holmes a hard time for missing fights. Lets not forget that the best fighter Wlad has beaten in his reign is either Eddie Chambers or Calvin Brock. I don't rate the Chagaev win as that man was clearly not the fighter he had been due to his illness.

He was never at the top when Rahman, Golota, Mercer and all these fighters were prominant. How old do you think he is?

He won his first world title around 2000/2001 but he was hardly at the top of his game then. He was just a belt holder. His level of competiton was mixed then before losing his title.

Its only around 2006 that he becomes recognised as the best heavyweight and as seen to be at the top of his game. Since then his level of competition has been strong beating top ranked opponents regularly - Chambers, Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Brewster, Byrd, Brock - all of whom were top rated by the Ring when he fought them. Povetkin avoided him and the WBA belt was kept on ice with the Valuev/Chagaev problems and Valuevs blatant decision to duck a rematch with Chagaev in order to keep his belt.

Manos, not sure about that. I believe he was being lined up to fight Lewis in a massively anticipated fight when someone sparked him?

Post Vitali, Wlad was mentioned as a possible opponent. But Wlad was nowhere near at the top then. In 2003 when Lewis was retiring, Wlad was still just creeping into the top 10 ratings. After he lost to Sanders he wasnt even ranked in the top ten.

A fight with Lewis was never realistically viable, unless Lewis opted to avoid retiring. In which case the obvious fight would be a remtach with Vitali.

Even if a match with Lewis had gone ahead it would be a Wlad that was far from at the top.

Not in the Top 10 in 2003? Despite the fact he held the WBO belt in 2000 by beating Chris Byrd. You seem to have missed part of his career, mate.

He was ranked 9th by the ring in 2003. Holding the WBO means nothing if there are better heavies around. You seem to think he was in his prime in 2000 when he was only just emerging and as was later proved, far from at his best.

J.Benson II wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:He fought Mercer and Rahman but like I stated they were past it. Why not fight them earlier when they had something to offer?

Ruiz, Maskaev and Grant at points were names as were Golota and Holyfield.
Why wait to fight fighters once they are completely washed-up?
Briggs is a fine example but he's a Vitali opponent.

Yes, fighters lost to other fighters but then so did many on Klitschko's record. Byrd for example was destroyed by Ike Ibeabuchi a year before Byrd beat Vitali.
Corrie Sanders was Ko'd by Hasim Rahman but he was good enough to defeat Wladimir. Lamon Brewster lost to Clifford Ettienne but again he was good enough to defeat Wlad.

I don't see any comparison with Lennox Lewis resume. With Lewis only one opponent got away and that was Michael Moorer who didn't want to fight him. Some say Byrd and Ruiz but Lennox was at the end of his career and only wanted challenges rather than lowkey defences. Wlad on the other hand has had years to try for the WBA belt but only now is attempting to get it.

I find it ironic that you dismiss Wlad's victory over Chagaev due to the Uzbek's health issues, yet consider an old Holyfield and Briggs to be legimiate and credible challengers (despite both men having health problems too).

From a purely boxing perspective, what on earth do you see in the likes of Ruiz or Maskaev that you think could have troubled Wlad?

At the end of day, if the boxers you listed had gone up the divisional rankings, they could have got themselves into a mandatory title shot just like Chambers, Austin etc were able to do.

Anyway, as I've said, you could pick holes in any boxers record.

For example, looking at Haye's CW resume:
Cunningham
Banks
Bell
Adamek
Wlodarczyk

Judging by your criticism of Wlad, I assume you would also agree that Haye avoided these men at CW?

You seem to be be misreading my words. Holyfield and Briggs were still credible from 2000. Why wasn't Briggs? - seems a strange call on your part. They were far more credible than the Charles Shuffords of this World.

Ruiz and Maskaev are quite obvious - Ruiz style while unattractive was effective and would have caused Wlad problems while Maskaev had oneshot power, so was obviously a threat. They didn't need to work their way into position to fight him as Ruiz in particular held a title. Still your ignoring Valuev or answering why Mercer and Rahman only got fights once they were no longer a threat.

Haye beat the No.1 in his division - Mormeck who had defeated Bell. Cunningham was busy winning and losing his belt. Haye only stayed in the division to beat a domestic rival in Enzo Mac. Haye's weight problems have been well documented, so I can't see how anyone can claim or imply he avoided Tomas Adamek. Adamek won a belt off Cunningham in late 2008 - Haye wasn't even in the division then - he was a Heavyweight.

WelshDevilRob wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:He fought Mercer and Rahman but like I stated they were past it. Why not fight them earlier when they had something to offer?

Ruiz, Maskaev and Grant at points were names as were Golota and Holyfield.
Why wait to fight fighters once they are completely washed-up?
Briggs is a fine example but he's a Vitali opponent.

Yes, fighters lost to other fighters but then so did many on Klitschko's record. Byrd for example was destroyed by Ike Ibeabuchi a year before Byrd beat Vitali.
Corrie Sanders was Ko'd by Hasim Rahman but he was good enough to defeat Wladimir. Lamon Brewster lost to Clifford Ettienne but again he was good enough to defeat Wlad.

I don't see any comparison with Lennox Lewis resume. With Lewis only one opponent got away and that was Michael Moorer who didn't want to fight him. Some say Byrd and Ruiz but Lennox was at the end of his career and only wanted challenges rather than lowkey defences. Wlad on the other hand has had years to try for the WBA belt but only now is attempting to get it.

I find it ironic that you dismiss Wlad's victory over Chagaev due to the Uzbek's health issues, yet consider an old Holyfield and Briggs to be legimiate and credible challengers (despite both men having health problems too).

From a purely boxing perspective, what on earth do you see in the likes of Ruiz or Maskaev that you think could have troubled Wlad?

At the end of day, if the boxers you listed had gone up the divisional rankings, they could have got themselves into a mandatory title shot just like Chambers, Austin etc were able to do.

Anyway, as I've said, you could pick holes in any boxers record.

For example, looking at Haye's CW resume:
Cunningham
Banks
Bell
Adamek
Wlodarczyk

Judging by your criticism of Wlad, I assume you would also agree that Haye avoided these men at CW?

You seem to be be misreading my words. Holyfield and Briggs were still credible from 2000. Why wasn't Briggs? - seems a strange call on your part. They were far more credible than the Charles Shuffords of this World.

Ruiz and Maskaev are quite obvious - Ruiz style while unattractive was effective and would have caused Wlad problems while Maskaev had oneshot power, so was obviously a threat. They didn't need to work their way into position to fight him as Ruiz in particular held a title. Still your ignoring Valuev or answering why Mercer and Rahman only got fights once they were no longer a threat.

Haye beat the No.1 in his division - Mormeck who had defeated Bell. Cunningham was busy winning and losing his belt. Haye only stayed in the division to beat a domestic rival in Enzo Mac. Haye's weight problems have been well documented, so I can't see how anyone can claim or imply he avoided Tomas Adamek. Adamek won a belt off Cunningham in late 2008 - Haye wasn't even in the division then - he was a Heavyweight.

You still havent answered my response regarding the mandatory positions.

Valuev was just a modern day Sven Ottke/Brian Nielson. He just stayed in his WBA comfort zone (with Ruiz and old Holyfield) and feasted off Klitschko leftovers like McCline, Barrett and Donald (who beat him imo).

Bell defeated Mormeck in their first fight and Cunningham was the IBF champ. These fights could have been made if Haye really wanted them. Its not like he fights very often.

Ruiz would have caused Wlad problems?? LOL. Give me a break! The slow, average skilled, light-punching plodder who walks foward in straight lines would have left the stadium in an ambulence.

Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

WelshDevilRob

You said look at the names he missed when he was at the top of the division.

Wlad was only ever considerd top of the division from about 2006 onwards.

2000-2006 he was not at the top. His level of competition then was mixed for several reasons. You seem to be just going through every fighter thats been active while Wlad was a boxer and making reasons why avoided them.

Its easier to look at this in time 3 periods:

2001-2003: When Wlad held the WBO
2003-2006: When Wlad was getting his career back on track
2006-present: When Wlad has been the number 1 heavyweight

2001 - 2003:

Wlad was nowhere near his best at this stage. He won the title off Byrd who was decently ranked. Had a soft defence, and beat Mercer, Botha and McCline.

He fought Mercer in 2002. Realistically how much earlier could he have faced him?

Holyfield was getting beaten up from 2001 onwards to the point his licence was suspended. He was a barely credible opponent. I think he had about 6 defeats in 9 fights in that stretch.

Shannon Briggs was unranked at this stage. He lost to McCline, who Wlad beat straight after. So Briggs was not actually credible at this time.

Oleg Maskaev - unranked at this time, lost to Johnson, Whitaker and Corey Sanders in this period.

Golota - unranked.

So on reflection, while Wlads title reign with the WBO between 2001 - 2003 isnt A grade stuff its nowhere near as bad as you are suggesting and the opponents you are putting forward that he didnt face were not even credible at this stage.

2003-2006:

Loses to Sanders and Brewster and basically has a fw fights to build back up. Its unrealistic to expect him to be facing other top top names in this patch as the fights arent realistic.

2006 - present:

Starts to become recognised as the top heavy in the wold and faces a strong level of competition including:
Chambers, Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Brewster, Byrd, Brock - all of whom were top rated by the Ring when he fought them.

Valuev loses his title to Chagaev in this patch and due to Chagaev layoff the belt is unavailable for long stretches. Valuev basically gets handed back his belt with Chagaev as the number 1 contender. When Chagaev comes back from injury Valuev basically ducks him by staging the fight in Finland where they know Chagaev wouldnt get clearance.

The vast majority of fighters you have put forward that Wlad should have faced were either not particualrly credible at the time or else had no interest in facing Wlad.

Haye is making himself look like a tool by not going in the studio with Klitchko. His Borat impression is making himself look like a fool.

WelshDevilRob wrote:Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

Why would he be facing Ruiz in 2003/2004 when he had lost his title and been knocked out? He was trying to rebuild his career at this stage and get back into contention.

Ruiz was beaten by Chagaev who Wlad destroyed. I cant think of a heavyweight who would pose Wlad less problems if Im honest. Slow, not particularly powerful, not much of a defence, immobile and comes forward in straight lines. Essentially about as tailor made for Wlad as you could ask for.

It seems you are just pulling names out of a hat with no acknowledgement of the timeline of Wlads career or the circumstances.

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

Why would he be facing Ruiz in 2003/2004 when he had lost his title and been knocked out? He was trying to rebuild his career at this stage and get back into contention.

Ruiz was beaten by Chagaev who Wlad destroyed. I cant think of a heavyweight who would pose Wlad less problems if Im honest. Slow, not particularly powerful, not much of a defence, immobile and comes forward in straight lines. Essentially about as tailor made for Wlad as you could ask for.

It seems you are just pulling names out of a hat with no acknowledgement of the timeline of Wlads career or the circumstances.

I certainly ain't just pulling names out of a hat. I have followed the Heavyweight division in particular for many years.
I am well aware of the timeline of his career. It was me who reminded you that Wlad was a WBO champion and player in the division a good few years before 2003.

Wlad was getting knocked out by the likes of Brewster and Sanders who are around the same ability as the Rahmans and Ruiz's of the scene back then.

Using Chagaev is not good due to his well documented illness and time away from the sport. I fail to understand how this is viewed as a great victory when it clearly isn't.

Ruiz is a dull one paced plodder you say, but how did Wlad cope with the might of Sultan Ibragimov eh? Stood there and tried to bore the man into submission didn't he.

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

Why would he be facing Ruiz in 2003/2004 when he had lost his title and been knocked out? He was trying to rebuild his career at this stage and get back into contention.

Ruiz was beaten by Chagaev who Wlad destroyed. I cant think of a heavyweight who would pose Wlad less problems if Im honest. Slow, not particularly powerful, not much of a defence, immobile and comes forward in straight lines. Essentially about as tailor made for Wlad as you could ask for.

It seems you are just pulling names out of a hat with no acknowledgement of the timeline of Wlads career or the circumstances.

I certainly ain't just pulling names out of a hat. I have followed the Heavyweight division in particular for many years.
I am well aware of the timeline of his career. It was me who reminded you that Wlad was a WBO champion and player in the division a good few years before 2003.

Wlad was getting knocked out by the likes of Brewster and Sanders who are around the same ability as the Rahmans and Ruiz's of the scene back then.

Using Chagaev is not good due to his well documented illness and time away from the sport. I fail to understand how this is viewed as a great victory when it clearly isn't.

You are basically going back on what you said. I dont need reminding that Wlad was a WBO champion, I am reminding YOU that he wasnt at his best then.

You see when you say things like you should have faced Ruiz in 2003/04, or that he should have faced Mercer before 2002, or Holyfield/Maskaev/Briggs when he was WBO champion you are basically exposing yourself because none of these fights made any sense at the time and if you followed the heavyweight division or Wlads career then I dont see how you can say otherwise. Please explain to me why facing Briggs who got beat by McCline was more credible, or that Maskaev whos record between 2000-02 was 2-3, or that Holyfield whos record was 1-4-1 when Wlad held the WBO were credible fights?

I can only conclude that you simply were not following his career back then as he was never considered at the top and you are using examples of fights that were not viable to support you argument.

DAVE667 wrote:Ruiz is a dull one paced plodder you say, but how did Wlad cope with the might of Sultan Ibragimov eh? Stood there and tried to bore the man into submission didn't he.

He won comfortably. Almost every round.

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

Why would he be facing Ruiz in 2003/2004 when he had lost his title and been knocked out? He was trying to rebuild his career at this stage and get back into contention.

Ruiz was beaten by Chagaev who Wlad destroyed. I cant think of a heavyweight who would pose Wlad less problems if Im honest. Slow, not particularly powerful, not much of a defence, immobile and comes forward in straight lines. Essentially about as tailor made for Wlad as you could ask for.

It seems you are just pulling names out of a hat with no acknowledgement of the timeline of Wlads career or the circumstances.

I certainly ain't just pulling names out of a hat. I have followed the Heavyweight division in particular for many years.
I am well aware of the timeline of his career. It was me who reminded you that Wlad was a WBO champion and player in the division a good few years before 2003.

Wlad was getting knocked out by the likes of Brewster and Sanders who are around the same ability as the Rahmans and Ruiz's of the scene back then.

Using Chagaev is not good due to his well documented illness and time away from the sport. I fail to understand how this is viewed as a great victory when it clearly isn't.

You are basically going back on what you said. I dont need reminding that Wlad was a WBO champion, I am reminding YOU that he wasnt at his best then.

You see when you say things like you should have faced Ruiz in 2003/04, or that he should have faced Mercer before 2002, or Holyfield/Maskaev/Briggs when he was WBO champion you are basically exposing yourself because none of these fights made any sense at the time and if you followed the heavyweight division or Wlads career then I dont see how you can say otherwise. Please explain to me why facing Briggs who got beat by McCline was more credible, or that Maskaev whos record between 2000-02 was 2-3, or that Holyfield whos record was 1-4-1 when Wlad held the WBO were credible fights?

I can only conclude that you simply were not following his career back then as he was never considered at the top and you are using examples of fights that were not viable to support you argument.

Did you use to read the old KO magazine? Back in the day they were hailing people like Wlad and Michael Grant as the heir apparents to the division and expecting them to beat Lennox Lewis - this was pre-2000. I followed his career from a pretty early stage, as he was a heavily hyped prospect even by the Americans and in the days before the internet, I was reading KO magazine, The Ring, Boxing Monthly etc and there were several Heavyweights around that were seen as the future of the division, Wlad being one of them.

I don't see the arguement of him not being able to fight this guy or that guy. One or two yes but several - I don't think so. The much maligned John ruiz seemed to find time to fight these guys but apparently with your reasoning wlad couldn't or shouldn't have. There are too many decent names that are missing and this excuse that he wasn't the No.1 in the division doesn't hold, if you have a belt and are called 'World' Champion then any fight against other top contenders is realistic - No excuses.

manos de piedra wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Ruiz is a dull one paced plodder you say, but how did Wlad cope with the might of Sultan Ibragimov eh? Stood there and tried to bore the man into submission didn't he.

He won comfortably. Almost every round.

You mean of the four where he plucked up the courage to throw a punch? Great win!

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

Why would he be facing Ruiz in 2003/2004 when he had lost his title and been knocked out? He was trying to rebuild his career at this stage and get back into contention.

Ruiz was beaten by Chagaev who Wlad destroyed. I cant think of a heavyweight who would pose Wlad less problems if Im honest. Slow, not particularly powerful, not much of a defence, immobile and comes forward in straight lines. Essentially about as tailor made for Wlad as you could ask for.

It seems you are just pulling names out of a hat with no acknowledgement of the timeline of Wlads career or the circumstances.

I certainly ain't just pulling names out of a hat. I have followed the Heavyweight division in particular for many years.
I am well aware of the timeline of his career. It was me who reminded you that Wlad was a WBO champion and player in the division a good few years before 2003.

Wlad was getting knocked out by the likes of Brewster and Sanders who are around the same ability as the Rahmans and Ruiz's of the scene back then.

Using Chagaev is not good due to his well documented illness and time away from the sport. I fail to understand how this is viewed as a great victory when it clearly isn't.

You are basically going back on what you said. I dont need reminding that Wlad was a WBO champion, I am reminding YOU that he wasnt at his best then.

You see when you say things like you should have faced Ruiz in 2003/04, or that he should have faced Mercer before 2002, or Holyfield/Maskaev/Briggs when he was WBO champion you are basically exposing yourself because none of these fights made any sense at the time and if you followed the heavyweight division or Wlads career then I dont see how you can say otherwise. Please explain to me why facing Briggs who got beat by McCline was more credible, or that Maskaev whos record between 2000-02 was 2-3, or that Holyfield whos record was 1-4-1 when Wlad held the WBO were credible fights?

I can only conclude that you simply were not following his career back then as he was never considered at the top and you are using examples of fights that were not viable to support you argument.

Did you use to read the old KO magazine? Back in the day they were hailing people like Wlad and Michael Grant as the heir apparents to the division and expecting them to beat Lennox Lewis - this was pre-2000. I followed his career from a pretty early stage, as he was a heavily hyped prospect even by the Americans and in the days before the internet, I was reading KO magazine, The Ring, Boxing Monthly etc and there were several Heavyweights around that were seen as the future of the division, Wlad being one of them.

I don't see the arguement of him not being able to fight this guy or that guy. One or two yes but several - I don't think so. The much maligned John ruiz seemed to find time to fight these guys but apparently with your reasoning wlad couldn't or shouldn't have. There are too many decent names that are missing and this excuse that he wasn't the No.1 in the division doesn't hold, if you have a belt and are called 'World' Champion then any fight against other top contenders is realistic - No excuses.

Can you answer the question?

Wlad won his title in 2000. He lost it in 2003. Thats about a 24 month period where he was defending his WBO title.

Now you have brought up the likes of Maskaev, Ruiz, Briggs, Mercer, Holyfield and Golota as men he either didnt face or should have faced sooner. Can you explain exactly when these fights were viable to justify your argument that Wlad avoided them with "no excuses".

While Wlad was WBO champion 2001-2003 (not considered the best heavyweight) none of these fights were particularly viable. I can and have explained why but you refuse to acknowledge it without giving any specific reasons.

Ruiz was tied up with the WBA rarely defending his title successfully in this period yet always having a high ranking there allowing him lucrative title shots against Holyfield and Roy Jones. Wlad wasnt even considered the top heavy and he was nowhere near as lucrative as Holyfield/Jones so this fight was a non starter. Ruiz has spent virtually his entire career enjoying WBA status so has never looked elsewhere.

Maskaev - heres his record while Wlad was WBO champion:

Kirk Johnson (29-0-1) L KO 4
Lance Whitaker (22-1-0) L KO 2
Brian Nix (15-7-0) W TKO 6
David Vedder (21-19-5) W TKO 6
Corey Sanders (22-6-0) L TKO 8

Based on that how is he ever a credible opponent let alone a threat to Wlad? The guy was unranked and not in the picture.

Holyfield - Lost to Donald, Toney, Byrd and Ruiz during this period. Again, was ranked by the WBA ensuring title shots against Ruiz so a fight with Wlad was never on the cards realistically.

Golota - was retired during this period. Didnt fight between 2001-2003.

Briggs - Unranked while Wlad was WBO champion. Lost to Jameel McCline who went on to be defeated by Wlad in his next fight. Not a credible fight.

Mercer - fought and beat in 2002 while WBO champ.

In 2003 he loses his title and doesnt become champion again until 2006. From 2006 onwards he face a strong level of opposition. from 2003-2006 his career is in rebuilding mode.

Now I have given you my reasons why these fights were not particularly viable at the time. Can you explain why you think these opponents were feasible? Im talking about actual timeframes and reasons here. Using Wlads WBO title stint as a measurement of him is weak anyway as its apparent now he was nowhere near his best then and was not a dominant heavy.

Its like me saying Hatton avoided Witter, Holt, Torres, Bradley etc when he was in lightwelter but if you actually look at the circumstances it obvious there are perfectly valid reasons why these fights didnt happen.

DAVE667 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Ruiz is a dull one paced plodder you say, but how did Wlad cope with the might of Sultan Ibragimov eh? Stood there and tried to bore the man into submission didn't he.

He won comfortably. Almost every round.

You mean of the four where he plucked up the courage to throw a punch? Great win!

Yes it was a boring fight. Whats your point? Or is it just another dig at Wlad for the sake of it?

WelshDevilRob wrote:Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

I thought Wlad only fought Rahman as a late replacement after Povetkin pulled out of fighting.

Of course Ruiz would have been a walkover for Wlad. Just like was for any boxer with an ounce of ability, inlcuding former middleweights like Jones and Toney.

The most ironic thing is that you suggest Wlad stayed in his comfort zone. Yet at the same time, claim he avoided guys like Valuev (who is the very defintion of a protected boxer).

Anyway, he's fighting David Haye next, who is better than all the names listed.

Just watched Ringside with Klitschko and Haye. To be honest, I was all over Haye wanting him to win, but seeing how he's been acting lately, I'm starting to shift towards Wlad. Haye is acting like a child.

licence_007 wrote:Just watched Ringside with Klitschko and Haye. To be honest, I was all over Haye wanting him to win, but seeing how he's been acting lately, I'm starting to shift towards Wlad. Haye is acting like a child.

same, wlad is very calm, samet and is quite funny. He is really annoying haye and it's amusing to say the least. The only thing haye has tried to come out with I the borat comment, an wlad played along and made haye look the fool. Haye not siting near him because he doesn't like him, wlad is like the nicest guy ever.

Just watching ringside. Haye is coming across as a churlish arce. Just a small step above DeGale in the stupid stakes. Wlad makes him look even more silly than he actually is. Humerous and intelligent as opposed to funny and childish/churlish.

Agree with you az. I couldn't really believe what I was watching. To see a 30 year old boxer acting like that is just cringe worthy. At least it's somewhat forgiveable with how young DeGale. To tell the truth, I'm not sure it even is above DeGale, refusing to sit next to someone because you don't like them is primary school stuff.

I think Wlad is just too smart to let immature comments like the Borat insult, get to him.

licence_007 wrote:Agree with you az. I couldn't really believe what I was watching. To see a 30 year old boxer acting like that is just cringe worthy. At least it's somewhat forgiveable with how young DeGale. To tell the truth, I'm not sure it even is above DeGale, refusing to sit next to someone because you don't like them is primary school stuff.

I think Wlad is just too smart to let immature comments like the Borat insult, get to him.

Dont get me wrong. I enjoy trash talking. But this is childish stuff from Haye. At least be clever or do it with humour a la naz.

100% agree. Just watching Haye at the moment, he comes over well, talking about the fight well, why couldn't he have done that, mixed with a little bit of trash talking, sitting besides Klitschko? He would look a lot better than the moody ass that he is looking currently.

licence_007 wrote:Agree with you az. I couldn't really believe what I was watching. To see a 30 year old boxer acting like that is just cringe worthy. At least it's somewhat forgiveable with how young DeGale. To tell the truth, I'm not sure it even is above DeGale, refusing to sit next to someone because you don't like them is primary school stuff.

I think Wlad is just too smart to let immature comments like the Borat insult, get to him.

I agree that he is acting like a clown, But think people should start to realise that it is just acting and hype to generate some interest and sell a fight. Haye isnt stupid even if he is coming across like that, anyone who can get 6m from hyping a fight with fraudley knows exactly what they are doing. Degale on the other hand, whether he is actually stupid, think the jurys still out on that one though.

I dont mind haye, acting like a fool or not. Think he brings a bit of interest to the sport and thats got to be a good thing.

I dont think Haye is acting. I think he feels he can only perform at his best when he really dislikes his opponent and is worried about becoming overly friendly with his opponent in case he loses some of his mental edge.

I think there is a balance to be drawn. Im no fan of the buddy kind of stuff Pacquaio and Mosely were on. But at the same time I think Haye is coming across poorly by not offering even the smallest token of respect to Wlad. Definately think Wlad has won over alot of people here while Haye has come across as rather surly and ungratious. Hes not Mike Tyson and he never wil be so I dont think the public and media will take to his behaviour too well if anyhing he is making Wlad out to be a guy with charisma and personality - everything hes been trying to convince people he isnt.

I think its all part of Hayes mental preparation though and in his mind he wants to focus on beating Wlad and feels he cant do that effectively by engaging Wlad in friendlies.

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

Why would he be facing Ruiz in 2003/2004 when he had lost his title and been knocked out? He was trying to rebuild his career at this stage and get back into contention.

Ruiz was beaten by Chagaev who Wlad destroyed. I cant think of a heavyweight who would pose Wlad less problems if Im honest. Slow, not particularly powerful, not much of a defence, immobile and comes forward in straight lines. Essentially about as tailor made for Wlad as you could ask for.

It seems you are just pulling names out of a hat with no acknowledgement of the timeline of Wlads career or the circumstances.

I certainly ain't just pulling names out of a hat. I have followed the Heavyweight division in particular for many years.
I am well aware of the timeline of his career. It was me who reminded you that Wlad was a WBO champion and player in the division a good few years before 2003.

Wlad was getting knocked out by the likes of Brewster and Sanders who are around the same ability as the Rahmans and Ruiz's of the scene back then.

Using Chagaev is not good due to his well documented illness and time away from the sport. I fail to understand how this is viewed as a great victory when it clearly isn't.

You are basically going back on what you said. I dont need reminding that Wlad was a WBO champion, I am reminding YOU that he wasnt at his best then.

You see when you say things like you should have faced Ruiz in 2003/04, or that he should have faced Mercer before 2002, or Holyfield/Maskaev/Briggs when he was WBO champion you are basically exposing yourself because none of these fights made any sense at the time and if you followed the heavyweight division or Wlads career then I dont see how you can say otherwise. Please explain to me why facing Briggs who got beat by McCline was more credible, or that Maskaev whos record between 2000-02 was 2-3, or that Holyfield whos record was 1-4-1 when Wlad held the WBO were credible fights?

I can only conclude that you simply were not following his career back then as he was never considered at the top and you are using examples of fights that were not viable to support you argument.

Did you use to read the old KO magazine? Back in the day they were hailing people like Wlad and Michael Grant as the heir apparents to the division and expecting them to beat Lennox Lewis - this was pre-2000. I followed his career from a pretty early stage, as he was a heavily hyped prospect even by the Americans and in the days before the internet, I was reading KO magazine, The Ring, Boxing Monthly etc and there were several Heavyweights around that were seen as the future of the division, Wlad being one of them.

I don't see the arguement of him not being able to fight this guy or that guy. One or two yes but several - I don't think so. The much maligned John ruiz seemed to find time to fight these guys but apparently with your reasoning wlad couldn't or shouldn't have. There are too many decent names that are missing and this excuse that he wasn't the No.1 in the division doesn't hold, if you have a belt and are called 'World' Champion then any fight against other top contenders is realistic - No excuses.

Can you answer the question?

Wlad won his title in 2000. He lost it in 2003. Thats about a 24 month period where he was defending his WBO title.

Now you have brought up the likes of Maskaev, Ruiz, Briggs, Mercer, Holyfield and Golota as men he either didnt face or should have faced sooner. Can you explain exactly when these fights were viable to justify your argument that Wlad avoided them with "no excuses".

While Wlad was WBO champion 2001-2003 (not considered the best heavyweight) none of these fights were particularly viable. I can and have explained why but you refuse to acknowledge it without giving any specific reasons.

Ruiz was tied up with the WBA rarely defending his title successfully in this period yet always having a high ranking there allowing him lucrative title shots against Holyfield and Roy Jones. Wlad wasnt even considered the top heavy and he was nowhere near as lucrative as Holyfield/Jones so this fight was a non starter. Ruiz has spent virtually his entire career enjoying WBA status so has never looked elsewhere.

Maskaev - heres his record while Wlad was WBO champion:

Kirk Johnson (29-0-1) L KO 4
Lance Whitaker (22-1-0) L KO 2
Brian Nix (15-7-0) W TKO 6
David Vedder (21-19-5) W TKO 6
Corey Sanders (22-6-0) L TKO 8

Based on that how is he ever a credible opponent let alone a threat to Wlad? The guy was unranked and not in the picture.

Holyfield - Lost to Donald, Toney, Byrd and Ruiz during this period. Again, was ranked by the WBA ensuring title shots against Ruiz so a fight with Wlad was never on the cards realistically.

Golota - was retired during this period. Didnt fight between 2001-2003.

Briggs - Unranked while Wlad was WBO champion. Lost to Jameel McCline who went on to be defeated by Wlad in his next fight. Not a credible fight.

Mercer - fought and beat in 2002 while WBO champ.

In 2003 he loses his title and doesnt become champion again until 2006. From 2006 onwards he face a strong level of opposition. from 2003-2006 his career is in rebuilding mode.

Now I have given you my reasons why these fights were not particularly viable at the time. Can you explain why you think these opponents were feasible? Im talking about actual timeframes and reasons here. Using Wlads WBO title stint as a measurement of him is weak anyway as its apparent now he was nowhere near his best then and was not a dominant heavy.

Its like me saying Hatton avoided Witter, Holt, Torres, Bradley etc when he was in lightwelter but if you actually look at the circumstances it obvious there are perfectly valid reasons why these fights didnt happen.

There always seems valid reasons not to fight the best around and just take the easier fights. Your just Boxrec'ing rather than having followed the sport through the period. You keep asking questions but don't answer any yourself.
As soon as you ignored the fact that he was at the top of the division from 2000, I knew you were a relative new comer.
The Klitschko's turned down a fight with Michael Grant, it was Andrew Golota that took the fight but reading your 'timelines' Wlad wasn't ready. I disagree as he was a contender and was viewed as an opponent for Lennox in 2000/2001. Grant and Tua stepped upto the plate while Wlad went the WBO route - thats what happened.

You don't need to be the champion to face the best, Lennox fought the likes of Morrison and Mercer (when they were legit) even when he didn't hold a belt.

azania wrote:Just watching ringside. Haye is coming across as a churlish arce. Just a small step above DeGale in the stupid stakes. Wlad makes him look even more silly than he actually is. Humerous and intelligent as opposed to funny and childish/churlish.

Not seen it yet but alot saying the samething.

Hi Manos

You may be right, However the thing that makes me doubt that is that Haye acted like a prat at times in the run up in the audley fight, i cant imagine that had much to do with mental preparation as he was in no doubt he was going to destroy him.

Things like his t shirt stunt just make me think that there is far more calculation in his perceived stupdity at time. May be part of a mental preparation but i seem to lean more towards the selling a fight angle, bad blood sells and he seems to be going out of his way to either exagerrate what is already there or create some more.

Agree that he isnt being respectful in the slightest and it isnt showing him in the best light but people wanting to see him get knocked out are still people wanting to see the fight.

As much as i have my doubts that he will actually beat wlad, i dont have much doubt that he can sell a fight and loves being centre of attention for whatever reason he can muster.

Zeb the owl wrote:Hi Manos

You may be right, However the thing that makes me doubt that is that Haye acted like a prat at times in the run up in the audley fight, i cant imagine that had much to do with mental preparation as he was in no doubt he was going to destroy him.

Things like his t shirt stunt just make me think that there is far more calculation in his perceived stupdity at time. May be part of a mental preparation but i seem to lean more towards the selling a fight angle, bad blood sells and he seems to be going out of his way to either exagerrate what is already there or create some more.

Agree that he isnt being respectful in the slightest and it isnt showing him in the best light but people wanting to see him get knocked out are still people wanting to see the fight.

As much as i have my doubts that he will actually beat wlad, i dont have much doubt that he can sell a fight and loves being centre of attention for whatever reason he can muster.

Yeah I think the other stunts he did was basically to put himself on the map and drum up some interest in him. It worked also because he got title shots having beaten nobody of note in the division.

Now that the fight is appraoching though I think he has this mentality of aggression that he feels he needs to maintain in order to be at his best. Duran was similar in that way insofar as he would hate your guts if you were his opponent but it was largely to keep himelf focused. Some fighters need that and lose their edge if they become to familiar or friendly with their opponent and I think since Wlad is a decent guy that Haye just doesnt want to risk losing any edge he might feel he has.

I just think that now that fans and media outlets over here are now getting to see more of Wlad that they are starting to realise that he isnt really the moronic robot Haye with no personality that Haye had managed to convince them he was. Seems like the more Haye criticises Wlad for being boring or being like Borat the better Wlad looks. Granted he probably doesnt have a career in stand up after boxing but seeing as he basically conversing in his 4th language I cut him some slack!

I dont think it matters at all when they meet in the ring and I think both guys are mentally aware enough not to let the others antics bother them. I think Haye is doing what he is doing for himself rather than the fans or media and as long as he gets the win I dont think he will be too bothered what people say. Il be interested to see how he reacts to Wlad in victory or defeat though!

People give Larry Holmes a hard time for missing fights. Lets not forget that the best fighter Wlad has beaten in his reign is either Eddie Chambers or Calvin Brock. I don't rate the Chagaev win as that man was clearly not the fighter he had been due to his illness.
.......................
Yeah he was your splitting hairs, Chagaev was just fighting a world class heavyweight and not a freakshow like Valuev, he never fought a bad fight he was just out of his depth completely, Peter was a banger and went on to win a world title after Wlad beat him, some not having an heart getting off the floor to win a decision over a future world champ and serious banger in Peter. Also destroyed the unbeaten Ibragimov to unify. Destroyed the good Chambers, Wlad's resume is seriously underrated, Haye will be destroyed early, he has a chance of course, but i think when you mix in the utter garbage quality he has he will pay the price for stepping up.

manos de piedra wrote:

Zeb the owl wrote:Hi Manos

You may be right, However the thing that makes me doubt that is that Haye acted like a prat at times in the run up in the audley fight, i cant imagine that had much to do with mental preparation as he was in no doubt he was going to destroy him.

Things like his t shirt stunt just make me think that there is far more calculation in his perceived stupdity at time. May be part of a mental preparation but i seem to lean more towards the selling a fight angle, bad blood sells and he seems to be going out of his way to either exagerrate what is already there or create some more.

Agree that he isnt being respectful in the slightest and it isnt showing him in the best light but people wanting to see him get knocked out are still people wanting to see the fight.

As much as i have my doubts that he will actually beat wlad, i dont have much doubt that he can sell a fight and loves being centre of attention for whatever reason he can muster.

Yeah I think the other stunts he did was basically to put himself on the map and drum up some interest in him. It worked also because he got title shots having beaten nobody of note in the division.

Now that the fight is appraoching though I think he has this mentality of aggression that he feels he needs to maintain in order to be at his best. Duran was similar in that way insofar as he would hate your guts if you were his opponent but it was largely to keep himelf focused. Some fighters need that and lose their edge if they become to familiar or friendly with their opponent and I think since Wlad is a decent guy that Haye just doesnt want to risk losing any edge he might feel he has.

I just think that now that fans and media outlets over here are now getting to see more of Wlad that they are starting to realise that he isnt really the moronic robot Haye with no personality that Haye had managed to convince them he was. Seems like the more Haye criticises Wlad for being boring or being like Borat the better Wlad looks. Granted he probably doesnt have a career in stand up after boxing but seeing as he basically conversing in his 4th language I cut him some slack!

I dont think it matters at all when they meet in the ring and I think both guys are mentally aware enough not to let the others antics bother them. I think Haye is doing what he is doing for himself rather than the fans or media and as long as he gets the win I dont think he will be too bothered what people say. Il be interested to see how he reacts to Wlad in victory or defeat though!

When the mental prep first came up, I was waiting to see how long it would take someone to mention Duran! I've no real clue about Haye's persona before his fight with Macarinelli, so has he always acted like this even at CW? For me though, this all seems to fall some way short of the actual hatred that Duran used to spit, and seems more like Haye not talking to him because he stole his lunch money. Yes, it will drum up interest, but if Haye came over as at least likeable, his fanbase would increase. Not many Brits like childish idiots and that's exactly how he's acting. If he even went the full haul and went completely Duran, it would be slightly better than listening to him calling a foreigner Borat. Oh the creativity...

WelshDevilRob -

I think you're looking to much into Wlad's early years rather than his latter ones.
Around 2000, Wlad had only been a pro for 4 years and was being hyped up as a future champ.
Perhaps he did take a few easy options during these years but thats partly because HBO were building him up for a mega fight with Lewis.
Most boxers in this position are usually protected somewhat.

However, if he look at his career over the past few years, his record certainly holds up to scrutiny. Almost all his recent opponents were Top 10 ranked contenders by Ring magazine. Rahman was the only exception and he was a late replacement for Povetkin.
Chambers and Chagaev were ranked in the Top 5 and he's fighting David Haye (ranked 3rd) next.

If he wins that than he becomes the WBO, WBA, IBF, IBO and ring magazine champion. You can't achieve that level of success if you avoid your main rivals.

azania wrote:Just watching ringside. Haye is coming across as a churlish arce. Just a small step above DeGale in the stupid stakes. Wlad makes him look even more silly than he actually is. Humerous and intelligent as opposed to funny and childish/churlish.

What?!? We agree? Will wonders never cease. Az - you've hit the nail on the head.

WelshDevilRob.

You have claimed to have "followed the HW division for a number of years" - but your criticisms of Wlad are entirely unreasonable and seem to smack of a complete lack of context.

You need to go through the boxrec top10 HW list. When the Chisora fight was signed - Wlad was down to number 16 on the list - everyone above having either been beaten by him, coming off a loss and so rebuilding (Arreola) or preferred to avoid the fight (Povetkin).

I struggle to think of a beltholder in recent times who has achieved such a great run of defences. He is now fighting the number 2/3 in Haye. What more do you want?

Briggs? Holyfield? Lets be honest - neither fight was ever viable. Especially Evander. I don't think you can accuse Wlad of ducking an old, tired, broken down man. And Valuev? He has a medical condition! He retired after the Haye fight because he has a pituitary adenoma which, amongst other things, means he has tunnel vision. And he refused the fight on a number of occasions. Be reasonable!

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Just watching ringside. Haye is coming across as a churlish arce. Just a small step above DeGale in the stupid stakes. Wlad makes him look even more silly than he actually is. Humerous and intelligent as opposed to funny and childish/churlish.

What?!? We agree? Will wonders never cease. Az - you've hit the nail on the head.

WelshDevilRob.

You have claimed to have "followed the HW division for a number of years" - but your criticisms of Wlad are entirely unreasonable and seem to smack of a complete lack of context.

You need to go through the boxrec top10 HW list. When the Chisora fight was signed - Wlad was down to number 16 on the list - everyone above having either been beaten by him, coming off a loss and so rebuilding (Arreola) or preferred to avoid the fight (Povetkin).

I struggle to think of a beltholder in recent times who has achieved such a great run of defences. He is now fighting the number 2/3 in Haye. What more do you want?

Briggs? Holyfield? Lets be honest - neither fight was ever viable. Especially Evander. I don't think you can accuse Wlad of ducking an old, tired, broken down man. And Valuev? He has a medical condition! He retired after the Haye fight because he has a pituitary adenoma which, amongst other things, means he has tunnel vision. And he refused the fight on a number of occasions. Be reasonable!

I think the nail hit me on the head. My one and only eureka moment.

i dont really judge a fighter behavivor before a fight, all the name calling and head games is fair play- but i dont like seeing it after a fight (ie zab judah), i hate to see bad sportsmanship after a fight

I am i think Wlad is a very funny man, 'i've been reading Haye's magazine the Hayemaker and i think it would sell more if he changed the H to a G' Classic

eddyfightfan wrote:i dont really judge a fighter behavivor before a fight, all the name calling and head games is fair play- but i dont like seeing it after a fight (ie zab judah), i hate to see bad sportsmanship after a fight

I agree although Haye said on Sky Sports news that he never respected Wlad which I thought was a poor comment. Not going in the studio with Wlad on ringside also made him look like a child. Wlad just took the p**s out of him.

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:Mandatory? You don't recall Maskaev becoming WBC Mandatory even late in his career?

The organisations ratings are often strange to say the least and I certainly wouldn't go by them as a true indictaion as to who are the best in each division.
The WBO in particular have very strange No.1 contenders and certainly in that period so don't take it as an indication that Wlad's WBO No.1 defences were against the best in the division.
Look simply at Rahman - already beaten by Ruiz and Ko'd by Maskaev but somehow must have worked his way up these rankings of yours to get a shot at Wlad lol.

If the WBA is a comfortzone then the WBO is certainly its equal in that regard.

Ruiz certainly wouldn't have been a walkover for Wlad around 2003/2004 and seems naive to suggest he would have been. Yet, we will never know as with the other names I mentioned - the fact is Wlad didn't face them but was happy sitting in his comfortzone.

Why would he be facing Ruiz in 2003/2004 when he had lost his title and been knocked out? He was trying to rebuild his career at this stage and get back into contention.

Ruiz was beaten by Chagaev who Wlad destroyed. I cant think of a heavyweight who would pose Wlad less problems if Im honest. Slow, not particularly powerful, not much of a defence, immobile and comes forward in straight lines. Essentially about as tailor made for Wlad as you could ask for.

It seems you are just pulling names out of a hat with no acknowledgement of the timeline of Wlads career or the circumstances.

I certainly ain't just pulling names out of a hat. I have followed the Heavyweight division in particular for many years.
I am well aware of the timeline of his career. It was me who reminded you that Wlad was a WBO champion and player in the division a good few years before 2003.

Wlad was getting knocked out by the likes of Brewster and Sanders who are around the same ability as the Rahmans and Ruiz's of the scene back then.

Using Chagaev is not good due to his well documented illness and time away from the sport. I fail to understand how this is viewed as a great victory when it clearly isn't.

You are basically going back on what you said. I dont need reminding that Wlad was a WBO champion, I am reminding YOU that he wasnt at his best then.

You see when you say things like you should have faced Ruiz in 2003/04, or that he should have faced Mercer before 2002, or Holyfield/Maskaev/Briggs when he was WBO champion you are basically exposing yourself because none of these fights made any sense at the time and if you followed the heavyweight division or Wlads career then I dont see how you can say otherwise. Please explain to me why facing Briggs who got beat by McCline was more credible, or that Maskaev whos record between 2000-02 was 2-3, or that Holyfield whos record was 1-4-1 when Wlad held the WBO were credible fights?

I can only conclude that you simply were not following his career back then as he was never considered at the top and you are using examples of fights that were not viable to support you argument.

Did you use to read the old KO magazine? Back in the day they were hailing people like Wlad and Michael Grant as the heir apparents to the division and expecting them to beat Lennox Lewis - this was pre-2000. I followed his career from a pretty early stage, as he was a heavily hyped prospect even by the Americans and in the days before the internet, I was reading KO magazine, The Ring, Boxing Monthly etc and there were several Heavyweights around that were seen as the future of the division, Wlad being one of them.

I don't see the arguement of him not being able to fight this guy or that guy. One or two yes but several - I don't think so. The much maligned John ruiz seemed to find time to fight these guys but apparently with your reasoning wlad couldn't or shouldn't have. There are too many decent names that are missing and this excuse that he wasn't the No.1 in the division doesn't hold, if you have a belt and are called 'World' Champion then any fight against other top contenders is realistic - No excuses.

Can you answer the question?

Wlad won his title in 2000. He lost it in 2003. Thats about a 24 month period where he was defending his WBO title.

Now you have brought up the likes of Maskaev, Ruiz, Briggs, Mercer, Holyfield and Golota as men he either didnt face or should have faced sooner. Can you explain exactly when these fights were viable to justify your argument that Wlad avoided them with "no excuses".

While Wlad was WBO champion 2001-2003 (not considered the best heavyweight) none of these fights were particularly viable. I can and have explained why but you refuse to acknowledge it without giving any specific reasons.

Ruiz was tied up with the WBA rarely defending his title successfully in this period yet always having a high ranking there allowing him lucrative title shots against Holyfield and Roy Jones. Wlad wasnt even considered the top heavy and he was nowhere near as lucrative as Holyfield/Jones so this fight was a non starter. Ruiz has spent virtually his entire career enjoying WBA status so has never looked elsewhere.

Maskaev - heres his record while Wlad was WBO champion:

Kirk Johnson (29-0-1) L KO 4
Lance Whitaker (22-1-0) L KO 2
Brian Nix (15-7-0) W TKO 6
David Vedder (21-19-5) W TKO 6
Corey Sanders (22-6-0) L TKO 8

Based on that how is he ever a credible opponent let alone a threat to Wlad? The guy was unranked and not in the picture.

Holyfield - Lost to Donald, Toney, Byrd and Ruiz during this period. Again, was ranked by the WBA ensuring title shots against Ruiz so a fight with Wlad was never on the cards realistically.

Golota - was retired during this period. Didnt fight between 2001-2003.

Briggs - Unranked while Wlad was WBO champion. Lost to Jameel McCline who went on to be defeated by Wlad in his next fight. Not a credible fight.

Mercer - fought and beat in 2002 while WBO champ.

In 2003 he loses his title and doesnt become champion again until 2006. From 2006 onwards he face a strong level of opposition. from 2003-2006 his career is in rebuilding mode.

Now I have given you my reasons why these fights were not particularly viable at the time. Can you explain why you think these opponents were feasible? Im talking about actual timeframes and reasons here. Using Wlads WBO title stint as a measurement of him is weak anyway as its apparent now he was nowhere near his best then and was not a dominant heavy.

Its like me saying Hatton avoided Witter, Holt, Torres, Bradley etc when he was in lightwelter but if you actually look at the circumstances it obvious there are perfectly valid reasons why these fights didnt happen.

There always seems valid reasons not to fight the best around and just take the easier fights. Your just Boxrec'ing rather than having followed the sport through the period. You keep asking questions but don't answer any yourself.
As soon as you ignored the fact that he was at the top of the division from 2000, I knew you were a relative new comer.
The Klitschko's turned down a fight with Michael Grant, it was Andrew Golota that took the fight but reading your 'timelines' Wlad wasn't ready. I disagree as he was a contender and was viewed as an opponent for Lennox in 2000/2001. Grant and Tua stepped upto the plate while Wlad went the WBO route - thats what happened.

You don't need to be the champion to face the best, Lennox fought the likes of Morrison and Mercer (when they were legit) even when he didn't hold a belt.

Last post from me to you on this mate because to be honest I just dont think you know what your talking about.

First, Wlad Klitschko top of the division in 2000? I think that would be Lennox Lewis, who had just beaten Holyfield around that time. Only a clueless person would consider Wlad Klitschko to be top of the division while Lewis was operating. But the cap seems to fit.

Second, we are talking about Wlad Klitschko here. Not "the Klitschkos". So its pretty silly trying include Vitali. The fact is Golota wasnt remotely a contender when Wlad was WBO champion. No more so than McCline or Mercer. The guy wasnt even boxing.

Thirdly, unlike you I actually did follow boxing then which is why I know little things like Lewis being the top heavyweight in 2000 and why somebody like Oleg Maskaev was never being touted as a threat or viable challenge at that time. I used boxrec to illustrate my point that he was losing to journeyman and therefore was not an option.

Fourthly, Lewis is a poor example when he was champ. Morrison and Mercer was rubbish compared to Bowe or Holyfield or even Moorer or Foreman back then. Wow, Lewis really stepped up to the plate fighting those guys didnt he? I suppose its also Lewis fault the Bowe fight didnt happen because in your own words "there always seems to be a reason not to fight the best".

Lastly, 2001-03 was a small stretch in Wlads overall reign yet you seem to be basing everything on it whilst ignoring the far more significant second reign he had where he actually was ranked as the best heavy and has taken on the top ranked guys. I have shown you why the guys you mention were not viable and you dont have anything to come back with. I can only assume your memory of the time has deserted you or else you simply didnt follow boxing back then. There is simply no other reason you could possibly think some of those names you mentioned were realistic opponents back then.