Why Wlad's reign is of no significance

I get a little tired of people telling me that Wlad's reign as HW Champ is significant. All they can point to is longevity, that's it.

Here is why is doesn't matter:

He has lost to three journeyman in the worst era of HW boxing.
He cheats to win. Leaning all over opponents the way he does is cheating, plain and simple. His performance versus Povetkin was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen.
He has zero wins of significance on his record. And the best wins he has were not inspiring (see Povetkin).
He cannot fight inside at all.
He fights scared.
He doesn't inspire, in fact, he turns people away from the sport.

Wlad is not a great champ, and as for these p4p rankings I see him in, does anybody believe Wlad would compete on a p4p level? Nope.

As a man, i am sure he is a decent fella, but let's not pretend his reign is meaningful.

Longevity of reign is not always an indicator of quality, sometimes it's just a measure of time.

Yep, and thats being generous.

He is a monumental stinker.

Why Wlad's reign is of no significance

Because he's not American and therefore unworthy in the eyes of TRUSSMAN?

Yes Dave, because I am (a) American and (b) care whether Truss believes he is great or not.

Seanusarrilius wrote:Yes Dave, because I am (a) American and (b) care whether Truss believes he is great or not.  

And that's even more depressing than discussing the relative merits of Wlad's reign

He has lost to three journeyman in the worst era of HW boxing.

Lewis lost to two

He cheats to win. Leaning all over opponents the way he does is cheating, plain and simple. His performance versus Povetkin was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen.

Ali did his fair share of that, holding opponents behind the head and pulling them onto shots

He has zero wins of significance on his record. And the best wins he has were not inspiring (see Povetkin).

The same is true of many a heavyweight

He cannot fight inside at all.

He doesn't need to, he wins without doing

He fights scared.

See above

He doesn't inspire, in fact, he turns people away from the sport.

The attendances would suggest otherwise, has popularised the sport in certain parts of the world.

If you go by the TBRB (who apply the championship policy Ring did back when it wasn't owned by Golden Boy) then his reign's only just begun!!

He isn't a great fighter, though. He could reign from now until 2113 and that wouldn't change.

Rowley wrote:
He cheats to win. Leaning all over opponents the way he does is cheating, plain and simple. His performance versus Povetkin was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen.

Ali did his fair share of that, holding opponents behind the head and pulling them onto shots

To expand on Rowley's point, Lewis was often naughty for holding the head with his left 'jab' to line up his right.

Also, I watched a Foreman fight (not long after the big debate over Khan's 'push' point deductions vs LP) and Big George used to manhandle people round the ring all the time - incl. lots of unpenalised pushing!

Seanusarrilius wrote:I get a little tired of people telling me that Wlad's reign as HW Champ is significant. All they can point to is longevity, that's it.

Here is why is doesn't matter:

He has lost to three journeyman in the worst era of HW boxing.
He cheats to win. Leaning all over opponents the way he does is cheating, plain and simple. His performance versus Povetkin was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen.
He has zero wins of significance on his record. And the best wins he has were not inspiring (see Povetkin).
He cannot fight inside at all.
He fights scared.
He doesn't inspire, in fact, he turns people away from the sport.

Wlad is not a great champ, and as for these p4p rankings I see him in, does anybody believe Wlad would compete on a p4p level? Nope.

As a man, i am sure he is a decent fella, but let's not pretend his reign is meaningful.

Longevity of reign is not always an indicator of quality, sometimes it's just a measure of time.

I cant think of a compelling argument against your points, and that is slightly depressing when you consider he holds the biggest titles in the sport.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rowley wrote:
He cheats to win. Leaning all over opponents the way he does is cheating, plain and simple. His performance versus Povetkin was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen.

Ali did his fair share of that, holding opponents behind the head and pulling them onto shots

To expand on Rowley's point, Lewis was often naughty for holding the head with his left 'jab' to line up his right.

Also, I watched a Foreman fight (not long after the big debate over Khan's 'push' point deductions vs LP) and Big George used to manhandle people round the ring all the time - incl. lots of unpenalised pushing!

Wlad's wrestling looks so undignified, though. Lewis and Foreman did it while in the throes of attempting to hurt the other guy (which isn't very moral I grant you) whereas Wladimir does it because he's scared he might get hit.

Have to admit he was pretty bad in the Povetkin fight, he could have Ko'd him in round 1 but when he knew he could get away with holding he took the easiest route to victory. That said he's like 38 now? Unfair to put to much stock in to that, since 2005 he has been a safety first fighter but he's still unbeatable and probably will be for a good few more years. Most HW champs did lose to journeyman at some time McCall, Rahman,Young,Spinks, Douglas etc..

If he was an all out KO artist like he was until Sanders then I'm sure he would be more popular in the States and UK (he's massive in Eastern Europe) but he would have been KO'd again and probably for good this time, he's supposed to hit and not be hit which he does every fight, I just wish he would let his hands go more though than just drag the fights out to satisfy RTL or whatever.

Don’t get me wrong Haz I am no more a fan of Wlad’s holding and grabbing than the next man. However his job is not to enforce the rules, it is to win, something he does with alarming regularity. It is for the ref to enforce the rules, or and this is coming out of leftfield on this one, but maybe, just maybe one of his opponents could come up with a tactical plan that dealt with Wlad’s tactics.

In fairness he did get points deducted versus Haye.....just a pity the prima-donna couldn't take advantage!

His opponents are crap though, thats most of the reason he is champion at all. It would be bad enough if he was relying on his wrestling to beat decent fighters but he does it against mediocrity looking like he is scared sh1tless. Awful champion who stinks the place out in all his big fights.

Wlads jab is over rated to me but his right hand is a very powerful punch the odd time he gets around to throwing it.

His chin will always be a part of any assessment of him. In fantasy match-ups you would have to fancy the greats to find a way to land a shattering punch.

Wlad lost a lot of fans with the Povetkin performance.

They should hand out rotten fruit and gasmasks to people attending his fights.

As a couple of others have already pointed out, there isn't a single criticism in Sean's article which can't also be directed towards at the very least one other Heavyweight champion usually regarded more highly than Wlad. Some of those former champions even fall to more than one of those criticisms, in fact.

But Wladimir's problem is that he is uniquely 'guilty' of all of the above in a way that none of the other really outstanding Heavyweight champions were.

Now I agree that this is enough to prevent him ever becoming one of the true giants of Heavyweight history, and there will always be at least ten I'd put in front of him, but let's not be too unreasonable.

Having a style which isn't easy on the eye or particularly excited is no reason to deduct legacy points from someone, really. We're all biased towards certain styles to some degree, but as I always say, it's a results-based business as the end of the day. If you can fight spectacularly and win spectacularly as well, then great. However, not all that many fighters are fortunate enough to have that in their locker, and if it boils down to either winning ugly or losing with a bang, then good luck trying to find too many professionals at the top of the sport who will opt for the latter.

Some look at Bernard Hopkins and see a master craftsman who intelligently manipulates every chance in order to shut down his opponent's weapons by any means necessary. Others see a dull, tentative fighter who stinks the joint out and gets away with little tricks he shouldn't. Some watch Ray Leonard getting that decision over Hagler and see a supremely smart fighter outwitting his foe and using his own physical gifts to implement the only game plan that could possibly have worked. Others see a man not engaging enough, running away and conning the fans and judges in to thinking he'd won simply because he'd succeeded in not getting as badly mangled as many predicted beforehand.

Whichever camp you're in, it's impossible to categorically prove the other side 'wrong' and prove yourself 'right.'

Again, it's all relative with Wlad, as well. I think when people go overboard in criticising him, it's largely because they're trying to repel the niggling idea that exists in certain quarters that he's one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time (Boxing News recently referred to him as such, for instance), up there with a Holmes, a Foreman etc. Hence the vitriol sometimes thrown at him in response, when people end up going too far the other way and let themselves get a little crazy with it, stating that he wouldn't even be a gatekeeper in other eras, that he's a disgrace to boxing, that Ezzard Charles would have outclassed him etc.

Relative to someone like Ali or Joe Louis, then yes, Wladimir is no great shakes, but you can only beat who is around in your era and, unless people seriously ever wanted or expected him to fight his brother, it's hard to see what else he could have done in the Heavyweight division over the past few years. He's a good fighter for any era, and yes, being around in the past decade or so has allowed him to become champion when in some of these other eras he would have had to settle for being a good contender. But hey, he's hardly alone there. Imagine Joe Louis born thirty-odd years later than he was and having to share his prime with Ali, Frazier and Foreman? Never mind one of the top two greatest Heavies of the lot as we commonly see him now - would he even have been top two in his own generation?

As I said, all of your criticisms of Wladimir are valid to one degree or another, Sean, but I do think a sense of perspective is needed sometimes. Half the time when people bemoan Wlad and make light of his longevity, they ironically enough end up pining over the likes of Witherspoon, Tubbs, Bowe etc. Giggle at Wlad's monotonous, boring consistency and longevity all you like - but at least he has some!

Wladimir's never going to be a behemoth in boxing history, but calling his reign insignificant is a bit too far, for me. Like it or not, he's carved out a place as one of the better Heavyweights across all eras, just not one of the really, really great ones - and there's a big difference.

Excellent post Chris and pretty much mirrors my own views as you know. Think the key is arguments like this tend to be underpinned or based on an assumption that is flawed. That being there are huge swathes of people who consider Wlad an all time great who warrants mention alongside the likes of Ali or Louis, not sure this is really the case, not sure he is even really put in the chasing pack with the likes of Jeffries, Johnson and Holmes in too many folks reckoning.

Think most of us that are fairly favourable towards Wlad are aware of his limitations and weaknesses and the dearth of competition in his era but appreciate that he has developed into a reasonably efficient heavyweight who has got the absolute maximum out of his skill set. I would never argument he is a top ten guy or performs especially well head to head against many of the all time greats, but I defy anyone to find one of the top 20 heavyweight lists that are strewn across the internet and make a compelling argument for Wlad not finding himself in at least the lower reaches of those lists.

Hes an average fighter competing amongst real turds. You can dress it up with stats but thats all it is at the end of the day.

To rate him anywhere in the top twenty heavyweights of all time you pretty much have to rely on stats which as the original post says, mean little in Klitschkos case.

16.Jersey Joe Walcott
17.Ezzard Charles
18.Harry Wills
19.James J. Corbett
20.Bob Fitzsimmons

Those are the IBRO's bottom five heavies from their top 20. Have said it before but is it really beyond the realms to argue that Wlad cannot displace at least one of those. Folk throw the three losses Wlad had early in his career but as a set are they really any worse than Johnny Allen, Roy Lazer and Abe Simon, all of whom managed to turn Jersey Joe over.

I never put Wlad in a p4p top ten on the basis that I simply can't credit a fighter that throws zero body shots.

Walcott was a better boxer than Wlad. He beat Ezzard Charles and almost beat Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano. They are all great fighters. He was in some great fights.

Who did Klitschko beat? David Haye and a few Russians in 12 round of pure, unadulterated stink.

Rowley wrote:

Think most of us that are fairly favourable towards Wlad are aware of his limitations and weaknesses and the dearth of competition in his era but appreciate that he has developed into a reasonably efficient heavyweight who has got the absolute maximum out of his skill set. I would never argument he is a top ten guy or performs especially well head to head against many of the all time greats, but I defy anyone to find one of the top 20 heavyweight lists that are strewn across the internet and make a compelling argument for Wlad not finding himself in at least the lower reaches of those lists.

This is one thing that irk's me with Wlad and i know many will disagree but i don't think he has used the talents he has anywhere like what he could have. What he has done is find a style that means he wins with ease but is not particularly attractive on the eye. Of all the SHW he is the greatest athlete, he is extremely physically strong but with great balance and technique, he throws the right hand and left hook perfectly, short compact, not telegraphed at all, his jab is hard when he snaps it and can use it in a variety of ways. So while he has carved out a long and impressive win streak I think Wlad goes down as a bit of a what if, which may sound silly but with Manny he found a way to win not a way to entertain.

Tell that to the sell out stadiums full of Krauts.

Rowley wrote:He has lost to three journeyman in the worst era of HW boxing.

Lewis lost to two

He cheats to win. Leaning all over opponents the way he does is cheating, plain and simple. His performance versus Povetkin was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen.

Ali did his fair share of that, holding opponents behind the head and pulling them onto shots

He has zero wins of significance on his record. And the best wins he has were not inspiring (see Povetkin).  

The same is true of many a heavyweight

He cannot fight inside at all.

He doesn't need to, he wins without doing

He fights scared.

See above

He doesn't inspire, in fact, he turns people away from the sport.

The attendances would suggest otherwise, has popularised the sport in certain parts of the world.

Nice effort. But compairing Wlad's antics to Ali's does little to diminish my argument. One wrong doesn't cancel out another. Also, Ali did some pretty remarkable things in the sport. What has Wlad done?

The argument that irks me the most is the one with the premise that Wlad is so big he would overpower all the great heavyweights because most of them didn't weight above 220lbs.  

In my opinion there is a good reason why the greatest heavyweights didn't weigh more than 220lbs.

88Chris05 wrote:As a couple of others have already pointed out, there isn't a single criticism in Sean's article which can't also be directed towards at the very least one other Heavyweight champion usually regarded more highly than Wlad. Some of those former champions even fall to more than one of those criticisms, in fact.

But Wladimir's problem is that he is uniquely 'guilty' of all of the above in a way that none of the other really outstanding Heavyweight champions were.

Now I agree that this is enough to prevent him ever becoming one of the true giants of Heavyweight history, and there will always be at least ten I'd put in front of him, but let's not be too unreasonable.

Having a style which isn't easy on the eye or particularly excited is no reason to deduct legacy points from someone, really. We're all biased towards certain styles to some degree, but as I always say, it's a results-based business as the end of the day. If you can fight spectacularly and win spectacularly as well, then great. However, not all that many fighters are fortunate enough to have that in their locker, and if it boils down to either winning ugly or losing with a bang, then good luck trying to find too many professionals at the top of the sport who will opt for the latter.

Some look at Bernard Hopkins and see a master craftsman who intelligently manipulates every chance in order to shut down his opponent's weapons by any means necessary. Others see a dull, tentative fighter who stinks the joint out and gets away with little tricks he shouldn't. Some watch Ray Leonard getting that decision over Hagler and see a supremely smart fighter outwitting his foe and using his own physical gifts to implement the only game plan that could possibly have worked. Others see a man not engaging enough, running away and conning the fans and judges in to thinking he'd won simply because he'd succeeded in not getting as badly mangled as many predicted beforehand.

Whichever camp you're in, it's impossible to categorically prove the other side 'wrong' and prove yourself 'right.'

Again, it's all relative with Wlad, as well. I think when people go overboard in criticising him, it's largely because they're trying to repel the niggling idea that exists in certain quarters that he's one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time (Boxing News recently referred to him as such, for instance), up there with a Holmes, a Foreman etc. Hence the vitriol sometimes thrown at him in response, when people end up going too far the other way and let themselves get a little crazy with it, stating that he wouldn't even be a gatekeeper in other eras, that he's a disgrace to boxing, that Ezzard Charles would have outclassed him etc.

Relative to someone like Ali or Joe Louis, then yes, Wladimir is no great shakes, but you can only beat who is around in your era and, unless people seriously ever wanted or expected him to fight his brother, it's hard to see what else he could have done in the Heavyweight division over the past few years. He's a good fighter for any era, and yes, being around in the past decade or so has allowed him to become champion when in some of these other eras he would have had to settle for being a good contender. But hey, he's hardly alone there. Imagine Joe Louis born thirty-odd years later than he was and having to share his prime with Ali, Frazier and Foreman? Never mind one of the top two greatest Heavies of the lot as we commonly see him now - would he even have been top two in his own generation?

As I said, all of your criticisms of Wladimir are valid to one degree or another, Sean, but I do think a sense of perspective is needed sometimes. Half the time when people bemoan Wlad and make light of his longevity, they ironically enough end up pining over the likes of Witherspoon, Tubbs, Bowe etc. Giggle at Wlad's monotonous, boring consistency and longevity all you like - but at least he has some!

Wladimir's never going to be a behemoth in boxing history, but calling his reign insignificant is a bit too far, for me. Like it or not, he's carved out a place as one of the better Heavyweights across all eras, just not one of the really, really great ones - and there's a big difference.  

This is kind of my point. He encompasses so many negative things in a way no other fighter at the top of the HW tree has done. Also, I truly believe that all the great HW fighters of the last 35 years would have beaten him, especially if he wasn't allowed to surf his opponent. He literally surfs his opponents! It is a truly pathetic sight.

Q. How do you annoy a Wlad fan?

A. Mention Primo Carnera.

Just want to point out that Abraham, Ottke and even Stieglitz have filled an arena in Germany. Filling arenas and stadiums and then knocking over blown up cruisers and fat lumping heavyweights means nothing. Especially when you do it in the fashion Wlad does. He can't even win in relatively clean fashion against some of the worst HW's the wolrd has ever seen.

His reign is significant only in the sense it outlines how insignificant the post-Lewis era has been. Boxing's Dark Ages IMO.

I'm not the biggest fan of Wlad i'll admit but I agree with each and every one of your points Sean, I wouldn't regard him as a great heavyweight by any stretch of the imagination. His fans will point out that Ali grabbed and held frequently but he has an incomparable record, they'll point to Lewis losing to Rahman and McCall but ignore that he was more gifted with a far better record.

That all said I cannot agree with Walcott being rated higher than him, easy to only look at his better performances and ignoring all those ignominious defeats of which there were many.

Strongback wrote:The argument that irks me the most is the one with the premise that Wlad is so big he would overpower all the great heavyweights because most of them didn't weight above 220lbs.  

In my opinion there is a good reason why the greatest heavyweights didn't weigh more than 220lbs.

Yes indeed

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm not the biggest fan of Wlad i'll admit but I agree with each and every one of your points Sean, I wouldn't regard him as a great heavyweight by any stretch of the imagination. His fans will point out that Ali grabbed and held frequently but he has an incomparable record, they'll point to Lewis losing to Rahman and McCall but ignore that he was more gifted with a far better record.

That all said I cannot agree with Walcott being rated higher than him, easy to only look at his better performances and ignoring all those ignominious defeats of which there were many.

  

The main problem with Wlad is because he drags his performances out in a very effective but illegal and boring way. He is undoubtedly talented, but he is so scared of leaving his brittle chin unprotected he jabs, leans, pushes and wears out his opponent until they fall over from exhaustion of Wlad wins on points.

He surely has one of the most powerful rights in the division, certainly enough to put most heavies to sleep easily yet he is scared to use it. I would actually love someone like Wilder to come along and spark him with a lucky punch. At least you'd get HW title defences that would be interesting.

Why else do you think Tyson was so popular? He had a frighteningly good KO reel, and THAT is what put bums on seats across the world, not just German stadiums. I wouldn't mind betting that about 25% of those who watch Wlad fights are just waiting for someone to clock him like Sanders did.

Mr Bounce wrote:I wouldn't mind betting that about 25% of those who watch Wlad fights are just waiting for someone to clock him like Sanders did.

Globally you may be right but I can absolutely assure you in the stadiums he fills in Germany they absolutely adore him and lap it up. Does not really make a lot of sense to me but it is the case I promise you.

Can't really understand why people are saying they wish he was a little more aggressive or willing to let his right hand go. Whilst I am in no dobut he could have finished a good few of his opponents sooner was he willing to do this there is also a decent chance he would have walked onto the wrong shot and with his chin why the bleeding hell would he want to do that, so a bunch of faceless blokes on the internet will think better of him?

Have said it before the only time he would have any obligation to change his style would be if he could not sell a ticket or get a TV network to show his fights, neither of these are the case. Have argued it countless times and still believe it to be the case but I don't blame Wlad for his style. He does what suits his assets and protects his weaknesses. I blame the fat slobs that masquerade as contenders who are completely incapable fo forcing him to come up with a plan B.

If you compare Wlad to the top 20 you'd have to give him a shout of beating some of them. So whilst his record isn't too impressive, he has defeated virtually every contender he's faced with absolute ease.

A lot depends on how you rank fighters. For example, Wlad would surely obliterate Rocky?

Wlads reign is of no significance? Lets not talk about it then?

Re: Jersey Joe
As you well know Rowley, Jersey Joe was at times fighting more than a dozen proper opponents a year that were actually coming to win. The only time Wlad's put in shifts like that, he was bowling over practice poounchbags early in his career. With the difference in schedule, Joe gets away with a few more losses than Wlad.

Yes, Foreman and Ali could be guilty of man handling opponents, but we're talking about ATG opponents. Not Povetkins etc.

Lewis lost to two, avenged two. Regardless of sharing a second name with a guy who beat Sanders, Wlad is 0-1 against a heavyweight also ran. For a guy guided to the title since the start of his career, his record has some gaping bullet holes.

Why should it be up to the opponent to find a way around illegal tactics? They train for a boxing match, if the ref can't be trusted to enforce the rules they shouldn't be refs. If it's ok as long as th ref doesn't notice why was Mares v Agbeko so disgraceful? Watch a guy get penalised as soon as he fouls Wlad.

I guess I just find it hard to see a guy with many average victories who's never been tested against a great fighter get rated so high in comparison to guys like Lyle who actually ran ATG's close and gets rated so low.

Also, although I find him dull, I have no problem with his style as long as he's not fouling. However he often fouls and almost never gets sanctioned.

Walcott also has losses against some rank bad fighters. Again, I'm not saying he's not a great fighter but he was almost certainly lose to Wlad.

Boxing had more strength and depth in years gone by, but it gets over egged to make a point.

And as for the cheating, well virtually every top fighter that has ever lived is guilty of that. Wlad gets it in the neck more because he is boring.

Ive just watched the wlad-pov fight for the first time, im ashamed to admit it but I would have bit him (wlad).

3fingers wrote:Ive just watched the wlad-pov fight for the first time, im ashamed to admit it but I would have bit him (wlad).

A better option would be to turn up to the fight not looking like a fat drunk. Maybe that's just me.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Re: Jersey Joe
As you well know Rowley, Jersey Joe was at times fighting more than a dozen proper opponents a year that were actually coming to win. The only time Wlad's put in shifts like that, he was bowling over practice poounchbags early in his career. With the difference in schedule, Joe gets away with a few more losses than Wlad.

Yes, Foreman and Ali could be guilty of man handling opponents, but we're talking about ATG opponents. Not Povetkins etc.

Lewis lost to two, avenged two. Regardless of sharing a second name with a guy who beat Sanders, Wlad is 0-1 against a heavyweight also ran. For a guy guided to the title since the start of his career, his record has some gaping bullet holes.

Why should it be up to the opponent to find a way around illegal tactics? They train for a boxing match, if the ref can't be trusted to enforce the rules they shouldn't be refs. If it's ok as long as th ref doesn't notice why was Mares v Agbeko so disgraceful? Watch a guy get penalised as soon as he fouls Wlad.

I guess I just find it hard to see a guy with many average victories who's never been tested against a great fighter get rated so high in comparison to guys like Lyle who actually ran ATG's close and gets rated so low.

I agree. Facing top competition gives a better indication of talent and ability than beating stiffs. Walcott gave really tough fights to Louis, Marciano and Charles. All time great fighters. Klitschko has beat a bunch of stiffs, usually in unspectacular and stinking fashion. You have to ask, what is actually great about Klitschko? Certainly not his opposition. They are brutal. Not his performances, which are underwhelmingly stinky and foul riddled. His big marquee unification fights were all 12 rounders of embarrassing non action. He is not a great fighter.

All you get to down to is stats and longetivity. Fair enough if that floats our boat but greatness should be about a lot more than stinking your way through a shower of sh1t, irrespective of how long you do it. Walcott greater by a mile.

catchweight wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Re: Jersey Joe
As you well know Rowley, Jersey Joe was at times fighting more than a dozen proper opponents a year that were actually coming to win. The only time Wlad's put in shifts like that, he was bowling over practice poounchbags early in his career. With the difference in schedule, Joe gets away with a few more losses than Wlad.

Yes, Foreman and Ali could be guilty of man handling opponents, but we're talking about ATG opponents. Not Povetkins etc.

Lewis lost to two, avenged two. Regardless of sharing a second name with a guy who beat Sanders, Wlad is 0-1 against a heavyweight also ran. For a guy guided to the title since the start of his career, his record has some gaping bullet holes.

Why should it be up to the opponent to find a way around illegal tactics? They train for a boxing match, if the ref can't be trusted to enforce the rules they shouldn't be refs. If it's ok as long as th ref doesn't notice why was Mares v Agbeko so disgraceful? Watch a guy get penalised as soon as he fouls Wlad.

I guess I just find it hard to see a guy with many average victories who's never been tested against a great fighter get rated so high in comparison to guys like Lyle who actually ran ATG's close and gets rated so low.

I agree. Facing top competition gives a better indication of talent and ability than beating stiffs. Walcott gave really tough fights to Louis, Marciano and Charles. All time great fighters. Klitschko has beat a bunch of stiffs, usually in unspectacular and stinking fashion. You have to ask, what is actually great about Klitschko? Certainly not his opposition. They are brutal. Not his performances, which are underwhelmingly stinky and foul riddled. His big marquee unification fights were all 12 rounders of embarrassing non action. He is not a great fighter.

All you get to down to is stats and longetivity. Fair enough if that floats our boat but greatness should be about a lot more than stinking your way through a shower of sh1t, irrespective of how long you do it. Walcott greater by a mile.

You can count the rounds he lost in big unification matches on 1 hand, it's not his job to make it eventful if he's winning a stinker by virtual shutout it's up to the opposition to press the action and if they're not good enough that's not Wlads fault. Wlad is by no means perfect but he is ruthlessly effective in what he does. Excellent defence and jab to protect his chin which has barely been touched in almost 9 years since Peter put him down a few times and opponents soon get discouraged from trying to tag him when they feel his power. His right hand is deceptively fast and it's like a sledge hammer when it lands, people in general don't like walking on those kind of shots. He's dirty as hell but so are a lot of fighters and we need tougher refs to start making calls against the bigger names. Everything Hopkins does is pretty much illegal, Floyd is no stranger to the use of an elbow or forearm across the throat, Ward uses his head like a weapon, Ali held the head down and hit while holding, Lewis sparked Michael Grant with an illegal shot, the list goes on of big names getting favourable treatment, its not right to isolate Wlad alone for it. Also he sparks Walcott before round 6.

Big deal. You are going to compare him to Ali because Ali has fouled in the past? Why not compare them on who they beat and what they acheived to just nip it the bud.

There is nothing great about Klitschko. When do you use the word in conjunction with him? Great opposition? No. Great performances? No. Great fights? No. He doesnt even have one victory as an undisputed champion. Was he even the best heavyweight in his family?

A boring, limited heavyweight who relies heavily on fouling to get by dire opposition. Walcott beats him because he is a better boxer and has the footwork to stay away from his sumo wrestling.



His opposition are crap which accounts for most of his success. He is professional and hard working but he isnt great, his record isnt great, his performances arent great etc etc

Considering wlad is number 6 p4p in the V2 rankings, then I'd assume some of the people slating him actually rated him?

Wlad's era is of every significance...........There have only been 8 or so eras in heavyweight boxing........

Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis and the Klits........

Let's look at Louis record...........

Braddock - Aging journeyman with crud record.........who decked him !!
Schmelling - 1-1 lost to Sharkey
Sharkey - Lost to awful Primo amongst others and Jack dempsey's ghost.
Carnera - Awful oaf who lost to Sharkey and hammered off Baer
Baer - Scared stiff and lost to Braddock and had war with Galento !!
Galento - Awful slob that decked Louis
Conn - 170 pounds outboxed and hurt louis

Best win v Walcott - Louis admitted he lost but won rematch a la Froch after being outboxed again.......

Charles/Marciano highest rated opponents both beat him...Though past it !!

Rest were turd............

Louis is my number 2 and some wallies number 1 !!

So it's some perspective when rating Wlad.......

He stinks and he's bad for Boxing but in my top 15 !!..........

Haye for me beats every Louis opponent he faced........They were so one dimensional...

I think Wlad might beat Walcott 5 times out of 10 but gets starched the other 5, Walcott had more than enough speed, power and movement to have a great chance of putting the big lug to kip. Vitali is the only truly top heavyweight since Lewis, i would put my house on him destroying Wlad inside 3 rounds when both were at their best. If it wasn't for injuries he might have had a far more significant reign at the top.

Whilst I'm not saying Haye is as good a boxer as Jersey Joe, would he not have had similar attributes/advantages to those you describe, i.e. speed power and movement? Wlad nullified him pretty well (albeit Haye came out of that more unscathed than any boxer I've seen versus Wlad since Manny).

Haye could beat Wlad 5 out of 10 too if he was brave enough to try and win the fight and risk getting KOed himself, but thats not the way Haye is so loses everytime to Wlad. Sadly for the world of boxing Haye turned up wanting to win the raffle, but never bought any tickets.

Jersey Joe vs Haye,,,,,,,Would have been a good fight........Walcott down as 89 kg on his stats........

Only 205..........Although he had lost to some crap....Good technician....

Haye would find Marciano easier........