Why Wlad's reign is of no significance

First topic message reminder :

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.

Ok fine then,

Sugar Ray Robinson would lose to Andy Lee and Kell Brook.

More your kind of expert analysis.

Sonny Liston would be a cruiserweight today getting his ass kicked by Tony Bellew

catchweight wrote:Ok fine then,

Sugar Ray Robinson would lose to Andy Lee and Kell Brook.

More your kind of expert analysis.

People were sarcastic about Buster Douglas chances.....  

More sarcasm......I expected better.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:More sarcasm......I expected better.

Really.....??

Sarcasm?

This is stuff you actually come out with on a regular basis.

But yes, Im being sarcastic. You were actually being serious.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:More sarcasm......I expected better.

Really.....??

No...see I can do it to.

You two carry on.......

It reminds me of when Davide and Sheng used to argue....

but remember kids the grownups will only let it go so far !!  

Sorry TRUSSMAN but its the only way I can up my post count. I dont have the range to master 21,000 posts of taking a giant sh1t on Joe Louis or fantasizing about Mayweather. Ive been reduced to arguing Sugar Ray Robinson would beat Kell Brook.

I will try learn from you though so I too can storm through the boards like some kind of anti Louis or Mayweather propagandist sh1t tornado from hell. But one post a time.

catchweight wrote:Sonny Liston would be a cruiserweight today getting his ass kicked by Tony Bellew

I don't remember saying this. Bellew has just moved up, let's see what he's like after a couple tune-ups.

If Sonny Liston was around today he'd have been a tiny HW - FACT. Liston could have lost 10 pounds and made CW quite easy I reckon.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You two carry on.......

It reminds me of when Davide and Sheng used to argue....

but remember kids the grownups will only let it go so far !!  

Keep it up boys..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You two carry on.......

It reminds me of when Davide and Sheng used to argue....

but remember kids the grownups will only let it go so far !!  

I don't post here too often so don't really know who you are. With 21000 posts I guess you're some kind of well respected senior forum member and so I will respect your request.

I admire you kid......You're doing me and Hammer a service........

Keeps the guy away from real debaters..

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You two carry on.......

It reminds me of when Davide and Sheng used to argue....

but remember kids the grownups will only let it go so far !!  

I don't post here too often so don't really know who you are. With 21000 posts I guess you're some kind of well respected senior forum member and so I will respect your request.

well, he's senior.

Still don't see why Wlad's reign isn't significant.....Sean.........

You've only made a case as to him being limited...A spoiler.......Hasn't fought anybody (which isn't true).....

Not to why he isn't significant when he's dominated a whole era...

Get my drift...........Only 7 other heavies have dominated one !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Still don't see why Wlad's reign isn't significant.....Sean.........

You've only made a case as to him being limited...A spoiler.......Hasn't fought anybody (which isn't true).....

Not to why he isn't significant when he's dominated a whole era...

Get my drift...........Only 7 other heavies have dominated one !!

 
I never think o Wlad and think of him dominating an era, just occupying a terrible one.
 
There is nothing in his career that means anything to me. His opposition has been so poor that they render his voctories meaningless in my eyes. And he has looked terrible inmany fights, and lost to 3 journeyman.
 
It's like a championship winning conference side that can't get promoted to the pro ranks on account of their crappy stadium.

more like a really fast sprint time being ignored because it was an "awful time" for an athletics.

No more like winning a gold medal in the sprints with a crap time because you are the only athlete with two legs in the race.

by that measure, you must have thought Tyson getting fed sheep en route to facing the mighty Spinks was the greatest cakewalk in the history of the sport... I mean, he unified the titles beating a light heavy and a guy who went 19-6 prior to the fight...

If Tyson was fed sheep........What the hell was Louis fed...........

Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes were good fighters....

I agree Kingy though............He's been dominant and that's all he can be.

On the old 606 site I once listed Tyson's record up until his defeat to Buster and to be honest the names on there don't make me think "Wow". No doubt someone will blah blah "Biggs, Tubbs, Tucker, Holmes, Smith, Thomas etc" but some of theses guy were good but by no means great (Overacheivers or underacheivers) and the reason Tyson is still such a cult figure is not the fact that he cleaned up a poor division but the manner in which he did it.

Yes Wlad has controlled the vast majority of opponents and his fights have been criminally one-sided but they've lacked anything approaching the excitement that Tyson generated.

The word I'm inclined to use when describing Wlad's reign is "Sterility" There's no zip or fire about any aspect of his fights barring the cheesy rock star intros and thereafter it's just flat, flat, flat. The most exciting fight he's be involved in was one where he was beaten.

Doesn't make him a bad boxer or a bad person, just not one that is ever going to be looked upon with misty-eyed nostalgia. Much like Calzaghe there's going to be an large caveat of "So what?" after his list of achievements.

I prefer to look and Tyson and see an excellent heavyweight who became the youngest in the history of the sport to win the title. Unified it quickly and then went on to beat some very good fighters, often in spectacular fashion.

Klitschko isnt a patch on him. It took him over a decade to partially unify the titles and watching him heave, fould and spoil his way through crap its pretty obvious hes nowhere near as talented as Tyson was.

All he has is his stats, which are maniulated in any case. He never became undisputed champion and the vast majority of his title "reign" was holding a quarter of the title.

He doesnt belong anywhere near the Tysons and Louis' in boxing history.

I don't think Johnson thrilled that many either.......

Klitty bang bang.........Knows his limitations.....and as Dirty Harry says a man has to know his limitations.

jeez, do you really hold not becoming an undisputed champ against him? I mean it's not even two months since the Abdusalamov tragedy and you really think a case can be made for why fighting your brother is a no-brainer?

Holmes was never undisputed......He's in most top 5s..

His brother was retired for years and Klitschko could have unified then. And thats not even the point in any case. The point is there was never guarantee that he was ever the best heavyweight during the vast majority of his career.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't think Johnson thrilled that many either.......

Klitty bang bang.........Knows his limitations.....and as Dirty Harry says a man has to know his limitations.

Prior to his Championship reign Johnson was an infinitely better fighter perhaps because he had point to prove. maybe that's Wlad's problem, he's no real motivation coupled with the aforemention risk averse nature of his boxing. Even when people considered Haye to be a challenge and for all Wlad's pre-fight predictions he still played it safe/cautious. It's too ingrained in him and it turns a lot of people off.

Don't think Wlad ever grabbed people's interest in the way Johnson did. Like him or loathe him, people knew about him....like Ali and Tyson afterwards.

As many have said, the vast majority of people don't know Wlad and you'd be hard pressed to show a casual fan a fight of his that would make them want to see more.

Tyson lost Douglas, Ali fouled, Foreman pushed, Holmes didnt unify, Lewis lost to Rahman and McCall, Johnson was boring

Add it all together and HEY PRESTO, Klitschko gets off scot free.

An average heavyweight who combines all the worst aspect of all the other great heavyweights.

So basically if you take the worst bits of all the great heavyweights you get Klitschko.

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't think Johnson thrilled that many either.......

Klitty bang bang.........Knows his limitations.....and as Dirty Harry says a man has to know his limitations.

Prior to his Championship reign Johnson was an infinitely better fighter perhaps because he had point to prove. maybe that's Wlad's problem, he's no real motivation coupled with the aforemention risk averse nature of his boxing. Even when people considered Haye to be a challenge and for all Wlad's pre-fight predictions he still played it safe/cautious. It's too ingrained in him and it turns a lot of people off.

Don't think Wlad ever grabbed people's interest in the way Johnson did. Like him or loathe him, people knew about him....like Ali and Tyson afterwards.

As many have said, the vast majority of people don't know Wlad and you'd be hard pressed to show a casual fan a fight of his that would make them want to see more.

I couldn't agree more........But some might say it's a results orientated business..

As for Klitty getting off scot free Catchy..........All those guys you mention are rated higher than him...

kingraf wrote:more like a really fast sprint time being ignored because it was an "awful time" for an athletics.

Perfect analogy.

It's like saying Usain Bolt is terrible because Americans can't be bothered with athletics anymore.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't think Johnson thrilled that many either.......

Klitty bang bang.........Knows his limitations.....and as Dirty Harry says a man has to know his limitations.

Prior to his Championship reign Johnson was an infinitely better fighter perhaps because he had point to prove. maybe that's Wlad's problem, he's no real motivation coupled with the aforemention risk averse nature of his boxing. Even when people considered Haye to be a challenge and for all Wlad's pre-fight predictions he still played it safe/cautious. It's too ingrained in him and it turns a lot of people off.

Don't think Wlad ever grabbed people's interest in the way Johnson did. Like him or loathe him, people knew about him....like Ali and Tyson afterwards.

As many have said, the vast majority of people don't know Wlad and you'd be hard pressed to show a casual fan a fight of his that would make them want to see more.

I couldn't agree more........But some might say it's a results orientated business..

As for Klitty getting off scot free Catchy..........All those guys you mention are rated higher than him...

All of the arguments are used to make excuses for Klitschkos averageness.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't think Johnson thrilled that many either.......

Klitty bang bang.........Knows his limitations.....and as Dirty Harry says a man has to know his limitations.

Prior to his Championship reign Johnson was an infinitely better fighter perhaps because he had point to prove. maybe that's Wlad's problem, he's no real motivation coupled with the aforemention risk averse nature of his boxing. Even when people considered Haye to be a challenge and for all Wlad's pre-fight predictions he still played it safe/cautious. It's too ingrained in him and it turns a lot of people off.

Don't think Wlad ever grabbed people's interest in the way Johnson did. Like him or loathe him, people knew about him....like Ali and Tyson afterwards.

As many have said, the vast majority of people don't know Wlad and you'd be hard pressed to show a casual fan a fight of his that would make them want to see more.

I couldn't agree more........But some might say it's a results orientated business..

As for Klitty getting off scot free Catchy..........All those guys you mention are rated higher than him...

Folk used to say that about City under Mancini and now look at 'em. Even the most ardent City haters are coming around the fact that they're playing some damned attractive football....just don't do it at Anfield!

Putting football aside, you don't have to be an all out blood and guts merchant like Gatti to draw the fans in, just give 'em a bit of everything and they'll love you forever. Value for Money is what most people want isn't it

That doesn't really work does it MC because there are world class American sprinters but there are no world class American Heavyweights.

As Louis has shown you don't have to beat a long list of great fighters to be regarded as great, in time statistics get blown out of all proportion as they will do with Wlad. You can't compare an undisputed champion of today to the Champion of yesteryear because that isn't how boxing works any more. Performance, ability and fighters beaten should stand above any amount of stats.

Charles and Tunney never won or even fought for the light heavyweight title but they score highly in every aspect other than stats like title defences which should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Louis is deserving of his number two ranking at Heavyweight but like everyone else he's just an also ran in comparison to Ali and he shouldn't be deified, he was great but there's also a lot to be critical of. My issue with Louis is less to do with him per se but his fans who are more than happy to say 25 title defences, most number one ranked opponents but the question as Truss has asked many times who were those 25.

If 25 is significant for Louis then Wlads 15 defences of his IBF title should also be significant but rightly it isn't seen that way because highlights of Haye and Povetkin is quite atrocious.

Having read through this thread and listened to the points made, i can honestly say i still consider Wlads reign to be as lacking in significance as its possible for a longish reign to be. Possibly its only significance is as a flag up the sheer rancid state of the division when a man with a glass jaw who's main tactic is to grab hold of his opponent, lay on them till they are exhausted and has been Knocked out by Puritty, Sanders and Brewster can hold the title for so long you know things are not great. Whether you rate Louis or not he was far too good to be even mentioned in the same thread as Wlad.

Wlad has a chink in his armour, his chin, and everyone knows it. One big shot and its good night. Its amazing his weakness is so exposed and NO ONE can do anything about it. That in itself means he's a very intelligent fighter, one with talent to adjust his style to remain unbeaten. Thats a pretty significant achievement,  this fact alone gives his reign some significance.

?

only a WUM or an uneducated boxing fan calls Corrie Sanders a journey man. still, at least you managed to find more than three sentences to bash somebody you dont appreciate, for once.

Wlad deserves plenty of the criticism he gets, particularly the last couple of years. But as usual, your post is heavily biased, short sighted and arrogant.

Corrie Sanders had all the potential to be an ATG - Granite chin, speed, power, a hammer throw left hand... It's one of sports great pities that he just wanted to be on the golf course... A motivated Sanders gives any fighter in history a tough night - his stamina issues mean he won't beat most who see of his initial onslaught, but his chin means he's in with a chance

Looking at Sanders as a non south african Raf, I don't see that much potential in Sanders, to say he gives anyone problems is a bit rose tinted, he was decent but nothing more than that.

Rahman claimed Sanders was the hardest hitter he ever fought. Wlad claimed he was the hardest opponent of his career, so does VK. Anyone who with his speed power and chin causes problems... He took a sustained beating from Vitali without even looking like getting dropped...

In fairness Wlad has hardly fought anyone who possesses power, he's being compared to utter dross so it's hard to really interpret those comments which ignore a few vital points. Everybody knows that the hardest hitters Rahman faced were Lewis and Wlad, conveniently a pair who knocked him out. Vitali is no destructive puncher, Briggs took a sustained beating from him and in his prime was like a yoyo against Lewis. Personally would never consider him to be overly quick or durable.

According to Larry Merchant... Rahman told him Sanders was the hardest hitter he ever faced... Seems like the time everyone thought the earth was flat...

Unless of course first hand accounts are useless gauges as well now? More reliable to trust your TV screen and your trusty pound Psi gauge...

Sorry Raf but boxers do lie and very few will give any credit to those who beat them, Lewis starched him with one right hand yet i'm to believe Sanders hits harder?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: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........

LOL

Two things:
1) Sanders hadn't even sparred (knee injury) in preparation for the Rahman bout, and probably would have finished him off with a slightly larger gas tank...

2) Henry Cooper dropped Ali... but Liston and Foreman didn't... you then surely believe Super Cooper hits harder than Liston and Foreman, no?
Tyson went ten with Tillis... Tommy Gun went one.
Could go on, but I suspect you get the gist of my argument

Your second part would only hold any validity if Liston and Foreman had landed bang on Ali's chin which they didn't, he took Coopers best shot he did not from the other two. Rahman took the best from Lewis and was rendered unable to continue, Sanders was unable to do that, you then have to factor in that Rahman doesn't like Lewis.

You do come up with a lot of excuses for Sanders, I appreciate he's south african but you do over rate him to a baffling degree.

Research him if you like... he didnt train for the Rahman fight, was a late call up for the Wlad fight, and spent his preparation for the Vitali fight improving his touch on the eighteenth. Whether you think this is excuse making or not, doesn't change the fact that you've given me your opinion, and I've replied with facts. And lol at Foreman not landing flush on Ali... he did, wasnt good enough.

I don't expect you to rate Sanders, you don't rate the best fighter of this millennium, so I understand it's a quantum leap to expect you to rate a serial under achiever. I'm not the only that rates him, you just seem to ignore the opinion of everyone who was in the ring with him. Like my Life Skills teacher once repeatedly said - you can win any argument if you ignore all the facts. Good on you.

Wlad fans do always seem to over rate Sanders.