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.

Foreman didn't land flush on Ali's chin once, landing a glancing blow here and there isnt landing flush, you seem to have fallen for the myths surrounding that fight.

I rate Mayweather very highly.

I'm not ignoring any facts Raf they are just excuses plain and simple, not training for a fight is his fault and his fault only, if you want to rate an average heavyweight that's down to you but that is all he was.

Have the fight on Tape actually (well, hard drive)... Could also probably catch a YouTube slow-mo montage of the clean hits Foreman landed if I bothered... I'm not bothered...

Put Mayweather in the Ring vs Wlad and I think the fighter of the millennium becomes a rather obvious choice...

Once again, I've made no claims to Sanders ATG credentials... All I said is he had the tools for it - you disagree, Rahman, and K2 agree... I think I'll take their opinions and leave it at that.

Wlad the fighter of the millennium, now that's a good one, he's not even the heavyweight of the millennium, that accolade belongs to Lewis even if he did only fight 7 times.

Again put Klitschko and Floyd in the ring... and I'm sure Floyd will prove his credentials... not

Going 6-1 for the decade and flat out refusing to fight Ruiz of all people does not a fighter of the Millen make. That is all

Wlad the fighter of the millenium?

thats 2000 years is it not.

Anyway Forman never landed a single flush shot on Ali. Had he done so history would be very different right now. If Forman landed flush you hit the floor I don't care who you are.

kingraf wrote:Again put Klitschko and Floyd in the ring... and I'm sure Floyd will prove his credentials... not

Going 6-1 for the decade and flat out refusing to fight Ruiz of all people does not a fighter of the Millen make. That is all

He chose to fight the more highly rated Grant instead of Ruiz so it made sense in each and every way.

I couldn't care less if Wlad would beat Floyd or not, he simply is not the fighter of the millennium, he wouldn't even be in the top ten, far from it in fact.

Shocking to rate him above Mayweather, Pacquiao, Marquez, Cotto, Mosley, Hopkins, Calzaghe, Donaire, Calderon amongst others.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Wlad the fighter of the millenium?

thats 2000 years is it not.

Okay...

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Wlad the fighter of the millenium?

thats 2000 years is it not.

Anyway Forman never landed a single flush shot on Ali. Had he done so history would be very different right now. If Forman landed flush you hit the floor I don't care who you are.

No. A millennium is 1000 years.

Exhibit B: https://youtu.be/naUC9jQLytw

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

kingraf wrote:Again put Klitschko and Floyd in the ring... and I'm sure Floyd will prove his credentials... not

Going 6-1 for the decade and flat out refusing to fight Ruiz of all people does not a fighter of the Millen make. That is all

He chose to fight the more highly rated Grant instead of Ruiz so it made sense in each and every way.

I couldn't care less if Wlad would beat Floyd or not, he simply is not the fighter of the millennium, he wouldn't even be in the top ten, far from it in fact.

Shocking to rate him above Mayweather, Pacquiao, Marquez, Cotto, Mosley, Hopkins, Calzaghe, Donaire, Calderon amongst others.

Then put them in the ring with him, no¿

There's no need to, that's why boxing has divisions, the best boxer isn't always the biggest and certainly isn't Wlad.

You're right. The best boxer is the one that wins... who would win in a fight?

Wlad cannot boast names of the calibre of Mayweather.

Wlad is a good heavy in a poor division.

kingraf wrote:You're right. The best boxer is the one that wins... who would win in a fight?

You Wlad fans do make me laugh, he doesn't possess any of Mayweathers skill, the only advantage he has is size, we may as well get rid of divisions and make it a free for all.

I'm sorry - but can Floyd beat Wlad, yay or nay? If the latter, then I don't understand what your argument is, unless you want to go into some mythological ranking system that combines "science" with hocus pocus, a shrink ray with a Bigifier, and weight watchers with Mass Muscle gain...

 

kingraf wrote:I'm sorry - but can Floyd beat Wlad, yay or nay? If the latter, then I don't understand what your argument is, unless you want to go into some mythological ranking system that combines "science" with hocus pocus, a shrink ray with a Bigifier, and weight watchers with Mass Muscle gain...

????????    

kingraf wrote:I'm sorry - but can Floyd beat Wlad, yay or nay? If the latter, then I don't understand what your argument is, unless you want to go into some mythological ranking system that combines "science" with hocus pocus, a shrink ray with a Bigifier, and weight watchers with Mass Muscle gain...

The argument is quite simple, boxing is a skill, it's not dependent solely on size hence why the sport has weight divisions, if you wish to hilariously think Wlad to be the best around go ahead, you'll be in a rather small minority.

kingraf wrote:I'm sorry - but can Floyd beat Wlad, yay or nay? If the latter, then I don't understand what your argument is, unless you want to go into some mythological ranking system that combines "science" with hocus pocus, a shrink ray with a Bigifier, and weight watchers with Mass Muscle gain...

Wlad wins at Heavyweight limit, Floyd wins from the Cruiserweight limit down as Wlad would have to cut off a limb to make weight, so more often than not Floyd wins.

You can't just ignore weight divisions as they're part of boxing.

Chester Arthur, Millard Fillmore and James Polk are probably the worst Presidents in history........But they are still SIGNIFICANT because they were the leaders of America at onetime over an extended period...

Same with Wlad...........However you rate him as a fighter for a pretty much 8 year period he has been the number 1 heavyweight in a blue riband division...holding the greatest prize in sports...

Like it or not that and he is significant........

Raf surely you don't believe Wlad is better than Mayweather, or any of the other fighters mentioned?

Raf,
Yes Floyd would beat Wlad in a street fight. Shall I tell you how it would go?

Wlad would knock his teeth out with a rangefinder jab   

Easy. The pair of them would meet up in a car park, take off shirts, circle round each other, then Floyd would pull his gun, boom, bye bye Wlad!
Floyd is a very intelligent, defence minded guy, if he knew he had to fight a superheavy on the street he would bring a gun!
Now you say "guns ain't allowed in boxing" but nor are welterweight vs heavyweight fights, so there you go!

I think Floyd would just bring his security and leg it after the first few brains are staining the car park floor and the others are 2 foot tall after being leant on.

I agree with Raf to a certain extent.

In basketball if you're not tall enough you can't play in the under 5'10 league. In rugby if you're not strong enough they don't put you in the under 12 stone league.

What you effectively have in boxing is people saying fighter A would beat fighter B, but only because he is bigger and we don't view size as something you should be rated on.

Wlad is the best boxer on the planet, on the basis that nobody can beat him.

Those comparisons fall down on the fact boxing DOES have weight divisions somethings it's had in the entirety of the gloved era.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I agree with Raf to a certain extent.

In basketball if you're not tall enough you can't play in the under 5'10 league. In rugby if you're not strong enough they don't put you in the under 12 stone league.

What you effectively have in boxing is people saying fighter A would beat fighter B, but only because he is bigger and we don't view size as something you should be rated on.

Wlad is the best boxer on the planet, on the basis that nobody can beat him.

Within the heavyweight division nobody can beat him. Put him in a Welterweight boxing match where he has to lose 100lbs and I think Floyd can beat him.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Those comparisons fall down on the fact boxing DOES have weight divisions somethings it's had in the entirety of the gloved era.

It's a valid comparison. Doesn't matter when weight divisions were introduced. Wlad beat Floyd. He is better than him.

bellchees wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I agree with Raf to a certain extent.

In basketball if you're not tall enough you can't play in the under 5'10 league. In rugby if you're not strong enough they don't put you in the under 12 stone league.

What you effectively have in boxing is people saying fighter A would beat fighter B, but only because he is bigger and we don't view size as something you should be rated on.

Wlad is the best boxer on the planet, on the basis that nobody can beat him.

Within the heavyweight division nobody can beat him. Put him in a Welterweight boxing match where he has to lose 100lbs and I think Floyd can beat him.

And if you told a rugby team they couldn't weigh more than 12 stone they would struggle too.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Those comparisons fall down on the fact boxing DOES have weight divisions somethings it's had in the entirety of the gloved era.

It's a valid comparison. Doesn't matter when weight divisions were introduced. Wlad beat Floyd. He is better than him.

You know as well as me that's not how it works, there are weight divisions for a reason, it has no comparison to Rugby or Basketball at all.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

bellchees wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I agree with Raf to a certain extent.

In basketball if you're not tall enough you can't play in the under 5'10 league. In rugby if you're not strong enough they don't put you in the under 12 stone league.

What you effectively have in boxing is people saying fighter A would beat fighter B, but only because he is bigger and we don't view size as something you should be rated on.

Wlad is the best boxer on the planet, on the basis that nobody can beat him.

Within the heavyweight division nobody can beat him. Put him in a Welterweight boxing match where he has to lose 100lbs and I think Floyd can beat him.

And if you told a rugby team they couldn't weigh more than 12 stone they would struggle too.

There's no rule on how much Rugby players can weigh though. There is such rules in boxing. If you want to pit Wlad against Floyd why should it be at Wlads weight class?

The point here is that we discriminate against size, which is a natural asset just like strength, speed, chin, power and many other attributes, which are not discriminated against.

We may as well ignore 120 years of boxing history and only recognise the heavyweight champions then.

Ok

1) wlad beats mayweather in a fight, makes him the winner, makes him harder, makes him the better fighter, not the better boxer.

2) in olympic lifting the heavyweight snatches more than the light weight, meaning he's stronger but not necessarily the better lifter.

3) if we judge ability in terms of absolutes then wlad and the heavyweight lifter are the best. Fortunately we don't judge ability in terms of winning in one in one contests, hence why we have weight categories.

4) I agree with RAF, sanders had the potential to be one of the best of the era.

bellchees wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I agree with Raf to a certain extent.

In basketball if you're not tall enough you can't play in the under 5'10 league. In rugby if you're not strong enough they don't put you in the under 12 stone league.

What you effectively have in boxing is people saying fighter A would beat fighter B, but only because he is bigger and we don't view size as something you should be rated on.

Wlad is the best boxer on the planet, on the basis that nobody can beat him.

Within the heavyweight division nobody can beat him. Put him in a Welterweight boxing match where he has to lose 100lbs and I think Floyd can beat him.

Some think his brother could beat him...

vitali still beats wlad for me Truss. boxing is fought in the brain aswell as the ring, and little bro would never have the edge over the tougher, more determined big bro

If I can come along and plump myself on the fence here please. Thanks, nice and comfortable.

Wlad is an incredibly talented heavyweight. Yes, he was starched by Sanders, Brewster and Puritty, but has he not come through these and cemented himself as the best heavyweight in the world since? He's nigh on untouchable - the best chance anyone has had outside of Vitali in the last 10 years, he dealt with in a scarily efficient manner. Quicker with the punch, perfectly executed gameplan frustrating and making Haye look poor and one dimensional. i can't be mad at him for that. He performed badly against Povetkin, but was that a fight Povetkin was ever going to win? He's just been the best heavyweight for such a long time of course his reign is of significance. What its also done is broken the Anglo-American hold on heavyweight boxing. its opened up such a large fanbase in Eastern Europe and surrounding countries that its made boxing mainstream. Of course we don't appreciate "boring Wlad" because he's not British, Americans won't appreciate him because he's beaten pretty much any of their big hopes that have gone up.

However

Looking at the other side, we can see that Wlad is boring to watch. I agree. He's ruthless. He doesn't make any noise to be flashy, pompous or possesses that one standout skill to appeal to the masses. He doesn't get KO's the same as other boxers. He doesn't move around the ring with any swagger. He just has an authority and sticks to it. He's boring.

He's also had to avoid his only major rival in the stakes in his brother. I think thats harmed his legacy, as 10 years ago his brother smashes him. The last 3/4 he'd have the beating of Vitali who has noticeably slowed. The major stain has been that we all know he's the best heavyweight, but theres always that question mark as to if he always was. Is his reign as the best 10 years long? Or is it only since Vitali slowed?

We don't know and hence the confusion.

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.

1- Saunders and Brewster were no journeymen - early in his career
2- All greats cheated, Tyson with his elbows, lewis with his pushing and leaning, Ali with pulling opponents head down, Foreman with pushing
3- Doesnt need to fight inside, because he clinches so well.
3- At times true, but so did Lewis - at times
3- Americans and Brits yeah sure, he sure seems big in eastern europe and Germany

There's cheating then there's a performance full of it against Povetkin of all people, it was a shameful way to win.

I don't remember a time when Lewis fought scared, he occasionally fought cautiously but he had such confidence in his own ability he was never once scared.

You should blame the referee then..........Duran was the biggest cheat in the sport.....Head, Thumbs, low blows, rabbit punches..

Duran and Wlad smart cheats...Damn right !!

These arguments for wlad are pathetic. Other people cheated and he is so good at cheating he need not fight?
 
Hilarious.

A win is a win is a win.........Pathetic.. because you don't like him..

Seanusarrilius wrote:These arguments for wlad are pathetic. Other people cheated and he is so good at cheating he need not fight?
 
Hilarious.

he does fight, I dont have Klitchsko amongst the top HW greats but he still can fight, he can fight whats front of him, Haye was a solid contender and would be in most era's, he took 10 of the 12 rounds against him, guys like hopkins cheat so much but you hardly hear criticism for it

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

Looking at the other side, we can see that Wlad is boring to watch. I agree. He's ruthless. He doesn't make any noise to be flashy, pompous or possesses that one standout skill to appeal to the masses. He doesn't get KO's the same as other boxers. He doesn't move around the ring with any swagger. He just has an authority and sticks to it. He's boring.

He's also had to avoid his only major rival in the stakes in his brother. I think thats harmed his legacy, as 10 years ago his brother smashes him. The last 3/4 he'd have the beating of Vitali who has noticeably slowed. The major stain has been that we all know he's the best heavyweight, but theres always that question mark as to if he always was. Is his reign as the best 10 years long? Or is it only since Vitali slowed?

We don't know and hence the confusion.

Vitali might still have beaten him couple of years ago due to psychological advantages, but Prime for Prime (say 10 Wlad vs 04 Vitali) Vitali would win, he is simply ATG H2H fighter, gives anyone and everyone a hell of a fight and beats a good number of greats in my opinion

If Lewis had beaten Vitali in a rematch...

Makes you wonder If he'd still be champion now at 50 odd......

Probably would be number 1 over Ali..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: If Lewis had beaten Vitali in a rematch...

Makes you wonder If he'd still be champion now at 50 odd......

Probably would be number 1 over Ali..

I don't know if he would have, regardless of the outcome of the rematch, if lewis fought on, there would have been a trilogy

No.....He would have beaten him twice..............No money in a 3rd fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No.....He would have beaten him twice..............No money in a 3rd fight.

If it was that easy to predict he would have fought him a second time, 2nd fight would have at the very least been close, and an exciting fighting, if he went on, no one to fight, so would have had to fight vitali

I said If he won the rematch he could be reigning now.......

I never said he'd win the rematch..

Lewis would have needed to get into shape to win a rematch. If he had done, i think he would have won it easily. it was touch and go when he was in appauling shape.

The desire had gone though, and he had also made promises on his retirement he didnt want to go back on.