Wlad - Why doesn't Sanders hurt him more ??

Ricky Hatton gets hammered for the pitiful Manny loss.....He was clueless against a leftie and got decimated...Wlad was clueless and got completely decimated also but years of beating stiffs seems to have airbrushed this inconvenient truth and now he's moving towards Top 15 status..

Has he beaten anybody better than Sanders....Nope !!

Even worse he got Big Bro to sort him out for stealing his pocket money..

Do I rate Wlad...Yep !!....But the Sanders episode is the main reason I won't rate him as high as others..

But Wlad should be okay...Seems everybody else has forgotten about it !

Handism is real. Left handed people have been oppressed for millenia because of nothing other than the hand we write with. Even the term "left" carries negative connotations in almost every language in the world. Only 1,5% of all naturally left handed people in Asia grow up to continue using their dominant hand.

Sanders' victory was a victory for an oppressed people.

On a serious note, I think downgrading Wlad for the Sanders fight is a little unfair (although making big brother sort out his mess was a little pathetic. Did you see how happy Wlad was after Vitali won?). Certainly no worse than Lewis' brain fades. Personally I think his defeat to Brewster and the fact that he got into a war with Sammy Peter is more embarrassing

How can it be unfair FFS ??

He got blaster out... it can happen in the heavies. These guys hit hard. It's also before his reinvention.

So losses shouldn't count....

Are you wumming ??.....

Not that. But peak performances are always weighed heavier than embarrassing losses

Wlad was in line for a shot at Lennox before Sanders annihilated according to commentary ("This is the guy we were talking about being the next opponent for Lennox Lewis...at least we were up until three minutes ago!" or something along those lines.)

The Lewis loss to McCall was before his re-invention but Lennox rarely gets a pass from people for it (TRUSS included "No ATG should bet beaten by chaff" or words to that effect)

I haven't forgotten about the loss to Sanders, TRUSS....nor will I (still the blueprint to beating him now I believe)

I agree Mate... You lose to probably the best fighter you've fought and we should write it off because he was blasted out..

Does Hatton really get that much more of a hard time over Pacquiao than Wlad does over Sanders? I don't particularly think so.

But if he does, then maybe that's down to where Hatton and Wlad were respectively in their careers when the losses took place. For all intents and purposes, the Pacquiao mauling was the end of Hatton's career. It's the last thing we saw of the 'proper' Hatton, so it leaves a bit more of an indelible mark on the memory; nothing more encouraging has come since then to replace that vision of him being flattened like that. On the other hand, though it took a good while, Wladimir eventually got his problems straightened out and has had basically all of his best and most defining memories in the period which has followed the Sanders shock. The memory of him being clobbered by Sanders has gradually been replaced with images of him beating the rest of the Heavyweight contenders with (usually) plenty to spare.

I think ultimately Wladimir, despite not being a baby in the pro game, was still a bit of a work in progress back in 2003 and was certainly a lot more gung-ho and clumsy than he is now, and nowhere near as defensively-minded or disiplined as he is now either. Hatton even in 2009 was probably still more or less as good as he'd ever been or ever could be - any evolving he was going to do in his career would already have happened a long time before then. On the other hand Wladimir has developed in to an all-round better (if a bit uninspiring) fighter than he was in 2003, so you can basically argue that he wasn't at his peak yet when Sanders beat him and therefore the loss is a bit easier to forgive, even if Sanders wasn't in Pacquiao's class.

You say he's not beaten anyone as good as Sanders, for instance - is Haye not at least as good an all round fighter as Sanders was? Wladimir beat him pretty comfortably whereas Haye would probably have given a 2003 Wladimir kittens, which probably supports the fact that Wladimir has improved a lot since losing that fight - as does the fact that he's not looked thrown by the southpaw jinx in subsequent fights against lefties such as Ibragimov and Thompson, albeit neither of them carried the danger that Sanders did.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I agree Mate... You lose to probably the best fighter you've fought and we should write it off because he was blasted out..

Has anyone told Hatton this?

88Chris05 wrote:Does Hatton really get that much more of a hard time over Pacquiao than Wlad does over Sanders? I don't particularly think so.

But if he does, then maybe that's down to where Hatton and Wlad were respectively in their careers when the losses took place. For all intents and purposes, the Pacquiao mauling was the end of Hatton's career. It's the last thing we saw of the 'proper' Hatton, so it leaves a bit more of an indelible mark on the memory; nothing more encouraging has come since then to replace that vision of him being flattened like that. On the other hand, though it took a good while, Wladimir eventually got his problems straightened out and has had basically all of his best and most defining memories in the period which has followed the Sanders shock. The memory of him being clobbered by Sanders has gradually been replaced with images of him beating the rest of the Heavyweight contenders with (usually) plenty to spare.

I think ultimately Wladimir, despite not being a baby in the pro game, was still a bit of a work in progress back in 2003 and was certainly a lot more gung-ho and clumsy than he is now, and nowhere near as defensively-minded or disiplined as he is now either. Hatton even in 2009 was probably still more or less as good as he'd ever been or ever could be - any evolving he was going to do in his career would already have happened a long time before then. On the other hand Wladimir has developed in to an all-round better (if a bit uninspiring) fighter than he was in 2003, so you can basically argue that he wasn't at his peak yet when Sanders beat him and therefore the loss is a bit easier to forgive, even if Sanders wasn't in Pacquiao's class.

You say he's not beaten anyone as good as Sanders, for instance - is Haye not at least as good an all round fighter as Sanders was? Wladimir beat him pretty comfortably whereas Haye would probably have given a 2003 Wladimir kittens, which probably supports the fact that Wladimir has improved a lot since losing that fight - as does the fact that he's not looked thrown by the southpaw jinx in subsequent fights against lefties such as Ibragimov and Thompson, albeit neither of them carried the danger that Sanders did.

Wlad's also been helped by the fact that no-one's shown even half the ambition that Sanders did in that fight.

Yes he does Chris.. Always used as a stick to keep Hatton's alltime status down on here..

Who ever talks about Sanders.

Wlad gets a free ride...

Haye isn't rated as high as Sanders but nice try....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haye isn't rated as high as Sanders but nice try....

Haye is being short-changed then, all I can say about that one.

Doesn't say much for Wlad then does it ??

Anyway you know the Haye fight is a non starter because he didn't fight Wlad and Sanders did..

Still think If Haye hadn't bottled he would have had a great chance..

Haye proved nothing as to Wlad's capability.

I would have thought Haye is rated a little above Sanders, who was really just an unfulfilled talent. Think Sanders decks him in a bout though. The guy dropped Rahman twice, Mullered Wladimir, and landed a flush left which moved Vitali from the corner all the way to the furthest one. Don't think Haye coulda stood up to that power, and unlike most heavy greats, be probably lacked the stamina to take advantage of the fact that Sanders would have prepared for the bout with a few eighteen rounders and some wedges.

How much the loss should hurt him is pretty subjective. When we have debated top ten or 20 heavies or Wlad’s relative merits/standing the Sanders loss seems to raise its head fairly quickly, should anyone suggest Wlad deserves to enter the top fifteen. Personally when a guy has not lost in ten years as a champion, with barely a scare or a lost round in that period is forever excluded from most peoples top fifteens in a division not traditionally stacked with talent and in all probability will be excluded irrespective of what he does with the remainder of his career I would suggest the losses to Sanders and Brewster hurt him plenty.

Wlad a strange one as he kind of has two careers pre and post Manny Steward. He learnt so much from the defeat with his time with Manny that he does get a little dispensation. The Saunders defeat will always prevent him getting nearer the top ten though no matter what he does from here.

Sanders beat a top 20 heavy in his pomp...Haye hasn't beaten anyone..

Interesting thing is I have Lennox 10-15....To me it's inconceivable even If he reigns another five years he could ever be higher than him !!

Think I normally have Lewis around 8 or 9 if memory serves me right. Agree that Wlad will never surpass him though. Even if Wlad were to take out all of the young guns they would over night become hype jobs. But that's for another thread!

The thing I love most about the Sanders fight is it's great fun to watch. It's interesting to see how poorly Wlad deals with a quick southpaw puncher. How many southpaws has he fought since?

Somebody get Audley's number!! He has a chance! Believe!!

He looked awful and let's face it he hasn't changed...

Just never met a heavyweight who was a sharp guy with a dig since..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ricky Hatton gets hammered for the pitiful Manny loss.....He was clueless against a leftie and got decimated...Wlad was clueless and got completely decimated also but years of beating stiffs seems to have airbrushed this inconvenient truth and now he's moving towards Top 15 status..

Has he beaten anybody better than Sanders....Nope !!

Even worse he got Big Bro to sort him out for stealing his pocket money..

Do I rate Wlad...Yep !!....But the Sanders episode is the main reason I won't rate him as high as others..

But Wlad should be okay...Seems everybody else has forgotten about it !

Totally agree with you mate, Wlad got destroyed by Sanders and Brewster his deficiencies have been covered up by a long list of stiffs and the fact the only other really top fighter of title reign is his brother, who would never fight him. I cant blame him for his opposition though, he can only fight who is around at the time in this dire era for the division

I would have expected Sanders to beat him in a rematch any time he was fit. The confidence issue would have been massive in a rematch, and Im not surprised we never saw one. Wlad has improved, but I agree with Truss, Wlad hasn't beaten anyone better than Sanders since.

Very surprised to hear anybody rate Haye higher than Sanders too. Sanders was not a waste of potential...he flattened Wlad and came up short against Vitali and a prime Rahman. He often fought whilst injured, and knocked out 31 heavies. Almost a joke to compare Hayes heavy record to his.

Lance and Hogey on the money....

Lance wrote: Almost a joke to compare Hayes heavy record to his.

A joke?

Sanders was a career Heavy who fought more regularly than Haye - naturally enough he has more knockout wins higher than 200 lb than Haye does. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was the more accomplished or successful fighter, or has more distinguishing moments to his name.

We'll never know if Sanders would have repeated the trick in a rematch, but arguing that Wladimir hasn't improved and become a hell of a lot harder to beat since 2003 seems to be a bit fanciful, for me. Is it just a coincidence that he's gone from losing (by stoppage) to Puritty, Sanders and Brewster within a few short years, but has then never come close to losing in almost a decade against guys of comparable quality? Either there's a real freak occurence afoot there or Wladimir's boxing a lot better these days.

As I said, top win for Sanders but that's the only thing he's got going in his favour when it comes to comparing his body of work against Haye's. People deride Haye's wins over guys like Valuev, Ruiz and Chisora, but outside of Wladimir are Sanders' best wins any better? He also has a couple more embarrassing losses on his record than Haye has. As for coming up short against Rahman, no outright cause for shame there but I'm not going to pretend that Rahman was a top quality fighter regardless of the Lewis result. That he beat Lewis says more about Lennox's dire preparations and lack of focus than it does for Rahman's skills. I'd take Haye to beat a guy like Rahman way more often than not.

Don't see how anyone could think comparing Sanders and Haye could be a joke or a slight against Sanders, personally.

Haye hasn't beaten anyone Chris...

I said specifically heavy. So you cant argue he fought nowhere near as many fights at heavy as a defence for a comparison there.

Surely knocking Wlad out in two rounds, and even daring step into a ring with Vitali massively overshadows anything Haye did at heavy? But to say he has nothing more on his record, and then state Chisora and Ruiz as good wins in comparison surprises Chris.

Some of the names on Sanders record may not mean anything, what with them not being European names we all know. But several of them are far better than Chisora and Ruiz way past his best. Not to mention the manner in which Sanders dispatched of them.

Anyway Wlad did everything in his power to get back into the ring with Purity, Brewster and even Peter. Seems he was happy to let Vitali deal with Sanders

I don't dispute that Sanders' win over Wlad is a singler higher point than anything Haye has done as a Heavyweight, Lance. Similarly, Bowe's win over a peak, undefeated Holyfield is a better single win than anything  on Mike Tyson's record, but I don't think that automatically means that drawing comparisons between Bowe and Tyson is meaningless, or that Tyson can't still be the better overall fighter or have a better record in all.

Sanders got in the ring with Vitali and gave it a good go - even looked as if he might cause another shock for a very brief while. But at the end of the day he lost decisively. He might have had a bit more honour about him than Haye (come to think of it, I don't think that's in dispute!) but I don't tend to award too many brownie points for a fight that a guy lost in pretty straightforward circumstances.

I'm not trying to dress Valuev, Ruiz and Chisora up as brilliant wins for Haye. I didn't even refer to them as "good wins," either. I was just stating that as far as I'm concerned, if you take away Wladimir then the other wins on Sanders' record are no better, really. Perhaps even worse. And as I've said above, for me I don't think there's any doubt that Haye fought a better version of Wladimir than Sanders did.

Du Plooy, Williams, Johnny Nelson, Zouski, Cooper....Obviously some of those names and fighters I know pretty well, others less so, but as a genuine question then if anyone can provide me with reasons and evidence as to why, collectively, those guys when Sanders beat them were so much better than Valuev, Ruiz and Chisora were when Haye beat them, I'd be interested to hear them (I'm being genuine there!).

My overall feeling with Sanders is that yes, he had the odd fight here and there which suggested an excellent fighter, but also plenty which suggested the opposite. Might be because of his tragic early death, but there seems to be a feeling these days with him that you have to ignore the latter. Can't say I know his career box set inside out, just a small handful of key fights, but I feel that his abilities get a little blown out of proportion now, and I certainly can't see (even if you think he's the better fighter) how he could so categorically be put in another league to Haye, even just at Heavyweight.

As for him fighting injured, do you cut Haye any slack for the broken toe against Wlad?

You make some good points Chris, and its hard to argue Sanders against Haye without keep coming back to the Klitschko fights, which you have already given Sanders credit for. Although I would say Mike Williams was a far better fighter than Chisora. I thought he beat Witherspoon convincingly, and his only loss before Sanders was to a very underrated Garcia. Im not even going to go into the Valuev fight, as there was a lot going on behind the scenes there, but I don't want to start bashing Haye, especially when I don't like him and might sound biased.

The problem I have with Sanders is he gets bracketed alongside Brewster, Peter, and Purity in this group of average fighters who had their way with a much poorer version of Wlad. I like Wlad, and theres no doubting hes improved. But the Sanders defeat is a whole different ball game compared to Wlads other defeats. There was no taking advantage of Wlads weak chin, or waiting his chance to land a clean shot like the others mentioned. Wlad went into the fight with a new all time high confidence, and Sanders simply walked through him. Its not like comparing Rahman to Lewis or even Thompson to Haye. There was nothing opportunistic about it. The better man won, decisively, and Wlad was not interested in a rematch.

There was excuses made about Wlads mistakes and tactical vulnerabilities after his other defeats. Sanders was the only time he realised he came up against a better fighter, and one of the reasons he became humble enough to want to improve.

I will always hold the Sanders loss against Wlad. Its easy for his fans to categorise it alongside the other defeats he had before he improved, but in reality it was a demolition job from a destructive fighter who simply had his number. Not something you will find on his brothers or Lewis record.

I just suspect Sanders gives Wladimir that kittens thing people talk about. He only had six good rounds in the tank, but he's proper brave, and had the chin to boot. Anyone who hits hard enough to send Vitali all the way across the ring should probably fancy their chances against Little Brother. Any version of him.

Thanks for the response, Lance. Good points raised by yourself likewise.

Can't say I've seen any of Mike Williams' fights, so happy to bow to your knowledge on that front. Could well be a case of a fighter whose record on paper doesn't do them justice, so will try to find the Witherspoon fight if it's knocking around anywhere online. Although it was quite a few years later that he lost to Sanders - had Williams regressed much by then?

It's not that I don't hold the loss against Sanders against Wlad - I do. You pretty much have to, because as I said earlier, he might still have been a bit unsure on exactly what fighter he wanted / needed to be, but he wasn't a baby at the age of 26 / 27 and if you're holding a world title (even if it was only the WBO which mattered little when you had Lewis holding the 'real' title) and are inside the top five of the divisional rankings, there are no real excuses.

I just think that it's important to also put the loss in to context against his whole career. I agree with you that there was nothing lucky about Sanders' win, and I've argued before that it's a myth that he just went in there hoping to throw the kitchen sink at Wladimir and land something big. He actually set his stall put pretty patiently in the opening couple of minutes, but Wladimir made a big mistake early on, jumping after him with his chin right up in the air, and Sanders just took his chance with the counter when he saw it. Great shot and Wladimir never recovered from it.

But even if you put Sanders in a higher class than Purity and Brewster, the fact that Wladimir was losing by stoppage to this kind of guys in his younger days, but now gets by the likes of Haye, Chagaev and Povetkin without ever looking vulnerable, suggests to me that Sanders beating him (even then, but definitely if we're talking the more recent version of Wlad) might well have been the exception, rather than the rule. But alas, Vitali was given the job of putting Sanders out the frame instead and he did it.

I suppose when all's said and done I'm kind of in the middle with regards to Wladimir's loss to Corrie. It's something which, along with two or three other black marks against him, helps prevent him from ever being held at a Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson etc kind of level, but at the same time I don't think it's enough to more or less make his status as the best in the world these days irrelevant or can be used as proof that he'd be nothing more than a journeyman in some better eras as many others seem to think.

Are Sanders and Brewster (the versions Wlad faced at least) the best he's fought? If so (and there's a case to be made that they were), that says everything you need to know about Klitschko.

Some might argue Haye and Povetkin were better but look at the performances Klitschko put in against each. Tragic. The sooner he retires the better. Dull, negative, uninspiring.

Wlad - Why doesn't Sanders hurt him more ??

Sanders hurt him plenty!

Anyone seen the latest Klitschko Briggs video?

https://youtu.be/6nyoof_Pm8U

Sanders told Ian Darke before the fight that he didn't even really bother to train properly for the fight and knew he was a massive underdog and had decided to just go in there and give it a bit of a go and see what happened. To beat Wlad on that attitude is highly detrimental to Wlad in my view. But it is just kinda one of those things, sometimes you just get caught and you can't recover, these things happen.

I think Wlad was in the running to have a go at Lewis's title before his shock loss against Sanders.At the time he was considered to be the best of the brothers.I watched the fight on You Tube this morning and henever recovered from the knockdowns in the first round and was finally stopped in the second.That was before Manny Steward got behind him, but he was definitely well beaten that night.