Wlads Legacy

First topic message reminder :

Wlad Klitschko, in my opinion the most underrated fighter in recent years. The man has been flattened more times than a fat steak but has come back to being one of the most dominant reigning champions in the divisions history.

65 wins (52 kos)
3 losses

He is also on a current run of 16 championship defences since he has regained the title. I understand his competition hasn't been up too much but is it his fault? A man can only beat what is put in front of him. He also hasn't got a fan friendly style but he shouldn't be scored down too much for that because in the end of the day he gets the job done.

His record is not perfect but has been very impressive of late. Other great champions like Holmes and Louis didn't have a long list of ATG on their resumes but they are still thought of as up there as some of the very greatest and in Louis case p4p. Now am not saying Wlad should be rated as highly as these two legendary champions but he deserves to rated as an ATG none the less.

No matter what he is rated now I think history will be kind to him. Not the best Heavy ever but I think he should easily be in the top 15 of all time.

I know I will get flamed for defending Wlad and rating him but I do not care. I have a high opinion of a man who can stay hungry as long as he has and get the job done over and over again.

kingraf wrote:Tiger Tony is 6'5 though, and his reach nearly eight inches longer... Hardly a like for like comparison

I mentioned him because he's an average fighter.

The big men are certainly as quick as the guys from the 70's and 80's aren't they Haz, so the answer is that it does compromise speed.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Lets not go comparing the power of the former light heavyweight Schmeling to that of Lewis and Douglas now Haz.

I wasn't comparing it to Lewis's but it's hardly a stretch to compare his pop to Buster's (never noted as a big hitter).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't make any such allowances, Louis was what he was and Wlad is what he is, you compare them as they are/were not what they could have been. For instance if he'd come along in the 70's he wouldn't have had the great Jack Blackburn training him would he or does he too advance with the times?

I'm not saying that Louis doesn't beat Wlad but coming up against somebody who knows how to use his size wouldn't be straight forward.

Ok. So, in imaginary land, Louis just beams in? Is he black and white?

In the same era, privy to the same potions, Louis kills him. Beats the living daylights out of him.

Those potions don't mean a lot if he hasn't got Blackburn teaching him everything he knows though Haz, how does the added bulk affect his speed, timing and by extension his power.

Does it matter if Louis is more of a "natural" fighter than Wlad? Wlad's like Bruno in that there's nothing instinctive about him (certainly not offensively...I'm not referring to his natural inclination to run like f*ck when anything buzzes his chin). Louis is good enough to work the opening without the greatest of cornermen and instinctive enough to finish the job when he catches his man.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The big men are certainly as quick as the guys from the 70's and 80's aren't they Haz, so the answer is that it does compromise speed.

Haye's very quick. He's bulked up on all sorts and hasn't lost speed or power (and Klitschko matched him for speed in their fight).

DAVE667 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't make any such allowances, Louis was what he was and Wlad is what he is, you compare them as they are/were not what they could have been. For instance if he'd come along in the 70's he wouldn't have had the great Jack Blackburn training him would he or does he too advance with the times?

I'm not saying that Louis doesn't beat Wlad but coming up against somebody who knows how to use his size wouldn't be straight forward.

Ok. So, in imaginary land, Louis just beams in? Is he black and white?

In the same era, privy to the same potions, Louis kills him. Beats the living daylights out of him.

Those potions don't mean a lot if he hasn't got Blackburn teaching him everything he knows though Haz, how does the added bulk affect his speed, timing and by extension his power.

Does it matter if Louis is more of a "natural" fighter than Wlad? Wlad's like Bruno in that there's nothing instinctive about him (certainly not offensively...I'm not referring to his natural inclination to run like f*ck when anything buzzes his chin). Louis is good enough to work the opening without the greatest of cornermen and instinctive enough to finish the job when he catches his man.

He appeared to find the mark easier against big men. Check out the Buddy Baer fight - Louis was able to land with perfect leverage.

DAVE667 wrote:

AdamT wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Adam...apology accepted dear fellow

Milky/kingraf....f*ck you both...w*nkers!

Haz has (ha ha ha) it right re Louis though. Think Joe's reputation as being a fighter who cuts the ring off nicely has Wlad worried enough to be on the back foot all night long but still think Louis finds a way inside and lands enough short little shots to have Wlad on silly street and then finish him off. "Blah blah blah Haye was bigger and couldn't do it" but then Haye didn't WANT to do it. Say what you like about Louis but he was pretty fearless and I don't think Wlad intimidates him enough for him not to go looking for him

I promise not to lick ur a** I will save it for Truss

It's all gone a bit trouserial on here recently

Yep, I 'm still disturbed by his revelation 'I normally enjoy Dave'. He might not be a serial killer but there's some deviancy going on.

milkyboy wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

AdamT wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Adam...apology accepted dear fellow

Milky/kingraf....f*ck you both...w*nkers!

Haz has (ha ha ha) it right re Louis though. Think Joe's reputation as being a fighter who cuts the ring off nicely has Wlad worried enough to be on the back foot all night long but still think Louis finds a way inside and lands enough short little shots to have Wlad on silly street and then finish him off. "Blah blah blah Haye was bigger and couldn't do it" but then Haye didn't WANT to do it. Say what you like about Louis but he was pretty fearless and I don't think Wlad intimidates him enough for him not to go looking for him

I promise not to lick ur a** I will save it for Truss

It's all gone a bit trouserial on here recently

Yep, I 'm still disturbed by his revelation 'I normally enjoy Dave'. He might not be a serial killer but there's some deviancy going on.

I'm just happy to have new devotees/potential victims

I hate deviancy...........I hate it so much that when I see some.... I have to join in..

I'm not a serial killer but haven't denied being a killer

A solid, rigidly one dimensional pro in the Great Depression of the heavyweight division.

Never a great fighter and never a match for a great heavyweight.

Barely a fight in his whole career you would be bothered re-watching either. Chronically boring.

Holyfield is basically a cruiser. Does Klitschko slap him around too.

Louis takes him out in 3. Comes a point with heavyweights where getting bigger doesn't make you any better. If Haye has enough nous to last the distance with Wlad then I'm more than sure Louis does. Add in the fact he won't cower like a little girl and you've got Wlad on the back foot, where he can't fight.

Marky - Holyfield was a 220lbs heavyweight... A peak Louis was quite literally a cruiserweight.

Wladimir against Louis is an interesting fight, I feel. Two big hitters with sometimes shaky chins usually makes for a decent contest. Don't think anyone disputes that technically Louis is the better fighter, but like it or not Wladimir's huge size advantage does level the playing field a lot here. Boxing has weight classes for a reason, and while the pair of them might both be Heavyweights that doesn't suddenly make them immune to that side of things.There were Heavyweights similar in size to Wladimir back in Louis' day, but none of them had the ability that Wlad has - he's not all just about size.

I'd go with Louis, though, even if he spotted Wladimir more than three stone and about five inches in both height and reach. Wlad could out-jab Louis but I don't think it's a given. Louis was better at timing his jab and feinting with it  to draw errors and had quicker hands than Wlad (and Wlad isn't slow by any means).

A lot would depend on how Wladimir dealt with Louis inside - he can't / won't fight at really close quarters as we've seen, but he'll use his weight and height to just grab hold of Louis if he works his way in close and try to tie him up and tire him out by spoiling and leaning on him, which he does to everyone. But I can't see a scenario where Louis doesn't manage to wriggle free at times and unload those brilliant inside combos (see the Max Baer fight) at some point, or get shots off before Wladimir gets a hold of him. Wladimir's not going to stay in the pocket with Louis and outwork him with speedy combos like Conn did for long spells.

Both could be hurt if caught clean, and you can't rule out Wladimir turning Louis' lights out here, but once they were hurt Louis tended to have better powers of recovery. Buddy Baer sent him through the ropes with that left hand, but Louis got up, cleared his head within a few seconds and went right back at Baer with no intention of covering up or buying time. On the other hand you kind of feel that while Louis could recover from getting rocked, as soon as Wladimir gets hurt badly it's curtains.

As I say, interesting fight and I can see the argument either way, but for me Louis stops Wladimir in the middle rounds after a few difficult moments and frustrating rounds. It's one thing being bigger, but in this case I think it pays more to be better.

Sorry to change the subject but even though I hate the Tyson fan boys that think he is invincible I equally hate those so called boxing fans that think all you needed was courage and a good jab.

Bulls..t! Tyson was a a fantastic fighter and I wouldn't make too many a favourite against the version that smashed Holmes and Spinks. He doesn't get enough credit for the Holmes win. Yeah he was old and coming out of retirement but as he went on to prove was still a very good fighter.

The question is, What Heavies would you pick to beat Tyson on a head to head.

I would only make Ali favourite, possibly Lewis slight favourite. Foreman for me is 50-50 as is Larry. I would make Mike favourite against the rest, Holyfield included. Holyfield was older but Tyson couldn't fight for 3 years and was never going to be as fast or good with the time off. Ali was still great after his exile but he was a different fighter than Mike and used his brain a lot.

It's unpopular to say in some quarters but Foreman would destroy Tyson, as D'amato said himself you can't beat him moving forwards.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's unpopular to say in some quarters but Foreman would destroy Tyson, as D'amato said himself you can't beat him moving forwards.

I know Cus said that but i think he is comparing Tyson to Frazier too much. Tyson is faster and has better head movement than Frazier. He also punches harder. Like I said for me it is 50-50. Whoever lands their bombs first

Not unpopular Harrow, just frowned upon. I think Foreman clubs Mike. Repeatedly. Think Mike puts up a better fight than Frazier, maybe even gets some success... but there's only one winner in that fight.

Intersesting. Maybe I am thinking of the Jungle too much. Imo Foreman looked very clumsy and slow. Yes he was up against the Greatest but Ali was hardly in his peak.

I don't know too much about Liston but my dad knows 100 times more about boxing than me and he said Liston would beat anyone bar Ali. High praise but the old boy really rates him.

The first Frazier fight gives a far better indication of how a Tyson fight would go and do think you're over rating Tyson in comparison to him a bit. Frazier's left hook was brutal and a more devastating punch than any Tyson possessed, he also had very good head movement.

Foreman had one hell of a chin too and in a shootout would always be a heavy favourite against anyone including Tyson, it's very difficult to get inside his reach without taking heavy punishment, he'd stand his ground and club Tyson as he came marauding forward.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The first Frazier fight gives a far better indication of how a Tyson fight would go and do think you're over rating Tyson in comparison to him a bit. Frazier's left hook was brutal and a more devastating punch than any Tyson possessed, he also had very good head movement.

Foreman had one hell of a chin too and in a shootout would always be a heavy favourite against anyone including Tyson, it's very difficult to get inside his reach without taking heavy punishment, he'd stand his ground and club Tyson as he came marauding forward.

Not sure about his punch being more brutal than everything Tyson possessed. Tyson had a mean hook himself and his uppercut was monstrous. To be honest Tyson had every punch in the book.

I'll take your "not sure", and raise you a flat out out don't buy it. The rest of his post I agree with though... which isn't really normal

kingraf wrote:I'll take your "not sure", and raise you a flat out out don't buy it. The rest of his post I agree with though... which isn't really normal

Yes I do not buy that Frazier hits as hard as Tyson. Foreman has a great chin, Tysons isnt to shabby either. I still say it is 50-50 but one thing is for sure, it would not go 12 rounds. Probably unlikey to see the halfway stage.

Tyson while on the attack would be caught by Foreman; he'd stiffen, then Foreman would club him to the canvas. Foreman would fear Tyson in the same way he feared Frazier. For that reason he'd make sure it was a short night. For me, this fight is an easy fight to call.

3fingers wrote:Tyson, while on the attack, would be caught by Foreman; he'd stiffen then Foreman would club him to the canvas. For me, this fight is easy to call.

Foreman would fear Tyson in the same way he feared Frazier. For that reason he'd make sure it was a short night.  

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is Tyson would use good angles and show great speed to work on Foremans body then head and hit him with combos he has never seen from any other fighter. Tough fight to call. Nearly everyone will pick foreman but I am on the fence. Gun to head I would slightly favour Tyson because he is underrated as a boxer and I think he would not just rush in like a bull like everyone thinks. Kevin Rooney trained Tyson didn't just bull rush everyone, he was a agressive but he didn't waste punches and he also had great defence.

Tysons slips and dips were 'pre-programmed' drills - meaning they were not reactionary - he didn't see a punch coming then defend, much. He had great perpetual and unconscious head movement, however he did take punches on the way in. Formean would stiffen him, thus slow the head movement with one shot then KO him.

Tyson has a punches chance, but I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is the best way to beat Forman, even though Lyle had some success.

3fingers wrote:Tysons slips and dips were 'pre-programmed' drills - meaning they were not reactionary - he didn't see a punch coming then defend, much. He had great perpetual and unconscious head movement, however he did take punches on the way in. Formean would stiffen him, thus slow the head movement with one shot then KO him.

Tyson has a punches chance, but I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is the best way to beat Forman, even though Lyle had some success.

Lyle did have some success. I see Tyson having a lot of success. Think Foreman was a beast no doubt but gets too much credit for what he done to Frazier.

How can anyone get too much credit for bouncing around a great Heavyweight?

Foreman-Tyson, another great match up.

You can never get too far in to it without bringing up what D'Amato said about this fight, and you'd be daft to completely ignore Cus' view here. For a long time, based on a mix of their respective styles and D'Amato's own words, I was in the pretty large club which said that Foreman dominates Tyson. But then I found myself thinking about Ray Arcel contacting Duran a couple of years after leaving his corner to tell him to stay away from Cuevas as it was a fight he couldn't win, Bouie Fisher telling Hopkins that no version of him could ever beat any version of Tarver and Roy Jones Sr telling Jr that Toney was the worst match up possible for him. Even a fighter's trainer can't always be right about who they could / couldn't beat all the time.

There's a temptation to assume that the fight becomes a brawl with both guys swinging from the hip and Tyson trying to press Foreman, and I agree that it's a kind of fight which would more likely suit Big George. But Tyson had far more all-round boxing skills, a good jab and a lot more speed. Is it impossible to see a scenario where Tyson boxes with purpose but also control to clearly decision Foreman?

If you watch Foreman almost decapitating Frazier then you might find yourself wondering how Tyson could beat him, sure, but if you watch Foreman getting befuddled by the speed and ambush attacks of Qawi and getting hit / jarred with every shot in the book before forcing the stoppage then you might find yourself wondering how Tyson could possibly lose. I know, I know, that was Foreman on his comeback, aged about forty. But he was the trimmest he had ever been or ever would be in his 'second career' for that fight (235 lb) and Qawi, thick around the waist and never a Heavy in any case, was well past his sell-by date, too. Young Foreman had many of the same stylistic weaknesses as the old one (slow, robotic, no real concern for defence) and Tyson would be better placed than most to exploit them, as Qawi did for quite a few rounds.

I'd still lean towards Foreman on this one, basically because I think he's stronger in the clinches than Tyson and would subdue him there like Pinklon Thomas did for long spells. I also don't think Tyson was as hard to hit as most people claim (he was capable of good defence, don't get me wrong, but you'd think he was a Heavyweight Pernell the way some gush about his head / upper body movement or guard) and at some point I think Foreman catches him with something going in. But Foreman would probably have to stand up to plenty of punishment himself before that happens as Tyson's speed and ability to crowd a guy with shots from all different angles is bad news for a slower, open guy like Foreman.

If Tyson's jab (admittedly, that could be patchy as well) and head movement are working well as he comes in then I definitely don't rule out him getting Foreman out of there.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:How can anyone get too much credit for bouncing around a great Heavyweight?

I believe he just caught Frazier cold early and poor Joe was up against it from that point on. By the time of the rematch Joe was finished and still had the scars of the first fight. Frazier maybe underestimated Foreman and thought George may hit hard but it was nothing he couldn't handle. You have to remember Joe had beat the self proclaimed "Greatest" in a real superfight and maybe he was beginning to believe he was invincible.

Those sort of excuses never wash with me, he was beaten by someone who would decapitate him ten times out of ten.

I'm no boxing expert but I still think too many underestimate Tyson at his very best. There was an article done for one of the boxing magazines back in 1990 were they asked 3 experts to pick a winner from the present vs the past. I can remember Angelo Dundee was one writer. The fight was Frazier vs Tyson and I was suprised that Dundee picked Tyson to win. I will try and dig out the article, I remember it being a good read.

Tyson for me against big George............

People forget how hard Tyson was to hit in 86/87...........Had a very underrated defence and he was quicker than Frazier too with quicker head movement...Foreman had a lousy defence..and was a straight line fighter...

Tyson's speed the difference for me.. He was also bigger than Joe...

He'd hurt when he hit too..............Berbick had one of the best chins in the heavy division.......and he barely lasted two..

Foreman would have a puncher's chance............But as we saw when Berbick pushed Tyson back (Which is basically what Foreman would do) he paid for it big style....Foreman was no quicker than Berbick...Although a better fighter..

Foreman-Tyson........Would be Berbick-Tyson with the added question mark of whether George could get the big right in..

60/40 Mike.

Marco_Marky - Stuffington wrote:Holyfield is basically a cruiser. Does Klitschko slap him around too.

Louis takes him out in 3.  Comes a point with heavyweights where getting bigger doesn't make you any better. If Haye has enough nous to last the distance with Wlad then I'm more than sure Louis does. Add in the fact he won't cower like a little girl and you've got Wlad on the back foot, where he can't fight.

Holy is an enhanced big b**tard............World of difference between him and the steroid free Louis days...

Holy was a solid 220 pounder..

Foreman more open to hooks than any fighter in history (Lyle caught him with a fair few uppercuts too). Tyson was a master at both punches, he's certainly in with chance. I guess it was unfair of me to say 'Tyson has a punches chance', when in fact he is the 'boxer' of the two. On reflection, it's Foreman who'd have the punchers chance (which is what he had in all his fights - as there aren't too many fighters he could 'outbox').

Wlad underrated and can only beat what's put in front of him.

will be respected more when he is long retired.As Tyson said on a video about Klitschos, athletes get better even if they don't look it. Wlad would do well on a head to head with most past greats. He is far from entertaining but he has mastered the hit and not be hit (often)philosophy.

You rate him far too highly, what past greats exactly would he do well against?

3fingers wrote:Tysons slips and dips were 'pre-programmed' drills - meaning they were not reactionary - he didn't see a punch coming then defend, much. He had great perpetual and unconscious head movement, however he did take punches on the way in. Formean would stiffen him, thus slow the head movement with one shot then KO him.

Tyson has a punches chance, but I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is the best way to beat Forman, even though Lyle had some success.

Sorry fingers, but the idea that the slips and dips were preprogrammed is daft. Unless you know in advance what shots were going to be thrown. Return to his early fights and re watch , he clearly reacts to what is being thrown.

A question - if Wlad can beat Louis record of defences - even if he is beating no more than tin cans - then does he squeeze into a top 10?

On here be would be lucky to get top 20

Yip, read above mate. He loses to:
Ali
Foreman
Frazier
Louis
Lewis
Little Brother
Holmes
Weaver
Witherspoon
Bruno
big brother
Liston
Sanders
Baer
Schmeling
Dempsey
Willard
Norton
Young
Cleveland Williams
A "motivated" David Haye
Zorra Folley
Patterson
Grant
Berbick
Spinks
Other Spinks

and literally every American would laced gloves between 1970-1990

You're probably missing a few Raf but the list is spot on. Wlad Klitschko top 50 heavy of all time on 606.

Joe Louis the invincible heavyweight warrior beats him with both hands tied behind his back after he destroys Conn.

oxring wrote:A question - if Wlad can beat Louis record of defences - even if he is beating no more than tin cans - then does he squeeze into a top 10?

Klitschko has 0 undisputed title defences so he must be planning to box on for a long time.

To be completely honest, 606 is just a sample of the reality of boxing fans' opinions. Lest we forget it's not Ali's performances against Foreman, Liston, or Frazier which constitute his magnum opus, but rather his performance against a past it contender with a leg atrophy. Because nothing proves you're nigh on unbeatable like smashing a one legged guy who's last five opponents' record aggregated 72-34.

horizontalhero wrote:

3fingers wrote:Tysons slips and dips were 'pre-programmed' drills - meaning they were not reactionary - he didn't see a punch coming then defend, much. He had great perpetual and unconscious head movement, however he did take punches on the way in. Formean would stiffen him, thus slow the head movement with one shot then KO him.

Tyson has a punches chance, but I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is the best way to beat Forman, even though Lyle had some success.

Sorry fingers, but the idea that the slips and dips were preprogrammed is daft. Unless you know in advance what shots were going to be thrown. Return to his early fights and re watch , he clearly reacts to what is being thrown.

much is the important word in what I wrote.

Tyson used his torso drills in fights. His head movement was a blur. Difficult to hit. Sometimes shots whistled over the top of his head, other times he moved onto them.

Infact, he probably saw the first shot and slipped ond way, or the other. Where as lots of fighters are simply content to slip a shot, for Tyson the initial slip triggered a drill, or prelearned sequence of movement.

kingraf wrote:To be completely honest, 606 is just a sample of the reality of boxing fans' opinions. Lest we forget it's not Ali's performances against Foreman, Liston, or Frazier which constitute his magnum opus, but rather his performance against a past it contender with a leg atrophy. Because nothing proves you're nigh on unbeatable like smashing a one legged guy who's last five opponents' record aggregated 72-34.

That's not really what anyone is saying King, the Williams fight is generally seen by many, including Ali himself as the fight in which he was at his absolute best in terms of physical prowess and boxing ability.No one has ever claimed it is a better win than those you mentioned. The win of Foreman may be his greatest performance, but the Ali of 68 destroys the Ali of 74.

kingraf wrote:To be completely honest, 606 is just a sample of the reality of boxing fans' opinions. Lest we forget it's not Ali's performances against Foreman, Liston, or Frazier which constitute his magnum opus, but rather his performance against a past it contender with a leg atrophy. Because nothing proves you're nigh on unbeatable like smashing a one legged guy who's last five opponents' record aggregated 72-34.

That's not really what anyone is saying King, the Williams fight is generally seen by many, including Ali himself as the fight in which he was at his absolute best in terms of physical prowess and boxing ability.No one has ever claimed it is a better win than those you mentioned. The win of Foreman may be his greatest performance, but the Ali of 68 destroys the Ali of 74.

Don't think so. Ali of 68 would of faced a sturdy diet of B-listers (sometimes C, really) two or three years prior. Folley, Williams, Terell, London, old Cooper. Ali 74 was battle hardened, he'd fixed, or learnt to better compensate for his shortcomings.

Maybe it's just me... and I think on this forum it really is just me, but I believe getting into a firefight with Norton, Frazier, Foreman types is a much better barometer of your overall abilities, and chances against ATG's then thrashing Folley, London and Cooper.