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.

I believe you missed Jack Johnson off your list too king. That would have been a real clinch fest.
Wlad seems to be hugely under sold in head to heads. I know yours was a joke king but it does show that he probably won't be respected until he's long gone.
Surely it's time to give him his dues and stop bringing up the defeats from when he was younger. None of them would have had a prayer against him now.

its amazing to me that boxing fans including many on this site moan that boxers want to keep their "0" too much and that they should pursue harder fights earlier in their career even if it results in the boxer losing as they will learn lots etc. But then in the same breath they hold defeats that Wlad suffered 10 years ago against him, cant win with some people I guess

The reason why he fares so badly in mythical matchups is that he hasn't got a chin and the likes of Foreman and co were damn well good enough to exploit just that. Wlad beating up on what is comfortably the worst collection of HWs since records began does not give him the right to greatness or be mentioned in the same breath. Gets the longevity nod of not making a mistake for the last 10 years and losing, but on the flip side he's not faced anyone who you could rank among the top 75 HWs of all time.

He hasn't got a left hand to speak of (jab jab right hold hold hold hold wouldn't cut the mustard against someone like Holyfield).
He can't counter
He hasn't got a chin

So yeah, I'd back against him most of the time in mythicals. That and he hasn't beaten anyone of note of any quality in the slightest so to say he stands a chance against any of the aforementioned fighters is fantastical at best and based on nothing more than airy fairy le de da opinion.

And if anyone mentions his "left hook bonanza" against Pulev I'll cry with laughter. It's like playing cricket against your kids in the back garden and claiming to have broken the world run scoring record ffs! (for the dimwits I'm saying Pulev is she-ite).

For the final KO...Wlad winds up the left hook, Pulev sees it coming then drops his right hand just to ensure it lands. Wlad then shoves him to the canvas.

Pulev was the very definition of a punch bag with legs and I'd have been mortified if Wlad HADN'T have hit him with alarming regularity or ease.

What I will say is that Saturday's fight made me desperate to see a real contender in there and I'm officially leaping on the Shannon Briggs bandwagon

#Frak

Aye, becasue your posts above really suggest that you'd be willing to give Wladimir credit for anything or at least take on board other people's points of the subject, Kirk!

Don't think anyone disputes that Wladimir has flaws that elite Heavyweights could and would exploit. You want to focus on this chin, fine - but not every great Heavyweight has dynamite power like Foreman. His opposition hasn't been top-notch (though he's faced the best he can reasonably be expected to face consistently, which is more than could be said of some other Heavyweight champions) but in the past eight or nine years he's been utterly dominant against them. Surely that's an indicator that he'd be good enough to at least compete very, very well with a higher class of opposition? I don't recall Roy Jones ever facing a fighter you'd rank inside an all-time top ten or even fifteen at Light-Heavy, but it's clear to me that his performances and dominance against the guys he did fight there indicate that he'd be easily in the mix against any elite 175 pounder.

I'm not saying Wladimir's in Roy's class, or that he'll ever be anywhere near as highly thought of. I'm just suggesting that there is enough to be found in Wlad's performances and level of dominance to suggest that he could still excel at a higher level. As I've said before, people poke fun of anyone praising Wlad's longevity at beating B-listers, and then start sounding off about how guys like Tony Tubbs, Pinklon Thomas, Tyrell Biggs and Greg Page were in a different league. What longevity did they have? What performances on their ledgers would be totally beyond Wlad?

As an aside, who did Dempsey beat that you wouldn't make Wladimir a firm favourite over? Nobody disqualifies Dempsey from inclusion amongst the greats, be it in rank or head to head, despite the fact that he never beat anyone even remotely upper-echelon in Heavyweight terms.

As for Wlad's all-round game and skills set, well again when you basically say, "He hasn't got a left hand....Well, he has, but he's not shown it against anyone I'd consider good enough to be talked up so therefore it doesn't count and shouldn't be mentioned here" it doesn't really suggest he can ever win with some of his detractors. Ali had almost no body attack and wasn't the best inside fighter. Louis had heavy feet and a bit of a shaky chin. Foreman was cumbersome with no real ring smarts. Marciano a bit one-handed and with wide-open defence. Holyfield very hittable and prone to fighting in spurts. I could go on and on. All the best Heavyweight have had flaws in their game which could cost them. Wladimir might have more than others, and I agree he's in over his head more often than not against some of the rest, but I don't think he's a guaranteed disaster waiting to happen against all of them, and he could definitely beat some of them, too.

I can't remember anyone even putting Wlad in their top ten of all time on here, and yet his critics are so desperate to run him down they talk as if everyone is ranking him with Ali and Louis. There just seems to be a dinosaur-like resistance to ever giving him credit in some quarters, so when they see someone talking up a performance of Wlad's, they end up going way too far in the opposite direction as a way of trying to compensate.

Even if you're not a Wladimir fan in the slightest, let's take an objective view of Saturday night. He completely outclassed one of his shorter-priced challengers, someone who was unbeaten and had at least earned his right to fight for the title. There were a decent amount of people expecting Pulev to give him a fight. Wladimir took him apart and without the usual annoying factors which have given people cause to have a pop at him in recent years; he was all business, answered with a better shot whenever Pulev tagged him with something of his own and closed the show in style with a proper, classical knockout. If you can't at least say fair enough, good job and give him a shade of credit for that, then there's no point debating the issue with you as it's clear to me you've just made up your mind in advance that Wlad is complete guff and giving him any praise is basically an admission of knowing nothing about boxing.

Raf, you're certainly not the only one who thinks post Vietnam ali's experience is a good match for 60's Ali's movement. There is a school of thought that foreman beats 60's Ali. It's not one I personally subscribe to but its out there.

The reason why Ali is considered the greatest by many is that he showcased his talent in the 60's and his heart in the 70's.

It's certainly true that Liston (and the questionable  nature of those fights) aside he fought a much better quality of fighter post Vietnam. Maybe he learnt from his tough fights and adapted. Maybe that was always in his locker but it took the better fighters to bring it out, maybe it was less about the opposition and more about physical decline. There's very likely a combination of all these things in play. He adapted to his physical decline whilst fighting better fighters and maybe picked up a few tricks.

Of course it's easier to look good against a lower class of opposition, but it's pretty clear also that pre Vietnam Ali had leg and handspeed and 70's Ali just the handspeed.

As hero says, the Williams fight is showcasing him at close to the physical prime albeit against a guy he would beat comfortably at any stage in his career. It's the eye test that suggests to most that this was his prime. Had he not had the Vietnam break and fought Frazier a little earlier we might well have seen both at their best, late 60's.

But we didn't. Ultimately, its all if's and buts, but we learnt later in his career what heart he had and how great his chin was... He just hadn't really had to show that much in the 60's, but it was obviously there. I'm not convinced those tough fights with Frazier etc improved him as a fighter, they just showed how tough he was and whilst he doubtless learnt something from the experience, I don't believe the experience of being a punch bag offsets the ability to keep out of trouble.

Chris, dominating a shocking level of oppo doesn't give an automatic right to say that because he's head and shoulders above a poor calibre of HWs that he'd be able to compete. It's akin to saying a EuroPro golfer who dominates that tier for years on easier courses would be able to step up and mix it with the big boys.

Am just hoping someone like Joshua, in a couple of years time, earns the right to face Wlad and then takes him to the cleaners.

And see my point regarding praise of "Gets the longevity nod of not making a mistake for the last 10 years and losing" before you get your specially emblazoned warrior keyboard out regarding knowledge of boxing.

We all know Khan, for instance, has a chin made of polystyrene and that he's facing guys good enough. No-one would give him a prayer of beating say a Duran as everyone fully admits that Duran is good enough to find a way through. I fully appreciate how much Wlad has tightened up (and made us all almost vomit with boredom for 98% of his fights since) his defense, but quality shines through and if there was anyone with an iota of talent around then Wlad would almost certainly have a couple more notches in the L column.

Pulev fight seemed like a FOTY candidate such was the mildly entertaining factor so often missing when Wlad fights.

Has to fight Stiverne next, who needs to get more active to even earn the right in all honest before some other cumbersome loaf gets put in front of Wlad.

It's akin to saying Rory Mcilroy is a poor golf champion because there are no Tiger Woods' coming out of America anymore.

Warrior keyboard? Come on now, Kirk.  

Not every single point in my post was directed to you or was a direct response to a point you've made - I thought that was made clear enough, obviously not.

Again, I don't see how Wladimir's dominance against the current crop doesn't at least hint that he's good enough to give the generally higher-regarded guys a good fight.

If dominating against sub-par opposition isn't a way to guage that kind of potential, then why are you even talking about Joshua challenging for the Heavyweight title in that case? Why is it that Joshua dominating domestic journeymen is cause to speculate about how good he might really be if given the chance, but when Wlad dominates titlists and ranked contenders it doesn't suggest that he could step up in quality? Why does a guy like Jofre get regular top ten all-time pound for pound berths or labelled as the best little man in history when his opposition clearly doesn't support that if you take it in isolation and focus on nothing else?

I agree that Wladimir's not an exciting fighter in general, but there have been countless elite-level fighters who you could say the same about. But again, when it comes to Wladimir the point seems to suddenly become more important and is placed under greater scrutiny.

It goes the other way Chris when he gets compared to Ali, Louis, Holmes and that ilk, you have to earn the right to those comparisons which he hasn't. For instance some try and suggest his opposition is equal to that of Holmes which it isn't, Shavers was a tried and tested Heavyweight far above anybody today.

He's far from awful but ive seen nothing from him in any fight that suggests he stands a chance against any of the aforementioned. Unfortunately for him he has nobody to test himself against, Louis at least had Baer and Schmeling.

[quote="Hammersmith harrier"]Unfortunately for him he has nobody to test himself against[/quote]

Fury?!

Jokes.

Do hope he fights him though so Tyson gets put on his arriss 4 times in the first round, before he corner pull him out before the start of the second in the earliest corner retirement humiliation of all time.

Great footwork, great balance, great strategest (albeit not fan friendly), great at nullifying opponents (though often illegally), great at gauging and maintaining distance, great power.

Chin ok, stanima OK (when he imposes his strategy, which hes mastered overvthe past decade).

He wouldn't be out of place sharing a ring with any ATG. What separates wlad from those from the past is their ability to dig deep, their resiliance.

If Wlad was unable to impose his style on an opponent, made to fight hard, then he would be left wanting, in deep water, when the going got tuff.

Wlads style is to prevent a war of attrition as much is it is to protect his chin (which the state of which is severely exaggerated).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It goes the other way Chris when he gets compared to Ali, Louis, Holmes and that ilk, you have to earn the right to those comparisons which he hasn't. For instance some try and suggest his opposition is equal to that of Holmes which it isn't, Shavers was a tried and tested Heavyweight far above anybody today.

 
Tony Thompson was a "tried and tested heavyweight", doesn't mean he was really any good. You could say Witherspoon, Norton etc were good fighters using Shavers as an example of showing the superiority of opposition in the "good old days" doesn't really work. His strength was cutting off the ring and using his power, if you had any boxing ability he had no idea what to do and would usually gas after 5 or 6 rounds anyway. Despite padding his record massively by facing guys who had usually barely one more than they lost he was still stopped 7 times, but of course Ron Stander would have ruled today's division..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It goes the other way Chris when he gets compared to Ali, Louis, Holmes and that ilk, you have to earn the right to those comparisons which he hasn't. For instance some try and suggest his opposition is equal to that of Holmes which it isn't, Shavers was a tried and tested Heavyweight far above anybody today.

He's far from awful but ive seen nothing from him in any fight that suggests he stands a chance against any of the aforementioned. Unfortunately for him he has nobody to test himself against, Louis at least had Baer and Schmeling.

I think it depends on what you mean by him being compared to Ali, Louis and Holmes, Hammersmith. If you mean comparing his career record or resume, then I agree it's fanciful to try and draw comparisons between Wlad and those guys (suffice to say I disagree with whoever it was who said that Holmes' opposition was no better than Wlad's, as I do think Larry's best wins are a notch ahead). Larry was also involved in a couple of barnstormers which helps.

But if you're just talking about how he'd get on against those guys (or any other great Heavyweight) on a head to head basis then I don't see the problem, and I don't see what else he could do to earn the right to be in that kind of discussion. There's not really any debate that he's the best Heavy in the world right now, and likewise his record (regardless of what anything thinks of it) is the best since Lewis by a mile. It's only natural that he's being put in to some kind of historical context on that basis, for me. He's so far ahead of his contemporaries that he's bound to be judged against history instead now.

As far as I can see, that errant comment about Holmes' opposition aside, nobody has really argued that Wlad deserves to be ranked as highly as guys like that, just that he's better than some of his more vocal naysayers give him credit for and that he could compete with the elite Heavies, even if he were to lose more than he won. At the end of the day the likes of Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Holyfield etc were given torrid times (or occasionally even handed defeats) by fighters a lot less gifted and dangerous than Wlad, even if it was the exception rather than the rule.

The comment above yours is the perfect example of what I mean Chris, Shavers gets written off as a win because apparently he only had a punch. We all know about Nortons issues with punchers but you still need to have talent to exploit his shortcomings. When both Holmes and Ali say you're the hardest puncher they faced you know you hit like a train.

He then gets compared to Tony Thompson which is frankly ludicrous.

The majority of Holmes opposition will be found higher in any list than Wlad's.....

I understand Hammer's frustration with Klitty.............The standard today is appalling but having said that longevity is a big factor so I'll concede he will be a great heavy......

He'll never be top 10 for me though.............His brother taking Sanders has guaranteed that.

Then again I'd pick Haye to beat all of Louis opponents including the Rock...So that is a good victory despite Haye crapping it.

For those that don't really rate wlad is there anything he can do between now and the end of his career for him to go up in your opinion?

Aside from completely reinvent himself with a style that I rate and appreciate then not a lot.

Even if he were to wipe out all of the up and coming heavyweights hammer? Even if they were then to go on and prove themselves? I know I'm stretching things but I'm just interested to see if a fighter can change anyone's opinion even in the slightest or whether that opinion is ingrained.

If he was able to knock out Haye in a rematch I would have to admit he is a great fighter but being objective I think he has been underrated and underestimated by a lot of people due to his style. As Haye found out it is VERY difficult to outbox Klitschko.

spencerclarke wrote:Even if he were to wipe out all of the up and coming heavyweights hammer? Even if they were then to go on and prove themselves? I know I'm stretching things but I'm just interested to see if a fighter can change anyone's opinion even in the slightest or whether that opinion is ingrained.

I can't stand the way he fights and will never rate him because of that, much of it isn't boxing skill just grappling, holding and leaning.

hayemaker wrote:If he was able to knock out Haye in a rematch I would have to admit he is a great fighter but being objective I think he has been underrated and underestimated by a lot of people due to his style. As Haye found out it is VERY difficult to outbox Klitschko.

Am sure, in the unlikely event Haye gets a rematch, that should Haye risk going within 100 yards of Wlad he will indeed knock him out.

Rowley wrote:

hayemaker wrote:If he was able to knock out Haye in a rematch I would have to admit he is a great fighter but being objective I think he has been underrated and underestimated by a lot of people due to his style. As Haye found out it is VERY difficult to outbox Klitschko.

Am sure, in the unlikely event Haye gets a rematch, that should Haye risk going within 100 yards of Wlad he will indeed knock him out.

There is a risk Haye gets knocked out by fighting more aggressivley but he is also the heavyweight out there who has the defensive skills to make Wlad hit fresh air, the speed to get on the inside and the power to knock Klitschko out. I think you need all of these things together to beat Klitschko. I do think that Klitschko does not get the respect he deserves as a fighter and some people seem very bitter about him. But having said that he is not unbeatable and he has a glass jaw. I think with different tactics Haye would knock out Klitschko.

The only different tactic Haye could use to beat Wlad would be bringing a baseball bat into the ring which would result in disqualification anyway 

hayemaker wrote: I think with different tactics Haye would knock out Klitschko.

I think in certain circumstances I'd have a shot with Charlize Theron. There is often quite a difference between what we think and reality.

Think the problem is that Haye is very good getting away from punches but not very good at using that to attack. he can counter pretty well but you gotta make a stand sometime to be in reach of Wlads chin. that's when you get a heavy jab in your face or as pulev found out, a crushing left hook. If he could slip and get inside Wlads reach then maybe he could do something, but he doesnt. Theres also the fact that Wlad is quite fast himself and without the distance haye created between them - it might not be so easy to evade punches.

Hayemaker is David Haye. Come on man admit it

I don't think David Haye is as optimistic about his chances against Wlad as Hayemaker seems to be

or as delusional it may seem

AdamT wrote:Hayemaker is David Haye. Come on man admit it

Haha no just a fan of his. Looks like people have got totally carried away with the negativity. It would be foolish to write off someone with Hayes talent, speed and power in a rematch with Klitschko. Klitschko has a glass jaw and with the right gameplan Haye has a great chance of finding it and knocking Klitschko out. The danger is he has a higher risk of getting knocked out himself. Thats what makes it such a mouthwatering clash. I could only see it ending in a KO.

Everyone could see it ending in a KO last time mate, and it ended in a one sided fight with Wladamir handily winning with a lot left to give.

What's to say its no different this time? Hate is a pot shot fighter, in and out, throws a low amount of firepower.

He got in with wlad and couldnt get past his jab.

He quickly found out he wasn't fighting 7ft slow giants with no defense, or old champs in Ruiz, or Olympic champs like Harrison..... Or the super Monte Barret....or the world champion Chisora.

He actually fought a decent heavyweight....and got laughably outclassed.

I paid and wanted haye to win...and he had no chance.

I don't think Haye realised how strong Wlad was either. Leaning on a former cruiserweight just tires them out too much and he couldn't get in range due to Wlad's size either. I'd imagine they could fight another 10 times and Haye would struggle to avoid a white wash.

Bit of perspective here from Acevedo on Undisputed Champion Network:

"By scoring an extraordinary KO of an ordinary opponent, Klitschko also finds himself back in the dopey “All-Time” conversation, as led by folks who have shown little – if any – affinity for history. Just as comparing Bernard Hopkins to Archie Moore is silly (Moore had close to 200 documented fights by the time he was 40 and probably dozens more that are not on the record), so too is comparing Klitschko to Joe Louis an exercise in jackassery. Not every fighter from yesteryear is sacrosanct but the lack of perspective from those who want to make Klitschko some sort of legend is notable.



Since both Louis and Klitschko faced weak competition throughout their title reigns, there is a kneejerk tendency to equate their records. This is a mistake. No matter what the merits or weaknesses of fighters like, say, Nathan Mann or Bob Pastor, the fact is they all had to run a gauntlet of contenders in an era when the safety net offered by promotional contracts and network meddling did not exist. Bob Pastor too could have been 30-0 and proud possessor of the FECARBOX title if only he had been allowed to fight TBA more often instead of one hard case after another on a monthly basis (this is not to say every Louis opponent was a live body. Along with a few hapless types, Louis also faced dubious characters such as Harry Thomas and Tony Galento. And, yes, Mann himself, with ties to Dutch Schultz, can be considered one as well).



Despite the fact that Klitschko was not the clear Number One until his brother disappeared into the fog of Ukrainian politics in 2013, he is still considered “dominant.” It is hard to see how a fighter can dominate a division when he split the contenders down the middle for years with a co-champion. Louis was definitely “dominant” since he did not share the title with another champion and with the exception of a few black contenders that his promoter, Mike Jacobs, refused to greenlight for business reasons, Louis faced just about every heavyweight worth fighting.



Klitschko being lauded for creeping up on the record for most heavyweight title defenses (still held by Joe Louis) by those who claim that sanctioning body titles are worthless is silly enough but knowing that the most obvious reason certain authorities are fabricating history is to put themselves in the center of “Big Events” is outright depressing."

Wow what a completely impartial report.