Why Wlad will have the last laugh on all us critics !!

I have Louis number 2 by a mile in my Heavyweight ATG list...........His opposition wasn't that great until the end of his reign and he had an up and down record against those....

He's number 2 because he was a dominant Heavy and had great Longevity......

Same as Wlad...............

So when Klitty has slung his hook ...It's going to be highly hypocritical (though I'll give it a go !! ) For us not to have him very high in the ATG Heavy list....

I mean I chuck Sanders at Wlad..............But we could chuck Schmelling at Louis....

Louis deserved high ranking is the problem for all us Wlad detractors...........

Yep Wlad will have the longest laugh..............If we don't have him high he has great rebuttal !!!!!.

Have said it for a long time that Wlad’s stock will increase greatly when he has retired, it happens all the time that our memory of fighters and their opponents changes over time. As you know as well as anyone Truss much of what is said about Wlad, such as boring fights, limited opponents etc was said of Holmes, and to a lesser degree Lewis, and nobody particularly gets riled up if anyone calls them greats or chucks them in the top tens, not saying Wlad will enjoy a similar fate, but it would not surprise me to see his name in the mix with the guys we debate about being just outside the top ten, such as Liston, Tunney, etc.
 
Reality is though Truss barring disasters Wlad is likely to retire in a couple of years, with millions in the bank, his looks and his brains still intact and as an absolute lock for a first ballot Hall of Famer. Can be fairly sure he will not give a flying one whether a bunch of geeks on the internet rate him or not.

Good post..

He's more pragmatic than Froch that's for sure.........But he's proud too and most Boxers are vain.....

He shouldn't be interested in what an internet geek like me thinks..But many boxers are Bob Foster being a prime example...When people started calling Hill better for breaking his record....He went ape crap.

Won't have the last laugh when AJ renders him unconscious and upside down outside the ring.

Coxy001 wrote:Won't have the last laugh when AJ renders him unconscious and upside down outside the ring.

Won't fight him................Hearn will wait him out or go down the Wilder route....

Unfortunately Josh has time on his side.......Wlad won't be around in two years and Hearn has a gold mine..

Why don't we wait on Aj to have a half decent fight before making such rash promises.

ShahenshahG wrote:Why don't we wait on Aj to have a half decent fight before making such rash promises.

With all the stuff I've taken over the years and my frosty relationship with my Pop in law.....

I may not be able to wait till 2018......

Wlad will always have his critics but he has plenty of fans too. His overall rating will improve after he retires though. I'm sure he would like to be a little more universally appreciated but he must be happy with the crowds he draws and money he earns. Some still hold McCall and even Vitali against Lewis so I think people will always have question marks over Wlad.

Lewis is also a prime example of someone who is more appreciated when he is gone, much like i think Wlad will be

wheelchair1991 wrote:Lewis is also a prime example of someone who is more appreciated when he is gone, much like i think Wlad will be

I was one who appreciated Lewis while he was here, but know were your coming from.

I did too he was one of the first fighters i followed as a child, the USA in particular did not appreciate him when he was an active fighter

Louis was the de facto heavyweight champion forever. Klitschko only established himself as the indisputable heavyweight boss last year against Povetkin. For the majority of his time as a titlist, there was another titlist kicking about that a vast number of people felt would kiss his a rse.

Klitschko will make the HOF but he isn't and never will be a great fighter. He did well to come back from those KO defeats but he's fought absolute dog dirt throughout his reign.

I don't buy all this lineal crap.....

Too many quality fighters wouldn't be champions...

Nobody will ever convince me Wlad is or was a great fighter,very fortunate to be in an era of Heavyweight dross, lucky man.  

Lots in the Hof who shouldn't be there, it doesn't mean that much to me, Sly Stallone say's it all.

Fairly predictable responses really, fight in a conservative way, beat dross and you're not regarded as great, fight in an exciting, beat dross and you're revered as a god.

Life is about timing Nico....Had Liston been born twenty years earlier would Louis have been great ??

Longevity and dominance wise Wlad has a good case though I'm loathe to admit it !!

Its about opinion, I rate him a good fighter not great.

Your opinion is welcome.....

I honestly believe he deserves the plaudits now and will quite deservedly receive them in the future. You can only beat the man that is put in front of you. I'm not a fan of his fighting style, but I like his persona. The HW division has been devoid of life since Lewis retired, but that said I'm sure many people could have been saying the same when Louis was fighting "bum of the week".

He's not in my top ten (possibly 20 at a push) but it wouldn't surprise me if in 20 to 30 years from now he appears in many peoples top 10. Thankfully I'll be in my late 70's by then and no doubt in no fit state to debate on the internet.

RatBoy66 wrote: Thankfully I'll be in my late 70's by then and no doubt in no fit state to debate on the internet.    

Just think, you might just lose your mind by the approximate date we are due to shut up about Mayweather on here, that is bad timing on your part!

Rowley has Floyd on the brain..

Maybe I'll treat him to a Mayweather article...

Working on the old if you can't beat 'em join 'em theory.

RatBoy66 wrote:I honestly believe he deserves the plaudits now and will quite deservedly receive them in the future. You can only beat the man that is put in front of you. I'm not a fan of his fighting style, but I like his persona. The HW division has been devoid of life since Lewis retired, but that said I'm sure many people could have been saying the same when Louis was fighting "bum of the week".

He's not in my top ten (possibly 20 at a push) but it wouldn't surprise me if in 20 to 30 years from now he appears in many peoples top 10. Thankfully I'll be in my late 70's by then and no doubt in no fit state to debate on the internet.    

I agree you can only fight what's in front of you, but in all honesty Wlad and his brother have fought 1 great fighter between them, a past it Lewis and we know how that ended up.

Rowley wrote:

RatBoy66 wrote: Thankfully I'll be in my late 70's by then and no doubt in no fit state to debate on the internet.    

Just think, you might just lose your mind by the approximate date we are due to shut up about Mayweather on here, that is bad timing on your part!

I haven't read about this fighter you call Mayweather on this forum. You will have to fill me in more when I'm in my flux of dementia. I have a feeling this would be the most appropriate time in my life.

Joe Louis fought 12 men on Matt McGrain's recent 100 greatest heavyweight list. And before the usual suspects start getting their bloomers in a knot: while all lists are fallible and are only one person's (or a small group of people's) opinion(s) (I also don't agree with some of the placings) - it's a decent marker in terms of quality of opposition. The only other heavyweight who defeated more top 100 men was Ali (with 14).

I think Klitschko has 1 if memory serves me right (did Haye miss out?): a dog meat version of Ray Mercer.

Klitschko does boast insane numbers in terms of fights won, KOs scored and alphabet defences, however, this is THE poorest stretch in the division's history. Frown all you like over Louis's competition (and there is some crap on his record) but - as someone else put it once - the men he faced fought their way into contention against other tough fighters. Had they fought today, the likes of Bob Pastor could quite easily been a 25-0 WWE interim champion. Look at Nikolai Valuev - something like 50-2 and a "champion" in some people's view - yet utterly, indisputably useless.

While numbers are one thing, greatness is also defined through performance. Klitschko fights like a man who hates fighting; who's terrified to be hit. His fights are unedifying spectacles where he usually spoils his way to victory over largely inept, far smaller men. At least someone like Ward is boring his way to victory over decent fighters (or was before his lay-off).

Klitschko has no great moments to speak of such as Marciano's teetering on the brink before halting Charles and Walcott, Frazier's wonderful win over Ali and his comeback against Bonavena, Holyfield's comebacks against Bowe and then Tyson; Holmes' incredible win over Norton and Lazarus impressions against Shavers and Snipes, Louis's rematch wins over Schmeling and Walcott (two of the better heavyweights of all time). There's more to being great than just numbers.

Add in the fact that Wlad's "dominance" stretches back only two years (plainly he didn't dominate the division when he and his brother split it in two) and there's no real cogent argument for Klitschko's "greatness".

Agree to an extent Haz but think you're a tad harsh. Klits ain't Joe Louis but for me, he has still reached a level of greatness.

Not Ali,Louis,Johnson level but maybe top 15.

hazharrison wrote:Joe Louis fought 12 men on Matt McGrain's recent 100 greatest heavyweight list. And before the usual suspects start getting their bloomers in a knot: while all lists are fallible and are only one person's (or a small group of people's) opinion(s) (I also don't agree with some of the placings) - it's a decent marker in terms of quality of opposition. The only other heavyweight who defeated more top 100 men was Ali (with 14).

I think Klitschko has 1 if memory serves me right (did Haye miss out?): a dog meat version of Ray Mercer.

Klitschko does boast insane numbers in terms of fights won, KOs scored and alphabet defences, however, this is THE poorest stretch in the division's history. Frown all you like over Louis's competition (and there is some crap on his record) but - as someone else put it once - the men he faced fought their way into contention against other tough fighters. Had they fought today, the likes of Bob Pastor could quite easily been a 25-0 WWE interim champion. Look at Nikolai Valuev - something like 50-2 and a "champion" in some people's view - yet utterly, indisputably useless.

While numbers are one thing, greatness is also defined through performance. Klitschko fights like a man who hates fighting; who's terrified to be hit. His fights are unedifying spectacles where he usually spoils his way to victory over largely inept, far smaller men. At least someone like Ward is boring his way to victory over decent fighters (or was before his lay-off).

Klitschko has no great moments to speak of such as Marciano's teetering on the brink before halting Charles and Walcott, Frazier's wonderful win over Ali and his comeback against Bonavena, Holyfield's comebacks against Bowe and then Tyson; Holmes' incredible win over Norton and Lazarus impressions against Shavers and Snipes, Louis's rematch wins over Schmeling and Walcott (two of the better heavyweights of all time). There's more to being great than just numbers.

Add in the fact that Wlad's "dominance" stretches back only two years (plainly he didn't dominate the division when he and his brother split it in two) and there's no real cogent argument for Klitschko's "greatness".

Who gives a F**K about Matt Mcgrain......He watches the same fights we do.................Might as well say Berbick is higher than Wlad because of Ali, Thomas and Tate...

Schmelling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock etc were all sloppy seconds.................

Schmelling had lost to Sharkey.............
Sharkey to Carnera..
Baer to Braddock
Braddock to everybody
Carnera to Baer...

Have as much respect for posters on here as I do Mcgrain and his ilk........

C'mon, Wlad has longevity going for him and that's it.

He has no credible names on his record, Haye is probably his best win ffs!
He seldom refuses to fight away from his comfort zone (geographically)

If there were the like of Lewis/Holy/Bowe around he would have 6/7 losses on his record by now and would be nothing more than an EBU sort of contender. You simply can't elevate a guy who beat a load of stiffs who wouldn't make the top 75 HWs of all time. We should rank based on who they fought, who they beat and so forth. "Oh but he's gone years unbeaten" is all he has and he doesn't make the top 40 HWs in my list.

Coxy001 wrote:C'mon, Wlad has longevity going for him and that's it.

He has no credible names on his record, Haye is probably his best win ffs!
He seldom refuses to fight away from his comfort zone (geographically)

If there were the like of Lewis/Holy/Bowe around he would have 6/7 losses on his record by now and would be nothing more than an EBU sort of contender. You simply can't elevate a guy who beat a load of stiffs who wouldn't make the top 75 HWs of all time. We should rank based on who they fought, who they beat and so forth. "Oh but he's gone years unbeaten" is all he has and he doesn't make the top 40 HWs in my list.

If it was all about names on your record................Norris would be a Top 20 alltime great....

Louis fought sloppy seconds and stiffs until Walcott..His best win was against a supermiddle.

Wlad will be ranked high but he won't make top ten or he might just miss out.

If Lewis and Holmes struggle to make it into the top 10 then Wlad has no chance.

Think Rocky Marciano is always a good reference for this topic. When he retired he was rated seven all time. Now he generally cracks top five, generally top three. The names above him have, with the exception of Louis, generally dropped. Over time one's record is generally stripped down to numbers.

I don't think I've seen Marciano at three in many lists...........

Ali...Louis....Johnson....Foreman...Holmes...Dempsey.........Seems to be the consensus If not always in that order...

Might have been a little kind with top three. But he's more often than not sniffing around top five.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Joe Louis fought 12 men on Matt McGrain's recent 100 greatest heavyweight list. And before the usual suspects start getting their bloomers in a knot: while all lists are fallible and are only one person's (or a small group of people's) opinion(s) (I also don't agree with some of the placings) - it's a decent marker in terms of quality of opposition. The only other heavyweight who defeated more top 100 men was Ali (with 14).

I think Klitschko has 1 if memory serves me right (did Haye miss out?): a dog meat version of Ray Mercer.

Klitschko does boast insane numbers in terms of fights won, KOs scored and alphabet defences, however, this is THE poorest stretch in the division's history. Frown all you like over Louis's competition (and there is some crap on his record) but - as someone else put it once - the men he faced fought their way into contention against other tough fighters. Had they fought today, the likes of Bob Pastor could quite easily been a 25-0 WWE interim champion. Look at Nikolai Valuev - something like 50-2 and a "champion" in some people's view - yet utterly, indisputably useless.

While numbers are one thing, greatness is also defined through performance. Klitschko fights like a man who hates fighting; who's terrified to be hit. His fights are unedifying spectacles where he usually spoils his way to victory over largely inept, far smaller men. At least someone like Ward is boring his way to victory over decent fighters (or was before his lay-off).

Klitschko has no great moments to speak of such as Marciano's teetering on the brink before halting Charles and Walcott, Frazier's wonderful win over Ali and his comeback against Bonavena, Holyfield's comebacks against Bowe and then Tyson; Holmes' incredible win over Norton and Lazarus impressions against Shavers and Snipes, Louis's rematch wins over Schmeling and Walcott (two of the better heavyweights of all time). There's more to being great than just numbers.

Add in the fact that Wlad's "dominance" stretches back only two years (plainly he didn't dominate the division when he and his brother split it in two) and there's no real cogent argument for Klitschko's "greatness".

Who gives a F**K about Matt Mcgrain......He watches the same fights we do.................Might as well say Berbick is higher than Wlad because of Ali, Thomas and Tate...

Schmelling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock etc were all sloppy seconds.................

Schmelling had lost to Sharkey.............
Sharkey to Carnera..
Baer to Braddock
Braddock to everybody
Carnera to Baer...

Have as much respect for posters on here as I do Mcgrain and his ilk........

Fighters used to lose in those days because they all fought one another - often repeatedly and often at short notice. Crazy idea in this day and age I know.

To label them "sloppy seconds" is somewhat short-sighted. Schmeling's decision loss to Sharkey was highly contentious for example. To attempt to link Louis's victory over Schmeling to Berbick's over Ali is astonishing (if not predictable). Carnera won four in a row after Baer, had 80 wins to his credit and was only a year removed from his title reign (Ok it was modest competition but was he suddenly a shot fighter? Where is the evidence for this?).

He dethroned Braddock when Braddock was champion! And then there's Walcott, Baer, Sharkey , Bivins, Pastor, Conn, Godoy, Farr and Lewis. And discredit McGrain all you like but the man gave this some serious research. He may have some odd placings in parts but it's a hell of an attempt at ranking history's big men.

Generally see dempsey higher than Rock...........

But he is in the top 7 generally for sure..

''Everytime I mention Joe Louis someone gotta pull Marciano out day a$$''

In all fairness to Marciano there is no way he should crack top 5.

Rocky benifits from bias as he was a loved popular champion but he is flawed on every level. Great fighter just outside the top 10 for me. Undefeated record means nothing considering the opponants like Cockles and La Stazia.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Joe Louis fought 12 men on Matt McGrain's recent 100 greatest heavyweight list. And before the usual suspects start getting their bloomers in a knot: while all lists are fallible and are only one person's (or a small group of people's) opinion(s) (I also don't agree with some of the placings) - it's a decent marker in terms of quality of opposition. The only other heavyweight who defeated more top 100 men was Ali (with 14).

I think Klitschko has 1 if memory serves me right (did Haye miss out?): a dog meat version of Ray Mercer.

Klitschko does boast insane numbers in terms of fights won, KOs scored and alphabet defences, however, this is THE poorest stretch in the division's history. Frown all you like over Louis's competition (and there is some crap on his record) but - as someone else put it once - the men he faced fought their way into contention against other tough fighters. Had they fought today, the likes of Bob Pastor could quite easily been a 25-0 WWE interim champion. Look at Nikolai Valuev - something like 50-2 and a "champion" in some people's view - yet utterly, indisputably useless.

While numbers are one thing, greatness is also defined through performance. Klitschko fights like a man who hates fighting; who's terrified to be hit. His fights are unedifying spectacles where he usually spoils his way to victory over largely inept, far smaller men. At least someone like Ward is boring his way to victory over decent fighters (or was before his lay-off).

Klitschko has no great moments to speak of such as Marciano's teetering on the brink before halting Charles and Walcott, Frazier's wonderful win over Ali and his comeback against Bonavena, Holyfield's comebacks against Bowe and then Tyson; Holmes' incredible win over Norton and Lazarus impressions against Shavers and Snipes, Louis's rematch wins over Schmeling and Walcott (two of the better heavyweights of all time). There's more to being great than just numbers.

Add in the fact that Wlad's "dominance" stretches back only two years (plainly he didn't dominate the division when he and his brother split it in two) and there's no real cogent argument for Klitschko's "greatness".

Who gives a F**K about Matt Mcgrain......He watches the same fights we do.................Might as well say Berbick is higher than Wlad because of Ali, Thomas and Tate...

Schmelling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock etc were all sloppy seconds.................

Schmelling had lost to Sharkey.............
Sharkey to Carnera..
Baer to Braddock
Braddock to everybody
Carnera to Baer...

Have as much respect for posters on here as I do Mcgrain and his ilk........

Fighters used to lose in those days because they all fought one another - often repeatedly and often at short notice. Crazy idea in this day and age I know.

To label them "sloppy seconds" is somewhat short-sighted. Schmeling's decision loss to Sharkey was highly contentious for example. To attempt to link Louis's victory over Schmeling to Berbick's over Ali is astonishing (if not predictable). Carnera won four in a row after Baer, had 80 wins to his credit and was only a year removed from his title reign (Ok it was modest competition but was he suddenly a shot fighter? Where is the evidence for this?).

He dethroned Braddock when Braddock was champion! And then there's Walcott, Baer, Sharkey , Bivins, Pastor, Conn, Godoy, Farr  and  Lewis. And discredit McGrain all you like but the man gave this some serious research. He may have some odd placings in parts but it's a hell of an attempt at ranking history's big men.

I don't need a history lesson thanks mate.............

Sloppy seconds and Walcott was 1-1............Would have lost twice but for a hail mary...But in fairness he still won...

You don't give Lewis credit for Tyson....But Louis gets plenty for tired ex champions.....No offence but be consistent.

Louis is second on my list but his record isn't as good as people like Foreman..........Lyle, Frazier and Norton...........

Hence he's rated on his dominance and longevity...........

kingraf wrote:Think Rocky Marciano is always a good reference for this topic. When he retired he was rated seven all time. Now he generally cracks top five, generally top three. The names above him have, with the exception of Louis, generally dropped. Over time one's record is generally stripped down to numbers.

Marciano was genuinely great in his own time. Whether or not he'd have been big enough to beat the likes of Klitschko is largely irrelevant (and can neither be proven or disproven). He was a great fighter and a great champion.

Wlad is great in his own time...........Let's be honest....

hazharrison wrote:

kingraf wrote:Think Rocky Marciano is always a good reference for this topic. When he retired he was rated seven all time. Now he generally cracks top five, generally top three. The names above him have, with the exception of Louis, generally dropped. Over time one's record is generally stripped down to numbers.

Marciano was genuinely great in his own time. Whether or not he'd have been big enough to beat the likes of Klitschko is largely irrelevant (and can neither be proven or disproven). He was a great fighter and a great champion.

Rocky does not beat Wlad in any era.

Get real. Marciano struggled with a bath tub like Don Cockles and had to face a L/H (SMW in todays money) in La Stazia TWICE. Wlad would toy with Marciano. Don't get me wrong he was a great champion.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Joe Louis fought 12 men on Matt McGrain's recent 100 greatest heavyweight list. And before the usual suspects start getting their bloomers in a knot: while all lists are fallible and are only one person's (or a small group of people's) opinion(s) (I also don't agree with some of the placings) - it's a decent marker in terms of quality of opposition. The only other heavyweight who defeated more top 100 men was Ali (with 14).

I think Klitschko has 1 if memory serves me right (did Haye miss out?): a dog meat version of Ray Mercer.

Klitschko does boast insane numbers in terms of fights won, KOs scored and alphabet defences, however, this is THE poorest stretch in the division's history. Frown all you like over Louis's competition (and there is some crap on his record) but - as someone else put it once - the men he faced fought their way into contention against other tough fighters. Had they fought today, the likes of Bob Pastor could quite easily been a 25-0 WWE interim champion. Look at Nikolai Valuev - something like 50-2 and a "champion" in some people's view - yet utterly, indisputably useless.

While numbers are one thing, greatness is also defined through performance. Klitschko fights like a man who hates fighting; who's terrified to be hit. His fights are unedifying spectacles where he usually spoils his way to victory over largely inept, far smaller men. At least someone like Ward is boring his way to victory over decent fighters (or was before his lay-off).

Klitschko has no great moments to speak of such as Marciano's teetering on the brink before halting Charles and Walcott, Frazier's wonderful win over Ali and his comeback against Bonavena, Holyfield's comebacks against Bowe and then Tyson; Holmes' incredible win over Norton and Lazarus impressions against Shavers and Snipes, Louis's rematch wins over Schmeling and Walcott (two of the better heavyweights of all time). There's more to being great than just numbers.

Add in the fact that Wlad's "dominance" stretches back only two years (plainly he didn't dominate the division when he and his brother split it in two) and there's no real cogent argument for Klitschko's "greatness".

Who gives a F**K about Matt Mcgrain......He watches the same fights we do.................Might as well say Berbick is higher than Wlad because of Ali, Thomas and Tate...

Schmelling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock etc were all sloppy seconds.................

Schmelling had lost to Sharkey.............
Sharkey to Carnera..
Baer to Braddock
Braddock to everybody
Carnera to Baer...

Have as much respect for posters on here as I do Mcgrain and his ilk........

Fighters used to lose in those days because they all fought one another - often repeatedly and often at short notice. Crazy idea in this day and age I know.

To label them "sloppy seconds" is somewhat short-sighted. Schmeling's decision loss to Sharkey was highly contentious for example. To attempt to link Louis's victory over Schmeling to Berbick's over Ali is astonishing (if not predictable). Carnera won four in a row after Baer, had 80 wins to his credit and was only a year removed from his title reign (Ok it was modest competition but was he suddenly a shot fighter? Where is the evidence for this?).

He dethroned Braddock when Braddock was champion! And then there's Walcott, Baer, Sharkey , Bivins, Pastor, Conn, Godoy, Farr  and  Lewis. And discredit McGrain all you like but the man gave this some serious research. He may have some odd placings in parts but it's a hell of an attempt at ranking history's big men.

I don't need a history lesson thanks mate.............

Sloppy seconds and Walcott was 1-1............Would have lost twice but for a hail mary...But in fairness he still won...

You don't give Lewis credit for Tyson....But Louis gets plenty for tired ex champions.....No offence but be consistent.

Louis is second on my list but his record isn't as good as people like Foreman..........Lyle, Frazier and Norton...........

Hence he's rated on his dominance and longevity...........

Tyson was a mere husk against Lewis. That plainly wasn't the case when Louis fought the men you mentioned (and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise).

And Louis won both Walcott fights. You'd combust if people started saying Floyd was 1-1 with Castillo and Maidana so maybe heed your own advice on consistency.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Wlad is great in his own time...........Let's be honest....

He isn't a great fighter - as you've asserted numerous times yourself.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kingraf wrote:Think Rocky Marciano is always a good reference for this topic. When he retired he was rated seven all time. Now he generally cracks top five, generally top three. The names above him have, with the exception of Louis, generally dropped. Over time one's record is generally stripped down to numbers.

Marciano was genuinely great in his own time. Whether or not he'd have been big enough to beat the likes of Klitschko is largely irrelevant (and can neither be proven or disproven). He was a great fighter and a great champion.

Rocky does not beat Wlad in any era.

Get real. Marciano struggled with a bath tub like Don Cockles and had to face a L/H (SMW in todays money) in La Stazia TWICE. Wlad would toy with Marciano. Don't get me wrong he was a great champion.

You don't know that for sure - no one does. Marciano surely hit as hard as Brewster and was surely as durable?

Bit like the Ali-Louis thread...You can't disprove Louis beats Ali anymore than you can say Kalambay because he was awkward doesn't beat Sugar Ray Robinson....

I mean Roddy believes Louis would take ring center against the big marauding beast known as Foreman and own him with his jab...........Obviously Foreman wouldn't land anything..

I'd pick at least 50 heavies to stop Marciano.............Tua beating him in two....

But he's in my Top 7 because he did the business back in the day..

I like Wlad. He gets beaten down (literally) because of Sanders and his subsequent fighting style. But if he really is as bad as the Sanders fight suggested, then why isn't everyone KO'ing him. Secondly, he really cant be held responsible for the poor quality of fighters below him. Yes there's an argument that the HW boxing division isn't as lucrative because of his and Vitali's dominance, but there are other factors at play there (potential boxers in the US gravitating towards the NFL etc).

His fights may be dull as dishwater but I like him as a person. Plus he's banging Hayden Panettiere so he gets several bonus points for that. I think how history looks back on him depends on what the next generation looks like.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:C'mon, Wlad has longevity going for him and that's it.

He has no credible names on his record, Haye is probably his best win ffs!
He seldom refuses to fight away from his comfort zone (geographically)

If there were the like of Lewis/Holy/Bowe around he would have 6/7 losses on his record by now and would be nothing more than an EBU sort of contender. You simply can't elevate a guy who beat a load of stiffs who wouldn't make the top 75 HWs of all time. We should rank based on who they fought, who they beat and so forth. "Oh but he's gone years unbeaten" is all he has and he doesn't make the top 40 HWs in my list.

If it was all about names on your record................Norris would be a Top 20 alltime great....

Louis fought sloppy seconds and stiffs until Walcott..His best win was against a supermiddle.

Yeah Louis fought total stiffs and sloppy seconds. Dear me. Probably why he's a total shoe-in in most peoples top 10 ATGs and top 3 heavies.

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:I like Wlad. He gets beaten down (literally) because of Sanders and his subsequent fighting style. But if he really is as bad as the Sanders fight suggested, then why isn't everyone KO'ing him. Secondly, he really cant be held responsible for the poor quality of fighters below him. Yes there's an argument that the HW boxing division isn't as lucrative because of his and Vitali's dominance, but there are other factors at play there (potential boxers in the US gravitating towards the NFL etc).

His fights may be dull as dishwater but I like him as a person. Plus he's banging Hayden Panettiere so he gets several bonus points for that. I think how history looks back on him depends on what the next generation looks like.

You've just answered your own question the reason Wlad doesn't get KO'ed is as you mentioned the poor quality of opposition he's been up against.

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:C'mon, Wlad has longevity going for him and that's it.

He has no credible names on his record, Haye is probably his best win ffs!
He seldom refuses to fight away from his comfort zone (geographically)

If there were the like of Lewis/Holy/Bowe around he would have 6/7 losses on his record by now and would be nothing more than an EBU sort of contender. You simply can't elevate a guy who beat a load of stiffs who wouldn't make the top 75 HWs of all time. We should rank based on who they fought, who they beat and so forth. "Oh but he's gone years unbeaten" is all he has and he doesn't make the top 40 HWs in my list.

If it was all about names on your record................Norris would be a Top 20 alltime great....

Louis fought sloppy seconds and stiffs until Walcott..His best win was against a supermiddle.

Yeah Louis fought total stiffs and sloppy seconds. Dear me. Probably why he's a total shoe-in in most peoples top 10 ATGs and top 3 heavies.

I've got him number 2...

Now bore somebody else..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bit like the Ali-Louis thread...You can't disprove Louis beats Ali anymore than you can say Kalambay because he was awkward doesn't beat Sugar Ray Robinson....

I mean Roddy believes Louis would take ring center against the big marauding beast known as Foreman and own him with his jab...........Obviously Foreman wouldn't land anything..

I'd pick at least 50 heavies to stop Marciano.............Tua beating him in two....

But he's in my Top 7 because he did the business back in the day..

I'd suggest that picking David Tua to stop Marciano is equally risible - which is why these things are good for a bit of knock about fun but become pointless when people start asserting they're right and everyone else is an idiot.