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

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 3:28 pm

First topic message reminder :

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 !! Wink

) 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 !!!!!.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 30 Aug 2015, 10:01 pm

Posters are picking Tubbs at his worst and Klit at his best including Hammer who was moaning about others doing it on another thread..

Tubbs wasn't always fat..

Would I pick slob Buster to beat Wlad ? No.

Would I pick Tokyo Buster ?? Yep....

by AdamT Sun 30 Aug 2015, 10:04 pm

I have watched Page. Watched him get knocked out a few times as well.

Clearly remember Ruddock stopping him. Granted he was no spring chicken but still counts.

Did Seldon not beat him as well later on?

by Hammersmith harrier Sun 30 Aug 2015, 10:05 pm

You pick fighters based on their peak years Truss, Tubbs was never a consistently top drawer operator so you have to factor that in not just use a handful of fights when he looked good.

Would I be picking Douglas to beat any top drawer Heavyweight? No because the chances of him turning up in shape and performing to his best are too slim, probably a 1 in 20 chance of that happening.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 30 Aug 2015, 10:30 pm

When I have match ups in my mind I pick guys at their peak powers or what is the point ??..

by Hammersmith harrier Sun 30 Aug 2015, 10:33 pm

During their peak yes but you can't just ignore the shortcomings they showed either side of one off performances.

by AdamT Sun 30 Aug 2015, 10:37 pm

To be fair it is best to judge someone on peak. When I thin of Tyson, I think Biggs,Berbick,Spinks etc. Not Holyfield or Lewis.

Also goes the other way. Wlad has improved tenfold since Sanders and Brewster.

Rubbish to watch, but very effective.

by Atila Mon 31 Aug 2015, 1:04 am

I too try to rate fighters at their peak but not just on one particular performance. I rate them on their peak years.

Page lost to Berbick during his peak years and then lost six more times before he was 30. One of those losses was to Joe Bugner who was past it himself. But yet Page would beat Wlad?

by hazharrison Mon 31 Aug 2015, 1:10 pm

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Who did Page and Tubbs beat to make you think they'd beat Klitschko?
Truss answered your question with regard to Tubbs, Page was a lazy fighter who had 48 stoppages or KO's in his 58 wins, having said that, who has Klitschko beat to make you think he beats Tubbs and Page.

He didn't answer my question, he proved my point. A best win over Bonecrusher Smith is hardly great evidence for the pair beating Klitschko. Page and Tubbs were Hasim Rahman quality. Klitschko's record is littered with opponents of that standard.

Page and Tubbs were far superior fighters than Rahman. Rahman was a distinctly average heavyweight who threw one great punch. Klitschko fought a Rahman 20 pounds above his fighting weight and after he'd been obliterated by Lewis (before losing to a creaking Holyfield, Ruiz and Maskaev). He was cooked by that point and devoid of ambition.

by Mayweathers cellmate Mon 31 Aug 2015, 2:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Who did Page and Tubbs beat to make you think they'd beat Klitschko?
Truss answered your question with regard to Tubbs, Page was a lazy fighter who had 48 stoppages or KO's in his 58 wins, having said that, who has Klitschko beat to make you think he beats Tubbs and Page.

He didn't answer my question, he proved my point. A best win over Bonecrusher Smith is hardly great evidence for the pair beating Klitschko. Page and Tubbs were Hasim Rahman quality. Klitschko's record is littered with opponents of that standard.

Page was Hasim Rahman quality....That's why Larry gave up the belt was it..

Go and troll somewhere else....

You're saying Tony Tubbs beats Klitschko and think I'm trolling..lol. What next? Bugner to beat Wlad.

by Mayweathers cellmate Mon 31 Aug 2015, 2:35 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Who did Page and Tubbs beat to make you think they'd beat Klitschko?
Truss answered your question with regard to Tubbs, Page was a lazy fighter who had 48 stoppages or KO's in his 58 wins, having said that, who has Klitschko beat to make you think he beats Tubbs and Page.

He didn't answer my question, he proved my point. A best win over Bonecrusher Smith is hardly great evidence for the pair beating Klitschko. Page and Tubbs were Hasim Rahman quality. Klitschko's record is littered with opponents of that standard.

Page and Tubbs were far superior fighters than Rahman. Rahman was a distinctly average heavyweight who threw one great punch. Klitschko fought a Rahman 20 pounds above his fighting weight and after he'd been obliterated by Lewis (before losing to a creaking Holyfield, Ruiz and Maskaev). He was cooked by that point and devoid of ambition.

Do you really want me to list Page's and Tubbs losses? They were average fighters in a dire HW division. At least Rahman beat someone.

by Nico the gman Mon 31 Aug 2015, 2:36 pm

When matching fighters it stands to reason you must take fighters at their peak, Page and Tubbs at their peak were good quality fighters, Klitschko is a good quality fighter.

by Mayweathers cellmate Mon 31 Aug 2015, 2:47 pm

Klitschko was excellent. Tubbs and Page were decent. They are levels apart.

by righthookrick Mon 31 Aug 2015, 2:50 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Louis just like Wlad, Marciano, Dempsey and almost every Heavyweight champion besides the 70's and early 90's lot fought in a truly awful division devoid of great opposition. Unsurprisingly the American trio and each of them has almost god like status are rated far beyond their opposition should allow them to be.

Marciano was not a great fighter by any stretch of the imagination without that 49-0 record he would be a mere footnote in Heavyweight history but somehow finds himself a consensus top ten Heavyweight. He did beat the biggest names of his era but I would argue he didn't face the best Heavyweights of his era, when they include Nino Valdes you know the era isn't up to much. The issue with Marciano is how impressive his record looks on paper; Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore, you'd be hard pushed to find any Heavyweight with better named victories but they were either past their best, above their best weight of a combination of the two. McGrain however has him at number three, do me a favour.

The same is also true of Dempsey but he was a better boxer and gets rated highly for his aggressive nature, again though his actual record is poor and the colour line makes it difficult for me to rate him.

Louis is deserving of his number two ranking but that is purely down to longevity because his opposition was pretty dire with the odd exception and I personally think there's a lot of subsequent Heavyweights who beat him.

Wlad beats both Marciano and Dempsey with relative ease, they're simply too small and a very good powerful 250lber isn't losing to a 190lber who doesn't have a great defence. They may have been great in their own eras which they were but it's now 2015 the sport and more specifically the division has moved on since the 50's, it's probably about time it's fans did too.

I remember when you used to post under the alias imperialghosty and you would slaughter anyone who picked Klitschko to beat any other top fighter.

You claimed Marciano would beat him quickly and easily and that Jersey Joe Walcott was a bigger puncher than Klitschko. Also remember you picking Marciano to knock Tyson out.

Check out these threads where you argue the total opposite.

Completely hypocritical

https://www.606v2.com/t10664p50-did-marciano-s-retirement-deny-patterson-greatness

https://www.606v2.com/t8649-rocky-marciano

https://www.606v2.com/t1731-rocky-marciano-knockout-power

by Nico the gman Mon 31 Aug 2015, 2:54 pm

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Klitschko was excellent. Tubbs and Page were decent. They are levels apart.

That's your opinion, IMO they're not levels apart, Klitschko's a good fighter( nothing special) in the poorest Heavyweight era I can remember, that's not Klitschko's fault or problem.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Aug 2015, 3:36 pm

Times move on and opinions change Rick.

by AdamT Mon 31 Aug 2015, 3:42 pm

Didn't realize you were Ghosty Hammer.
remember reading your stuff in old days.

by kingraf Mon 31 Aug 2015, 4:53 pm

I think The real miracle in this thread came from Hammer calling Wladimir a very good fighter.

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 31 Aug 2015, 4:59 pm

Getting wise in his old age.

by Mayweathers cellmate Mon 31 Aug 2015, 5:14 pm

Nico the gman wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Klitschko was excellent. Tubbs and Page were decent. They are levels apart.
That's your opinion, IMO they're not levels apart, Klitschko's a good fighter( nothing special) in the poorest Heavyweight era I can remember, that's not Klitschko's fault or problem.

I'm sorry but you don't dominate the HW division for 10 years by being "nothing special." Klitschko was special, just a bit boring.

by Nico the gman Mon 31 Aug 2015, 5:39 pm

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Klitschko was excellent. Tubbs and Page were decent. They are levels apart.
That's your opinion, IMO they're not levels apart, Klitschko's a good fighter( nothing special) in the poorest Heavyweight era I can remember, that's not Klitschko's fault or problem.

I'm sorry but you don't dominate the HW division for 10 years by being "nothing special." Klitschko was special, just a bit boring.

Dominating a substandard division doesn't make you special, just a cut well above the dross your fighting.

We are never going to agree on this, I would never call Klitschko rubbish (good fighter), but I just don't rate him as highly as you and some others on here.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Aug 2015, 5:47 pm

That would be an understandable viewpoint to have Nico if Dempsey, Marciano and Louis weren't rated so highly for dominating dire divisions themselves.

by Atila Mon 31 Aug 2015, 5:56 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That would be an understandable viewpoint to have Nico if Dempsey, Marciano and Louis weren't rated so highly for dominating dire divisions themselves.

Was Louis' era so dire? I mean, he didn't get stripped like Ali so there was no way for another fighter to win the title and build themselves up like Frazier did. There were no split titles, so no unification fights. Louis just had one singular reign and he dominated his division and beat contenders so often they termed the phrase 'Bum of the Month Club' but they weren't actually bums.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 31 Aug 2015, 6:33 pm

Aside from Schmeling and Walcott I think the era was fairly dire, he like Wlad could only beat what was in front of him and it did constitute the best available but the division has always been awful with the odd exception here and there.

by hazharrison Mon 31 Aug 2015, 6:49 pm

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Klitschko was excellent. Tubbs and Page were decent. They are levels apart.
That's your opinion, IMO they're not levels apart, Klitschko's a good fighter( nothing special) in the poorest Heavyweight era I can remember, that's not Klitschko's fault or problem.

I'm sorry but you don't dominate the HW division for 10 years by being "nothing special." Klitschko was special, just a bit boring.

He hasn't dominated for 10 years. He split the division in half with his brother. He only beat the next best man two years back (Povetkin). He's a good heavyweight but he isn't special (and isn't a great fighter).

by hazharrison Mon 31 Aug 2015, 6:52 pm

Atila wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:That would be an understandable viewpoint to have Nico if Dempsey, Marciano and Louis weren't rated so highly for dominating dire divisions themselves.
Was Louis' era so dire? I mean, he didn't get stripped like Ali so there was no way for another fighter to win the title and build themselves up like Frazier did. There were no split titles, so no unification fights. Louis just had one singular reign and he dominated his division and beat contenders so often they termed the phrase 'Bum of the Month Club' but they weren't actually bums.

It wasn't great but Louis beat far better men than Klitschko (Schmeling, Baer, Carnera, Braddock, Sharkey and Walcott were all THE heavyweight champion of the world at one point or another).

by Coxy001 Mon 31 Aug 2015, 8:02 pm

Truss, you can't pick on one peak performance you numpti. Douglas was average and showed up Iron Mike Hypejob, plain and simple. Otherwise we should be saying McCall would spark Frazier due to the Hail Mary he landed on Lewis.

Cue non witty 'go away' reply devoid of any intelligence

by Mayweathers cellmate Tue 01 Sep 2015, 2:13 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Klitschko was excellent. Tubbs and Page were decent. They are levels apart.
That's your opinion, IMO they're not levels apart, Klitschko's a good fighter( nothing special) in the poorest Heavyweight era I can remember, that's not Klitschko's fault or problem.

I'm sorry but you don't dominate the HW division for 10 years by being "nothing special." Klitschko was special, just a bit boring.

He hasn't dominated for 10 years. He split the division in half with his brother. He only beat the next best man two years back (Povetkin). He's a good heavyweight but he isn't special (and isn't a great fighter).

Vitali was only active for 4 years of WK's 11 year reign. Wlad is the most dominant champion in Boxing today. Problem Wlad had is that he's too keen to face the best ranked opposition. He never gave contenders enough time to build their profile up, except Haye and Povetkin to a degree. The division is seen as poor because Wlad is so good it's uncompetitive. When Wlad retires and lesser but more evenly matched fighters (Fury/Wilder/Joshua) take over suddenly it will be seen as 'better'.

by AdamT Tue 01 Sep 2015, 2:16 pm

Wlad is lucky he doesn't have fighters like, Braddock, Galento and the monster Billy Conn around. He would never of held a strap.

by Rowley Tue 01 Sep 2015, 2:31 pm

Can I just point something out that seems to get overlooked a little here. Billy Conn could fight, and then some. Am not saying he was a monster at heavyweight, as clearly he wasn’t but to read some of the comments on here you would think he was the Billy Gunn of his era. He was and remains one of the greatest light heavies of all time and had wins over the likes of Pastor and Savold prior to facing Louis. He was no slouch and should not be categorised as such, even by inference.

by AdamT Tue 01 Sep 2015, 2:37 pm

Yeah he was a good little guy.

by Mayweathers cellmate Tue 01 Sep 2015, 2:39 pm

AdamT wrote:Wlad is lucky he doesn't have fighters like, Braddock, Galento and the monster Billy Conn around. He would never of held a strap.

Anyone who can 'bob and weave' like the old school'ers can beat the K's. Surprised no ones thought of trying it yet.

by AdamT Tue 01 Sep 2015, 2:41 pm

Louis and Marciano would beat both brothers at the same time.

by hazharrison Tue 01 Sep 2015, 2:59 pm

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Klitschko was excellent. Tubbs and Page were decent. They are levels apart.
That's your opinion, IMO they're not levels apart, Klitschko's a good fighter( nothing special) in the poorest Heavyweight era I can remember, that's not Klitschko's fault or problem.

I'm sorry but you don't dominate the HW division for 10 years by being "nothing special." Klitschko was special, just a bit boring.

He hasn't dominated for 10 years. He split the division in half with his brother. He only beat the next best man two years back (Povetkin). He's a good heavyweight but he isn't special (and isn't a great fighter).

Vitali was only active for 4 years of WK's 11 year reign. Wlad is the most dominant champion in Boxing today. Problem Wlad had is that he's too keen to face the best ranked opposition. He never gave contenders enough time to build their profile up, except Haye and Povetkin to a degree. The division is seen as poor because Wlad is so good it's uncompetitive. When Wlad retires and lesser but more evenly matched fighters (Fury/Wilder/Joshua) take over suddenly it will be seen as 'better'.

He only became a dominant champion after his brother departed and he settled the argument with Povetkin. He was a titlist, like his brother, before that.

The division is poor because the fighters are poor. Wilder looks like one of the weakest alphabet titlists in history (which is some feat considering some of the fighters who picked up belts in the 90s).

by hazharrison Tue 01 Sep 2015, 3:00 pm

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
AdamT wrote:Wlad is lucky he doesn't have fighters like, Braddock, Galento and the monster Billy Conn around. He would never of held a strap.

Anyone who can 'bob and weave' like the old school'ers can beat the K's. Surprised no ones thought of trying it yet.

Dereck Chisora had a go and gave Vitali one of his toughest fights. That's Dereck. Chisora.

by AdamT Tue 01 Sep 2015, 3:07 pm

Yeah that was Vitali at his peak Haz.

Unlike other super fighters from the past, Vitali was never dropped by fat c..ts and bums.

by hazharrison Tue 01 Sep 2015, 3:15 pm

Rowley wrote:Can I just point something out that seems to get overlooked a little here. Billy Conn could fight, and then some. Am not saying he was a monster at heavyweight, as clearly he wasn’t but to read some of the comments on here you would think he was the Billy Gunn of his era. He was and remains one of the greatest light heavies of all time and had wins over the likes of Pastor and Savold prior to facing Louis. He was no slouch and should not be categorised as such, even by inference.

Cracking points. He was the only man (outside of Louis) to stop Pastor - an outstanding display.

Sadly, Conn's display against Louis is seen as a stick to beat Joe with on here, rather than one that boosts Conn's reputation.

by hazharrison Tue 01 Sep 2015, 3:24 pm

AdamT wrote:Yeah that was Vitali at his peak Haz.

Unlike other super fighters from the past, Vitali was never dropped by fat c..ts and bums.

And presumably a younger, less experienced version would have coped with Chisora's style?

by AdamT Tue 01 Sep 2015, 3:26 pm

He would of knocked him out in a few rounds. You do know Vitali took a few years off, then came back as champion in his first fight back?

He hardly lost a round in a few years. As bad as the divison was, Vitali was a good, tough fighter.

Both brothers are badly underrated.

by Nico the gman Tue 01 Sep 2015, 4:52 pm

AdamT wrote:He would of knocked him out in a few rounds. You do know Vitali took a few years off, then came back as champion in his first fight back?

He hardly lost a round in a few years. As bad as the divison was, Vitali was a good, tough fighter.

Both brothers are badly underrated.

Not on here if anything both brothers are vastly overrated, 2 Heavyweight all time greats on here.

by Rowley Tue 01 Sep 2015, 4:58 pm

What would we say you need to acheive to be considered an all time great in your division, top ten, top twenty? Am not suggesting I know the answer but before we laugh at the idea of them being considered all time greats it might be useful to define the term.

by **ShahenshahG** Tue 01 Sep 2015, 5:06 pm

Also strange for anyone to think that anyone thinks they are ATG on a thread where their status and ability has been hotly debated.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 01 Sep 2015, 5:48 pm

Rowley wrote:Can I just point something out that seems to get overlooked a little here. Billy Conn could fight, and then some. Am not saying he was a monster at heavyweight, as clearly he wasn’t but to read some of the comments on here you would think he was the Billy Gunn of his era. He was and remains one of the greatest light heavies of all time and had wins over the likes of Pastor and Savold prior to facing Louis. He was no slouch and should not be categorised as such, even by inference.

You're seeing things that aren't there !!!.......Everyone has the highest regard for Conn..

BUT HE WAS 168 pounds.............31 pounds lighter..

I love Arguello but I don't fancy his chances against Hearns at Jr middle......Do you ???

by hazharrison Tue 01 Sep 2015, 6:02 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rowley wrote:Can I just point something out that seems to get overlooked a little here. Billy Conn could fight, and then some. Am not saying he was a monster at heavyweight, as clearly he wasn’t but to read some of the comments on here you would think he was the Billy Gunn of his era. He was and remains one of the greatest light heavies of all time and had wins over the likes of Pastor and Savold prior to facing Louis. He was no slouch and should not be categorised as such, even by inference.

You're seeing things that aren't there !!!.......Everyone has the highest regard for Conn..

BUT HE WAS 168 pounds.............31 pounds lighter..

I love Arguello but I don't fancy his chances against Hearns at Jr middle......Do you ???

He was 174 and 182 in the two bouts with Louis. He was outweighed by 25 lbs each time. If you're going to quote numbers might as well consult BoxRec.

by Mayweathers cellmate Tue 01 Sep 2015, 6:22 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
AdamT wrote:Wlad is lucky he doesn't have fighters like, Braddock, Galento and the monster Billy Conn around. He would never of held a strap.

Anyone who can 'bob and weave' like the old school'ers can beat the K's. Surprised no ones thought of trying it yet.

Dereck Chisora had a go and gave Vitali one of his toughest fights. That's Dereck. Chisora.

Chisora won 2 rounds vs VK. And that's an old Vitali who tore a shoulder ligament early on.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 01 Sep 2015, 6:26 pm

What are you bringing the second Louis bout up for ?????....

He was a podgy waste...

168 according to most sources I've read.......But I'm not going to argue the toss too much....

If Boxrec were always right they wouldn't have been sued by Warren so much and lost !!!...

Anyway don't argue with me Haz...........No time for you..

by hazharrison Tue 01 Sep 2015, 6:37 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What are you bringing the second Louis bout up for ?????....

He was a podgy waste...

168 according to most sources I've read.......But I'm not going to argue the toss too much....

If Boxrec were always right they wouldn't have been sued by Warren so much and lost !!!...

Anyway don't argue with me Haz...........No time for you..

I'm not arguing, just putting you right (as usual).

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 01 Sep 2015, 6:39 pm

Let's not argue dear boy..........

Anyone who has Johnson number 7 in his list and Mayweather nowhere near the Top 10 because "he is a cherrypicker...."

Is way out of my league.... Cool

...

I'm not a "Hopkins fan" by the way !! laughing

by Rowley Tue 01 Sep 2015, 6:44 pm

Conn was 174 in the first bout, according to the biography I have on him. He was certainly announced in the ring at that weight.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 01 Sep 2015, 6:52 pm

Rowley wrote:Can I just point something out that seems to get overlooked a little here. Billy Conn could fight, and then some. Am not saying he was a monster at heavyweight, as clearly he wasn’t but to read some of the comments on here you would think he was the Billy Gunn of his era. He was and remains one of the greatest light heavies of all time and had wins over the likes of Pastor and Savold prior to facing Louis. He was no slouch and should not be categorised as such, even by inference.

Conn was a great Light Heavyweight but he was far too small for Heavyweight, Povetkin beating Chagaev and Perez wouldn't be lauded so at the same beating Pastor and Savold is equally as insignificant.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 01 Sep 2015, 6:53 pm

168 in the films I've seen.......Jeffrey.

But hey you're closer to being a journalist than me..... thumbsup

Then again you were cheaply suggesting people on here didn't rate Conn to make a point before... so I'll hold firm..

Off home now......No worries....

Agree to disagree..

by Sponsored content