A little perspective on hang a Klit day !!!!

Would Jack Johnson have lost to Willard If he was 26 instead of 36...............Nope.

Would Ali have lost Spinks If he was 26 instead of 36.....................Nope.

Would Louis have lost to Charles if he was 26 instead of 36..............Nope.

Would Holmes have lost to Spinks If he was 25 and not 35............Nope...

Those guys are all top 5 heavies....................

Wlad is 3/4 years older than them........

Let's not go over the top on Wlad.......

A great career and in a results orientated business a high achiever...

Not as high as Tyson, Lewis, Holy for me but not far off.....

While Johnson had undoubtedly passed his prime the fight still went 26 rounds, so perhaps that might suggest he wasn't as shot as you make out? Who's to say that booming right hand from Willard didn't push him into retirement? How do we know for certain, he wouldn't have carried on fighting if he had beaten Willard?

Nice to see you defending Wlad though for a change.....

Only ever said he was bad for the sport.....

Never said he wasn't a top heavy....

Herman Jaeger wrote:While Johnson had undoubtedly passed his prime the fight still went 26 rounds, so perhaps that might suggest he wasn't as shot as you make out? Who's to say that booming right hand from Willard didn't push him into retirement? How do we know for certain, he wouldn't have carried on fighting if he had beaten Willard?

He did carry on fighting.

Rowley wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:While Johnson had undoubtedly passed his prime the fight still went 26 rounds, so perhaps that might suggest he wasn't as shot as you make out? Who's to say that booming right hand from Willard didn't push him into retirement? How do we know for certain, he wouldn't have carried on fighting if he had beaten Willard?

He did carry on fighting.

I just checked his record, you're not wrong there, Jeff

Apparently Wlad isn't a top 20 heavy either...

He can't name 20 heavyweight champions but that's by the by...

I don't think Wayne rooney is a top 20 alltime English soccer player...Not that I can name 20 great ones !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Apparently Wlad isn't a top 20 heavy either...

He can't name 20 heavyweight champions but that's by the by...

I don't think Wayne rooney is a top 20 alltime English soccer player...Not that I can name 20 great ones !!

Yeah you're right Truss, I can't name 20 heavyweight champions. Even without the aid of the internet...


As for Rooney, well I was calling for his England inclusion when he was seventeen. A great player.

Can't expect you to have heard of Tom Finney Truss?

No, thought not.

Would a ten years younger Klitschko have fared any better? Age tends to go out of the window these days with all of the elixirs available to fighters - look at Mayweather, Hopkins, Marquez etc.

Wlad was Wlad on Saturday. The same old guy he's been for a decade.

He probably belongs 11-20 (probably more 15-20) but his heavyweight championship (rather than title) reign reads something like:

Povetkin (wins championship)
Leapai
Pulev
Jennings

Think we can assume you aren't at your best at 39......

But one can't prove he wins If he was younger...Only hazard a guess.

It looked like the same Wlad as normal to me on Saturday.

No signs of diminishment, unfair on Fury to suggest otherwise. Wlad was bouncing around like a teenager. Just didn't have the skills.

Lots of things PEDs can do for you. However once your Forced Expiratory Volume goes there's not really much you can do. More than his tactics or Fury being the second coming, its how bad he was huffing and puffing five rounds in that worries me in a rematch. Scinece says unless he prepared poorly, that doesn't improve in six months.

11 years ago he lost to Lamon Brewster.

It's a fair argument trussy. I think the thing with Wlad... and we'll never know the answer for sure... is did he just come up with a rigid strategy that was extremely effectively against smaller men and worked pretty well against immobile big lumps too.

But it was one trick pony stuff and faced with a mobile man of similar size...  the anti-dote... there was no plan B.

Now, a hell of a lot of fighters are one trick ponies, its often just a damn good trick... and almost every great fighter met a relatively average one that gave them fits.

Style? Age? Bit of both? All conjecture.


Whatever physical advantages fury had, a lot of credit has to go to team fury for nullifying the wlad jab. I've rated fury more than most, but felt he didn't have a killer advantage he'd be able to use to win the fight but he did and it was largely between the ears of all places!

milkyboy wrote:It's a fair argument trussy. I think the thing with Wlad... and we'll never know the answer for sure... is did he just come up with a rigid strategy that was extremely effectively against smaller men and worked pretty well against immobile big lumps too.

But it was one trick pony stuff and faced with a mobile man of similar size...  the anti-dote... there was no plan B.

Now, a hell of a lot of fighters are one trick ponies, its often just a damn good trick... and almost every great fighter met a relatively average one that gave them fits.

Style? Age? Bit of both? All conjecture.


Whatever physical advantages fury had, a lot of credit has to go to team fury for nullifying the wlad jab. I've rated fury more than most, but felt he didn't have a killer advantage he'd be able to use to win the fight but he did and it was largely between the ears of all places!

Plus..

You get all little aches and pains you didn't get in your 20s.......Harder to motivate yourself...You resent being away from your family as much......You don't need to work because you're already rich...

kingraf wrote:Lots of things PEDs can do for you. However once your Forced Expiratory Volume goes there's not really much you can do. More than his tactics or Fury being the second coming,  its how bad he was huffing and puffing five rounds in that worries me in a rematch. Scinece says unless he prepared poorly, that doesn't improve in six months.

Klitschko was huffing and puffing after 3 rounds vs Brewster. He couldn't dictate the pace vs Fury because his jab and grab didn't work.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:It's a fair argument trussy. I think the thing with Wlad... and we'll never know the answer for sure... is did he just come up with a rigid strategy that was extremely effectively against smaller men and worked pretty well against immobile big lumps too.

But it was one trick pony stuff and faced with a mobile man of similar size...  the anti-dote... there was no plan B.

Now, a hell of a lot of fighters are one trick ponies, its often just a damn good trick... and almost every great fighter met a relatively average one that gave them fits.

Style? Age? Bit of both? All conjecture.


Whatever physical advantages fury had, a lot of credit has to go to team fury for nullifying the wlad jab. I've rated fury more than most, but felt he didn't have a killer advantage he'd be able to use to win the fight but he did and it was largely between the ears of all places!

Plus..

You get all little aches and pains you didn't get in your 20s.......Harder to motivate yourself...You resent being away from your family as much......You don't need to work because you're already rich...

enough about me mate, what about wlad

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

kingraf wrote:Lots of things PEDs can do for you. However once your Forced Expiratory Volume goes there's not really much you can do. More than his tactics or Fury being the second coming,  its how bad he was huffing and puffing five rounds in that worries me in a rematch. Scinece says unless he prepared poorly, that doesn't improve in six months.

Klitschko was huffing and puffing after 3 rounds vs Brewster. He couldn't dictate the pace vs Fury because his jab and grab didn't work.

that fight had infinitely more action in the first three rounds than this one.

Funny you should mention perspective Truss, I thought he same thing when I saw some of the comments. Lets not pretend the man didn't absolutely own everyone in the Heavyweight division for over a decade. There was nobody even close until Fury showed that father time catches us all. People saying it was the same Wlad - I beg to differ. The best Wlad we've seen in recent years was when he absolutely dominated Haye. He was fast, sharp, accurate and overall I feel that version of Wlad beats Fury 9/10.

But that was 4 years ago, also the size difference is something Wlad has depended on for some time. He's fought with his physical gifts and they've just been too much for eveyone who stepped up until Fury. Wlad has had some absolute stinkers lately, signs that he's not the same man that made Haye look so poor. Against Wach and Povetkin he looked poor. Almost as if he was coming to the end of his ability to dominate with skill, his size was becoming his crutch.

Step in Fury, bigger than Wlad. Something he hadn't faced before. He couldn't use his size. He had to go back to skill. I wouldn't be surprised if he arrogantly assumed his skill would be enough to take the "rough around the edges" Fury. Unfortunately he wasn't expecting what Fury had and succumbed to it. He was a great champion, he was by far the best for a LONG time, reigned supreme, made heavyweight boxing big in areas it wasn't previously (Germany) - had international appeal and made a truckload of money while he was at it.

We can't bash Klit - time caught him and he lost his ability to be "the better boxer" some time within the last 4 years. I'm not saying Fury is a better boxer than Wlad, but he managed to confound Wlad into not boxing at all really. Stunning stuff.

kingraf wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

kingraf wrote:Lots of things PEDs can do for you. However once your Forced Expiratory Volume goes there's not really much you can do. More than his tactics or Fury being the second coming,  its how bad he was huffing and puffing five rounds in that worries me in a rematch. Scinece says unless he prepared poorly, that doesn't improve in six months.

Klitschko was huffing and puffing after 3 rounds vs Brewster. He couldn't dictate the pace vs Fury because his jab and grab didn't work.

that fight had infinitely more action in the first three rounds than this one.

Don't think Klitschko was that gassed. He came on quite strong in the 12th. If anything Fury looked more out of puff by the end.

He came on about as strong as a geriatrics fart in the twelfth.

kingraf wrote:He came on about as strong as a geriatrics fart in the twelfth.

For modern Klitschko that's quite strong.

He has four losses now that make it pretty hard to make a case for him being a great fighter (very few genuinely impressive wins). Its geniunely hard to know if Klitschko would have fared any better if he was younger, such was the plodding mechanical nature of his reign. He put in one of the best performances of his career not long before against Pulev. I reckon a younger Klitschko pre Steward might have actually had a better shot against Fury than the manufactured version later.

I think the gist of the Fury v Klitschko fight was a massively underrated fighter fighting a massively overrated fighter.

catchweight wrote:He has four losses now that make it pretty hard to make a case for him being a great fighter (very few genuinely impressive wins). Its geniunely hard to know if Klitschko would have fared any better if he was younger, such was the plodding mechanical nature of his reign. He put in one of the best performances of his career not long before against Pulev. I reckon a younger Klitschko pre Steward might have actually had a better shot against Fury than the manufactured version later.

I think the gist of the Fury v Klitschko fight was a massively underrated fighter fighting a massively overrated fighter.

Holyfield, Tyson, Ali, Holmes, Dempsey, Corbett, Charles, Walcott, Foreman, Frazier..............Might as well rule them out If four defeats is the line..Include Louis too If you want to chuck in the Walcott robbery..

Im not ruling anybody in or out. I have watched Klitschko his whole career. He is not a great fighter. Most of the guys on your list have wins and performances that dont leave their quality up for debate. Klitschko has statistics.

It's all statistics at the end of the day; Dempsey, Corbett, Marciano, Walcott, Charles and a few other accepted great heavyweights have very little to their record. Marciano is the one that gets me, his best win came against an over the hill former middleweight yet we are to assume he's great but not a guy who was champion for 10 years and 19 defences.

I argued with Az for the sake of arguing over Marciano but the more you think about it the more he was actually right, if he wasn't white just like Dempsey neither would be considered great.

Arguing for the sake arguing. Ok.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's all statistics at the end of the day; Dempsey, Corbett, Marciano, Walcott, Charles and a few other accepted great heavyweights have very little to their record. Marciano is the one that gets me, his best win came against an over the hill former middleweight yet we are to assume he's great but not a guy who was champion for 10 years and 19 defences.

I argued with Az for the sake of arguing over Marciano but the more you think about it the more he was actually right, if he wasn't white just like Dempsey neither would be considered great.

Absolute nonsense. Marciano was a great fighter, of course he was. He knocked them out early, late, got up to win, came back from the brink of being stopped, took an inhuman amount of punishment yet showed the will, determination and fighting heart to prevail. He was a wonderful fighter. Charles and Walcott are top twenty heavyweights - those victories are vastly underrated and a million miles away from David bloody Haye and the Chagaev's of this world.

Marciano was great. Klitschko was not. There's nothing in his makeup or record to suggest otherwise.

He's a great fighter because we're told he's a great fighter, he has no wins of any real substance, oh but he beat Charles and Walcott, is greatness proved against small old men now. Those wins aren't under-rated at all, their significance is blown out of all proportion just because it's Marciano, how much credit does Frazier get for beating Foster, not a lot and why's that oh yes he was a light heavyweight. No other Heavyweight would be getting such high praise for that sort of record.

Didnt another poster point out that you said Walcott and Charles punched harder thn Klitschko and that Wlad wouldnt go 6 rounds with Marciano?

Or was that just arguing for the sake of arguing again?

You have to admit there is a bias against modern fighters.....

Dempsey is generally top 6 and Tyson isn't top 10....

Tyson has more defences and a better record..

I dont really care about ranking fighters. Its all a bit pointless. Tyson as a fighter at his peak was unquestionable a great heavyweight fighter. Possibly the best I have seen. Klitschko? No way. Struggled to impress against some really ordinary heavyweights. A two and half punch repetiore. No inside game. No body punching. Suspect stamina. 1 dimension. He isnt much better than Frank Bruno.

The best fighters don't always become great......

Some fighters fight at a tougher time....Lyle etc...

He seized the moment and ruled for 9 years......It's enough.

Marciano was a great fighter and whether we like it or not, so is Wlad. Would he be a great in any other era?

Maybe, maybe not. You can only rate a man on what he has done in his own time.

catchweight wrote:I dont really care about ranking fighters. Its all a bit pointless. Tyson as a fighter at his peak was unquestionable a great heavyweight fighter. Possibly the best I have seen. Klitschko? No way. Struggled to impress against some really ordinary heavyweights. A two and half punch repetiore. No inside game. No body punching. Suspect stamina. 1 dimension. He isnt much better than Frank Bruno.

Whoa there, whoa there. Are you dissing frank?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The best fighters don't always become great......

Some fighters fight at a tougher time....Lyle etc...

He seized the moment and ruled for 9 years......It's enough.

I wouldnt argue that. I am merely talking about his actual ability as a fighter. A middling contender in the 80s and 90s for me.

milkyboy wrote:

catchweight wrote:I dont really care about ranking fighters. Its all a bit pointless. Tyson as a fighter at his peak was unquestionable a great heavyweight fighter. Possibly the best I have seen. Klitschko? No way. Struggled to impress against some really ordinary heavyweights. A two and half punch repetiore. No inside game. No body punching. Suspect stamina. 1 dimension. He isnt much better than Frank Bruno.

Whoa there, whoa there. Are you dissing frank?

I was trying to be generous to Klitschko.

I'm going to agree with TRUSS to some extent. When I was younger I thought I'd be able to maintain the physical level I was at well into middle age and beyond. It was just a question of dedication in my mind and I thought I had it. Now I'm approaching 40 I get it. The mental and physical sides to your game both just slip over time. It's almost as though your aware of it but at the same time you still kid yourself.

There's little chance Wlad was at his best on Saturday, however, part of me does wonder if a guy like Fury would always have given him fits. Leaves a ? for me but I'll cut him some slack for his age.

Hang a klit lol

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's all statistics at the end of the day; Dempsey, Corbett, Marciano, Walcott, Charles and a few other accepted great heavyweights have very little to their record. Marciano is the one that gets me, his best win came against an over the hill former middleweight yet we are to assume he's great but not a guy who was champion for 10 years and 19 defences.

I argued with Az for the sake of arguing over Marciano but the more you think about it the more he was actually right, if he wasn't white just like Dempsey neither would be considered great.

Absolute nonsense. Marciano was a great fighter, of course he was. He knocked them out early, late, got up to win, came back from the brink of being stopped, took an inhuman amount of punishment yet showed the will, determination and fighting heart to prevail. He was a wonderful fighter. Charles and Walcott are top twenty heavyweights - those victories are vastly underrated and a million miles away from David bloody Haye and the Chagaev's of this world.

Marciano was great. Klitschko was not. There's nothing in his makeup or record to suggest otherwise.

Now while I'm not going to argue for or against Marciano as a great fighter, you could have written this about Froch who on another thread you said was not a great fighter, a fighter that appears to have a better resume than Marciano albeit 2 losses, but is not a great one.

The difference is that those other guys have some good wins.

A highlights video of Wlad consists of him staggering around the win and Haye whinging about his toe.

You just wonder if he'd have kept this reign for so long had referees not been far too lenient.

History will still be pretty kind I think but he's always been a limited fighter. Has done well with it though.

My history will not be so kind to him, one of the most boring fighters I have ever watched to hold a world title. Lets hope there is no rematch and that he retires.

I think the thing with wlad is, when he first came on the scene, he was Seen as the talented boxer of the two klits. Before he got flattened he Demonstrated power and a bit of ability.

After he got flattened, manny developed a strategy to protect his whiskers... He has the ability but not the belief/courage whatever you want to call it. He steps in a boxing ring, and came back from those defeats so he doesn't lack heart... I think it's more a case of he's won for years without hanging his chin out and he either doesn't know how anymore or he just has that mental block or gunshyness that stops him 
From letting his hands go.

As for chucking lead right hands, I think there's an element of confidence to that... If you can't hit a guy with a jab, how do you expect to hit him with a punch  travelling further.

sohotnot wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's all statistics at the end of the day; Dempsey, Corbett, Marciano, Walcott, Charles and a few other accepted great heavyweights have very little to their record. Marciano is the one that gets me, his best win came against an over the hill former middleweight yet we are to assume he's great but not a guy who was champion for 10 years and 19 defences.

I argued with Az for the sake of arguing over Marciano but the more you think about it the more he was actually right, if he wasn't white just like Dempsey neither would be considered great.

Absolute nonsense. Marciano was a great fighter, of course he was. He knocked them out early, late, got up to win, came back from the brink of being stopped, took an inhuman amount of punishment yet showed the will, determination and fighting heart to prevail. He was a wonderful fighter. Charles and Walcott are top twenty heavyweights - those victories are vastly underrated and a million miles away from David bloody Haye and the Chagaev's of this world.

Marciano was great. Klitschko was not. There's nothing in his makeup or record to suggest otherwise.

Now while I'm not going to argue for or against Marciano as a great fighter, you could have written this about Froch who on another thread you said was not a great fighter, a fighter that appears to have a better resume than Marciano albeit 2 losses, but is not a great one.

Froch was never champion in his own division - he was a genuine world class fighter but not a great one. Froch rallied from the brink to defeat a shopworn Jermain Taylor, whereas Marciano was given one more round against Ezzard Charles - one of the best ever heavyweights in history and an all-time great - and turned the fight around. There's a chasm between the two.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He's a great fighter because we're told he's a great fighter, he has no wins of any real substance, oh but he beat Charles and Walcott, is greatness proved against small old men now. Those wins aren't under-rated at all, their significance is blown out of all proportion just because it's Marciano, how much credit does Frazier get for beating Foster, not a lot and why's that oh yes he was a light heavyweight. No other Heavyweight would be getting such high praise for that sort of record.

What was Foster's record like at heavyweight? What was Charles's and Walcott's record at heavyweight?

Rocky's record stands for itself. His comeback against Charles is legendary - his greatness in a microcosm. Greatness isn't measured by looking at statistics and ABC defences on BoxRec without any real idea about what makes a great fighter. Watching the fights would be a start.

Thankfully yours is a voice in the wilderness (like a creaking door or a wet fa rt).

Guess poor old Azumah Nelson isn't great then.....Considering Pedrosa and then mcguigan were the linear champs and Brian Mitchell was linear super feather champ..

Oh well..

Not arguing your general point haz, but ezzard charles one of the best ever heavyweights in history? That's a bit of a stretch... considered a pound 4 pound great and one of the greatest light heavies ever. Which is ultimtely the finger that gets pointed at marciano... as you can say the same about moore.

Of course rocky was only a cruiser himself, but that was the norm back in the day.

I've got Wlad higher than Charles in my list at heavy...

Great p4per was Charles though..

milkyboy wrote:Not arguing your general point haz, but ezzard charles one of the best ever heavyweights in history? That's a bit of a stretch... considered a pound 4 pound great and one of the greatest light heavies ever. Which is ultimtely the finger that gets pointed at marciano... as you can say the same about moore.

Of course rocky was only a cruiser himself, but that was the norm back in the day.

Charles is a surely a top 20 heavyweight all-time? He holds wins over Walcott (twice), Louis, Elmer Ray, Rex Layne, Tommy Harrison, Billy Gilliam, Satterfield, Holman - all top ten ranked fighters (back when that meant something). He whupped Pat Valentino, Lee Oma, Freddie Beshore, Gus Lesnevich and Joe Bivins and Maxim umpteen times. Just finishing his biography and - while he was never a real heavyweight - he was good enough to put in some really solid work there. He fought his way to the top of the division (how could he have achieved that if he wasn't a quality heavyweight?). I've seen some rank him in their top ten. He also pushed Marciano as close as it gets.

He actually outweighed Marciano in their rematch if I'm not mistaken?

Walcott and Charles are underrated heavyweights. They were great craftsmen.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Guess poor old Azumah Nelson isn't great then.....Considering Pedrosa and then mcguigan were the linear champs and Brian Mitchell was linear super feather champ..

Oh well..

McGuigan wouldn't fight him - slight difference to Froch's situation (where he was beaten handily by the real champion in Ward).

Nelson beat great fighters - he was great. The defeat to Sanchez was better work than most fighters get done in a career these days.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Not arguing your general point haz, but ezzard charles one of the best ever heavyweights in history? That's a bit of a stretch... considered a pound 4 pound great and one of the greatest light heavies ever. Which is ultimtely the finger that gets pointed at marciano... as you can say the same about moore.

Of course rocky was only a cruiser himself, but that was the norm back in the day.

Charles is a surely a top 20 heavyweight all-time? He holds wins over Walcott (twice), Louis, Elmer Ray, Rex Layne, Tommy Harrison, Billy Gilliam, Satterfield, Holman - all top ten ranked fighters (back when that meant something). He whupped Pat Valentino, Lee Oma, Freddie Beshore, Gus Lesnevich and Joe Bivins and Maxim umpteen times. Just finishing his biography and - while he was never a real heavyweight - he was good enough to put in some really solid work there. He fought his way to the top of the division (how could he have achieved that if he wasn't a quality heavyweight?). I've seen some rank him in their top ten. He also pushed Marciano as close as it gets.

He actually outweighed Marciano in their rematch if I'm not mistaken?

Walcott and Charles are underrated heavyweights. They were great craftsmen.

"Back when the top 10 meant something"..............Doesn't mean the fighters that are in it aren't crap does it ??

You should be a politician the way you try to spin b**lshit...

Louis was finished and Walcott was no great heavyweight either..and he lost to him twice..