Will we finally see some respect for Wlad?

First topic message reminder :

First off the bat apologies for posting another article about the weekend's fight, but I don't think this subject has been covered before but if it has feel free to merge this. However have been reading the reactions to the fight and whilst there is an understandable negativity towards Haye's performance, few if any people have gone the next step and actually giving Wlad some credit, which seems something of a theme throughout his career.

Now, don't get me wrong am not arguing he is an all time great or is a guy I would go out of my way to watch but the guy is seven years unbeaten and in Haye has fought and beat, at a canter I might add a guy who was allegedly the biggest challenge out there and who bought gifts Wlad had not encountered in an age and would potentially see an end to his reign, surely thye fact that this not only didn't happen speaks well of Wlad's performance but alas it appears it is all down to what Haye didn't do rather than what Wlad did. Got to be honest does seem a little harsh to me because watching Saturday night I was impressed by how well disciplined, drilled and conditioned Wlad was as he racked up yet another defence by barely losing a round.

Does anyone think it is about time we started to show Wlad a little more respect as for me it is high time we seperated an assessment of hwo good he is to watch from how good he is because they are not the same thing and on the latter he is IMO perhaps a little better than we give him credit for.

compelling and rich wrote:he has no career defining win to speak of and barely a top fifty fighter on his cv . in an era where he could of fought lewis, tyson, holyfield he hasnt fought any. all could have been possiabiltys at some point even if they were all past it. such cherry picking shouldnt be applauded.

I fail to see how he's 'cherry picked' as, since circa 2002 onwards, the likes of Byrd, Chagaev, Ibragimov and Haye have all been bigger challenges than a shot-to-pieces, in to his forties Holyfield and a bloated caricature of a man we once knew as Mike Tyson. To suggest that Wladimir should be criticised for not taking on those two is, quite franky, ridiculous.

The Lewis argument is a slightly more valid one, but even so, it's hardly a case of Wladimir blatantly wanting no part of him, or an example of a fight which should have happened but didn't. Lewis' career was winding down just as Wladimir's was reaching any kind of world level, and he was hardly a viable option for Lennox after being beaten by Sanders.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:One thing to say Chris: VITALI KLITSCHKO, the 80's lot had to face eachother and because there wasn't a clear gap at the top they swapped the titles all the time, now change Wlads surname and the chances are he has to face Vitali at which point he probably loses and never has the chance of racking up as many defences.

But that's half my point, Ghosty. Too many are quick to rank / degrade fighters on the basis of a load of 'what ifs.' The fact of the matter is that Wladimir, with the exception of his brother (and all the other Heavyweights we've discussed have notable names missing from their CVs, remember) has consistently taken on the best that the Heavyweight division has to offer and, since becoming a champion again, he's usually done so convincingly.

If we put Marciano in to the era of Ali, Liston, Frazier and Foreman, then he doesn't ever become champion as far as I'm concerned. But he didn't belong to that era, he belonged to his own. And, in that era, he did more or less everything that could be asked of him, earning himself the right to be called 'great' in the process. I'm not for one second saying that Wladimir deserves to rank alongside the likes of Marciano, but it's an undeniable fact that he's established himself as a champion in a way which not all that many other Heavyweights have.

In fairness - you coul give Haye the 3rd because he threw a few - but Wlad landed some telling combinations as well - and if we were being entirely impartial Wlad might have sneaked it.

I gave Wlad the 12th - again he landed combinations as well to match Haye's - and he was controlling the fight with the jab.

Giving Wlad every round (although I didn't) would not have been outrageous.

Boxing is the art of hitting without being hit. Wlad hit Haye frequently without being hit much himself. That's the sport.

Sometimes dull to watch - but there are moments of genius. He has a fantastic jab and is a joy to watch when he opens up. Look at the Chambers stoppage.

Look at the Austin fight - a guy who was supposed to be a bit of a challenge and was beaten with 1 hand - just the left hand in 3 rounds.

I don't doubt Wlad's power - but Wlad didn't set Haye up that well on Saturday night, mostly because Haye was going backwards at all times. In the same way as the VK - Kevin Johnson fight - its hard to knock out a man who is running for the door all the time.

i wasnt suggesting that he fight the likes of holyfield today, but around 2002-3 they were both there and there abouts the same level and that holyfield would have been a much better name on his cv than chagaev and ibragimov. wlad had already beatebn byrd before who holyfield went on to challege for the title so why couldnt it been wlad?

again mike tyson was seen as a worthy enough contender for lewis in 2002 then why not wlad, wlad had a proper belt at the time

I dont think fights with Tyson or Holyfield were ever on the cards. Post Lewis, Tyson wasnt really a credible opponent. Especially after losing to Danny Williams.

Holyfield was targetting Ruiz for the WBA which lasted 2 years and after that he was never a real option either.

compelling and rich wrote:i wasnt suggesting that he fight the likes of holyfield today, but around 2002-3 they were both there and there abouts the same level and that holyfield would have been a much better name on his cv than chagaev and ibragimov. wlad had already beatebn byrd before who holyfield went on to challege for the title so why couldnt it been wlad?

again mike tyson was seen as a worthy enough contender for lewis in 2002 then why not wlad, wlad had a proper belt at the time

By 2002, Tyson was a worthy money-spinner for Lewis, nothing more, nothing less. A worthy 'contender', never in a million years. It was only the 'history' of the two fighters and the fact that we should have seen that fight in 1996 which made it happen. Again, to suggest that Tyson would ever have been a viable opponent for Klitschko is way, way off the mark for my money.

Sorry, but Wladimir was, as I said, nowhere near to being 'the man' at Heavyweight back in 2002. Sure, a fight between him and Holyfield then may have been a possibility, but it clearly isn't a case of Klitschko avoiding him, and it even more certainly isn't a fight which 'should' have happened. Since Wladimir became re-established with the IBF belt in 2006, the likes of Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov and Haye have been far, far, far more worthy than Holyfield. To be honest, what would a bring over a shot to pieces Tyson or Holyfield do for Wladimir's legacy anyway? Absolutely nothing, just like it did for Williams, McBride, Valuev or Donald. Nobody would have given him any credit (understandably) either way, as I'm sure you know.

fights are often only viable depending if you chase them, wlad was a world champ at the time he had enough weight to be calling out others. around the time just dont think he wanted anything to do with them. as sanders showed at the time i would have backed holyfield. style wise all wrong for him. tyson not so sure as he was clearly past his best but this wasnt the wlad of today either

88Chris05 wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:i wasnt suggesting that he fight the likes of holyfield today, but around 2002-3 they were both there and there abouts the same level and that holyfield would have been a much better name on his cv than chagaev and ibragimov. wlad had already beatebn byrd before who holyfield went on to challege for the title so why couldnt it been wlad?

again mike tyson was seen as a worthy enough contender for lewis in 2002 then why not wlad, wlad had a proper belt at the time

By 2002, Tyson was a worthy money-spinner for Lewis, nothing more, nothing less. A worthy 'contender', never in a million years. It was only the 'history' of the two fighters and the fact that we should have seen that fight in 1996 which made it happen. Again, to suggest that Tyson would ever have been a viable opponent for Klitschko is way, way off the mark for my money.

Sorry, but Wladimir was, as I said, nowhere near to being 'the man' at Heavyweight back in 2002. Sure, a fight between him and Holyfield then may have been a possibility, but it clearly isn't a case of Klitschko avoiding him, and it even more certainly isn't a fight which 'should' have happened. Since Wladimir became re-established with the IBF belt in 2006, the likes of Peter, Chagaev, Ibragimov and Haye have been far, far, far more worthy than Holyfield. To be honest, what would a bring over a shot to pieces Tyson or Holyfield do for Wladimir's legacy anyway? Absolutely nothing, just like it did for Williams, McBride, Valuev or Donald. Nobody would have given him any credit (understandably) either way, as I'm sure you know.

i have veered off my origanl point! i was showing what a poor cv wlad has got even didnt even have past it names on there. holyfiled dont think would have ever been too bad a match even the old version as hes clever, not afraid to go looking for wlad and had his chin to back it up. tyson was a money spinner for lewis then why not holy for wlad, sure more intrest than others especially in amercia. they bloody showed the valuev fight !!! so must have been some

compelling and rich wrote:i have veered off my origanl point! i was showing what a poor cv wlad has got even didnt even have past it names on there. holyfiled dont think would have ever been too bad a match even the old version as hes clever, not afraid to go looking for wlad and had his chin to back it up. tyson was a money spinner for lewis then why not holy for wlad, sure more intrest than others especially in amercia. they bloody showed the valuev fight !!! so must have been some

Tyson-Lewis was a money spinner because Tyson is the most famous and talked about boxer of the last quarter of a century, because there was 'history' and 'bad blood' between him and Lewis, and because it's a fight people had wanted / expected to see six years earlier. The difference between that and a possible Wladimir-Holyfield fight is huge; there was no public clamour for the fight, Wladimir was not (as he is now) 'the man' at Heavyweight and expected to take care of all the 'big names' (which is all Tyson was by 2002), and was not a big-money fighter himself back then.

I'm sorry, but no matter who argues it to me or how they do so, nobody is ever going to convince me that Wladimir should face any criticism, even in the slightest, for not fighting Holyfield and / or Tyson, especially since he became the top dog north of 200 lb. It's akin to saying that Lewis should have accommodated a shot-to-bits Holmes and Witherspoon during his own title days. I don't mean to disrespect your opinion by any means, and you have argued your points well. But I can't agree at all with your claim that Wladimir has 'cherry picked.' The fact that he's unified three of the four major belts is proof enough that he hasn't.

When would you suggest Wlad should have faced Holyfield? I cant really see a case for it all.

The guy was losing all over the place and even had his licence revoked at one point. He might have had an outside shot at winning around 2000/1 when Wlad was just emerging but after that he doesnt feature in the upper end of the division. If anything Wlad would have been slated for dragging him out just to earn some easy money.

manos - i was thinking around 2002 around byrd fight before it all went pear shaped.

i see a old holyfield as no worse than peter 2, rahman, tony thompson. im not meaning to bang the drum about holyfiled to much got sidetracked abit i just think in a career with no names on his cv then one fight with a old holy wouldnt have been the worse. around 2002 i back holy afterwards wlad on points. just think at least holyfiled would have give it a go unlike the likes of peter

and he was only able to unify the divsion because his brother kindly stepped out the way

To be fair to Peter, he did give it a good go and had Wlad down a couple of times. The second fight I think was indicative of Wlad improving under Steward.

Holyfield was losing to guys like Byrd and Ruiz around the time Wlad was a champ. I dont doubt he would have given it a good go but just dont see the fight as being an ommission on Wlads c.v. The window of opportunity was quite small for the fight to happen credibly and the guys like Byrd that Wlad was facing then were actually rated more highly.

Got to say I'm with Chris on this one fail to see how Holyfield was ever especially viable and even if he was don't particularly see him upsetting the apple cart, the timing is just wrong for me. His brother aside which lets be honest not fighting him is undertstandable, Wlad has established himself as the best of his era by a long chalk.

The other thing to remember is if you go through the top ten heavies with a couple of names aside there are gaps or ommissions from most CV's. Dempsey has Wills, Johnson has Langford, Jeffries has Jackson, even Lewis has Bowe. Know there are different reasons some more valid than others but if we hold it against Wlad for not fighting an ageing guy of negligible risk or his own brother we surely have to apply the same standard to a lot of the greats.

One thing about The Rock is that he could throw punches for the full three minute of a round. Rocky's onslaught of punches were possible because he was possibly the fittest HW of all time. When was the last time a Klitschko experienced that.

Marciano also didn't know how to lose so he wouldn't be dancing around in the hope he might get a chance. He'd keep swinging until he had nothing left. He could be knocked down but it would have to be a very powerful shot and obviously he never stayed down.

Rocky was also a much more devastating power than anything Wlad has fought.

It's hard to say how good Wlad is when he hasn't been tested. His defeats are a real blotch on his legacy worse I would say than Lennox's.


Edit: I seem to be two hours behind the Marciano discussion. Being a noob I didn't realise the thread had two pages.

by rowley Today at 7:31 pm

.Got to say I'm with Chris on this one fail to see how Holyfield was ever especially viable and even if he was don't particularly see him upsetting the apple cart, the timing is just wrong for me. His brother aside which lets be honest not fighting him is undertstandable, Wlad has established himself as the best of his era by a long chalk.
.......................................................................................................................

i totally understand not fighting his brother, but the whole longevity and winning belts (the main claim for wlad legacy) has only been possible because of vitali stepping aside and retiring. also you have the fact that wlad hid behind is brother after the sanders lost something he never avenged.who's to say if vitali wasnt about wlad would have had to go through sanders again and got beat again?

the era he was born, a better brother he could hid behind then pick his belts up, i say he's a great fighter just very lucky

I actually think Wlad has done enough now to be considered the number 1 heavyweight. His level of competition in the last few years exceeds Vitalis and hes unified 3/4 belts.

I can accept the criticism to some extent that the two brothers havent beaten each other to decide who the outright best is but they have, especially recently, proven beyond all doubt they are far better than the competition. Even if Wlad were to lose to Vitali its not as if that makes him a bad fighter.

There's no arguement for wlad facing either holy or Tyson. Lewis finished off what little there was left of tyson, and by the time wlad had become even vaguely established as a top heavy Holyfield had become a characature of himself.

I also find it hard to criticise wlad for the fact he's fought in a poor era as it's not his fault and he's beaten just about every top contender, and the fact he has 'avoided' vitali?? Come on, they are obviously very close, who here would fight their own flesh and blood for money? It's totally understandable. I think, based on his longevity, ability and number of title defences there's a reasonable arguement to squeeze wlad in the 19 or 20 mark of top heavies.

Having rewatched the fight it's clear to me that it was Hayes inability to push wlad back that lost it for him. Defensively haye was pretty slick, he bobbed and weaved well and made wlad miss a heck of a lot, and when he was caught he took the shots well. That area of Hayes game was impressive. But offensively he got his tactics wrong. He didn't set up any of his attacks with feints or jabs, and he launched every attack from the ropes - this gave wlad the whole of the ring to step back into to avoid haye - which he did with a speed that probably shocked haye a bit. Had haye been a bit less cautious and pushed into ring centre his attacks wouldve had wlad stepping into the ropes leaving him less room to get out of the way. Instead haye allowed wlad to boss the fight offensively, and wlad controlled the range extremely well, leaving David relying on a lottery punch. Have to say it was a closer fight than it looks on paper, although I scored it 118-109 wlad, there were a lot of close rounds where neither guy threw much.

A fight between haye and vitali might be interesting - ie a better scenario than most other hw bouts you could muster, but you have to back vitali. He controls the range as well as wlad, hits as hard and while he lacks wlads mobility he makes up for it in durability.

neither has great names but thats sadly to do with todays heavyweights. since vitalis retirements wlad has gone on and fought

williamson, castillo, peter x2 , byrd, brock, austin, brewster, ibragimov, thompson, rahmann, chagaev, chambers, and then haye

i just really struggle to give him kudos for longevity for that!! when really the only real challeges were byrd, chagaev and haye imo. may not be his fault but you cant just throw out the stats that he's been champ for so long without looking at who he faced. it goes against holmes and marciano just as much

That list wouldnt be good enough to displace the top guys in the divisions history but if we are talking top twenty here then it could easily be enough in my view to be included. The IBRO have guys like Walcott, Schmelling, Charles, Tunney and Corbett in the top 20 and certainly I think Wlads career at heavyweight is enough to place him ahead of some of those guys.

What gets me most about Wlad is he is not a fighter.

He must be the only non-fighter to hold a belt for any length of time. (que Johnny Nelson)

I can't go along with Wlad being great when he doesn't have to fight. There are countless former HW's that would have forced Wlad to fight.

To me he's a big very basic fighter that uses his size to hold off god awful opposition.

The pace of his fights are so slow he never gets forced out of his extremely slow rhythm.

Look at good heavyweight fights from the past and look at the speed and intensity of the action. Wlad has it all his own way because he hasn't faced diddly squat.

The IBRO are great but they favour older fighters. look at Tracy Callis's lists.

I met Ernie Shavers in Vegas recently. How would Wlad have dealt with a contender like Ernie?

manos de piedra wrote:That list wouldnt be good enough to displace the top guys in the divisions history but if we are talking top twenty here then it could easily be enough in my view to be included. The IBRO have guys like Walcott, Schmelling, Charles, Tunney and Corbett in the top 20 and certainly I think Wlads career at heavyweight is enough to place him ahead of some of those guys.

but at least people like walcott had fights against fellow greats. sometimes pushing a great is better than beating a bum and thats why wlad doesnt get in top 20. i think vitali generally is looked at better becuase he fought a great and pushed him. lewis wasnt at his best but at least we have a yard stick to measure vitali with. with wlad we have nothing to measure him against.

Charles and Walcott rate higher than Wlad for me, Corbett lower most probably but Tunney is the hardest one to rate at heavyweight but would again have him lower

The top 18 for me are ahead of Wlad with some comfort beyond that it's tougher although would have him below Bowe, Norton and Vitali which would place him at 22 which I think is a fair assessment of him.

Evening Gents

Well overdue for me Jeff, appreciate the era is considered weak but I believe please correct me if I'm wrong the guys he was defending against were ranked in the top 10 for the most part then you would have to recognise them as legacy wins whether you were impresed by those fighters or not. You would also have to regard those wins as being equivalent to wins over ranked fighters from other eras on paper.

The problem still lies with his brother being on the same horizon us boxing fans still haven't the foggiest whose the main man and it's seriously a problem for the brothers. You either beat a large volume of top fighters in a comparativley weak era or beat a small number of exceptional fighters in a strong era. The second way is not an option for Wlad but the first is possible in any era.

I find him dull but he deserves respect and certainly a worthy champion, it's a pity two brothers share the limelight.

Evening Jimmy and good to see you back on here. Agree it is hard knowing where to rank Wlad but for me all we were hearing in the build up to this fight is Wlad had feasted on bums and how he had not faced anyone with ambition, speed, youth and power which apparently Haye had in abundance but on the back of Wlad dealing with all these as easily as he did the apparent bums the story on here is not a re-assessment of Wlad's abilities and more importantly his ability to neutralise and negate his opponents assetts but how said opponent was disappointing, just seems the guy can't win. For me if you go seven years without losing and barely dropping a round perhaps you can fight a bit.

Evening Jeff, thanks mate, lovely to see you still contributing fine articles, do get to read a lot of the posts but unfortunately rarely find the time to put my twopenneth across these days. Totally agree with I believe Wlad is on the cusp of greatness due to longevity, and his career could go either way. It is really strange for someone to be so dominant for so long and yet still have so many question marks over his head, but that is the way with him. The thing is I believe if had a little more devil he could've emphatically stopped a lot of these opponents including Haye, which would've made a few more stand up. However I do wonder where he goes from here himself, not a great deal out there for him unless we give Holyfield another crack.

Compelling
----------------
First off the bat - a fight with Holyfield was never an option - may as well criticise Ali for not calling out Walcott. Holyfield was already over the hill in 2001.

However - your point about the absence of legendary HWs on his resume is a good one - however it is a problem that both Marciano and Holmes also face. (However - in the case of Marciano - at least Louis, Charles, Walcott and Moore were bonafide greats).

Marciano and Holmes are both fiendishly difficult to rate and I fear Wlad may fall into the same bracket.

He is, by his own admission - not a born fighter. He said how his brother was born to fight but he had to learn. However he's learnt pretty well and he's demolished everyone there is to face EXCEPT his number 2, big bro Vitali.

If Vitali retires after Adamek and leaves big Wlad to carry on whipping some bums for a few years - Wlad will have some run of defences.

Wlad is a very very fine athlete, and very "functional" in that he has through his size and reach near perfected a way of hitting and not being hit. Some might think it has all the feverish interest of a fire drill, but isn't the noble art more about hitting and not getting hit?

Lets face it, People often want to see fighters just batter each other, slug it, go toe to toe, abandon all pretense at "boxing" and just go for it.

Also could someone explain WHY boxers from bygone era's are ALWAYS going to beat the current lot? Will it be the case in 50 or 100 years time that Ali, foreman, Holmes etc etc will still be the best ever, and no-one added to the list with them?

Erm Lennox Lewis destroys your rather pathetic last comment

Would like to add, after so many comments about what a good guy Wlad is, that his team's organisation of Haye's ringwalk through the crowd was far more dangerous and a far worse crime, than any tshirt Haye wore that upset so many journo's sensibilities.

He could easily have been glassed or stabbed, or even had his toe broken, but in all seriousness it was a disgrace.

Solid display from Wlad, but for me it was two guys scared of taking a shot.

Strongback wrote:
Rocky was also a much more devastating power than anything Wlad has fought.

It's hard to say how good Wlad is when he hasn't been tested. His defeats are a real blotch on his legacy worse I would say than Lennox's.

~ Why Death cabs are for cuties sir.

Egads, a 180 lb stump with a face first offense is hardly a threat to either of the best distance boxers in history. Every fighter has his time and place and today is hardly a place for a heavyweight Rocky unless you are going on about the movie in Growth Hormone LaLaLand.

I dare say Mr. Brewster/Sanders are easily a match for Mr. McCall/Rahman not to mention Mr. Wlad has more KOs than Mr. Lewis has wins. He was never one punched into oblivion like Mr. Lewis.

You chaps open up your own can of worms that you pronounce tasty, a strange lot you are.

My only wish is to see Wlad throwing more right hands and press for the knockout...I will let him off for the Haye fight as Haye is a dangerous fighter but the likes of Chambers etc should be taken out earlier.

He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

hogey wrote:He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

Wlad and Vitali are ATG top 20 or 25 heavyweights...You underestimate just how good Wlad is...He may not have the most exciting styles but he is one of the most effective heavyweights to live.

He is coming off a career defining win over David Haye and deserves respect.

The genius of PBF wrote:

hogey wrote:He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

Wlad and Vitali are ATG top 20 or 25 heavyweights...You underestimate just how good Wlad is...He may not have the most exciting styles but he is one of the most effective heavyweights to live.

He is coming off a career defining win over David Haye and deserves respect.

A David Haye who had achieved exactly what at heavyweight?

Anyway, in principle, I agree, he does deserve respect for his longevity, unification of the titles and courage in coming back from some horrendous defeats, but not for his quality of opposition, David Haye included. Not Wlad's fault, but his reign has coincided with a desperately poor era for the division.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

hogey wrote:He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

Wlad and Vitali are ATG top 20 or 25 heavyweights...You underestimate just how good Wlad is...He may not have the most exciting styles but he is one of the most effective heavyweights to live.

He is coming off a career defining win over David Haye and deserves respect.

A David Haye who had achieved exactly what at heavyweight?

Anyway, in principle, I agree, he does deserve respect for his longevity, unification of the titles and courage in coming back from some horrendous defeats, but not for his quality of opposition, David Haye included. Not Wlad's fault, but his reign has coincided with a desperately poor era for the division.

A unified Cruiserweight champion and former WBA heavyweight champion...Not Haye's and Klitschkos fault that outside them there is no one world class.

Solis had world class potential but ate his talent away...David Haye who most people before the fight called it the biggest heavyweight fight in years had speed, skill and power to trouble anyone but Wlad shut him down.

Easy to ridicule boxers after fights.

The genius of PBF wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

hogey wrote:He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

Wlad and Vitali are ATG top 20 or 25 heavyweights...You underestimate just how good Wlad is...He may not have the most exciting styles but he is one of the most effective heavyweights to live.

He is coming off a career defining win over David Haye and deserves respect.

A David Haye who had achieved exactly what at heavyweight?

Anyway, in principle, I agree, he does deserve respect for his longevity, unification of the titles and courage in coming back from some horrendous defeats, but not for his quality of opposition, David Haye included. Not Wlad's fault, but his reign has coincided with a desperately poor era for the division.

A unified Cruiserweight champion and former WBA heavyweight champion...Not Haye's and Klitschkos fault that outside them there is no one world class.

Solis had world class potential but ate his talent away...David Haye who most people before the fight called it the biggest heavyweight fight in years had speed, skill and power to trouble anyone but Wlad shut him down.

Easy to ridicule boxers after fights.

I haven't "ridiculed" Haye at all. I just questioned his achievements at heavyweight. A perfectly legitimate stance, so maybe you need to take few moments before throwing your toys out of your pram. He was a very good cruiserweight, but Valuev, Ruiz and Harrison are hardly the makings of a great reign. Haye has talent, I am not denying that, I just don't think his record at heavyweight is that impressive. He was found badly wanting against Wladimir who was his first real test at the weight.

For the record, I predicted Klitschko would win, so I am hardly having a pop at Haye after the fight. I remember questioning his reign, along with many other posters on a thread before the fight.

The genius of PBF wrote:

hogey wrote:He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

Wlad and Vitali are ATG top 20 or 25 heavyweights...You underestimate just how good Wlad is...He may not have the most exciting styles but he is one of the most effective heavyweights to live.

He is coming off a career defining win over David Haye and deserves respect.

Vitali i grant you could probably have mixed it with the best, but Wlad no way in hell is he anywhere near a top 20 heavyweight he has been beaten by 3 journeymen and his career defining fight as you call it was against a blown up chinny cruiserweight who himself in any other era would not have been anyway near a champion. All his other opponents were not fit to have fought for a Heavyweight title and can not be used as a yardstick of greatness. If Vitali wasnt his brother they would have fought and i doubt Wlad would have lasted 4 rounds, then he would have just became a footnote in history remembered for his bulk and glass jaw.

hogey wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

hogey wrote:He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

Wlad and Vitali are ATG top 20 or 25 heavyweights...You underestimate just how good Wlad is...He may not have the most exciting styles but he is one of the most effective heavyweights to live.

He is coming off a career defining win over David Haye and deserves respect.

Vitali i grant you could probably have mixed it with the best, but Wlad no way in hell is he anywhere near a top 20 heavyweight he has been beaten by 3 journeymen and his career defining fight as you call it was against a blown up chinny cruiserweight who himself in any other era would not have been anyway near a champion. All his other opponents were not fit to have fought for a Heavyweight title and can not be used as a yardstick of greatness. If Vitali wasnt his brother they would have fought and i doubt Wlad would have lasted 4 rounds, then he would have just became a footnote in history remembered for his bulk and glass jaw.

Name 20 better heavyweights than Wlad I would like a good laugh...Sanders and Brewster held world titles not bad for "journeymen"...Also Lewis himself a top 10 heavyweight lost to 2 "journeymen"...David Haye who only been stopped on his feet after punching himself out took flush punches of a big puncher like Wlad yet people still are stupid enough to call him chinny...Haye was a career defining win considered a dangerous opponent by many whether you like it or not.

You are hugely disrespectful to Wladimir.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

hogey wrote:He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

Wlad and Vitali are ATG top 20 or 25 heavyweights...You underestimate just how good Wlad is...He may not have the most exciting styles but he is one of the most effective heavyweights to live.

He is coming off a career defining win over David Haye and deserves respect.

A David Haye who had achieved exactly what at heavyweight?

Anyway, in principle, I agree, he does deserve respect for his longevity, unification of the titles and courage in coming back from some horrendous defeats, but not for his quality of opposition, David Haye included. Not Wlad's fault, but his reign has coincided with a desperately poor era for the division.

A unified Cruiserweight champion and former WBA heavyweight champion...Not Haye's and Klitschkos fault that outside them there is no one world class.

Solis had world class potential but ate his talent away...David Haye who most people before the fight called it the biggest heavyweight fight in years had speed, skill and power to trouble anyone but Wlad shut him down.

Easy to ridicule boxers after fights.

I haven't "ridiculed" Haye at all. I just questioned his achievements at heavyweight. A perfectly legitimate stance, so maybe you need to take few moments before throwing your toys out of your pram. He was a very good cruiserweight, but Valuev, Ruiz and Harrison are hardly the makings of a great reign. Haye has talent, I am not denying that, I just don't think his record at heavyweight is that impressive. He was found badly wanting against Wladimir who was his first real test at the weight.

For the record, I predicted Klitschko would win, so I am hardly having a pop at Haye after the fight. I remember questioning his reign, along with many other posters on a thread before the fight.

You can only beat who is in front of you...Wlad has dominated for 7 years, he doesn't have the quality bar Haye but makes it up for being the best of his era along with his brother.

Wlad's been watched live by 155,000 people in his last three fights and just under 35 million on TV, yet we still hear about him being unknown outside of Germany?

Scottrf wrote:Wlad's been watched live by 155,000 people in his last three fights and just under 35 million on TV, yet we still hear about him being unknown outside of Germany?

Where have you been Scott? Haven't see you on here for a while.

Heres 20 straight off the top of my head : Ali, Johnson, Dempsey, Liston, Louis, Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Frazier, Norton, Holmes, Tunney, Marciano, Langford, Witherspoon, Tucker, Charles, Holyfield, Vitali K, Bowe. I could go on as i would barely put him as a top 10 fighter in the 70's. i would also put a fit Buster Douglas, Earnie Shavers, Max Schmeling and Cleveland Williams above him and the likes of Pinklon Thomas, Jerry Quarry, and Greg Page at least as his equal.
A fighter can only be judged by who he has beaten and who has beaten him and Wlad's record does not bare up well to scrutiny.

The genius of PBF wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

hogey wrote:He is nothing more than a reasonable fighter who is lucky on 2 counts, one is to operate in an incredibly poor era for the heavyweight division and the second is he is able to hold on to his belts because the only really decent fighter around is his brother who wont fight him. Any other era Wlad would be a fringe contender with a weak jaw.

Wlad and Vitali are ATG top 20 or 25 heavyweights...You underestimate just how good Wlad is...He may not have the most exciting styles but he is one of the most effective heavyweights to live.

He is coming off a career defining win over David Haye and deserves respect.

A David Haye who had achieved exactly what at heavyweight?

Anyway, in principle, I agree, he does deserve respect for his longevity, unification of the titles and courage in coming back from some horrendous defeats, but not for his quality of opposition, David Haye included. Not Wlad's fault, but his reign has coincided with a desperately poor era for the division.

A unified Cruiserweight champion and former WBA heavyweight champion...Not Haye's and Klitschkos fault that outside them there is no one world class.

Solis had world class potential but ate his talent away...David Haye who most people before the fight called it the biggest heavyweight fight in years had speed, skill and power to trouble anyone but Wlad shut him down.

Easy to ridicule boxers after fights.

I haven't "ridiculed" Haye at all. I just questioned his achievements at heavyweight. A perfectly legitimate stance, so maybe you need to take few moments before throwing your toys out of your pram. He was a very good cruiserweight, but Valuev, Ruiz and Harrison are hardly the makings of a great reign. Haye has talent, I am not denying that, I just don't think his record at heavyweight is that impressive. He was found badly wanting against Wladimir who was his first real test at the weight.

For the record, I predicted Klitschko would win, so I am hardly having a pop at Haye after the fight. I remember questioning his reign, along with many other posters on a thread before the fight.

You can only beat who is in front of you...Wlad has dominated for 7 years, he doesn't have the quality bar Haye but makes it up for being the best of his era along with his brother.

Which is exactly what I said in my original post. I am going to leave this now PBF as you are confusing me too much.

hogey wrote:Heres 20 straight off the top of my head : Ali, Johnson, Dempsey, Liston, Louis, Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Frazier, Norton, Holmes, Tunney, Marciano, Langford, Witherspoon, Tucker, Charles, Holyfield, Vitali K, Bowe. I could go on as i would barely put him as a top 10 fighter in the 70's. i would also put a fit Buster Douglas, Earnie Shavers, Max Schmeling and Cleveland Williams above him and the likes of Pinklon Thomas, Jerry Quarry, and Greg Page at least as his equal.
A fighter can only be judged by who he was beaten and who has beaten him and Wlad's record does not bare up well to scrutiny.

Tucker
Norton
Witherspoon

Tucker has a very good fighter at his best and has all the tools to dismantle Wlad almost matching his height and reach but better handspeed,chin and power.
Norton was good enough to beat Ali once and very nearly beat him in 2 more fights as well as giving Larry Holmes a life and death battle at the tail end of his career as well.
Witherspoon was a top operator blessed with great all round skills a rock solid chin who also came very close and many think he done enough to beating a peak Larry Holmes. As there peaks all 3 would have been too good for Wlad and all of them are a huge step up from his best opponents to date. If he had even one fighter on his record at their level he would move up a little in my estimation unfortunately all he has is a list of journeymen who just happen to get title shots because they are all thats there at the moment.
I have seen Champions in 6 decades and Wlad is not one i will remember when his dull reign ends.

hogey wrote:Tucker has a very good fighter at his best and has all the tools to dismantle Wlad almost matching his height and reach but better handspeed,chin and power.
Norton was good enough to beat Ali once and very nearly beat him in 2 more fights as well as giving Larry Holmes a life and death battle at the tail end of his career as well.
Witherspoon was a top operator blessed with great all round skills a rock solid chin who also came very close and many think he done enough to beating a peak Larry Holmes. As there peaks all 3 would have been too good for Wlad and all of them are a huge step up from his best opponents to date. If he had even one fighter on his record at their level he would move up a little in my estimation unfortunately all he has is a list of journeymen who just happen to get title shots because they are all thats there at the moment.
I have seen Champions in 6 decades and Wlad is not one i will remember when his dull reign ends.

Tucker and Witherspoon will never be above Wlad in any list...Dont rate Norton as highly as others, Wlad has done enough to be ahead of him...Your clutching at straws

Watch Witherspoon against Holmes and you will see he is a level above anything that Wlad has ever been or ever will be Wlad is not in the same league as Holmes, Witherspoon proved he was.
Norton beat good fighters and competed with some of the greatest Heavyweights ever during the best era in the division history, Wlad got beat by 3 Journeymen and has never beaten any fighter above very average.
Tucker while not a great was for my money a better fighter than Wlad simply because he had all the same tools but slightly better, if he was at his peak now i could see him dominating comfortably every fighter out there with the exception of Vitali. Its not so much because he is a wonderful fighter but because the division is currently so poor.

No

Disagree with Tucker and Witherspoon being rated above Wlad although both would have a very good chance of beating him but Norton is without doubt a better fighter than he could ever dream of being.