Where does Wlad rank in HW history?

He was a Euro Bum. A Euro Bum with bells on.....a German Euro Bum.

 

Yep. Vitali does not have 3 embarrasing losses on his resume. One was due to an injury while he was ahead in the fight and one was in a competitive fight to one of the 10 best heavies ever. And at no point in this losses did Vitali look like a new born horse trying to take its first steps.

And, yes, those hideous losses simply cannot be ignored when reviewing Wlad's career.

 

Agreed.

But Vitali has an even worse resume than Wlad.

So clearly, resume isn't what its all about.

Sanders wasn't a "terrible" fighter- he had Rahman going before Rahman went on to become the Undisp. Champ at the expense of Lewis.

And you know as well as I do that the Purritty loss was a one in a million event. Its not like he lost to guys like Purritty with regularity. He came in light, didn't heed instructions, punched himself out, never would have happened again. So far as Wlads reputation goes, its a noticeable stain. So far as his legacy goes, it should be treated accordingly- its not the sort of thing we would factor into a Mythical Matchup scenario.


"Wlad vs Dicky Ryan...Oh, well, Brian Nielsen punched himself out vs Ryan, and Wlad has a history of that, so...." :dunno:

 

Yep, agenda...just like I thought.

 

Wlad has been good to his brother, enhancing that resume every step of the way.

Can you imagine how meaningless Vitali's career best win vs. Sanders would be had Sanders not stopped Wlad?

Wlad :bears:

 

Who is trying to ignore the losses? I am asking you at what point of his career did they occur? His prime??? Losses in his prime???

So did Wlad rack up wins over Peter, Brock, Haye etc, past his prime??

I'm curious.

What is the prime of this man??

 

Nonsense

Alexis Arguello dominated a great 130 pound division
Hagler's middleweight division was very solid
Duran and Whitaker both dominated good lightweight divisions
Spinks was the clear-cut champ of a great division
Napoles had a very strong welterweight division
130 had a lot of very good fighters when Floyd Mayweather was the man there
Pep was the champ of an extremely deep Featherweight division

even dominant guys with average divisions beneath them, Monzon for example, had SOME undeniably strong opponents... in his case, Valdes, Griffith and Briscoe

That's 9 different champs celebrated for dominance who had a strong division beneath them

 

He was in his prime* against Sanders.










*as a fighter worth watching

 

Oh. I see. We are into Meta-Boxing now. Harness your inner jab and embrace the tao of cod-ology.

 

How exactly is a 27 year old man with 7 years pro experience (on top of 140 amateur bouts) and a 40-1 record coming off of his biggest win NOT in his prime?

If not then... then how about a year later, older and wiser against another nobody?

This isn't Salvador Sanchez losing a decision at 18

This is an experienced pro, 7 years and 41 fights into his career

he was absolutely in his prime

 

Indeed.

 

What about a 23 year old man who had 12 fights that same year and made an immature mistake by trying to impress his home crowd and wailing away against a guy who had not been knocked out by Tommy Morrison, Corrie Sanders, Chris Byrd etc???

Is that his prime? He weighed 220lbs, 23 years of age?

I respectfully contend that physically, emotionally and technically he was a WORLD removed that night from the fighter he is today.

 

Well, you are entitled to be wrong

For the record, I absolutely hold that loss against Lennox, as should everyone

 

:wack:

To answer the question, the issue is not to hold the loss or not, the issue for me is whether we can safely say that Wladimir Klitschko had three losses in his prime.

For me, if he had three losses in his prime, then he either has one long-ass prime, or has racked up more wins past-his-prime than any other Heavyweight in history.

 

I never said Wlad is anywhere near as great as Joe Louis. Just saying that the most important thing is a man's dominance over his peers. The quality of his peers can be subjective.

 

For example...I could honestly see a Prime Tyson bowling through Quarry, Shavers, Norton, Frazier, Lyle..just as easily as he did Tubs, Spinks, Holmes, Biggs, Bruno etc.

Now if those guys were in Tyson's era and hadn't fought the Foremans or the Alis but only had Tyson to fight we'd all be saying that Tyson reigned over a mediocre era. Our only way to gauge how well those guys were were how they fought against the champion.

Now this point will likely be lost on Broadwayjoe and Cdogg...but many here will see where I'm coming from.

 

I see what you mean. A man can only whip what is put in front of him. Tyson gets credit for the manner in which he fought and reigned, and by that same token, Wlad loses credit for the manner in which he has fought and comported himself under stress.

YET...........

One thing that always annoyed me was that both Wlad and Tyson have displayed notable character issues in the ring, yet Tyson is remembered as some sort of a cool and collected guy who knew what he was doing.

Tyson had, in fact, started his bitching and whining as early as the Bonecrusher Smith fight.

What's the difference between a guy who fouls out and a guy who get's skittish and defensive?? They both have character flaws.

 

head to head must mean something as we are talking about heavyweights. (no weight restriction)

all the so called great -200 LBS would get buried by klitschko. and you cant say different time, if those guys fought today because noone knows. people rate jack dempsey who was bbqed by 170 LBS tomatoes. and contemporaries said he was greater than ali / marciano even after their reigns were up.

joe louis, marciano, walcott, charles, jack johnson all would get easily beaten by klitschko. it is arguable that he could beat guys like foreman, frazier, ali, holmes as well.

those 3 losses all occured when he didnt have nearly the polish he does now. i can see tommy morrison KOing the wlad pre title reign easily...but getting creamed by todays.

his bad days were just really bad. and they were pre-who he is now. since he has been champion and been working with steward he has looked excellent.

 

So to clarify, 195lb. Dempsey & 200lb. Louis are whipped, but 205lb. Frazier, 210lb. Ali & 210lb. Holmes are in, "arguable country?"

 

dempsey was under 190 until he was an old man. and several 170 LBS men took him to a decision. very similar with louis.

also has alot to do with styles. 185 LBS fighters who had trouble KOing 170 LBS men, will get knocked out by 250 LBS fighters of any legitimate skill. louis had the footwork of a snail and lacked the reach needed to get near klitschko. not to mention an easily crackable chin (vs 185 LBSers...)

 

Precisely. People put too much faith in weight and height and KO stats etc....but fighting styles altered a TONNE between 1900 and 1990.

Joe Louis was a shuffling, methodical, precise, stand up guy. The sort of guy who is a born sucker for that razor sharp 1-2 that a guy like Wlad throws.

Frazier on the other hand had one-fraction of the "talent", was nowhere near as big a 1-punch KO artist, had slower hands, but had a style that allowed him to make light of his shortcomings.

Joe Louis, for what it is worth, would do well to do any better vs Foreman than Frazier did.

 

This is just it. I would never ever try to expunge Wlad's losses from his resume. For openers, it would be to grossly disrespect the men who were responsible for those losses in the first place. The one loss I do retain a degree of disquiet about is the Brewster loss, but it is unlikely that Brewster knew of any scam and had to eat a lot of leather regardless. But there is simply no way we can say Wlad was in his prime, in any regard, when he lost to Purritty. No way at all. He was just a hands-free, devil-may-care, wail-the-fuck-away-they-all-fall kid, who had a ridiculous number of fights that year and was sick the week of the fight, weighed 220lbs and was trying to KO a guy that had drawn with Tommy Morrisson, and had gone the distance with Sanders and Byrd. Kid fought dumb, ran out of steam, got stopped. He wasn't in his prime and NO WAY he does that again, especially today under Manny.

 

Agree about Purity.

But I need clarification re: Brewster scam.

 

There is none. I can say what I want but I can't prove anything.

Klitschko says he was poisoned. I know enough about Don King and Wladimir to know who I trust.

As stated, Brewster was most likely innocent and still had to get off the floor to win.

 

You really are a bone head.::

 

Nope. The quality of opposition is more important than just the number of wins.

I only hear stuff like this when someone is trying to build a case for a fighter with a mediocre resume. Stats alone can't hide a mediocre resume and 3 embarrassing KO losses.

 

This.

Apparently somehow Wlad was "green" at this point in his career.

 

They were stoppages. The man was never KO'd in his life. At the end of the first Brewster fight, Wlad was completely gassed and Brewster was taking free left-hooks and couldn't put the guy down.

Again we see the same issue being revisited.

Who was better, Wlad or Joe Louis? Wlad.

Who was greater, Wlad or Joe Louis? Louis.

 

Apparently according to who??

I've asked the question......was Wlad in his prime for Purrity? I don't believe he was.

Define "prime"??? In a sport like boxing, how do you define a "prime"??? At what juncture must the lines of physical and mental maturity cross before the "prime" is reached???

Its an important issue, as not defining the matter leads to confusing statements such as "Prime Wlad lost to so-and-so but current Wlad wouldn't lose to them"

It suggests than an inferior fighter does a better job than a supposedly "prime" version, which makes no sense at all.

The other equally farcical premise is that the man is in his prime now, was in his prime then and will ALWAYS be in his prime. Which cannot be the case, for the use of the word "Prime" is defining of a particular time period within a broader period of activity, i.e. Active: 1996-Present, Prime 1996-2005. etc.

Is one supposed to accept that Wlad has been turning in some of his best performances when past-his-prime? Again, if he is not, then the prospect of his having a prime since 1996, to present, looms large.

 

Watch out for splitting hairs! I KNOW they were stoppages. And that you need to go over these fights as if you are the only one who has seen them is telling. Your endless pumping of Wlad's status just doesn't hold want.

So, you can underline stoppages if that makes you feel better, but the bottom line is that Wlad has 3 embarrassing losses against inferior opponents. And no matter how much you try, you can't minimize them or wish them away.