Where does Wlad rank in HW history?

Don't even try it. This is exactly what you are inferring. Your ability to double talk is impressive, but even that won't help pump up Wlad's career.

 

I'm not trying to. How many times do I have to repeat that. I just want to know if his losses occurred during his prime. Thats all.

 

Answer the question. :dancingBaby:

 

You don't have the first clue of what you're talking about.

 

Joe Louis was no Lamon Brewster, I'll give you that. He was also one of the cleanest, most honest-fighting HW Champs in history, too --- & you're not beating Klitschko without poison, naturally.

 

Lamon Brewster was no Schmeling either ::

Never seen how so many midgets could get so far in life via the simple medium of black-and-white photography and Runyon-esque story-telling.

 

Thank God the K-brothers have their own modern day Runyon in you.

Wlad is a good fighter, although not a great one. Big brother, on the other hand...

 

please explain.

dempsey did weigh less than 190 during all of his big fights (until he came out of retirement to fight gene tunney...a light heavyweight) and several 170 LBS and less men went the distance with him.

ALSO, joe louis was put on his back against sub 200 LBSers numerous times (3 vs walcott ((although the official knockdowns scored were questionable, so were the non calls)).. schmeling (190) ..marciano (184)) not to mention absolute bums like tony galento and buddy baer put him on his back (lets not even mention how modern day he possibly couldve been stopped in the 1st round by mauriello and in the 12th by conn (a non punching 174 LBS man)

regardless of the purist you claim to be and unknowlingly assume i am not, i know more about classic boxing than anybody this side of nat fleischer. just because i subscribe to the idea that heavyweights are simply evolving not becoming bums, does not mean i dont appreciate legends like jack sharkey, kid matthews, etc.

sorry guys, but nate campbell would leave joe gans in a body bag. and likewise klitschko would lay waste to all 26 people joe louis beat as heavyweight champion (including joe himself) and wouldve never been given controversial wins over godoy and arguably tommy farr as well (by all accounts very close fight)

athletes get better. boxers are athletes.

 

Where does Ray Robinson, an athlete from a technologically distant time, rate in your eyes?

 

7 years???

I mean, REALLY?

If he wasn't in his prime after 7 years, and a 40-1 record, then he picked the strangest time of any heavyweight ever to magically become "prime" (which conveniently enough for you, seems to be after his three totally embarassing KO defeats)

how many KO losses to bums did Ali have in his first 41 fights? how about Louis?

 

Joe Frazier was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and he beat Muhammad Ali

Now, if you transpose those same credentials to 1987 and he loses to Tyson, it's a magnificent win for Tyson... what the fuck does that have to do with being a champ in a shitty era... all you need are EYEBALLS and a reasonable understanding of boxing to see plainly that the first quintet you mentioned is a hell of a lot more formidable than the second one... are you really having trouble deciding if Eddie Chambers is not as good as Evander Holyfield? You can't SEE that Joe Frazier is better than Tony Tubbs?

what is your point exactly???

 

Specifically you are talking about the first Brewster fight. Does this now mean we are agreed that the man was not in his prime for the Purritty loss???

If he was in his prime after 7 years, then, 7 years later again, is he still in his prime???

I never made any reference to the Brewster loss as not being in his prime. I never said any such a thing. To do so would be perverse, as it would suggest that the day after he entered a period of primed-ness which had been lacking for the Brewster fight.

The truth of the matter is that these discussions are so desperately lacking in any sort of definitions or clarity.

The simple reality is that the Wladimir who has emerged in the seven years from 2004-2011 is a different fighter to the one who was active from 1996 to 2004.

Physically, technically, mentally, there are differences.

 

You don't think Tyson KOs the following fighters:

Frazier
Norton
Quarry
Shavers
Bonavena

 

He hasn't fought Ruiz either and Ruiz was a long time champ too.
Didn't fought Valuev too, and Valuev had a couple of defenses

I'd rate Wald between 20 and 10.

 

Who the fuck is Max Schemeling you stupid cunt. Wlad makes mashed potatos out of Schmeling... :notallthere:


And James Jeffries :atu: no one from 18hundred beats Wlad...

 

A big knock on Wlad too is that he basically ''cleaned'' the division with his brother. So he's basically fighting only half of an already mediocre division ( well, a bit more than half since his resume is far superior to Vitaly )

 

JJ Jeffries is the exception to the rule. JJ Jeffries, with proper training, would be a contender in just about any era. He was a legitimately big, fast man with a hard head. He would have destroyed Dempsey make no mistake about it. Too big, too fast, too hard. Hell the man came back from a 6 year lay off to go 15 rounds with Jack Johnson, and, unlike Dempsey, he fought and beat black heavyweights during his time. It seems Fitz fought him with loaded gloves, and still got beat.

 

WoW so he fought a middleweight with loaded gloves. Impressive...

 

As usual, you have things ass-backwards. Cdogg already summed it up for you so i don't even need to respond to this.

And all the double talk and going off on tangents does anything to disprove that the current heavyweight division blows and has done so for a while now.

 

:dunno:I never said he was in his prime for Purrity

Sanders? Brewster? he certainly was

 

He still lost to Ross Purity though.

Ross Purity ::

Stopped, too. :laughing:

 

Doubletalk my ass. Leave the Dubbletalk to Dubblechin. You were asked a specific question against a backdrop of concessions already made by me as to the nature of the losses in question. You chose not to answer that question. So be it.

 

Jeffries was the earliest champ I would give credence to in any era, though you will find little patience for your post. I started a thread here recently pitting Jeffries against Marciano, and much to my surprise, Jeffries' chances were laughed off. Personally, I see very few advantages in that fight for Marciano.

 

Fair enough then. Personally, I regard his prime as starting once he hooked up with Manny which is before the Brewster loss but after the Sanders debacle.

Define prime? Physical prime? Mental prime?? An element of both??

 

Marciano has next to no chance against Jeffries or any other fighter like Rocky that was bigger than Rocky. Marciano never faced a 6'2" 215lb+ man like Jeffries. He might have, if he had fought Valdes, but he didn't.

 

I think there is some degree of truth to this. Seems to be almost this unconscious thought for people to lump together their achievements.

 

Let's say that was true...the corollary also rings true, as people lump together their setbacks.

Remember, Wlad, who did not quit vs Purritty, was treated as a quitter because his brother went on to quit vs Byrd. Retrospectively, the word was that Wlad had basically quit vs Purritty. There was no video of the fight, or youtube, so it was a handy fallacy to persist with.

Then Wlad, who was stopped by Sanders, had his average chin transplanted onto his brother, who, it turned out, had an outstanding chin.

The simple reality is that they are different fighters as they are different men.

 

I agree. I see them as very different.

 

I like MY chances to confuse Jeffries with a make-shift jab and at worst get a draw in a 4 rounder, LOL

You guys are hilarious

If Jeffries had ever seen Rocky Marciano fight, doing all of this crazy stuff like moving his head and throwing a combination, he'd have been convinced he was seeing a supernatural demon

 

:bears: