Where does Wlad rank in HW history?

This is like discussing Cory Spinks' ranking in WW history, in the sense that it's not high enough to really merit any discussion.

 

Nonsense. Not analogous at all.

 

I's gots a problem with primitive, tribal, patriotism,.. she doesn't matter if it's America or wherever,.. but lately america's ambiguous shares are crashing in every concievable way, and we find ourselves the victims of a drawn out dummy-spit,.. I will say though,.. America-groupies are not the loudest pugnacious bunch,.. the British are right fucking morons and should be embarrassed by the bone-headed roaring hooligans that their burrough has become famous for,..it seems to be a place that would sanction three quarters of thier budget going into sports, ...........thankfully, the Brits on this forum,.. are very sorry for it. America has it's upside,..for example,..the commentary is the most balanced,.. far less biased than Britain, and the worst of all Australia,... however, America does win in snitty editorialism and thus it continues. :nono:

 

This is true. But the Brits are smaller, so its like a terrier yipping constantly.

 

It is analogous from a teenybopper view where being equally boring means being equally bad

 

Exactly,.. it's amazing how C-dogg seems to make us see eye to eye.






....(:crafty:)

 

Corey Spinks dominated welterweight for half a decade?

 

The Klits being bad and being boring as two separate issues that are intertwined. For instance, Wlad has to be boring/cheat by holding excessively because, like John Ruiz, he just isn't that good. He isn't a complete fighter.

I do find it amusing to have my views on the Klits questioned by someone who thinks Wladimir is superior to Roberto Duran.

 

:giggle:

 

He's right. It's effective because refs don't enforce the rules, but on that particular point he's right.

 

Do you think that Wlad's about as good as John Ruiz?

 

So if the fighter uses the easiest, most effective way to defend himself, it is because he is not that good? That's like saying Ali moved so much because he couldn't punch. I agree with you that refs should penalize more easily for clinching, but that isn't really the fighter's problem. Or, if we take this road, we might as well talk about a Panamanian guy who also clinched and broke all other rules as well, but let's not:TLC:

 

No, Wlad is obviously better than John Ruiz.

If I had to rank the 3 fighters mentioned it would go something like


1. Duran
































































(insert another 50 pages of whitespace)

2. Wladimir

3. John Ruiz

 

Moving isn't against the rules. Excessive holding is. Pretty simple point.

Duran 'held' to maul and hurt guys, Wlad holds to avoid fighting. Hence the differing attitude among fans to what you think is a commonality.

 

precisely

 

Fighter can be penalized for being too passive and not fighting too, thus excessive running is against rules too. Like with holding, it is up to the ref to decide where the line is. Personally I would also like to see more warnings (or 10-8 rounds) given against guys who obviously run, of course not pointing at Ali per ce.

Also, I think this difference between different holdings is more a matter of taste that a matter of principal. Both Wlad and Duran used holding to get an advantage to beat their opponents. Wlad's physique is not good for inside fighting so he wants to do it as little as he can, while Duran could do effective work while holding. There is no rule that would say holding to hurt the other guy is ok either. That's why it is about tastes, ie. what you want to see. Personally I find most of Duran's fights very boring. Though I understand I am pretty much alone with that take, it still doesn't make one type of holding more correct.

The reason why I am not completely against (any type of) holding is that it has always been a big part of fist fights. In the earlier boxing rules wrestling moves were allowed and also early during the Queensberry rules there was whole lot more holding than there is now. Even though boxing is a sport, I do like to see combat sports retain some 'reality'. Whenever there is a fist fight, the other guy can hold, it is just a part of the game, and that's why I wouldn't want to see it completely gone from boxing either, even though it could make for prettier bouts

 

Well I'd personally go the other way and say that consistent deliberate holding like that undermines the martial basis of the sport since in real combat a boxer would be surrendering his skillset by entering a clinch and likely end up on his back.

Holding, clinching & mauling as part of infighting's always been part of the sport, but with the expectation that both guys would fight through it for as long as they could and out of it if possible. I don't remember seeing many guys prior to Ali shamelessly/deliberately grab a guy to stop the action and just hold on & wait for the ref to split things as a consistent tactic. Clinches often happened before but they were usually just two guys intangling as part of them both attacking at the same time.

Personally, in so far as it's obviously a way to AVOID FIGHTING, I think it needs stamping out.

 

Wladimir also brutally knocks people out. Try to remember this.

 

Preventing the other guy from doing his thing has always been part of boxing. At least Wlad has not introduced an offensive aspect to it, as Lewis did, as early as 10 years ago, where he held behind the head and threw uppercuts, or as Ali did, where he held Joe Frazier behind the head.

 

Well, I'll declare my bias here - I find methods of cheating that are designed to escape fighting much more insidious and undermining of the sport than offensive cheating. In fact, in general terms, as long as it doesn't put the other guy in more danger than regular punching (like hitting being the head, major headbutting, hitting a guy when he's down) Im totally amenable to offensive cheating. It's a fighting sport.

 

Wow. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. And based on your many, many other wrong answers, that is saying something.

 

He won't.

 

Wlad doesnt make it easy.

 

Nope, but Eddie Chambers lying on the ground, motionless, for long periods of time, should make it easy.

The bottom line, that was a pretty brutal 1 punch KO.

 

I agree --- if you agree not going after Haye and Ibragimov (I could go on) is equally a laugh.

 

He went after Peter in the 12th when all he had to do was run and get a points decision he wasn't supposed to get. He did a total number on Byrd in 2006 which was better than the performance he turned in vs Byrd in 2000. Its not been all 12 round decisions.

Ibragimov was a case of a guy not wanting to fight at all. Ali had those with guys like Jimmy Young and Alfredo Evangelista. Some guys show up just to mess you up and survive. Every fighter has them.

 

I agree it hasnt all been boring 12-rounders. Wlad has a great punch, and a very good jab with which to set it up. I think where we disagree is that Wlad needs to accept a good chunk of blame for a lot of these snoozers.

 

A lot of these snoozers end with one of the combatants snoozing......Peter and Chambers did the old Percussion Snooze.

If you are looking for a partner in crime for Wlad, then look no further than The Great Emmanuel himself.

 

I guess there will always be someone else to carry Wlad's share of the blame.

 

By a 6'7" 245 lb heavyweight.. fighting a fat light heavyweight.. after 12 rounds of jabbing and grabbing.. after his trainer basically shamed him into it.

You were seriously impressed by that?