Is Wlad an All Time Great Heavyweight?

He also brutally avenged both losses, making one cry like a girl and the other was sparked cleanly out in centre ring. Whilst those loses are definite blots on Lewis, the impact can be lessened by the return results.

Additionally, the idea that:

- Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali, Ruddock, Morrison

are in any way comparable to:

- Haye, Byrd, McCline, Rahman, Brock, Chambers, Ibramovic, Chagaev

is laughable. There isn't one bloke there I'd pick over Frank fucking Bruno, let alone the better fighters that Lewis beat.

MTF

 

exactly

everyone seems to overlook this...how can a great fighter not have beaten, or even fought the best guy out there??
can a great fighter not even be #1 throughout his entire career??

i see comparisons with Joe Louis? :giggle: Joe Louis was the top heavyweight for like a million years...wald pussy was not #1 at any stage of his career and never will be

every other fighter who is considered close to great was at least #1 in his division for 5minutes...this rule has to apply to wald pussy as well

 

Yeah, he'd be comparable to Joe Louis if Joe had a brother named John Louis who was there to beat up someone who sparked him in two rounds.

 

Yes, we will laugh with scorn.

Also, fighters being undefeated before fighting Wlad is meaningless. mikE was pretty much laughed off the forum for rating fighters that way.

AND...you are STILL trying to sell a washed-up Mercer as a significant opponent for Wlad?? Really??

 

yeh, he couldn't even be champion at the very end of Lewis's reign :scratcher:

 

Early July, a year later, it still burns, and burns.

I hear two big bolshy africans are going hard at it this July 14th. Keep a tight hold of your Ipods, and whatever other sundry Chinese plastic you have about your person if in the general vicinity of the Boleyn Ground.

 

It's not meaningless. Most fighters are easier to beat once they've lost.

 

No they aren't.

 

::

 

No they aren't. Flatly just aren't.

 

Shavers and Quarry would get blasted out by Wlad, as would Neon Leon Stinks, as would 99% of Joe Louis resume. Shavers was a better puncher. Quarry was a harder man, admirable in every respect of his menality and talent. But Shavers got blasted out by Quarry, and Quarry got KO'd by George Chuvalo, who was so slow he could work every gay club from San Fran to New York and never catch AIDS. Thats how slow he was. If you skin opens at the slightest insult, if the other guy has better faster hand, if his legs are longer than yours and if he can move around and slice you open, guess what, it doesn't matter how much harder you are, you are getting stopped.

Wlad is disagreeable ostensibly because he fights in a stinky fashion. That's the official rub, the superficial psychobabble. We know this is utter bollox. Ali held behind the head, constantly. Constantly. Broke the rules for fun. Lewis did it too.

The truth of the matter is that Wlad was never liked, even when he was an exciting two-fisted puncher who fought like the only fights he had ever seen were early MAB fights, right up to just before the first Junior Jones fight.

Then, when you get a date and a time for his public execution in the Fall of 2005, and the other half is injury-inspired retirement, and it turns out that not only does the fucker slip the noose, but also goes on a mazy, lucrative run...well....uh....its grabbing, uh...holding, that's the new line. Ali held. Lewis held. Wlad holds. He learned this shit from Hall of Famer trainer Manny Steward. And its not like he always held either.

Guy was never liked, neither was his brother. So you get what we have this weekend, a begrudging hope that something goes wrong, set, as it is, against a backdrop of an Ipod snatching-fest in East London between two guys who couldn't beat either brother, and the whole Manny/Khan/Ortiz/Judges thing in the States.

If this is really liking boxing, then.....:notallthere:

 

There are examples of this. Its not a hard rule, but there are examples, exceptions maybe, but they are there. The general rule for me would be that non-brutal losses early in the career can be used to prevent future losses, rather than be a source of future losses.

Exceptions/Examples? Jeff Lacy's loss to Calzaghe. There was a talented guy called Joseph Kiwanuka out of Uganda who was going just fine until he ran into Thomas Tate. Tate did such a number on Kiwanuka that when Manny Paz beat Kiwanuka, one scribe quipped that if Vinny Paz was really a stand-up guy, he would send Kiwanuka a "thank-you" note.

 

I am honestly not sure if mikE is a troll, or is genuinely this stupid.

 

They'll crack you head, pull the crystal out of your earlobes, then stab each other to get it, and when its all said and done, Hut will lecture you on how you just don't understand their mores wiles and ways. What the fuck were you doing there in the first place. Okay, nobody got raped at the Wlad fight, or had a car driven into them, but what a fucking boring night.

 

or wald pussy could get blasted out in 1 round against Shavers and Cooney :dunno: who knows, who cares, it's a mythical match up


all we know is that any guy you name has fought the best fighter in his division...whilst wald pussy never has and never will

 

or [c] knows more than you.

hint, it's c

 

What? not defending Wald here but still there are loads of examples. Take their invincebility maybe by KO even and you could have a very diminished fighter after that? We talk like that all the time here.

This guy ruined that guy, some are shot or overrated after a loss and fighting "leftovers" is somewhat of a diminished performance also.

 

You can analyze the sociology of this to death if you like mate, but the truth is he's just intrinsically unappealing. Even more so than Lewis was.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, you're a complete moron. More or less everything you say is wrong. The tip of my penis knows more about boxing than you do.

 

First off- the sociology is your "speciality"- not mine.

Secondly....intrinsically unappealing to who?

The same yobs who constitute maybe 3, 4 % of the World Population?

The same yobs that Warren is selling this chain-snatch fest in West Ham to?

 

You have a pEnis?

 

Sure, I mean, shit happens, but back in the day when guys could arrange multiple fights with less difficulty, I fancy Wlad to get wins there, one way or the other. Maybe he loses one to win one, but Quarry kept in contention back in the 70's by doing just that.

Wlad won't fight his brother. If the Williams Sisters want to run around in front of each other, sounding like a pair of furiously-tribbing dykes and hammering a small green ball at each other, then that's fine. Boxing isn't tennis, or bouncy-bouncy-orange-ball or anything else.

 

The biggest fool is a cocky fool.

Hint, that's you

 

Mike, losses don't always ruin fighters, they sometimes make fighters. Some first losses do make a guy easier to beat, but they are exceptions.

 

Was Duran more beatable after losing to DeJesus? Was Leonard more beatable after losing to Duran?

Was Hearns more beatable after losing to Hagler?

Was Hagler more beatable after losing to Munroe?

Was wald pussy more beatable after losing to Purrity?

Was Pacquiao more beatable after losing at flyweight? Was Pacquiao even more beatable after losing to Morales?

Was Morales more beatable after losing to Barrera? Was Barrera more beatable after losing to Morales?

It's complete bullshit. Of course there's the odd example where a guy just takes a career ending beating like Duran vs Moore, but generally speaking good fighters are the same or LESS beatable because of experience after a loss. As per usual, mikE has no idea what he's talking about.

 

You are the biggest joke on this forum.

Hint, it's because you're a total moron who has no idea what he's talking about, and has the same understanding of boxing as a high school cheerleader.

 

I never said they always ruin fighters. They obviously don't.

If we leave the realm of generic fighters and move to contender level (which is where this began referring to Wlad's undefeated challengers), the fighters who suffered their first loss to Wlad will be easier to beat than they were prior to facing him. The ones who aren't are the exceptions.

With a premise that it is worthwhile to study film of an opponent, watching an opponent's loss will likely give you a roadmap to beating him yourself. In other words, he'll be easier to beat since a proven roadmap exists.

With a premise that suffering a loss ruins a fighter's invincibility mindset, it follows that a fighter will not fight as hard to avoid a loss when he already has lived through one.

 

Yobs, boxing fans, everywhere except northern europe, 95% of fightbeat, whatever. People who get a thrill watching men who enjoy inflicting violence or are defiant in the face of it inflicted on them. there's no vicarious pleasure watching Wlad except his sexy bod.

 

The idea of a guy who fought scared against a fat feather-fisted Eddie Chambers blasting out Shavers is laughable.

 

:crying: Feel better now, crybaby?