Why Wlad will have the last laugh on all us critics !!

First topic message reminder :

I have Louis number 2 by a mile in my Heavyweight ATG list...........His opposition wasn't that great until the end of his reign and he had an up and down record against those....

He's number 2 because he was a dominant Heavy and had great Longevity......

Same as Wlad...............

So when Klitty has slung his hook ...It's going to be highly hypocritical (though I'll give it a go !! ) For us not to have him very high in the ATG Heavy list....

I mean I chuck Sanders at Wlad..............But we could chuck Schmelling at Louis....

Louis deserved high ranking is the problem for all us Wlad detractors...........

Yep Wlad will have the longest laugh..............If we don't have him high he has great rebuttal !!!!!.

How does Rocky beat Tua....????

He was 187 and easy to hit...........

I think to some respects Wlad is hurt by the multi belt era, and not just from the perspective of not unifying, he suffered his losses when he was still green and learning what worked for him and what didn’t. The problem is, due to the proliferation of belts around now he suffered these losses (Purrity aside) in world title shots so they receive a focus they probably don’t deserve. Dick Tiger once lost four on the bounce early in his career, but they were rightly non title fights and so dismissed as learning fights and as such do not hurt his overall standing. Was it not for how nonsensical the situation with the belts and governing bodies is now we should be saying the same about Wlad’s losses.
 
He lost a few when he was a relative novice, he learned from them, he improved. It’s what is meant to happen.

RatBoy66 wrote: Thankfully I'll be in my late 70's by then and no doubt in no fit state to debate on the internet.    

some of us don't let a bit of dementia put us off

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:C'mon, Wlad has longevity going for him and that's it.

He has no credible names on his record, Haye is probably his best win ffs!
He seldom refuses to fight away from his comfort zone (geographically)

If there were the like of Lewis/Holy/Bowe around he would have 6/7 losses on his record by now and would be nothing more than an EBU sort of contender. You simply can't elevate a guy who beat a load of stiffs who wouldn't make the top 75 HWs of all time. We should rank based on who they fought, who they beat and so forth. "Oh but he's gone years unbeaten" is all he has and he doesn't make the top 40 HWs in my list.

If it was all about names on your record................Norris would be a Top 20 alltime great....

Louis fought sloppy seconds and stiffs until Walcott..His best win was against a supermiddle.

Yeah Louis fought total stiffs and sloppy seconds. Dear me. Probably why he's a total shoe-in in most peoples top 10 ATGs and top 3 heavies.

I've got him number 2...

Now bore somebody else..

"Sloppy seconds" , "Best win is a super middle"

Yet...

"I've got him number 2"

I clearly have some disagreement with you over this issue my good sir.

Do you read threads ?????........

Longevity and dominance of his division...

Besides don't be "rude".. ......

Louis just like Wlad, Marciano, Dempsey and almost every Heavyweight champion besides the 70's and early 90's lot fought in a truly awful division devoid of great opposition. Unsurprisingly the American trio and each of them has almost god like status are rated far beyond their opposition should allow them to be.

Marciano was not a great fighter by any stretch of the imagination without that 49-0 record he would be a mere footnote in Heavyweight history but somehow finds himself a consensus top ten Heavyweight. He did beat the biggest names of his era but I would argue he didn't face the best Heavyweights of his era, when they include Nino Valdes you know the era isn't up to much. The issue with Marciano is how impressive his record looks on paper; Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore, you'd be hard pushed to find any Heavyweight with better named victories but they were either past their best, above their best weight of a combination of the two. McGrain however has him at number three, do me a favour.

The same is also true of Dempsey but he was a better boxer and gets rated highly for his aggressive nature, again though his actual record is poor and the colour line makes it difficult for me to rate him.

Louis is deserving of his number two ranking but that is purely down to longevity because his opposition was pretty dire with the odd exception and I personally think there's a lot of subsequent Heavyweights who beat him.

Wlad beats both Marciano and Dempsey with relative ease, they're simply too small and a very good powerful 250lber isn't losing to a 190lber who doesn't have a great defence. They may have been great in their own eras which they were but it's now 2015 the sport and more specifically the division has moved on since the 50's, it's probably about time it's fans did too.

There's also the fact that every HW era bar the post Liston era, there's been grumblings about it being weak - bum of the month etc etc and this was prior to the proliferation of the titles only with the passing of time have exceptional light heavyweights become formidable heavyweights instead . Even in the late 80s prior to the depth of talent being lost to the powder experts were saying they'd never seen the division so weak. Its nonsense. There's the two standout eras in terms of talent and marketability and the rest less marketable eras with none of them being appreciably better than the other. I think it's fair enough to say that Wlad holds his own in any era with the exception of Ali's one. He might not be king in the 90's but he's not so far out of his depth that he doesn't belong there or thereabouts.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Louis just like Wlad, Marciano, Dempsey and almost every Heavyweight champion besides the 70's and early 90's lot fought in a truly awful division devoid of great opposition. Unsurprisingly the American trio and each of them has almost god like status are rated far beyond their opposition should allow them to be.

Marciano was not a great fighter by any stretch of the imagination without that 49-0 record he would be a mere footnote in Heavyweight history but somehow finds himself a consensus top ten Heavyweight. He did beat the biggest names of his era but I would argue he didn't face the best Heavyweights of his era, when they include Nino Valdes you know the era isn't up to much. The issue with Marciano is how impressive his record looks on paper; Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore, you'd be hard pushed to find any Heavyweight with better named victories but they were either past their best, above their best weight of a combination of the two. McGrain however has him at number three, do me a favour.

The same is also true of Dempsey but he was a better boxer and gets rated highly for his aggressive nature, again though his actual record is poor and the colour line makes it difficult for me to rate him.

Louis is deserving of his number two ranking but that is purely down to longevity because his opposition was pretty dire with the odd exception and I personally think there's a lot of subsequent Heavyweights who beat him.

Wlad beats both Marciano and Dempsey with relative ease, they're simply too small and a very good powerful 250lber isn't losing to a 190lber who doesn't have a great defence. They may have been great in their own eras which they were but it's now 2015 the sport and more specifically the division has moved on since the 50's, it's probably about time it's fans did too.

Marciano wasn't a great fighter? I've genuinely never seen anyone express that opinion. Marciano was very definitely a great fighter. He was everything you'd look for in a great champion: impossible to outbox, dissuade or keep down he was a courageous, tenacious, exciting, power-punching phenom. His rally to stop Charles when only minutes away from losing his championship is a legendary feat. He displayed legit greatness in his own era.

If you're ranking fighters on size and based on who you feel beats who then you'll probably have Valuev and Fury over Marciano and the rest. Not for me. Good luck to you but in terms of the quantity of good work they got done in their time, Marciano - a great fighter - is way ahead of the likes of Klitschko.

Marciano was not a great fighter and it was more than possible to outbox him as Walcott more than proved, he just benefited from having a bunch of light heavyweights around to beat and his quantity of good work is very thin on the ground.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Marciano was not a great fighter and it was more than possible to outbox him as Walcott more than proved, he just benefited from having a bunch of light heavyweights around to beat and his quantity of good work is very thin on the ground.

I'm not sure where to go with that. If you're refusing to even acknowledge Marciano is a great fighter then it's a bit of a dead end.

The only thing Walcott proved was that you could outbox Rocky for a few rounds but he'd catch up to you over the course of a fight.

If Marciano's opposition wasn't up to much what on earth must you think of Wlad's? Tyson Fury - of all people - is potentially the best heavyweight he ever fought. Tyson. Fury.

I don't have to acknowledge anything with regards to Marciano and just because you think he is without doubt great (the historians say he is) doesn't mean everyone else has to, it's called an opinion.

I'd say that Wlads opposition is better than Marciano's to be honest, look past the names and you'll soon realise they were in awful form, ageing and above their best weight. I would genuinely take Haye and Povetkin to beat shells of Louis, Moore and Charles but unsurprisingly size doesn't matter when it comes to historically important Heavyweights, 190lb Heavyweights have been so prominent since the 50's.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't have to acknowledge anything with regards to Marciano and just because you think he is without doubt great (the historians say he is) doesn't mean everyone else has to, it's called an opinion.

I'd say that Wlads opposition is better than Marciano's to be honest, look past the names and you'll soon realise they were in awful form, ageing and above their best weight. I would genuinely take Haye and Povetkin to beat shells of Louis, Moore and Charles but unsurprisingly size doesn't matter when it comes to historically important Heavyweights, 190lb Heavyweights have been so prominent since the 50's.

Again, if you're ranking fighters based on weight then that's a different criteria to the one I (and most others) would apply. On that basis, your top ten would include both Klitschkos and Valuev (and presumably Bowe). That's an arbitrary basis for rating fighters.

As mentioned earlier, not one of Wlad's opponents would make a heavyweight top 100 (aside from Ray Mercer - who was 41 and looked every year).

Take Walcott, who boxed a marvellous fight against Rocky. Walcott is probably one of the top 20 heavyweights who ever lived and was coming off two of the finest wins of his career over all-time great Ez Charles (who some rate in the top ten heavyweights all-time). Walcott alone is better than a million Pinates or Wachs.

If you're doing the imaginary who'd beat who thing, though, then good on you (but that's not for me).

All bow to McGrain, the only opinion that matters seemingly. Not sure how that means Valuev would be in the top ten considering there are far more than nine boxers who beat him, size does contribute to ability in the Heavyweight division whether you like to admit or not. May as well chuck Robinson in at number one at Heavyweight too.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:All bow to McGrain, the only opinion that matters seemingly. Not sure how that means Valuev would be in the top ten considering there are far more than nine boxers who beat him, size does contribute to ability in the Heavyweight division whether you like to admit or not. May as well chuck Robinson in at number one at Heavyweight too.

Arguing that fighter A rates above fighter B because you feel fighter A would chin fighter B in an imaginary fight is Ok for knock about debate but that's about it. Judging fighters on their records can also be an ambiguous task but it's a more pragmatic method.

Otherwise you end up with the likes of Akinwande over Tunney, Fury over Burns and Valuev over Jeffries - which is just nonsense.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:size does contribute to ability in the Heavyweight division whether you like to admit or not. May as well chuck Robinson in at number one at Heavyweight too.

By extension (and using your method) an all-time 100 would include only heavyweights as the likes of Duran and Robinson would stand no chance against Tim Witherspoon.

No sh^t sherlock.

Yeah but Valuev is sh*t and was slapped around by Chagaev who is pretty good but not great. He was outboxed by an ancient holyfield, robbed an ancient ruiz and in facing any fighter of moderate or better quality has shown to be wanting. He was a circus act not a fighter who you'd back to beat Jeffries. Fury has yet to show anything to prove he's better than Haye, Chagaev, Pulev, brewster, brock, peters, ray austin, Byrd, Jennings, Wach, Povetkin and even someone like Pianetta or Leapai he's probably no more than on a par with.

Matt Mcgrain..............

51 Hopkins....34 Hagler

Roy Jones 29.....Billy Conn 27

Mayweather 47......Chavez 35........

What a joke....

I've read some crackpot things on this forum before but Marciano not a great fighter, that just about takes the biscuit.

He had one of the biggest hearts in the history of the sport. Size is unimportant, he'd murder Wlad imo. Put the $hit$ up him. Don't forget Breidis was giving away over thirty pounds just the other night to Manuel Charr.

Of course size is important, how stupid can you be to say it's unimportant, it's the exact reason why Archie Moore failed at Heavyweight.

Marciano murders Wlad doesn't it, that 15 inch reach advantage and 60lbs in weight mean nothing because the Rock could stand up to light heavyweights.

Herman Jaeger wrote:I've read some crackpot things on this forum before but Marciano not a great fighter, that just about takes the biscuit.

He had one of the biggest hearts in the history of the sport. Size is unimportant, he'd murder Wlad imo.  Put the $hit$ up him. Don't  forget Breidis was giving away over thirty pounds just the other night to Manuel Charr.

He weighed 187...

190lb face first Rocky Marciano murders the 250lb Wladimir Klitschko despite being slower, weaker, less powerful and in fact a lesser boxer, he does this because the historians have all told us how great he was.

Murders Wlad to the body.

'Kill the body and the head will die.'

Marciano on a different level to Wlad in terms of heart and intensity.

Its moments like this I miss Manos most.

Do miss Manos , whatever happened to him. Klute was a big loss too.

Herman Jaeger wrote:Murders Wlad to the body.

'Kill the body and the head will die.'

Marciano on a different level to Wlad in terms of heart and intensity.

He might have more heart but considering he defends with his face he won't be getting anywhere near Wlads body, he won't have felt power like it before.

Would destroy Wlad mentally in the build up. Different level.

Started a career as a comedian I see Herman.

I'm a Marciano fan but to suggest he walks through any decent heavyweight, of which Wlad is, no matter how grudgingly we might want to acknowledge this, whilst spotting them 60 pounds of weight and 6 or 7 inch of height and reach does not seem the sort of statement anyone should really be making with absolute conviction.

Rocky is a guy I admire greatly. There can be few fighters who have adapted and developed their style to get the most they can out of a fairly limited skill set, but he had weaknesses. He was never exactly hard to hit, had a tendency to cut and tended to get dumped on his rear end when he came up against punchers. Would have to counter all that and say he tended to get up, could obviously dig a bit, was a 15 round fighter in the true sense of the phrase and had a heart rarely rivalled in the game, but not a guy I'd pick with huge conviction against any of the better heavyweights, although not an easy night for any either.

It's a tough fight for both of them , to suggest Marciano has no chance is at best naive , at worst ignorant. Only countering Hammer's lunacy with lunacy.

Wlad's got a chance early, but this is a fifteen rounder. The longer it goes on, I only see one winner.

He's got no chance there you go.............I'm naive...

Mcguigan was a good bodypuncher too....But I don't fancy his chance against Dwight Muhammad Qawi do you...

He was 50 pounds heavier...

Manual Charr looked about fifty heavier than Breidis too!

Got to get away from the size thing. It's the heavyweights. History has shown its a law unto itself. Not like any other division.

These super heavies can go down like a ton of bricks...

hazharrison wrote:If Marciano's opposition wasn't up to much what on earth must you think of Wlad's? Tyson Fury - of all people - is potentially the best heavyweight he ever fought. Tyson. Fury.

? Has somebody hacked your account? You at least used to talk sense.

Herman Jaeger wrote:Manual Charr looked about fifty heavier than Breidis too!

Got to get away from the size thing. It's the heavyweights. History has shown its a law unto itself. Not like any other division.

These super heavies can go down like a ton of bricks...

Wlad is a little better than Charr..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Manual Charr looked about fifty heavier than Breidis too!

Got to get away from the size thing. It's the heavyweights. History has shown its a law unto itself. Not like any other division.

These super heavies can go down like a ton of bricks...

Wlad is a little better than Charr..

Surely not...

All relative though, Rocky a touch better than Breidis no ?

Yeah but he's not better than Wlad which is the point Wlad is bigger and better

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah but he's not better than Wlad which is the point Wlad is bigger and better

Yep...

Herman Jaeger wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Manual Charr looked about fifty heavier than Breidis too!

Got to get away from the size thing. It's the heavyweights. History has shown its a law unto itself. Not like any other division.

These super heavies can go down like a ton of bricks...

Wlad is a little better than Charr..

Surely not...

All relative though, Rocky a touch better than Breidis no ?

187 pound face first brawler beats 250 pound safety first fighter with big punch.....

Anyone fancy Quigg against Ward ????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Manual Charr looked about fifty heavier than Breidis too!

Got to get away from the size thing. It's the heavyweights. History has shown its a law unto itself. Not like any other division.

These super heavies can go down like a ton of bricks...

Wlad is a little better than Charr..

Surely not...

All relative though, Rocky a touch better than Breidis no ?

187 pound face first brawler beats 250 pound safety first fighter with big punch.....

Anyone fancy Quigg against Ward ????

Yes please Truss.

Can you get me tickets? Can I sit by you? Will it be at the front?

Are you guys serious? Ped's or not, 13-14 stone heavy at 5'10 has no chance against 6'6 17.5 stone athlete.

Is the division rubbish? Yes? How ever have athletes evolved in the last 50 years? You bet.

Some of you guys "with knowledge" need to get your heads out of your cornflakes.

As Mr. Tyson has said recently, "Athletes get better even if they don't look it."

Boxing is no different. Advancements in training and supplements have come a long way the past 20-30 years. Ffs stop thinking old is better all the time.

Are Louis and Rocky better than Wlad? Probably for their era, yeah. Would they win a mythical head to head? No chance.

Fed up Cat footing around the nostalgia aspect of boxing.

I'll have my ten aliases either side of me........Once you tell me who they are !!

I guess when Marciano was boxing there was nobody in the world that was 6 feet 5, 250lbs and had a big punch. Otherwise they would have been the heavyweight champion of the world.

AdamT wrote:Are you guys serious? Ped's or not, 13-14 stone heavy at 5'10 has no chance against 6'6 17.5 stone athlete.

Is the division rubbish? Yes? How ever have athletes evolved in the last 50 years? You bet.

Some of you guys "with knowledge" need to get your heads out of your cornflakes.

As Mr. Tyson has said recently, "Athletes get better even if they don't look it."

Boxing is no different. Advancements in training and supplements have come a long way the past 20-30 years. Ffs stop thinking old is better all the time.

Are Louis and Rocky better than Wlad? Probably for their era, yeah. Would they win a mythical head to head? No chance.

Fed up Cat footing around the nostalgia aspect of boxing.

When you consider blown up light heavy Archie Moore put him on his arse...........The odds are even slimmer..

Not that Hermy knows Moore decked Rocky..

Maybe Rocky comes in stone and a half, two stone heavier for Wlad today?

He was 5 ft 9/10 mate....and didn't have a heavy build like Frazier or Tyson..

Even easier night....

Maybe you should move on........Do you like Soccer ??

catchweight wrote:I guess when Marciano was boxing there was nobody in the world that was 6 feet 5, 250lbs and had a big punch. Otherwise they would have been the heavyweight champion of the world.

Quite clearly not, four years after his retirement the genuinely devastating Sonny Liston started to terrorise the division and with it it awoke from a long slumber.

Herman Jaeger wrote:Maybe Rocky comes in stone and a half, two stone heavier for Wlad today?

At the same time we'll add a bit of reinforcement to Wlads chin; Marciano achieved success through his relentless training regime which focused on his stamina and if you then add weight to him you actually start to destroy what made Rocky Marciano a champion in the first place.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:I guess when Marciano was boxing there was nobody in the world that was 6 feet 5, 250lbs and had a big punch. Otherwise they would have been the heavyweight champion of the world.

Quite clearly not, four years after his retirement the genuinely devastating Sonny Liston started to terrorise the division and with it it awoke from a long slumber.

Don't start talking sense on here..

Yes quite clearly there were no 250lb, 6'5 men around those days that could punch hard in those days. They only evolved decades later to the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing that exists now. Darwin at work.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Maybe Rocky comes in stone and a half, two stone heavier for Wlad today?

At the same time we'll add a bit of reinforcement to Wlads chin; Marciano achieved success through his relentless training regime which focused on his stamina and if you then add weight to him you actually start to destroy what made Rocky Marciano a champion in the first place.

For once, a reasonable point.