Thread: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list

It's one thing to dislike his style. I don't like it. But another thing to ignore 53 kos aka 78% ratio.

Then to name what HW actually fought talented HWs to retain their title?
Jack Dempsey tough no blacks...
Joe Louis bum of the Month club.
Rocky Marciano over the hill has been fighters
Ali fought and lost to every top ten fighter post 1970 except Forman. Lost to an 8-0 spinks.
Holmes ...name 3 greats he beat!
Remember ...he won a title from Norton..who didn't win the title in the ring.
Tyson unified titles from guys who couldn't defend it twice before trading belts.
Lennox is given credit post retirement ..he was dogged for getting ktfo by hasim and mcCall.
Two guys that didn't beat no body after that.

Again ten years in this era is worse than the others how??
No argument from me that he clinched ..so, too did Lennox.
Wlad has a great fucking Jab, good power, ring generalship.
Always in shape.
He was also a tender hearted boxer with no killer instinct..but it took another mammoth clincher to prove it.

Fury had no ability to throw combos none. So we traded one built giant for a goofball giant.

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Ten years... ten years... ten years. Just the number doesn't make the case for me. How did he fight against the "dangerous" opponents? Let's go back, shall we? Sultan Ibragimov. All the talk was about Sultan's powerful left hand. So what did Wlad do? Chloroform his audience by pawing incessantly at Sultan for 12 NAUSEATING ROUNDS. Next up.... David Haye. Haye talked so much, he must've gotten in Wlad's head. So what did Wlad do about it? Absolutely zilch. Another boring-ass fight. Haye with his big toe excuse, and Wlad content with punching in on the timeclock again. Then along came Povetkin, and the promise of action. Povetkin didn't talk hardly at all..... but he came to fight. What did Wlad do? He mauled, he clinched, he leaned, he fouled. He did everything in his GODDAM POWER to make the fight as ugly as possible and of course unwinnable for Povetkin. And finally, along came Fury.... and we all know how THAT turned out.

No..... Wlad gets little or no credit for his 10 years in my book.
For me it's good riddance, see you later, don't let the door hit you in the ass type of thing.

Couldn't agree more. Get his boring mediocre ass OUT OF HERE.

Originally Posted by TitoFan

This was always more about Wlad than about Fury for me. Hey... all credit to Fury for unseating the champ and doing something no other opponent had actually stepped into the ring to do..... actually trying to beat Wlad. But I want to make my position clear. It's about Wlad expressing his mindset as a fighter by the way he fought Fury. Those early career knockout losses must've affected Wlad more than anybody ever knew. Hell.... Lennox was KTFO'ed a couple of times, and always came back aggressively to win back the championship. That's called "cojones", something Wlad has never had.

So kudos to Fury for finding a way to take the decision from Wlad in Wlad's own backyard, but..... this was just a validation of Wlad's unwillingness to accept even one small iota of risk. Someone like that does not deserve to hold the HW belt.

Well said. I concede.

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

It's one thing to dislike his style. I don't like it. But another thing to ignore 53 kos aka 78% ratio.

Then to name what HW actually fought talented HWs to retain their title?
Jack Dempsey tough no blacks...
Joe Louis bum of the Month club.
Rocky Marciano over the hill has been fighters
Ali fought and lost to every top ten fighter post 1970 except Forman. Lost to an 8-0 spinks.
Holmes ...name 3 greats he beat!
Remember ...he won a title from Norton..who didn't win the title in the ring.
Tyson unified titles from guys who couldn't defend it twice before trading belts.
Lennox is given credit post retirement ..he was dogged for getting ktfo by hasim and mcCall.
Two guys that didn't beat no body after that.

Again ten years in this era is worse than the others how??
No argument from me that he clinched ..so, too did Lennox.
Wlad has a great fucking Jab, good power, ring generalship.
Always in shape.
He was also a tender hearted boxer with no killer instinct..but it took another mammoth clincher to prove it.

Fury had no ability to throw combos none. So we traded one built giant for a goofball giant.

Some of the people I agree and others I don't. Dempsey and Marciano I agree with. Joe Louis was amid racist people that wanted to lessen what he was doing. He actually fought some very good fighters and also very tough fighters. Ali beat many good fighters post 1970 whether or not they were rated in the top 10 which I have a hard time believing none of them were but I'm not going to look them up. Ali was beyond finished by the spinks fight also.

Many people do talk about Holmes opposition and its true he wasn't in a strong division but he fought some decent fighters. For example, I would easily rank Norton above anybody wlad ever fought. Shavers and cooney would most likely beat wlad too which Holmes beat both of. Tyson was also in a weak era and I agree that he is overrated. He lost to the best fighters he fought but was a very dominate fighter when he was at his best. To be fair though, wlad would have no chance against holyfield or Lewis. And I've always thought Lewis was good.

At least lesser fighters in other eras actually have a semi name recognition. People like ibromigov or povetkin or whoever else probably will be completely forgotten in about 10 years.