Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
I've always said, despite his dominance, I would never put him on my p4p list because in reality, he wasn't that good. He just dominated a weak division. Losing to Fury shows exactly why he isn't that good. I'm not even saying that Fury is better, but Fury did easily win a decision. At least with a KO, you can say that it's a big HW and its easy to get caught. Getting outboxed just shows your lack of skill.
For example, Fury really isn't a good fighter in the scheme of things. He is nowhere near the level of a p4p level fighter. Let's look at GGG. He easily dismantled lemieux. He outboxed him without having to fight hesitantly. I would say lemieux is on a higher level than fury by at least a little bit. So lets reverse the roles. If GGG would have gotten KO'd by lemieux, then I could claim that GGG is better but got caught. If lemieux just outboxed him, I would have said that GGG wasn't anywhere near the level of fighter I thought he was.
I never thought that wlad was great. I've always said he was fortunate to be able to dominate in a super weak division, but for everyone who thought he was a legit p4p fighter, you should rethink what you thought. No way that great of a fighter would just get outboxed by a raw fighter who is decent at best.
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
I've always said p4p lists are for every division other than heavyweight.
"he wasn't that good. He just dominated a weak division."
The division was weak for 10 years?
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
it is painfully obvious the division was weak for 10 years.
There I fixed it for you
Wow, so quick....so clever.....so original
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Haha!
Brock you pickle!
I have actually come to admire what Wlads done. His brother being around at the same time spoils it in regards to greatness for me though.
Although it didnt for Holmes. Holmes never unified. There were other champs. Its harder to keep belts together than defend just one.
Maybe im only appreciating Wlad now because im being biased but its so predictable that before the fit Wlad was an all time great, in some writers top ten of all time! Now though, his division was piss poor. It might not have been a strong division but you still have to be good to defend those titles for that long and he also fought regularly, not like a once a year Mayweather.
Its dispicable how poorly Tyson is being recieved by some of the media refusing to give him any credit. Someone has done a comparison of one of the zenglish papers sports pages and one picture is Haye pouting with Valuevs belt titled "Haye is just like Ali" the other is Fury holding 5 belts titled "heavyweight boxing reaches new low"! Its absolutely bizarre! You even have a moderator in here, even the same nationality reducing Tyson Fury the unified heavyweight chanpion of the world as a "peg seller"!
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Haha!
Brock you pickle!
I have actually come to admire what Wlads done. His brother being around at the same time spoils it in regards to greatness for me though.
Although it didnt for Holmes. Holmes never unified. There were other champs. Its harder to keep belts together than defend just one.
Maybe im only appreciating Wlad now because im being biased but its so predictable that before the fit Wlad was an all time great, in some writers top ten of all time! Now though, his division was piss poor. It might not have been a strong division but you still have to be good to defend those titles for that long and he also fought regularly, not like a once a year Mayweather.
Its dispicable how poorly Tyson is being recieved by some of the media refusing to give him any credit. Someone has done a comparison of one of the zenglish papers sports pages and one picture is Haye pouting with Valuevs belt titled "Haye is just like Ali" the other is Fury holding 5 belts titled "heavyweight boxing reaches new low"! Its absolutely bizarre! You even have a moderator in here, even the same nationality reducing Tyson Fury the unified heavyweight chanpion of the world as a "peg seller"!
Well of course you are, I mean if Wlad was a bum then Tyson Fury winning the fight means nothing, but if you say "Wlad is great" then the win means a lot to Fury and since you're a huge Fury fan, it means a lot to you.....so of course you'd come to such a conclusion.....and so soon after the fight too......I bet if Wlad won that fight you'd have been singing his praises then too right ;D I mean after all, a man with your knowledge of boxing, it was only a matter of time.
Oooooh tosh....you're not biased ross, you're a great scholar of boxing, not many people can say they know as much about boxing as you do.
Yes, they've treated Tyson quite quite poorly.....it's a shame really....they'd never treat a white or black or Hispanic heavyweight champion like that.......it's only because he's an Irish Traveller that they've treated him so poorly. That race.....will they ever catch a break? Soon as they have someone to cheer about, someone to look up to......the media just shits all over them because of the stereotypes fabricated about their culture. For shame on them
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Are you now going to be the resident bitter old man of the forum?
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Are you now going to be the resident bitter old man of the forum?
I wouldn't dare dream of unseating you sweetheart
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
I've always said p4p lists are for every division other than heavyweight.
"he wasn't that good. He just dominated a weak division."
The division was weak for 10 years?
Unfortunately, yes
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
I give fury credit for the win but I still don't think he is by any means a great fighter or even really a good one. I've seen him fight on multiple occasions and has never looked that great. He came in with a good game plan and won the fight. Good for him but in order for me to consider him good, he has to start dominating this weak division.
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
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.
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Every decade the HW division lacks of multiple talented fighters.
I couldn't wait ten years to say any champ sucked. If he spent ten years squeaking out wins, then I'd agree.
He friggin dominated for a decade.
And the comparison wasn't too look at other HWs... But GGGs division???
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
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.
Re: 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.
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Quote:
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.
Re: Wlad proved why I would never put him on my p4p list
Quote:
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.
