Bryant Jennings vs. Wladimir Klitschko

[tiny_acres]

Yes, BOTP logic whereby the recent proliferation of titles is reviled at the same time someone not holding every major title, which is often impeded by financial/political considerations and not the absence of fighters good enough to accomplish that, is used against them in discussions of their accomplishments, the legitimacy of their champion status, and overall legacy.

One of the 'old school' dispensers of this type of logic even recently implied that Wlad and GGG aren't the WBA champions of their respective divisions any more than fighters like Ruslan Chagaev and Danny Jacobs are, as the latter hold one of the organization's subsidiary belts. Now I'm sure some of the BOTP would consider me unsophisticated because I'm not titillated by black and white footage of Jack Johnson holding more than Wlad does or Jack Dempsey showing technique, such wildly jumping while throwing a combination, that would be considered highly crude if contemporary fighters employed it (I previously suggested in that part of the forum that Dempsey had technical flaws and predictably several habitués were apoplectic), but I'm usually able to identify inconsistent reasoning when I encounter it.

Wlad has fought and beaten top contenders for years just as a champion should, ducking no one in the process. Him not winning the WBC title by overcoming the truly awesome Bermane Stiverne like Wilder did shouldn't hurt his argument for being today's top heavyweight or more generally his legacy.

On another point made, I think it's fair to mention that unbeaten records often belie shallow opposition and significant limitations, and a win over an opponent like Wach or Pineta (or however it's spelled) shouldn't mean much in isolation, but I think the likes of Pulev, Povetkin, and Jennings are good fighters, with two of them arguably being the top HWs other than Wlad at the time, and Wlad lost a maximum of three rounds between his fights with them. He's dominated top opponents for a long time and has enjoyed an excellent career that will almost surely lead to him being inducted to the HOF.

Wasn't arguing he isn't the top heavyweight in the world because he obviously is. We'll see if he gets past Wilder. He has the opportunity now to participate in a fight that people outside of Germany actually care about, the first recognised dangerous guy for a while, outside of those guys who stopped him, or the blown-up cruiser he squeaked past throwing a handful more jabs a round, who is still embarrassingly his best win. (And I'm a huge fan of Haye). If he beats Wilder that'd be his best win and he would deserve credit, and maybe breaks into the top 25 all time list. Baby steps.

I am no fan of Wlad's style. But even I will admit he is easily top 20 of all time at heavyweight.
I don't care for his style but I respect his career he has earned the right to be listed with the greats.

[crusader]

Yes, BOTP logic whereby the recent proliferation of titles is reviled at the same time someone not holding every major title, which is often impeded by financial/political considerations and not the absence of fighters good enough to accomplish that, is used against them in discussions of their accomplishments, the legitimacy of their champion status, and overall legacy.

One of the 'old school' dispensers of this type of logic even recently implied that Wlad and GGG aren't the WBA champions of their respective divisions any more than fighters like Ruslan Chagaev and Danny Jacobs are, as the latter hold one of the organization's subsidiary belts. Now I'm sure some of the BOTP would consider me unsophisticated because I'm not titillated by black and white footage of Jack Johnson holding more than Wlad does or Jack Dempsey showing technique, such wildly jumping while throwing a combination, that would be considered highly crude if contemporary fighters employed it (I previously suggested in that part of the forum that Dempsey had technical flaws and predictably several habitués were apoplectic), but I'm usually able to identify inconsistent reasoning when I encounter it.

Wlad has fought and beaten top contenders for years just as a champion should, ducking no one in the process. Him not winning the WBC title by overcoming the truly awesome Bermane Stiverne like Wilder did shouldn't hurt his argument for being today's top heavyweight or more generally his legacy.

On another point made, I think it's fair to mention that unbeaten records often belie shallow opposition and significant limitations, and a win over an opponent like Wach or Pineta (or however it's spelled) shouldn't mean much in isolation, but I think the likes of Pulev, Povetkin, and Jennings are good fighters, with two of them arguably being the top HWs other than Wlad at the time, and Wlad lost a maximum of three rounds between his fights with them. He's dominated top opponents for a long time and has enjoyed an excellent career that will almost surely lead to him being inducted to the HOF.

Wasn't arguing he isn't the top heavyweight in the world because he obviously is. We'll see if he gets past Wilder. He has the opportunity now to participate in a fight that people outside of Germany actually care about, the first recognised dangerous guy for a while, outside of those guys who stopped him, or the blown-up cruiser he squeaked past throwing a handful more jabs a round, who is still embarrassingly his best win. (And I'm a huge fan of Haye). If he beats Wilder that'd be his best win and he would deserve credit, and maybe breaks into the top 25 all time list. Baby steps.

I wasn't replying specifically to you, but I noticed that jaclem mentioned Wlad not being undisputed champ and went off because I regularly see BOTP posters (not all of course) malign titles yet then use someone not holding all the major titles against the boxer in question, as if they're not a legitimate champion like certain fighters were before the proliferation of belts. It strikes me as inconsistent that someone would lambaste titles and suggest that they're meaningless today but then clearly impute credibility to them by suggesting that a fighter needs them to legitimize their status as champion.

Wilder has beaten one top ten fighter (whose top ten status was based almost entirely on beating Arreola), arguably only deserved to be top ten himself after beating Stiverne (I think Povetkin, Pulev, Fury, and Jennings would beat him too), and has mostly fought dross, so I think it's quite debatable that he'd be Wlad's best win, at least in terms of the quality of opponent.

[Controversial]

I don't know if anyone has watched the documentary "Klitschko" but in it Wladimir says to camera "I now fight tactically, following a specific strategy. Since 2005 it hasn't been boxing but chess, pure and simple"

[Horse]

or the blown-up cruiser he squeaked past throwing a handful more jabs a round, who is still embarrassingly his best win. (And I'm a huge fan of Haye).

Squeaked past? Wlad dominated Haye.

If he beats Wilder that'd be his best win and he would deserve credit, and maybe breaks into the top 25 all time list. Baby steps.

Wilder wouldn't be his best win unless he does a lot more before fighting Klitschko.

Wladimir is a top 10 ATG heavyweight.

[crusader]

Wlad has dominated all his opponents since the Peter fight in 2005 with the possible exception of Tony Thompson (first fight), and even then he was still clearly winning and scored a KO.

Haye, like Jennings, won three rounds at best and had little notable success.

[Horse]

Wlad has dominated all his opponents since the Peter fight in 2005 with the possible exception of Tony Thompson (first fight), and even then he was still clearly winning and scored a KO.

Haye, like Jennings, won three rounds at best and had little notable success.

He beat Peter pretty clearly as well.

I had it 11-1 for Wlad against Haye. I thought Povetkin, Pulev & Jennings did better against Wladimir than Haye.

[crusader]

I had it 10-1-1 for Wlad

[Bard of Boxrec]

Neither guy did anything. Wlad landed a few more jabs a round. Haye probably landed the two cleanest punches in the fight, in the 3rd and 12th. Wlad was terrified to let his hands go. It was a horrible performance from him against an undersized guy who didn't even fit the trademark pressure fighter description that Wlad normally falls apart against.

[Evander]

I thought Klitschko won fairly easily and although Jennings did press toward the end he never looked like causing the upset.
I wouldn't say it was Klitschko's best night but he passed.

[crusader]

Neither guy did anything. Wlad landed a few more jabs a round. Haye probably landed the two cleanest punches in the fight, in the 3rd and 12th. Wlad was terrified to let his hands go. It was a horrible performance from him against an undersized guy who didn't even fit the trademark pressure fighter description that Wlad normally falls apart against.

Actually, Wlad did enough to win nearly every round. He judiciously fights in a way that maximizes his chances of victory while minimizing risk and given that he was winning round after round I doubt he thought he needed to change his approach. He was in command and reduced a fast and powerful fighter with decent skills to winging amateurish looking shots from too far out, yet another example of Wlad's quick feet, good jab, and keen sense of distance.

I thought Klitschko won fairly easily and although Jennings did press toward the end he never looked like causing the upset.
I wouldn't say it was Klitschko's best night but he passed.

I agree. Wlad's been so dominant though that beating a top ten contender 'only' by scores of 11-1, 9-3, 9-3, the latter two representing the most generous I think one can be towards Jennings, is noteworthy to some.

[Baby Face Finster]

Jennings deserves some credit. That right hand Wlad landed in the 12th would have knocked out every other heavyweight at present. Jennings didn't even buckle from it.

[Tuan_Jim]

Clinchko could load up on Pulev and hit him full strength because he had an enormous immobile target.

He couldn't let his hands go versus Jennings the same way he couldn't versus Haye and Ibragimov, because he is a big giant who gets spooked by movers who can slide and quickly toss something back at his glass chin.

For all this talk of Clinchko being some unbeatable monster, his limitations were on full display versus a man who had never put on a pair of boxing gloves when Clincho began his current reign. He is a one dimensional boxer without an imagination or variety of punch. Perfect for fatted punchbags, but whenever a fellow comes along with speed and moves he is reduced to terrified pawing.

[dempseyfire]

Undefeated records are a negative in this era of padded records and protected fighters, not a positive.

You're not being fair.

How many of those undefeated fighters had beaten ONE legtimate top 10 opponent?

Jennings beat Perez

Povetkin beat Chagaev and Chambers. He beat Byrd when he was in the Ring top ten. Transnational and boxrec had Takam in the top ten when Povetkin KOed him.

Pulev beat Thompson when Tony was in the top ten, and Dimitrenko when he was in the Ring top ten

Chagaev beat Valuev

Ibragimov beat Briggs when he was in the top ten (Shannon replaced Lyakhovich in the Ring and Boxrec rankings, remember?)

There are probably others, those are just off the top of my head.

Perez wasn't top 10.

Yes, Povetkin had beaten two top 10 opponents in his career before facing Wlad . .Chambers 5 YEARS earlier and Chagaev over 2 years earlier. That's pathetic.

Valuev and Briggs being their only top 10 wins is pathetic. Two of the weakest paper champs in the history of boxing.

Everyone knows Dimitrenko had no basis being in the top 10, and I wouldn't have put Thompson there either for merely beating an untested prospect.