BoxRec

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Wlad is clearly the best of his generation. Why does that make him great?

Because we can't cross generational gaps. Rating fighters across generations is done purely on faith in our own insight. Plenty of not-great fighters held titles over the past 10 years. Plenty of not-great fighters had certain amounts of success. Only one dominated the entire division, and to dominate a division of any calibre for as long and over as many fights as Wlad did is rare. Wlad is painfully underrated, but I had this exact same conversation years ago when Lennox Lewis was still just the gay glass-jawed Brit. Wlad will be respected more ten years from now.

He's massively overrated and definitely not great.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Wlad is clearly the best of his generation. Why does that make him great?

Because we can't cross generational gaps. Rating fighters across generations is done purely on faith in our own insight. Plenty of not-great fighters held titles over the past 10 years. Plenty of not-great fighters had certain amounts of success. Only one dominated the entire division, and to dominate a division of any calibre for as long and over as many fights as Wlad did is rare. Wlad is painfully underrated, but I had this exact same conversation years ago when Lennox Lewis was still just the gay glass-jawed Brit. Wlad will be respected more ten years from now.

He's massively overrated and definitely not great.

That's your opinion and you welcome to it no matter how wrong it may be

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
Because we can't cross generational gaps. Rating fighters across generations is done purely on faith in our own insight. Plenty of not-great fighters held titles over the past 10 years. Plenty of not-great fighters had certain amounts of success. Only one dominated the entire division, and to dominate a division of any calibre for as long and over as many fights as Wlad did is rare. Wlad is painfully underrated, but I had this exact same conversation years ago when Lennox Lewis was still just the gay glass-jawed Brit. Wlad will be respected more ten years from now.

He's massively overrated and definitely not great.

That's your opinion and you welcome to it no matter how wrong it may be

Yes, I only offer my opinions. Wlad rates with Omar narvaez. He's a top 40 heavy. Better than his sorry brother. I'll give him that.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: He's massively overrated and definitely not great.

That's your opinion and you welcome to it no matter how wrong it may be

Yes, I only offer my opinions. Wlad rates with Omar narvaez. He's a top 40 heavy. Better than his sorry brother. I'll give him that.

Perhaps thats a point for you to think about:

How do you define greatness? Are only the top ten great? Twenty? While I would rate Wlad top twenty myself, I think someone could make a case that any HW within the top 50 was great. To be one of the top 50 in the entire history of your sport-- that sounds pretty great to me.

I'd also be interested to see what 40 heavyweights you rate in front of Wlad and why, without using wins over hall of famers, titles, title defenses, wins over top ten opponents, etc that you don't think account for anything.

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
That's your opinion and you welcome to it no matter how wrong it may be

Yes, I only offer my opinions. Wlad rates with Omar narvaez. He's a top 40 heavy. Better than his sorry brother. I'll give him that.

Perhaps thats a point for you to think about:

How do you define greatness? Are only the top ten great? Twenty? While I would rate Wlad top twenty myself, I think someone could make a case that any HW within the top 50 was great. To be one of the top 50 in the entire history of your sport-- that sounds pretty great to me.

I'd also be interested to see what 40 heavyweights you rate in front of Wlad and why, without using wins over hall of famers, titles, title defenses, wins over top ten opponents, etc that you don't think account for anything.

I rate fighters on their opposition, titles mean nothing to me. Wlad certainly faced what was available to him, but he lost 3 times to less than great opposition. That isn't the be all end all except for his lack of quality victories. I couldn't call someone great that never proved it. As for the top 40, just a ballpark guess. I'd have him rated with Bruno & Rahman types. His longevity is the only reason I'd have him that high. No need to be a prick, you know I never said that stuff means nothing, past titles. Context is important.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Yes, I only offer my opinions. Wlad rates with Omar narvaez. He's a top 40 heavy. Better than his sorry brother. I'll give him that.

Perhaps thats a point for you to think about:

How do you define greatness? Are only the top ten great? Twenty? While I would rate Wlad top twenty myself, I think someone could make a case that any HW within the top 50 was great. To be one of the top 50 in the entire history of your sport-- that sounds pretty great to me.

I'd also be interested to see what 40 heavyweights you rate in front of Wlad and why, without using wins over hall of famers, titles, title defenses, wins over top ten opponents, etc that you don't think account for anything.

I rate fighters on their opposition, titles mean nothing to me. Wlad certainly faced what was available to him, but he lost 3 times to less than great opposition. That isn't the be all end all except for his lack of quality victories. I couldn't call someone great that never proved it. As for the top 40, just a ballpark guess. I'd have him rated with Bruno & Rahman types. His longevity is the only reason I'd have him that high. No need to be a prick, you know I never said that stuff means nothing, past titles. Context is important.

Not being a prick and I apologize if it came across that way. Despite us not seeing eye to eye on this you're one of my favorite posters in this section. I simply disagree and see Wlad as being several levels above Bruno and Rahman. If nothing else his longevity puts him above them as neither one could have won and held on to the number one spot like Wlad did even during Wlad's era.

golden oldie, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Why does this guy keep trying?

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
Perhaps thats a point for you to think about:

How do you define greatness? Are only the top ten great? Twenty? While I would rate Wlad top twenty myself, I think someone could make a case that any HW within the top 50 was great. To be one of the top 50 in the entire history of your sport-- that sounds pretty great to me.

I'd also be interested to see what 40 heavyweights you rate in front of Wlad and why, without using wins over hall of famers, titles, title defenses, wins over top ten opponents, etc that you don't think account for anything.

I rate fighters on their opposition, titles mean nothing to me. Wlad certainly faced what was available to him, but he lost 3 times to less than great opposition. That isn't the be all end all except for his lack of quality victories. I couldn't call someone great that never proved it. As for the top 40, just a ballpark guess. I'd have him rated with Bruno & Rahman types. His longevity is the only reason I'd have him that high. No need to be a prick, you know I never said that stuff means nothing, past titles. Context is important.

Not being a prick and I apologize if it came across that way. Despite us not seeing eye to eye on this you're one of my favorite posters in this section. I simply disagree and see Wlad as being several levels above Bruno and Rahman. If nothing else his longevity puts him above them as neither one could have won and held on to the number one spot like Wlad did even during Wlad's era.

golden oldie, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Why does this guy keep trying?

no idea. Likewise on your posts.

Wlad beat significantly better opposition than Navarez, and thats a lazy comparison that only considers longevity. Navarez largely feasted on guys who were barely inside the top 30, he never unified, and he didnt beat several top contenders. His divisions werent notably stronger at the times either.

Narvaez's best wins are probably over Asloum, Seda, and Ray Whitfield.

Narvaez didn't lose to 3 of the lesser fighters either. I wouldn't say wlads opponents were that superior anyway. A lot of crap there. Though haye is a better win than any of his. Same tier for me.

The opponents Wlad beat were easily superior. Narvaez was largely fighting guys gifted ABC rankings, who probably werent even good enough to be considered equivalents of Pianeta. Wlad beat several top HWs---- fighters who were better than anyone Narvaez defeated, and I think Narvaez wouldve been far more likely to lose before he did if he hadnt been as protected.

Who do you consider the best opponents Narvaez beat?

crusader wrote:The opponents Wlad beat were easily superior. Narvaez was largely fighting guys gifted ABC rankings, who probably werent even their divisions equivalent of Pianeta. Wlad beat several people who were better than anyone Narvaez defeated, and I think Narvaez wouldve been far more likely to lose before hevdid if he hadnt been as protected.

Who do you consider the best opponents Narvaez beat?

Valid point that wlad fought everyone, though the two best opponents either has fought were Inoue & donaire. Without looking up his record I'd say orucuta or asloum. I didn't bring him up for a wlad/narvaez debate. Frankly, I've only seen like 5 of his fights. Just proving a point about long reigning champions not necessarily being great.

How are Ali, Frazier, and Foreman better than Holyfield, Tyson, and Lennox Lewis?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I rate fighters on their opposition, titles mean nothing to me. Wlad certainly faced what was available to him, but he lost 3 times to less than great opposition. That isn't the be all end all except for his lack of quality victories. I couldn't call someone great that never proved it. As for the top 40, just a ballpark guess. I'd have him rated with Bruno & Rahman types. His longevity is the only reason I'd have him that high. No need to be a prick, you know I never said that stuff means nothing, past titles. Context is important.

Not being a prick and I apologize if it came across that way. Despite us not seeing eye to eye on this you're one of my favorite posters in this section. I simply disagree and see Wlad as being several levels above Bruno and Rahman. If nothing else his longevity puts him above them as neither one could have won and held on to the number one spot like Wlad did even during Wlad's era.

golden oldie, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Why does this guy keep trying?

no idea. Likewise on your posts.

I know that you have no sense of perspective when it comes to certain fighters and I don't care enough to get drawn into more lengthy arguments. I've said my piece so I'll be moving on. You've got a guy with 9 losses (6 by knockout) rated near the guy who dominated the same era and beat him head to head. That tells me all I need to know

Rock was a crippled old man. I won't hold that against him anymore than I will wlad's pathetic loss to fury against him. I certainly have my favorites and I think I'm able to rate guys fairly. Rahman has better top wins, wlad has less losses. Toss up. I'd like rocks chances in a prime vs prime fight.

Struggled with Ice Cole, struggled with Obed Sullivan, lost to old Holy, lost to chinny limited Maskaev...twice (he must be top 30 then surely?), lost to Ruiz. Yeah, I don't see it.

punchoutsb wrote:Struggled with Ice Cole, struggled with Obed Sullivan, lost to old Holy, lost to chinny limited Maskaev...twice (he must be top 30 then surely?), lost to Ruiz. Yeah, I don't see it.

He managed to beat Corrie Sanders and Ross purity!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Struggled with Ice Cole, struggled with Obed Sullivan, lost to old Holy, lost to chinny limited Maskaev...twice (he must be top 30 then surely?), lost to Ruiz. Yeah, I don't see it.

He managed to beat Corrie Sanders and Ross purity!

And Trevor Berbick! Better than Ali and equal to Tyson. I've seen the light

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Struggled with Ice Cole, struggled with Obed Sullivan, lost to old Holy, lost to chinny limited Maskaev...twice (he must be top 30 then surely?), lost to Ruiz. Yeah, I don't see it.

He managed to beat Corrie Sanders and Ross purity!

And Trevor Berbick! Better than Ali and equal to Tyson. I've seen the light

berbick is another heavy in the Rahman, wlad, McCall range.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: He managed to beat Corrie Sanders and Ross purity!

And Trevor Berbick! Better than Ali and equal to Tyson. I've seen the light

berbick is another heavy in the Rahman, wlad, McCall range.

Really??? How many successful Heavyweight Title Defenses did Berbick, Rahman, and McCall have all told??? Did they have any??? Wlad doesn't even deserve caps I guess.. Wlad at 37 beats Lewis at any age.. Lewis was easy for a tall guy to tag with big right hands.. Tyson couldn't reach LL but Vitali tagged Lewis up with rights before his left eye was slashed open with a holding and hitting palm rake.. Lewis never inflicted another cut like that in his life -- and Vitali never suffered another one.. Lewis was beaten on points if it went to the cards -- which it should have.

Charles losses are less of an issue than Foreman's losses because he did a much better job of facing the top contenders of his day. For all we know Foreman could have lost to guys like Quarry and Bonavena had he faced them. We can't give him credit for consistency when compared with guys who fought far more top opponents. Moreover, I think one could make a good case that Charles was past his best when he lost to Layne although the decision in that fight was apparently controversial.

I used the term 'exposed' because that's exactly how it seemed.

He went from unbeatable to looking like a very good but limited contender...with an obvious Achilles' heel.

Charles, Walcott, Tunney and all of the top HWs who had an excellent defence would stand a great chance of turning him over.

In the same way that it's hard to imagine him ever losing to a relentless come-forward swarmer type like Frazier it's had to imagine him beating a well-versed defensive boxer like Young.

His most salient advantage over Marciano is his size. If not for that I'd expect Rocky to take him late.

Ken Norton had an excellent defense and looked what happened to him against Foreman.
If Rex Layne can get to Walcott and Charles enough to beat them then so can Foreman. Tunney is harder to say since he didn't have a lot of heavyweight fights.
Marciano maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Charles losses are less of an issue than Foreman's losses because he did a much better job of facing the top contenders of his day. For all we know Foreman could have lost to guys like Quarry and Bonavena had he faced them. We can't give him credit for consistency when compared with guys who fought far more top opponents. Moreover, I think one could make a good case that Charles was past his best when he lost to Layne although the decision in that fight was apparently controversial.

Charles did a much better job fighting the contenders of his day? He never fought Turkey Thompson, Roland La Starza, Bob Baker or Clarence Henry.

It is true that Foreman didn't fight Quarry, Bonavena etc. However, it's hard to argue that a guy who fought Chuvalo, Frazier (2x), Norton,Ali, Lyle, and Young didn't fight enough top opponents. He won 5 of them so yes he was fairly consistent. He was certainly as consistent as Charles and Walcott.

Don't see where Charles has much of a case for being past his prime when he lost to Layne; certainly not too far past it.

No, I don't think its hard to argue he didn't face enough top opponents. In the 70s Foreman beat 4 guys ranked in the top 10 by my count-(George Chuvalo, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, and Ron Lyle). By contrast he lost to two guys in the top 10 giving him only a 2-1 win ratio which is not especially impressive.
By contrast Charles beat Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, Pat Valentino, and Rex Layne though I may have missed some opponents.