BoxRec

jujigatame wrote:I like Wlad (even to the point of considering him the #1 P4P fighter in the sport now) but I can't agree with this at all. Wlad has 3 KO losses on his record, and his biggest wins were over guys like Pulev, Povetkin, and Chagaev, while Floyd beat several fellow P4P talents. No comparison at all.

Klitschko's biggest wins were against:

Haye
Byrd (twice)
Ibragimov
Povetkin
Peter (twice)
Chagaev
Brewster

Plus he beat a bunch of other good heavyweights who weren't considered good anymore after he beat them.
That's the problem with Wlad. He otclassed a lot of fighters so much that their stock automatically went down and Wlad got less credit for it. If he fought George Foreman and boxed a shut out, everyone would probably call Foreman a bum.

jezzamundo wrote:Perhaps saying 'I'm confident' is overstating it, but I think it's the most likely result. We honestly don't know how a prime Wlad would perform against a top heavyweight, because he has never fought one.

We do, however, know the level the guy has lost to.

In before 'But..but...NEW IMPROVED WLAD!'

Riddick Blowe wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Perhaps saying 'I'm confident' is overstating it, but I think it's the most likely result. We honestly don't know how a prime Wlad would perform against a top heavyweight, because he has never fought one.

We do, however, know the level the guy has lost to.

In before 'But..but...NEW IMPROVED WLAD!'

So what? Lennox lost to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman - two huge underdogs, B-level fighters. But he is still ranked higher than unbeaten in 49 fights Rocky Marciano by many people. And aside of Vitaly and washed up Holyfield his resume isn't better than Wlad's at all. David Tua? He was outclassed by Chris Byrd (who was beaten by Wlad twice). Shannon Briggs? He was dominated from pillar to post by Jameel McCline and Sultan Ibragimov (both of whom were beaten by Wlad). Michael Grant? He was stopped in 43 seconds by Jameel McCline (who was beaten by Wlad). And please don't tell me that Golota was better than Haye, Bruno was better than Povetkin, Mavrovic was better than Pulev and Akinwande was better than Ibragimov, because they definitely weren't. And don't bring here a corpse of Mike Tyson please.

I'm not trying to downplay Lewis' achievements, I'm just trying to say Wad should be measured by the same standards.

Wladimir is underrated but nowhere Close to mayweather. when it is all said and done he is a top10 ever HW but floyd is top10 all time p4p. not even Close.

Wlad's legacy all comes to down to his last few fights down the stretch here. If it ended now? No one would ever put Wlad on Floyd's level. Wlad probably wouldn't crack the top 10 heavyweight list in history. Definitely wouldn't on my list. But he has a chance to go out with a bang. If he can win impressively over Fury, Wilder and Joshua before he hangs up the gloves then I would put him in my top 10.

Wlad can't really be blamed for his lack of noteworthy fights. It's more unlucky than anything that he happened to reign in an era void of any talent at heavyweight. But there's some talent in there now and Wlad may be a little too long in the tooth now to defeat these guys. Another piece of bad luck timing for Wlad.

Surely the massive physical advantages Vlad usually enjoys would be negated in any pound-for-pound comparison ?

Boxing Writer wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Perhaps saying 'I'm confident' is overstating it, but I think it's the most likely result. We honestly don't know how a prime Wlad would perform against a top heavyweight, because he has never fought one.

We do, however, know the level the guy has lost to.

In before 'But..but...NEW IMPROVED WLAD!'

So what? Lennox lost to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman - two huge underdogs, B-level fighters. But he is still ranked higher than unbeaten in 49 fights Rocky Marciano by many people. And aside of Vitaly and washed up Holyfield his resume isn't better than Wlad's at all. David Tua? He was outclassed by Chris Byrd (who was beaten by Wlad twice). Shannon Briggs? He was dominated from pillar to post by Jameel McCline and Sultan Ibragimov (both of whom were beaten by Wlad). Michael Grant? He was stopped in 43 seconds by Jameel McCline (who was beaten by Wlad). And please don't tell me that Golota was better than Haye, Bruno was better than Povetkin, Mavrovic was better than Pulev and Akinwande was better than Ibragimov, because they definitely weren't. And don't bring here a corpse of Mike Tyson please.

I'm not trying to downplay Lewis' achievements, I'm just trying to say Wad should be measured by the same standards.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Perhaps saying 'I'm confident' is overstating it, but I think it's the most likely result. We honestly don't know how a prime Wlad would perform against a top heavyweight, because he has never fought one.

We do, however, know the level the guy has lost to.

In before 'But..but...NEW IMPROVED WLAD!'

So you also rank Lennox by his brutal KO to Rahman?

klitoris wrote:

jujigatame wrote:I like Wlad (even to the point of considering him the #1 P4P fighter in the sport now) but I can't agree with this at all. Wlad has 3 KO losses on his record, and his biggest wins were over guys like Pulev, Povetkin, and Chagaev, while Floyd beat several fellow P4P talents. No comparison at all.

Klitschko's biggest wins were against:

Haye
Byrd (twice)
Ibragimov
Povetkin
Peter (twice)
Chagaev
Brewster

Plus he beat a bunch of other good heavyweights who weren't considered good anymore after he beat them.
That's the problem with Wlad. He otclassed a lot of fighters so much that their stock automatically went down and Wlad got less credit for it. If he fought George Foreman and boxed a shut out, everyone would probably call Foreman a bum.

Most of those are fine wins, although Brewster was really not very good, and the 2nd win over Peter was of dubious value as well.

The thing is, Floyd's resume is full of P4P fighters. Nobody on Wlad's list is of the talent level of a Pacquiao, Marquez, Hatton, Canelo, Corrales. Wlad has dominated a so-so division and had his share of soft touches along the way. Floyd has beaten several future HOFers. Really when push comes to shove there's very little comparison.

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Perhaps saying 'I'm confident' is overstating it, but I think it's the most likely result. We honestly don't know how a prime Wlad would perform against a top heavyweight, because he has never fought one.

We do, however, know the level the guy has lost to.

In before 'But..but...NEW IMPROVED WLAD!'

So you also rank Lennox by his brutal KO to Rahman?

We can measure Lewis as superior to Wlad by his superior resume (and that's just for starters). Wlad has never fought a top heavyweight, so yes, his losses come into play a lot more than Lewis's losses as a way of judging him. Plus Rahman is superior to all of Wlad's victors, and proved it in the ring against the best of the three.

Riddick Blowe wrote: We can measure Lewis as superior to Wlad by his superior resume (and that's just for starters). Wlad has never fought a top heavyweight, so yes, his losses come into play a lot more than Lewis's losses as a way of judging him. Plus Rahman is superior to all of Wlad's victors, and proved it in the ring against the best of the three.

Lewis has a better resume, but unfortunately for your argument that means zilch when it comes to a mythical head to head contest. Fighters can only fight their own current crop of peers. Lewis resume ranks him as greater all time and thats it.

You seem to think Wlad hasn't improved since his losses. If that's the case there really no point continuing the conversation as you can't see what's clearly in front of you.

I will say though seeing as how Wlad lost to Ross Puritty, there is absolutely no way he'll ever beat Byrd, Peter, Brock, Sultan, Thompson, Chagaev, Haye, Wach, Povetkin, Pulev, or Jennings to name a few. All those guys are much better than Puritty...

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: We can measure Lewis as superior to Wlad by his superior resume (and that's just for starters). Wlad has never fought a top heavyweight, so yes, his losses come into play a lot more than Lewis's losses as a way of judging him. Plus Rahman is superior to all of Wlad's victors, and proved it in the ring against the best of the three.

Lewis has a better resume, but unfortunately for your argument that means zilch when it comes to a mythical head to head contest. Fighters can only fight their own current crop of peers. Lewis resume ranks him as greater all time and thats it.

You seem to think Wlad hasn't improved since his losses. If that's the case there really no point continuing the conversation as you can't see what's clearly in front of you.

I will say though seeing as how Wlad lost to Ross Puritty, there is absolutely no way he'll ever beat Byrd, Peter, Brock, Sultan, Thompson, Chagaev, Haye, Wach, Povetkin, Pulev, or Jennings to name a few. All those guys are much better than Puritty...

Why does it mean zilch when it comes to head to head contest? Lewis has proved he can win bruising encounters against real fighters and come out the other side. Wlad...not so much. Unless you think Sam Peter is a real tough proposition, which you are free to do I guess. Obviously I do think that Lewis would have wiped the floor with him. But I actually didn't even mention anything about head to head. Jezzamundo commented that Wlad has never fought a top heavyweight, and I just commented on that...

OK, you think he got better, and that's fine. It depends how you interpret 'better'. Defensively yes, if you like pedestrian punch output, robot pawing, pushing and jab 'n' grab. I actually remember quite liking the old Wlad. He was exciting, and seemed more fluid and dangerous. Oddly, now we mention it, maybe the old Wlad would have had a better chance against Lewis. Not much, but some. Reason being he might actually have thrown a right hand against someone who brings a degree of threat.

Badhusker wrote:How many former world champions has Wlad beaten? Floyd's number must pretty near 20. Wlad probably has about half that I am guessing. It kind of hard to compare the two when one of them has been regarded as the top pfp guy for most of the last decade or so.

Wlad is a great champion too. Not his fault, but he suffers the same criticism that Marciano did - lack of quality competition. Rocky was unbeaten, but is not often talked about as one of the top heavyweights in history.

I hate the argument about former world champions but lead has wins against Byrd, Mercer, Peter, Brewster, Ibragimov, Rahman, Chagaev, Haye, Moremeck, Povetkin...which is 10 albeit several of those were shot to pieces (part of the reason why I hate the argument over former champions).

Riddick Blowe wrote: Why does it mean zilch when it comes to head to head contest? Lewis has proved he can win bruising encounters against real fighters and come out the other side. Wlad...not so much. Unless you think Sam Peter is a real tough proposition, which you are free to do I guess. Obviously I do think that Lewis would have wiped the floor with him. But I actually didn't even mention anything about head to head. Jezzamundo commented that Wlad has never fought a top heavyweight, and I just commented on that...

OK, you think he got better, and that's fine. It depends how you interpret 'better'. Defensively yes, if you like pedestrian punch output, robot pawing, pushing and jab 'n' grab. I actually remember quite liking the old Wlad. He was exciting, and seemed more fluid and dangerous. Oddly, now we mention it, maybe the old Wlad would have had a better chance against Lewis. Not much, but some. Reason being he might actually have thrown a right hand against someone who brings a degree of threat.

Lewis has also proven he can be knocked cold by a B level fighter, something Wlad has never done. Resume is great for resume comparisons, not for head to head.

punchoutsb wrote: Lewis has also proven he can be knocked cold by a B level fighter, something Wlad has never done. Resume is great for resume comparisons, not for head to head.

So now we're moving the goalposts to 'who was knocked out cold as opposed to just badly stopped'? Do you think Lewis' chin was worse than Wlad's?

Riddick Blowe wrote:

punchoutsb wrote: Lewis has also proven he can be knocked cold by a B level fighter, something Wlad has never done. Resume is great for resume comparisons, not for head to head.

So now we're moving the goalposts to 'who was knocked out cold as opposed to just badly stopped'? Do you think Lewis' chin was worse than Wlad's?

My original point stands and is very clear and concise.

No, I believe Lewis has a better chin than Wlad though not by a large margin. Wlad's chin is much better than his detractors want to believe and wish.

There's been a lot of revisionism over Lewis's resume in recent years - I clearly remember it being absolutely slated when he was reigning champ, and people were saying he'd never be considered amongst the greats due to the lack of competition he faced. Tbh, has anything different been said about any of the undisputed Heavyweight Champs since the '70s?

Boxerbeetle wrote:There's been a lot of revisionism over Lewis's resume in recent years - I clearly remember it being absolutely slated when he was reigning champ, and people were saying he'd never be considered amongst the greats due to the lack of competition he faced. Tbh, has anything different been said about any of the undisputed Heavyweight Champs since the '70s?

I used to write for several boxing websites back when Lewis was champ. I remember how negative most people were about him and his career in response to some of my articles on his future greatness. Eastside was particularly bad. I remember how glass his jaw was, I remember how he was a "queer" and effeminate, I remember how prime Tyson and Holyfield would have wrecked him. Wlad is no different. It takes a lot of talent, skill, and dominance to garner that kind of detraction from the nerds of the web.

I think the thing with Lewis was he was a lot more versatile than Wlad, he could box at range, or he could come looking for his man and go to war, or he could go to the trenches. He had a good enough to chin to get involved when he had to. The only times he was stopped, he took absolutely monstrous shots bang on the button both times.

I think he'd have stopped even the prime version of Wlad, he'd have had some struggles, but when push came to shove, if he couldn't win the battle of the jabs, (which personally I think he would have done, as his jab was better than Wlads, he could have taken the fight to Wlad and busted him up. Lewis, after a shaky start, takes over and stops Wlad in the mid to late rounds.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Perhaps saying 'I'm confident' is overstating it, but I think it's the most likely result. We honestly don't know how a prime Wlad would perform against a top heavyweight, because he has never fought one.

We do, however, know the level the guy has lost to.

In before 'But..but...NEW IMPROVED WLAD!'

This says a lot less about Wlad and a lot more about your inability to process information. If you don't understand what a pre-prime defeat is, or if you are incapable of accurately assessing when a boxer's prime begins and ends, then you really know nothing about boxing.

Lackeos wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Perhaps saying 'I'm confident' is overstating it, but I think it's the most likely result. We honestly don't know how a prime Wlad would perform against a top heavyweight, because he has never fought one.

We do, however, know the level the guy has lost to.

In before 'But..but...NEW IMPROVED WLAD!'

This says a lot less about Wlad and a lot more about your inability to process information. If you don't understand what a pre-prime defeat is, or if you are incapable of accurately assessing when a boxer's prime begins and ends, then you really know nothing about boxing.

I get that you love Wlad but maybe you need to read my post at 15:23 again

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think the thing with Lewis was he was a lot more versatile than Wlad, he could box at range, or he could come looking for his man and go to war, or he could go to the trenches. He had a good enough to chin to get involved when he had to. The only times he was stopped, he took absolutely monstrous shots bang on the button both times.

I think he'd have stopped even the prime version of Wlad, he'd have had some struggles, but when push came to shove, if he couldn't win the battle of the jabs, (which personally I think he would have done, as his jab was better than Wlads, he could have taken the fight to Wlad and busted him up. Lewis, after a shaky start, takes over and stops Wlad in the mid to late rounds.

good post. I don't think Lewis would have had a shaky start. As soon as Wlad sees what he's up against he's taking no chances. He was scared to throw the right hand against David fricken Haye, Lewis would make him into a lumbering statue. At least the old Wlad would have thrown some serious leather and given himself a puncher's chance.

punchoutsb wrote:
My original point stands and is very clear and concise.

Yes, head to head predictions require more than just resumes, but to deny the importance of drawing on past fights for clues as to how a future fight might unfold is to be naive. For instance I 'feel' like if Joshua fought Wlad next Joshua would beat him, but a lot of folks would say he doesn't have the experience on his resume to be able to tell, and they would have a good point.

Riddick Blowe wrote: Yes, head to head predictions require more than just resumes, but to deny the importance of drawing on past fights for clues as to how a future fight might unfold is to be naive. For instance I 'feel' like if Joshua fought Wlad next Joshua would beat him, but a lot of folks would say he doesn't have the experience on his resume to be able to tell, and they would have a good point.

And to choose only certain results in searching for clues is hypocritical and shows an inability to think critically.

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: Yes, head to head predictions require more than just resumes, but to deny the importance of drawing on past fights for clues as to how a future fight might unfold is to be naive. For instance I 'feel' like if Joshua fought Wlad next Joshua would beat him, but a lot of folks would say he doesn't have the experience on his resume to be able to tell, and they would have a good point.

And to choose only certain results in searching for clues is hypocritical and shows an inability to think critically.

What certain results are you talking about? I'm sure a lot of people would agree that there are manifold pieces of evidence in both Lewis's and Wlad's career that suggest Lewis would likely have crushed Wlad, and it doesn't even need a Wlad hater like me to identify those. ;)

Riddick Blowe wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: Yes, head to head predictions require more than just resumes, but to deny the importance of drawing on past fights for clues as to how a future fight might unfold is to be naive. For instance I 'feel' like if Joshua fought Wlad next Joshua would beat him, but a lot of folks would say he doesn't have the experience on his resume to be able to tell, and they would have a good point.

And to choose only certain results in searching for clues is hypocritical and shows an inability to think critically.

What certain results are you talking about? I'm sure a lot of people would agree that there are manifold pieces of evidence in both Lewis's and Wlad's career that suggest Lewis would likely have crushed Wlad, and it doesn't even need a Wlad hater like me to identify those. ;)

One could easily say Lewis struggled with average Ray Mercer, an old washed up Holyfield who couldn't even beat John Ruiz, got beat up (in his prime) by average Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman. Lewis has two (off the top of my head, may be missing someone) hall of famers on his resume: old Holyfield and old Tyson. You put so much stock into his beating hall of famers, what does that do for Kevin McBrides resume? Sultan Ibragimov?

I'm not saying Lewis doesn't have a good resume. It's better than Wlad's. To say that his resume is evidence that he would "crush Wlad" shows that you just don't know what you're talking about

punchoutsb wrote:
One could easily say Lewis struggled with average Ray Mercer, an old washed up Holyfield who couldn't even beat John Ruiz, got beat up (in his prime) by average Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman. Lewis has two (off the top of my head, may be missing someone) hall of famers on his resume: old Holyfield and old Tyson. You put so much stock into his beating hall of famers, what does that do for Kevin McBrides resume? Sultan Ibragimov?

I'm not saying Lewis doesn't have a good resume. It's better than Wlad's. To say that his resume is evidence that he would "crush Wlad" shows that you just don't know what you're talking about

Nope, never put so much 'stock in beating hall of famers', just argued for a better overall resume. And nope, never said his resume was the ONLY evidence he would crush Wlad, so congrats on putting more words in my mouth. There are other reasons...technique, vastly superior arsenal, ringcraft, better heart/chin...Records are just one way of assessing head to head matchups. But you don't seem to put any 'stock' in that at all, so each to their own.