BoxRec

Pulev has to be up there, he beat a solid opponent in style.

I didn't watch that but considering he finished him quicker than the ghost of Rahman that makes sense.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I didn't watch that but considering he finished him quicker than the ghost of Rahman that makes sense.

Even the ghost of Rahman waved less chin in the air and was less flat footed than Pulev that night.

We normally think of Wlad as falling apart under pressure from someone half decent but I had to rewatch the Sultan fight to remember he's clueless against movement too. But against someone who can't really put them together and has a giant bullseye on his face like Pulev, that's the guy for Wladdy! Although it nearly got him beat vs a bum like Peter. Oh.

1. Chagaev- Wlad didn't beat the spent version he dominated prime unbeaten Chagaev with a plethora of belts on the line

2. Sam Peter(1st meeting)- at the time Wlad seemed to be on the way down and clearly proven to have a glass chin. Peter was unbeaten, a big puncher and on the way up the rankings. Wlad picked himself up off the canvas three times to win a clear decision.

3. Chris Byrd(1st meeting)- dominates a prime version of Byrd to win his first world title

4. David Haye- Wlad's best challenger at the time, would rate this win higher if Haye had actually tried to win the fight

5. Alexander Povetkin- certainly not his best performance but still a clear victory over a very dangerous opponent

Riddick Blowe wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I didn't watch that but considering he finished him quicker than the ghost of Rahman that makes sense.

Even the ghost of Rahman waved less chin in the air and was less flat footed than Pulev that night.

We normally think of Wlad as falling apart under pressure from someone half decent but I had to rewatch the Sultan fight to remember he's clueless against movement too. But against someone who can't really put them together and has a giant bullseye on his face like Pulev, that's the guy for Wladdy! Although it nearly got him beat vs a bum like Peter. Oh.

I didn't watch a round of his between haye and fury.pulev does suck, I'll take your word for it.

Perseus wrote:1. Chagaev- Wlad didn't beat the spent version he dominated prime unbeaten Chagaev with a plethora of belts on the line

2. Sam Peter(1st meeting)- at the time Wlad seemed to be on the way down and clearly proven to have a glass chin. Peter was unbeaten, a big puncher and on the way up the rankings. Wlad picked himself up off the canvas three times to win a clear decision.

3. Chris Byrd(1st meeting)- dominates a prime version of Byrd to win his first world title

4. David Haye- Wlad's best challenger at the time, would rate this win higher if Haye had actually tried to win the fight

5. Alexander Povetkin- certainly not his best performance but still a clear victory over a very dangerous opponent

..agree with everything except 4. "..would rate this win higher if Haye had actually tried to win the fight "..I thought he tried hard, it's just that you are as good as your opponent allows you to..

I think the first Peter fight is his biggest win. A defeat that night and it might have been all over. To get off the canvas to turn that fight around is his best achievement

In the first Sam Peter fight Wlad had Peter hurt twice in the 12th round but was reluctant to finish him off. That was a good fight. A good win.

2000 Byrd
McCline (had won about 20 in a row, was at his best)
Ibragimov
Chagaev
Haye
2005 Peter

All 6 in their prime and at their best when Klitschko impressively beat them.

I don't rate the win over Povetkin even though he was probably the best oppponent, because Klitschko used excessive illegal tactics and should have lost by DQ.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:
Wlad.

The rest of your drivel is moot.

The only drivel is you trying to lend credence to wlad's sorry opponents.

I'm not the one that "loves" the fact that Wlad is bringing experience into the pre-fight sell. You seem to find humor in the fact that he is saying he has more experience, and yet also admit he's faced better opposition than Joshua has faced.

Seems like you can't get your own feet out of the way as you run down the hall flailing your arms and shouting inconsistencies. But good on you for trying, that's gotta be worth something

He has more experience. It counts for nothing. Hope that simplifies it for you

Riddick Blowe wrote:He has more experience. It counts for nothing. Hope that simplifies it for you

He will be able to draw back on his many experiences on the canvas here. That will count for something.

Riddick Blowe wrote:He has more experience. It counts for nothing. Hope that simplifies it for you

If you truly believe experience counts for nothing then you're a little worse off then I previously thought, and I previously thought you were mildly retarted.

Wlad's experience will see him through at least five rounds before the inevitable.

of course experiece counts for something

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:He has more experience. It counts for nothing. Hope that simplifies it for you

If you truly believe experience counts for nothing then you're a little worse off then I previously thought, and I previously thought you were mildly retarted.

Wlad's experience will see him through at least five rounds before the inevitable.

So your argument was 'wlads experience advantage will, uh, make him last like a few rounds'

Not the most compelling point. Besides, we're going to see how wrong you are anyway.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:He has more experience. It counts for nothing. Hope that simplifies it for you

If you truly believe experience counts for nothing then you're a little worse off then I previously thought, and I previously thought you were mildly retarted.

Wlad's experience will see him through at least five rounds before the inevitable.

So your argument was 'wlads experience advantage will, uh, make him last like a few rounds'

Not the most compelling point. Besides, we're going to see how wrong you are anyway.

I never made an argument, an argument would have meant your original "point" was worth arguing which it wasn't.

I simply pointed out you were a fool for believing that experience means nothing.

Salo198 wrote:1.David Haye
2.Kubrat Pulev
3.Alexander Povetkin
4.Chris Byrd
5.Ruslan Chagaev

Close to what I would've had, except I'd have it like...

1) Haye
2) Povetkin
3) Byrd
4) Pulev
5) Ibragimov

Chris Byrd is a dude who beat David Tua, 2002 Holyfield, and Vitali (sort of). I almost feel guilty putting him as low as #3. I also consider Povetkin to be a legitimately much better fighter than Pulev, although I could see it argued that Wlad's wide margin of victory over Pulev makes it a big win. I think Chagaev and Ibragimov are similar ability-wise, but considering that some people have rated Ibragimov around #2-3 at the time of the fight, and considering that Chagaev had been declining from hepatitis and was barely top 10 at the time of the fight, I feel like Ibragimov may be the more legit win.

Impractical Poster wrote:

Salo198 wrote:1.David Haye
2.Kubrat Pulev
3.Alexander Povetkin
4.Chris Byrd
5.Ruslan Chagaev

I think these five , are the best heavyweights he
has beaten.

He fought in a rather weak heavyweight era,
but the way he dominated them , was really
impressive.

His best win , must be the win over David Haye,
who was at his absolute best and definitely an
elite level fighter in 2011.

That he won against all of them may be impressive, but the way he won.... not so much.

I disagree. You might not like it from an entertainment perspective. But his prime was one of the most dominant primes we've seen of any fighter in his era. Aside from the Haye fight and the Jennings fight, Wlad barely even lost a round between April 2006 and April 2015. Unofficially, I had Mayweather losing a lot more rounds against Maidana, Cotto, DLH, Alvarez, Judah, etc.. JMM obviously lost a ton of rounds in his prime. Pacquiao lost a lot of rounds in his prime. Hopkins had a lot of fights in his post-middleweight era where he was barely squeaking by with the rounds. Wlad had a solid 9 years of almost all 12-0 / knockout wins. It was a reign of method of victory domination that even most ATG's could not equal.

fightfan95 wrote:What would you say Wladimir's best win is?

Tough question...

David Haye was the highest profile victory. In sporting terms, Alexander Povetkin was impressive. And the Lamon Brewster and Samuel Peter victories proved that the Ukrainian could overcome adversity (for very different reasons).

I guess the first Samuel Peter fight might have been his best win.

Lol at overcoming adversity against Brewster. Perhaps it was the nightmares of beating up a shot fighter with eye problems. Yeah, that must be it.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Lol at overcoming adversity against Brewster. Perhaps it was the nightmares of beating up a shot fighter with eye problems. Yeah, that must be it.

I chose the context of the victory. Wladimir got battered by Brewster and looked incredibly amateurish during that first fight, but Klitschko didn’t become gun shy in their rematch and he was a vastly improved fighter. And Brewster wasn't completely shot at that point in time.

To put Klitschko's actions into context, some elite-level fighters (that many people enthusiastically admire) refuse to ever share the ring again with certain opponents that came close to beating them.

So yeah, that must be it. Lol

You're really good at being wrong. Most every word. Well done.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You're really good at being wrong. Most every word. Well done.

Explain... every. single. word. that. is. wrong.

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
If you truly believe experience counts for nothing then you're a little worse off then I previously thought, and I previously thought you were mildly retarted.

Wlad's experience will see him through at least five rounds before the inevitable.

So your argument was 'wlads experience advantage will, uh, make him last like a few rounds'

Not the most compelling point. Besides, we're going to see how wrong you are anyway.

I never made an argument, an argument would have meant your original "point" was worth arguing which it wasn't.

I simply pointed out you were a fool for believing that experience means nothing.

So I make one comment about experience meaning nothing in this particular fight and you take that to mean I think that for all fights. Right.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: So your argument was 'wlads experience advantage will, uh, make him last like a few rounds'

Not the most compelling point. Besides, we're going to see how wrong you are anyway.

I never made an argument, an argument would have meant your original "point" was worth arguing which it wasn't.

I simply pointed out you were a fool for believing that experience means nothing.

So I make one comment about experience meaning nothing in this particular fight and you take that to mean I think that for all fights. Right.

Experience is an absolute; you either have it or you don't. If you're speaking and thinking so moronically for this fight why would anyone give you the benefit of the doubt for any other?