BoxRec

orbtastic wrote:I did, it was a risible performance from Haye so not one I'm keen to waste my time watching again.

Well Haye spent the entire fight walking back, mate. Come on, don't argue just for the sake of it.

He didn't. I remember the fight, Wlad barely took a step forward, other than a balance thing with the jab.

He doesn't come forward, it's as simple at that.

I'm not arguing, I'm merely pointing out how wrong your statement is with examples. I can stop though, it is kinda boring.

The limp Cobra isn't fouling Joey Abell now, deep water for an over-rated boxer.

I certainly wouldn't call Wlad a come forward fighter, he generally hates being close to opponents, so it doesn't make sense. Whenever they get close, he ties them up.

He was more aggressive than Haye (though I think Mahatma Gandhi could have accomplished that feat) - but was landing his shots off the back foot.

Pulev was a complete amateur. Straight up, chin in the air, zero head movement. Terrible style, terrible trainers, glaring technical issues that his opponents were too mediocre to exploit. The same thing will happen to Fury, Wilder.

Soft heavyweights with soft matchmaking. Wladimir is having a second prime with these clueless oafs.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Pulev was a complete amateur. Straight up, chin in the air, zero head movement. Terrible style, terrible trainers, glaring technical issues that his opponents were too mediocre to exploit. The same thing will happen to Fury, Wilder.

Soft heavyweights with soft matchmaking. Wladimir is having a second prime with these clueless oafs.

Thank you! Jesus - this is what gets me, people saying he's 'a really good fighter' because he was a top contender - he's not, he's just a little bit better than the rest of the garbage out there. The top contenders of the 1980's would have danced rings around Pulev.

Wlad is so far ahead of the pack it is ridiculous.

So somebody agrees with you, he must be right lol

Listen to understand not to reply.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Pulev was a complete amateur. Straight up, chin in the air, zero head movement. Terrible style, terrible trainers, glaring technical issues that his opponents were too mediocre to exploit. The same thing will happen to Fury, Wilder.

Soft heavyweights with soft matchmaking. Wladimir is having a second prime with these clueless oafs.

Thank you! Jesus - this is what gets me, people saying he's 'a really good fighter' because he was a top contender - he's not, he's just a little bit better than the rest of the garbage out there. The top contenders of the 1980's would have danced rings around Pulev.

People blind themselves to the facts for whatever reason.

Pulev beat middle-aged Tony Thompson, a career long fringe contender, and the giant Ustinov who doesn't possess a significant win. It's not biased or unsporting to say "So what?" These are nothing wins . The proof is right there on tape. Pulev was utterly inept, a big hard man with bad habits that should've been ironed out in the amateurs. So he overpowered 20 nobodies (in historical and present terms) with his style? When he met some technique and return fire it turned out 20 nobodies was no preparation for a world title fight.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Pulev was a complete amateur. Straight up, chin in the air, zero head movement. Terrible style, terrible trainers, glaring technical issues that his opponents were too mediocre to exploit. The same thing will happen to Fury, Wilder.

Soft heavyweights with soft matchmaking. Wladimir is having a second prime with these clueless oafs.

Thank you! Jesus - this is what gets me, people saying he's 'a really good fighter' because he was a top contender - he's not, he's just a little bit better than the rest of the garbage out there. The top contenders of the 1980's would have danced rings around Pulev.

People blind themselves to the facts for whatever reason.

Pulev beat middle-aged Tony Thompson, a career long fringe contender, and the giant Ustinov who doesn't possess a significant win. It's not biased or unsporting to say "So what?" These are nothing wins . The proof is right there on tape. Pulev was utterly inept, a big hard man with bad habits that should've been ironed out in the amateurs. So he overpowered 20 nobodies (in historical and present terms) with his style? When he met some technique and return fire it turned out 20 nobodies was no preparation for a world title fight.

Wladimir is middle aged lol

I worry about any man who writes "lol" but a middle aged Wladimir Klitschko is an entirely different proposition to a middle aged Tony Thompson, the same way a middle aged George Foreman is an entirely different proposition to a middle aged Leon Spinks.

He earned his position no matter what you say.

If beating no one of consequence is earning his position, then yes, he certainly did that.

Tuan_Jim wrote:If beating no one of consequence is earning his position, then yes, he certainly did that.

Who would you deem as being more worthy or suitable as a challenge for Wladimir then currently?

I don't think there's anyone interesting or deserving. The entire division is horrible.

Tuan_Jim wrote:I don't think there's anyone interesting or deserving. The entire division is horrible.

Fairplay

What are your thoughts on Joshua out of curiousity?

lefty wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:If beating no one of consequence is earning his position, then yes, he certainly did that.

Who would you deem as being more worthy or suitable as a challenge for Wladimir then currently?

The entire point is that there are no worthy people to beat - as the entire talent pool is awful at the moment - it's like a toilet bowl full of piss, with big turds in it, occasionally one bob's to the surface, before plunging back - just because it floated to the top, it doesn't make it any tastier than any of the other jobbies in there, it's just the topmost turd.

Rght now almost anyone with a few wins under their belt and an unbeaten record can get a title shot - I mean FFS - if Tyson Fury is a top contender, then things really must be dire, he's a big lump, but he really has terrible boxing skills, and not a great deal other than sheer size, but in todays climate, he's a contender.

There's nobody of note to beat, so people can just get a high ranking by putting together a handful of wins over mediocre opposition, I mean Christ, the likes of Fres Oquendo are still around - a guy who was mediocre 10 years ago, and he's still a top contender ! Same with Shannon Briggs, and Chris Arreola - these are yesterdays men, but they are still top 10 contenders.

There just isn't any decent talent out there - the only guy I can remotely think of who MIGHT offer a challenge, albeit in 2 years time, is Anthony Joshua, but the jury is still out on him.

Eff me Lefty - you've overtaken me on posts, and I've been posting 11 years!!! Christ, don't you HAVE a job?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

lefty wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:If beating no one of consequence is earning his position, then yes, he certainly did that.

Who would you deem as being more worthy or suitable as a challenge for Wladimir then currently?

The entire point is that there are no worthy people to beat - as the entire talent pool is awful at the moment - it's like a toilet bowl full of piss, with big turds in it, occasionally one bob's to the surface, before plunging back - just because it floated to the top, it doesn't make it any tastier than any of the other jobbies in there, it's just the topmost turd.

Rght now almost anyone with a few wins under their belt and an unbeaten record can get a title shot - I mean FFS - if Tyson Fury is a top contender, then things really must be dire, he's a big lump, but he really has terrible boxing skills, and not a great deal other than sheer size, but in todays climate, he's a contender.

There's nobody of note to beat, so people can just get a high ranking by putting together a handful of wins over mediocre opposition, I mean Christ, the likes of Fres Oquendo are still around - a guy who was mediocre 10 years ago, and he's still a top contender ! Same with Shannon Briggs, and Chris Arreola - these are yesterdays men, but they are still top 10 contenders.

There just isn't any decent talent out there - the only guy I can remotely think of who MIGHT offer a challenge, albeit in 2 years time, is Anthony Joshua, but the jury is still out on him.

I agree with the majority of what you said there but you cant honestly believe those two are top 10 contenders? Haha. Briggs in particular.

DazDiCanio wrote:So somebody agrees with you, he must be right lol

Listen to understand not to reply.

Here's my reply - piss off.

In seriousness, I find it laughable anyone thinks that Pulev is a very good fighter, he's mediocre, in an era of mediocre talent.

I agree with the majority of what you said there but you cant honestly believe those two are top 10 contenders? Haha. Briggs in particular.[/quote]

http://www.fightnews.com/rankings-2

I rest my case.

Read it and weep, because it is very sad reading.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I agree with the majority of what you said there but you cant honestly believe those two are top 10 contenders? Haha. Briggs in particular.

http://www.fightnews.com/rankings-2

I rest my case.

Read it and weep, because it is very sad reading.[/quote]
Fairplay but those are the alphabet rankings to be fair and thus are a load of bollocks by default a lot of the time.

Pulev's probably the best of a bad bunch but no-one in the division is very far ahead of anyone else, VK apart. They're all separated by ickle degrees of shitness. They know they're all very similar/capable of losing to one another on any given day so are terrified of losing the initiative gained by a series of unthreatening wins.

Jennings has shown some ambition but I couldn't see him racking up more than two/three wins against the top ten before losing badly to someone. Fury's team aren't stupid neither, they know what they've got imo & have been reasonably happy (Tyson's bored-puppy-eating-the-sofa antics aside) with TF marking time whilst waiting for the Klits to fvck off.

Tyson as much as admitted to me that that's what they were gonna do with him back in 2012, it's just no-one predicted Wladdy would keep it going as long as he has--which is a result of the awfulness of the heavyweights in general.

Look at it this way: Fury's best win? Points over a fat, disinterested Chisora. Haye--"not a real heavyweight"/"fraud"/"coward" etc etc--knocks the ever-living shite out of Chisora. Haye was probably still the best heavy contender out there, but was content to play the game every heavy has: let's wait for the Klits to retire.

The awfulness of the division is not predicated on the fighters (they're mostly a bag of shite, but +watching two carthorses race can still be thrilling) but rather in the caution each of them has shown in refusing to fight their contemporaries, which is 'cos they all kinda know that doing so would make them definitively number one contender, then they would be in line for a focussed Klit thinking seriously about hurting them.

Which is basically what happened to Pulev. He strung a few wins together, talked himself up, & got horribly splattered for his trouble.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: There's nobody of note to beat, so people can just get a high ranking by putting together a handful of wins over mediocre opposition, I mean Christ, the likes of Fres Oquendo are still around - a guy who was mediocre 10 years ago, and he's still a top contender ! Same with Shannon Briggs, and Chris Arreola - these are yesterdays men, but they are still top 10 contenders.

To be fair James, a lot of what you're saying RE: yesterday's men was being said back inthe 90s RE: Foreman/Holmes/fvck knows who else & in the 50s RE: Walcott/Charles/Folley & in the 30s prior to Louis.

Anyone remember that howling diatribe by Glyn (RIP) back in 1994/5 dissing the lot of the 90s heavies in a tongue-in-cheek manner? Well, I read it again the other day. Tucker was still around. Witherspoon was making a run. Mercer wouldn't go away & then lost/drew every other fight to a nobody. Glyn seemed very underwhelmed & all he could get worked up to care about (& it was an adequate reflection of the state of the game & of the way heavies were seen at the time, imo) was Tyson getting out of nick. & we all know how that went.

So go the heavies, is what I'm getting at mate.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:There's nobody of note to beat, so people can just get a high ranking by putting together a handful of wins over mediocre opposition, I mean Christ, the likes of Fres Oquendo are still around - a guy who was mediocre 10 years ago, and he's still a top contender ! Same with Shannon Briggs, and Chris Arreola - these are yesterdays men, but they are still top 10 contenders.

The extended life of Shannon Briggs is truly frightening. If someone had told me in 96 when he collapsed versus Darroll Wilson, in 97 when he was outworked by a 50 year old Foreman, in 02 when he gassed versus Frans Botha, that the division would become so barren that a 19 stone, 40 year old version of him would actually fight for the WBC title in 2010 - and go all 12 rounds against a supposed great - and that well into his 40s the chinny, limited mediocrity would continue to be a 'name' on the scene, I would assume the sort of asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs had struck the US while Shannon was out of the country.

The continued existence of the bloated corpse of Shannon Briggs, 2007 onwards, is exhibit A in the trial of heavyweight boxing. He couldn't fight then and he can't fight now. How is a man who was so bad in his prime a Somebody in his old age? It is an absolute disgrace, an insult to boxing.

What's worse, is that some people are actually giving him a chance of beating Wlad. That they're even talking about the fight happening sums it up perfectly. It's just a complete travesty, the sort of thing a five year old would conjure up if you asked them to write a "script" for a wrestling match and told them to keep it to 140 characters for the vapid fools on twitter.