Lets clear something up about Wladimir Klitschko....

You mean like Cassius Clay did? Watch some old Ali/Clay fights. Ali was the clinchmaster deluxe. You can name one boring thing about any fighter, only Wlad has all of them.

Lol What??? So Wlad doesn't hug everytime an opponent gets inside?

WTF? Wlad hugs at every opportunity also, atleast Ruiz tried to take his opponents head off before doing it. Lol What???

http://laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/january17-03/ruiz.jpg WTF? Wlad hugs at every opportunity also, atleast Ruiz tried to take his opponents head off before doing it.

I do Wlad is disciplined and fights to win instead of entertaining. Doesn't change the fact that he is probably the most boring fighter in history and has very basic skills. http://laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/january17-03/ruiz.jpg

Any boxer who says he feels no fear is a liar. Feeling fear and fighting in fear are two different things. Fight or flight, Wlad chooses flight after throwing a jab.

You still dont get it I do Wlad is disciplined and fights to win instead of entertaining. Doesn't change the fact that he is probably the most boring fighter in history and has very basic skills.

Most top boxers are disciplined and stick to their strengths, not many fight in fear like Wlad does. You still dont get it

I think you missed the point of this thread which is about the discipline of the fighter. Of course Wlad and Floyd's styles are different - what is similar is they are disciplined in their approach i.e. fighting a "boring" style that will ensure a victory at the expense of an exciting fight. Most top boxers are disciplined and stick to their strengths, not many fight in fear like Wlad does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqttozileKA

sigh....... You're trying to put Mayweather's boring style in the same class as Wlad's, when Wlad's is on another level. I think you missed the point of this thread which is about the discipline of the fighter. Of course Wlad and Floyd's styles are different - what is similar is they are disciplined in their approach i.e. fighting a "boring" style that will ensure a victory at the expense of an exciting fight.

That's part of the reason he gets called boring, but the other reason (and the reason Vitali, who is almost never boring, gets lumped in with this) is that he has been winning for so long now. I noticed an increase in the "boring" charge the more he and Vitali kept destroying the opposition. I disagree. First, many people who find Wlad boring don't find Vitali boring. I have never found Vitali boring but until fairly recently I generally found Wlad boring to watch (although I always respected him). Second, many people (including me) who used to find Wlad very boring to watch find him far more interesting to watch nowadays. The reason is that since the Ibragimov fight, Wlad has improved immensely, and is much less over-cautious now than he used to be.

Again, refer to my last reply sigh....... You're trying to put Mayweather's boring style in the same class as Wlad's, when Wlad's is on another level.

People like to hate on them, but think about this, Vitali has lost around 5 rounds in his entire life, a couple have been mercy rounds by the judges. He has never been legitly defeated, in the Byrd fight he was winning in a clean sweep and was up 4-2 on Lewis, all while maintaining ALOT of fights and having a huge KO% at HW. But yea, he sux n stuff, he should go vacation a few years and fight guys like Audley Harrison and other prizefighter Bums. Wlad is a masterpiece in HW, no HW has been as dominant as Wlad has been in the ring. He slowly works you like a boa constrictor, until you are gone. People like to say the division is "weak", read this article : http://www.heavyweightblog.com/2888/heavyweight-division-is-in-a-bad-shape AMERICANS AND BRITONS love to complain about the bad shape the current heavyweight division is in ("ABC" = "American and British Complainers"). "My god, how exciting was Mike Tyson. I wish he still would box!" "And how wonderful Muhammad Ali was! These were truly the glorious golden boxers in the golden days of the golden age of the heavyweight division." Interestingly ABCs usually cannot come up with any other exciting boxer except Ali and Tyson (and maybe Lennox). They mention "Amazing Ali" and "Mental Mike" and then it pretty much ends right there. Even worse: When they talk about Ali they can only come up with only a HANDFUL of Ali fights because *psst* MOST of Ali's fights are indeed borefests and stinkers (which usually don't even feature proper knockdowns). However, Mike Tyson is a different case: Nobody matches Mike Tyson in terms of craziness and entertainment. No boxer prior to Mike and probably no boxer after Mike will ever be remembered for such a combination of fury and philosophy (yes, Mike Tyson is the boxer with the most memorable quotes of all time). But: Compared to Mike Tyson's out-of-the ring escapades (rape, cocaine, trashtalking, leg biting) and in-ring madness (ear chewing, referee punching, riots) ANY other boxer is boring. Thus it's pretty unfair to compare Wladimir Klitschko to Mike Tyson and then claim that Klitschko is boring. ANY BOXER is boring compared to Mike Tyson. Additionally Mike, too, had some real boring fights. Watch his fights that did not end in a KO.

When has Mayweather ever gone through a fight and thrown nothing but a jab for the first 6 rounds? Wlad does nothing but jab and step back or jab and hold. Mayweather doesn't just stick to a gameplan and does nothing else, if he see's an opening he takes it. Wlad does not and Mayweather fights like he does because he hasn't got great power at WW, Wlad has but he's too afraid to use it until his opponent has been poked to death. Again, refer to my last reply

oscar hatton cotto margartio clottey barerra morales lebwada juan manual marquez shane mosley nedal hussein oscar larios i can go on for days ok, now i know you're a troll , good job , 6/10

:rofl: Pacquiao's opponents haven't been great since JMM 2 but i would rank them all (apart from DLH) above Chagaev and Ibragimov P4P when they fought them. 'im not saying chagaev is better than cotto or margarito... 'im saying those wins , P4p are better , since the guys where title holders , undefeated . not weight drained , or coming from a brutal beating

P4P , chagaev , ibragimov > any guy pacquiao faced since marquez 2 :rofl: Pacquiao's opponents haven't been great since JMM 2 but i would rank them all (apart from DLH) above Chagaev and Ibragimov P4P when they fought them.

let just be clear , if wlad was some thug from brooklyn named ahmed johnson , we won't be having this discussion

The thesis of this thread is only partially correct. Wlad's fights during his long winning streak have sometimes been boring (Ibragimov, Chambers until the last round), sometimes not (Brock, Austin, Thompson, who fought very well and didn't get enough credit for it), That's part of the reason he gets called boring, but the other reason (and the reason Vitali, who is almost never boring, gets lumped in with this) is that he has been winning for so long now. I noticed an increase in the "boring" charge the more he and Vitali kept destroying the opposition. Unless you are a fan, it is pretty boring to watch someone dominate a field. Roger Federer, during his long run in tennis before Rafael Nadal started to dominate, bored me. I knew he was great, but he mowed down people so easily that it got tedious. And as is now done with the Klitschkos, his opposition was also heavily criticized, called mental clowns, etc. Federer fans, like Klitschko fans, greatly resented the "boring" charge. There is a real parallel between the Klitschkos and Roger. I personally didn't find the Brock fight entertaining, it was boring up until Wlad put together a devastating finish imo.