The big scrub is no higher than #40 on the AT heavyweight list.
Where do you rank Wlad all-time?
Collapse
-
-
IMO Wlad benefited from a terrible period and the excuse "fought the best available" just doesn't hold water considering who his career overlaps.
****ing around with the WBO and WBO fighters didn't just put losses to B-sides on his record, it ensured he'd have no resume wins that stand up to other ATG resumes.
I've been thinking about doing a best of the worst thread. I definitely rank him above say Akinwande and such but I can't put him in leagues with guys who were undisputed, a lineal not based on Ring made up BS because Ring couldn't figure a traditional way around the brothers, and has ATG resumes.
That said, I reckon about 15 if we stick to recognized champions. No Langfords or Sharkeys...well Tom I meanIf you include colored champions and pretense champions or even just very good contenders like Choynski then I'm not sure I'd even have him at 15. His resume is really not great.
Comment
-
Wlad overall is one of the best heavyweights to have held the title. Early on he was more vulnerable but adjusted his style to greatly reduce that flaw. His standing as a champion should be determined by his overall body of work which is actually outstanding. His losses to Fury and Joshua were incurred well past his prime as has been the case of many past champions. My subjective viewpoint is he falls somewhere between 14 and 20 as an all time great.Comment
-
He's definitely top ten. Once steward got hold of him he was superb. 11 years a champ, 22 defences and only beaten by todays top two heavys. Went life or death with aj when he was 41!
No question top ten but maybe quality of opp not amazing but thats not his fault. Maybe a tougher era than we thought. Looking back some solid eastern european heavys with v strong records and actually a lot of his opponents had lots of wins.
Prob between 6-10 all time and id prob put his bro 8-10.Comment
-
So ali, Louis, johnson, holmes, foreman, lewis, frazier, Holy, wlad, tyson for me.
Dempsey never beat black contenders and his reign is very average. Some lt heavys and guys hed already beaten. Same rocky 6 defences. They are 11-20 for me with liston, bowe etcComment
-
He's definitely top ten. Once steward got hold of him he was superb. 11 years a champ, 22 defences and only beaten by todays top two heavys. Went life or death with aj when he was 41!
No question top ten but maybe quality of opp not amazing but thats not his fault. Maybe a tougher era than we thought. Looking back some solid eastern european heavys with v strong records and actually a lot of his opponents had lots of wins.
Prob between 6-10 all time and id prob put his bro 8-10.
The credentials say he belongs. Title defenses. Longevity. Skills.
From 2004-2015, an 11 year span Wlad is 19-0 eventually losing on points to Fury at age 39. That is impressive
In addition Wlad fought in a time with no color line, and all opponents were over 200 pounds.
I doubt we will see another champion like this in the next 20 years.Comment
-
The credentials say he belongs. Title defenses. Longevity. Skills.
From 2004-2015, an 11 year span Wlad is 19-0 eventually losing on points to Fury at age 39. That is impressive
In addition Wlad fought in a time with no color line, and all opponents were over 200 pounds.
I doubt we will see another champion like this in the next 20 years.
I debate myself as to whether or not I see colorline or even no commie era champions as true world champions. No matter what, Wlad's on the right side of the debate.
Far as size goes. I'm not sold. I make prosthesis for a living and from that I don't really believe weight division past 175 are actually necessary. We always get new divisions the same way we did Bridger. There is no talented small HW who would be doing well without the big boys. There's no 205er or abouts out there that always wins against other 205ers or about but never does well against a 265er.
Probably because at about 175 there is enough weight behind punches to hurt any human. You don't get tougher or denser bones or anything like that for being huge.
Reach and stuff like that causes me to pause on it but given there is never and was never a great small HW who struggled with big men exclusively I don't think that's much issue either.
I looked for the era when smaller HWs were losing en mass, didn't happen.
I looked for the man who does very well against his own size but not against bigger men, also did not happen.
What does happen is periods where there is no small HW talent. I mean Oscar Rivas is the top ranked bridger and his one loss is to whyte. He fits what they're selling, if, Oscar was ever considered a talent to watch in the first place. The second place guy is a man no one gives a hoot about who lost to a 197. That's not a small HW who'd do well in a division of small HWs. That's just a guy who lost. Lerena? Lost in the 190s as well. Dmitry is another.
There's nothing to suggest presently and in history I find nothing to suggest that these divisions did anything but give poorer boxers a division while protecting giants from looking silly against men half their weight.Comment
-
-
Wlad overall is one of the best heavyweights to have held the title. Early on he was more vulnerable but adjusted his style to greatly reduce that flaw. His standing as a champion should be determined by his overall body of work which is actually outstanding. His losses to Fury and Joshua were incurred well past his prime as has been the case of many past champions. My subjective viewpoint is he falls somewhere between 14 and 20 as an all time great.
I remembered the Fury fight being wider than it was, but taking a look at the scores--two judges had it 115 - 112.Comment
Comment