Wlad's best win

[nomadman]

lol,,youre so underrating chageav its not even funny. he's not a great fighter but he's damn solid and a handful for any fighter not named klitschko

True, Chags is a lot better than people give him credit for. Highly decorated amateur and very soild pro. And I don't think he won a single round against Wlad.

[Steelhammer2011]

Wlad has a very impressive resume

- IBF/WBO/IBO/RING Unified heavyweight champion of the world

- 48 KOs in 54 wins

- olympic gold medalist

- has made 15 dominant world title defences

- has defeated 8 world heavyweight champions:

Chris Byrd I (31-1)
Chris Byrd II (39-2)
Samuel Peter (24-0)
Ruslan Chagaev (25-0)
Sultan Ibragimov (22-0)
Lamon Brewster (33-3)
Hasim Rahman (45-5)
Francois Botha (44-3)
Ray Mercer (30-4)

- has defeated tons of top contenders:

Eddie Chambers (35-1)
Calvin Brock (29-0)
Tony Thompson (31-1)
Jameel McCline (28-2)
Monte Barrett (23-0)
Ray Austin (24-3)
DaVarryl Williamson (20-2)
Axel Schulz (26-3)
Derrick Jefferson (23-2)
Charles Shufford (17-1)
Eliseo Castillo (18-0)
etc....

[Carlsson]

Dog****. I could take that fat **** on.

Just a quick question:

How do you rate James Toney? i mean if you feel like you could take on peter who beat Toney twice that must meen you could really dish it out to James??

[The_Demon]

He doesnt have any great wins

[Ner0]

Wlad dominates via KO.

[nomadman]

I give Wlad props because, whilst he hasn't got any major scalps on his resume, he's nonetheless dominated his opposition for so long now in such impressive fashion and that I think it ultimately has to equal out any one big win. Holmes, with the exception of a faded Ali, was in a similar boat. Unfortunately, those types of fighters tend to be appreciated only after they've retired, whilst the Tysons and Bowes get immediate credit at the time of their big wins, but a lot more scrutiny later on. Bowe for example beat the great Evander twice, but he also struggled a lot against fighters he really shouldn't have and was basically beaten the snot out of twice by Andrew Golota whilst still in his twenties and retired soon after. Not that I'm dis*****g his quality during his brief title reign. But it's certainly an interesting question: who do you rate higher, a fighter with one or two great names on his resume but who struggled with lesser tier fighters and burned out early, or someone who took on decent but not great competition over a long period of time, never ducked anyone, and nearly always won flawlessly?