Do Wlad's 3 defeats hamper his ATG status?

[LacedUp]

The only 'argument that really doesn't make sense' is saying "nobody is at their best when thy lose. You can be at your very best and still lose. Lennox got hit clean in his china glass chin and got KO'd. Wladimir was exposed for the raw fighter he was earlier in his career and got stopped. Then Manny took him under his wings and taught Wladimir how to protect his chin and and as a result Wladimir hasn't lost a fight in roughly 10 years.

No, because Wladimir wasn't in his prime yet, he needed a world class trainer like Manny Stewart to help him polish his technique and improve his defense. Lennox has no reasonable excuse, he was KO'd in his prime.

dude, this post is totally nonsense. You are so two-sided it's unreal.

[Bermuda]

losses don't mean much when it comes to picking who is an ATG or HOf'er or whatever...it's their accomplishments and achievements in the sport of boxing that people should be focusing on...so with that said 3 defeats don't hamper wlad's ATG status...he is easily in the top 15 best HWs of all time imo.

[BafanaBafana]

dude, this post is totally nonsense. You are so two-sided it's unreal.

Please explain how my post is total nonsense. I'll admit something though, although I don't like Wladimir, I dislike Lennox even more (probably one of the most overrated heavyweight champions of all time)--the guy really doesn't get the criticism he deserves.

[LacedUp]

Please explain how my post is total nonsense. I'll admit something though, although I don't like Wladimir, I dislike Lennox even more (probably one of the most overrated heavyweight champions of all time)--the guy really doesn't get the criticism he deserves.

Because you say Wlad was proven to be raw and needed a great trainer to put him on the right track. Please remind me, who did Lennox team up with after he lost to McCall at pretty much exactly the same stage in his career as Wlad was when he lost to Sanders?

Oh right, it was Manny Stewart! And then he went on to become undefeated for about 8 or so years fighting guys that are clearly on another level than the guys Wladimir are fighting. They were in precisely the same situation. Some people would also tell you that Lewis was past his prime, or at least past vintage Lennox, when he fought Rahman. they would also point out the fact that he had hardly trained and came in at career highest weight in that fight (at that point).

Rational people would say that everyone loses from time to time, and it's how you come back from the defeats that matter. That's the route i'm going down.

[Mikhnienko]

Vit and Sanders were not 1-2 in Ring. Just WBC

Why was it for the RING belt then?

[Godsfly]

the same morons were arguing that wlad was greater then holmes, liston & tyson.


wlad is no where near my top 10 HW's

[LacedUp]

Why was it for the RING belt then?

Because Vitali was su****iously elevated from #4 to #1 on the back of the Kirk Johnson win.

[Godsfly]

in realty fighters like ken norton are even greater then wlad (wlad would be lucky to make it in the top 15)

[crold1]

Why was it for the RING belt then?

They allowed 1-3 matches under various levels of consideration (never really explained). That Vitali leaped Sanders in Ring, from 4 to 1, after beating Ring-unrated Kirk Johnson (while Sanders had the superior win against Wlad) made the whole thing questionable.

He wasn't Ring's only questionable call. There were always some serious flaws in what they were doing and Ring did NOT always equal lineal, or vice versa, in the 2000s. It's worse now with things like Alvarez-Trout, a 2-3 fight, being recognized for their belt only for the skipped 1, Mayweather, to be in the ring with Alvarez next out.

There is NO reason for anyone to ever consider Alvarez as a former 'lineal' king at 154. When it came down to 1-2, he lost about 11-1.

A number of historical types do not recognize Vitali as having been lineal. The encyclopedias at BoxRec and CBZ for instance do not list him in the lineal lines. Sanders was the first real top ten fighter he ever beat. It wasn't all his fault. He was stuck with Kohl who had a history of staying local and US networks weren't high on him. He did what almost everyone does. Beat a string of meh until he can get to a mandatory. Then he got Lewis and thing turned for him perception wise.

One can make a case against Wlad too (he beat Chagaev in a 1-3) but that made a lot more sense considering the succession of top ten rated fighters (Ring-wise) that he beat to get to 1. Chagaev at the time was really the only guy left to beat who he wasn't related to (and the idea of a brother fight is sicko nonsense).

There really isn't ANY debate left on Wlad being THE champ after Povetkin with Vitali inactive. It remains to be seen if he fights again at all.

I don't doubt that Vitali would eventually have been universally recognized as champion. Injuries suck. But he needed a little more than Sanders.

[Weltschmerz]

So? What matters is what happens in the ring. It shows my limitations? Lol.

I only brought Haye's name up because you talk about him daily, and outside of Wlad and Vitali is probably the only fighter you actively follow. You still bring up his performance against Wlad, completely disregarding some of the very very entertaining fights he's had. Yet you won't accept other people judging Wlad based on the Povetkin fight, even though he's had equal stinkers on many other occassions. smh.

To think you have the time to post messages and give me gifts just because you don't have any valid points to make against my argument is laughable, and shows how limited YOU are.

Straight back to trolling you are