Wladimir Klitschko's Resume

[Elroy1]

Well. I disagree with you. I think the Ks would take him. But, in my opinion he would destroy boxers such as Pianeta and Wach and Mormeck and Ibragimov. I don't think Areolla would land anything on him and would be shut out 12-0.

I don't think that Williams is an ATG fighter. He is not. He is quality opposition though to an ATG and, as said earlier, better than anyone in the last 10 years not named WK, VK or David Haye.

A quick look at some videos of the videos of Williams and the boxers in question would leave a person speechless at your ******ity who wasn't already aware who the boxers were.

But just ask, when did Williams ever fight anybody with the calibre or the record of those fighters?

What you have to remember is Mormeck for example was a CHAMPION boxer. He has excellent skills, Williams does not. Mormeck was a tank, ripped more than anybody in the past and only 1lb lighter than prime Foreman, Williams was a string bean and soft by comparison. Mormeck is more athletic than any boxer of the past, Williams was a stationary plodder.

You see it just doesn't hold water, and this is one of the WORST WK opponents.

Trust me mate, none of those guys would even be professional fighters today.

If you want to see that sort of scrappy boxing today like Ali and his opponents did you can..

It's called AMATEUR boxing. If you want to see real pros, watch the K's!

[jifferson]

Wlad is a man among boys!!!!!

[bklynboy]

A quick look at some videos of the videos of Williams and the boxers in question would leave a person speechless at your ******ity who wasn't already aware who the boxers were.

But just ask, when did Williams ever fight anybody with the calibre or the record of those fighters?

What you have to remember is Mormeck for example was a CHAMPION boxer. He has excellent skills, Williams does not. Mormeck was a tank, ripped more than anybody in the past and only 1lb lighter than prime Foreman, Williams was a string bean and soft by comparison. Mormeck is more athletic than any boxer of the past, Williams was a stationary plodder.

You see it just doesn't hold water, and this is one of the WORST WK opponents.

Trust me mate, none of those guys would even be professional fighters today.

If you want to see that sort of scrappy boxing today like Ali and his opponents did you can..

It's called AMATEUR boxing. If you want to see real pros, watch the K's!

If you want real pros see Kovalev or GGG. WK follows a stand-up, keep the head back style that works against lesser skilled people who can't move enough to get inside.

I know you laugh at it but I think that Joe Frazier would rake WKs body then start landing on WKs chin when his arms come down. I think that Liston, Ali, Norton, Holmes (and others) would be able to land head shots and hurt (and beat WK).

Cleveland Williams was 6-3 and had a reach about equal to WK. He could EASILY have come in a ripped 230. I don't think he would want to. I think he would rather have "puny" power but be able to more easily slip WK's punches and to have the extra quickness to get inside, land punches, and turn WK around.

I know you think I'm crazy. But. There it is. :-)

[Chex31]

Great thread TS, Wladimir is a legend a top ten heavyweight.

top 20 m8

vk ain't nowhere close

[Elroy1]

It's not always about beating undefeated guys. It's about fighting that rival that tests your greatness. A guy that you're linked with to the end of time.

Pacman-Marquez
Ali-Frazier
Leonard-Hearns

etc…etc…

For Wlad, it could have been Lewis, but that fight never happened. It eventually became a showdown with Haye, but Haye didn't make any kind of case in that fight to become a true rival for Wlad and have a rematch or two.

That rival is a guy that people say, maaaan, I don't know who will win THIS time. Every great has beaten a group of undefeated and largely untested fighters. But not everyone has that indefinite rival to take them into the next stratosphere of greatness.

I appreciate what you are saying, but really that simply means that WK is so incredibly good that he dominates his opponents. That doesn't make them bad opponents, that just makes him exceptionally good. Exceptionally being a bit of an understatement here.

Who was Lewis's major rival? The 2 guys that sparked him aren't any better than WK's opponents or Lewis. Holyfield and Tyson were a level below. The only opponent that was LL's major rival was Vitali himself! A fight which was HIGHLY controversial to say the least, not in terms of the outcome, but in terms of who was the better boxer.

WK fought the most diverse range of opponents of any HW in history, from the defensive master, to the slick counterpuncher to the heavy smasher. And he dismantled them all.

I don't understand how comparisons with a resume like Ali, opponents with **** skills, little, improper training, against which he struggled with, sometimes badly and often gifted against, should be viewed favourably because the fights were more "competitive"..

In other words WK's career would be viewed better if he performed WORSE and struggled more. That's silly.

[Elroy1]

If you want real pros see Kovalev or GGG. WK follows a stand-up, keep the head back style that works against lesser skilled people who can't move enough to get inside.

I know you laugh at it but I think that Joe Frazier would rake WKs body then start landing on WKs chin when his arms come down. I think that Liston, Ali, Norton, Holmes (and others) would be able to land head shots and hurt (and beat WK).

Cleveland Williams was 6-3 and had a reach about equal to WK. He could EASILY have come in a ripped 230. I don't think he would want to. I think he would rather have "puny" power but be able to more easily slip WK's punches and to have the extra quickness to get inside, land punches, and turn WK around.

I know you think I'm crazy. But. There it is. :-)

An example then. David Haye was slicker and faster than any opponent you mentioned, by so much so it isn't even debatable. How is it you suppose that Haye could not land anything significant on WK but you suppose these lesser guys could?

And Frazier raking the middle of WK? Calling WK a "stand up fighter" is a bit misleading. His style is to either step back out of range, counterpunch with superior timing and accuracy or tie up any attempt to get inside. He has completely mastered the art of defeating smaller fighters in this manner.

Countless boxers have tried swarming tactics and all to no avail, now your telling me that Frazier, a fighter smaller than any of them without any chin to survive like WK's opponents did or any punch to hurt him like WK's opponents could, is gonna achieve what all those other much sturdier boxers could not?

I'm not going to call you crazy for having an opinion, but it definitely isn't one I'll ever agree with.

First, let's look at what opponents Frazier, or those other opponents, ACT?UALLY achieved these things against. It turns out that they had difficulty applying such things against bums, cruisers, both and each other often! So you suppose they could do it against someone like WK with the best timing/accuracy of any giant boxer. Doubt that.

[Elroy1]

Pretty much!

Ali beats someone they're the greatest fighter to have ever lived, they're ATGs and they belong in top 30.
Wladimir beats someone, they're a bum... look at how many losses they have!!

Ali beats the same person Wlad does, OMG amazing Ali so good...
Tony Thompson is world class now but not when he is being schooled by one of our greatest heavyweights ever.

[IMG]http://occupied*********.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/661044597.gif[/IMG]
Perfect example

An example. George Chuvalo 6' 34-11 bum 216lbs coming off loss to 11-2 191lb cruiser bum. Chuvalo is heralded as an "iron man" and Ali great for beating such an opponent in his golden years..

Francesco Pianeta, 6'4" 240lbs ripped like no boxer of the past, 28 straight wins undefeated many by KO coming off wins against 2 former HW champs and an opponent with a better record than Chuvalo himself whom he KOed in 1 round. Pianeta is classified a bum and WK a bum beater for facing such a "weak" opponent.

Please note, WK destroyed Pianeta, Ali struggled with Chuvalo!

Karl Mildenberger 6'1" 195lb cruiser, 30% featherfist KO ratio, earning his shot by beating 182lb cruiser 13-9 bum. Ali is again lauded and goes on to call him "AN EVEN TOUGHER OPPONENT THAN FRAZIER!"

Mariusz Wach, 250lbs, 27 straight wins undefeated, coming off a KO win over 6'8" 256lbs muscular 49-4 Tye Fields. Wach is labelled a bum, WK a bum beater despite being outtalled, outreached and outweighed as well.

Please note, WK completely outclassed Wach but Ali struggled with Mildenberger.

THIS is the sort of moronic comparisons made, and these are considered 2 of the WORST WK opponents! And this period fighters of Ali were considered his VINTAGE prime!

[bklynboy]

An example then. David Haye was slicker and faster than any opponent you mentioned, by so much so it isn't even debatable. How is it you suppose that Haye could not land anything significant on WK but you suppose these lesser guys could?

And Frazier raking the middle of WK? Calling WK a "stand up fighter" is a bit misleading. His style is to either step back out of range, counterpunch with superior timing and accuracy or tie up any attempt to get inside. He has completely mastered the art of defeating smaller fighters in this manner.

Countless boxers have tried swarming tactics and all to no avail, now your telling me that Frazier, a fighter smaller than any of them without any chin to survive like WK's opponents did or any punch to hurt him like WK's opponents could, is gonna achieve what all those other much sturdier boxers could not?

I'm not going to call you crazy for having an opinion, but it definitely isn't one I'll ever agree with.

First, let's look at what opponents Frazier, or those other opponents, ACT?UALLY achieved these things against. It turns out that they had difficulty applying such things against bums, cruisers, both and each other often! So you suppose they could do it against someone like WK with the best timing/accuracy of any giant boxer. Doubt that.

I don't think that highly about David Haye. He's miles ahead of all non-K heavies but he's not that great. I think that Evander was miles ahead in skill and most importantly in will. In fact Evander's greatest strength was also his greatest weakness - he loved to trade more than he should have.

I think Evander would have given WK the same trouble as he gave LL. Focusing on David Haye - I would put Michel Spinks and Floyd Patterson way above him and think that Bob Foster would be a great match-up.

Don't get me wrong - I think very highly about WK. But I think he would have become a much better fighter if he came of age in the early 70s or the early 90s. He learned a lot in his losses and became a better boxer. I don't think he has been tested for years, not because WK is so great but because his opposition has been poor. For gods sake a plodder like Tyson Fury is a TOP 5 heavyweight. I like Tyson Fury but he is not a quality boxer. He's a journeyman.

Again. I'm not a WK hater. I think he's a great champion. But to your points I don't see WK having exceptional footwork or timing. I think a young Mike Tyson had exceptional footwork (and think he would beat WK). I think Ali had great footwork. I think Alis, and Louis's, and Holmes jabs were better than WK. (Again this doesn't mean that WK sucks.)

Another thing to be added here is what the refs allow. It's part of what makes boxing eras difficult to compare. Bring Harry Greb to the present day to fight GGG and other middleweights and he would be DQed by the end of the 2nd round. Bring a fighter like Martinez back to 1920 and he would be run over. GGG has the power and chin to handle a Greb (but as there is no film we can't go into any more detail). :-)

As far as swarmers are concerned. There are some elite swarmers: Dempsey, Frazier and Tyson. And then there are the rest: some good, many only getting by on power (Tua) and others only on chin and courage (Gatti, Hatton).

[Elroy1]

I don't think that highly about David Haye. He's miles ahead of all non-K heavies but he's not that great. I think that Evander was miles ahead in skill and most importantly in will. In fact Evander's greatest strength was also his greatest weakness - he loved to trade more than he should have.

I think Evander would have given WK the same trouble as he gave LL. Focusing on David Haye - I would put Michel Spinks and Floyd Patterson way above him and think that Bob Foster would be a great match-up.

Don't get me wrong - I think very highly about WK. But I think he would have become a much better fighter if he came of age in the early 70s or the early 90s. He learned a lot in his losses and became a better boxer. I don't think he has been tested for years, not because WK is so great but because his opposition has been poor. For gods sake a plodder like Tyson Fury is a TOP 5 heavyweight. I like Tyson Fury but he is not a quality boxer. He's a journeyman.

Again. I'm not a WK hater. I think he's a great champion. But to your points I don't see WK having exceptional footwork or timing. I think a young Mike Tyson had exceptional footwork (and think he would beat WK). I think Ali had great footwork. I think Alis, and Louis's, and Holmes jabs were better than WK. (Again this doesn't mean that WK sucks.)

Another thing to be added here is what the refs allow. It's part of what makes boxing eras difficult to compare. Bring Harry Greb to the present day to fight GGG and other middleweights and he would be DQed by the end of the 2nd round. Bring a fighter like Martinez back to 1920 and he would be run over. GGG has the power and chin to handle a Greb (but as there is no film we can't go into any more detail). :-)

As far as swarmers are concerned. There are some elite swarmers: Dempsey, Frazier and Tyson. And then there are the rest: some good, many only getting by on power (Tua) and others only on chin and courage (Gatti, Hatton).

The Evander comparison is valid.

But Ali did not fight Holyfield.

Patterson and Spinks would have been knocked out in the first round by David Haye! Spinks had skills, but he had no punch and no chin. Patterson had nothing! Testament to another weak era, that such a flimsy boxer could become the champ or even be called a "heavyweight". Bob Foster? LOL Come on man! I suppose your trying to be funny there!

The refs allowed MORE rubbish back in those days than now.

Larry jab was great but it wasn't CLOSE to the quality of WK's.

WK's timing is among the best of all time and better than any pre80's boxer, and I mean ANY!

Tyson was not especially renowned for his footwork either, was it better than WK's? Probably, but they were different types of boxers.

Besides, the comparison Tyson vs WK is entirely valid, Tyson COULD beat WK. That is not in dispute.

Did Tyson face the same quality comp as WK or VK? Certainly not.
Did Holyfield face the same quality comp as WK or VK? Possibly, but Holyfield LOST a lot.
Did Holmes face the same quality comp as WK or VK? Not even close!
Did Ali face the same quality comp as WK or VK? Those opponents were so bad I can't think of ANY WK or VK opponents that would have failed to knock almost every single one of them out.

The only boxer who you can really say displayed dominance against a comparable level of opposition is Lennox Lewis.

Tyson was a great swarmer, the epitome of it.
Frazier was shockingly bad, a face first mauler with no chin. punch or skills.
Dempsey wasn't even a HW, and 10 times worse than Frazier, his entire career was all smoke and mirrors back in those days!

I don't like bashing history but these guys have to be put back in their place. History IS history!

[The Hammer]

The Evander comparison is valid.

But Ali did not fight Holyfield.

Patterson and Spinks would have been knocked out in the first round by David Haye! Spinks had skills, but he had no punch and no chin. Patterson had nothing! Testament to another weak era, that such a flimsy boxer could become the champ or even be called a "heavyweight". Bob Foster? LOL Come on man! I suppose your trying to be funny there!

The refs allowed MORE rubbish back in those days than now.

Larry jab was great but it wasn't CLOSE to the quality of WK's.

WK's timing is among the best of all time and better than any pre80's boxer, and I mean ANY!

Tyson was not especially renowned for his footwork either, was it better than WK's? Probably, but they were different types of boxers.

Besides, the comparison Tyson vs WK is entirely valid, Tyson COULD beat WK. That is not in dispute.

Did Tyson face the same quality comp as WK or VK? Certainly not.
Did Holyfield face the same quality comp as WK or VK? Possibly, but Holyfield LOST a lot.
Did Holmes face the same quality comp as WK or VK? Not even close!
Did Ali face the same quality comp as WK or VK? Those opponents were so bad I can't think of ANY WK or VK opponents that would have failed to knock almost every single one of them out.

The only boxer who you can really say displayed dominance against a comparable level of opposition is Lennox Lewis.

Tyson was a great swarmer, the epitome of it.
Frazier was shockingly bad, a face first mauler with no chin. punch or skills.
Dempsey wasn't even a HW, and 10 times worse than Frazier, his entire career was all smoke and mirrors back in those days!

I don't like bashing history but these guys have to be put back in their place. History IS history!

Old men have always said "it was better when I was young"