Comments Thread For: Wladimir Klitschko-Kubrat Pulev: Post-Fight Report Card

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

It felt like a fight.

We were watching a fight for the Heavyweight Championship of the World.

That’s all anyone can really ask for. That’s been the real complaint. Matches like Wladimir Klitschko-David Haye or Klitschko-Alexander Povetkin never got to that part. There was boxing. There were some big shots.

The fight never broke out.

Saturday in Germany, Klitschko wore an expression into the ring that underlined his annoyance with challenger Kubrat Pulev. At the opening bell, Pulev came out to back up his big talk. He hurt Klitschko with a jab moments into the fight.
[Click Here To Read More]

[The Hammer]

Correction:

Floyd Patterson was down more times than Wladimir Klitschko.

[BattlingNelson]

I think Wlad made a great performance against a willing and able foe. 37 years old and a decade as the top guy.

That's a good a reign as anyone before him. As it stands only the mediocrity of the division prevents him from being rated higher than top 10 all-time at HW.

[crold1]

Correction:

Floyd Patterson was down more times than Wladimir Klitschko.

Someone else mentioned that and it's a wording issue. Note I said great Heavyweight Champions. Patterson was a not one of the great Heavy Champs. One of the lesser even being the first to win it twice.

[Elroy1]

This article SOUNDED good until the bias began half way through.

The current era is as good as the one before it atleast. Thart statement was completely baseless

Most of the times Wladimir has been down have been in the fights he was knocked out in, from which he GOT UP several times during. You can't penalise someone numerically for getting up from a big shot, that is biased towards the guys who get sparked straight out! And Samuel Peter, 3 times KD'd by a big puncher from which he got up to WIN.

Aside from that, he's only been KD'd a few times.

Comparing to Patterson, who fought competition that the average school kid could punch out today, I'd say Wlad's chin has held up fine considered he's had the most REAL HW fights of all time, and the heftiest opponents ever on record.

Contemporary writers will always try to live up to the standards expected of their intended audience. There'll never be fairness unless you allow someone PRO the person you write about give their version or let someone unbiased also write an artile to be published.

[crold1]

This article SOUNDED good until the bias began half way through.

The current era is as good as the one before it atleast. Thart statement was completely

Most of the times Wladimir has been down have been in the fights he was knocked out in, from which he GOT UP several times during. You can't penalise someone numerically for getting up from a big shot, that is biased towards the guys who get sparked straight out! And Samuel Peter, 3 times KD'd by a big puncher from which he got up to WIN.

Aside from that, he's only been KD'd a few times.

Comparing to Patterson, who fought competition that the average school kid could punch out today, I'd say Wlad's chin has held up fine considered he's had the most REAL HW fights of all time, and the heftiest opponents ever on record.

Contemporary writers will always try to live up to the standards expected of their intended audience. There'll never be fairness unless you allow someone PRO the person you write about give their version or let someone unbiased also write an artile to be published.

I was using Louis, and the word great, for a reason. I think Wlad qualifies as a great heavyweight. Patterson does not.

[kafkod]

Correction:

Floyd Patterson was down more times than Wladimir Klitschko.

Someone else mentioned that and it's a wording issue. Note I said great Heavyweight Champions. Patterson was a not one of the great Heavy Champs. One of the lesser even being the first to win it twice.

Number of knockdowns is a statistic, not open to argument.
"Great" heavyweight champion is a value judgement, and a matter of opinion.
It's not a good idea to mix them together like that.
Other than that, it's a good article.

[crold1]

Number of knockdowns is a statistic, not open to argument.
"Great" heavyweight champion is a value judgement, and a matter of opinion.
It's not a good idea to mix them together like that.
Other than that, it's a good article.

I'm starting to agree with that. I may not have articulated as clear as I could have.

[Elroy1]

I was using Louis, and the word great, for a reason. I think Wlad qualifies as a great heavyweight. Patterson does not.

I can swallow that.

Joe Louis was a great HW. Perhaps the greatest, depending on the criteria defined, and Patterson was not, that's assured.

Retract my statement, I misjudged

[Elroy1]

I'm starting to agree with that. I may not have articulated as clear as I could have.

Your alright mate! Don't worry

Nice article!

I disagree with the current HW era being trashed against the last one but I do admit that the last one, by that I take it you mean the Lewis era, was pretty bloody tough!

These hard punching and hefty contenders now though to be honest seem to have better skills than the last too.

You take Michael Grant for instance, look at that title fight with Lewis. It was pretty sluggerish. Today's contenders KNOW they can't get away with that sort of thning with Wladimir. Just saying. And I love that Grant fight highlight of Lewis too.