Wlad vs actual "old" heavies

[Cutthroat]

Your point is...?????
Your basically trying to say Wlad coming in at a lighter than usual weight against AJ proves he was still in his prime. Well Muhammad Ali came in the lightest he'd been in over 5 years against Larry Holmes, was he still in his prime? NO.
As I said you CANNOT use weight to gauge a fighter's prime therefore this thread is nonsense! ������

Ali had a heat stroke during the fight from taking thyroid medication against Holmes. He was also showing signs of brain damage just 1 year later and struggled getting a license to fight Berbick. Trying to compare a brain damaged fighter to Wlad is ridiculous. Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1984.

"Dr. Charles Williams, who was a member of Ali's medical team, diagnosed Ali as having a thyroid imbalance and prescribed one tablet of Thyrolar per day. Thomas Hauser, in his book Muhammad Ali: His Life & Times, wrote: "Thyrolar is a potentially lethal drug, and no one on Thyrolar should engage in a professional fight." To make matters worse, Ali doubled the dosage because he "thought the pills would be like vitamins." Thyrolar is known to cause fatigue, sluggishness, headache, increased blood pressure, tremor, nausea, increased heart rate, frequent urination and weight loss. The drug also interferes with the body’s self-cooling mechanisms, causing the body to dehydrate then overheat. Against Holmes, Ali said he felt weak, fatigued and short of breath from round one on. His body wasn't able to cool itself properly, and his temperature rose."

[Simurgh]

Wlad's age was the difference in the fight. Basically, Wlad showed he is more technically skilled, but he couldn't pull the trigger when needed or re-energize as promptly as AJ.

[Cutthroat]

Not all fighters age the same way.

Just because Wladimir looked in top physical shape, it doesn't necessarily mean he was at the height of his powers for AJ.

It's like the idiots on here saying Lewis was at the peak of his powers for Vitali. It's garbage.

As someone has said, already, Wladimir had been in decline for a while. I felt the passing of Manny, in 2012, and the promotion of Banks served as a trigger point.

Banks looked out of his depth in every fight.

The problem is Wlad looked as dominant as he always did against Pulev in late 2014. Suddenly a year later he's shot vs Fury. Practically nobody even picked Fury to win the bout, it's one of the biggest upsets of all time for a reason.

You forget he was extremely gun shy with Steward, he became a more balanced and aggressive fighter under Banks.

Lewis was still capable of fighting at an elite level when motivated and in shape. The version that fought Vitali is the same version that got blasted out by Rahman the 1st time. The 2nd time he fought Rahman he lost weight, came in at 6lbs lighter and fought like prime Lewis.

There is a stark difference between a fighter that does and doesn't show up in shape, Lewis is a case example of that in the Rahman fights.

[Cutthroat]

Wlad's age was the difference in the fight. Basically, Wlad showed he is more technically skilled, but he couldn't pull the trigger when needed or re-energize as promptly as AJ.

Wlad has never been a "pull the trigger" type of guy, it took him a full 12 to finally stop Chambers, he went a full 12 with a blown up cruiser in Haye, he went a full 12 with Chagaev, etc.

Fatigue? He's punched himself out in the past against Brewster.

That's the problem, he didn't show anything different, any new flaw, these have always been there.

[Cutthroat]

You gave some examples of sub-heavyweights like light heavyweights and super middleweights when the discussion is about heavyweights. Even if we agree that they are also relevant, in none of those examples do events occur according the specific criteria I set.

Andre Ward isn't 10+ years younger than Darnell Boone. Likewise, the same with Adonis Stevenson and Darnell Boone, James Toney and Tiberi and so forth so on.

In heavyweight boxing specifically, there has almost never been an instance where a boxer close to the age of 40 (39-42 years of age as Wladimir Klitschko was when he lost to Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury) defeated opponents who were more than 10 years younger, whilst they were also the best boxer / boxers at the time. It simply didn't happen! Expecting Wladimir Klitschko to be able to achieve such a feat is expecting something from Wladimir Klitshchko which has never been achieved by any past heavyweight. Thus, directly or indirectly making Wladimir Klitschko appear greater because he is held to a higher standard and is expected to achieve greater feats than what any other past heavyweight has achieved.

It doesn't matter whether Wlad came in shape or not. All it may prove is that a 40 year old Wladimir Klitschko is relatively better than those past heavyweight boxers when they were also 40 years of age. However, that doesn't mean that a 40 year old Wladimir Klitschko who is in relatively good shape compared to those other past heavyweights is going to be better than a 27 year old, in shape Anthony Joshua. That's reaching hugely!

You can't just assume that Wladimir Klitschko is going to be immune to deteriorating through aging, just because his circumstances aren't EXACTLY like those of past heavyweights. So far, what we do know is that a 40+ year old heavyweight hasn't beaten the best heavyweight opponent who was 10+ years younger. Until that happens, it's more reasonable to infer than not that a 40 year old heavyweight like Wladimir Klitschko is going to be inferior at around age 40, compared to how he was when he was younger.

If future heavyweights like Anthony Joshua can perform better than Wladimir Klitschko at around age 40 and defeat the best possible opponents who are also over 10 years younger than themselves, then you might have a point about age not being much of a factor when it comes to deterioration of boxing abilities. However, until such things happen, history has proven that the 40+ year old boxer is going to be inferior than the best boxers who are over 10 years younger and that is the norm to go by.

As to why aging causes an athlete's performance to decline. There are many possible reasons. Such as for example, continuous rigorous training for over a decade can lead to mileage and breakdown of the body. Which is the case with Wladimir Klitschko. Furthermore, studies have proven that the reflexes, reaction times and the mental sharpness of an older athlete is usually going to be lesser compared to the younger athlete. Thus, when the older athlete is SIGNIFICANTLY 'out-aged' as was the case with Wlad against Joshua and Fury, they will be at a significant disadvantage.

Also, Wladimir Klitschko already shown signs of declination in his match against Bryant Jennings

Wilder was down against journeymen early in his career, AJ was KO'd in the amateurs by a a 5'11 fatty as late as 2011, Wlad was losing to Sanders, Purrity, Brewster, Ali down by Cooper, Tyson against Douglas, Lewis against McCall, Jennings down by Tupou etc. etc. It's in EVERY division in case you haven't noticed.

You bring up HW but fail to understand Wlad is unlike any other in history due to the fact that he came in shape. The fighters you're trying to compare him to, the other 40 year olds that failed, ALL came in out of shape or obese.

Fat 253lb Lewis=loss to Rahman
Trim 246lb Lewis=Blasted out Rahman with ease

Age had nothing to do with that fight, it was his actual shape that played the biggest factor.

Wlad fought Jennings 6 months after he dominated Pulev, suddenly he's shot?

What was your excuse for Wlad when it took him 12 rounds to stop Chambers in 2012?

What about when he went a full 12 with Haye?
Full 12 with Chagaev?

Was he shot then? Fighters with movement have always given him trouble.

[Simurgh]

Wlad has never been a "pull the trigger" type of guy, it took him a full 12 to finally stop Chambers, he went a full 12 with a blown up cruiser in Haye, he went a full 12 with Chagaev, etc.

Fatigue? He's punched himself out in the past against Brewster.

That's the problem, he didn't show anything different, any new flaw, these have always been there.

I wouldn't take Brewster fight as a template of Wlad's stamina - he never had anything close to that meltdown - especially once he adopted Manny's style.

I am not saying that was shot Wlad, far from that, but he wasn't at his best - no doubt. His speed, reflexes, maybe even a power wasn't at his prime level. I think that Pulev version of Wlad would beat AJ that night.

[Lopez_Boxing]

Yes that is true but would you honestly say he was a shot fighter.

Say you put that klitschko in with someone higly ranked like kubrat pulev you think he wouldnt have won in dominating fashion

I don’t think so man. I think he’s been gun shy for a while. What he did in the sport was amazing, but he hasn’t been himself, which is more then understandable. That’s A LOT of wear and tear on the family

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Ali had a heat stroke during the fight from taking thyroid medication against Holmes. He was also showing signs of brain damage just 1 year later and struggled getting a license to fight Berbick. Trying to compare a brain damaged fighter to Wlad is ridiculous. Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1984.

"Dr. Charles Williams, who was a member of Ali's medical team, diagnosed Ali as having a thyroid imbalance and prescribed one tablet of Thyrolar per day. Thomas Hauser, in his book Muhammad Ali: His Life & Times, wrote: "Thyrolar is a potentially lethal drug, and no one on Thyrolar should engage in a professional fight." To make matters worse, Ali doubled the dosage because he "thought the pills would be like vitamins." Thyrolar is known to cause fatigue, sluggishness, headache, increased blood pressure, tremor, nausea, increased heart rate, frequent urination and weight loss. The drug also interferes with the body’s self-cooling mechanisms, causing the body to dehydrate then overheat. Against Holmes, Ali said he felt weak, fatigued and short of breath from round one on. His body wasn't able to cool itself properly, and his temperature rose."

I ain't comparing him with Wlad, I'm just using it to demonstrate that coming in at a lighter weight does not reflect a fighter's prime. Wlad was still in great shape but not in his prime. Just like when Roy Jones fought Trinidad, he was in great shape but was still not in his prime.
This again proves that weight does not reflect whether a fighter is in his prime so therefore this thread is pointless.

[W1LL]

A prime Lennox Lewis would have blasted Wladimir Klitschko out in less than five rounds. It would have been embarrassing. Let's say six knockdowns. The kind where Wlad just collapses in terror rather than take the punches. Eventually Lewis lands flush and sparks him out cold.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Wilder was down against journeymen early in his career, AJ was KO'd in the amateurs by a a 5'11 fatty as late as 2011, Wlad was losing to Sanders, Purrity, Brewster, Ali down by Cooper, Tyson against Douglas, Lewis against McCall, Jennings down by Tupou etc. etc. It's in EVERY division in case you haven't noticed.

You bring up HW but fail to understand Wlad is unlike any other in history due to the fact that he came in shape. The fighters you're trying to compare him to, the other 40 year olds that failed, ALL came in out of shape or obese.

Fat 253lb Lewis=loss to Rahman
Trim 246lb Lewis=Blasted out Rahman with ease

Age had nothing to do with that fight, it was his actual shape that played the biggest factor.

Wlad fought Jennings 6 months after he dominated Pulev, suddenly he's shot?

What was your excuse for Wlad when it took him 12 rounds to stop Chambers in 2012?

What about when he went a full 12 with Haye?
Full 12 with Chagaev?

Was he shot then? Fighters with movement have always given him trouble.

I've already addressed majority of those points you've raised. I'll do it again!

1) In regards to the examples of those boxers struggling early on in their career where they were dropped, stopped or they lost. None of those examples fulfill my criteria. My point was strictly that a boxer who is around 40 years of age (39-42 years old - around the same time when Wladimir Klitschko lost to Tyson fury and Anthony Joshua) has practically never beaten an opponent who is over a decade younger that was also the best future boxer in the world in that particular division. When you're expecting Wladimir Klitschko to beat Anthony Joshua, you're expecting feat that has never been accomplished before, to be accomplished by Wladimir Kltischko. Thus, you're raising him to a higher standard than others. Thus, you're directly / indirectly giving the impression that he is greater than all past boxers (as the standards are higher for him than others).

2) In regards to Wladimir Klitschko being in good shape at 40 years of age whilst other past heavyweights weren't when they were also around the same age that therefore, that's evidence of Wladimir Klitschko's age not being a factor in his defeats to Anthony Joshua or Tyson Fury.

You're committing a special pleading fallacy because you're applying a different rule to Wladimir Klitschko than to any other past heavyweight boxer.

Furthermore, you're also assuming that because he was in better shape than past heavyweights when they were also around 40 years of age, that age didn't play a factor in different ways. You do realize that when athletes age and become older, they decline in various different ways? Simply physical appearance is only a small aspect of what makes a peak athlete in an athletic sport and just because Wladimir Klitschko at age 40 had better looking physical appearance than past heavyweights when they were also around the age of 40, doesn't mean he couldn't have been affected in other ways. Studies have shown that athletes have their reaction times, mental sharpness, energy levels among many other attributes deteriorating by that age. Other things include motivation (from constantly winning) and body breaking down (from constant training over a long spanning career).

Your entire argument is seemingly based on Wladimir Klitschko's physical appearance from an aesthetic perspective. That because he simply looks better than past heavyweights at around age 40 that therefore, his old age couldn't be a factor in his losses. That's an extremely flawed way of analyzing this situation. There are many other factors beyond just physical appearance which determines the level that an athlete is at in regards to whether they are at peak or deteriorating

Again, Wladimir Klitschko may be better than other past heavyweights around the age of 40. However, it's extremely irrational to assume that he would be better at age 42 than the 10+ years younger Anthony Joshua who also happens to be the next best heavyweight in the world. Simply because no boxer around age 40 has the success which Wladimir Klitschko is expected to have from you. We will see how good the current young heavyweights like Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder and Joseph Parker are when they are also around the age of 40. If they can do what Wladimir Klitschko couldn't do and beat opponents who are 10+ younger in age who also happen to be the future best heavyweights in the world. Then it may be rational to argue that age shouldn't have been much of a factor to Wladimir Klitschko's defeats around the age of 40. Since the standard will change if boxers continue boxing at age 40 whilst remaining the absolute best in the heavyweight division. So far, nobody has reached that standard yet. Wladimir Klitchko came the closest though!


3) In regards to Wlad fighting Jennings 6 months after he dominated Pulev and the question of him being shot. I never claimed he was shot. He wasn't shot in any of his bouts after his win against Pulev. However, he wasn't in his prime either. Wladimir Klitschko already beat boxers with better records and skills than Bryant Jennings more convincingly and impressively prior to 2013. The fact that he would do worse against Bryant Jennings when close to age 40 whilst he already did better against better boxers than Bryant Jennings in a younger age is evidence of Wlad being out of his prime and declining.


4) As for what my excuse is for Wlad taking 12 rounds to stop Eddie Chambers in 2012. You're incorrect! The bout between Wladimir Klitschko and Eddie Chambers took place in 2010 and not in 2012.

Also, why would I need an excuse? No other boxer to this day has beaten Eddie Chambers as convincingly and as impressively as Wladimir Klitschko beat him.

At the time, Eddie Chambers was unbeaten and UN-KO'ed and Wladimir Klitschko won every round of their bout and gave him one of the most devastating knockouts in heavyweight boxing history. No other opponent of Eddie Chambers beat him as impressively (winning as many rounds, whilst getting hit as little as Wlad did and whilst inflicting as much damage as Wlad inflicted). So again, why would I need an excuse for such a dominant performance by prime Wladimir Klitschko that has still been unmatched to this day?

5) In regards to Wladimir Klitschko going 12 rounds with Ruslan Chagaev and what my excuse is for that. Again, perhaps you need to recheck your facts? Wlad didn't go 12 rounds with Chagaev. Chagaev was stopped in the 9th round and was stopped for the first time in his career whilst probably being dropped for the first time in his career too. Nobody else managed to beat a prime Ruslan Chagaev. The same Ruslan Chagaev who was undefeated and UN-KO'ed, prior to facing Wladimir Klitschko whilst also coming off very good wins against other undefeated / top quality opposition.

So again, why would I need an excuse and what would I need an excuse for?


6) As for Wlad going 12 rounds with David Haye. So what? What is your point? David Haye lost practically every round of that match and Wlad was the only boxer to beat prime David Haye anyway.


7) As for boxers with movement giving Wlad trouble. This is common sense and isn't rocket science! Any boxer with good movement will give any boxer more trouble than another boxer with poor movement. Wladimir Klitschko is no exception to this rule! However, Wladimir Klitschko has performed better against those type of boxers than any other heavyweight during his time.