Who's the Smallest-Ever Fighter You'd Pick to Beat Current Wlad 6+ Times Outta 10?

[Haggis McJackass]

Have done this thread before but months and months ago in the general forum, this one should get a much better class of posters responding.

So, a lot of guys could potentially land massive shots on Wlad and defeat him by way of stoppage. Lot of guys have the power to put him out, but will they land that KO shot in more than 5 out of 10 fights?

I think there are jack all heavyweights in history who would get the better of him if you ran a prime vs prime matchup 10 times. Lennox is the one who stands out for me as having the best results.

Who do you think the smallest man to be able to do this would be?

If you HAD to make a high-stakes bet, who is the smallest man you would feel confident betting on against Wlad in this 10 fight series?

Muhammed Ali?

Joe Louis?

Joe Frazier?

Evander Holyfield?

Who is the smallest, by weight or height? Tyson? Or do you think someone like Marciano could do it?

Discuss.

:hat

[Beeston Brawler]

Probably Holyfield or Tyson......

The others would all have plenty of chances to expose Wlad's soft whiskers, but would find themselves at the end of a ramrod jab most of the night.

[TommyV]

I'd be interested to if anybody will pick Langford.

Probably Tyson.

[Beeston Brawler]

Do you consider Tyson bigger or smaller than Holyfield though......

Mike was shorter, but heavier.....

[Bill Butcher]

Have done this thread before but months and months ago in the general forum, this one should get a much better class of posters responding.

So, a lot of guys could potentially land massive shots on Wlad and defeat him by way of stoppage. Lot of guys have the power to put him out, but will they land that KO shot in more than 5 out of 10 fights?

I think there are jack all heavyweights in history who would get the better of him if you ran a prime vs prime matchup 10 times. Lennox is the one who stands out for me as having the best results.

Who do you think the smallest man to be able to do this would be?

If you HAD to make a high-stakes bet, who is the smallest man you would feel confident betting on against Wlad in this 10 fight series?

Muhammed Ali?

Joe Louis?

Joe Frazier?

Evander Holyfield?

Who is the smallest, by weight or height? Tyson? Or do you think someone like Marciano could do it?

Discuss.

:hat

Rocky Marciano (possibly)

[Bill Butcher]

I think there are jack all heavyweights in history who would get the better of him if you ran a prime vs prime matchup 10 times.

Really ? :admin

Wlad Klitschko ? :huh

You basically think Wlad is the best ever HWT h2h ?

Ali would likely beat him 10-0 & Im not even joking with that one.

[he grant]

Wlad is a joke. Frazier kills him. Louis destroys him. Tyson destroys him. Holyfield kills him. His match ups have to be tremendously lopsided from a physical standpoint for him to win against great fighters ...

[round15]

Frazier, Langford, Marciano and Tyson would destroy both Klitschko's. I'd also add prime Floyd Patterson to this list based on the fact that his handspeed would win him a lot of rounds.

[OBCboxer]

Frazier destroys him in the Mid Rounds.

Louis by early KO

Tyson KO1

Holyfield late TKO

Patterson UD

Marciano Mid Round TKO

Liston by annhilation.

[Rock0052]

6 times out of 10? That's the tricky part...in a one fight scenario the case could be made for a number of guys. But to beat him the majority of the time? That's alot shorter list. The smallest guy I can think of I'd feel comfortable picking a majority of the time would be a prime Mike Tyson.

As for some of the names, I think people are just being defensive about history. Personally, I believe Sam Langford would get the shit beat out of him. There. I said it. I'll accept my excommunication papers in the mail, thank you.

[Muchmoore]

Marciano was death against tall fighters. I'd pick him to KO Wlad without much hesitation, no way Wlad can keep him off with his jab for 12.

[TheBradyHawkes]

A lot of these guys listed would be beat him 10 out of 10 times.

[ChrisPontius]

Marciano was death against tall fighters. I'd pick him to KO Wlad without much hesitation, no way Wlad can keep him off with his jab for 12.

Which tall fighters did Marciano beat? With his punching power, ability to take a shot and low crouch i think he has a good chance, but it's not like his record is full of tall victims. LaStarza, Moore, Walcott, Charles, Layne and Cockell were all 6 feet or shorter. Joe Louis was 6'2 and the tallest, rated opponent that he beat.

The fact that Marciano is 5'10 and fights from a crouch will probably lead to a very dull fight with neither landing that many big shots.

I'd be interested to if anybody will pick Langford.

Probably Tyson.

This one would be even worse. Langford will have a LOT of trouble reaching Wlad, and probably be tied up on the inside. However, i don't think Wlad can land effectively either, because he has to punch so far down. Probably a lot of jabs, grazing jabs, holding and a rather lame but onesided (in terms of rounds won) decision.

[Rock0052]

del

[Seamus]

As much as I like Marciano and Langford, Wlad destroys them with impunity. He's poison to smaller fighters, their only hope being that he gasses himself over the long haul. However, making that long haul is a very tough task for even the best.

The best versions of Louis and Ali beat him. However, remember if we are talking prime for prime, then we need to consider a PRIME WLAD, not the mentally frail version who was slinking nervously into rings for a few years. He has a chance against ANY fighter ever.

[janitor]

I'd be interested to if anybody will pick Langford.

Probably Tyson.

I pick Langford.

[hoagy]

Probably Holyfield or Tyson......

The others would all have plenty of chances to expose Wlad's soft whiskers, but would find themselves at the end of a ramrod jab most of the night.

:good

[ChrisPontius]

I pick Langford.

To be able to reach Wlad's thighs?

[janitor]

To be able to reach Wlad's thighs?

To leave him spark out on the canvas.

[bigjake]

this is a SILLY THREAD no 2 fighters are matched up 6 times these days maybe in the 40's or 50's

[Rock0052]

Frazier destroys him in the Mid Rounds.

Louis by early KO

Tyson KO1

Holyfield late TKO

Patterson UD

Marciano Mid Round TKO

Liston by annhilation.

Likelihood of victory, in order:
1) Tyson - right style and temperament, with the physical attributes and ability to execute the precision punching to pull off the gameplan. Tyson's the only one I feel comfortable with calling the favorite.

2) Liston - hits hard enough to stop Wlad if he catches him, but has an uphill battle to climb to land his favorite punches. Significant size and speed advantage for Wlad. Liston never beat anything above a fringe contender level big men on the rare occasion he fought anyone taller than 6'2.

3) Louis - Big enough, explosive enough to create opportunities for himself, but also left himself open and got dropped in the process. He'd need to go balls out for the KO, because I don't see him being able to score enough at range to win a decision.

4)Holyfield - Has a history of fighting people his own size or slightly taller, the only problem is it's not a spectacular one. Vulnerable to the jab and too inconsistent at Heavyweight to win the majority of the time vs Wlad.

5) Marciano - there's the chance he could utilize the crouch and get inside and land something big to grind Wlad down, but he's going to have to deal with both a long jab and Klitschko's better lateral movement to do it. No history of fighting quality big men, and would be giving up 8 inches and 60 lbs. That might work on a bad big man, but not one of Wlad's level.

6) Patterson - Terrible matchup for Floyd. He didn't beat a decent fighter close to Wlad's size, and never fared well against punchers. The straight right would end it as soon as he decided to start throwing it.



Tyson's the only guy on this list who'd take him 6 or more out of 10. 2-4, I see as more or less even fights. 5-6, would be an uphill climb, literally and figuratively.

[Rock0052]

To leave him spark out on the canvas.

Just like Fred Fulton.

[TommyV]

I pick Langford.

I have no doubt he has the power to KO Wlad, and the chin to survive, I'm just wondering whether the sheer size difference means he's kept at bay all night long by the jab.

[djanders]

In my opinion...Sam Langford.

[Rock0052]

Well, when Langford did fight a 6'6 contender-level fighter with power, a jab, a propensity to get KO'd himself, and who was also 30 lbs smaller than Wlad, he suffered perhaps the worst beating of his career and got hospitalized for it. Therefore, it seems both natural and logical to pick him to beat Wlad easily.

[Muchmoore]

Which tall fighters did Marciano beat? With his punching power, ability to take a shot and low crouch i think he has a good chance, but it's not like his record is full of tall victims. LaStarza, Moore, Walcott, Charles, Layne and Cockell were all 6 feet or shorter. Joe Louis was 6'2 and the tallest, rated opponent that he beat.

The fact that Marciano is 5'10 and fights from a crouch will probably lead to a very dull fight with neither landing that many big shots.



I meant to say big fighters, not necessarily just tall fighters. His record against guys over 200 pounds is something like 11-0 with all coming by KO. He's a bit like Tyson in my opinion in that he struggled more against shorter fighters, where his low crouch didn't play as much of a role.

Marciano never did face someone as tall and as good as Wlad though, and that's the big question mark about the fight. But Wlad has shown that his chin is nothing special and against someone like Marciano that would be a huge problem.

[RonnieHornschuh]

In my opinion...Sam Langford.

Boy, you classic forum guys really crack me up. Sam Langford wouldn't even make it to the tenth bout, because he would be braindead by then.
Langford is a middleweight for god's sake! Who would pick Hagler to beat Wlad? Nobody of course, but it's okay for an expert to pick Langford, because he was born in the 19th century.

[TommyV]

this is a SILLY THREAD no 2 fighters are matched up 6 times these days maybe in the 40's or 50's

And?

It's a hypothetical question cock-gobbler.

[ChrisPontius]

To leave him spark out on the canvas.

As others have said, Fulton twice dominated Langford. Wlad is bigger, stronger, very likely to be probably more skilled, and probably at least as durable. What do you make of that?

[djanders]

Now that it has been mentioned, I think Fulton and Klitschko is a very good comparison. I guess, based on what some of you guys are saying about Fulton and Klitschko, you think a prime Jack Dempsey would knock out Wladimir Klitschko in the first round? If so, that's something we would agree on. :good :D

[JimmyShimmy]

Yes, but of course Langford was past his best.

Wlad ain't too shabby, but all the smaller greats should be favoured to eat him up - from Dempsey onwards.

[McGrain]

As others have said, Fulton twice dominated Langford. Wlad is bigger, stronger, very likely to be probably more skilled, and probably at least as durable. What do you make of that?

If you get Langford from Fulton I want Wlad from Sanders.

Uh, Frazier is my answer.

[Minotauro]

Dempsey.

[marciano1952]

Dempsey....Im a Big Fan of Wlads but I Really Belive Dempsey would/could beat him

[Russell]

A 180 some odd pound Dempsey would have to be favored over Wlad.

The intensity/fearsomeness to make Wlad's anxiety (Which was his true biggest issue) flare up, and those beatiful leaping hooks to get inside.

Also, Dempsey was an unbelievable inside fighter. The way he tied up Willard (Watch a good quality version of the Willard match and be amazed, great work by Dempsey) Completely nullified Willard's uppercut, one of his best tools.

[HomicideHenry]

Dempsey, Frazier, Marciano

Any man who was superb at getting inside the reach of bigger, more skilled, opponents than themselves

[Jersey Joe]

Bob Fitzimmons (KO)
Roy Jones Jr (points)

Dempsey would steamroller Wlad, nightmare matchup of styles. Marciano would be in with a shout to score 6/10 too, he KOd many big but unwieldy opponents, and Wlad is pretty chinny.

[Seamus]

This thread has some of the more delusional suppositions in a generally deluded forum. Fitz? Langford? Marciano? I don't even know where to start.

I do find it a humorous fact that whomever is the current Heavyweight champ is often derided during his reign and celebrated later.

[OBCboxer]

Likelihood of victory, in order:
1) Tyson - right style and temperament, with the physical attributes and ability to execute the precision punching to pull off the gameplan. Tyson's the only one I feel comfortable with calling the favorite.

2) Liston - hits hard enough to stop Wlad if he catches him, but has an uphill battle to climb to land his favorite punches. Significant size and speed advantage for Wlad. Liston never beat anything above a fringe contender level big men on the rare occasion he fought anyone taller than 6'2.

3) Louis - Big enough, explosive enough to create opportunities for himself, but also left himself open and got dropped in the process. He'd need to go balls out for the KO, because I don't see him being able to score enough at range to win a decision.

4)Holyfield - Has a history of fighting people his own size or slightly taller, the only problem is it's not a spectacular one. Vulnerable to the jab and too inconsistent at Heavyweight to win the majority of the time vs Wlad.

5) Marciano - there's the chance he could utilize the crouch and get inside and land something big to grind Wlad down, but he's going to have to deal with both a long jab and Klitschko's better lateral movement to do it. No history of fighting quality big men, and would be giving up 8 inches and 60 lbs. That might work on a bad big man, but not one of Wlad's level.

6) Patterson - Terrible matchup for Floyd. He didn't beat a decent fighter close to Wlad's size, and never fared well against punchers. The straight right would end it as soon as he decided to start throwing it.



Tyson's the only guy on this list who'd take him 6 or more out of 10. 2-4, I see as more or less even fights. 5-6, would be an uphill climb, literally and figuratively.

Really? What about Frazier? Liston would beat him everytime because he has more reach and a far better jab than Wlad. He could beat him at his own game.

Louis was a master at countering the jab and right of many fighters and would make Wlad come forward and get countered by the right of Louis.

Holyfield would make it a brawl and Wlad would have no answer on the inside against Holyfield.

Marciano might have an uphill battle but would eventually get on the inside and connect on Wlad to KO him while behind on the cards.

Patterson is the least likely to win but his superior hanspeed and movement can steal the fight in my opinion. He's a very underrated fighter and so his chin.

[Muchmoore]

I don't see Wlad being able to beat Louis. Watch Joe absolutely demolish giants like Carnera, Simon, Baer etc., the man was at his best against giants. Moreso than Marciano even because he proved it against quality fighters.

I give Wlad the best chance against Frazier. This would have to be the young Wlad who threw caution to the wind, not the more measured Wlad of today. I think that Wlad could drop Frazier early on and at the very least make things very interesting even if Frazier survived.

[OBCboxer]

I don't see Wlad being able to beat Louis. Watch Joe absolutely demolish giants like Carnera, Simon, Baer etc., the man was at his best against giants. Moreso than Marciano even because he proved it against quality fighters.

I give Wlad the best chance against Frazier. This would have to be the young Wlad who threw caution to the wind, not the more measured Wlad of today. I think that Wlad could drop Frazier early on and at the very least make things very interesting even if Frazier survived.

That Wlad would be too green and still had his issues with pressure fighters. He would be stopped early than the more cautious one.

[Haggis McJackass]

Really ? :admin

Wlad Klitschko ? :huh

You basically think Wlad is the best ever HWT h2h ?

No. "Jack all heavyweights would get the better of him" does not mean "no heavyweight does".

However, a prime Wlad places very high in H2H matchups, as does his brother. (Vitali may place higher, in fact)

Here are my reasons.

1) Basically, no HW champion except Lennox and Holy has ever faced an opponent who was anything close to the sheer size of Wlad, without being a huge slow clumsy oaf. This is a big advantage for Wlad right out of the gate, his size throws anyone below 6'4" right off their gameplan.

2) Wlad has a combination of size, handspeed, power, technical ability, work ethic and heart that is almost unique in heavyweight history. Lennox had a similar blend, and look at the success it brought him. Wlad is bigger, and quite possibly stronger, more skilled and more of an athlete as well.

3) Wlad has his failings, sure. He doesn't have a granite chin, and he sometimes gets flustered in the ring, though he has improved on this in the last couple of years. But every fighter has his weaknesses, even the ATGs. It's just a question of whether they can capitalize on Wlad's weaknesses. Most of them don't have the tools to do it more than 3 or 4 times out of 10.

4) Wlad has lost three times, but never come close to losing a decision. It is foolish to assume that anyone will dominate him on the cards.

Ali would likely beat him 10-0 & Im not even joking with that one.

Ali couldn't get the better of Ken Norton over three fights in his early 30s, yet he's going to outpoint Wlad 10 out of 10 times? Wlad can put just as much of a hurt on him as Frazier did, and he's not going to take nearly as much punishment in return. To say that Wlad could not even take one fight out of 10 from Ali is foolish.

For the record, I don't have Wlad at #1 in the all-time "simulate 10 fights" matchups. But I don't have him getting cleaned up by anyone either. I'm hard-pressed to see him not claiming at least 3-4 wins against anybody.

:hat

[Kaki]

slightly off-topic, but I would pick Lewis/Holmes/Ali to beat Wlad 10 out of 10 times.

[Haggis McJackass]

I don't see Wlad being able to beat Louis. Watch Joe absolutely demolish giants like Carnera, Simon, Baer etc., the man was at his best against giants. Moreso than Marciano even because he proved it against quality fighters.

But none of Wlad quality. Facing Primo Carnera is nothing close to the same as facing Wlad. The athleticism that Wlad has was simply not found in men of his size back in Louis' time. This would throw Louis off his stride.

:hat

[Seamus]

I am a huge Marciano proponent (after spending a good time being a detractor). That said, there is no way in hell Marciano gets near Wlad. There is no way he lasts more than 6 rounds. He is custom made for Wlad.

[WhataRock]

How does Wlad's chin and hands hold up in an era of smaller gloves?...how does his stamina go in an era where heavyweights could actually fight at a furious pace for 15, even 20 rounds..whereas Wlad has be known to collapse after 5.

These things make these matchups difficult to discuss...because eras are hard to compare.
I reckon most of those much smaller fighters have a very hard time against him in his era.

[spittle8]

How does Wlad's chin and hands hold up in an era of smaller gloves?
His jabs would kill.


Ali would likely beat him 10-0 & Im not even joking with that one.
The post-ban Ali loses at least 6-out-of-10 for me. In his prime I'd favor him generally but it would be an awkward fight, and Ali would be hardpressed to avoid getting hit. Against Wlad, Ali can't bully a smaller or slower fighter... he'd be facing a guy with great footwork and active feet, fast hands, tremendous power, great skills and an ATG jab in a massive package. Wlad's biggest enemy has always been his psychology.

I don't see Wlad being able to beat Louis. Watch Joe absolutely demolish giants like Carnera, Simon, Baer etc., the man was at his best against giants. Moreso than Marciano even because he proved it against quality fighters.

I give Wlad the best chance against Frazier. This would have to be the young Wlad who threw caution to the wind, not the more measured Wlad of today. I think that Wlad could drop Frazier early on and at the very least make things very interesting even if Frazier survived.
I tend to agree, I imagine Joe would get to Wladimir and fuck him up, but I can't really see the fight in my head so I'm not confident. Of those three only Carnera is similar to Wlad and Wladimir is more skilled and a much better athlete than Primo.

Frazier would be dangerous for Wlad. He'd be awkward to keep at bay and he'd need to let his hands go and drop bombs to keep Frazier off him. I think I'd favor Wlad to the tune of 6 fights out of ten, but I may have a completely different opinion in a few years when I learn more about the sport. Joe was no joke.



For me, it's Dempsey. I'm not sure Rocky could get to a poised Wlad. If he does, it could end quickly, but a swarmer needs to be fast and smart to get to Wlad, unless Wlad has a mental breakdown. I think Dempsey would get past Wlad's defense and jab and break his body. He has the athleticism, defense, speed and footwork to get to Wlad whereas Rocky might have more trouble.

Don't forget how well Wlad moves on his feet, he can get away from danger and he was an incredible puncher before his "second career".

[ChrisPontius]

If you get Langford from Fulton I want Wlad from
Sanders.


Well i'm just saying that it doesn't bode well for Langford if he twice one-sidedly lost to a fighter similar to but several levels below Wlad. Even if he was past his best. From what i've read, he wasn't even competitive. Everyone knows Dempsey was over the hill against Tunney, but wouldn't you agree that based on what you saw there, a bigger and better version of Tunney (say Holmes or Ali) would likey be favored against a prime version of his?





Uh, Frazier is my answer.

I think this is a remarkable choice, again. First because we know Frazier is vulenrable early and Wlad definitely has the power to take him out. Second, we also know Wlad will move and tie him up when comes up close. Yes, not the most exciting style, but look at how little Frazier could do when Ali did that in their rematch.

I wouldn't count Frazier out and i think very highly of him, but i strongly doubt he'd win more than 5 out of 10.

[MrPook]

Ali. Wlad punches real hard and Ali has the best punch resistance and recovery ability.

The post-ban Ali loses at least 6-out-of-10 for me. In his prime I'd favor him generally but it would be an awkward fight, and Ali would be hardpressed to avoid getting hit. Against Wlad, Ali can't bully a smaller or slower fighter... he'd be facing a guy with great footwork and active feet, fast hands, tremendous power, great skills and an ATG jab in a massive package. Wlad's biggest enemy has always been his psychology.

Ali was a master in psychology warfare

[janitor]

As others have said, Fulton twice dominated Langford. Wlad is bigger, stronger, very likely to be probably more skilled, and probably at least as durable. What do you make of that?

What I make of it is that Langford was an empty shell some time before he fought Fulton and at his peak would likley have gone through Fulton prety much like Dempsey did.

You might as well use Leon Spinks's win over Ali to suggest that Marciano would always have beaten him.

My reasons for picking Langford are simple. As a finisher he was more dangerous at creating and exploiting an opening than any heavyweight since him. Wlads jab and grab style is not going to see him to the final bell against a finisher like Langford whatever his physical advantages. Sanders got his oportunity by chance when Wlad made a mistake. Langford would force him to make a mistake somwhere in the fight and then its goodnight sweet prince.

A big reach advantage an a stiff jab alone are no substitute for what Langford had.

[JediPimp007]

Tyson, Dempsey, Marciano, Holyfield, Louis, Ali... in fact quite a few more. As regards talent Wlad is a big fish in a VERY small pond, the division sucks and even then he's managed to lose to a part time boxer/golfer... to be compared even head to head with better fighters from better era's is madness imo

[Muchmoore]

But none of Wlad quality. Facing Primo Carnera is nothing close to the same as facing Wlad. The athleticism that Wlad has was simply not found in men of his size back in Louis' time. This would throw Louis off his stride.

:hat

And Louis isn't exactly Lamon Brewster, either.

[fists of fury]

Which tall fighters did Marciano beat? With his punching power, ability to take a shot and low crouch i think he has a good chance, but it's not like his record is full of tall victims. LaStarza, Moore, Walcott, Charles, Layne and Cockell were all 6 feet or shorter. Joe Louis was 6'2 and the tallest, rated opponent that he beat.



Vingo wasn't rated but he was a pretty good prospect, and he stood 6'4", although he was a lot lighter than Wlad.

I think pressure fighters like Tyson (not strictly a pressure fighter, but close enough) and Frazier could do damage. Dempsey too.

Personally I can't see Marciano doing much. He's short and simply not big enough. Dempsey weighed the same, more or less, as Marciano but he was a good deal taller and more explosive.
Joe Louis cracks Wlad's chin more often than not, imo. The Patterson call above is interesting. For me though, Patterson's chin could not withstand a powerful right hand from the big Ukrainian.

The list isn't very big if one needs to find a smallish guy that wins 60% of his fights against Wlad, but in a one-off fight there are many more we could add to tha list.

Anyway, I'd say Frazier and Dempsey are my smallest, most likely candidates.

[Sakura]

In my opinion...Sam Langford.

5′ 6½″ / 169cm

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[fists of fury]

I think this is a remarkable choice, again. First because we know Frazier is vulenrable early and Wlad definitely has the power to take him out. Second, we also know Wlad will move and tie him up when comes up close. Yes, not the most exciting style, but look at how little Frazier could do when Ali did that in their rematch.



Frazier is vulnerable early, but Wlad is no ball of fire in the early rounds either. He was cautious against even the over-the-hill Rahman, in a fight where some felt Wlad was being more aggressive than usual.
To me, Wlad's caution offsets Frazier's slow start.

Wlad will tie Frazier up no doubt, he has the strength to do so. But he has to also deal with a kind of pressure nobody has put on him before. He can tie Frazier up 100 times and Frazier will keep coming at him.

In terms of stamina Frazier is leaps and bounds ahead of Wlad, who even though he is far bigger, has to carry that great bulk around for 12-15 rounds. (Assuming the fight goes that far.)

There is every possibility that Wlad's height can work for him, but also against him.
Frazier fought out of a crouch, and since Wlad has not too much of an uppercut, he's not going to exploit the crouch's weakness as did Foreman.
Wlad is going to have very little other than the top of Frazier's head to aim for, and I can see a situation where he over-extends himself to throw a jab, and Frazier counters with leaping left hooks.
I honestly see Wlad missing much more than he lands against Frazier.

If Wlad doesn't get him early on, I reckon he's in for a long, hard fight.

[PowerPuncher]

Manny Pacquaio

[Jersey Joe]

This thread has some of the more delusional suppositions in a generally deluded forum. Fitz? Langford? Marciano? I don't even know where to start.

I do find it a humorous fact that whomever is the current Heavyweight champ is often derided during his reign and celebrated later.

Hey, we have people picking Wlad over Louis, Ali and Liston - that's far more delusional than Marciano being able to do as well as Corrie Sanders, Ross Puritty or Lamon Brewster.

[lefthook31]

Any solid infighter that has a decent chin, and good ability to get inside. Wlad simply cant fight. If you can get inside and make him fight, he falls apart. If you put a 1996 version of Ray Mercer in with him I would pick Mercer to beat him. Hes lost to B and C level opposition that have been able to get under his jab and make it to the later rounds while still applying pressure.
Steward has improved his ability to hold on the inside, but its gotten to the point of cheating, especially in the Peter fight, which was the last time Wlad even faced a fighter that could get close to him.

[Jersey Joe]

slightly off-topic, but I would pick Lewis/Holmes/Ali to beat Wlad 10 out of 10 times.

I disagree. No competitive matchup in boxing can ever be a certainty, due to the presence of knockouts, cuts, and corruption/bias of judges. Every contender always has at least a modest chance to win.

[The Kurgan]

Ali couldn't get the better of Ken Norton over three fights in his early 30s, yet he's going to outpoint Wlad 10 out of 10 times? Wlad can put just as much of a hurt on him as Frazier did, and he's not going to take nearly as much punishment in return. To say that Wlad could not even take one fight out of 10 from Ali is foolish.


Wlad was knocked down by Steve Panell and TKO'd by Ross Purritty. If Ross the Boss, a career journeyman, can beat Wlad once then Ali could beat him 10 times easily. Ali is faster than Sanders, who had no problems finding Wlad.

See, I can do that too.

[Jersey Joe]

The post-ban Ali loses at least 6-out-of-10 for me. In his prime I'd favor him generally but it would be an awkward fight, and Ali would be hardpressed to avoid getting hit. Against Wlad, Ali can't bully a smaller or slower fighter... he'd be facing a guy with great footwork and active feet, fast hands, tremendous power, great skills and an ATG jab in a massive package. Wlad's biggest enemy has always been his psychology.


Ali was at his best against the big fighters and hard punchers. Prime Foreman and Sonny Liston, for example. As for footwork, fast hands, skills and jab - Ali has Wlad beat on all those. And don't forget Foreman and Liston both had superb jabs, Ali had no problem slipping them. Wlad has a problem with psychology - and will be up against the all-time great of psychological warfare.

[Jersey Joe]

But none of Wlad quality. Facing Primo Carnera is nothing close to the same as facing Wlad. The athleticism that Wlad has was simply not found in men of his size back in Louis' time. This would throw Louis off his stride.

:hat

But if they were fighting, by definition they'd be in the same era. If the matchup happened in the 1930s, Wlad wouldn't have modern conditioning. If the fight happened now, Louis would have all the benefits of modern athleticism, nutrition etc.

For this reason, different athletic standards of each era never matter when comparing two fighters from different eras.

[Bummy Davis]

Marciano, Dempsey,Louis all have a shot ...While Marciano beat guys that were 6'4 they were not in the class of Vlad but in all fairness the best of guys over 6"2 were Willard and Carnera until Earnie Terrel and then Lewis...Louis beat some quality big men but I dont think the issue is size here it is class....Vlad could fight a perfect fight and beat them all on a good night but can he do it 10 times or 2 or 4.....I think the punchers would have the best shots over Vlad where Ali would have to cut him or wear him down...I think stylewise Vlad is a tough fight for Ali but at this junture the punchers could be a problem for Vlad...but the future may prove me wrong....Some fighter show a better side of them selves as they age....the skill brings them to another level even though they diminish in other area's......can Vlad be one of those guys

[ChrisPontius]

Any solid infighter that has a decent chin, and good ability to get inside. Wlad simply cant fight. If you can get inside and make him fight, he falls apart. If you put a 1996 version of Ray Mercer in with him I would pick Mercer to beat him. Hes lost to B and C level opposition that have been able to get under his jab and make it to the later rounds while still applying pressure.
Steward has improved his ability to hold on the inside, but its gotten to the point of cheating, especially in the Peter fight, which was the last time Wlad even faced a fighter that could get close to him.

Maybe you consider it cheating, but every boxer has a way of bending the rules. Holyfield always snuck in a headbutt, Marciano hit low and used his elbows, Holmes thumbed, Frazier hit low, Tyson did all sort of crazy stuff, and Ali like Wlad held.

Frazier is vulnerable early, but Wlad is no ball of fire in the early rounds either. He was cautious against even the over-the-hill Rahman, in a fight where some felt Wlad was being more aggressive than usual.
To me, Wlad's caution offsets Frazier's slow start.


Wlad is capable of starting fast and has certainly shown that. Why should he start quick against Rahman, who is known to carry big one-punch power (unlike Frazier) and who is likely to fade after round 5 when they fought? Steward is very sharp and will not miss the fact that Frazier is more open early on.


Wlad will tie Frazier up no doubt, he has the strength to do so. But he has to also deal with a kind of pressure nobody has put on him before. He can tie Frazier up 100 times and Frazier will keep coming at him.


That's a question no one can answer for sure. I do know that Frazier will be lighter than any of his opponents and is certainly not the strongest of champions.



In terms of stamina Frazier is leaps and bounds ahead of Wlad, who even though he is far bigger, has to carry that great bulk around for 12-15 rounds. (Assuming the fight goes that far.)


True, but Frazier will be pushed around by a guy who has 40 lbs on him and last time that happened, he got annihilated.


There is every possibility that Wlad's height can work for him, but also against him.
Frazier fought out of a crouch, and since Wlad has not too much of an uppercut, he's not going to exploit the crouch's weakness as did Foreman.
Wlad is going to have very little other than the top of Frazier's head to aim for, and I can see a situation where he over-extends himself to throw a jab, and Frazier counters with leaping left hooks.
I honestly see Wlad missing much more than he lands against Frazier.

If Wlad doesn't get him early on, I reckon he's in for a long, hard fight.

Agreed.

Ali was at his best against the big fighters and hard punchers. Prime Foreman and Sonny Liston, for example. As for footwork, fast hands, skills and jab - Ali has Wlad beat on all those. And don't forget Foreman and Liston both had superb jabs, Ali had no problem slipping them.

I think Wlad does not fit in the category of "big, slow, punchers" like Foremand and Liston. Foreman had zero technique and thought he could bash Ali to death within 4 rounds. He did not use his "superb" jab at all in their fight. Liston was six inches shorter than Wlad and slower. Machen and Ali completely neutralized his jab. By contrast, no one ever got away from Wlad's jab, including the very slick and fast Byrd who lost every round. I'd pick Ali to win most of their fights based on his speed and more proven ability, but this is a very hard fight for him stylistically.

[The Kurgan]

Wlad is capable of starting fast and has certainly shown that. Why should he start quick against Rahman, who is known to carry big one-punch power (unlike Frazier) and who is likely to fade after round 5 when they fought? Steward is very sharp and will not miss the fact that Frazier is more open early on.

I think starting aggressively is a horrible strategy for Wlad against Frazier, considering what happened when other non-durable boxers started quickly against Frazier.

True, but Frazier will be pushed around by a guy who has 40 lbs on him and last time that happened, he got annihilated.

And when did this happen? :huh

I'd pick Ali to win most of their fights based on his speed and more proven ability, but this is a very hard fight for him stylistically.

:thumbsup

[McGrain]

Well i'm just saying that it doesn't bode well for Langford if he twice one-sidedly lost to a fighter similar to but several levels below Wlad.

And the reverse (kind off).

Even if he was past his best. From what i've read, he wasn't even competitive.

And the reverse.

Everyone knows Dempsey was over the hill against Tunney, but wouldn't you agree that based on what you saw there, a bigger and better version of Tunney (say Holmes or Ali) would likey be favored against a prime version of his?

Sure, yes indeed. I didn't say that it was irrelevant, just that it's nothing like enough on it's own. It's worth keeping in mind that Langford was blinded during the first fight with Fulton and that he was half blind for the second one. Now i'm not saying that Langford was going to connect in round 10 had he not been made blind but he was a one punch KO artist facing a less than granite chin...like Wlad.






I think this is a remarkable choice, again. First because we know Frazier is vulenrable early and Wlad definitely has the power to take him out.

It is absolutely unthinkable to me that Wlad would arrive with some sort of "war" attitude and look to take out Joe early. I see him tryng to box cautiosly like he has since Steward got him, the best version of the fighter IMO.

Second, we also know Wlad will move and tie him up when comes up close. Yes, not the most exciting style, but look at how little Frazier could do when Ali did that in their rematch.

Again, Frazier was past his prime when he met Ali in the rematch.

Frazier is going to win rounds on aggression. He is going to close distance like we see him do on film and he's going to score when he gets there, probably every time, before he gets tied. He has vastly superior stamina, he has superior mental strength. Wlad better take him early. Long, horrible night if he doesn't.

I wouldn't count Frazier out and i think very highly of him, but i strongly doubt he'd win more than 5 out of 10.

I think Wlad would knock him out once or twice, I don't imagine him ever beating Joe on points. These guys can KO one another, but only one of them is winning a decision, and that's the aggressive swarming pressure fighter with the high punch output and unbreakable will.

[round15]

Both Klitschko brothers have long, slow jabs, that wouldn't do them any good against the head movement and body attack of Joe Frazier.

Chris Byrd had fast hands and good head movement, and I watched him pick off Klitschko's jabs easy. Byrd also made him miss but didn't make him pay with return shots. Frazier would make both Klitchko Brothers miss and would bring the hurt to them all night long to the body. I'd be very surprised to see either Wlad or Vitali answer the bell for round 7 against Joe Frazier. Both may have Joe on the canvas early, but they're not stopping a prime Joe Frazier.

[djanders]

5′ 6½″ / 169cm

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Yes, but Sam would look a whole lot taller standing over Wladimir Klitschko's sleeping body. :p

[Mendoza]

If smallest means lightest, I would say Jack Dempsey. Dempsey was a fast starter with dynamic hands and feet, with some slip and ducking ability. Style wise, I think this combined with great power is Wlad's toughest match up.

I am almost to the point of thinking that Wlad would take at least 7 of 10 vs Langford and Demspey. They are small, and don't get past Wlad's arsenal.

Dempsey really wasn't that small. He stood a shade over 6'1", and had a reach of 77".

[Seamus]

We are talking about Wlad at his best. The Purrity fight was a fluke. The Brewster and Sanders defeats were a bad stretch for him mentally. These performances can be pulled out for any champ. Do you honestly think the Marciano that fought Cockell would last more than a few rounds with Wlad? Really? The Tyson that fought Douglas? The Ali of Norton III? This process can be repeated ad nauseum.

[lefthook31]

We are talking about Wlad at his best. The Purrity fight was a fluke. The Brewster and Sanders defeats were a bad stretch for him mentally. These performances can be pulled out for any champ. Do you honestly think the Marciano that fought Cockell would last more than a few rounds with Wlad? Really? The Tyson that fought Douglas? The Ali of Norton III? This process can be repeated ad nauseum.
I think your vastly overating Wladmir. He is not that good. He is fighting in a division with no real fighters now. Brewster, Sanders, actually could fight a "little". Most of the fighters of the past could fight a lot more than the guys of today. Were being overun by European boxers, and their style is to box not fight. Wlad is an excellent boxer, but a horrible fighter. Its been proven and its a big deficit for Wlad, the division is just too shallow now.
Its like watching David Tua fight in the 90's. A solid technician could easily outbox him just about the entire fight. A guy trying to fight him would lose just about everytime. Which do you prefer? There both boring to watch, just Tua was a little more exciting once the final boom was lowered.

[ChrisPontius]

I think starting aggressively is a horrible strategy for Wlad against Frazier, considering what happened when other non-durable boxers started quickly against Frazier.


You may be onto something, but, those non-durable boxers did not have Wlad's power. Foreman, who was that durable during his first career in my opinion, had no trouble with it.


And when did this happen? :huh


Okay, more like 15lbs. But if anything, that makes the argument stronger.


And the reverse (kind off).



And the reverse.


When did Wlad lose to a 5'6" lightheavyweight?




It is absolutely unthinkable to me that Wlad would arrive with some sort of "war" attitude and look to take out Joe early. I see him tryng to box cautiosly like he has since Steward got him, the best version of the fighter IMO.



I think it's definitely not out of the question, considering he fought his first 45 pro fights using that aggressive style. He definitely has the power to pull it off.



Notice the multitude of "definitely's". I've watched a few Lennox interviews.




Again, Frazier was past his prime when he met Ali in the rematch.

Frazier is going to win rounds on aggression. He is going to close distance like we see him do on film and he's going to score when he gets there, probably every time, before he gets tied. He has vastly superior stamina, he has superior mental strength. Wlad better take him early. Long, horrible night if he doesn't.


Okay, i'm not quite decided on this one yet. I'm just saying that Frazier is looking at a huge size and reach disadvantage, is not the most durable boxer nor has a one-punch power equalizer. The pressure may well get to Wlad, but i'm not sure if he gets there and if he can be effective enough when he gets tied up and shoved around all the time.




I think Wlad would knock him out once or twice, I don't imagine him ever beating Joe on points. These guys can KO one another, but only one of them is winning a decision, and that's the aggressive swarming pressure fighter with the high punch output and unbreakable will.

Again, i'm not too sure about that. Refer to the above. Especially if we're talking about a 12 round fight. That jab won't be a small factor.

[The Kurgan]

You may be onto something, but, those non-durable boxers did not have Wlad's power. Foreman, who was that durable during his first career in my opinion, had no trouble with it.

I think a young Foreman was more a lot more durable than Wladimir and I say that as a Wlad fan.

If I was Wlad's trainer against Frazier, I'd tell him to move carefully, then try and look for the big counter left-hook from the outside and the uppercut as Frazier gets close.

Okay, more like 15lbs. But if anything, that makes the argument stronger.

Foreman was 3 1/2 lbs heavier in their first fight and a 1/2 lb LIGHTER in their second fight. Clearly, weight was not an important factor at all. You'd have been better off if you were talking about height/reach.

Foreman won those fights because he was a tall, durable slugger who could go punch-for-punch and stay in the lion's den against Frazier long enough to find opening with that monster uppercut.

[Seamus]

I think your vastly overating Wladmir. He is not that good. He is fighting in a division with no real fighters now. Brewster, Sanders, actually could fight a "little". Most of the fighters of the past could fight a lot more than the guys of today. Were being overun by European boxers, and their style is to box not fight. Wlad is an excellent boxer, but a horrible fighter. Its been proven and its a big deficit for Wlad, the division is just too shallow now..

The talent exists today as it does in every era. The biggest problem is a lack of match-ups being made to showcase and develop this talent. Physically, Wlad is a specimen, a great, great talent. What he has lacked in the past is the mental fortitude to cope when things go sour. It's not like he was knocked cold by punches but he got overwhelmed and off track by bigtime, solid punchers. He feasts on smaller fighters, like a big cat bouncing them around the ring until he decides to end the affair. I see similar fates awaiting most of the fighters listed. Or am I to believe there was never another Joe Frazier or Marciano type made? They exist, they have just been run out of the sport by larger fighters.

[janitor]

Or am I to believe there was never another Joe Frazier or Marciano type made? They exist, they have just been run out of the sport by larger fighters.

No there never was another Frazier or Marciano type.

They were total aberations.

David Tua is an example of sombody who could potentialy have been of this mould but never was.

Of course you are right to say that Frazier and Marciano suffer some stylistic disadvantages here.

What in gods name makes you think that Sam Langfors suffers a greater style or even size disadvantage?

[he grant]

Guys, Wlad almost had his head torn off by berely 6' Sam Peters ...

[McGrain]

No there never was another Frazier or Marciano type.

They were total aberations.

David Tua is an example of sombody who could potentialy have been of this mould but never was.

Of course you are right to say that Frazier and Marciano suffer some stylistic disadvantages here.


Marciano and Frazier have a stylisic advantage. Not disadvantage.

[marciano1952]

Guys, Wlad almost had his head torn off by berely 6' Sam Peters ...


by punches to the back of the head:lol:

[spittle8]

Guys, Wlad almost had his head torn off by berely 6' Sam Peters ...
Peter is listed as 6'2, no? If Frazier or Marciano can connect Wlad is fucked, I don't think anyone is contesting that.

[SuzieQ49]

Which tall fighters did Marciano beat?

He wasnt world class, and was only a 20 year old young prospect at the time, but Carmine Vingo was over 6'4 and Marciano put him into a coma. For what its worth.

Also Johnny Skhor, who marciano gave such a bad beating too he made him retire, was 6'5. Skhor was a rough and tough fringe contender from boston who had cracked the top 10 Ring ratings back in Mid 1947.

While these men were nowhere near Wlad's level, you can clearly get a glimpse Marciano's style was detrimental against taller/bigger fighters because he knew how to hit with leverage, and make himself a smaller target to hit.

[SuzieQ49]

Liston never beat anything above a fringe contender level big men on the rare occasion he fought anyone taller than 6'2.



Cleveland Williams, Nino Valdez, and Mike Dejohn, Henry Clark were all WELL above 6'2 and were all world class level heavyweights when Liston beat them.

5) Marciano - No history of fighting quality big men

Joe Louis was # 2 rated and 6'2 214lb

[SuzieQ49]

I am a huge Marciano proponent (after spending a good time being a detractor). That said, there is no way in hell Marciano gets near Wlad. There is no way he lasts more than 6 rounds. He is custom made for Wlad.


Disagree. All of Wlads biggest weaknesses(lack of durability, panic attacks, poor stamina) are all marcianos biggest strengths. Marciano will capitlize in this fight on Wladimir's major flaws. Even if Marciano doesnt connect on a flush Suzy Q, he will wear Wlad down into the later rounds...and wlad will have another panic attack like he did against brewster and purrity....and marciano will finish him off. Wlad will mark up marcianos face with his jab and sharp punching, but wlads panic attacks will come out sooner or later, and rock will feed off it.


My answer in this thread is Marciano

[SuzieQ49]

I do think Rocky Marciano does alot better against Wlad than Dempsey does. Marciano has the style made to break fighters mentally and physically in the late rounds, while dempseys style only lasted 6 rounds..Also after rewatching Firpo Dempsey where firpo knocks him down 3 times....It worries me to what wlads straight right will do to Jack. Jack had problems with Straight rights. Carpenter, brennan, Firpo, Tunney, flynn all either floored/knocked out/staggered badly dempsey with straight rights. Marciano in his low crouch using his leverage would be much harder for wlad to deal with, than a taller dempsey who stuck his head out and would be in firing range of wlads right hand. Rocky won't be.

[Seamus]

No there never was another Frazier or Marciano type.

They were total aberations.

David Tua is an example of sombody who could potentialy have been of this mould but never was.

Of course you are right to say that Frazier and Marciano suffer some stylistic disadvantages here.

What in gods name makes you think that Sam Langfors suffers a greater style or even size disadvantage?

Bullshit. Frazier was a subpar athlete who had one skill (the left hook) and tons of heart. Great as he was with his supremely limited skill-set, he would have no chance against the mammoth Klitschko.

I really love how WK is vilified for a couple subpar performances whilst the likes of Jack Johnson is praised ad nauseum despite a career liberally sprinkled with disappointments. Perhaps if I wait 100 years, Wlad will be considered the greatest ever and have his own PBS docufiction.

[WhataRock]

Bullshit. Frazier was a subpar athlete who had one skill (the left hook) and tons of heart. Great as he was with his supremely limited skill-set, he would have no chance against the mammoth Klitschko.



:lol:

[Sakura]

Yes, but Sam would look a whole lot taller standing over Wladimir Klitschko's sleeping body. :p

Emanuel Stewart 169cm:hey

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

[quote=Seamus;4148002]Bullshit. Frazier was a subpar athlete who had one skill (the left hook) and tons of heart. Great as he was with his supremely limited skill-set, he would have no chance against the mammoth Klitschko.


The mamouth Klitschko was knocked out by Lamon Brewster who was a poor mans version of Frazier who came into the fight with fat hanging over his trunks.

[Sakura]

[quote]


The mamouth Klitschko was knocked out by Lamon Brewster who was a poor mans version of Frazier who came into the fight with fat hanging over his trunks.Difference between Frasier and Brewster is size. According boxrec

Frasier 5'11, 205 lb and Brewster 6'2, 230 lb and thats quite much. Altought, skill level maybe different.

[Sakura]

Haapoja 5'11 230lb and Brewster 6'2 235 lb

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[ChrisPontius]

I think a young Foreman was more a lot more durable than Wladimir and I say that as a Wlad fan.


I think Foreman was more durable, but not by all but that much. However, Frazier did not land that much leather on the aggressive Foreman. I think a key factor was that Foreman was allowed to physically shove Frazier back. Wlad does the same with Brewster in their first fight, with sickening ease, but is immediately warned. I don't want to pull an "it's not faiw! :|"-argument, but i'm saying that whether this be allowed or not can be have signifnicant consequences if Wlad would fight Frazier.


Foreman was 3 1/2 lbs heavier in their first fight and a 1/2 lb LIGHTER in their second fight. Clearly, weight was not an important factor at all. You'd have been better off if you were talking about height/reach.

Foreman won those fights because he was a tall, durable slugger who could go punch-for-punch and stay in the lion's den against Frazier long enough to find opening with that monster uppercut.

I'm surprised at those numbers, but you are right. I'd make the argument that Foreman was in great shape while 10+lbs of Frazier's weight was fat, but then again, most strongmen and powerlifters have quite a bit of fat. Suffice it to say that Wlad shoved heavier and probably stronger than Frazier-boxers around, and is taller and heavier than Foreman himself.

I still disagree on the second paragraph of this quote, though. I don't think Foreman was THAT durable and if he was, i don't think it was a key factor. Really, how many left hooks did he take during those two rounds. 3? 4? And they hardly looked like they had the amount of "snap" on it that they had when he threw them in his first bout with Ali or Quarry, in the mid rounds.


The lesser durable Ellis and Quarry got in their licks as well, but just did not have the bone crushing power that Foreman had. Frazier just took their best and came back stronger. Bonavena was very durable and while certainly no slouch in the punching power department, he was no Foreman or Wlad when it comes to power, either.






I do think Rocky Marciano does alot better against Wlad than Dempsey does. Marciano has the style made to break fighters mentally and physically in the late rounds, while dempseys style only lasted 6 rounds..Also after rewatching Firpo Dempsey where firpo knocks him down 3 times....It worries me to what wlads straight right will do to Jack. Jack had problems with Straight rights. Carpenter, brennan, Firpo, Tunney, flynn all either floored/knocked out/staggered badly dempsey with straight rights. Marciano in his low crouch using his leverage would be much harder for wlad to deal with, than a taller dempsey who stuck his head out and would be in firing range of wlads right hand. Rocky won't be.

I disagree. I think Dempsey would have a better chance because of his "explosive", fast attacks and combinations. If he doesn't have Wlad out of there by round 5, then he's toast. Marciano usually needed a bit more time and paced himself better, but i'm not sure if that's going to help when Wlad is going to jab-jab-right hand him to death from (a mile) distance. And while i don't doubt Marciano's strength, i'm not sure how well he'd do in the later rounds getting shoved around by a man 8 inches taller and 60 lbs heavier, while constantly having to work very hard to get in range.







The mamouth Klitschko was knocked out by Lamon Brewster who was a poor mans version of Frazier who came into the fight with fat hanging over his trunks.

Frazier and Brewster are nothing alike.

First of all, Brewster has an iron chin which saw him get through a lot of tough fights. There is no way Frazier can take the punishment that Brewster did in their first fight.

Second, Brewster has big one-punch KO power whereas Frazier needs to wear his opponents down. Frazier does have a lot better stamina.

Third, Brewster weighs about 20lbs more and stands 6'2, not 5'11. Brewster may look as tall as Frazier because his opponents are taller on average, but Brewster is only one inch shorter than Ali, half an inch according to some sources which list Ali at 6'2.5". Here you can see the height difference between 6'6 and 6'2:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Frazier's face would be at Wlad's shoulder height, which is the exact optimum punching position because you neither have to punch up- or downward.


As for "Brewster's fat hanging over his trunks", i think you have to wake up from that wet dream and look at reality that not every fighter heavier than Langford, Frazier, Marciano or Dempsey is a fat piece of shit:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[dmt]

I do think Rocky Marciano does alot better against Wlad than Dempsey does. Marciano has the style made to break fighters mentally and physically in the late rounds, while dempseys style only lasted 6 rounds..Also after rewatching Firpo Dempsey where firpo knocks him down 3 times....It worries me to what wlads straight right will do to Jack. Jack had problems with Straight rights. Carpenter, brennan, Firpo, Tunney, flynn all either floored/knocked out/staggered badly dempsey with straight rights. Marciano in his low crouch using his leverage would be much harder for wlad to deal with, than a taller dempsey who stuck his head out and would be in firing range of wlads right hand. Rocky won't be.:lol:

[McGrain]

Frazier was a subpar athlete who had one skill (the left hook).

If there is a worse post on this forum this year I will be pretty surprised.

[MrSmall]

It's just funny how OVERRATED Wlad gets because he has a jab, some height, and some power.

[he grant]

Everyone has an opinion but wow that statement about Frazier is way off to me ...

[SuzieQ49]

I would just like to say I do think Dempsey and Marciano both knockout Wladimir. But Wlad does worry me because in his prime he had seriousely punching abilities with either hand, stiff jab, and very good boxing skills, and he has shown much more heart in the ring than his brother Vitali.

[ChrisPontius]

I would just like to say I do think Dempsey and Marciano both knockout Wladimir. But Wlad does worry me because in his prime he had seriousely punching abilities with either hand, stiff jab, and very good boxing skills, and he has shown much more heart in the ring than his brother Vitali.

Wouldn't you say Dempsey does better than Marciano, given his more explosive and aggressive style, as well as having three inches less of height difference to overcome?

[dmt]

I do think Rocky would win, but i wonder how difficult it would be for him to land on wlads chin cleanly given his short reach.

[The Kurgan]

I think Foreman was more durable, but not by all but that much.

Why do you think the young Foreman only visited the canvas against three boxers, all of them world class, while Wlad has visited the canvas more than any heavyweight champion since Floyd Patterson? It's also notable that Wlad was knocked down by the likes of Steve Pannell, Ross Purritty and Davaryll Williamson. Foreman was never hurt against that level of opposition.

This is all despite the fact that Wlad has always had a much better defence than Foreman.

Furthermore, two of Foreman's knockdowns (Ali and Young) were primarily due to exhaustion; neither Ali or Young came close to hurting Foreman until his bad stamina caught up with him. On the other hand, Wlad has often been knocked down without being tired: against Peter, Pannell, TOS and Sanders were all in the early stages. Only Ron Lyle, who was a formidable puncher AND who Foreman was fighting after a very long layoff (Foreman is covered in ring-rust in that fight) was able to hurt Foreman primarily through punches rather than Foreman being exhausted.

Can you seriously imagine Wlad going punch-for-punch with a puncher like Ron Lyle and being the last man standing? If, for instance, Wlad had slugged it out with Sam Peter (who is comparable in power and chin with Ron Lyle, though not in skill) would he have won? I personally doubt it, since Peter had him down with glancing blows.

So we have one boxer who was only sparked by punches by one boxer (13 months after his last pro contest, with only an unimpressive farce in the interim) in a fight were he took a hellacious beating and yet still won. This same boxer went on, without any chin transplants, to show an outrageous iron chin in his second career while a fat blob in his 40s.

On the other hand, we have a boxer who was hurt enough to go down from relatively mild punishment from Steve Pannell (the only notable boxer ever to be hurt by "Storm"), TOS, Corrie Sanders and Sam Peter (who is an overrated puncher) and who has never taken the kind of beatings that Foreman took.

I think the difference in durability is clearly very great.

However, Frazier did not land that much leather on the aggressive Foreman...

... I still disagree on the second paragraph of this quote, though. I don't think Foreman was THAT durable and if he was, i don't think it was a key factor. Really, how many left hooks did he take during those two rounds. 3? 4? And they hardly looked like they had the amount of "snap" on it that they had when he threw them in his first bout with Ali or Quarry, in the mid rounds.


Firstly, I think it's less about the amount of damage that Foreman took and more about the amount of damage he was prepared to take. Foreman had to put himself in the firing line against Frazier to win, and that meant being prepared to take clean shots on the chin from a man who knocked down Ali, Quarry and a host of other durable boxers. Wlad simply lacked the psychology to slug it out in such a fashion.

It's not reasonable to have hypotheticals where boxers have different psychologies. For example, Chris Eubank was like a car that had a 1rst gear and a 5th gear, but nothing in between; he was either throwing huge punches or prancing about the ring like a supermodel. If Chris Eubank had the ability to be totally focused and fight at a measured pace, he'd be nearly unbeatable. If Wladimir Klitschko had the mindset to go punch-for-punch with someone like Frazier, I might give him a chance of repeating the Sunshine Showdown.

To beat Frazier in the way Foreman did, you have to be the kind of man who (a) goes to box in the Olympics aged 19 with almost no amateur experience; (b) fight Joe Frazier, Ken Norton and Muhammad Ali within four fights; (c) fight Ron Lyle after a 13 month layoff; (d) having nearly died after your last boxing fight, decide to go back into the ring aged 38, go on to fight boxers like Michael Moorer and Evander Holyfield; (e) fight on until 48, including against Shannon Briggs, who even then was known as a puncher.

In short, you have to be as crazy as Foreman. Wlad is not that crazy.

Secondly, here's a list of some of the left hooks Frazier landed on Foreman: -a leaping left hook to the temple in the opening seconds

-a short clean left hook to the chin that snapped Foreman's head 30 seconds in

- another leaping left to the top of the head a few seconds later that led Don Dumphy (who could hear the punches) to say "Foreman has been nailed and nailed good" (he should have said "nailed well", but grammar was not Don's strongpoint)

- a big left hook that Frazier got his entire bodyweight behind at 0:38

- a "solid left hook" in Don's words at 1:09

Foreman needed to walk through all of that (and did so with ease) just to get his FIRST KNOCKDOWN! Wlad has never taken that many punches from a world class puncher in such a short time, without going down.

- Frazier landed another clean left hook at 2:36, but it was mostly an arm punch

- Having thrown all that leather (in a display of continual aggression that I can't remember Wlad ever showing) Foreman then took another clean leaping left hook from a recovered Frazier at the start of round 2

- Frazier landed another clean left hook with his bodyweight behind it

- Foreman then threw a combination with no regard at all for the left hook coming back from Frazier prior to the fourth knockdown

It's implausible to think that Wlad could do something like that without at the very least getting knocked down himself.

Foreman also needed to be durable in their second find, where Frazier landed some horrific punches.

While it's true that Wlad has a better defence that Foreman, he only had a good defence when he's fighting cautiously. When Wlad gets aggressive, as we've seen so often, he's pretty easy to catch. Certainly, lesser boxers than Frazier had no problem finding his chin when Wlad fought aggressively.



I think it was a necessary factor, but it wasn't a sufficient factor. I also don't think Wlad could push around Frazier for any length of time without getting tired; his stamina is even worse than Foreman's. Foreman got tired against Ali and Young in VERY hot conditions and using a very inefficient style (characterised by lots of parrying, bouncing and wide sloppy punches); Wlad got tired against Brewster and Purritty despite throwing straight punches and moving in a fluid way.

[quote="Chris"]I'm surprised at those numbers, but you are right. I'd make the argument that Foreman was in great shape while 10+lbs of Frazier's weight was fat, but then again, most strongmen and powerlifters have quite a bit of fat. Suffice it to say that Wlad shoved heavier and probably stronger than Frazier-boxers around, and is taller and heavier than Foreman himself.

Foreman was very strong, but he wasn't as strong as Ali, and Ali's wrestling only took him so far against Frazier. In fact, Ali's holding was only effective when he had a referee (Tony Perez) who broke the fighters apart every time that Ali looked at him and let Ali hold in a highly illegal fashion.

Strength was a factor in Foreman's win, but a much bigger factor was the ability to throw everything he had without any regard for the punches coming the other way.

The lesser durable Ellis and Quarry got in their licks as well, but just did not have the bone crushing power that Foreman had. Frazier just took their best and came back stronger. Bonavena was very durable and while certainly no slouch in the punching power department, he was no Foreman or Wlad when it comes to power, either.

I think the Bonavena fight is a good indicator of how hard it was to get Frazier out of there. Even if you had him totally out of it, Frazier was very good at coming back to win. Foreman pulled it off, but Foreman was exceptional and not comparable with Wlad in terms of slugging.

Having thought about the fantasy match-up a bit, if I was Wlad's trainer, I'd actually have him looking at the Thrilla in Manilla rather than the Sunshine Showdown. Ali had a lot of success with the straight lead right hand and with careful, clever movement. If Wlad would throw lead right hands, then follow up with left hooks, he could find some real opportunities to win.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor;4148357]Difference between Frasier and Brewster is size. According boxrec

Frasier 5'11, 205 lb and Brewster 6'2, 230 lb and thats quite much. Altought, skill level maybe different.

Brewster is actualy more like 6' 0'' and he would not weigh 230 lbs in shape.

[Seamus]

If there is a worse post on this forum this year I will be pretty surprised.

I think the contention that Bob Fitzsimmons would take out Wlad pretty much sealed up that contest.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;4149134]
Frazier and Brewster are nothing alike.

First of all, Brewster has an iron chin which saw him get through a lot of tough fights. There is no way Frazier can take the punishment that Brewster did in their first fight.


Why not?

Frazier took some sick punishment in the Ali fights. Also Frazier was slipping 23 punches per round on average against Ali so I think Klitschko is going to have some trouble tagging him cleanly especialy if he wont comit to an all out war.


Second, Brewster has big one-punch KO power whereas Frazier needs to wear his opponents down. Frazier does have a lot better stamina.


I think you are selling Fraziers power short a bit here.

While he tended to be an atrition puncher he could certainly land the big bomb when the oprtunity presented itself.


Third, Brewster weighs about 20lbs more and stands 6'2, not 5'11. Brewster may look as tall as Frazier because his opponents are taller on average, but Brewster is only one inch shorter than Ali, half an inch according to some sources which list Ali at 6'2.5". Here you can see the height difference between 6'6 and 6'2:


Brewster is actualy 6' 1/2 not 6' 2'' so basicaly he has 1'' on Frazier. He weigs 230 lbs but then Frazier weighed 220 when he was out of shape.


As for "Brewster's fat hanging over his trunks", i think you have to wake up from that wet dream and look at reality that not every fighter heavier than Langford, Frazier, Marciano or Dempsey is a fat piece of shit:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
You have selected two pictures where Brewsters trunks are hitched up high that dont tell the whole story. Here is Brewster before the Golotta fight at 2245 lbs which is 2 lbs lighter than when he fought Wlad.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
A picture taken in an interview shortly before the Golotta fight.

.[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This is what Brewster really looks like as 230 lbs.

So basicaly he is out of shape at 225 lbs.

In the condition that Frazier was in for the FOTC he would be 210 tops.

[janitor]

Wouldn't you say Dempsey does better than Marciano, given his more explosive and aggressive style, as well as having three inches less of height difference to overcome?

You might take that logic further and say that Sam Langford would be more dangerous for the same reason.

[Rock0052]

Cleveland Williams, Nino Valdez, and Mike Dejohn, Henry Clark were all WELL above 6'2 and were all world class level heavyweights when Liston beat them.



Joe Louis was # 2 rated and 6'2 214lb


1) Those 3 guys earned a whopping 1 title shot between them. They were fringe contender level fighters when Liston fought them. Cleveland Williams defeated 1, maybe 2 top 10 fighters his entire career...if that. The Valdez Sonny beat may not have been worse than the Hasim Rahman Wlad just beat, but I wouldn't want to argue he was any better, either. They also all measured at 6'3 or a shade less...hardly WELL above.

2) Louis was also the exception to the rule. Rocky fought 4 fighters who weighed over 210 lbs.

As a little food for thought, Wlad's fought only one oppnent smaller than 210 lbs. In fact, only 10 fighters he's ever fought weighed less than 220. His record? 10-0, 7 KO's.

Size isn't everything, but when the average size of one guys competition is 2-4 inches taller and 20-30+ lbs bigger than the others, it'd be pretty biased to not take that into account at all when comparing competition. If Wlad fought Cruiserweights for 80% of his career, he'd be looking like superman. He's consistently knocking out and beating fighters significantly larger than that.


There are smaller fighters out there who could beat him..but it looks like people are truly underrating how tough of a proposition that would actually be. Guys like Tyson and Dempsey, who had speed, precision, and carried alot of punching power on the inside, would be my best bets for it. The "grinders" like Marciano and Frazier, I wouldn't like their chances. They take too much punishment to execute their own gameplans.

[ChrisPontius]

I did not know about the Panell knockdown. Fortunately, the fight is on YouTube. I am fairly convinced by your case (though i already admitted Foreman to be more durable), but i would like to make a few comments here and there:

Why do you think the young Foreman only visited the canvas against three boxers, all of them world class, while Wlad has visited the canvas more than any heavyweight champion since Floyd Patterson? It's also notable that Wlad was knocked down by the likes of Steve Pannell, Ross Purritty and Davaryll Williamson. Foreman was never hurt against that level of opposition.


This is true, but it's also true that Foreman's knockdowns/out came against much less heavier hitting opponents. Young couldn't break an egg and Ali wasn't the hardest puncher, either. Williamson, Purrity and Pannel were all 6'3+, 230+lbs hard hitting men with a focus on strength and power.


This is all despite the fact that Wlad has always had a much better defence than Foreman.


Good point.



Furthermore, two of Foreman's knockdowns (Ali and Young) were primarily due to exhaustion; neither Ali or Young came close to hurting Foreman until his bad stamina caught up with him. On the other hand, Wlad has often been knocked down without being tired: against Peter, Pannell, TOS and Sanders were all in the early stages. Only Ron Lyle, who was a formidable puncher AND who Foreman was fighting after a very long layoff (Foreman is covered in ring-rust in that fight) was able to hurt Foreman primarily through punches rather than Foreman being exhausted.


Well, we were discussing durability, not "chin", so the exhaustion-reasons are not really relevant. Wlad's knockdowns/outs against Purrity and Brewster were also exhaustion-related more than anything else. Sanders did lambast him, though.


I don't really think much of the ring-rust argument, however. He was out of the ring for little more than a year, and while the 5-washed-up-former-contenders circus act was laughable, he was in the ring, throwing punches (and asking for a stoppage). To me, the barrage that Foreman came back with in the 5th after nearly being stopped, is one of the most impressive feats of his first career, and certainly not something that a rusty boxer would be capable of doing.




Can you seriously imagine Wlad going punch-for-punch with a puncher like Ron Lyle and being the last man standing? If, for instance, Wlad had slugged it out with Sam Peter (who is comparable in power and chin with Ron Lyle, though not in skill) would he have won? I personally doubt it, since Peter had him down with glancing blows.



I doubt Wlad could win that way. Perhaps the Wlad of 2001, who was offensively one of the best ever (only lacking an uppercut), but i would still put my money on Peter.

It is a bit of a weird scenario to imagine, though. It's not like Foreman did his best to get tagged. He used whatever limited form of defence he was familiar with. What will Wlad have to do to get tagged? But i see and concede your point, though i wouldn't rule out a Wlad victory and let's be honest: Foreman was a cunt hair away from defeat using that strategy.




So we have one boxer who was only sparked by punches by one boxer (13 months after his last pro contest, with only an unimpressive farce in the interim) in a fight were he took a hellacious beating and yet still won. This same boxer went on, without any chin transplants, to show an outrageous iron chin in his second career while a fat blob in his 40s.



On the other hand, we have a boxer who was hurt enough to go down from relatively mild punishment from Steve Pannell (the only notable boxer ever to be hurt by "Storm"), TOS, Corrie Sanders and Sam Peter (who is an overrated puncher) and who has never taken the kind of beatings that Foreman took.

I think the difference in durability is clearly very great.


I think the difference in durability is clear, but not clearly great.

The reason i'm saying this is the following: Young and Byrd are comparable punchers, yet Byrd never had Wlad in trouble, let alone down and hurt. It wasn't a flash knockdown that Foreman suffered. I know that it was more related to exhaustion, but that's just part of one's durability. Ali stunned Foreman several times before he knocked the man out. The only real puncher who landed on Foreman nearly had him out (Lyle).

And then there is the fact that Wlad fights in a steroid-inflated era with 12 rounds instead of 15 with a very large emphasis on strength and power. These are factors to consider. Foreman's average opponent was significantly smaller and i bet if you added up the KO percentages, you'd be looking at quite a difference too, even if you threw out all the cab drivers.

These factors make me believe that while Foreman has one up on him, there is not a lightyear of distance between them in this regard.



Firstly, I think it's less about the amount of damage that Foreman took and more about the amount of damage he was prepared to take. Foreman had to put himself in the firing line against Frazier to win, and that meant being prepared to take clean shots on the chin from a man who knocked down Ali, Quarry and a host of other durable boxers. Wlad simply lacked the psychology to slug it out in such a fashion.


I may become repetitive at this point, but i have to re-state that Foreman was hardly slugging it out with Frazier, since he outlanded his opponent by 5:1 if not more! You'd be crazy not to get in there and continue your succesful work, and i think even Wlad would. He did the same with Brewster.


It's not reasonable to have hypotheticals where boxers have different psychologies. For example, Chris Eubank was like a car that had a 1rst gear and a 5th gear, but nothing in between; he was either throwing huge punches or prancing about the ring like a supermodel. If Chris Eubank had the ability to be totally focused and fight at a measured pace, he'd be nearly unbeatable. If Wladimir Klitschko had the mindset to go punch-for-punch with someone like Frazier, I might give him a chance of repeating the Sunshine Showdown.


To beat Frazier in the way Foreman did, you have to be the kind of man who (a) goes to box in the Olympics aged 19 with almost no amateur experience; (b) fight Joe Frazier, Ken Norton and Muhammad Ali within four fights; (c) fight Ron Lyle after a 13 month layoff; (d) having nearly died after your last boxing fight, decide to go back into the ring aged 38, go on to fight boxers like Michael Moorer and Evander Holyfield; (e) fight on until 48, including against Shannon Briggs, who even then was known as a puncher.

In short, you have to be as crazy as Foreman. Wlad is not that crazy.


Now you're exxagarating. Frazier was a slow starter, a midget compared to Foreman (even moreso compared to Wlad) and when a boxer can land a shipload of punches without much in return, he will. Wlad or not.




Secondly, here's a list of some of the left hooks Frazier landed on Foreman: -a leaping left hook to the temple in the opening seconds

-a short clean left hook to the chin that snapped Foreman's head 30 seconds in

- another leaping left to the top of the head a few seconds later that led Don Dumphy (who could hear the punches) to say "Foreman has been nailed and nailed good" (he should have said "nailed well", but grammar was not Don's strongpoint)

- a big left hook that Frazier got his entire bodyweight behind at 0:38

- a "solid left hook" in Don's words at 1:09

Foreman needed to walk through all of that (and did so with ease) just to get his FIRST KNOCKDOWN! Wlad has never taken that many punches from a world class puncher in such a short time, without going down.


- Frazier landed another clean left hook at 2:36, but it was mostly an arm punch

- Having thrown all that leather (in a display of continual aggression that I can't remember Wlad ever showing) Foreman then took another clean leaping left hook from a recovered Frazier at the start of round 2

- Frazier landed another clean left hook with his bodyweight behind it

- Foreman then threw a combination with no regard at all for the left hook coming back from Frazier prior to the fourth knockdown

It's implausible to think that Wlad could do something like that without at the very least getting knocked down himself.

Foreman also needed to be durable in their second find, where Frazier landed some horrific punches.


Good shots, but like you said yourself: Wlad's defence is a lot better so he'll probably block or evade half those shots. Second, Frazier is not a one-punch KO type of guy but instead needs to wear his opponents down. I don't think it's inconceivable that Wlad takes these punches from a slow-starting, out of shape Frazier. Whether he continues his assault with the same conviction i don't know, but suffice it to say, that he can potshot Frazier easier and safer than Foreman can.

[ChrisPontius]

While it's true that Wlad has a better defence that Foreman, he only had a good defence when he's fighting cautiously. When Wlad gets aggressive, as we've seen so often, he's pretty easy to catch. Certainly, lesser boxers than Frazier had no problem finding his chin when Wlad fought aggressively.


I'm not sure how true this is. He fought very aggressive during all of his 44 first pro bouts and none of his losses during that period seemed to have come from the direct results of being too aggressive. In two cases he ran out of steam, which is a consequence of over-aggression, but not in the context of a counter punch or leaving himself open, as we are discussing now. The other case, Sanders, found Wlad's chin because of a technical flaw, not because of over-aggressiveness. In fact, the two minutes of the bout where no knockdowns occur, are rather dull.

Which lesser boxers than Frazier had no problem finding Wlad's chin when he fought aggressively?





I think it was a necessary factor, but it wasn't a sufficient factor. I also don't think Wlad could push around Frazier for any length of time without getting tired; his stamina is even worse than Foreman's. Foreman got tired against Ali and Young in VERY hot conditions and using a very inefficient style (characterised by lots of parrying, bouncing and wide sloppy punches); Wlad got tired against Brewster and Purritty despite throwing straight punches and moving in a fluid way.


I think it's worth noting that while Wlad's worst stamina-showings are certainly worse than Foreman's showings, but Wlad's best showings are also a lot better than Foreman's highest when it comes to stamina. That sentence was horrible, but let me explain.

Wlad's exhaustion loss to Brewster came 3 rounds earlier than Foreman's to Ali. And Purrity stopped him in the 10th, while Foreman, barely, went the distance with Young.

However, what redeeming performances does Foreman have, stamina-wise? He went 10 with Peralta, a former LHW, and that's probably the only thing he has going for him. I'm still talking about a prime Foreman; the comebacking Foreman was a completely different fighter who conserved his energy, had better balance, technique, etc.

Now, Wlad, does have several "redeeming" performances. He threw 72 punches a round for 6 rounds against Brewster in the rematch without showing any sign of fatigue, and while staying light on his feet. Against mercer he threw 60 punches a round, many of which were hard, power shots, and showed no signs of tiredness. He knocked out Thompson, who had never been down or even hurt, with a single punch in the 11th round of their fight. Knocked down Byrd and nearly stopped him in the 12th round. Handed Jameel McCline the first knockdown of his career before he was shot and got blasted by Arreola at age 37. This happened at the end of the 9th round. Was the first to hurt an in-shape Sam Peter in the 12th round after being on his toes for the entire fight without tiring.


I could go on, but you get the point. He has several late stoppages and proven stamina, whereas Foreman doesn't.

The thing is that early in his career he did a lot of weight lifting and never sparred more than 4 rounds, courtesy of Fritz Sdunek. When Steward became his full time trainer since early 2005, he has never shown significant stamina problems and has more of a boxers physique, with plenty of rounds of sparring. Probably the same regime Lennox Lewis had.


On top of that, as i pointed out before, Wlad's opponents were stronger and more powerful as a bunch. Purrity has a cast iron jaw and kept pressing him the entire time. That's something else than tiring against a feather fisted mover like Young.



Foreman was very strong, but he wasn't as strong as Ali, and Ali's wrestling only took him so far against Frazier. In fact, Ali's holding was only effective when he had a referee (Tony Perez) who broke the fighters apart every time that Ali looked at him and let Ali hold in a highly illegal fashion.

Strength was a factor in Foreman's win, but a much bigger factor was the ability to throw everything he had without any regard for the punches coming the other way.


And the fact that he could land so easily on Frazier, as did every other top opponent.

On Ali, every referee let him get away with the illegal manner of his holding. Just like every referee is letting Wlad get away with his holding (thusfar).



I think the Bonavena fight is a good indicator of how hard it was to get Frazier out of there. Even if you had him totally out of it, Frazier was very good at coming back to win. Foreman pulled it off, but Foreman was exceptional and not comparable with Wlad in terms of slugging.

Having thought about the fantasy match-up a bit, if I was Wlad's trainer, I'd actually have him looking at the Thrilla in Manilla rather than the Sunshine Showdown. Ali had a lot of success with the straight lead right hand and with careful, clever movement. If Wlad would throw lead right hands, then follow up with left hooks, he could find some real opportunities to win.

Fair enough.

You deserve a medal if you went through all my comments.

[Seamus]

Frazier was not a one-punch artist. He was a great attrition fighter. That said, Wlad has a propensity to get gassed and should Frazier survive the offensive arsenal of Wlad (doubtful) he would have a good chance to punish him late. Still a long shot.

[janitor]

Frazier was not a one-punch artist. He was a great attrition fighter. That said, Wlad has a propensity to get gassed and should Frazier survive the offensive arsenal of Wlad (doubtful) he would have a good chance to punish him late. Still a long shot.

Having watched the Ibragimov fight do you think that Wlad is likley to go to war with Frazier early and finish him off?

I dont.

[warrior85]

joe frazier

[Seamus]

Having watched the Ibragimov fight do you think that Wlad is likley to go to war with Frazier early and finish him off?

I dont.

Again, you can pick and choose the performances to suit your argument.

If tiny Oscar Bonavena kd's Frazier twice, Wlad puts him through the canvas.

[Haggis McJackass]

Addition to the main thread question:

When naming a heavyweight, please state how many fights out of 10 you think he would beat Wlad in.

Please, continue.

:hat

[djanders]

Addition to the main thread question:

When naming a heavyweight, please state how many fights out of 10 you think he would beat Wlad in.

Please, continue.

:hat

Langford 8-2. :D

[Schmapps]

Bullshit. Frazier was a subpar athlete who had one skill (the left hook) and tons of heart..


Ummm....what?? At his peak Frazier was running about 10 miles a day, working out at the gym for another 4 and could go 15 rounds of swarming, high punch output boxing and hardly slow down ever. Your out of your mind.

Obviously Wlad is ripped and in great shape. But if we're talking "athleticism" in the sense of stamina, it's clearly Frazier's advantage all the way.

[janitor]

Again, you can pick and choose the performances to suit your argument.


What I am trying to say is that Wlad post Brewster has always fought verry cautiously angainst come forward fighters with good power.

Which fight would you hand pick to present the opposite viewpoint?

[Dempsey1238]

I think Jim Corbett has a shot.

Tommy Burns would chase Wlad right out of the ring.

[janitor]

Tommy Burns would chase Wlad right out of the ring.

Thats me off the hook.

[SuzieQ49]

Tommy Burns would chase Wlad right out of the ring.

:lol::lol::rofl:rofl

[Dempsey1238]

Burns has power, he would ko Wlad the movement he hits that glass chin. Some one just needs to give him a ladder is all.

[djanders]

Burns has power, he would ko Wlad the movement he hits that glass chin. Some one just needs to give him a ladder is all.

He doesn't need a ladder. If Sam could reach that chin, Tommy could, too! :yep

[Dempsey1238]

He doesn't need a ladder. If Sam could reach that chin, Tommy could, too! :yep

I suppose if he jump up in the air.

[Seamus]

Wow. The delusion knows no bounds here. Tommy Burns? Really. I think I've had enough. Go ask a reasonable, experienced trainer of heavyweights what chance a 170 lb'er would have against Wlad. Please, go do this.

[djanders]

I suppose if he jump up in the air.

That could be arranged...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Russell]

I think Jim Corbett has a shot.

Tommy Burns would chase Wlad right out of the ring.

Corbett wasn't known for physical strength or a great chin. What's he going to do, really? He doesn't have the punch to bother Wlad.

[dezbeast]

I'm pretty sure Dempsey1238 is joking around. At least I hope so. But man was that some funny stuff.

[djanders]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Dempsey1238]

I'm pretty sure Dempsey1238 is joking around. At least I hope so. But man was that some funny stuff.

Belive Burns would have done it, less so on Corbett.

[Dempsey1238]

Corbett wasn't known for physical strength or a great chin. What's he going to do, really? He doesn't have the punch to bother Wlad.

But Corbett was faster, Wlad would be hitting nothing but air.

After 8 rounds of missing and missing, Wlad would be tired and just fall over.

[marciano1952]

I think Jim Corbett has a shot.

Tommy Burns would chase Wlad right out of the ring.


I dout Burns could Reach Wlads Head:lol:

[Dempsey1238]

I dout Burns could Reach Wlads Head:lol:

If you watch the Burns Moir fight, You will see a Burns Kilt fight, as Burns would chop that gaint down with his powerful body and head shots. One of the worse beatdowns I ever saw.

[Seamus]

This thread is embarrassing. The fetishism of the ancient is celebrated to such a ridiculous point that it devolves to self-parody. One of the signs of an intellectually honest historian is the ability to assess the present as well as the past. Here, rather we are liable to get the Joe Gans vs. Wlad thread, the Jimmy Wilde v Wlad thread and so on. Do you people really think that the genetic thread of the uber small men has been lost in 100 years, that there are no Lanford's or Burns or even Jack Johnson's into today's world? That is a highly doubtful, if not laughable contention. Oh, let me guess, they are all in the NFL?

Wlad is a hyper-skilled big man. Even Manny said before training him that he had the best offensive arsenal of any man he had ever seen over 6-5. Smaller fighters also happen to be his forte. I rate Langford top3 all time lb4lb, but Wlad would KO him 10 times out of 10, mostly in under 6 rounds. They would not even allow that fight to happen in modern times. But, oh, I forget, he was an unprecedented and never since approached super man.

The smallest fighters to have chance to go better than .500 with him are Louis, Liston and Holyfield. And that's just a chance for all three. At his best, he rates very well head to head. He has a way of dictating the style and pace of his fights that deflates his opposition. You can either try to jump on him quickly (as I imagine Haye will do) or drag him into deep waters and absorb a frightful beating. Lately, no one has been able to do either.

[ray fredrickson]

I think Frazier 71/2 of 10!! If fought on a barge with angle to the left. And Smokin Joe was one of 1st Ali fight his arms would have fit perfect under wlads glass jaw!!

[Seamus]

I think Frazier 71/2 of 10!! If fought on a barge with angle to the left. And Smokin Joe was one of 1st Ali fight his arms would have fit perfect under wlads glass jaw!!

If Bonavena KD's twice in a round, Wlad potentially ends his career. The best version of Frazier gives Wlad, or anybody, a problem. However, Joe didn't have the best of luck with big heavies.

[PetethePrince]

1)

As a little food for thought, Wlad's fought only one oppnent smaller than 210 lbs. In fact, only 10 fighters he's ever fought weighed less than 220. His record? 10-0, 7 KO's.


LoL... so Wlad KO percentage is about 14% less when he fights fighters who way 30 lbs less than him and less than 220. Interesting fact... thanks for proving that size doesn't matter as much as you claimed (Since you basically owned yourself).

[marciano1952]

If you watch the Burns Moir fight, You will see a Burns Kilt fight, as Burns would chop that gaint down with his powerful body and head shots. One of the worse beatdowns I ever saw.


Dude Burns ould go 0-10 agaisnt Wlad IMO...I dout he could get Past wlads Jab abd if he did lad ould just Clinch him and ear him don befor KOing him

[Rock0052]

LoL... so Wlad KO percentage is about 14% less when he fights fighters who way 30 lbs less than him and less than 220. Interesting fact... thanks for proving that size doesn't matter as much as you claimed (Since you basically owned yourself).

Owned myself? By showing that he's undefeated against anyone he's ever fought 220 and below? If that's the case, I should own myself more often.

If you prefer to measure everything by knockouts, that's your call. Just be consistent in your stance, and when you post a top 10 HW list, make sure it's all in KO % order. Nobody likes double standards.

[fists of fury]

Tommy Burns would chase Wlad right out of the ring.

:rofl I almost choked!

[fists of fury]

Wlad is a hyper-skilled big man. Even Manny said before training him that he had the best offensive arsenal of any man he had ever seen over 6-5.

But what does that actually mean? How many guys over 6'5" have been all that good offensively, throughout boxing history?



He has a way of dictating the style and pace of his fights that deflates his opposition. You can either try to jump on him quickly (as I imagine Haye will do) or drag him into deep waters and absorb a frightful beating. Lately, no one has been able to do either.

Largely because the oppostion has been quite weak. You can carry on about how big and strong he is, but the fact remains his opposition hasn't been good.
And it's not like he's been blowing them away in one or two rounds either. He laboured against Ibragimov, laboured against Thompson and stuggled against Sam Peter.
I won't even mention his three stoppage losses, because the 'new' Wlad is supposedly so much better than the old Wlad, or so the story goes.

He's an impressive pysical specimen with good skills yes, but he's also got some severe drawbacks.

[raiderjay]

I think it is foolish of people to think that these all time greats from days gone by would just pound on Wlad. As others have mentioned, we have never seen a fighter of Wlad's size also have such great athletic ability and handspeed. With the way the rest of the HW division looks, we will miss the days of Wlad once he has retired.

With that being said, my money would be on Joe Frazier. He's not too small at around 205-210 lbs. He also made an entire HOF career out of beating bigger men through technique, determination, and most importantly work rate. Wlad just isn't busy enough to keep Joe off of him and Wlad would most definitely be worn out by the 7th round. Joe wouldn't allow the patented jab and hold that Wlad likes so much.

I do think a prime Mike Tyson would probably beat Wlad 9 out of 10 times, whereas Joe would probably be 7 or 8 out of 10 times, but the thread stated SMALLEST HW and Joe was smaller than Tyson.

[PetethePrince]

Owned myself? By showing that he's undefeated against anyone he's ever fought 220 and below? If that's the case, I should own myself more often.

If you prefer to measure everything by knockouts, that's your call. Just be consistent in your stance, and when you post a top 10 HW list, make sure it's all in KO % order. Nobody likes double standards.

Yes, owned yourself. The two fighters that lost to Wlad were only 6 pounds more than 220 pounds. And if one were fat and 247 pounds do you think he would have won because of that extra 27 pounds? :rofl

And I wonder how these 10 fighters less than 220 pounds ranked. Either way that's not important. What's important is you stressed how these smaller old fighters would easily get knocked out and all that advantage in size would overwhelm the legend fighters of the past. Yet, we can see the 10 fighters Wlad outweighed by 25 pounds didn't get pummeled into the ground and Wlad actually KOed them at a 15% less rate. And on top of that, the fighters he did lose to only weighed 5 pounds more than that 220 mark. A 220-230 pound fighter is a big heavyweight but it's still not in the same exaggerated ball park as the 240-270 and even beyond Heavies. More proof that size increase is a substantial negative that further shows how lazy the fighters of this HW era are. As you see there are no double standards here; actually it's you with the double standard. THe smaller fighters will get overcome and knocked out far easily isn't true, and that's what I was dissecting against.

[ricardinho]

Lets see....HE IS 6 FT 6.5 IN 254lbs

So I guess anyone shorter or weighing less than this counts



Ali would win 9 out of 10

Larry Holmes ? I think Larry could surprise him

George Foreman 6 out of 10

Mike Tyson 6 out of 10

[Mendoza]

This thread is embarrassing. The fetishism of the ancient is celebrated to such a ridiculous point that it devolves to self-parody. One of the signs of an intellectually honest historian is the ability to assess the present as well as the past. Here, rather we are liable to get the Joe Gans vs. Wlad thread, the Jimmy Wilde v Wlad thread and so on. Do you people really think that the genetic thread of the uber small men has been lost in 100 years, that there are no Lanford's or Burns or even Jack Johnson's into today's world? That is a highly doubtful, if not laughable contention. Oh, let me guess, they are all in the NFL?

Wlad is a hyper-skilled big man. Even Manny said before training him that he had the best offensive arsenal of any man he had ever seen over 6-5. Smaller fighters also happen to be his forte. I rate Langford top3 all time lb4lb, but Wlad would KO him 10 times out of 10, mostly in under 6 rounds. They would not even allow that fight to happen in modern times. But, oh, I forget, he was an unprecedented and never since approached super man.

The smallest fighters to have chance to go better than .500 with him are Louis, Liston and Holyfield. And that's just a chance for all three. At his best, he rates very well head to head. He has a way of dictating the style and pace of his fights that deflates his opposition. You can either try to jump on him quickly (as I imagine Haye will do) or drag him into deep waters and absorb a frightful beating. Lately, no one has been able to do either.


People pikcing Burns are either trying to be funny, or mis informed. I think Wlad would dust Jack Johnson too, but that is another thread.

Yes-Wlad makes you fight his fight. He will jab you from a distance, bomb you with the right hand from a distance, take you out with the hook, or clinch with great strength and technique to re-set. Sure he has a suspect chin vs big punchers. Most fighters do. Wlad's stamina is very good these days. The fighters who meet him in the ring all say this.

[fists of fury]

People pikcing Burns are either trying to be funny

Oh come now, that was funny. It amazes me that some guys actually took that post seriously.

[Seamus]

Lets see....HE IS 6 FT 6.5 IN 254lbs

So I guess anyone shorter or weighing less than this counts



Ali would win 9 out of 10

Larry Holmes ? I think Larry could surprise him

George Foreman 6 out of 10

Mike Tyson 6 out of 10

I would agree with all these.

And i'm sure a few in these parts would pick Burns.

[Mendoza]

Oh come now, that was funny. It amazes me that some guys actually took that post seriously.

I agree that you were trying to be funny, but I also think some people here hope you were not being sarcastic.

[Vantage_West]

i thin we have gone over that atg hall of famers can stop him...even outbox him on some accounts.

qawi i think could of given him a tough fight...what say you

[Dempsey1238]

I not jokeing, I RELLY think Burns can pull it off. He has the chin, and the power to do it imo. Wlad is no Johnson in defense either.

[Axl_Nose]

As much as I like Marciano and Langford, Wlad destroys them with impunity. He's poison to smaller fighters, their only hope being that he gasses himself over the long haul. However, making that long haul is a very tough task for even the best.

The best versions of Louis and Ali beat him. However, remember if we are talking prime for prime, then we need to consider a PRIME WLAD, not the mentally frail version who was slinking nervously into rings for a few years. He has a chance against ANY fighter ever.

Prime Wlad ?? Which stellar fighter did any version of Wlad beat to make you think he could beat any of the all time greats ?? No fighter he has ever faced equates to 50% of any of the greats that have been mentioned so i dont know how anybody can seriously pick him to beat these guys .... Vitali, Wlad and to a certain extent Lennox Lewis havent and didnt prove that they could truly beat other great fighters .. I suppose on his best night Wlad could use his reach to outpoint Marciano but nobody is ever convincing me that either Klit beats Ali, Louis, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Frazier, Foreman .. I'd take alot of the 70's 2nd string heavys to beat him too .. Im a critic of Lewis but he would destroy Wlad .. In other words i think he's a point scoring heavyweight that wouldnt have the heart to win if he was ever in a real fight with a real opponent ..

[round15]

Bullshit. Frazier was a subpar athlete who had one skill (the left hook) and tons of heart. Great as he was with his supremely limited skill-set, he would have no chance against the mammoth Klitschko.

LOL. This is some of the funniest of the funny! Frazier a subpar athelete? Frazier with his supremely limited skillset? This is the stuff that makes for a good abdo workout. Plenty of laughs!:lol:

[Rock0052]

Yes, owned yourself. The two fighters that lost to Wlad were only 6 pounds more than 220 pounds. And if one were fat and 247 pounds do you think he would have won because of that extra 27 pounds? :rofl

And I wonder how these 10 fighters less than 220 pounds ranked. Either way that's not important. What's important is you stressed how these smaller old fighters would easily get knocked out and all that advantage in size would overwhelm the legend fighters of the past. Yet, we can see the 10 fighters Wlad outweighed by 25 pounds didn't get pummeled into the ground and Wlad actually KOed them at a 15% less rate. And on top of that, the fighters he did lose to only weighed 5 pounds more than that 220 mark. A 220-230 pound fighter is a big heavyweight but it's still not in the same exaggerated ball park as the 240-270 and even beyond Heavies. More proof that size increase is a substantial negative that further shows how lazy the fighters of this HW era are. As you see there are no double standards here; actually it's you with the double standard. THe smaller fighters will get overcome and knocked out far easily isn't true, and that's what I was dissecting against.


Congratulations are in order sir, you just cracked the Da Vinci code. You've now got me utterly convinced by showing me the error of my ways that Wlad fights considerably worse against small fighters because he knocks them out at a massively lower percentage. If we continue to extrapolate that, I think he'd actually have a negative knockout record by the time he fights featherweights. As such, I think it's safe to say he's actually fighting at heavyweight in order to duck the real threats to him- guys like Jorge Arce. Because I've now seen the light, at this point in time, I'd like to change my vote to Jimmy Wilde until midget boxing becomes licensed.

Thanks again for changing my life bro. Seriously.

[Seamus]

LOL. This is some of the funniest of the funny! Frazier a subpar athelete? Frazier with his supremely limited skillset? This is the stuff that makes for a good abdo workout. Plenty of laughs!:lol:

Obviously Frazier was a great fighter but hardly a specimen outside of his incredible stamina. In what other sport might he remotely have excelled? Watch him on the Superstars competition sometime. It's so sad it's pathetic. With the pat line regarding modern heavies that all the real talent is going to the NFL or NBA, where does someone like Frazier fall into this?

[SuzieQ49]

I will say it again. My choices are Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey

[Seamus]

Obviously Frazier was a great fighter but hardly a specimen outside of his incredible stamina. In what other sport might he remotely have excelled? Watch him on the Superstars competition sometime. It's so sad it's pathetic. With the pat line regarding modern heavies that all the real talent is going to the NFL or NBA, where does someone like Frazier fall into this?


Even Benton said he had the worst body of any heavy champ he had ever seen.

[janitor]

This thread is embarrassing. The fetishism of the ancient is celebrated to such a ridiculous point that it devolves to self-parody. One of the signs of an intellectually honest historian is the ability to assess the present as well as the past. Here, rather we are liable to get the Joe Gans vs. Wlad thread, the Jimmy Wilde v Wlad thread and so on. Do you people really think that the genetic thread of the uber small men has been lost in 100 years, that there are no Lanford's or Burns or even Jack Johnson's into today's world? That is a highly doubtful, if not laughable contention. Oh, let me guess, they are all in the NFL?

Wlad is a hyper-skilled big man. Even Manny said before training him that he had the best offensive arsenal of any man he had ever seen over 6-5. Smaller fighters also happen to be his forte. I rate Langford top3 all time lb4lb, but Wlad would KO him 10 times out of 10, mostly in under 6 rounds. They would not even allow that fight to happen in modern times. But, oh, I forget, he was an unprecedented and never since approached super man.

The smallest fighters to have chance to go better than .500 with him are Louis, Liston and Holyfield. And that's just a chance for all three. At his best, he rates very well head to head. He has a way of dictating the style and pace of his fights that deflates his opposition. You can either try to jump on him quickly (as I imagine Haye will do) or drag him into deep waters and absorb a frightful beating. Lately, no one has been able to do either.

That is just the point though he isn't.

He is a one dimensional fighter who just jabs and holds and dosnt have much else to bring to the table quite frankly.

He is a limited fighter specificaly when fighting sombody who poses a threat to knock him out. He gets away with it only because there isnt anybody around good enough to expose his imitations.

Put him in an era with some real talent and he is going to run into trouble.

[djanders]

That is just the point though he isn't.

He is a one dimensional fighter who just jabs and holds and dosnt have much else to bring to the table quite frankly.

He is a limited fighter specificaly when fighting sombody who poses a threat to knock him out. He gets away with it only because there isnt anybody around good enough to expose his imitations.

Put him in an era with some real talent and he is going to run into trouble.

Exactly right! :good

[marciano1952]

He is a one dimensional fighter who just jabs and holds and dosnt have much else to bring to the table quite frankly. .


Maybe you havent seen his Right hand of Left Hook?

[PH|LLA]

Marciano

[Seamus]

That is just the point though he isn't.

He is a one dimensional fighter who just jabs and holds and dosnt have much else to bring to the table quite frankly.

He is a limited fighter specificaly when fighting sombody who poses a threat to knock him out. He gets away with it only because there isnt anybody around good enough to expose his imitations.

Put him in an era with some real talent and he is going to run into trouble.

The skill set of truly big men is vastly different than those of the Louis size heavyweight. The combination of the two simply does not or could not work. Every fighter, if taught well, is taught to maximize their advantages, as does Kiltch, as did Lewis. And if you think Wlad clinches a bit, go watch some 70's Ali footage. Holding behing the neck, grabbing the ropes, clinching needlessly after minimal output. Ali was king at that.

[Quick Cash]

The fighters with the most chance to beat Wlad are Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis, followed by Ali, then Liston. All these fighters should be heavily favored over Wlad Klitschko. I also expect Holyfield to out-grit him, but based on history, I don't reckon he'd do it consistently over a series of fights; I think Klitschko would also win his share of fights. Louis and Foreman would most likely knock him out, but I wouldn't consider them heavy favorites-- at least not in the way Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Ali, and Liston are.

On the flipside, Wlad might be considered a slight favorite over Dempsey, who I believe has the right style to beat him only I think Jack might be lacking in size. He certainly has ring presence, which might be enough to push Wlad back, and his game does not rely solely on keeping the fight in close like a Frazier or Marciano; he can dart in and out.

Frazier and Marciano, in my view, are the underdogs. They possess great hooks which has always been a danger to Wlad, and they can pressure just about as good as any heavyweight I can name, but since they tend to languish on the inside, I feel that Wlad might just brush them off and reset with the jab (Frazier has a great chance of evading the jab but in the end I don't believe it is enough). Expect these two to get their licks in but Wlad weathers the storm more often than not and wins on a smart gameplan.

[round15]

I think a key factor was that Foreman was allowed to physically shove Frazier back. Wlad does the same with Brewster in their first fight, with sickening ease, but is immediately warned. I don't want to pull an "it's not faiw! :|"-argument, but i'm saying that whether this be allowed or not can be have signifnicant consequences if Wlad would fight Frazier.

Foreman was never immediately warned for the pushing, shoving and wrestling tactics. Even in the subpar condition he was, Frazier did OK against Foreman in 1973 for the first minute landing some solid punches until Mercante turned a blind eye and let George get away with his illegal tactics.

It wouldn't have mattered against the prime conditioned Frazier of 1967 - 1970. George may have this version of Frazier on the canvas once or twice early, but he wouldn't be able to keep him there or push him back for more than a couple of rounds before fatigue sets in and Frazier takes control of the fight. Too much emphasis is placed on the notion that styles make fights and Frazier would never beat Foreman regardless of condition.

I'll give prime Frazier more credit than a lot of people on this forum who simply write him off as a limited fighter with only one punch being the left hook. Joe was one of the very best at making his opponent miss punches with his head movement, while at the same time landing hooks on either side to the body. Ali never missed more punches in his career than when he fought Frazier, especially in the FOTC.

Frazier showed pretty good boxing skills against Ellis, Foster, Quarry, Chuvalo and Bonavena. He was much better than decent against Chuvalo and Quarry, throwing more jabs and straight rights, using footwork, less pressure and circling Chuvalo when he was pressured himself. Frazier used none of these tactics against Foreman. He stood up right in front of Foreman, in the power zone, thinking his experience would get him by, but it didn't. Only Bonavena had Frazier in trouble early, the first time they fought, but most boxing experts would put Bonavena right alongside Quarry as two solid contenders that could have been heavyweight champion in other eras.

[ChrisPontius]

Only Bonavena had Frazier in trouble early, the first time they fought, but most 70's fans would put Bonavena right alongside Quarry as two solid contenders that could have been heavyweight champion in other eras.

Corrected.


As for Frazier beating Foreman if he was in better shape - that's just speculation. Fact of the matter is that he was annihilated twice and got hit plenty during the first few rounds in any stage of his career.

[Vanboxingfan]

The fighters with the most chance to beat Wlad are Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis, followed by Ali, then Liston. All these fighters should be heavily favored over Wlad Klitschko. I also expect Holyfield to out-grit him, but based on history, I don't reckon he'd do it consistently over a series of fights; I think Klitschko would also win his share of fights. Louis and Foreman would most likely knock him out, but I wouldn't consider them heavy favorites-- at least not in the way Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Ali, and Liston are.

On the flipside, Wlad might be considered a slight favorite over Dempsey, who I believe has the right style to beat him only I think Jack might be lacking in size. He certainly has ring presence, which might be enough to push Wlad back, and his game does not rely solely on keeping the fight in close like a Frazier or Marciano; he can dart in and out.

Frazier and Marciano, in my view, are the underdogs. They possess great hooks which has always been a danger to Wlad, and they can pressure just about as good as any heavyweight I can name, but since they tend to languish on the inside, I feel that Wlad might just brush them off and reset with the jab (Frazier has a great chance of evading the jab but in the end I don't believe it is enough). Expect these two to get their licks in but Wlad weathers the storm more often than not and wins on a smart gameplan.


This is a fairly balanced point of view which pretty much mirrors mine. The only possible exception is I'm not sure how Foreman would do against Wlad, he'd either hurt him fairly easy or loose convincing, one of the other. If he could hurt him in one fight, he very likely could hurt him often in a 10 fight competition, especially if he hurt him in the first fight, relatively early. Interesting enough, no one added Sanders to the list, who may be one of those who could beat Wlad consistantly. Hard to say based on one fight, but it was a fairly conclusive win.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by round15 [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Only Bonavena had Frazier in trouble early, the first time they fought, but most 70's fans would put Bonavena right alongside Quarry as two solid contenders that could have been heavyweight champion in other eras.

Bonavena doesn't even make the top 10 in HW division today.

[janitor]

The skill set of truly big men is vastly different than those of the Louis size heavyweight. The combination of the two simply does not or could not work. Every fighter, if taught well, is taught to maximize their advantages, as does Kiltch, as did Lewis.

To be honest I dont subscribe to the argument that Wlad is a less durable version of Lewis.

In Lewis I see a far more complete and well rounded fighter who in adition to the long range arsenal brings a fine suite of infighting skills to the table. He can box but he can also fight.

Simply a fighter with far more levels to his game.

[round15]

Originally Posted by round15 [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Only Bonavena had Frazier in trouble early, the first time they fought, but most 70's fans would put Bonavena right alongside Quarry as two solid contenders that could have been heavyweight champion in other eras.

Bonavena doesn't even make the top 10 in HW division today.


Bonavena was a tough, durable fighter that would KO, TKO or decision many of today's heavyweights. Bonavena came from an era when fighters train hard for twelve rounds, stretching it to fifteen. Sure gave the "greatest" one of his toughest fights in his comeback. There's no denying that he would be a tough assignement for any modern 12 round heavyweight.

[OBCboxer]

Originally Posted by round15 [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Only Bonavena had Frazier in trouble early, the first time they fought, but most 70's fans would put Bonavena right alongside Quarry as two solid contenders that could have been heavyweight champion in other eras.

Bonavena doesn't even make the top 10 in HW division today.


Then you need to brush up on your boxing history because he was a serious contender in the golden age of boxing in the '70's. Today's division is the weakest in history and Bonavena would certainly hold a belt or two today.

[Seamus]

Bonavena was a tough, durable fighter that would KO, TKO or decision many of today's heavyweights. Bonavena came from an era when fighters train hard for twelve rounds, stretching it to fifteen. Sure gave the "greatest" one of his toughest fights in his comeback. There's no denying that he would be a tough assignement for any modern 12 round heavyweight.

This is the fantastical bullshit that makes this forum laughable. Tell me, where is the analogous fighter to this 5-10, 200 lber today? Where has he been for the last 20 years? There are millions of dollars waiting to be made in the heavyweight division, yet I am supposed to believe that the supermidgets of yesteryear have died out as a breed and the true giants are playing sports that have existed for decades, and in fact flourished in the halcyon era of the 70's?

Nothing personal to anyone here, but these discussions have more merit for comedic effect than anything else.

[ChrisPontius]

To be honest I dont subscribe to the argument that Wlad is a less durable version of Lewis.

In Lewis I see a far more complete and well rounded fighter who in adition to the long range arsenal brings a fine suite of infighting skills to the table. He can box but he can also fight.

Simply a fighter with far more levels to his game.

Fair point, though Wlad may have some areas where he is better. His left hook is better, for instance. He is more consistant with the jab and might be better against a small defensive boxer like Byrd. Byrd might just win a round against Lewis, something he wasn't able to do in 19 rounds with the big Ukranian.

[fists of fury]

Fair point, though Wlad may have some areas where he is better. His left hook is better, for instance. He is more consistant with the jab and might be better against a small defensive boxer like Byrd.

But it's Wlad's questionable chin, his discomfort with pressure and occasional (but not lately) panic attacks that are the problem.

Offensively he's fine, but he's got quite serious drawbacks that would be exploited by quite a few elite fighters.
Basically, he's molded a style around his weaknesses, which tells you something.

[ChrisPontius]

But it's Wlad's questionable chin, his discomfort with pressure and occasional (but not lately) panic attacks that are the problem.

Offensively he's fine, but he's got quite serious drawbacks that would be exploited by quite a few elite fighters.
Basically, he's molded a style around his weaknesses, which tells you something.

Sure, his style is very much a product of what works best for him, but isn't that what all boxers do... or in fact, any sane man would? Tyson wouldn't win the championship if he tried to jab off his toes like Ali did. Similarly, Ali would never be successful in a bob-and-weave style.

Wlad fighting tall has his weaknesses, but the style combined with his footwork, size and firepower sure is a bitch to beat. In four years time, Peter is the only one who really was even competitive with him. And if not for those two knockdowns from blows to the back of the head, it would've been a whitewash.

[fists of fury]

Sure, his style is very much a product of what works best for him, but isn't that what all boxers do... or in fact, any sane man would? Tyson wouldn't win the championship if he tried to jab off his toes like Ali did. Similarly, Ali would never be successful in a bob-and-weave style.

Wlad fighting tall has his weaknesses, but the style combined with his footwork, size and firepower sure is a bitch to beat. In four years time, Peter is the only one who really was even competitive with him. And if not for those two knockdowns from blows to the back of the head, it would've been a whitewash.

What I mean is that he changed from being a guy actively looking to get you out of there with a wonderful arsenal of power punches, to someone that fights with a safety first attitude.
The way he fights now is different to the way he used to fight, and it's a result of some rather major drawbacks.

Some fighters may alter their style over the years, but rarely is it to such a large degree as Wlad has done it.
You can say it works sure, but who has he fought over that time to really put it to the test? He can only beat who's in front of him I know, but I'm hoping to see someone really push him soon. Maybe Haye will be that man, maybe not.

Wlad is a fighter I'd like to like. Every time he fights I'm hoping to see some fire and brimstone, and every time after the fight I wonder why I bothered to watch it.

[Seamus]

His style ain't always crowd-pleasing, and I too would like to see a Dempsey/Frazier/Tyson style fighter come out of the woodwork. But that latter style is not going to come from a 6-6 fighter. All that said, he tends to take his opponent out in his own style.

[BITCH ASS]

The same Wlad that couldn't put away Ibriganov and fought SCARED as hell?

That one?

[round15]

This is the fantastical bullshit that makes this forum laughable. Tell me, where is the analogous fighter to this 5-10, 200 lber today? Where has he been for the last 20 years? There are millions of dollars waiting to be made in the heavyweight division, yet I am supposed to believe that the supermidgets of yesteryear have died out as a breed and the true giants are playing sports that have existed for decades, and in fact flourished in the halcyon era of the 70's?

Nothing personal to anyone here, but these discussions have more merit for comedic effect than anything else.

Seamus, Bonavena would be a tough assignment for both Klitschko Bros, Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson, Moorer and Riddick Bowe, who were correct me if I'm wrong, the heavyweight champions post Larry Holmes. The second tier heavyweight contenders and the fringe title holders of the past 20 years wouldn't even make it to round 10 against a prime Oscar Bonavena.

Don't tell me guys like Chris Byrd, Frans Botha, John Ruiz or Oleg Maskaev would handle Bonavena easy, as you politely suggest in your post, because it wouldn't happen. You are discrediting Bonavena by writing him off that quickly and not even recognizing him as one of the best heavyweight contenders who never won a title. Who then, after Larry Holmes would handle Bonavena with the relative easy you suggest?

Bonavena was no supermidget heavyweight from yesteryear.

Agree with you though, nothing personal, just your opinion on one of the great South American fighters.

[Kaki]

This is the fantastical bullshit that makes this forum laughable. Tell me, where is the analogous fighter to this 5-10, 200 lber today? Where has he been for the last 20 years? There are millions of dollars waiting to be made in the heavyweight division, yet I am supposed to believe that the supermidgets of yesteryear have died out as a breed and the true giants are playing sports that have existed for decades, and in fact flourished in the halcyon era of the 70's?

this is the prime example of a man talking outta his ass. look, you live in portugal, you obviously don't know shit about the NBA/NFL/MLB nor its participants nor the american scoiety nor its history nor its people's tendencies

[Seamus]

this is the prime example of a man talking outta his ass. look, you live in portugal, you obviously don't know shit about the NBA/NFL/MLB nor its participants nor the american scoiety nor its history nor its people's tendencies

I live in the USA and boxed 7 years amateur and ran track scholarshipped on the collegiate level. I lived in Portugal for a job that paid me richly but have returned stateside.

I have met more Argentine boxers than you can name. I have seen championship matches on 3 continents, reported for a couple magazine you might be able to name.

I ask again, where is the analogous heavyweight fighter to Bonavena in the last 20 years? 5 foot 10 and 200 pounds with a brawler style?

[fists of fury]

I live in the USA and boxed 7 years amateur and ran track scholarshipped on the collegiate level. I lived in Portugal for a job that paid me richly but have returned stateside.

I have met more Argentine boxers than you can name. I have seen championship matches on 3 continents, reported for a couple magazine you might be able to name.



I bet Kaki feels like a tit now. :lol:

[SuzieQ49]

The same Wlad that couldn't put away Ibriganov and fought SCARED as hell?

That one

Ibrigimav was the undefeated WBO heavyweight champion. Wlad nearly shutout ibrigamov in a Unification Match. Sure he wasn't his usual aggresive self, but he put on a boxing clinic on a undefeated titlist.

[spittle8]

Ummm....what?? At his peak Frazier was running about 10 miles a day, working out at the gym for another 4 and could go 15 rounds of swarming, high punch output boxing and hardly slow down ever. Your out of your mind.

Obviously Wlad is ripped and in great shape. But if we're talking "athleticism" in the sense of stamina, it's clearly Frazier's advantage all the way.
Joe Frazier was a mediocre athletic talent. Stamina is not a function of athleticism, it is a function of conditioning and genetics, just as strength is. No one's doubting Frazier was in great shape, he just wasn't a good enough athlete to compete in, say, MLB or NFL.


Tommy Burns would chase Wlad right out of the ring.
Thats me off the hook.
:lol::rofl

Do you people really think that the genetic thread of the uber small men has been lost in 100 years, that there are no Lanford's or Burns or even Jack Johnson's into today's world? That is a highly doubtful, if not laughable contention. Oh, let me guess, they are all in the NFL?
They're not heavyweights, that's all. Jack Dempsey would be a cruiserweight today, or even a LHW. Marciano would be a cruiser or even a heavyweight, but he'd be huge and nothing like the Rocky we knew. Training and styles have changed, you still see small men, they just stick to lower and lower weight classes. This does not mean small men of times past could not compete with modern big men.

Obviously Frazier was a great fighter but hardly a specimen outside of his incredible stamina. In what other sport might he remotely have excelled? Watch him on the Superstars competition sometime. It's so sad it's pathetic. With the pat line regarding modern heavies that all the real talent is going to the NFL or NBA, where does someone like Frazier fall into this?
I don't think it's a talent issue as much as an issue of people trying boxing and realizing that it's fucking hard. Other sports aren't as brutal, so people choose them instead. Boxing is a brutal, difficult sport and it takes tremendous discipline. Furthermore, the pro stage is corrupt and schismatic and marketing is wanting. This is why people choose other sports.

I will say it again. My choices are Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey
Agreed.

[The Predator]

Wlad is a joke. Frazier kills him. Louis destroys him. Tyson destroys him. Holyfield kills him. His match ups have to be tremendously lopsided from a physical standpoint for him to win against great fighters ...

Yes i agree with this, but he is not a joke, I respect any fighter that steps in to the ring. However to even mention his name in the same room as Muhammad Ali´s is wrong.
I wont joke either when i say that if he fought Ali from the 70´s 10 times he would loose 10 times.
If he fought Ali from the 60´s he would loose so big each time that he would never touch a boxing glove again.:yep
He´s just not good enough to beat Muhammad Ali.
IMO
The predator

[ChrisPontius]

Yes i agree with this, but he is not a joke, I respect any fighter that steps in to the ring. However to even mention his name in the same room as Muhammad Ali´s is wrong.
I wont joke either when i say that if he fought Ali from the 70´s 10 times he would loose 10 times.
If he fought Ali from the 60´s he would loose so big each time that he would never touch a boxing glove again.:yep
He´s just not good enough to beat Muhammad Ali.
IMO
The predator

Yeah, because Ali in the 70's was so unbeatable, huh?

[Jersey Joe]

I think it is foolish of people to think that these all time greats from days gone by would just pound on Wlad. As others have mentioned, we have never seen a fighter of Wlad's size also have such great athletic ability and handspeed.

A lazy, out of shape 37 year old Corrie Sanders blew him away in 1 1/2 rounds. Slow fat Sam Peter floored him several times. He's been down against bums and tomato cans too. The idea that top 10 ATG heavyweights could not beat him is ludicrous. Even smaller fighters like Marciano and Dempsey would win 8 or 9 out of 10 fights, most by early KO, vs Wlad.

Wlad is glass-jawed and has poor defence (maybe average now under Steward). In the weakest division for 100 years he's been shown up 3 times by fighters who weren't special, and been exposed temporarily by nobodies. He has a good offensive arsenal vs punching bags, but that's no use if you are on the canvas in the first 2 minutes of the fight, which he would be against any genuinely great opponent from the heavyweights.

I can even think of light heavies who would have an excellent chance e.g. Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Spinks, maybe even prime Roy Jones Jr.

[PetethePrince]

Congratulations are in order sir, you just cracked the Da Vinci code. You've now got me utterly convinced by showing me the error of my ways that Wlad fights considerably worse against small fighters because he knocks them out at a massively lower percentage. If we continue to extrapolate that, I think he'd actually have a negative knockout record by the time he fights featherweights. As such, I think it's safe to say he's actually fighting at heavyweight in order to duck the real threats to him- guys like Jorge Arce. Because I've now seen the light, at this point in time, I'd like to change my vote to Jimmy Wilde until midget boxing becomes licensed.

Thanks again for changing my life bro. Seriously.

LoL. Keep grabbing the straw. Your "The smaller fighters just get pummeled" comment obviously is completely overblown unless "pummeled" is your way of saying "winning a decision." Sorry for assuming that this huge mass advantage wasn't going to be a leverage of pushing the smaller fighters down and succumbing them with size and power. A little side note is that 220 lb pound mark is nice seeing as the two men to beat him weighed 5 and 6 lbs more then that. 225/226 lbs and barring a 6'2 fighter would be average in size in the 80's. So I guess if we use the 226 lb mark which is of small size in the division today then Wlad has more losses and less KO percent.

What were you really trying to prove with this size would succumb the legends? The only thing that Wlad succumbs is big, fat, and lazy fighters. The extra mass they attain from all the dunkin donuts isn't helping their cause and improving them as fighters. Truth is smaller fighters do better against Wlad because they're in far better shape. It's the size and stamina that's an issue.

Frazier would KO Wlad within 11 rounds
Marciano KO's Wlad in the late round

[ChrisPontius]

A lazy, out of shape 37 year old Corrie Sanders blew him away in 1 1/2 rounds. Slow fat Sam Peter floored him several times. He's been down against bums and tomato cans too. The idea that top 10 ATG heavyweights could not beat him is ludicrous. Even smaller fighters like Marciano and Dempsey would win 8 or 9 out of 10 fights, most by early KO, vs Wlad.

Wlad is glass-jawed and has poor defence (maybe average now under Steward). In the weakest division for 100 years he's been shown up 3 times by fighters who weren't special, and been exposed temporarily by nobodies. He has a good offensive arsenal vs punching bags, but that's no use if you are on the canvas in the first 2 minutes of the fight, which he would be against any genuinely great opponent from the heavyweights.

I can even think of light heavies who would have an excellent chance e.g. Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Spinks, maybe even prime Roy Jones Jr.

:lol:

[mcvey]

Have done this thread before but months and months ago in the general forum, this one should get a much better class of posters responding.

So, a lot of guys could potentially land massive shots on Wlad and defeat him by way of stoppage. Lot of guys have the power to put him out, but will they land that KO shot in more than 5 out of 10 fights?

I think there are jack all heavyweights in history who would get the better of him if you ran a prime vs prime matchup 10 times. Lennox is the one who stands out for me as having the best results.

Who do you think the smallest man to be able to do this would be?

If you HAD to make a high-stakes bet, who is the smallest man you would feel confident betting on against Wlad in this 10 fight series?

Muhammed Ali?

Joe Louis?

Joe Frazier?

Evander Holyfield?

Who is the smallest, by weight or height? Tyson? Or do you think someone like Marciano could do it?

Discuss.

:hat

Jimmy Wilde:good

[teeto]

This thread is way too long for me to start reading sorry.

But i have always felt very strong that the man who is very very bad, no terrible, the man who is the equivalent to hell on earth for Wladmir Klitschko, is Joe Frazier. No disrespect, because Wlad has actually earned great status for me now, but this is brutal, a demolition.

[Ste Hawkins]

Harry Greb. Even at 12 stone I wouldn't bet against him in a ring against any tall boxer.

[dezbeast]

Hey Pete, how did Brewster and Sanders all of a sudden become "smaller fighters"? They outweighed all of the greats except for Lewis and Bowe.

[PetethePrince]

Hey Pete, how did Brewster and Sanders all of a sudden become "smaller fighters"? They outweighed all of the greats except for Lewis and Bowe.


They're smaller comparably to Wlad and being slightly over 220 lbs and not taller than 6'2 would be averageish in the 1980's.

[Haggis McJackass]

More than a year on and 3 more dominating performances later, has the perspective changed? Has Wlad's standing risen?

:hat

[Boxed Ears]

Weight-wise, Dempsey.

[PetethePrince]

More than a year on and 3 more dominating performances later, has the perspective changed? Has Wlad's standing risen?

:hat

It depends on the ref. Crazy as it sounds if I think he's fighting somewhere in the 1940's with a ref and fighter that won't tolerate his tactics (Which are far more excessive than Lewis and Ali so don't give me that shit) than I think he would be in serious trouble. A guy like Max Baer could rough him up if he weren't allow to hold and make it an ugly fight and turn Wlad into a Primo Carnera.

If he's allowed to potentially hold as much as he did in the last Peter fight than he might be able to neutralize every swarming ATG fighter. I think Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Tyson would beat him no matter what (Due to styles and the fact they won't fight chest to chest).

I still think with someone like Arthur Mercante reffing Joe Frazier would beat Wlad. And I'd pick Louis to be the next smallest guy to do the job too.

Wlad should be favored over Marciano and Dempsey. Reffing is really important... I swear if we threw into a time period that would test his toughness and mentality more of his weaknesses would be far more glaringly obvious and potentially more often exposed. My ultimate 2 cents on the topic. Forget chin... the mind and mental strength are what defines champions. Wlad hasn't been truly tested in awhile, but against elite opposition these qualities are still needed.

[Swarmer]

Dempsey, Patterson, maybe even a Walcott rock his shit.

[eslubin]

Langford would ko his ass.

[eslubin]

And PLEASE someone say otherwise. It can't be done!

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


lubin boxing videograph emporium:
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[Ramon Rojo]

:lol: @ people picking middleweights to KO Wlad.

Wow, just wow.

[PowerPuncher]

The lightest in weight maybe Louis but I'm not that sure on that. In height Tyson would be a nightmare for Wlad

Anyone picking Dempsey/Marciano/Langford simply doesn't know boxing or perhaps has a strong loyalty to their favorites

[bodhi]

Rocky Marciano (possibly)

Yep, Rocky Marciano. I´m pretty sure he wouild pick Wlad 6 out of 10. I think Fitzsimmons would win at least one too. Frazier, Dempsey would also beat him the majority of times. However other great hws Charles, Patterson, Tunney however I don´t give much of a chance if at all. It´s a style thing. Punchers who bring on the pressure or are great at setting traps can take him. Others not so much with the exception of Ali and Holmes IMO.

[bodhi]

Which tall fighters did Marciano beat? With his punching power, ability to take a shot and low crouch i think he has a good chance, but it's not like his record is full of tall victims. LaStarza, Moore, Walcott, Charles, Layne and Cockell were all 6 feet or shorter. Joe Louis was 6'2 and the tallest, rated opponent that he beat.

The fact that Marciano is 5'10 and fights from a crouch will probably lead to a very dull fight with neither landing that many big shots.



This one would be even worse. Langford will have a LOT of trouble reaching Wlad, and probably be tied up on the inside. However, i don't think Wlad can land effectively either, because he has to punch so far down. Probably a lot of jabs, grazing jabs, holding and a rather lame but onesided (in terms of rounds won) decision.

Yep, Marciano fighting small and Wlad fighting tall would be hilarious to see. However, Brock got a bit to Wlad with bodyshots. Imagine this would be Marciano. Factor in Marciano´s workrate and how much he would make Wlad work and I see Marciano stopping an exhausted Wlad in the late rounds.

[eslubin]

Nuff said

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[anarci]

Holyfield and Tyson.

[Hookie]

Have done this thread before but months and months ago in the general forum, this one should get a much better class of posters responding.

So, a lot of guys could potentially land massive shots on Wlad and defeat him by way of stoppage. Lot of guys have the power to put him out, but will they land that KO shot in more than 5 out of 10 fights?

I think there are jack all heavyweights in history who would get the better of him if you ran a prime vs prime matchup 10 times. Lennox is the one who stands out for me as having the best results.

Who do you think the smallest man to be able to do this would be?

If you HAD to make a high-stakes bet, who is the smallest man you would feel confident betting on against Wlad in this 10 fight series?

Muhammed Ali?

Joe Louis?

Joe Frazier?

Evander Holyfield?

Who is the smallest, by weight or height? Tyson? Or do you think someone like Marciano could do it?

Discuss.

:hat

Muhammad Ali? yes

Joe Louis? yes

Joe Frazier? yes

Evander Holyfield? yes

Tyson? yes

...but Wlad is very good. If he is well prepared he is tough for anyone. I could see a 6'2" 205Lb. Joe Louis beating him more times than not though.

Tyson was at the very most 5'11 1/2" but probably shorter... he'd be the shortest guy that would have a chance I think... Marciano and Frazier were just a little taller IMO.

Marciano? maybe, even though he was about 185Lbs. at his best. I couldn't see Rocky winning more than 6 out of 10 times though.

[Boxed Ears]

The lightest in weight maybe Louis but I'm not that sure on that. In height Tyson would be a nightmare for Wlad

Anyone picking Dempsey/Marciano/Langford simply doesn't know boxing or perhaps has a strong loyalty to their favorites

Ah, the old "Disagrees with me=doesn't know shit about boxing or is just biased" argument. Always a winner. :roll:

[bodhi]

Ah, the old "Disagrees with me=doesn't know shit about boxing or is just biased" argument. Always a winner. :roll:

Ah, you know PP, is always biased. :D

[brb]

Nuff said

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

If Wlad hit Langford w/ that many shots I'd reckon Sammy wouldn't see daylight again.

[Brickhaus]

Jack Dempsey. His style is all wrong for Wlad, and I suspect he'd win by knockout a majority of the time. To go into it a bit more, he fought too low for Wlad to be able to keep him away with the jab, and we already know he was pretty good at getting up there and tagging the chin of someone much taller than himself.

I don't necessarily disagree with Marciano, Tyson, Holyfield, etc., but Dempsey was smaller than those guys.

[D.T]

Patterson beats both in his prime. Most people don't realize how damn good patterson was.

[Swarmer]

Patterson beats both in his prime. Most people don't realize how damn good patterson was.

This is what I'm saying.

Patterson's hand and foot speed, as well as inside game would net him a KO.

[Seamus]

I don't see Marciano taking more than 2 out of 10. Don Cockell, Moore and burned out Charles combined would not last 15 with Wlad. Hell, there isn't a legit commission that would allow a Wlad/Cockell fight.

[The Mongoose]

I don't see Marciano taking more than 2 out of 10. Don Cockell, Moore and burned out Charles combined would not last 15 with Wlad. Hell, there isn't a legit commission that would allow a Wlad/Cockell fight.

:verysad

Archie may not win but I like his chances of at least going the distance with Wlad. Byrd and Sultan went 12..but Moore can't? Please.

[PowerPuncher]

Ah, the old "Disagrees with me=doesn't know shit about boxing or is just biased" argument. Always a winner. :roll:

There's a reason 180lb men and even 200lb men can't compete in HW boxing today, skilled SHWs have a vast advantage

Anyway here's the men who beat Dempsey

5'9 Meehan

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

5'10 Flynn

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
6'0 Tunney

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And by 1 paper Billy Miske

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PowerPuncher]

Ah, you know PP, is always biased. :D

Yes I'm Wlad's biggest fan :roll:

[les]

mike tyson

[les]

and holyfield

[Minotauro]

Dempsey would be the smallest guy i'd expect to beta Wald majority of the time. Frazier and Louis would too but they weighed more then Dempsey.

[Peter Brit]

To be fair to Wladimir he was a brainless idiot in his early fights when he was beaten. He was not even fighting to his strengths. Now emmauel steward has got hold of him he is not the same fighter.

If he had fought in a better era he would have been found out earlier and engaged in his brain sooner.

Look at Aerola even if he trains the brain does not work he is doing the same thing he did after ten fights.

You have to accept nobody who has beaten Wladimir even gets close to him once his brain learnt to box properly. Having said all this the fact that the historic samual peters and chris aerola could stay at the top of the ranking so long without training or thinking shows how bad heavyweight boxing is at present.

Eddie Chambers without the lard belt is 195 fighter. I do not see eddie beating Joe fraser, Rocky, joe Louis or dempsey. The problem is there is a huge gulf between eddie and the klitchko's.

[Mendoza]

As much as I like Marciano and Langford, Wlad destroys them with impunity. He's poison to smaller fighters, their only hope being that he gasses himself over the long haul. However, making that long haul is a very tough task for even the best.

The best versions of Louis and Ali beat him. However, remember if we are talking prime for prime, then we need to consider a PRIME WLAD, not the mentally frail version who was slinking nervously into rings for a few years. He has a chance against ANY fighter ever.

Don't discount Wlad being able win a decision over anyone. He has size, power, skills, and height over just about anyone. Plus he can clinch like a Giant Octopus to eliminate in-fighting. He moves his legs well and fights smart.

Outside of the punchers chance, which Wlad has vs everyone too, fighters are going to need good defense and a chin.

One of the reason Wlad's fights can be boring in the eyes of some is the fighters is Wlad's jab is tough to get past, and he can drop the right hand bomb in quick. Once fighters taste Wlad's power, they go defensive for a reason.

I guess the smallest fighter I pick to beat Wlad 6 of 10 would be Tyson.

[tommygun711]

Dempsey

[Boxed Ears]

There's a reason 180lb men and even 200lb men can't compete in HW boxing today, skilled SHWs have a vast advantage

Anyway here's the men who beat Dempsey

5'9 Meehan

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

5'10 Flynn

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
6'0 Tunney

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

And by 1 paper Billy Miske

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This is not an argument, it's pictures, names and heights. They mean nothing to me. I think stylistically Dempsey, Frazier and Tyson all are bad news for Wladimir. The size would not be relevant enough for me to favor Wlad. Obviously, I think he has his chances, but there you go. 6+ out of 10? I'm comfortable with that pick. Dempsey is the smallest man I can favor over Wlad for 6+ of 10.

[Vanboxingfan]

Have done this thread before but months and months ago in the general forum, this one should get a much better class of posters responding.

So, a lot of guys could potentially land massive shots on Wlad and defeat him by way of stoppage. Lot of guys have the power to put him out, but will they land that KO shot in more than 5 out of 10 fights?

I think there are jack all heavyweights in history who would get the better of him if you ran a prime vs prime matchup 10 times. Lennox is the one who stands out for me as having the best results.

Who do you think the smallest man to be able to do this would be?

If you HAD to make a high-stakes bet, who is the smallest man you would feel confident betting on against Wlad in this 10 fight series?

Muhammed Ali?

Joe Louis?

Joe Frazier?

Evander Holyfield?

Who is the smallest, by weight or height? Tyson? Or do you think someone like Marciano could do it?

Discuss.

:hat


It's an interesting question, and I've read many, but not all of the responses. It seems to me the answer would pretty much hinge on the outcome of the first fight. For example if Wlad could stop Frazier, or Marciano, or Dempsey, fairly early in their first fight, what sort of adjustment could they make to prevent a similar result in the other nine fights. Probably none, because the whole premise of them being able to beat Wlad is based on them being able to get on the inside and wail away at the body and land shots to the head. But if it turns out, Wlad could prevent this from happening, then they have no plan B. But if he can't prevent it, then they don't need a plan B and he really would have no answer against any of these type of fighters.

Similarly if Ali can't outbox Wlad because of Wlad's reach advantage and power, then he too doesn't really have a plan B either.


So fighters that have more than one option have more opportunities to win. Certainly Lewis would have the best chance of all the fighters, given his size, experience, and power. I think Holmes would probably be the only fighter who could actually outbox Wlad, although Ali, and Lewis might be able to. Other fights such as Holyfield, and Louis are tough to call, because unlike Frazier, Dempsey, and Marciano they aren't just swamers. Holyfield is more of a counter puncher and he could get inside and cause Wlad all kinds of trouble, Louis could too. Not mentioned much on this thread from what I've read is Foreman, but he's a touch call. I'd certainly be coming forward, and if he connects with something he had the power to drop Wlad, but his defense is porous so he'd also be pretty easy to hit.

Anyway, I'm going to go with Louis as having the best chance of winning at under 200lbs, and since Dempsey was the smallest (well perhaps Marciano was too, but his defense was more suspect) of the swamers I'll go with him, in the swamer category.

[Jersey Joe]

Similarly if Ali can't outbox Wlad because of Wlad's reach advantage and power, then he too doesn't really have a plan B either.


What reach advantage? And Wlad has less power than Shavers and Foreman, and no more than Liston probably. Ali was hardly a one-trick pony, he was renowned for being able to fight in several different styles, he could dance around avoiding punches and flick his jab from range, he could stand on the ropes and trade, he was pretty much known as a ring general with huge variety. He's not a one-dimensional fighter like Frazier or Foreman...or Wlad.

[Vanboxingfan]

What reach advantage? And Wlad has less power than Shavers and Foreman, and no more than Liston probably. Ali was hardly a one-trick pony, he was renowned for being able to fight in several different styles, he could dance around avoiding punches and flick his jab from range, he could stand on the ropes and trade, he was pretty much known as a ring general with huge variety. He's not a one-dimensional fighter like Frazier or Foreman...or Wlad.


Well I'm old enough to have actually watched Ali, and contrary to myth he never walked on water and he had his faults. He was a beautiful boxer with tons of speed and ring smarts, but he wasn't a great inside fighter by any means and he was prone to going straight back. Also if you watched him you'd realize he didn't fight all that many fighters who were taller than him. With Frazier and others he tended to pull their heads down and use his reach well, nor did he have a huge amount of power. Not taking anything away from him, but as the saying goes styles make fights, and IF, Wlad's jab was something that caused Ali problems, he'd definately have a fight on his hands, because he's not a fighter who likes to go on the inside. He was more of a counter puncher to those who did go on the inside, ie Frazier, Foreman etc. But Norton gave him fits, and someone like Wlad, could very well do the same. I'm not says Wlad would win necessarily, but it would very likely be decided on whether or not Ali could avoid Wlad's jab and counter on a continuous basis, and not get hit with cleanly with the Wlad's right.

Personally I think that Wlad and particularly Lewis have more tools at their disposal, than Foreman and Frazier do, especially given their styles relative to how Ali fights.

[Joe E]

Have done this thread before but months and months ago in the general forum, this one should get a much better class of posters responding.

So, a lot of guys could potentially land massive shots on Wlad and defeat him by way of stoppage. Lot of guys have the power to put him out, but will they land that KO shot in more than 5 out of 10 fights?

I think there are jack all heavyweights in history who would get the better of him if you ran a prime vs prime matchup 10 times. Lennox is the one who stands out for me as having the best results.

Who do you think the smallest man to be able to do this would be?

If you HAD to make a high-stakes bet, who is the smallest man you would feel confident betting on against Wlad in this 10 fight series?

Muhammed Ali?

Joe Louis?

Joe Frazier?

Evander Holyfield?

Who is the smallest, by weight or height? Tyson? Or do you think someone like Marciano could do it?

Discuss.

:hatI would feel perfectly comfortable betting that Louis could do it.

[PH|LLA]

Rocky Marciano more than just 6 out of 10 imo

[Son of Gaul]

Have done this thread before but months and months ago in the general forum, this one should get a much better class of posters responding.

So, a lot of guys could potentially land massive shots on Wlad and defeat him by way of stoppage. Lot of guys have the power to put him out, but will they land that KO shot in more than 5 out of 10 fights?

I think there are jack all heavyweights in history who would get the better of him if you ran a prime vs prime matchup 10 times. Lennox is the one who stands out for me as having the best results.

Who do you think the smallest man to be able to do this would be?

If you HAD to make a high-stakes bet, who is the smallest man you would feel confident betting on against Wlad in this 10 fight series?

Muhammed Ali?

Joe Louis?

Joe Frazier?

Evander Holyfield?

Who is the smallest, by weight or height? Tyson? Or do you think someone like Marciano could do it?

Discuss.

:hat

'71 Joe Frazier should be the consensus if everyone is thinking clearly('88 Tyson is too heavy to qualify IMO). Regarding the other smallish atg HWs, I could see Dempsey, Patterson, Quarry and Shavers having serious success but only Dempsey winning a majority of the contests(as specified by the thread starter).

[Son of Gaul]

This is not an argument, it's pictures, names and heights. They mean nothing to me. I think stylistically Dempsey, Frazier and Tyson all are bad news for Wladimir. The size would not be relevant enough for me to favor Wlad. Obviously, I think he has his chances, but there you go. 6+ out of 10? I'm comfortable with that pick. Dempsey is the smallest man I can favor over Wlad for 6+ of 10.
Agreed, although I would be a lot more comfortable betting on Frazier. Despite Wlad's jab and thunderous right hand, he just doesn't have the wheels, uppercut or infighting ability needed to keep Smokin Joe off of him. Frazier would go absolutely medieval on Wlad. My prediction...PAIN.

[Boxed Ears]

Agreed, although I would be a lot more comfortable betting on Frazier. Despite Wlad's jab and thunderous right hand, he just doesn't have the wheels, uppercut or infighting ability needed to keep Smokin Joe off of him. Frazier would go absolutely medieval on Wlad. My prediction...PAIN.

:lol::good

[Johnstown]

Smallest fighter ever who can beat him...Vitali..ha ha ha ha....no I'm joking...I think smallest in height is the easy pick of tyson

[Seamus]

Rocky Marciano more than just 6 out of 10 imo

Where is the equivalent to this fighter in the last 30 years? Or are you contending he is a once in a century talent, who at 185 lb could beat 245 lb athletic freaks.

Fail.

[Johnstown]

Where is the equivalent to this fighter in the last 30 years? Or are you contending he is a once in a century talent, who at 185 lb could beat 245 lb athletic freaks.

Fail.


yea i love the rock..and i think he could smash the cruiserweight division..and i wouldnt be suprised if their where some good heavyweights fighting today that he could beat..but i cant see him beating wlad...even though id cheer for him..i think rocky would be in for some hurt.

[Cachibatches]

Smokin' Joe Frazier, baby. The pressure, the left hook, the bobbin and weavin to get in close...

[brb]

I find it extremely hard to believe someone as short as Tyson or Frazier would take Wlad out at least 6 of 10 times. I think people are severely underestimating Wladimir Klitschko here.

I think Frazier gets bombed out ala Foreman style 9 of the 10 times.

I think Tyson does significantly better because of his speed and better chin; he wins 3 of the 10 times.

[Cachibatches]

I find it extremely hard to believe someone as short as Tyson or Frazier would take Wlad out at least 6 of 10 times. I think people are severely underestimating Wladimir Klitschko here.

I think Frazier gets bombed out ala Foreman style 9 of the 10 times.

I think Tyson does significantly better because of his speed and better chin; he wins 3 of the 10 times.
I like Wladdy a lot, and I defend him as a great heavy, but lets wait until the end of his career until we say he beats Tyson 7 out of ten times.

Tyson beat big, skilled guys Larry Holmes and Tony Tucker when he used the bobbing and weaving style, and look how well Peter did with it agaisnt Wladdy for one round before he abandoned it.

As for Frazier, why would he get bombed out by a fighter who doesn't throw bombs until later rounds?

[janitor]

Sam Langford

Its not that I dont rate Wlad its just that Sam Langford was that good.

[Pachilles]

Harry Greb certainly.

On his best night if he comes in motivated, Duran? Duran is all wrong for Wlad, imo.

[Pachilles]

But seriously Floyd Patterson would KO him!

[Unforgiven]

I dont believe two fighters can remain peak-for-peak over a 10-fight series. It's ridiculous.

And if two fighters are matched peak-for-peak, prime-for-prime, and fight to the absolute best of their abilities on a completely level playing field there can be only one result. No need for rematches or a multi-fight series.

You either think one guy wins or the other, or a draw. This 6 out of 10 shit makes no sense.

[Kalasinn]

I dont believe two fighters can remain peak-for-peak over a 10-fight series. It's ridiculous.

And if two fighters are matched peak-for-peak, prime-for-prime, and fight to the absolute best of their abilities on a completely level playing field there can be only one result. No need for rematches or a multi-fight series.

You either think one guy wins or the other, or a draw. This 6 out of 10 shit makes no sense.

Well said Unforgiven. :good

[Seamus]

Sam Langford

Its not that I dont rate Wlad its just that Sam Langford was that good.

An impassioned but logically untenable choice. I rate Langford as my #1 pound for pounder.... but this ain't happening. Too much size disparity, and too much skill on Wlad's behalf in using his size. He exploits his strengths and minimizes his weaknesses as well any fighter I can remember. And if we are talking about two fighters entering the ring at their very best, then it will take an ATG heavyweight to defeat Wlad. I'm talking about a small handful of fighters, maybe three or four. He's just too good at what he does and what he does is very hard to crack.

[Vanboxingfan]

I personally think what happens in the first fight probably happens in almost any other fight afterwards. For example, if Frazier can blow past Wlad's jab and get inside and hit him with bodypunches the first time they meet, what's Wlad going to do to prevent this from happening again. Develope an inside fighting game?..not likely.

And if Wlad can easly catch Frazier coming in and drops a right hand or two on him, and perhaps clinching when Frazier comes in. What's Frazier's answer going to be?

The basic question is whether or not a any of the swamer fighters, Dempsey, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson can avoid getting hit when they come in and if so, can they do damage when they're inside. If they can, then they probably could win all 10 fights doing this, but if they can't they get caught with Wlad's right a few times, (set up by the jab) then what changes can any of them make? So whether it's out of 10 fights, 3 fights or 1 fight, it's the same question.

[DonBoxer]

Sam Langford.

[Dio]

Tommy burns.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Seamus]

the hall of the delusional here.

[McGrain]

Jimmy Wilde.

[Seamus]

Jimmy Wilde.

That's where this was ultimately headed.

[McGrain]

Seriously, he has a good chance.

[Seamus]

Seriously, he has a good chance.

Yeah, I guess he would certainly find that legendary china chin of Wlad.

[Boxed Ears]

I dont believe two fighters can remain peak-for-peak over a 10-fight series. It's ridiculous.

And if two fighters are matched peak-for-peak, prime-for-prime, and fight to the absolute best of their abilities on a completely level playing field there can be only one result. No need for rematches or a multi-fight series.

You either think one guy wins or the other, or a draw. This 6 out of 10 shit makes no sense.

...I didn't think anyone meant it literally. I thought we were just talking about probabilities. Of course it would be ridiculous literally. Can you imagine Ali/Frazier 4,5,6,7,8,9,10? It would become disgusting.

[Swarmer]

Jimmy Wilde.

I'd throw down on some PPV for this fight :lol:

[Sakura]

Yes, but of course Langford was past his best.

Wlad ain't too shabby, but all the smaller greats should be favoured to eat him up - from Dempsey onwards.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
You mean to him? If you mean .. go to therapy:smoke

[Sakura]

the hall of the delusional here.

Not a forum full of mental hospital patients

[Boilermaker]

An impassioned but logically untenable choice. I rate Langford as my #1 pound for pounder.... but this ain't happening. Too much size disparity, and too much skill on Wlad's behalf in using his size. He exploits his strengths and minimizes his weaknesses as well any fighter I can remember. And if we are talking about two fighters entering the ring at their very best, then it will take an ATG heavyweight to defeat Wlad. I'm talking about a small handful of fighters, maybe three or four. He's just too good at what he does and what he does is very hard to crack.


I am not so sure. I understand exactly what you mean and can see the common sense in it. But, I really have trouble getting past the visions of Sanders KO ing Wlad. All the clinching in the world and all the reach was no help at all to him. Same with Brewster, when Brewster landed a clean and solid punch. I really have not seen any fighter struggle so much. I think it is because Wlads awkward deep stance leaves him straight up and liable to a clean haymaker.

Now i know people say he has improved, and he has, but he wins his fights nowadays, because he is far and away the best conditioned athlete going into his fights, and he simply is able to outlast his opponents. It also helps that he is actually more skilled in all departments than the guys he is fighting, even the little ones. This would not be the case against some of the great smaller fighters in history. And i still cant get my mind away from the ease with which he has been KOd.

The problem for tiny guys like Fitzsimmons and Langford is not whether or not they would KO Wlad, because in 10 fights they almost certainly would, probably more than once. The problem is that in order to win, they need to do it 6 times because they are not going to win on points, or at least it is difficult to imagine them doing this, and also presumably, they will only have 12 rounds to do it to Wlad. I dont think that it is likely that Wlad would get KOd 4 times out of 10, against anyone. If the fights were longer, that could definitely change things, but that is unfair to Wlad because we dont know how his stamina would last.

As for who is the smallest, I do think that Dempsey is a great chance because if his agression and workrate, i think that he has the ability to land hard and fast early (which you would need to do) and then on the occassions when he doesnt land enough to get the KO, i think he would have the boxing ability to outbox Wlad and win the fight on points.

If i was going to pick a real against the grain pick and one who isnt relying on the perfect style to beat Wlad, then i think that it might be very interesting to see how someone like a Gene Tunney would go with Wlad. It might not be spectacular, but i think that Tunney has the chin to survive (most times), Would be unbelievably elusive and difficult for Wlad to Catch (which might see Wlad chase him and get a bit wild), Would have the power to trouble (though probably not KO Wlad). In fact, all in all, I think Tunney would pose a style that Wlad has not faced before. I think it would be a great fight and i could see Tunney pulling the upset out more than once. In fact, with Tunney, i would even venture to say that whoever wins this won is probably going to win 10-0.