Why the Klitschkos will never be ATGs (All Time Greats)

EXCUSES, more EXCUSES, far-fetched EXCUSES.

This is the impression you get when American (and English) Klitschko haters make up reasons why Wladimir Klitschko will never be considered "A Great Heavyweight Boxer".

"DELUDED FREAK…. majority of the eastern euro heavies are JOKES… america is the best country in the world"

"Wlad will be lucky if he makes it into the Boxing Top 100"

(Two original quotes)

 

Sometimes the objections are hidden behind a lot of "buts" ("But Brigade")

  • The Klitschkos have the highest KO'ratios BUT that's only because the boxers of this era are all china-chinned
  • The Klitschkos win dominantly BUT they would be outclassed by Gene Tunney (1920ies)
  • The Klitschkos are top heavyweights BUT they are not ATGs since they don't fight each other

Hmm, maybe the reason for the American hate is much simpler:

  1. Until the 1990s Eastern-Europeans are forbidden to compete in pro-boxing. Americans rule.
  2. Borders open (approximately in the year 2000) and Eastern-Europeans enter the arena.
  3. Within a decade Americans lose all their titles to Eastern-Europeans.
  4. Americans complain about "the worst heavyweight era ever", the "boring Klitschkos" and talentless opponents (of the Klitschkos) "who cannot throw a straight punch"

In light of the above points ALL REASONS given by Americans are suspicious.

Nevertheless we can have some fun by dissecting each excuse *ahem* reason one by one. Let us start with one of the less intelligent ones:

The circular and the circus

It's a case of circular logic:

  1. Klitschko is bad –> since a bad guy is the champ this era must be bad
  2. This era is bad –> thus the current champ is merely beating bums (the one-eyed amongst the blind, or rather "the chinless amongst featherfists")
  3. Go to #1

I don't think I need to explain this further. Let me just add that this strange logic is TYPICAL for good-old-time nostalgists as I wrote at Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he KOs his opponents

 

Klitschko will never be an ATG because I never saw a documentary about him on TV

I couldn't believe it when I read it, but obviously nonsense like this buzzes in the heads of some boxing fans: US TV channels (like HBO) show hour-long documentaries about Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis, but they never show anything like that about the Klitschkos.

"Tyson, foreman, holyfield, lewis, frazier, braddock, walcott, ali, bowe, etc, the K_Brothers will never be… know that for all time. tyson's KO'S have been shown over and over and over again , when he started , in the middle of his career and at the end. Documentries and movies had been made about tyson, ali, amazingly anough- I havent seen any special made about Wlad's great KO'S"

(original quote)

This ranks as the most ignorant and ridiculous objection against the Klitschkos directly after "The circular and the circus". Not only is it "outsourcing your eyes" (= others tell you which boxer is great) but also it's arguing against the obvious:

Of course US television will glorify US boxers for the US audience. It's a no-brainer. THIS IS HOW THEY MAKE MONEY. And this is how they KEEP their jobs.

And of course they WILL NOT glorify how ex-Soviet boxers (or boxers from Cuba) beat US boxers to pulp. This is how they LOSE money and LOSE their jobs.

And of course an Ukrainian documentary on Ukrainian TV glorifying Ukrainian boxers (the Klitschkos) is equally worthless in assessing greatness.

I even read once

"If Wlad is so famous why isn't there any computer game like Frank Bruno's Boxing?

frank brunos boxing

 

"Wladimir Klitschko will never be considered great because he fought in the worst era of heavyweight boxing"

This is THE standard excuse.

There is no other reason being used more often than this one to justify downgrading the Klitschkos.

This is a rather big topic and discussed at Boxing eras (5) The worst heavyweight era of all time! -OR- Americans play Basketball now!

 

"Wladimir Klitschko will never be considered great because he is so limited"

This argument is based on accusations like "Wladimir Klitschko never throws an uppercut" or "Vitali Klitschko holds his left hand much too low".

"Klitschko makes too many mistakes to be considered a great fighter"
(original quote by boxing historian Monte Cox)

 

All such statements are equivalent to

"Damn, why can't he fight like my favorite fantasy fighter?"

and

"MY boxer bobs and weaves better than YOUR boxer!"

and

"Japanese Pantomime should be compulsory subject in drama schools"

and

"I wish actresses would look like Mary Pickford"

It's all wishful thinking and useless drivel BUT ABOVE ALL IT'S IDIOTIC TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE FOR A FIGHTING STYLE that keeps him WINNING. And let me clarify (since "keeps him winning" doesn't nail it enough): Keeps him winning every round since years and makes him KO his opponents like nobody before him (= flawless victory after flawless victory).

Actually it's another example of black is white logic because the Klitschkos are the best KO'ers of all times (see Hardest hitters of boxing: KO stats of Tyson, Klitschko, Foreman, Shavers and other knockout artists) and thus the wrong conclusion is "Wladimir Klitschko should throw more uppercuts". The correct conclusion should be "Why fix something that isn't broken" and "Past-time boxers should have fought like the Klitschkos and not vice versa".
If you complain that "feinting is a lost art" then the wrong conclusion is "They should feint more". The correct conclusion is "Feinting isn't practiced anymore because it turned out to not work anymore against nowadays types of boxers". Stop living in the past. Things are not merely better because the film material is black'n'white.

Unfortunately these accusations ("Vitaly looks amateurish at times, he shows no head movement", original quote by boxing expert Monte Cox) lead to conclusions like "Nowadays US heavyweights are bad because they cannot expose Vitali Klitschko for the amateurish head mover he is", which is the very circular circus that I mentioned at the top of this article.

 

A few sentences ago I mentioned measurable assets ("uppercuts", "keeping hand too low"). But sometimes "Klitschko Kritiks" mention intangibles like "he doesn't have a killer instinct" or "he lacks ringmanship" or "he has no commitment" or "he is boring".

Just strange that someone who doesn't have "killer instinct" and "ringmanship" has one of the highest KO'ratio in heavyweight history and barely loses a round.

Boring is a matter of opinion.
Winning is a matter of fact!

-and-

You know critics have no arguments left…
…when they call your KO'wins "boring"

 

"Wladimir Klitschko will never be considered great because he is so so beatable"

"Wlad's jaw is glass. It is connected to his gas tank. When you hit him on the jaw with a flush power shot his gas tank springs a leak."
(original quote)

"It's not that hard to imagine a ·David Tua who would get inside, take anything that comes his way in getting there as well as once he's on Vitali's chest, and then wreaking havoc on the big man's head and body with his left hooks and his right hand sledgehammers."
(original quote)

Well, you can IMAGINE a lot of things. But if Klitschko is sooo bad then why isn't there anyone amongst 300+ million Americans (twice as many as in Ali's times) and amongst 7 billion humans worldwide (also twice as many) to EXPOSE his limitedness, especially if doing so would generate him MILLION$?

The opposite is true: The ease with which Eastern-Europeans took over the American heavyweight scene once the borders opened (approximately in the year 2000) let us easily speculate that previous eras weren't as good as nostalgist want us to believe, but merely lacked the real global competition. Previous eras were basically a local (= US-internal) contest with an American hype machine specializing in overhyping US-boxers and an American iconization factory specializing in creating mythologies. Since the USA is now twice as big as in Ali's times there should be twice as many top American heavies who could easily beat the Klitschkos. Since there aren't we can assume that US boxers indeed were merely hyped up.

You may also speculate that THERE ARE TOP American heavies indeed (which I personally believe to be the case): I believe that guys like ·Tony Thompson, ·Sam Peter, ·Eddie Chambers and ·Chris Arreola (to just randomly name a few) would have ruled the 1960ies and the 1970ies. These guys are TOP BOXERS, but:

It just so happened that the Top American boxers
clashed with the Top Global Boxers (the Klitschkos),

…lost…

and then the American HYPE machine
turned into a HATE  machine
.

 

"Quitali Quitschko can never be an ATG because he quit against Chris Byrd"

Vitali Klitschko stopped the fight because of a torn rotator cuff (= tendon tear) in his arm. Mike Tyson refused to get up against Danny Williams because of a knee problem. Clay/Ali refused to continue after 10 rounds (of a 15 round fight) against Larry Holmes.

It's hard to imagine that quitting ("No mas") disqualifies you from being an ATG. Especially since a torn rotator cuff could be a career ending injury. After Vitali healed his body problems (arm and back) he returned in dominant shape.

 

"The Klitschkos will never be ATGs because they duck their strongest opponents: Each other"

It's a unique circumstance that 2 brothers happen to be the strongest heavyweights of an era (both are holders of the RING belt). It's a pity that they won't fight each other but it's also understandable. I don't think you can make a case of denying them an ATG status because of their unique familiar relationship BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY you would never deny Lennox Lewis the ATG status merely because he didn't face another ATG like Rocky Marciano. The reasons for non-fights between 2 top fighters can be manifold (politics, illnesses, age, different centuries) and you simply have to accept "family" as another of these reasons.

Here is what Fritz Sdunek (Zdunek), the trainer of Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko has to say:

German trainer Fritz Zdunek, who is the mentor to WBC heavyweight champion Vitali Klitschko, says a fight between Vitali and his younger brother, IBO/WBO/IBF champion Wladimir Klitschko, would never get the proper recognition. In the opinion of Zdunek, most people would never take it seriously because there would be too many questions marks, such as a possible fix between the brothers, or one brother taking it easy in the fight.

"It would be madness. For this contest, no one would treat it seriously. People would continue to speculate about different kinds of collusion and things like that. So I think that this fight would never receive the proper recognition," said Zdunek to Alexander Pavlov.

Quote from BoxingScene

 

And:

"Wladimir said (to me): 'If we ever fought, Emanuel, one of us would end up permanently damaged for life. Because that's the way we used to spar, because of the competitive spirit in us'"

Emanuel Steward (HOF inductee and trainer of Wladimir Klitschko)

 

"Wladimir Klitschko will never be an ATG because he got KO'ed 3 times"

This is a topic for itself: Read Wladimir Klitschko's glass chin -OR- Hahaha, Corrie Sanders was a golfer

 

"Wladimir Klitschko will never be an ATG because he didn't avenge his losses"

Klitschko haters LOVE this "unavenged losses" myth: "You can never be an ATG until you avenge you losses. Thus Wlad can never be an ATG"

But a short glance at record of ATGs exposes this myth for what it is: A blatant lie:

NameMiddle of careerTotal fightsDifferent opponentsMedian Weight of Win-OpponentsUnavenged losses
·Sam Langford
1915
316
130
190 lbs
4
·Jack Dempsey
1917
83
59
198 lbs
1
·Gene Tunney
1921
86
65
176 lbs
0
·Joe Louis
1938
69
58
193 lbs
2
·Archie Moore
1947
220
160
174 lbs
10
·Ezzard Charles
1948
119
89
180 lbs
15
·Rocky Marciano
1949
49
44
190 lbs
0
·Sugar Ray Robinson
1949
200
150
155 lbs
11
·Floyd Patterson
1957
64
52
183 lbs
5
·Sonny Liston
1960
54
44
198 lbs
2
·George Chuvalo
1966
93
81
203 lbs
14
·Joe Frazier
1967
37
31
199 lbs
1
·George Foreman I
1970
47
45
205 lbs
2
·Muhammad Ali
1970
61
50
205 lbs
2
·Ken Norton
1972
50
54
208 lbs
4
·George Foreman
1974
81
79
214 lbs
5
·Larry Holmes
1981
75
71
212 lbs
5
·Mike Tyson
1987
58
55
218 lbs
5
·George Foreman II
1989
34
34
219 lbs
3
·Lennox Lewis
1993
44
41
228 lbs
0
·Brian Nielsen
1997
66
65
224 lbs
2
·Wladimir Klitschko-
57
53
232 lbs
2

Fistic Statistic [#369.1] Unavenged losses

 

When you analyze records of ATGs there is NO OTHER heavyweight with 50+ fights 200×2 and LESS unavenged losses.

Rocky Marciano (49 fights) and Gene Tunney (86 fights) have 0 unavenged losses and Jack Dempsey has 1 (83 fights), but…

  • Dempsey (median[?] opponent 192 lbs)
  • Marciano (median opponent 190 lbs)
  • Tunney (median opponent 176 lbs)

…were of course no heavyweights as we define them today (200+), but merely cruisers.

But even _IF_ you compare 1940ies Marciano and 1920ies Tunney and 1910s Dempsey (= 100 years ago) to Wladimir Klitschko then THAT's about it. There are no other comparable boxers WITH LESS unavenged losses than Wladimir Klitschko.

And it's nearly too stupid to mention: It's obvious that "Less fights result in less losses", but apparently I have to repeat this over and over again: Lennox Lewis has less losses (2) than Klitschko (3) because Wladimir Klitschko had approximately 50% more fights in his entire career than Lennox Lewis (only 42 real[?] heavyweight fights (39 different opponents)).

On a side note we should never forget that Lennox Lewis (who is always in the back of the head of those who accuse Klitschko of not avenging) did indeed avenge his both losses… but only IF YOU WANT TO CALL "Lennox Lewis vs Oliver McCall II" an avenging:

In that fight ·Oliver McCall went into some bizarre mental state in front the audience: Walking back and forth, refusing to fight. Instead he started to cry (= tears!) and as far as I remember it was some drug withdrawal issue and it is said that McCall had been just out of the rehab and had neither time nor attitude to train properly ("Lennox Lewis vs Cold Turkey").

In the press-conference after the fight Oliver McCall complained that the referee should not have stopped the fight and that he was robbed.

In other words: _On paper_ this may qualify as avenging but practically it's inconclusive ("gift avenging").

Let's also not forget that in previous eras there were far more rematches than now:
In his 300+ fights Sam Langford fought the same 100+ opponents. Thus by normal logic fighters then had more chances to avenge their losses.

Rematches also have a lot to do with boxing politics (= Don King) and TV networks (= 2 fighters may have exclusive contracts with 2 different networks). This was one of the reasons why it took ages for the Tyson-Lewis clash to materialize. And if an opponent who beat you doesn't want to rematch you (fear, retirement, better money offers, contract obligations) then there is not much you can do.

But let me repeat again: There is no other fighter in the history of heavyweight with 50+ fights 200×2 and LESS unavenged losses (2) than Wladimir Klitschko.

Thus any accusation
"The Klitschkos have 2 unavenged losses"
turns out to actually be
a hallmark attribute for the Klitschkos.

 

"The leftover trash from the previous era (Ross Puritty) was able to KO Wladimir Klitschko"

With such arguments Muhammad Ali wouldn't be an ATG because he was VICIOUSLY knocked down by bummy[?] cruiser ·Henry Cooper.

It's no shame to be KO'ed by a 249 lbs guy with possibly the hardest chin of all time (Ross Puritty). At heavyweight anything can happen (especially when the corner decides to throw the towel as happened against Puritty). It's a far greater shame to insult your opponent ("a tramp, a bum and a cripple"), then get knocked down in the 4th round by this cruiser (Cooper was 185 lbs) and then survive only because of smelling salts (and possibly other illegal maneuvers).

And if you want to call Ross Puritty trash then let me tell you that Clay/Ali in his whole career has not faced anyone as heavy and experienced as Ross Puritty as I wrote at Wladimir Klitschko's glass chin -OR- Hahaha, Corrie Sanders was a golfer

 

"Wladimir isn't an ATG because he needed longer to KO an opponent than ((insert boxer)) needed"

A typical example would be "Wladimir needed 8 rounds to KO ·Francois Botha while Lennox needed 2 rounds".

Hmm, wait a second, the same applies the other way around:
Lennox needed 8 rounds to KO ·Phil Jackson while Wladimir needed 2 rounds.

And now what?

Wait, I got another one:

Wladimir Klitschko couldn't KO Chris Byrd (UD12) but then he KO'ed Chris Byrd in the 7th round (2nd fight). I guess, Wladimir Klitschko must be better than… HIMSELF.

*Uff*

A variation of this accusation is that Wladimir Klitschko needs longer to KO opponents than Mike Tyson. Aside from the fact that KO'ing opponents slower than Mike Tyson is no basis to deny anyone an ATG status, the main reasons why Wladimir Klitschko needed longer is described at Hardest hitters of boxing: KO stats of Tyson, Klitschko, Foreman, Shavers and other knockout artists in the section "Earls, Counts, Kings" and at Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he KOs his opponents.

 

"Wladimir Klitschko will never be an ATG because he didn't rematch Corrie Sanders"

First of all let me state that it's A PITY that a rematch never materialized. No other fight of Wladimir Klitschko is used as much against him as his loss to Sanders.

If I were Wladimir Klitschko I would PAY Corrie Sanders to get in shape for a rematch. It doesn't matter that Corrie Sanders is 10 years older (no one cares that Sonny Liston was 10 years older against Muhammad Ali, too). This missing rematch feeds haters to this very day.

Emmanuel Steward said (at a press-conference before the Lamon Brewster rematch) that the loss to Brewster was being constantly used as a proof for Wladimir Klitschko's non-greatness status. I always DISAGREED. I always thought that the loss to Corrie Sanders (and not the loss to Lamon Brewster) was the greatest argument against Wladimir Klitschko.

Now, let's actually analyze what happened AFTER the loss and why a rematch never materialized:

  1. Wladimir Klitschko loses the WBO belt to Corrie Sanders.
  2. Corrie Sanders then decides to NOT rematch Wladimir and drops his WBO belt in the same year so the WBO cannot order him to fight Wlad again.
  3. Instead Sanders (now belt-less) decides to fight Vitali Klitschko (belt-less) for the WBC belt while Wladimir Klitschko (belt-less) fights Lamon Brewster (belt-less) to regain his WBO belt.

That's a rather smart move for both (= the Klitschkos and Corrie Sanders), since if Corrie wins he will be "the man who beat both Klitschkos" whereas if Wladimir and Vitali win they make their dream come true by being "the first brothers who hold heavyweight belts at the same time".

All plans go wrong:

  1. Wladimir loses to Lamon Brewster and then (14 days later) Corrie Sanders loses to Vitali Klitschko.
  2. Corrie Sanders then retires (after 1 more fight) and Vitali Klitschko also retires (after 1 more fight).
  3. Two years later Sanders plans a comeback (due to money issues), says that he wants to rematch Wladimir but then gets stopped by his 3rd tune-up fight (vicious body shot by ·Osborne Machimana 14-5).

It takes Wladimir nearly 5 full years to regain the WBO belt that he lost to Sanders.

So the Sanders-no-rematch-fiasco consists of several unfortunate events. It's not a simple who-ducked-whom assessment. Claiming that Wladimir ducked Sanders is like claiming that he planned to wait for five years to get his belt back.

It was also not a case of Wladimir ducking hard punchers. In the same year after the loss to Corrie Sanders Wlad fought ·Danell Nicholson

  • who had the same KO'ratio (69%) as Corrie Sanders (70%)
  • was equally tall
  • was heavier than Corrie
  • and reachier than Corrie.

Don't get me wrong: IT'S A PITY. There is something about Sanders' style that could give younger-Wlad and older-Wlad problems. I would have LOVED to see a rematch, more than against Brewster.

 

The Klitschkos will never be ATGs because they didn't fight FAMOUS boxers

I addressed this at Typical reproaches.

 

"Wladimir Klitschko will never be an ATG because he didn't unify all belts"

There are also variations of this accusations, e.g. "Wlad cannot be an ATG because he would be the only RING magazine champion who didn't have the WBC belt" which is just another example of "Wladimir Klitschko doesn't meet the standard that I just made up".

Another variation is "Muhammad Ali held ALL belts while Klitschko doesn't" which is another case of "Black-Is-White"-logic as I described at Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he KOs his opponents.

OK, so first things first: Wladimir Klitschko won't unify the belts as long as his brother holds one.

Second things second: Wladimir Klitschko cannot unify the belts as long as other belt holders (e.g. Nikolay Valuev) refuse to fight. Or sign fight contracts but then don't show up for the fight (David Haye).

Now there was a time window (when Vitali retired) when Wladimir Klitschko could have theoretically unified the belts. But what happened was

  1. Vitali retired end of 2005 (Nov 2005), announced his comeback 1 year later (Jan 2007) but delayed it until 2008.
  2. In this time ·Oleg Maskaev won the WBC title and for 1.5 years refused to face anyone except ·Okhello Peter (18-4) and then lost the title to Sam Peter who then was immediately challenged by the RETURNING Vitali Klitschko.

So Wladimir couldn't go for the WBC belt because Maskaev refused to fight, then lost his title to Sam Peter and then Sam Peter got immediately challenged by the returning Vitali Klitschko.

What about the WBA belt?

Wladimir asked the WBA belt holder ·Nikolai Valuev to unify the belts on a short notice (as a last minute replacement for David Haye). Team Valuev answered: "We didn't train since 3 days thus we are too out of shape".

However: Although Wladimir didn't unify the belts he ALREADY beat the WBC-belt holder (Sam Peter) and the conqueror (Ruslan Chagaev) of the WBA-beltholder Valuev.

Moreover Wladimir's career isn't over and he has still time to unify these belts.

 

Wladimir Klitschko will never be an ATG because he wins only by outweighing his opponents

Obviously those who use this accusation never felt the urge to check the records of other famous boxers like Ali or Foreman. Because it's actually them who notoriously outweighed their opponents:

NameIn how many fights has the boxer been out-weighed (including sub-200 fights)?Total KOs against heavier-or-same opponents (within12)Total KOs against heavier-or-same opponents (200×2, within12)
·Vitali Klitschko
27% (12of43)
9
9
·Wladimir Klitschko
46% (27of58)
24
24
·Lennox Lewis
27% (12of44)
9
9
·Mike Tyson
55% (32of58)
21
21
·Muhammad Ali
27% (17of61)
10
5
·Riddick Bowe
31% (14of45)
10
10
·Frank Bruno
31% (14of45)
12
12
·George Foreman
11% (9of81)
9
9
·Joe Louis
22% (16of70)
13
7
·Joe Frazier
40% (15of37)
7
5
·Evander Holyfield
81% (45of55)
21
14
·Larry Holmes
46% (35of75)
21
20
·Sonny Liston
18% (10of54)
7
7
·Earnie Shavers
37% (34of90)
22
22
·Eric Esch
1% (1of89)
1
1
·Ken Norton
40% (20of50)
11
11
·Ron Lyle
37% (19of51)
11
11
·Cleveland Williams
29% (27of92)
15
13
·Chuck Wepner
21% (11of51)
1
1

Fistic Statistic [#369.2]

It seems that (again) Klitschko haters don't know the history of the sport they claim to be the fan of. It's Foreman, Ali, Lennox Lewis, Joe Louis who are the outweighers. But Wladimir Klitschko not only was outweighed very often, he also scored the most KOs against heavier-or-same opponents, which underlines his talent and power.

 

Summary

To deny the Klitschkos ATG status is ignorance of the sport of boxing. I understand that there is no official rule how to define ATGness, but I guess having more world title wins than Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson or Lennox will have to suffice.

The Klitschkos are

  • winning more often
  • more consistent (= more rounds per fight)
  • and more dominant (= more KOs, more world championships)

than nearly all previous boxers who ever lived

They have

  • less losses on their record than Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes or Evander Holyfield.

and Wladimir Klitschko

  • has scored more KOs in world title fights than Muhammad Ali or Riddick Bowe or Rocky Marciano.

 

What else do you want them to do? Revive Rocky Marciano from the dead to knock him out?

If someone denies the ATG status then he has either unrealistic standards ("Must win world title fights within 5 rounds") or he is biased ("Maximum 3 boxers can have ATG status and the places are already taken by Cassius, Clay and Ali").

On a sidenote: Even Holyfield's ATG status is disputed as is Marciano's, Tyson's and Lewis'. So this "ATG yes/no" question became a subject of hot forum debates ("XXX is no ATG but the most overrated boxer ever"). As far as I could witness only Muhammad Ali's ATG status isn't disputed. Everybody else's is.

There is also another aspect regarding ATGness: The amount of KO footage. We live in video-heavy times and if it isn't on film it didn't happen. It's similar to religions: The more writings the longer the religion survives. And KO footage is the scripture of heavyweight boxing. The more world title KO footage exists the more secured is the legacy. Therefore the Klitschkos and Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis and George Foreman have a rather safe future. Whereas Muhammad Ali's lack of visible powerful KOs starts to weigh heavy, not on his P4P legacy, but on his heavyweight legacy.

Wladimir Klitschko's trainer is an opportunist. An idiot could train that big Ukranian mutha [email protected] to beat the [email protected] out of these tomato cans.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/5 (12 votes cast)
Why the Klitschkos will never be ATGs (All Time Greats), 4.0 out of 5 based on 12 ratings
Did you find this information useful? Then please donate...

Comments (18)

  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xisu Napy]
    #146 Honza (2011-04-18th)

    Your webside really sucks! go f*ck Klitschkos

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  • Boxing fan says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Kuna Jydo]
    #221 Boxing fan (2011-05-01st)

    I fully accept the both klitschko brother's are horribly underrated but I also believe you are not fully appreciating the old timers or basically anyone before the Klitschko's. I'm not going to get into a head to head argument as I always found that the argument's from either side cannot be justified and is purely fantasy. I do not believe Ali was the greatest but I do have him on my top 3 heavyweight list. You however seem to have a chip on your shoulder about him as he is brought up negetiviely in nearly every article. I don't understand why you can't at least admit that he had some of the fastest handspeed of any heavyweight. He was not a technically great boxer and he relied on his physical gifts but his heart, speed and chin were impressive and his fights with tough opposition deserve respect, just like the Klitschko's deserve respect for clearing out their division, which while I don't think it's the best era of boxing ever, it is definitely not the worst. I personally don't think KO ratio's are all that important in boxing as if it were then Frank Bruno or Butterbean would be the GOAT, while impressive, they do not tell the full story of a fighter and power is not everything eg a lower weight class boxer who was amazingly talented but had little power was Pernell Whittaker. Basically I think you make some very good points but you seem to put too much reliance on physical size and not skill (I think the Klitschko's have both and would give any other ATG a tough night in a fantasy match up) and are way too harsh on Ali whether you like him or not, he was a talented guy who fought tough opposition and is only human at the end of the day so he obviously has flaws.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #224 Admin (2011-05-01st)
      I don't understand why you can't at least admit that he had some of the fastest handspeed of any heavyweight.

      Useless windmakers. Additionally I am not to impressed by his hand speed. Roy Jones Jr is far more impressive.

      He was not a technically great boxer and he relied on his physical gifts but his heart, speed and chin were impressive

      His heart was impressive. His speed not. His chin is doubtful.

      I personally don't think KO ratio's are all that important in boxing as if it were then Frank Bruno or Butterbean would be the GOAT, while impressive, they do not tell the full story of a fighter

      This is answered at [post=932].

      boxer who was amazingly talented but had little power was Pernell Whittaker.

      Please no 130+ lbs boxers. The lower you go the less important is KOratio. Thus your argument is valid in regard to "analyzing boxers" but this is the HeavyweightBlog.com thus I concentrate on heavyweights.

      Basically I think you make some very good points but you seem to put too much reliance on physical size and not skill

      Read [post=932] ("Size is not everything").

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
      • Boxing Fan says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Kuna Jydo]
        #225 Boxing Fan (2011-05-01st)

        Please do not refer me to typical reproaches as that is just a cop out.

        Ali's jab was recorded to be faster than Sugar Ray Robinson's so how can you honestly say his hand speed wasn't impressive? The fact that he had a faster jab than a middleweight is impressive no matter what way you look at it.

        As for his chin, he was knocked down twice in his whole career and never knocked out. Knocked down once by getting caught flush which a damn good left when he was a youngster and still learning his trade and once by arguably the greatest left hook ever that Frazier threw and was up at a 4 count. His chin is proven, not arguable.

        You make good points about Klit haters/Ali worshipers but you seem blind to the opposite of which you are falling into. I've read a lot of your blogs and i haven't seen one yet where you highlight the Klitschko's flaws, just whoever you are pitting them against. There's nothing wrong with thinking the Klitschko's are all time greats and to defend them but there is no need to put down past fighters in order to do so, all it suceeds in doing is getting people angry.

        My argument about power still remains valid regarding the fighting style of boxer's (or out-fighters), their style means that they generally do not score a lot of knock outs and out-point their opponents. Knock outs are impressive but a win is a win and 'featherfisted' fighters should not automatically be looked down upon. THAT is where your stats don't tell the full picture, that and you seem to be making the criteria for non-bummy opponents. How are we supposed to know they are accurate if we don't get to see who the bums and non bums are?

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 4.0/5 (2 votes cast)
        • Admin says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
          #233 Admin (2011-05-02nd)
          Please do not refer me to typical reproaches as that is just a cop out.

          It's not "a cheap cop out" to refer to an article that addresses exactly these issues.

          Ali's jab was recorded to be faster than Sugar Ray Robinson's so how can you honestly say his hand speed wasn't impressive?

          Ali's jab wasn't impressive for the same reason Chris "Rapid Fire" Byrd's isn't: Because Ali's jab was a mere wind maker. Who cares that was a damn fast wind maker? I am not impressed by Ali's speed as I am not impressed by Ali's useless shuffle.

          The fact that he had a faster jab than a middleweight is impressive no matter what way you look at it.

          OK, name the round and minute of an Ali fight where his jab speed is impressive. I will take a look. But please only real heavyweight fights 200×2. None of his cruiser fights, please.

          As for his chin, he was knocked down twice in his whole career and never knocked out. Knocked down once by getting caught flush which a damn good left when he was a youngster and still learning his trade and once by arguably the greatest left hook ever that Frazier threw and was up at a 4 count. His chin is proven, not arguable.

          I updated now [post=2342] –> "Muhammad Ali's iron chin". Please read.

          i haven't seen one yet where you highlight the Klitschko's flaws, just whoever you are pitting them against.

          I refuse to write about flaws when Wladimir Klitschko had now approx. 60 fights (real heavyweight fights) and only 3 defeats years ago. Ali's real heavyweight record is 28-4. I will write about flaws of Klitschko when he adds another 5 losses to his record.

          Knock outs are impressive but a win is a win and 'featherfisted' fighters should not automatically be looked down upon.

          A win is not a win. That's a typical nostalWinning by merely surviving or by running away (like Clay/Ali) is far less valid than a win by dominance with a following KO. We are talking about the heavyweight division here.

          THAT is where your stats don't tell the full picture, that and you seem to be making the criteria for non-bummy opponents. How are we supposed to know they are accurate if we don't get to see who the bums and non bums are?

          Please read [post=341]

          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
          • Tommo says:
            flag
            [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
            #5688 Tommo (2013-03-26th)

            You gotta give him some recognition admin. Clay/Ali had a quick jab, of course, and MOST importantly you are wrong to label it a "wind maker". Some boxers have solid jabs and they are good. But the jab is meant to set up power punches so is useful even if it is weak. It is very important that it is fast. Ali is not the best boxer, I have been very vocal about this myself. But he certainly is not the worst, and Wladimir is not perfect.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jylo Geli]
    #388 Honza (2011-06-07th)

    that guy from Britain is nice to you but you just have your own logic. Your logic goes like this: Ali was slow, featherfisted coward, W Klitschko is strong, awesome, flawless boxer. Than do not tell me you are not Ali hater.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • Aswin says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jinu Wawy]
    #930 Aswin (2011-09-12th)

    I pray to god to let me know how on earth did Holyfield outweight 81% of his opponents????????????
    Are you referring to his cruiserweight tenure??? I am seriously not impressed. Holyfield in his prime weighed around 208-212 pounds, I am sure the boxers of the 1990s always weighed more than 210 pounds????? I am seriously starting to doubt your statistics???

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #1157 Admin (2011-09-24th)

      Please reread the table. It clearly states that he has BEEN OUT-WEIGHED in 81%

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
  • juan petro says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Tove Niku]
    #3971 juan petro (2012-05-11th)

    Here is the real problem, klitschos are not ATG, they arose in an era of boxing that was in great decline.
    1. Vitali Klitscho got his butt handed to him by Lennox Lewis, the last all time great boxer
    2. Klitschoes (more so vladimir) have arisen at a time when all the great boxers of the 90s and 80s in the heavyweight divison were retiring or getting old (Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Holyfield, George foreman etc.)
    3. Klitschoes have been knocked down/out before even attaining titles, something unusual of ATG. Ali, Tyson, and most atg never lost other fights before winning titles unless it was to other atg. Klitchoes in their prime seem to have lost titles to random, nobody boxers who are simply never heard or seen from again.
    4. Klitchoes fight relatively unknown and unimpressive fighters. The klitchoes are not very impressive, because with their bad fighting style it doesn't take an expert to realize that if they fought talented boxers they'd be floored every time.
    5. There are plenty of impressive fighters like paman, mayweather, saul alverez, joan guzman, but none of them seem to come in heavyweaight division. If klitchoes were fighting fighters of the above calibre, they'd be more respected. Often they are fighting relatively unaccomplished fighters who are 15-1 or 20-3 by the time they are fighting klitchoes.
    6. I would not say the klitchoes suck, its just an unknown until they fight some real calibre boxers in the heavyweight division
    7. The klitchoes are fighting guys who are generally far shorter then they are and who do not have the skill to overcome height handicaps. That is there exist no Mike Tyson or Joe Frazier type boxers who can knock out a taller opponent with dodge and weave styles today. Therefore one cannot really know if the klitchoes are great. The klitchoes have failed to fight any boxer of fast hand speed or impressability but lennox lewis and they lost.
    8. "Well, you can IMAGINE a lot of things. But if Klitschko is sooo bad then why isn't there anyone amongst 300+ million Americans (twice as many as in Ali's times) and amongst 7 billion humans worldwide (also twice as many) to EXPOSE his limitedness, especially if doing so would generate him MILLION"

    Herein lies the dilemma, heavyweight boxing is in a rut, Americans find Klitchoes boring so it would not draw millions to win. One would be better off joining the NBA and earning 30 million a year for 25 years vs 30 million for 1 top fight.

    This also just goes to prove that heavyweights boxers of today really do lack talented individuals, because everyone can see all the weaknesses of these guys but no one can execute because of lack of talent.
    9. Your insulting of true ATG like Ali, Foreman, Tyson, etcetera only make Klitcho looks worse because in 99% of of the boxing world, it is believed these boxers would annihilate Klitchoes. Really tyson would duck under Klitcho jab and knock his head off. Ali would make Klitcho miss and knock his head off. They are not impressive fighters. I'd put them in the same talent pool as slightly below Tonny Tucker, no one will remember these boring fighters.
    10. Klitcho fights bad fighters, citing stats about him are useless because he is consistently fighting shorter, poorly equiped, poorly trained fighters. How about a fighter who can move his head from the way of a jab or who can bob and weave and throw a punch against a taller fighter instead of one who spends 12 rounds running from the guy with longer reach. Ever time the klitchoes fight an American with even similar reach they either lose or nearly lose, even if the boxer is not particularly great. Its like trying to argue Wilt Chamberlin was better than Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant. You are just embarassing yourself doing so because Chamberlin was playing against people who were not serious about basketball so of course he will score 100 points in a game.
    11. You claim Samuel Peter, a guy whose nickname is the Nigerian Nightmare, is a top American boxer. See what I mean by you are embarassing yourself. By the time Peter fought Klitcho, Peter had never fought 12 rounds before. When Ali beat Liston,Liston had been knocking out top boxers for some time and had been through plenty of 15 round matches.
    12. When Ali quit, he was an old man by those days standards, his style depended on speed, his reflexes slowed down from age, and he had already defeated his greatest opponents/challengers of the day. Its not like Klitcho quit when he got old and out of shape, he quit because he was a wuss.
    13. You misinterpret stats. You claim that because Ali or Liston or Foreman who lost fights when they were old and retiring or lost their passion for boxing is comparable to losing and having unavenged fights mid career, its not so. There is a big difference between losing a fight in ones prime and unavenging it vs losing several fights in ones prime, whats going to happen when they get old/lose passion? Really how many 245+ pound boxers have the klitchoes, fought who were not 25% body fat with a beer gut? Very few.
    14. Ali would make mince meat of any klitcho, the klitchoes wouldn't last a round, too slow, big long punches. Ali had the hand and foot speed along with an ability to see punches to outclass any boxer, catch them with their hands down and knock em out.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • wmillard says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Jeki Supa]
      #3978 wmillard (2012-05-14th)

      1. Lennox Lewis did not hand Vitali his butt. Vitali was winning on the scorecards and the fight was stopped by a cut.
      2. Did Americans stop having sex after the 70's? Why haven't there been any new American greats to replace the ones that retired in the 90's.
      3. Ali was knocked down before he won the heavyweight title and his trainer had to cheat to give him 5mins more rest before he went out before the next round. Joe Louis was knocked out by Schmeling before he won the title. Jack Dempsey was knocked out before winning the title by Jim Flynn.
      4. If the Klitschkos fought 240+ lb fighters who could move like Ali, then yes, they would get beaten. The problem is that no such fighters have ever existed.
      5. You can't expect a figther above 215 lbs to fight like a welterweight.
      6. They have fought every top fighter in the heavyweight division.
      7. The Klitchkos can't help that they are among the tallest fighters in their division. That's like saying Ali wasn't great because he never fought anyone faster than him.
      8. Do you mean to tell me that every single American 6'4" 230lbs and larger plays in the NBA?
      9. 99% of Americans believe that the fighters from the 70's would beat the Klitschkos.
      10. Give examples of when the Klitschkos fought Americans with similar reach and nearly lost. You embarass yourself by suggesting that nobody in the NBA was serious about basketball when Chaimberlain was playing.
      11. Agreed, Peter is not American. He is a strong and dangerous fighter, reminds me of Earnie Shavers, who Ali and Holmes get a ton of credit for beating.
      12. Agreed, Vitali should never have quit against Byrd.
      13. Ali was younger than Vitali when he lost to Holmes and Berbeck. It's not the Klitschkos fault that they are too smart to deliberately let heavyweight boxers hit them in the head for years so that they develop parkinsons when they are 40.
      14. When Ali was fast enough to run circles around the Kiltschkos, he was barely 200lbs and inexperienced. IMO, he would have been knocked out.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
      • Tommo says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5689 Tommo (2013-03-26th)

        Every SINGLE point, absolutely nails it. And from an American as well =P See admin they aren't so bad lol

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • Tommo says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5691 Tommo (2013-03-26th)

          I personally enjoyed counter argument number 13 the most lol. I did not know drug addiction and sports go together in Canada, the guy is trippin 14 times over lol.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • pery says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Tajy Xore]
    #5023 pery (2012-10-15th)

    You forget to mention, Vitali avenges the losses of Wladimir and vice versa…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Tommo says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
    #5690 Tommo (2013-03-26th)

    Admin, you started this thing as the "heavyweightblog" not the Wladimir blog. You should consider that there are other good boxers out there other than Wladimir.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xisu Napy]
    #5896 Honza (2013-04-03rd)

    I think even some Ali fants or Ali fans can admit that both Klitschkos are already ATG boxers. They have not much more to prove. They already showed what kind of boxers they are. Almost always dominating their oponents. One good example: Chambers vs. Adamek was fight of two very good boxers yet not even one had any chance against Klitschkos. I also still believe that boxers from 90s were better than most of todays boxers.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Loze Xivu]
      #6381 Tommo (2013-07-28th)

      I have learned from my time on this site that there are Klitschko fans who are pretty bad too. But if you want to see BAD Ali fans you should take a look at ESB (Boxing News 24 Forum) particularly the Classic board.

      You will NEVER find such a bunch of absolute nuthuggers who would NEVER admit that Wlad was an ATG even if he defeated a Siberian tiger! lol

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • JERRY says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Sore Kivu]
    #6170 JERRY (2013-05-10th)

    YOU ARE SO CORRECT ABOUT THE KLITCHKOS BEING GREAT .YOU BACK UP SOMETHING WITH STATS WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED THE HEAVYWEIGHTS LIKE MOST OTHER ATHLETHES ARE GETTING BIGGER AND STRONGER . WHAT WAS THE GREAT BOMBER EARNIE SHAVERS 190 LBS ? MARCIANNO185? AND THE KLITCHKOS ALONG WITH LENNOX LEWIS WERE NOT JUST BIG MEN THEY WERE GOOD BIG MEN. . THEY KNOW HOW TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR GREAT GIFT SIZE HEIGHT STRENGTH .MANY OF THE PAST FAMOUS HEAVYWEIGHTS WOULD BE JUST CRUISER WEIGHTS TODAY . AND EVEN IF THEY WERENT CRUISER WEIGHTS THERE RESUME IS FILLED WITH WHAT WOULD BE CRUISER WEIGHTS VICTORIES .i DONT UNDERSTAND WHEN FLOYD MAYWEATHER FIGHTS A GREAT DEFENSIVE FIGHGT HE GETS ALL THE CREDIT IN THE WORLD AS HE SHOULD. BUT LET THE KLITCHKOS PICK APART A OPPONENT WHILE NOT GETTING HIT MUCH, AND KO THEIR OPPONENT . THEY ARE SAID TO BE BORING .i DONT KNOW IF THERE TO GOOD FOR THERE OWN GOOD ITS RACISM OR WHAT ?BUT i HAVE NEVER SEEN CREDIT SO GRUDINGLY GIVEN TO TWO GREAT ATHLETEHES ANYWHERE .AND CREDIT NOT BEING GIVEN TO WLAD BECAUSE HE HAS A SUSPECT CHIN IS BS . BECAUSE HIS BROTHER VITALI WHO HAS NEVER BEEN DOWN ONCE. HAS A IRON CHIN ONE OF THE BEST OF ALL CHAMPS EVER AND HE DOSNT GET ANY CREDIT EITHER .

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

  • Write a comment

    :wink: :twisted: :roll: :oops: :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :evil: :cry: :arrow: :?: :-| :-x :-o :-P :-D :-? :-) :( :!: 8-O 8-)
    Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Cookies