Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adamek says size not the reason Vitali is unbeatable

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Adamek says size not the reason Vitali is unbeatable

    By John F. McKenna (McJack):

    I have always believed that size is not the reason World Boxing Council (WBC) heavyweight champ Vitali Klitschk (43-2, 40 KO’s) is so dominant. True “Dr. Ironfist” maximizes his 6’7 ½” height and uses it to his advantage, but there is much more to his being a great fighter than how big he is.

    Now we have confirmation from someone who has been there and done that. Former light heavyweight and cruiserweight belt holder Tomasz Adamek (44-2, 28 KO’s) is speaking out about the one sided beat down Vitali inflicted on him on September 10 in Wroclaw, Poland. And for once we are getting some straight talk from a fighter who elected to go out on his shield rather than pull a “David Haye”.

    The “Hayemaker” who talked a good game did not have the goods where the rubber meets the road in July against multiple heavyweight champion Wladimir Klitschko. Haye’s started to make excuses before he even left the ring and went so far as to take off his shoe so that everyone could see his injured toe. The reporters did not buy the excuse. More importantly boxing fans who put their money down to watch a fight did not buy the excuse either. Haye was too eager to pull off his shoe and show it to the cameras. It all seemed so choreographed.

    Not so with Tomasz Adamek. Instead of going with the standard line “The Klitschko’s are dominant fighters because of their size”, Tomasz did not reach for the myriad excuses other fighters have used when losing a fight to a Klitschko, in this case Vitali.

    Adamek was amazingly honest in a recent interview with boxing news 24. He had this to say about his loss to Vitali Klitschko:

    “This night in Wroclaw, Vitali could have been five inches shorter and he would still defeat me, his physical qualities are just part of the equation.

    “Simply he was great that night and I was just average. The story ends there.”

    Shannon Briggs also had high praise for Vitali after he was severely beaten by him in October of 2010. Briggs noted that he had fought Lennox Lewis and George Foreman and said that Vitali is the best by far.

    When two pretty good fighters who have both fought Vitali pretty much come to the same conclusion as to how good he is, it is noteworthy and carries a significant amount of weight.

  • #2
    He's a great fighter no doubt about it. Anyone who thinks he wouldnt win or at least be competitive in any other era is just hating. He's got incredible footwork, good reflexes, solid speed, an iron chin, and good power. Throw in the fact that he's 6'7 makes him a challenge for anyone in any era.

    Comment


    • #3
      His size of course does help him but he is the total package.

      Comment


      • #4
        I strongly disagree their skills and arsenal is just too limited they would have been exposed a long time ago. Their size and athleticisms is about 80% of why they have been good and lack off any good heavy weights.

        Originally posted by Freedom. View Post
        By John F. McKenna (McJack)

        And for once we are getting some straight talk from a fighter who elected to go out on his shield rather than pull a “David Haye”.:
        I’m sorry but David Haye’s performance was way batters than Adamek.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm sorry, but it looks like Vitali hit Adamek too hard. I like him, but He's dilusional if He can't see that He looked like Vitali's son getting spanked. The face He had when He felt the 1st right hand should be the poster He has under: Be a Cruiserman

          Comment


          • #6
            adamek just being gracious in defeat... without their size advantages the klits wouldn't be as dominant

            Comment


            • #7
              Vitali could be 5'10 and would still be great, he'd probably have a different style tho similar to Tyson or Gamboa. Gamboa is a fighter who is short but it doesn't affect him because he moves around the ring intelligently. Yes, I know Gamboa isn't a heavyweight tho.

              Where I'm getting at, is that size is only an excuse if you make it one. Tyson was beating up on guys bigger then him.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by k1llu View Post
                I strongly disagree their skills and arsenal is just too limited they would have been exposed a long time ago. Their size and athleticisms is about 80% of why they have been good and lack off any good heavy weights.



                I’m sorry but David Haye’s performance was way batters than Adamek.
                fackin ditto, their height is the primary reason that the klithos have dominated heavyweight boxing for so long.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Abraham Reyes View Post
                  fackin ditto, their height is the primary reason that the klithos have dominated heavyweight boxing for so long.
                  And Tyson's height was the reason he dominated the heavyweight division so long.

                  Your comment is foolish because every fighter uses their body type to their advantage.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LegendOfLink View Post
                    And Tyson's height was the reason he dominated the heavyweight division so long.

                    Your comment is foolish because every fighter uses their body type to their advantage.
                    your comment is ******ed because Tyson had skill while the klithos rely on their height and just jab, it takes no skill to just stick out your arm.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP