By Frank Lotierzo
With Wladimir Klitschko's win over Samuel "The Nigerian Nightmare" Peter, look for thousands of articles on both sides of the isle on him for the next couple weeks, if not longer. The so called apologist will claim Wladimir is better than Lewis, Holmes, Holyfield and Tyson, which he isn't.
The so called haters will say he's a stiff and proved nothing against an inexperienced media creation, and they're wrong. I know one thing, had Mike Tyson got up three times to beat Peter, today he'd be talked about in terms of being the ultimate warrior.
Today media and fan bias is so polarizing it's outright ugly. Two weeks ago I got an e-mail from some genius regarding something I wrote on the Hagler-Leonard fight. In the article I said Leonard out-thought and out-fought Hagler. I questioned what message Hagler thought Leonard was sending when he stipulated - He wanted the fight 12 rounds instead of 15 - a twenty foot ring - and 10 ounce gloves instead of 8. I know how I interpreted it, which means Hagler should've seen right through it. Simply put, Leonard was telling Hagler, this will not be a rerun of you and Thomas Hearns.
Back to the boxing scholar's e-mail. In it he said that Hagler won the first four rounds and wanted to debate me on the decision. I replied that when he admits he doesn't know that he doesn't know, to get back to me. The next day a friend called me and said somebody posted on a boxing forum that Frank Lotierzo backed down to debate him. The reason being he was too smart for me. Yeah, that's sounds just like me.
The reason I didn't push the debate was due to how the guy started it. Not because he thought Hagler won the fight. I don't think that's a moronic statement. It was a close and controversial decision. One I'll glady debate with anyone. I just think there's clearly a better case for Leonard winning, and I'm a huge fan of both and don't like one more than the other.
But when you come at me saying that Hagler won the first four rounds of the fight without question, he exposes that he doesn't even know what he's watching. Regardless of anything that took place during the fight, if Hagler wasn't knocked out, he'd think he won. If he thinks the roads are dry after it pours, can I convince him they're wet? I can only speak for myself, but it wasn't a tough conclusion for me to arrive at.
Back to Klitschko-Peter. Due to both brothers being so polarizing, usually the content on them is shaded one way or the other and lacks balance. Anyone reading this, understand the following. I'm nothing close to a Klitschko apologist nor am I a hater. I'm a boxing guy before I'm a fan of any one fighter. I also know and recognize this sport is about the fighters, not the promoters, managers and television networks showing the fights.
With Klitschko-Peter history, what did we learn from the fight and what are it's ramifications down the road. First Peter. Some of the positives learned about Peter were obvious. He's very strong physically in terms of boxing strength. He does have legitimate power in either hand, but doesn't carry it throughout the fight like David Tua does. I sensed that after the eighth round it began to erode. In terms of sheer power, I think Tua is a better puncher.
Another question concerning Peter before the fight was his chin. His chin proved to be solid and good enough at least to keep him in the heavyweight mix. But it's not cast iron. When Klitschko had him looking for the right and nailed him with the best hook he landed in the fight during the last round, he almost dropped Peter. Why? Because Peter was tired, but more importantly is the fact that he didn't see it. So to say he's unstoppable is an overstatement.
The areas of concern are his stamina. He tired after five rounds in a fight that wasn't fought at a blistering pace. In spite of him only throwing one punch at a time with big gaps of inactivity during the rounds. His offensive attack is Neanderthal. He needs to learn how to come in punching so he can't be tied up so easy. His offense consisted of lead looping hooks and nothing more. Without any foundation to his offense, Klitschko had no trouble seeing and catching most of his punches. The net result is, Peter has to refine his game more to beat the top of the division, even one as pedestrian as today's. That said, Samuel Peter is a real threat against any top heavyweight and capable of winning a piece of the title.
For Wladimir Klitschko, this was the most meaningful fight of his career for one reason. He never went into a single fight prior to this one where a loss signified the end of his days as a legitimate upper-tier heavyweight contender, especially had he been stopped. Against Peter, Klitschko really didn't reveal anything that he hadn't already established as a fighter.
The thing he showed most was that against a raw, very strong fighter and puncher throwing one punch at a time, he could stick to his plan and not come completely undone. Did he prove that his chin won't be an issue down the road? No way. At the same time he showed that because of his size and offensive skill, when he's fearful of getting tug, it's sturdy enough to absorb one shot and not that easy to reach. I don't think his heart is an issue. It's not on the level of Foreman or Holyfield, but it's big enough for what's currently standing in his path to the title.
The thing that Wladimir showed against Peter, is that it's a mistake to write him off. Due to the dearth of outstanding fighters campaigning in the heavyweight division today. The truth is, Wladimir Klitschko doesn't have to be great to be dominant in 2005, and he's not close to great nor will he ever be. Both Wladimir and Vitali are undoubtedly a tier below Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Riddick Bowe when they were at their best. No doubt that will be construed as a slight, not nearly high enough praise for the apologist. For the haters I'm sure they see me as being a Klitschko groupie.
The final analysis says, Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko are probably the two most formidable heavyweights in the world. Partly because of their size and knowing how to use it, more so because they're fighting in 2005. Which something have no control over. They're certainly no where close to unbeatable, but they have to be favored over the other contenders qualified to fight them as of September/October 2005.