By Frank Lotierzo
WBC heavyweight champ Vitali Klitschko made the first defense of his title more than eight months ago. In a methodical and dominant performance, Klitschko dropped Mike Tyson conqueror Danny Williams four times before stopping him in the eighth round.
Last summer Williams scored one of the biggest upsets of the year in boxing when he toppled former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson in the fourth round. Against Klitschko, Williams was never in the fight and took a one-sided beating before the fight was halted at 1:26 of the eighth round. During the fight Klitschko completely out-fought and out-thought Williams. And like Lennox Lewis learned to do later in his career, Klitschko is learning how to utilize his size and reach more effectively in each fight. In his last two fights against Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams, Klitschko was in control whether he was moving to his opponent trying to attack or stepping back to draw them in so he could counter attack.
Vitali Klitschko has emerged as the fighter to beat in today's pedestrian heavyweight division. Right now I think he is probably the most formidable heavyweight in boxing. Although if his brother Wladimir fights Samuel Peter, the winner may emerge as being a fighter who will play a role in the balance of power in boxing's Flagship division along with Vitali.
I'm sure for many of Vitali's loyal fans my praise isn't quite the same as they see it. Probably anything short of referring to him as an all-time great would be seen as a slight. But in reality, Klitschko has not achieved greatness, nor is he a great fighter, yet. I would vehemently question the boxing intellect or agenda of anyone who thinks he is. Like most athletes, a fighter's place in history cannot fairly or accurately be evaluated until his career is close to winding down.
However, that is exactly what is being said among some boxing writers and fans. Unfortunately it's not the first time a champion in the infancy of his title tenure has been prematurely validated an all-time great. The last heavyweight fighter anointed great before he achieved it was Mike Tyson. And Tyson looked more unbeatable early in his title tenure than Klitschko does at this time on the cusp of his second title defense. Sure, Tyson was a great fighter, but the greatness he actually attained isn't close to what some, due to marketing and promotion, thought it would eventually be.
Had Mike Tyson retired after beating Michael Spinks at 21, he would've wrongly gone down as one of the three or four greatest heavyweight champions in heavyweight history. And that's a perfect example why it's best to wait until a fighter's career has heard its last bell before attempting to place him historically. In the NFL, players have to be retired for five years before they're eligible to be inducted into the Hall-of-Fame. Not a bad policy in my opinion.
Now Vitali Klitschko is having expectations placed on him that he will probably never meet. Who could? That same mentality is a big reason why Mike Tyson has been both grossly overrated and underrated during different periods of his career. What I can't figure out is why a meaningful segment of the boxing community have to start attaching the G-word to his name? The word great is thrown around way too much today, and it's starting to lose some of its meaning.
As a member of IBRO, (International Boxing Research Organization) this past March we ranked the 20 greatest heavyweight's in history. Unbelievably, Vitali Klitschko actually received a couple votes. In fact I talk to some members who wanted to include him among the top 15-20, but where too afraid because they thought they'd be ridiculed by other members. Only the group doesn't act that way and all opinion are respected, despite being wrong. I mean come on, Klitschko is 2-1 in world title bouts. With the two representing Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams. I can't imagine any serious boxing observer suggesting such about Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis with their biggest wins coming against Sanders and Williams.
Vitali Klitschko is an outstanding fighter and is starting to ignite a little interest in the heavyweight division. Or at least he was until his recent run of injuries. Maybe when he retires he'll be remembered as one of the greats. However, he's not there yet! It's conveniently forgotten by some that two best fighters he's shared a ring with had their hand raised when the fight concluded. The truth is IBF heavyweight champ Chris Byrd and former champ Lennox Lewis, both appear on the loss column of Vitali's record.
It's also true that he was leading in the fight against Chris Byrd when he injured his rotator cuff. He was also ahead in the scoring against Lennox Lewis when the fight was stopped due to a severely cut left eye – which was the result of a punch landed by Lewis. The fact is, Klitschko went into the ring with two fighters and he wasn't able to finish the fight. Cuts and injuries are just as much a part of boxing as hooks and jabs. Great fighters have to be durable. A fighter lacking durability is in the same peril as one who lacks stamina or a solid chin.
Harry Greb, the fighter I consider to have the most impressive record of any professional fighter who has yet lived, was TKO'd by Kid Graves. Greb broke the radius of his left arm in the beginning of the second round and fought a full round in that condition. The fight was stopped before the bell rang for round three. The record book reads L-TKO 2. I Haven't heard anyone cry over this. Greb lost because he couldn't finish the fight, end of story. That was their only meeting.
Seventy years later the ring doctor halted the action in the third round of the Hagler-Hearns war to check the cut that was bleeding profusely over Hagler's eyes. Hagler's cut was opened from a Hearns' right cross. The doctor contemplated stopping the fight, but because of the magnitude of the fight he didn't. A minute later, Hagler fighting with a sense of renewed urgency stopped Hearns. Had the doctor stopped the fight, Hearns would be regarded as the greater fighter, not Hagler. Like Lewis-Klitschko, the fight was still up for grabs. Only after the fact will some attempt saying Hagler had it won. They're known as revisionist. Hagler beat Hearns just as Lewis beat Klitschko, period.
The problem with rating Klitschko an all-time great after just one title defense is twofold. What if he happens to lose, or is stopped in one of his upcoming title defenses in the next couple years? Sure, it doesn't look very likely now, but it's not a given that he'll go undefeated either. To me, Klitschko doesn't look as unbeatable as Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, George Foreman or Mike Tyson did before they fought Cassius Clay, George Foreman, Muhammad Ali, and Buster Douglas.
Would the assessment that Vitali Klitschko of 2004 could have defeated George Foreman and Larry Holmes go up in smoke if he is upset by Hasim Rahman in 2005? Another problem with prematurely rating Klitschko historically is no one can say for certain when he was in his prime or at his best. Again, a fighter should be retired or close to retirement in order to accurately rank him historically.
Arguing who was greater or who would've won between two great fighters in the same division from different eras is a boxing tradition. However, I have a rule that I adhere to, that is I must know for a fact when both fighters were at their best so I can evaluate them fairly. Recently I was asked to write a What IF Marvin Hagler versus Bernard Hopkins for a boxing magazine. Although Hopkins is still active, he's past his prime and on the down side. I know when and what he fought like at his best, just as I know what Hagler looked and fought like during his peak.
How could anyone even attempt to historically rank a fighter who has been a title holder a little over a year and just 2-1 in world title fights. Does beating Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders, and Danny Williams justify him being matched against Jim Jeffries, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield, and Lennox Lewis?
What amazes me is that a majority of those who have already seen enough from Vitali Klitschko to anoint him among the greatest of the great heavyweight champions, couldn't have been more wrong about the last fighter they viewed as a future great. For the better part of the last eight years, the most astute and knowledgeable Klitschko followers have been telling anyone who would listen that Wladimir Klitschko was the better fighter and had the better future?
This wasn't speculation, it was an opinion derived by those who adamantly chronicled both fighters for eight years. And despite having a 50/50 shot to be right, they were wrong. Now they say in absolute terms that the likes of Louis, Ali, Foreman, and Holmes, just to name a few, wouldn't have been able to handle Vitali? I find tremendous fault with that.
It was just a little over 10 years ago that Lennox Lewis was knocked out by Oliver McCall and lost his title. If someone said to me the next day Lennox Lewis would not only be remembered as an all-time great, but he would retire from boxing winning more heavyweight title bouts than any other heavyweight champion in history, other than Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, and Larry Holmes, I no doubt would've turned to them and said, "you're out of your mind!"
Is Vitali Klitschko an all-time great at this time? No. Can he retire and be remembered as an all-time great? Only a fool would say no, and I'm not a fool. Just as a majority of the great fighters before him had to wait before they were lauded great, I'll hold Vitali to the same standard.
