Wladimir Klitschko's "jab jab grab" in the firmament of all-time

[Willow The Wisp]

**Crickets ** I guess a divisional clean sweep, as illustrated, and the pure dominance explicit with that, for 15 years strait, ends the little talk. As it should be. The power of the knowledge. Didn't even have to bring up knockout ratios!!!
In truth I was really happy when time moved us past the Klitschko era to be honest, but a fight aficionado has to defend the fighter from slander.

[ShoulderRoll]

**Crickets ** I guess a divisional clean sweep, as illustrated, and the pure dominance explicit with that, for 15 years strait, ends the little talk. As it should be. The power of the knowledge. Didn't even have to bring up knockout ratios!!!
In truth I was really happy when time moved us past the Klitschko era to be honest, but a fight aficionado has to defend the fighter from slander.

Klit certainly beat most of the fighters who were around at the time. Gotta give him credit for that much.

However, I don't see many notable names there. Or anything to indicate that this was "the most competitive era ever." Those are negatives when it comes to all-time rankings

[QueensburyRules]

Klit certainly beat most of the fighters who were around at the time. Gotta give him credit for that much.

However, I don't see many notable names there. Or anything to indicate that this was "the most competitive era ever." Those are negatives when it comes to all-time rankings

- - Only fighter I can think of to beat a HOFer is Vitor Belfort vs Vander.

Non HOFers in the day ducking Wlad are that motley crew of Tyson, Lewis, Vander, and Big Dummy...you're welcome

[Willie Pep 229]

**Crickets ** I guess a divisional clean sweep, as illustrated, and the pure dominance explicit with that, for 15 years strait, ends the little talk. As it should be. The power of the knowledge. Didn't even have to bring up knockout ratios!!!
In truth I was really happy when time moved us past the Klitschko era to be honest, but a fight aficionado has to defend the fighter from slander.

Was it me you expected a reply from? You felt my remarks were slander? I think that's harsh.

I read your reply thoroughly and don't aggree. You and Bill are of the same mind and I respect both of you for you insights.

But I try to avoid the endless back and forth that usually ends up with both sides repeating themselves.

But if you want I will extrapolate on why I disagree.

[billeau2]

**Crickets ** I guess a divisional clean sweep, as illustrated, and the pure dominance explicit with that, for 15 years strait, ends the little talk. As it should be. The power of the knowledge. Didn't even have to bring up knockout ratios!!!
In truth I was really happy when time moved us past the Klitschko era to be honest, but a fight aficionado has to defend the fighter from slander.

I think at times it just becomes a matter of opinion. And I mean educated opinion. One of my favorite trainers Don Turner... the man that taught Holy how to triangulate Tyson on his heels going foward, not back, is convinced that Marciano would beat any heavyweight ever. He has his reasons for thinking this to be so...Its just not something that can be debated past a certain point.

My own feeling is that the ultimate falling off of talent occured after Lewis' reign. A lot of guys with a very conservative Ammy style dominated the rankings, along with other guys who were just not that good, or, as in the case of someone like Briggs... he had been talented, but Lewis really exposed his faults. I don't see much competition that sticks out for either brother. But I am biased! I have read commentary as early as the mid eighteen hundreds, from boxing trainers that have made the same statement: "The amatuer ways of fighting dilutes, and is anathema to great professional fighting as a way to train.

I also tend to contradict myself because I also think the Cubans are insanely talented and have a decent Ammy program that prepares fighters to be succesful as professionals.
I would not disparage any fighter, except being tongue and cheek, but I feel that while Vitalie could have been a massive talent, Vlad would not do much in a competative era.

[billeau2]

Was it me you expected a reply from? You felt my remarks were slander? I think that's harsh.

I read your reply thoroughly and don't aggree. You and Bill are of the same mind and I respect both of you for you insights.

But I try to avoid the endless back and forth that usually ends up with both sides repeating themselves.

But if you want I will extrapolate on why I disagree.

Nope I actually disagree with the Wisp on this one lol. Its all good...

[Willow The Wisp]

Klit certainly beat most of the fighters who were around at the time. Gotta give him credit for that much.

However, I don't see many notable names there. Or anything to indicate that this was "the most competitive era ever." Those are negatives when it comes to all-time rankings

For sure. Terrible era. But what could they do abot it????

[Willow The Wisp]

Was it me you expected a reply from? You felt my remarks were slander? I think that's harsh.

I read your reply thoroughly and don't aggree. You and Bill are of the same mind and I respect both of you for you insights.

But I try to avoid the endless back and forth that usually ends up with both sides repeating themselves.

But if you want I will extrapolate on why I disagree.

Hello. No expectations.
Yup.
Things died after Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe fell off; and they brightened up again considerably when Fury, Wilder and Joshua came into their own.
Giving this some thought; If I were pressed to choose a Single 15 year block of time between 1890 and today, 2022, the first 15 years of this century would be my choice as the 15 weakest for the heavyweight division. 2004 -2011 were abysmal years with only a few bright spots.
If anybody has a better choice for a consecutive 15 worst, I'd like to hear about it.
We should all be grateful that things got better and Boxing was never "Swallowed" by new generation combat sports.

I don't blame the Klitschkos for any of that. Regardless of whether or not one found their styles pleasing, they ruled the core of their era and ducked nobody. They did what they could and came to their fights in shape. They ushered in the era where the old 6'3" 215-225 lb. standard Ali model heavyweight become small. Most importantly my friends they opened up the 5th century of modern boxing; and showed us at long last (!!) what those tough Eastern European fighters could do after 75 years watching excellent Heavyweights like
Nicolai Fyodrorovich Korolyov (USSR champ 1936-53), Lev Mukhin (1958 silver), Vadim Yemelyanov (1964 bronze), Ionus Cepulis (1968 silver), Kamo Saroyan (1971 USSR champ), Igor Vysotski (USSR champ in the 1970s), Alexander Jagubkin (USSR champ late 1970s), Pyotr Zayev (1980 silver), Aleksandr Lukstin (USSR champ 1980s),
Vyacheslav Yakovlev (1986 bronze), Evgeni Sudakov (USSR champ late1980s) and plenty of others have to
Sit on the sidelines, unable to throw their hat in the ring because of being born under an oppressive government flag.

[Willie Pep 229]

I'm not sure who I replying to, so I'll speak to the room.

On regards to claiming greatness based on longevity . . .

title longevity in prize fighting is rare, (very rare actually) especially among HWs and does make one want to add the label 'great' to a fighter who achieves it.

But as a final deciding factor, to me it is not enough.

I don't believe in arguing weak and great eras of boxing, I don't believe they can actually be assessed and believe it a bogus argument used to diminish a champion one dislikes. A common practice on this forum.

So I won't offer it as an argument against the Ks.

Besides, maybe we are all wrong about the toughness of the era anyway, simply because the Ks were so dominate no other name could rise up to be noted. It's possible, maybe.

Where my argument against mere longevity, without a Wow! performance, (moments of greatness,) lies is in how it diminishes other great fighters who delivered more than just longevity.

Whether it is a magnificent performance(s), e.g Duran; a stunning comeback, e.g. Louis; an amazing upset, e.g. Clay; an unbelievable act, e.g. Dempsey; a fighter rallying from a beatdown, e.g. Marciano, or a fighter showing absolute dominance over multiple HOF opponents, e.g. Monzon, great fighters have delivered more than just longevity.

Let me add a baseball allusion that I might show respect or at least an understanding to the opposite opinions offered.

You take a good second baseman, who hits in the 270s, has a couple of Golden Gloves, and plays 16 years in the majors, but never wins a batting title, MVP or comes close to breaking a statical record, when he is finished playing we often refer to such a player as having been great. I get it, what else can you say about the guy, he played 16 season in the majors.

But was he actually great? I don't use the term 'greatness' with such generosity, and to me the Ks are more in line with a good second baseman with a .276 lifetime batting average and a few Golden Gloves than with someone who we denote as being truly great.

Futher allow me to put my words in context. Had Queen merely placed the Ks in the 7th or 8th slot on his lists I wouldn't have blinked an eye. I know he is a Brothers fan. But when I saw he had them second (on both his lists) I felt I had to give him some shlt about it. (Besides I suspect he would have wanted me to.)

I have to feel that such a high positioning can't be justified by longevity alone, it takes away from the accomplishments of a Duran, Chavez, or Monzon.

P.S. Being really boring of course adds to my bias against them. Probably wrong, but as I have stated before, entertainment is part of the fight game, it brings in the hero factor, and when you put fans to sleep like the Ks did, you just ain't gonna get called great.

[Willow The Wisp]

I'm not sure who I replying to, so I'll speak to the room.

On regards to claiming greatness based on longevity . . .

title longevity in prize fighting is rare, (very rare actually) especially among HWs and does make one want to add the label 'great' to a fighter who achieves it.

But as a final deciding factor, to me it is not enough.

I don't believe in arguing weak and great eras of boxing, I don't believe they can actually be assessed and believe it a bogus argument used to diminish a champion one dislikes. A common practice on this forum.

So I won't offer it as an argument against the Ks.

Besides, maybe we are all wrong about the toughness of the era anyway, simply because the Ks were so dominate no other name could rise up to be noted. It's possible, maybe.

Where my argument against mere longevity, without a Wow! performance, (moments of greatness,) lies is in how it diminishes other great fighters who delivered more than just longevity.

Whether it is a magnificent performance(s), e.g Duran; a stunning comeback, e.g. Louis; an amazing upset, e.g. Clay; an unbelievable act, e.g. Dempsey; a fighter rallying from a beatdown, e.g. Marciano, or a fighter showing absolute dominance over multiple HOF opponents, e.g. Monzon, great fighters have delivered more than just longevity.

Let me add a baseball allusion that I might show respect or at least an understanding to the opposite opinions offered.

You take a good second baseman, who hits in the 270s, has a couple of Golden Gloves, and plays 16 years in the majors, but never wins a batting title, MVP or comes close to breaking a statical record, when he is finished playing we often refer to such a player as having been great. I get it, what else can you say about the guy, he played 16 season in the majors.

But was he actually great? I don't use the term 'greatness' with such generosity, and to me the Ks are more in line with a good second baseman with a .276 lifetime batting average and a few Golden Gloves than with someone who we denote as being truly great.

Futher allow me to put my words in context. Had Queen merely placed the Ks in the 7th or 8th slot on his lists I wouldn't have blinked an eye. I know he is a Brothers fan. But when I saw he had them second (on both his lists) I felt I had to give him some shlt about it. (Besides I suspect he would have wanted me to.)

I have to feel that such a high positioning can't be justified by longevity alone, it takes away from the accomplishments of a Duran, Chavez, or Monzon.

P.S. Being really boring of course adds to my bias against them. Probably wrong, but as I have stated before, entertainment is part of the fight game, it brings in the hero factor, and when you put fans to sleep like the Ks did, you just ain't gonna get called great.

I accept all that. And remember too, we don't have just Great to attach meaning to. We have Interim great, NABF great, Super Great, and so on.