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

[The Old LefHook]

I even find conversations about the Klits boring. Neither will go down as a great heavyweight, IMO, but oversized question marks.

[QueensburyRules]

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.

- - Duran, Chavez, and Monzon ain't heavies so I ain't rating them there, but I do rate them highly.

The Ks were sluggers who boxed exquisitely, winning 95% of contested rounds before the denouement of a surgically administered KO, 85%, the very definition of Sweet Science.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Duran, Chavez, and Monzon ain't heavies so I ain't rating them there, but I do rate them highly.

The Ks were sluggers who boxed exquisitely, winning 95% of contested rounds before the denouement of a surgically administered KO, 85%, the very definition of Sweet Science.

You got me there . . . Must have said that 100 times on this forum, it's all about going for the KOs.

[Marchegiano]

I kind of rate based on my own feelings while including what I perceive as the public opinion.

Wlad's 10+ year reign ensured folks fight tooth-n-nail for his status so I include that in lists when folks ask ATGs. I might top 20 or even 10 him for that.

On technique alone I don't see how you can rate him very highly. It's difficult to think of any champions as limited as he is. Not h2h or resume, his athleticism, chin, etc, doesn't count because this is just technique. I struggle to not make him dead last or among them.


Wlad sons:

Sullivan maybe, he kinda did the same ****.

Maybe Corbett but really Sully was so limited all Corbett ever did was run away. They're about equal. Jab-n-run, jab-n-grab, thats a take yer pick. I'll give it to Wlad.

Maybe Jeffries? I read plenty about how badass he was but best I can tell he's a simple mauler. Hook-n-grab about equal to jab-n-grab isn't it?

Willard? Maybe? Seem kind of the same but Wlad's better at it while being softer.

Primo, again, kind of feel like he's just Willard 2.0 and still tougher than Wlad.

****, I ain't even picked one solid name to say Wlad is superior to. Only some maybes.







I'm not even sure I'd call Wlad more technical than the sad sacks he beat. Sam Peter isn't a fantastic peek-a-boo but he does it. Combos and dips and ****.

Along the same lines with early guys you don't see but reckon Wlad would whoop with ease. I'd favor wlad h2h against Burns but on technique alone Wlad has **** all nothing for Tommy Burns.




That's just looking at champions. Y'all know Tommy Ryan and Demon Walcott fought at HW....meaning technically superior to wlad in everyway even if they are no hopers in a h2h.


Oh, Wilder, again, does the same **** as Wlad. Wilder jabs, wilder clinches, Wilder throw straight rights and you might, on rare special occasions, see an uppercut. Funny how he got shat on for it and Wlad got praised but yeah, if Wlad is really just Willard 4.0, because you know Vitali is 3.0, and Wilder ain't **** but Willard 5.0

Hell just of them I'd struggle to rate on technique. I know Queen's gonna blow her tampon and there's a few other well bias dudes here but I can't hardly see much difference in technical ability between any of them I called Willard let alone rate them, but I'd call them all the lowest order technical HWs.

Willard, Primo, Wlad, Vitali and Wilder all got cooked by what? Dude with a bigger bag of tricks. Period. Not even better in some cases, just more **** to do. Joshua is very basic, Fury's considered some kind of god for having what all of 6 techniques he actually employs? Beat Wlad by listening to Chubby Checker and doing the Twist. Because they are so ****in basic. Don't take much to have a bigger bag of tricks than 3. If Wlad's got something other than jab, clinch, cross, and super rare uppercut he doesn't even know he has it.



Marciano you might not like, Marciano does more than 3 things in the ring.

Mike Tyson you may say has weak resume. Mike Tyson has a bigger bag of tricks than 3 punches and a clinch.

[The Old LefHook]

There does not seem to be much middle ground on Vlad. The knowledgeable folk understand he was not much, while over on the po' side of town in the Queensbree and Battilda red light districts, they think he was quite the fighter. But if all you have on your side is Battilda and Queensbree, you're already a loser in a low rent area. Remember that. Love 'em both, but those boys been riding my shirt tails for a long time and pestern me. People could get the wrong idea.

[Willow The Wisp]

Oh well. One can but try.

[QueensburyRules]

I kind of rate based on my own feelings while including what I perceive as the public opinion.

Wlad's 10+ year reign ensured folks fight tooth-n-nail for his status so I include that in lists when folks ask ATGs. I might top 20 or even 10 him for that.

On technique alone I don't see how you can rate him very highly. It's difficult to think of any champions as limited as he is. Not h2h or resume, his athleticism, chin, etc, doesn't count because this is just technique. I struggle to not make him dead last or among them.

- - Wlad and AJ two guys who could've been Olympic decathletes, so maybe you ain't got the email yet. Great athletes rely on great technique, and only prime Roy Jones and Mike Tyson can match the Ks "Career" overwhelming scoring dominance predicated by the first comprehensive use of the Big Man style of using height, reach, and footwork to stay defensively out of range while simultaneously staying in offensive range...you're welcome...

[Marchegiano]

- - Wlad and AJ two guys who could've been Olympic decathletes, so maybe you ain't got the email yet. Great athletes rely on great technique, and only prime Roy Jones and Mike Tyson can match the Ks "Career" overwhelming scoring dominance predicated by the first comprehensive use of the Big Man style of using height, reach, and footwork to stay defensively out of range while simultaneously staying in offensive range...you're welcome...

Sometimes you go so ****** I don't even know how to respond.

12 second 100 meters are not even close to olympic level.

True, Im running 13.5 - 12.9 at the moment however I have only just begun training, is that time an okay place to start at?

This kid in High School:Average 100 Meter Sprint Time By Age 100M Time For A Teenager? (ubraintv-jp.com)

Some kid in school started out closer to Joshua's 100 meter than Joshua is olympic times, but yeah, him and Wlad could run for **** all. Decathalon level.

Athletics = technique? Hmm, that's a new level of ******. Old Foreman was licking them sons with that athletic technical prowess

results=technique? Hmm, that's a new level of ****** given everyone Marciano fought on film showed way more technique while losing.

this was difficult

[Willie Pep 229]

I kind of rate based on my own feelings while including what I perceive as the public opinion.

Wlad's 10+ year reign ensured folks fight tooth-n-nail for his status so I include that in lists when folks ask ATGs. I might top 20 or even 10 him for that.

On technique alone I don't see how you can rate him very highly. It's difficult to think of any champions as limited as he is. Not h2h or resume, his athleticism, chin, etc, doesn't count because this is just technique. I struggle to not make him dead last or among them.


Wlad sons:

Sullivan maybe, he kinda did the same ****.

Maybe Corbett but really Sully was so limited all Corbett ever did was run away. They're about equal. Jab-n-run, jab-n-grab, thats a take yer pick. I'll give it to Wlad.

Maybe Jeffries? I read plenty about how badass he was but best I can tell he's a simple mauler. Hook-n-grab about equal to jab-n-grab isn't it?

Willard? Maybe? Seem kind of the same but Wlad's better at it while being softer.

Primo, again, kind of feel like he's just Willard 2.0 and still tougher than Wlad.

****, I ain't even picked one solid name to say Wlad is superior to. Only some maybes.







I'm not even sure I'd call Wlad more technical than the sad sacks he beat. Sam Peter isn't a fantastic peek-a-boo but he does it. Combos and dips and ****.

Along the same lines with early guys you don't see but reckon Wlad would whoop with ease. I'd favor wlad h2h against Burns but on technique alone Wlad has **** all nothing for Tommy Burns.




That's just looking at champions. Y'all know Tommy Ryan and Demon Walcott fought at HW....meaning technically superior to wlad in everyway even if they are no hopers in a h2h.


Oh, Wilder, again, does the same **** as Wlad. Wilder jabs, wilder clinches, Wilder throw straight rights and you might, on rare special occasions, see an uppercut. Funny how he got shat on for it and Wlad got praised but yeah, if Wlad is really just Willard 4.0, because you know Vitali is 3.0, and Wilder ain't **** but Willard 5.0

Hell just of them I'd struggle to rate on technique. I know Queen's gonna blow her tampon and there's a few other well bias dudes here but I can't hardly see much difference in technical ability between any of them I called Willard let alone rate them, but I'd call them all the lowest order technical HWs.

Willard, Primo, Wlad, Vitali and Wilder all got cooked by what? Dude with a bigger bag of tricks. Period. Not even better in some cases, just more **** to do. Joshua is very basic, Fury's considered some kind of god for having what all of 6 techniques he actually employs? Beat Wlad by listening to Chubby Checker and doing the Twist. Because they are so ****in basic. Don't take much to have a bigger bag of tricks than 3. If Wlad's got something other than jab, clinch, cross, and super rare uppercut he doesn't even know he has it.



Marciano you might not like, Marciano does more than 3 things in the ring.

Mike Tyson you may say has weak resume. Mike Tyson has a bigger bag of tricks than 3 punches and a clinch.

At one point early in the fight, between rounds, Corbett addressed the booing crowd, asking for patience, promising to open up when the timing was right. (Yea, he was running.)

But he didn't run away all night, obviously (KO 21).

Sometime after the 12th round, with Sully's legs finally gone he began what became an epic beat down of a great champion.

I am surprised by your remark. I thought I was the '****er guy' and you were the 'technique guy.'

I'm suppose to be criticizing Cotbett not you.

[Marchegiano]

At one point early in the fight, between rounds, Corbett addressed the booing crowd, asking for patience, promising to open up when the timing was right. (Yea, he was running.)

But he didn't run away all night, obviously (KO 21).

Sometime after the 12th round, with Sully's legs finally gone he began what became an epic beat down of a great champion.

I am surprised by your remark. I thought I was the '****er guy' and you were the 'technique guy.'

I'm suppose to be criticizing Cotbett not you.

I'd love to be the technique guy but I doubt I actually am. I'm just loud, you know it's true

I'm not saying Corbett was bad, just that being technical in 1890 doesn't require a very big bag of tricks.

I hadn't noticed until this post so I should probably clarify. I went based on how deep not how perfect. So like take Joe Walcott for example. He does more stuff than Wlad by a mile, but, I'm not sure I'd say he's as good as jabbing and clinching as Wlad is. So maybe I'm off talking about A while y'all really talking about B.

I don't mean to say Corbett was bad at running away until his opponent got tired, just that it's a very simple and basic game plan and because it's so simple I struggle to think of Corbett as a technical marvel but if the theme is who was very very good at what they did then I'd have both Corbett and Wlad very high actually.