Who is the better Klitschko and why

[sonnyboyx2]

Who is the better of the two Klitschko brothers and why

[$Bullsfam$]

It shoudl be Wlad but he fights like a scared little 12 year old girl. If he actually went after fighters and took these bums out in the 1st few rounds like the ATG heavyweights would then I'd have a lot more respect for him. But it shouldn't take a world class trainer to tell you when somebody isn't in your league especially when your 20 ft bigger then them.

So I'd say Vital because he actually comes to fight and goes for the kill. Not to mention I think his resume is better especially since I think he should have beaten Lennox if it hadn't of been stopped on cuts. Not to mention his chins better too so he doesn't have any embarassing KO losses. Both of his losses of questionable.

Their opposite *** twins. Obviously Vital's a real man in a *****y era and Wlad's just a big girl.

[mickey malone]

You have to ask yourself what would happen if they fell out, and i personally think that Vit would kick Wlad's ass.

[StarshipTrooper]

Vitali easily. He has a much better chin than Wlad, he's much tougher than Wlad, and he has a much higher workrate than Wlad. Put the two in the ring together and Vitali destroys Wlad (assuming he doesn't take it easy on his little sister).

Poet

[bojangles1987]

Right now or prime for prime? Prime Vitali is a far better fighter than anything I've even seen out of Wlad.

[Sugarj]

Vitali easily. He has a much better chin than Wlad, he's much tougher than Wlad, and he has a much higher workrate than Wlad. Put the two in the ring together and Vitali destroys Wlad (assuming he doesn't take it easy on his little sister).

Poet

Cant argue with this.

[boxingking500]

wlad is alot better

[BennyST]

It shoudl be Wlad but he fights like a scared little 12 year old girl. If he actually went after fighters and took these bums out in the 1st few rounds like the ATG heavyweights would then I'd have a lot more respect for him. But it shouldn't take a world class trainer to tell you when somebody isn't in your league especially when your 20 ft bigger then them.

So I'd say Vital because he actually comes to fight and goes for the kill. Not to mention I think his resume is better especially since I think he should have beaten Lennox if it hadn't of been stopped on cuts. Not to mention his chins better too so he doesn't have any embarassing KO losses. Both of his losses of questionable.

Their opposite *** twins. Obviously Vital's a real man in a *****y era and Wlad's just a big girl.

I'm not trying to be offensive here, but why do people say this? It was only in round seven or something, and Vit's face was starting to fall off. If it had gone on any further, he wouldn't have been able to see and the longer it went on the worse it would have become.

But, that's all besides the point. A TKO by cuts after you punch someone is as legitimate a TKO as anything else. If you mess up someone's face so bad they are in danger of losing their brain matter out of the cut because it's so big, then it doesn't matter who might have won, because we know who won and we know that they won by TKO. What might have happened if he hadn't punched him in the face and hadn't punched him so that his eye was falling out doesn't really matter, because that's what happens in boxing. You both punch each other and if one guys face starts to fall off, then he loses.

I don't understand why this one fight causes such insanity among boxing fans. It was a close fight, regardless of who you like and in boxing, the rules are that if you cannot continue because of horrific facial injuries sustained by punches, then you lose the damn fight fair and square.

There is no controversy surrounding that fight. One guy won legitimately by TKO and the other lost. Just because he was up by a couple of points doesn't negate the fact that he still lost the fight by TKO.

People argue that Klitschko should have won and that it was as good as a win just because he was up by a couple of points? That's absolutely ridiculous. It's nearly as bad as saying something like "Hearns should have won the fight against Leonard. It's only a TKO win for Leonard because Hearns gassed and was exhausted, but he was still winning and should therefore be thought of as the winner in that fight". He couldn't go on though and that's part of boxing, just like if you have your eye smashed open by a punch and can't go on. The amount of fights in which one guy has lost by cuts, even while he was winning is amazing but mostly people don't go on about it because it's part of boxing.

There has been a topic on Dave Sands, the great Aussie MW. His only loss in many years just before he died was due to cuts in a fight he was winning quite easily against the 2nd top rated LHW in the world. People don't think of him as a winner in that fight .... because he lost it.

If a cut is opened by a punch and the fighter is good enough to open it up more and more to the point that the fighter can't go on, it's as good as winning by any other means....well, apart from by ten count KO.

Lewis won by TKO, no 'ifs' or 'buts' about it. Anyway, rant over. Not that I'm directing this at you mate, it's more of a general statement. As much to do with some other post I saw in NSB that said Vit is better than Lewis because he should have won their fight, even though he lost, and then beat Briggs better than Lewis. I don't understand how any of that works, but I think both points of view are idiotic. He lost to Lewis by TKO in a perfectly legitimate stoppage and beat up an old, shot to **** Briggs and won by decision....Go figure. Not sure how that's better than Lewis knocking him out in six and flooring the prime Briggs four times in said KO...?

[StarshipTrooper]

It's nearly as bad as saying something like "Hearns should have won the fight against Leonard. It's only a TKO win for Leonard because Hearns gassed and was exhausted, but he was still winning and should therefore be thought of as the winner in that fight".

Ummmmm.....I've seen Hearns nut huggers say exactly that. There's no reasoning with KoolAid drinkers I'm afraid.

Poet

[$Bullsfam$]

I'm not trying to be offensive here, but why do people say this? It was only in round seven or something, and Vit's face was starting to fall off. If it had gone on any further, he wouldn't have been able to see and the longer it went on the worse it would have become.

But, that's all besides the point. A TKO by cuts after you punch someone is as legitimate a TKO as anything else. If you mess up someone's face so bad they are in danger of losing their brain matter out of the cut because it's so big, then it doesn't matter who might have won, because we know who won and we know that they won by TKO. What might have happened if he hadn't punched him in the face and hadn't punched him so that his eye was falling out doesn't really matter, because that's what happens in boxing. You both punch each other and if one guys face starts to fall off, then he loses.

I don't understand why this one fight causes such insanity among boxing fans. It was a close fight, regardless of who you like and in boxing, the rules are that if you cannot continue because of horrific facial injuries sustained by punches, then you lose the damn fight fair and square.

There is no controversy surrounding that fight. One guy won legitimately by TKO and the other lost. Just because he was up by a couple of points doesn't negate the fact that he still lost the fight by TKO.

People argue that Klitschko should have won and that it was as good as a win just because he was up by a couple of points? That's absolutely ridiculous. It's nearly as bad as saying something like "Hearns should have won the fight against Leonard. It's only a TKO win for Leonard because Hearns gassed and was exhausted, but he was still winning and should therefore be thought of as the winner in that fight". He couldn't go on though and that's part of boxing, just like if you have your eye smashed open by a punch and can't go on. The amount of fights in which one guy has lost by cuts, even while he was winning is amazing but mostly people don't go on about it because it's part of boxing.

There has been a topic on Dave Sands, the great Aussie MW. His only loss in many years just before he died was due to cuts in a fight he was winning quite easily against the 2nd top rated LHW in the world. People don't think of him as a winner in that fight .... because he lost it.

If a cut is opened by a punch and the fighter is good enough to open it up more and more to the point that the fighter can't go on, it's as good as winning by any other means....well, apart from by ten count KO.

Lewis won by TKO, no 'ifs' or 'buts' about it. Anyway, rant over. Not that I'm directing this at you mate, it's more of a general statement. As much to do with some other post I saw in NSB that said Vit is better than Lewis because he should have won their fight, even though he lost, and then beat Briggs better than Lewis. I don't understand how any of that works, but I think both points of view are idiotic. He lost to Lewis by TKO in a perfectly legitimate stoppage and beat up an old, shot to **** Briggs and won by decision....Go figure. Not sure how that's better than Lewis knocking him out in six and flooring the prime Briggs four times in said KO...?

I guess your right. But still I still think that favors Vital though because he was actually beating Lennox where as most likely if Wlad took the same shots, especially the ones Ive seen again in some peoples sigs in "gifs" like this mean uppercut in that fight that Lennox landed on Vital use to be in some boys sig, I'm sure we can all agree if Lennox lands that on Wlad, that motherfuckers going to be out on his feet looking like Mel Gibson on road rage drunk as fuck on his feet if he's not laid out on the canvas sleeping.