Who is the better Klitschko and why

[steeluv]

Vitali is the better two of the, although I'm not sure he has much time left.
Yes he was up on points against Lewis, although the fight had barely started and the last round was won by Lewis, generally experts believe the tide was turning in Lewis favour, this was the worst version of Lewis, who still managed to get a TKO. Klitscho nut huggers get real, but they never are V Klitscho is a very good technical boxer, but the heavyweight division has been very poor. Lol at the White power dudes on here who believe prime for prime Klitscho to beat Ali, Tyson and Holmes.

[BennyST]

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.

Very probable.

[sonnyboyx2]

IMO Wlad is vastly superior to Vitali in every aspect of the sport, Vitali is good at "Being Big" nothing else, his legs have gone and his boxing ability is very limited indeed, Wlad can jab and throw an overhand right whereas Vitali paw's with his left and is incapable of throwing any punch other than an arm punch, Vitali's opposition has been pathetic throughout his career and is weaker than what Wlad's opponents have been, Both brothers are "Lumbering Behemoths" with very limited boxing skills yet both are excellent at "Being Big" and when fighting limited opponents like they have been then those opponents have not been able to deal with the brother's size.

[jrosales13]

In a H2H match up Vitaly probably be wins. I also think he is more durable.

However, Wlad is greater, I think his resume is superior and I think he is a sure fire HOF'er. While Vitaly I am not so sure of.

[jrosales13]

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...?

Good post

I been saying this same thing over at NSB.

[bojangles1987]

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 can't give you green for this or I would. Great post. Lewis didn't accidentally turn Vitali's face into a Terminator impersonation, he was aiming those punches with the intent of shredding Vitali's face.

Vitali's career would have been ended that night if that fight kept going.

[RubenSonny]

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...?

great great post. Weak facial tissue is the same as a weak chin.

[Die Antwoord]

Weak facial tissue, tell me, when else had Vitali been cut. Wow, you are going to try to attack a mans legacy because he got cut in one fight and then the guy who cut him refused to fight him again. Refused. Flat out retired after trying to find a way to fight again and not fight Vitali. Lennox has said he has had nightmares of Vitali ever since, has PTSD, sleeps with the lights on. Thats why hes no longer on HBO, because hes lost his mind.

Wow, Vitali got cut in one fight because of a glancing blow and then lewis attacked the cut. Im not blaming Lewis for that,g ood strategy. That doesnt mean hes the better fighter though. Phelps lost to 38 people at the last world event in an even he has 2 golds in because he pulled a muscle coming off of the block. Are the other people better? hell no, did he lose that race legitimately? sure. Difference, he will be allowed another chance to prove that the injury is what cost him, Vitali wasnt. Weak facial tissue...how many fights has Vit been in since that gash? And how many cuts have opened? Yeah thats what I thought. Lucky gash, Lewis retired like the coward and ***** who ended 2 fights on his back to journeymen. He fears Vitali, fears him.

Funniest thing is, Wlad is much better than Vitali. Much better. People on here are all like, "Why doesnt Wlad take people out in the first couple rounds like the ATG's." Really? Whose ALi taking out in the first few rounds who wasnt threatened by the mob to take a dive? Nobody. You know who takes people out in the first few rounds? Guys like Briggs and Shavers...guys who cant box and have to go for that sell out early KO. Why didnt Ali take Wepner out in the first 14 rounds?

Im sure that Wlad is sorry that 6 people have gone the distance with him. Im sure he stays up all night wishing to take more people out. Sure one of those 6 was a round 6 DQ, one was an 8 rounder, one was a TD in 5 rounds, One was Sam peter who he since revenged and finished, one was Sultan who has retired in fear, and the other was Chris Byrd

3 of his 6 non knockout fights Wlad would later face the opponent and KO him

2 Were DQ's or TD in the first 6 rounds.

1 was Sultan who didnt throw a punch most of the fight and hasnt fought since.

Therefore only one man can legitimately claim to have gone the distance with Wlad and to never have been knocked out with him. 1. 1 man. 1 man in 55 wins. Oh man, WHY DOESNT HE GET PEOPLE OUT OF THERE LIKE ALI DID? HE ONLY HAS 28 KO's in the first 3 rounds..Only 50% of his fights does he knock his opponent out in 3 rounds. OMG! What a girl. THATS ONLY 20 MORE THAN ALI HAD. And thats counting Ali's KO's of police chiefs, the paralyzed and the paid off.

Muhammad Ali- 8 KO's in the first 3 rounds of a fight
Wlad Klitschko- 28 KO's in the first 3 rounds of a fight

Why does Wlad insist on fighting like a girl and only sparking half of his opponents out in the first 3 rounds. I dont get it.

[BigStereotype]

Vitali's tougher overall. Wlad has faster hands and more pop, but Vitali's more willing to gut it out and win while Wlad just seems fragile. Vitali's the better brother hands down.

[RubenSonny]

Weak facial tissue, tell me, when else had Vitali been cut. Wow, you are going to try to attack a mans legacy because he got cut in one fight and then the guy who cut him refused to fight him again. Refused. Flat out retired after trying to find a way to fight again and not fight Vitali. Lennox has said he has had nightmares of Vitali ever since, has PTSD, sleeps with the lights on. Thats why hes no longer on HBO, because hes lost his mind.

Wow, Vitali got cut in one fight because of a glancing blow and then lewis attacked the cut. Im not blaming Lewis for that,g ood strategy. That doesnt mean hes the better fighter though. Phelps lost to 38 people at the last world event in an even he has 2 golds in because he pulled a muscle coming off of the block. Are the other people better? hell no, did he lose that race legitimately? sure. Difference, he will be allowed another chance to prove that the injury is what cost him, Vitali wasnt. Weak facial tissue...how many fights has Vit been in since that gash? And how many cuts have opened? Yeah thats what I thought. Lucky gash, Lewis retired like the coward and ***** who ended 2 fights on his back to journeymen. He fears Vitali, fears him.

Funniest thing is, Wlad is much better than Vitali. Much better. People on here are all like, "Why doesnt Wlad take people out in the first couple rounds like the ATG's." Really? Whose ALi taking out in the first few rounds who wasnt threatened by the mob to take a dive? Nobody. You know who takes people out in the first few rounds? Guys like Briggs and Shavers...guys who cant box and have to go for that sell out early KO. Why didnt Ali take Wepner out in the first 14 rounds?

Im sure that Wlad is sorry that 6 people have gone the distance with him. Im sure he stays up all night wishing to take more people out. Sure one of those 6 was a round 6 DQ, one was an 8 rounder, one was a TD in 5 rounds, One was Sam peter who he since revenged and finished, one was Sultan who has retired in fear, and the other was Chris Byrd

3 of his 6 non knockout fights Wlad would later face the opponent and KO him

2 Were DQ's or TD in the first 6 rounds.

1 was Sultan who didnt throw a punch most of the fight and hasnt fought since.

Therefore only one man can legitimately claim to have gone the distance with Wlad and to never have been knocked out with him. 1. 1 man. 1 man in 55 wins. Oh man, WHY DOESNT HE GET PEOPLE OUT OF THERE LIKE ALI DID? HE ONLY HAS 28 KO's in the first 3 rounds..Only 50% of his fights does he knock his opponent out in 3 rounds. OMG! What a girl. THATS ONLY 20 MORE THAN ALI HAD. And thats counting Ali's KO's of police chiefs, the paralyzed and the paid off.

Muhammad Ali- 8 KO's in the first 3 rounds of a fight
Wlad Klitschko- 28 KO's in the first 3 rounds of a fight

Why does Wlad insist on fighting like a girl and only sparking half of his opponents out in the first 3 rounds. I dont get it.

That wasnt what I was saying I was just trying to explain that being stopped on cuts is a legitimate stoppage....dumb child.