Who is the better Klitschko brother?

[RubenSonny]

He isn't great but would always be dangerous against anyone much like Shavers and could potentially put a fighter to sleep if they made a mistake even if that particular fighter would generally have the skill to beat him.

Hes not in the same league of Shavers in terms of power and danger, Sanders proved he could only do it once.

[Spray_resistant]

Sanders didn't punch harder than Ernie Shavers or Foreman. And Both of them hit Ali very hard. Foreman took very hard shots from Morrison and Holyfield when he was over 40 without going down. That gives you an example of what seperates Wlad from some of the other ATG heavyweights.

So if he sticks around for another several years and accumulates a 20+ fight winning streak as champ against the best comp available regardless of what anyone thinks of the comp, there is no way he can ever at attain ATG status in your view because of a few early losses?

[StarshipTrooper]

Sure Vitali has a better chin and is tougher, Chuvalo was tougher as well, are you going to try and tell me that Chuvalo is greater then Wlad ?, no chance.

Hmmm. I'd say they're about equal: The difference being that Chuvalo fought in a much tougher era and has a won-loss record that reflects it.....and has a win over Quarry which trumps anything on Wlad's resume. I would also point out that while having a great chin doesn't automatically qualify you as great, a weak chin will more surely disqualify you than anything else.

It comes down to what they achieved not how good their beard is which is one of the only arguments you could make for Vitali being better (The other being work rate, what else does he have, really ?) then Wlad, Wlad has achieved a whole lot more then Vitali.

Loosing to a fat old inactive Lewis in your prime is not good not matter how you try to spin it, neither is loosing to Purrity, Brewster or Sanders but stop trying to make it sound like that loss should somehow make Vitali look better, it doesn't.

And Vitali has ?

If it comes down to only what they've achieved then neither has achieved anything. Bottom line: Neither has quality wins and dominating tomato cans doesn't cut the mustard by any standard. I would also point out that losing to a past it Lewis is a lot less egregious than losing to the Three Stooges like Wlad did.

Wlad has dominated the era and has racked up enough title defenses (As the real champ) and better wins too be rated clearly over Vitali who has nothing to his name in terms of resume, which should really be no.1 in priority when ranking.

I would point out again that neither has quality wins and dominating trash is NOT an accomplishment.

You're focusing too much on the bad of Wlad and just ignoring the good things, kind of an odd thing to do.

What's odd about it? Negative traits all of a sudden don't matter when rating fighters? Since when? Or is this all an exercise in extolling the virtues of your favs and not a serious attempt at analysis? Isn't that what NSB is for?

Bottom line is greatness is not easily earned and it's far easier to be disqualified as great then it is to qualify for it.....as it should be. If it isn't a hard bar reach then "great" loses any and all meaning. I, for one, am not into dumbing down standards.

Poet

[Spray_resistant]

Hes not in the same league of Shavers in terms of power and danger, Sanders proved he could only do it once.

He also stunned from what we have seen as an iron chinned Vitali and others have been complimentary of his power, its hard to say who was the harder puncher and doesn't really matter because they could both produce a ko given the right opportunity.

[joseph5620]

So if he sticks around for another several years and accumulates a 20+ fight winning streak as champ against the best comp available regardless of what anyone thinks of the comp, there is no way he can ever at attain ATG status in your view because of a few early losses?

I think Wlad should be remembered as a great fighter no doubt. I just think he gets overrated by some people. There have been a number of heavyweights better than him and that seems to be hard for some Klitschko fans to admit. You can't just ignore his losses as if they didn't happen. Especially when two of those fighters were never faced again in a rematch.

[NChristo]

Hmmm. I'd say they're about equal: The difference being that Chuvalo fought in a much tougher era and has a won-loss record that reflects it.....and has a win over Quarry which trumps anything on Wlad's resume. I would also point out that while having a great chin doesn't automatically qualify you as great, a weak chin will more surely disqualify you than anything else.

[/COLOR]

I cringed, really ****ing badly, I'm forcing myself to read the rest of the post just because I like you as a poster.

If it comes down to only what they've achieved then neither has achieved anything. Bottom line: Neither has quality wins and dominating tomato cans doesn't cut the mustard by any standard. I would also point out that losing to a past it Lewis is a lot less egregious than losing to the Three Stooges like Wlad did.

Bottom line is greatness is not easily earned and it's far easier to be disqualified as great then it is to qualify for it.....as it should be. If it isn't a hard bar reach then "great" loses any and all meaning. I, for one, am not into dumbing down standards.

I did not say either brother was great, but they don't need to be great be compared do they ?, Wlad has clearly achieved more.

What's odd about it? Negative traits all of a sudden don't matter when rating fighters? Since when? Or is this all an exercise in extolling the virtues of your favs and not a serious attempt at analysis? Isn't that what NSB is for?

The odd thing is that you are ONLY focusing on his bad points and only on the good things (of what there is) of Vitali, you don't compare boxers by doing that.

Vitali straight out quit against Byrd and lost to a old fat Lewis while in his prime, they're the 2 best boxers he ever faced, yet you haven't put anything about that in any of your posts.

The odd thing about it is your Bias when comparing, which is more for what NSB is for then actually comparing them fairly, aye ?.

(It's actually for talking about modern / latest news etc in boxing, but if you want to be like that then).

[RubenSonny]

He also stunned from what we have seen as an iron chinned Vitali and others have been complimentary of his power, its hard to say who was the harder puncher and doesn't really matter because they could both produce a ko given the right opportunity.

Your being completely unrealistic to nuthug your favorite fighter when you were *****ing about the exact same behaviour, Shavers completely outdoes Sanders in the fighters he has stunned, dropped, knocked out and the compliments of his power. Its pretty obvious who the harder puncher is if you look at it objectively.

[StarshipTrooper]

I cringed, really ****ing badly, I'm forcing myself to read the rest of the post just because I like you as a poster.

Underating Chuvalo are we? Did he not fight in a much tougher era? Does he not have a win over Quarry? And what win of Wlad's is over a fighter as good as Quarry?

I did not say either brother was great, but they don't need to be great to compare them do they ?, Wlad has clearly achieved more.

I do believe the question was who the better fighter of two was not who achieved more. Regardless, even if you think Wlad has achieved twice what Vitali has, twice nothing is still nothing.

The odd thing is that you are ONLY focusing on his bad points and only on the good things (of what there is) of Vitali, you don't compare boxers by doing that.

You focus on the traits that are the more significant. A weak chin is a far greater demerit than a lack of technical polish.

and lost to a old fat Lewis in his prime the 2 best boxers he ever faced, yet you haven't put anything about that in any of your posts.

I've addressed the Lewis fight a number of times: You're simply choosing to ignore it.

Vitali straight out quit against Byrd(But he's so tough!)

And Wlad wouldn't have quit in the same circumstances? Oh contrair.....they both have the same Euro amatuer mentality that dictates you don't go out on your shield. I have NO doubt that with a similar injury Wlad would have done the same.

The odd thing about it is your Bias when comparing, which is more for what NSB is for then actually comparing them fairly, aye?

The Boxing Scene definition of bias: Not rating a fighter someone likes as highly as they do.

Poet

[NChristo]

Underating Chuvalo are we? Did he not fight in a much tougher era? Does he not have a win over Quarry? And what win of Wlad's is over a fighter as good as Quarry?

So just put an emphasis on Wlad's losses but forget all of Chuvalo's and only count his one good win ?
Hmm, .
Wlad's whole career trumps his, sorry.

I do believe the question was who the better fighter of two was not who achieved more. Regardless, even if you think Wlad has achieved twice what Vitali has, twice nothing is still nothing.

Then we are arguing about 2 different subjects.
At least you finaly admit Wlad has achieved more.

I've addressed the Lewis fight a number of times: You're simply choosing to ignore it.

I chose to ignore it ?, all you've said about it is that loosing to Lewis is better then loosing to Sanders, Brewster and Purrity, you seem to count it as a plus for Vitali's career over Wlad's. Didn't even say anything about Lewis being fat, old and inactive, but because he lost it's to that Lewis while being in his prime it's a good thing ?.

And Wlad wouldn't have quit in the same circumstances? Oh contrair.....they both have the same Euro amatuer mentality that dictates you don't go out on your shield. I have NO doubt that with a similar injury Wlad would have done the same.

But he didn't, it isn't what could of happened, it is about what DID happen.

[StarshipTrooper]

So just put an emphasis on Wlad's losses but forget all of Chuvalo's and only count his one good win ? Hmm, .

Who you beat, and who you lose to counts. If you can't grasp that concept then quite frankly I don't see the point in the discussion.

Then we are arguing about 2 different subjects.
At least you finaly admit Wlad has achieved more.

I believe I pointed out he hasn't achieved anything at all. I was addressing your PERCEPTION that he's achieved something.

I chose to ignore it ?, all you've said about it is that loosing to Lewis is better then loosing to Sanders, Brewster and Purrity, you seem to count it as a plus for Vitali's career.

Wrong! I pointed out, not that it was a plus, but rather that it isn't as big a negative as Wlad's losses.....two VERY different things.

Didn't even say anything about Lewis being fat, old and inactive, but because he lost it's to Lewis in his prime it's a good thing? You need to include more then just names.

And you skip over the fact that the fat, old, inactive Lewis was better than the detritus Wlad lost to ON THEIR BEST DAY.

But he didn't, it isn't what might of happened, it is about what DID happen.

The both bring the same amatuer mentality to the ring. It's a function of sports culture they were developed in rather than some unique flaw of Vitali's.

And BTW, I'm not arguing that Vitali is one of the greats either. He's not. Neither of the Klits are. My argument is solely that Vitali is the better fighter of the two.

Poet