Comments Thread For: Wladimir Klitschko Quickly Climbing The Post-Ali Charts

[extracurRICular]

By Lyle Fitzsimmons - So… any questions?

To those who’d branded Wladimir Klitschko a safety-first, violence-second pretender since a three-knockdown escape from Samuel Peter five years ago in Atlantic City, I hope you were paying attention on Saturday afternoon.

Over 10 punishing rounds on his adopted German home turf, the increasingly confident and subsequently dominant Ukrainian made another flawless defense of the championship status he picked up one fight after overcoming Peter in 2005.

And while I won’t pretend Thompson, Chagaev and Rahman are the Frazier, Foreman and Norton that Muhammad Ali dealt with four decades ago, it’d be hard to argue that Klitschko’s done everything needed to be labeled among the best in the division since “The Greatest’s” reign.

Just look at the numbers.

In 10 fights since the initial near-disaster with Peter, the 6-foot-6 “Dr. Steelhammer” has now gone 10 up/10 down, blitzing 10 unique foes with a combined 317-19-9 record, including six who’d either entered the ring – or recently possessed – a title belt deeming them a “heavyweight champion.” [Click Here To Read More]

/endofthread

[Pirao]

Wlad is a solid champion, but please, there's no comparason with the Greatest. The ingredient missing is Grace. Wlad is a robot, he wins, but there's no beauty or grace. Is like watching a bulldozer moving dirt. Who cares how much dirt it can move, it's just dirt.

Did you even read the article? Who compared Wlad to Ali?

[Roger Yomama]

I'm pretty sure he would beat Holyfield.

I think it would be similar to Bowe and Holyfield and to be honest, I don't think that Wlad has the heart to go all out in a war with Holyfield and would get stopped on his feet in the later rounds.

[Pirao]

I think it would be similar to Bowe and Holyfield and to be honest, I don't think that Wlad has the heart to go all out in a war with Holyfield and would get stopped on his feet in the later rounds.

Improbable, why would Wlad trade with Holyfield on the inside? He would just stay on the outside and outbox Holyfield all night.

[ChopperRead]

Did you even read the article? Who compared Wlad to Ali?

They just see the words Wlad and Ali together and go insane.

You can't ask for analytical thinking from some of these people.

[ChopperRead]

The problem for the Klitschkos is how bad they make everyone else look. Sam Peter, after he beat Toney the 2nd time, was hailed as the savior of the HW division. And we see what Vitali and Wlad have done to him. But take away the Klitschkos, and Peter would likely be a champion now. Without the Klitschkos, everyone would be marvelling at the great "parity" in the HW division, as most of the fights would be competitive, with belts being traded back and forth. But as almost none of the Klitschkos' fights are competitive, and since they barely lose a round, their opposition is painted as being worse than it actually is.

[Pirao]

The problem for the Klitschkos is how bad they make everyone else look. Sam Peter, after he beat Toney the 2nd time, was hailed as the savior of the HW division. And we see what Vitali and Wlad have done to him. But take away the Klitschkos, and Peter would likely be a champion now. Without the Klitschkos, everyone would be marvelling at the great "parity" in the HW division, as most of the fights would be competitive, with belts being traded back and forth. But as almost none of the Klitschkos' fights are competitive, and since they barely lose a round, their opposition is painted as being worse than it actually is.

It's true, the same thing is happening with tennis at the moment, some people are saying it's a weak era because Nadal and Federer are beating everyone. For some idiots dominance = weak era. Weak eras are just an excuse for haters to try an discredit the athletes they don't like, since they cannot be factually proven.

[Dave Rado]

thanks for this reasonable and realistic post/reply, this is not the kind of feedback I usually get from Klit fans

Well you sometimes get a bit inflammatory on the subject of the Klitschkos, and you can't really expect to get reasonable responses when you do.

I feel Wlad is getting there slowly, but this writer just set me on fire when he suggested beating the sacrificial lamb Adamek and that ***** Haye would make Wlad greater than Holy, Holmes and Tyson all of a sudden

He didn't actually say he'd be greater than them, just that he'd have overtaken them in terms of statistics.

my point is that one should get the credit that he deserves it's not because that Wlad doesn't have great competitors to fight that he should get the same credit that past greats had for fighting other greats while he beats up the Samuel Peters and the Chagaevs of this world

OTOH, completely penalising him because there is no effective competition available for him to fight is also unfair. The fact that he's consistently fought top 10 opponents (whereas most of the greats of the past fought their share of lowly ranked fighters in between the tough fights); the fact that it is several years since he's even clearly lost a single round; the fact that he has one of the very highest KO percentages in history; and the length and dominance of his reign; all have to be taken into account.

Also, the direness of his competition is greatly overstated by many people. Most of Larry Holmes' competition was no better. There was a long period when Joe Louis's competition was no better. Most of Jack Johnson's competition was far worse than the modern era. The Marciano era was very weak (and the HoF fighters Marciano beat were either way past their primes of undersized or both). There have been plenty of weak eras in the past.

And his skills, speed and power are hugely underestimated by most people in the US and UK. I'm getting very bored and irritated by all the idiots who keep writing that all he has is size, or that he's "lumbering" or "plodding". Some people who are paid to be full time boxing journalists, such as Kevin Mitchell of The Guardian, keep writing that sort of tripe, and it's just pathetic. Do these people really know nothing about boxing? Is nationalistic xenophobia their only motivation for writing about boxing?

He has one of the top 3-4 Heavyweight jabs of all time, and for such a big man, is possibly the most athletic of all time. He has great anticipation and accuracy, good foot movement, subtle upper body movement, a great right cross and a very good left hook. His speed is massively under-rated - he was out-speeding Chambers for long spells.

[ChopperRead]

It's true, the same thing is happening with tennis at the moment, some people are saying it's a weak era because Nadal and Federer are beating everyone. For some idiots dominance = weak era. Weak eras are just an excuse for haters to try an discredit the athletes they don't like, since they cannot be factually proven.

Yes, Federer and Nadal make the rest of the field look weak. It's not like Novak Djokovic or Andy Murray are bad players. Nadal and Federer (increasingly Nadal alone) hover above the field in the same way Wlad and Vitali do in boxing.

[ChopperRead]

Well you sometimes get a bit inflammatory on the subject of the Klitschkos, and you can't really expect to get reasonable responses when you do.



He didn't actually say he'd be greater than them, just that he'd have overtaken them in terms of statistics.



OTOH, completely penalising him because there is no effective competition available for him to fight is also unfair. The fact that he's consistently fought top 10 opponents (whereas most of the greats of the past fought their share of lowly ranked fighters in between the tough fights); the fact that it is several years since he's even clearly lost a single round; the fact that he has one of the very highest KO percentages in history; and the length and dominance of his reign; all have to be taken into account.

Also, the direness of his competition is greatly overstated by many people. Most of Larry Holmes' competition was no better. There was a long period when Joe Louis's competition was no better. Most of Jack Johnson's competition was far worse than the modern era. The Marciano era was very weak (and the HoF fighters Marciano beat were either way past their primes of undersized or both). There have been plenty of weak eras in the past.

And his skills are hugely underestimated by most people in the US and UK. I'm getting very bored and irritated by all the idiots who keep writing that all he has is size, or that he's "lumbering" or "plodding". Some people who are paid to be full time boxing journalists, such as Kevin Mitchell of The Guardian, keep writing that sort of tripe, and it's just pathetic. Do these people really know nothing about boxing? Is nationalistic xenophobia their only motivation for writing about boxing?

Excellent post. Totally correct on previous weak eras. The morons who say otherwise have no knowledge of boxing history. I also agree with you on Kevin Mitchell and I have posted to his blog a few times. He's a real jackass when it comes to the Klitschkos. I don't know what he said about Wlad's last fight and I almost don't want to know.