The Flaws of The Klitschko Brothers

[BennyST]

Prime Vitali beats ANY Hw in history
Known to throw 1000 punches in a fight
Never been down
Highest KO %
Defeated most undefeated fighters
Lost less than 10 rounds in his career
Never been defeated legitly, winning every round against Byrd when his shoulder went and was up against a tiring Lewis when the CROOKED USA doctor stopped the fight and robbed Vitali of a win against Lewis, same Lewis who ducked and weaved Vitali for 12 months after the fight before retiring because they were gonna strip his belt if he didnt have a rematch (Lewis wanted to fight someone else and when he was forced to fight Vitali he ducked him and retired)

---
Wlad:
Most True HW rounds fought
his technical skills offset his few weaknesses.
Has a very good chance to beat any HW in history (would smoke all the CW "HW's" from the "Golden Era" where the Americans dominated and thats why the Americans still clinging on to the past with their 190lb HW's since thats all you have to remember)
.

I guess too bad the Klitschko's werent born in the ****** and spent half their life in jail while being broke and owing the IRS money while being racist and acting like attention wh0res in the media? That wouldve made them #1 in America

I don't understand that one? I would consider someone like Marquez to never have been beaten legitimately (before fighting Mayweather anyway), but a TKO loss in seven rounds because you have one of the worst cuts ever seen, caused by a punch and your face is quickly melting off is about as legitimate a TKO loss as there is. There was no crookedness in that loss because of the Dr. They had already let it go on longer than is typical.

I don't know why people refuse to say that was a legitimate loss. When you get your face broken by punches to the point that you are in severe medical trouble with possible permanent damage, it's more than legit. Saying it was just luck too? Now you're just getting silly. What's the difference between a punch that causes a fight ending cut and a punch that causes a fight ending knock down? They are both possible ways to end the fight before the twelfth round without it going to points and both are as legit as each other.

Does that mean every single fighter in history who has lost because of cuts didn't really lose that fight?

I think it's about time we all came to the realisation that Lewis won the fight by TKO and Klitschko just got beaten. You can make the same ifs, buts, and could haves about any fight. "If Klitschko knocked out Lewis then he would have won the fight", or "If Tyson had knocked out DOuglas he would not have lost"......

Well, guess what? Klitschko didn't knock Lewis out. He got stopped. Tyson did get knocked out, but hey, we can say that if he didn't then he would have beaten Douglas. Does that mean Tyson never lost legitimately then? If we just say "If this had happened instead..."?

That's what it comes down to. Your whole argument that Klitschko hasn't really lost rests on the fact that he could have beaten Lewis if something different other than him losing by TKO had occurred. I could have been the greatest fighter ever, but I'm not because I didn't become one and gave up after a short, crappy amateur career....but I still could have been the greatest if something different had happened rather than what actually did happen.

So, basically, what you're saying is that we should just ignore what really happened and just pretend that Lewis didn't win because Klitschko could have won if he didn't get beaten instead?

Should Wlad's losses not count because he could have beaten Brewster if he didn't get knocked out? Should his KO losses to Sanders, Purrity and Brewster all not count because he might have beaten on a different night, or he might have beaten them if, instead of him getting knocked out, he knocked them out?

Revising history to suit our needs is fun. We can just make stuff up to make us feel better about what really happened.

[nomadman]

The way Haye was able to move around and make Wlad miss would suggest that Ali for example could make Wlad look very bad.

Anyone who can make Wlad work hard gets him gassed and there's a chance for a KO, particuarly in 15 rounds.

ATG's all have trouble with Vitali in my eyes.

He was making Wlad miss quite a bit, but he was getting hit a lot more and he lost nearly every round. I don't see too many positives from that fight for a potential Wlad beater.

[nomadman]

I don't know why people refuse to say that was a legitimate loss.

I think this is what separates a reasonable Klitschko fan from a Klit-licker, the ability (or inability) to cope with legitimate defeats.

[BennyST]

Are you hyping up the Big Finn, great A?

Hmmm, I'm very unconvinced by Helenius. A lot of people are saying he might be the guy to beat them, but that shows the sad state of affairs really. Helenius has poor conditioning, from the fights I've seen of his anyway, and apart from a few good, short combinations with power, I haven't seen much to think he could. We haven't even seen his chin tested properly yet. He is coming along well I guess and could make a splash or even win a title, but beating either of the brothers? ATM, and even in the next few years I could only see it ending in disaster for him.

It's Ovah: That's right. Fighters lose. Everyone can be beat, and 99.9% do get beat. It doesn't impact on what they achieve otherwise though. The Klit brothers are great in spite of their losses. So they've been beaten....Big deal. All fighters can be beaten and all fighters have flaws which can be exploited. Pac has been knocked out brutally twice and beaten by a drained shot fighter...he's still an ATG that has accomplished amazing things. Robinson got beat, Duran quit, Hagler got beat by a welterweight coming off a six year layoff! **** happens and fighters get beaten. Vitali got stopped by Lewis. He lost. Legitimately. I'm glad some people recognise it.

[BillyBoxing]

[FONT="Tahoma"]
Good solid post. Wlads flaws are hidden because of the terrible state of the division. That isn't to say he isn't a good fighter or is to blame for this, but if you can get away with it, than why not? He's earned the right to be called the best of his era but he wouldn't have fared so well had he fought in the 1990's, 70's and against many of the past greats in my opinion.

Look for this thread to be deleted as soon as the Klit worshipers see it and start trolling. The reality of their heroes doesn't sit well with many of these guys.[/FONT]

Klitards are horrible, but you sure have a problem too with the reality of those "heroes" like many people, expecially US nostalgic fans.

The fact is very few fighters dominated like Wlad, as far as Peter is a fat ass, Vitali retired, came back 4 years later without any tune up and beat up.

I think 70s fighters are overrated when it comes to fantasy fight, no I don't think Frazier beat the Klits, let alone Lennox, you can't compare, not saying Klits are greater than Ali, Klits for sure never saw fighters like Ali, Frazier, but Ali and Frazier never saw fighters like Klit, the big HW they fought were slow out of shape plodders.

[The Big Dunn]

Klitards are horrible, but you sure have a problem too with the reality of those "heroes" like many people, expecially US nostalgic fans.

The fact is very few fighters dominated like Wlad, as far as Peter is a fat ass, Vitali retired, came back 4 years later without any tune up and beat up.

I think 70s fighters are overrated when it comes to fantasy fight, no I don't think Frazier beat the Klits, let alone Lennox, you can't compare, not saying Klits are greater than Ali, Klits for sure never saw fighters like Ali, Frazier, but Ali and Frazier never saw fighters like Klit, the big HW they fought were slow out of shape plodders.

The same thiongs being said about the state of the HWT division and the dearth of talent during the klits reign is similiar (of course no internet) to what people said about the division when Larry Holmes was champ.

Holmes is still a HOF'er and a respected champ. Wlad wis a HOF'er. I'm not sold on Vitali but a number of poaters I respect say he will be. That doesn't change the fact that the division is exremely weak.

Is it really any different from WW? Floyd and manny great but the rest of the division not so hot.

[Jedi Vader]

I don't understand that one? I would consider someone like Marquez to never have been beaten legitimately (before fighting Mayweather anyway), but a TKO loss in seven rounds because you have one of the worst cuts ever seen, caused by a punch and your face is quickly melting off is about as legitimate a TKO loss as there is. There was no crookedness in that loss because of the Dr. They had already let it go on longer than is typical.

I don't know why people refuse to say that was a legitimate loss. When you get your face broken by punches to the point that you are in severe medical trouble with possible permanent damage, it's more than legit. Saying it was just luck too? Now you're just getting silly. What's the difference between a punch that causes a fight ending cut and a punch that causes a fight ending knock down? They are both possible ways to end the fight before the twelfth round without it going to points and both are as legit as each other.

Does that mean every single fighter in history who has lost because of cuts didn't really lose that fight?

I think it's about time we all came to the realisation that Lewis won the fight by TKO and Klitschko just got beaten. You can make the same ifs, buts, and could haves about any fight. "If Klitschko knocked out Lewis then he would have won the fight", or "If Tyson had knocked out DOuglas he would not have lost"......

Well, guess what? Klitschko didn't knock Lewis out. He got stopped. Tyson did get knocked out, but hey, we can say that if he didn't then he would have beaten Douglas. Does that mean Tyson never lost legitimately then? If we just say "If this had happened instead..."?

That's what it comes down to. Your whole argument that Klitschko hasn't really lost rests on the fact that he could have beaten Lewis if something different other than him losing by TKO had occurred. I could have been the greatest fighter ever, but I'm not because I didn't become one and gave up after a short, crappy amateur career....but I still could have been the greatest if something different had happened rather than what actually did happen.

So, basically, what you're saying is that we should just ignore what really happened and just pretend that Lewis didn't win because Klitschko could have won if he didn't get beaten instead?

Should Wlad's losses not count because he could have beaten Brewster if he didn't get knocked out? Should his KO losses to Sanders, Purrity and Brewster all not count because he might have beaten on a different night, or he might have beaten them if, instead of him getting knocked out, he knocked them out?

Revising history to suit our needs is fun. We can just make stuff up to make us feel better about what really happened.

Truly one of THE great posts this forum has ever witnessed.



Read my sig and you'll see that CONTAMINATION has answered your question regarding Wlad's defeats.

[SCtrojansbaby]

He's a lot better at it than he used to be. I recall him fighting fairly well off the back foot against Peter in the rematch. He still needs to set his feet to throw, but he keeps his composure and his eye for openings even under fire.

Ever since he got with Manny he has become an excellent fighter off his back foot.

[Mr. Invincible]

Vitali relies greatly on his height and that is why he would have problems with opponents who can reach him. Lewis did it with a wild right hand behind steady pressure, and that was a whole lot older, slower, sloppier and out of shape Lennox Lewis than the Lewis of a few years ago. He does not have textbook skills, more so he maximizes his height advantages with the awkward, unorthodox style he has, evidence of his ring intelligence and creativity.

However the same attributes that work against shorter opponents would lead to difficulties against men of similar height, even if they were not quite as tall as he is. The lack of a traditional defense makes him vulnerable for even the most telegraphed of punches, an overhand right which was Lewis's key weapon against him. His hands are extremely low and he backs up in straight lines, which works against short opponents who can only hope to work his body.

Chris Byrd did show against a young version of Vitali that he can be hit by a clever boxer. Byrd had no power to make an impact on Vitali's proven chin, but he put him at discomfort at times. I know most people discount this fight because of the injury, but it's one of the few times that we have seen Vitali step in the ring against a top heavyweight, aside from Lewis, Sanders and arguably Peter (who I never rated myself). Sanders too stunned Vitali, who did not react too well to being hit at first, but was able to regain his composure and dealt out a steady beating to Sanders who did himself no favours with poor conditioning.

Before making him out to be a near invincible force, you have to look at all the times he fought true top competition and acknowledge that he encountered some difficulties. This does not indicate that he could walk through any of the top competitors in the past.

Bolded: Sure it does. He was beating every man he ever faced as a pro barring injury. Byrd hit him with jabs and Lennox was just as good and sharp as ever for their fight. He was finally up against his equal. You don't have to admit it, very few Klitschko detractors do.

[-KPB-]

Because he has been fucking boring. In his younger years and the Mosley fight I never said those were boring.

TY for proving my point. From the decades that have passed, you have only mentioned 2 fights and one of them isn't even a Mega fight. If I remember correctly Tua and Ibeabuchi were never world champions either.

Yes, and Wlad has been boring....but funnily enough, I never see you complain about it...all you ever bring up is ******ed race issues instead of arguing with just boxing opinions/facts.....