Comments Thread For: Klitschko: Chisora Fight is 50-50, My Right Will KO Him

[vacon04]

They're very good fighters, but the division is weak any way you slice it. Put them back in the 90's and they're still top contenders, but do you really think they'd be steam rolling the comp as they are now?

Maybe not, but the main problem for them is that people bash them no matter who they fight. People were happy when Wlad fought Haye but after he dominated him now everyone was saying that Haye was completely crap. IMO Haye wasn't that good and didn't have a chance against Wlad but he was the best opponent available.

What I don't like is the fact that most guys says that they only win because of their size, which isn't true at all. They're big and strong, but they are also very athletic, they train at 100% and have very solid boxing bases. Wlad is a technical boxer with what may be the best jab in boxing, while Vitali is more unorthodox but he's a mater in the use of the distance and using his size to his advantage. There are some other tall boxers such as Helenius, Fury or even Valuev, and IMO none of them stand a chance against the K bros.

About the division well it may not be the strongest division, but if the K brothers weren't there the division would be very even, since there would be a lot of "top" HWs such as Povetkin, Helenius, Mitchell, Chisora, Adamek, Haye, Arreola, etc ... but since the K brothers dominate now everyone says that everyone else is completely crap, which isn't completely true at all.

[JAB5239]

Yes, but the 90s was one of the deepest HW divisions in history, just filled with big men who could punch and fight. Most divisions including Louis' and Holmes' would look weak after that.

Maybe, maybe not. I personally feel there was more skill in both those era's in comparison to today, though neither stand out as great. I started a thread some time back with the comparison of Helenius, who many were claiming as a great fighter, and Tim Witherspoon. I used footage of both at the same respective times in their careers and it was easily discernible who the vastly more skilled fighter was. I firmly believe we could do this with Dokes, Page, Tubbs, Douglas and others even though they've been relegated to fighting in a crappy era. The era Holmes fought in was actually very good from a talent standpoint, they were just underachiever's and drug addicts.

[JAB5239]

Maybe not, but the main problem for them is that people bash them no matter who they fight. People were happy when Wlad fought Haye but after he dominated him now everyone was saying that Haye was completely crap. IMO Haye wasn't that good and didn't have a chance against Wlad but he was the best opponent available.

What I don't like is the fact that most guys says that they only win because of their size, which isn't true at all. They're big and strong, but they are also very athletic, they train at 100% and have very solid boxing bases. Wlad is a technical boxer with what may be the best jab in boxing, while Vitali is more unorthodox but he's a mater in the use of the distance and using his size to his advantage. There are some other tall boxers such as Helenius, Fury or even Valuev, and IMO none of them stand a chance against the K bros.

About the division well it may not be the strongest division, but if the K brothers weren't there the division would be very even, since there would be a lot of "top" HWs such as Povetkin, Helenius, Mitchell, Chisora, Adamek, Haye, Arreola, etc ... but since the K brothers dominate now everyone says that everyone else is completely crap, which isn't completely true at all.

I don't see it that way at all. Both guys can fight, anyone saying different is kidding themselves. It's why I've always said they'd be competitive in any era and top contenders if not out right champions. My argument today is they're just not as good as many like to make out because of the comp today. I find Wlad boring, but I don't dislike the Klits at all. It's their fans I find ******ed.

[nomadman]

Maybe, maybe not. I personally feel there was more skill in both those era's in comparison to today, though neither stand out as great. I started a thread some time back with the comparison of Helenius, who many were claiming as a great fighter, and Tim Witherspoon. I used footage of both at the same respective times in their careers and it was easily discernible who the vastly more skilled fighter was. I firmly believe we could do this with Dokes, Page, Tubbs, Douglas and others even though they've been relegated to fighting in a crappy era. The era Holmes fought in was actually very good from a talent standpoint, they were just underachiever's and drug addicts.

I don't actually think the 80s was that bad in terms of HW talent. But my point is that compared to the 90s even average to above average eras look inferior. For the record I think today's era is weaker than the 80s but not that much weaker. And it has a similar probelem in that, although there are talented heavies around, they underachieve by not fighting enough, challenging each other or staying in shape.

[JAB5239]

I don't actually think the 80s was that bad in terms of HW talent. But my point is that compared to the 90s even average to above average eras look inferior. For the record I think today's era is weaker than the 80s but not that much weaker. And it has a similar probelem in that, although there are talented heavies around, they underachieve by not fighting enough, challenging each other or staying in shape.

And this is my point my friend. The Klits are good fighters, but put them in a better era and they're not going to be walking all over everyone and having the dimwitted saying they're the greatest fighters ever. In my opinion greatness is based on accomplishment and resume. They've accomplished much but the resumes are weak. Factor in skills and they really fall behind not because I think they're unskilled but because it's difficult to asses their skills against the current crop of fighters today.

[nomadman]

And this is my point my friend. The Klits are good fighters, but put them in a better era and they're not going to be walking all over everyone and having the dimwitted saying they're the greatest fighters ever. In my opinion greatness is based on accomplishment and resume. They've accomplished much but the resumes are weak. Factor in skills and they really fall behind not because I think they're unskilled but because it's difficult to asses their skills against the current crop of fighters today.

That's a fair enough comment.

[davros2010]

Chisora is going to win i have allready put all my savings on a Chisora bet

[vacon04]

Chisora is going to win i have allready put all my savings on a Chisora bet

I don't think that's a smart bet

[Tobi.G]

You don't like the Klitschkos because they defeated your favorite fighters.

I remember you used to have David Haye, Sam Peter and Odlanier Solis in your favorite fighters sig.

You deleted them from your sig because they're all KLITSCHKO VICTIMS.

Geez you are an good reminder! But i dont deleted them because they lost to Klitschko, i tell you why i did it:
Peter: Because hes shot and should retire and came in awfull shape against Vitali
Haye: I was tired of him and his trash talking even before the Klitschko fight
Solis: Actually i still like him but i want to see him coming back in better shape.

Me dont like the Klitschkos has nothing to do with beating these fighters AT ALL. I think they are just not real, they have a fake image in the media and most people dont see it. They play the role of Mr. Nice Guy. And Wladimir is a boring fighter.