Comments Thread For: Klitschko To The Critics: Chisora Was The Best Available

[jimmy1569]

I am speechless............wow.......just.....oh my god......I don't even know where to begin with this s**t.

The Klitschko's are ATG HW's. Based on career resume, era, skills, all together, I have them around Top 16-17 on the HW list. H2H, they are probably just inside the Top 10. It's not their faults they fought in the worst HW era ever. But, it can't be ignored either.

Had they fought in era's with Liston, Ali, Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Foreman, Shavers, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Moorer, Bowe, Lewis (in his prime), theyw ould not have dominated the way they do with the average HW's that are around now. Samuel Peter, Corrie Sanders, Eddie Chambers, Chris Arreola, Calvin Brock.....they would not be Top HW's in the late 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. Theyw ould be stepping stones for the Top guys.

An absolute prime Vitali fought a way past it and 37 year old Lennox Lewis, and while he was winning, he didn't sominate AT ALL. He was up 4 rounds to 2, or it was tied depending on who you talk to, and that was a 37 year old Lennox against a peak Vitali, the better of the Klitschko's in my book.

Enough said.

You're a book of contrasts.. ain't you son. Let me start with your last paragraph & work my way up.... let's begin.. shall we... "or it was tied depending on who you talk to". You can talk to the hardest core hater of Vitali & they won't be able to tell you that Lennox won 3 rds.. esp. when Vitali landed 60% of the shots that connected in the entire fight.



Threw & LANDED more punches than Lennox in EVERY rd including the ones he lost on the judges scorecards.The 60% shots to LL'S 40% (156-102) punches.. INCLUDES jabs.. power shots & more stagger inducing ones... You KNOW the one type of punch LENNOX landed more than Vitali? It was a cut inducing one.. He landed one more of those than Vitali did... but to be fair Vitali did land one more broken nose shot than LL did.... Do we understand each other?


Ok... now to your middle paragraph & your assumptions that Vitali doesn't dominate in same said fashion he's done throughout his career if the names happen to change. ALL THESE great & good names you mentioned.. who says they're going to be as good or great facing the likes of Klitschko when they never have met fighter of that size skill & stature before. It works both ways...but we conveniently don't look at it in that fashion..



What you're basically saying is that those great to good names get to keep there stature of good to excellent boxing while Vitali doesn't get to keep his stature of domination.. Those guys didn't even dominate in any way shape or form the way Vitali has.. yet they're elevated because they had WARS & vITALI has had only one that was inconclusive..



More wars equals more parody EQUALS everyone involved gets there statuses elevated.. Alltime greats become greater than they actually were... good fighters & borderline journeymen like Norton or Lyle & glass jawed sluggers like Shavers become better than they actually were simply on the FACT they hung with a bonafide alltime great & even stole a victory here or there from them.... The KLITSCHKO'S who have completely annihilated nearly every fighter they've ever faced get destroyed by critics because of the fact no one has been able to really hang with them.. even when they've lost.. they dominated about 80% of the action. They have 5 blemishes collectively in 104 fights..



The ONLY time any one fighter has gotten the best of them was for a measly two rds. 4 of there 5 defeats were normal beatdowns they usually administer that turned into SHOCKING defeats right at the very last minute due to gassing out or injuries/cuts while winning 80% of those rds. Both brothers collectively win 90% of the rds when they've won & only goes down to 80% when they've lost & this percentage decline is only due to losing the last rd(s) of the bouts due to extreme circumstances that they were fighting under...



Those are the facts HATERS everywhere can't seem to fathom.. Sure I WILL definitely AGREE that ALL alltime greats of the past give them a better run for the money than the competition they've faced as that's a given. BUT LET'S STOP ADDING FIGHTERS that are less than alltime greats into that list.. We can honestly say for real that there's only 25-30 heavyweights in history that are REALLY alltime GREAT HEAVIES & the Brother's are two of them.. THESE ARE THE ONLY FIGHTERS THAT SHOULD BE IN THE DISCUSSION TO GIVE THEM A CHALLENGE... EVERYONE ELSE GETS DESTROYED IN THE SAME FASHION CURRENT COMP IS BEING DESTROYED..



Keep it more realistic & i can meet all the haters halfway BUT until you all realize that what you're all doing is taking alltime greats PAST COMPETITION & AUTOMATICALLY GIVING THEM A BYE AS IF THERE IN THE BROTHER'S LEAGUE... WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE A PROBLEM... KEEP the competition & discussion to alltime greats ONLY & yes this is what you're doing when you strip down all the bol**** & that's the REASON i came up with that top 10 list parody.... i was mocking HATERS entire theory & making fun of how idiotic all your arguments are about lack of comp & why it should take away from what the brother's have done.. esp. Vitali who has no fundamental boxing weaknesses besides injuries incurred.



I COULD GO DOWN THE LINE OF EVERY GREAT & FIND YOU A boxing fundamental weakness in his armor that is MORE of a flaw & deterrent to success than getting cut or injured..... that i can assure you... Mayweather... no power.. Marciano...not a master of the sweet science & no life stamina.. Calzaghe... no power & most of punches were blatant slaps... chin average... I just mentioned unbeaten greats that supposedly don't have weaknesses. The ones who've lost...E asy to find a blemish or two that's not cut related or injury based... Got it....... good!

[Mikhnienko]

I am speechless............wow.......just.....oh my god......I don't even know where to begin with this s**t.

The Klitschko's are ATG HW's. Based on career resume, era, skills, all together, I have them around Top 16-17 on the HW list. H2H, they are probably just inside the Top 10. It's not their faults they fought in the worst HW era ever. But, it can't be ignored either.

Had they fought in era's with Liston, Ali, Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Foreman, Shavers, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Moorer, Bowe, Lewis (in his prime), theyw ould not have dominated the way they do with the average HW's that are around now. Samuel Peter, Corrie Sanders, Eddie Chambers, Chris Arreola, Calvin Brock.....they would not be Top HW's in the late 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. Theyw ould be stepping stones for the Top guys.

An absolute prime Vitali fought a way past it and 37 year old Lennox Lewis, and while he was winning, he didn't sominate AT ALL. He was up 4 rounds to 2, or it was tied depending on who you talk to, and that was a 37 year old Lennox against a peak Vitali, the better of the Klitschko's in my book.

Enough said.

That is bogus. With the exception of the 70's and early to mid 90's pretty much every other era is comparable to the Klychko era. Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Holmes, Tyson all had the same problem.

People were claiming Volodymyr was ducking Chisora not too long ago after he had lost to Fury before the Helenius win yet now after actually having proven himself he's considered unworthy?

Look at Holmes Title defenses, the media would crucify K2 if they had a string of defenses like this

Weaver - 18-9
L.Spinks -10-2
Spoon - 15-0
M.Frazier-10-0
Smith -14-1
Bey - 14-0
Williams 16-0
loses to a LHW

Even the 90's which is considered a strong era had a old Holmes beat
Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight. Foreman gave Holyfield a tough fight and beat Moorer, Briggs and was close with Morrison. All eras including the 70's and 90's are alot closer than most fans seem to want to admit. If you think guys like Peter, Chambers, Arreola, Ibragimov, Thompson, Sanders wouldn't be contenders in past eras then you're mistaken.

[jimmy1569]

Vitali has retired the last 3 fighters he's fought & 4 of the last 12

Adamek = 150 days & counting

Solis = 325 days & counting

Briggs = 473 days & counting










Lewis = 3153 days & no longer counting.


Vitali is the only champion never to have faced the same fighter twice for obvious reasons... once you go Vitali... you never go back... only when you are in mid sleep & are in nightmare mode!

[JAB5239]

Vitali has retired the last 3 fighters he's fought & 4 of the last 12

Adamek = 150 days & counting

Solis = 325 days & counting

Briggs = 473 days & counting










Lewis = 3153 days & no longer counting.


Vitali is the only champion never to have faced the same fighter twice for obvious reasons... once you go Vitali... you never go back... only when you are in mid sleep & are in nightmare mode!

Yeah, because he ducked Chris Byrd!!

[Mikhnienko]

Vitali has retired the last 3 fighters he's fought & 4 of the last 12

Adamek = 150 days & counting

Solis = 325 days & counting

Briggs = 473 days & counting





Lewis = 3153 days & no longer counting.


Vitali is the only champion never to have faced the same fighter twice for obvious reasons... once you go Vitali... you never go back... only when you are in mid sleep & are in nightmare mode!

I wouldn't say that. Solis had to recover from a injury and is coming back as is Adamek. Briggs sutained some horrible damage but was not exactly fresh and making a last title run and Lewis obviously decided to retire rather han have a rematch.

It would be more true to say about Volodymyr imo. Shultz was 31 and retired, Brock retired, and Chambers seems to be done as an elite HW too. Haye and Ibragimov retired after their fights with him but both had plans too it wasn't due to their fights with him.

[jimmy1569]

Yeah, because he ducked Chris Byrd!!

Last I checked... wasn't it Byrd who fought Wlad twice in a row.. Seems to me he was rather content fighting the weaker link.. David Haye took the same course. Think about that for a second.. he was rather content in taking a pummelimg & a thrashing by Wlad TWO times than to go back in there with a 100% ViTALI with both shoulders intact. Me thinks he made a smart career decision as from all the common opponents both bros have faced Byrd is the only one of the opponents who was luckily spared the bigger beatdown by the more ruthless & non repenting bigger bro.

[jimmy1569]

I wouldn't say that. Solis had to recover from a injury and is coming back as is Adamek. Briggs sutained some horrible damage but was not exactly fresh and making a last title run and Lewis obviously decided to retire rather han have a rematch.

It would be more true to say about Volodymyr imo. Shultz was 31 and retired, Brock retired, and Chambers seems to be done as an elite HW too. Haye and Ibragimov retired after their fights with him but both had plans too it wasn't due to their fights with him.

Wlad.... has retired unofficially about 6 or 7 fighters... Vitali has retired 5 but has had 14 fewer opponents.. Until one gets back in the ring.. they are retired.. unofficially. Vitali caused Solis' injury but let's keep pretending that it was Solis's fault.

[JAB5239]

Last I checked... wasn't it Byrd who fought Wlad twice in a row.. Seems to me he was rather content fighting the weaker link.. David Haye took the same course. Think about that for a second.. he was rather content in taking a pummelimg & a thrashing by Wlad TWO times than to go back in there with a 100% ViTALI with both shoulders intact. Me thinks he made a smart career decision as from all the common opponents both bros have faced Byrd is the only one of the opponents who was luckily spared the bigger beatdown by the more ruthless & non repenting bigger bro.

Last time I checked Wlad and Byrd fought 5 years apart, not twice in a row. And of course Byrd rematched Wlad, he was afraid of no fighter and wanted the absolute best heavyweight at the time. It was on Vitaly's shoulders to redeem himself after quitting by pushing for the Byrd rematch. But like you said, "he had bigger fish to fry" with the likes of Hoffman, Norris, Puritty, Bean and Donald.

[-Deal With It-]

That is bogus. With the exception of the 70's and early to mid 90's pretty much every other era is comparable to the Klychko era. Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Holmes, Tyson all had the same problem.

Complete and utter horseshit. The only thing that contenders from MOST of those eras have in common with contenders from current era is that they all have 2 arms, 2 legs, a torso and a head. And that's where the comparisons end.

In just about all eras previous to the current one, contenders proved their worth against other highly ranked Heavyweights before they were granted a title shot, in this current era, all you have to do is pad your record with about 40 gazillion tomato cans and then you're granted a shot at the title.

These days, a so called "top Heavyweight" can have about a decade of pro experience, 20-30 PRO fights, 100+ amateur fight background (I.E. Povetkin, Boytsov, Dimentrenko) be ranked in the top 10, and can still claim to not be "ready" or developed enough for a shot at a Heavyweight title. That's fuggen ridiculous! And It's unprecedented. This is just one of many examples of how terrible the current crop of contenders are compared to their predecessors. The current contenders refuse to prove their worth against fellow top contenders and/or the Heavyweight champ, so we can't even accurately assess their true standing.

Look at Holmes Title defenses, the media would crucify K2 if they had a string of defenses like this

Weaver - 18-9
L.Spinks -10-2
Spoon - 15-0
M.Frazier-10-0
Smith -14-1
Bey - 14-0
Williams 16-0
loses to a LHW

To the untrained eye of a boxrec/wikipedia scholar and boxing n00b only familiar with the era of record padding and protected fighters. Those records may seem a bit odd. But outside of Marvis Frazier (which was just a circus fight, that's the type of fight that Vitali's ENTIRE resume is filled with) Every single one of those gentleman were ranked in the top 10 and EARNED their shot at the title by beating other top 10 Heavyweights. Once again, keep in mind, this is a era PRIOR to the epidemic of record padding & protected fighters. Beating 35-40 tomato cans doesn't adaquately prepare you for a title shot anymore than say, beating 10-12 tomato cans and 2-3 top ranked fighters. In a way, facing nothing but dozens of tomato cans for years on end can actually hinder your development as a boxer, and there's ample evidence to prove this. One example. Povetkin was no more ready to face a Klitschko in '08 when he was coming off of several quality wins, but only had a little over a dozen fights. Than he is now with 20+ fights. Since going back to the tomato can circuit, it appears as though he either regressed as a fighter, or has simply stagnated. No development occured whatsoever.

Even the 90's which is considered a strong era had a old Holmes beat
Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight. Foreman gave Holyfield a tough fight and beat Moorer, Briggs and was close with Morrison. All eras including the 70's and 90's are alot closer than most fans seem to want to admit. If you think guys like Peter, Chambers, Arreola, Ibragimov, Thompson, Sanders wouldn't be contenders in past eras then you're mistaken.

The 2nd tier Heavweights of today, are far more terrible in every conceivable way compared to most 2nd tier pre-2000 Heavyweights, this is almost undeniable.

These are 2 B-level Heavyweights from the 80's

Note: The diference in skill level, conditioning, speed, athleticism, footwork & basic fundamentals (JAB, variety of punches etc.)

compared to...

...these modern day "sports science advanced" top Heavyweights

Note: The flabby bodies, fat rolls, poor conditioning, SLOW snail like movement, lack of variety of skillset, sloppy/lazy footwork, just all around boring, stale fighters with no redeeming qualities.

[nomadman]

You're a domb A$s for ******** with perfection.