Comments Thread For: 60 and 14: Klitschko Continues To Extend His Reign

[crold1]

Your selective reasoning is funny.

First of all let me point out that Wlad surpassed Tyson's record a long time ago, hence trying to convince others that a winner is worse than a loser based on excitement alone is a moot point.

Then let me point out that Tyson was probably the most exciting heavyweight of all times (inside and outside of the ring), who looked even exciting in his LOSSES. Hence comparing ANYONE to Mike Tyson is unfair. If you expect the Klitschkos to be beaten up (by a blown up light heavyweight like Evan Fields) and then out of frustration to bite off a piece of their opponent's ear, then I can assure you: This will never happen. The Klitschkos will never be as exciting as that.

But now my main point:

Tyson fought 81.5 rounds in HW world championships. He scored 10 KOs.
In other words: He needed 8 rounds per KO.

Wlad needs 9 rounds per KO in HW championships. That's only slightly worse than Tyson. (Ali needed 20 rounds per KO by the way, and that even includes bums, handicaps, sub-200 opponents and KOs in round 13+).

However: Wlad has fought 8x southpaws in his championships. (That's the world record by the way.) Mike Tyson has fought NONE. Not a single southpaw. Southpaws are the most difficult to KO. Hence to objectively compare KOrecords one should always compare orthodox to orthodox.

Wlad needs 8 rounds per KO against orthodox opponents. The same as Tyson.

Additionally a lot of Tyson's KOvictims had been KOed before. Hence there was a blueprint how to KO them again.

Once you compare
* world championships
* against opponents, whom no one else managed to previously KO
* against natural heavyweights (since you like to diss Mormeck) (= those who never boxed below 200)

...it turns out that Tyson managed to KO 2 (TWO) opponents (Biggs, Tubbs), Lennox 3 (includes Oliver McCall), Ali 2, Joe Louis (since he's mentioned in the article) 0, while Wladimir managed to KO 9 (NINE)!

And this already includes southpaws, hence Wlad is even better than this statistic already reveals.



1) When was the last time Tyson KOed anyone under six rounds in world championships? 1996 (= 9 years before Tyson's end of career). Bruce Seldon, a 6'1'' guy.

2) If Mormeck should't have been there then Michael Spinks (started at 166) shouldn't have been there either with Mike Tyson.

There's some interesting points here but the Mormeck point got me to chuckle. Wlad is a bad dude, but Mormeck was a terrible foe. Not because of his size but because he's just shot all to hell. That said, when you dust the class to the point where all your best foes are all "I'm not ready yet" a few Mormecks are excusable. Holmes had Marvis Frazier. Louis had some dreck. Longevity breeds occasional mismatches at Heavyweight because so few eras have had depth. Klit has fought a LOT of real top ten foes and has been doing so going back over a decade.

On Spinks: Spinks was still the undefeated lineal Heavyweight champion. He was exactly who Tyson should have fought then.

[hweightblogger]

On Spinks: Spinks was still the undefeated lineal Heavyweight champion. He was exactly who Tyson should have fought then.

Yes, exactly. That a guy like Spinks was the champ and Tyson had to fight him shows you in what bad state the division was. That a guy Mormeck was merely a stay busy fight, shows you in what good state the division is:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13125528#post13125528

[crold1]

Yes, exactly. That a guy like Spinks was the champ and Tyson had to fight him shows you in what bad state the division was. That a guy Mormeck was merely a stay busy fight, shows you in what good state the division is:
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...8#post13125528

Spinks was better than Chris Byrd, the guy Wlad beat for his first two titles. I know you're being part facetious, but I think what is really telling is that there have only been, ever, a handful of really great Heavyweight eras. Most of have been thin with a dominant guy up top and so we measure their dominance. Wlad, much more so than his brother based on quality of opp, stacks up in history increasingly well.

[Frank Ducketts]

That is a shame. The heavyweight champion of the world fought, and nobody watched or cared. Maybe they did care somewhere, but not here in America.

[BostonGuy]

Some say he should throw body punches. Why? Why fix something that isn't broken. Smaller fighters need to throw body punches to break their bigger target down, not him.

Wlad could easily 'exciten up' his game if he threw uppercuts to the body and to the head - presently he seldom does either. I've heard the argument "Wlad's a tall guy, if he throws body shots he leaves himself open for the counter." Here's my rebuttal to this:

Wlad could throw body shots without exposing his defense. Against Pianeta (and many of his other opponents) you have a guy in a defensive shell, gloves high and backing up; when an opponent is in that state you can throw effective body shots. Pianeta was open for vicious body shots but Wlad decided to play it safe.

[crold1]

Wlad could easily 'exciten up' his game if he threw uppercuts to the body and to the head - presently he seldom does either. I've heard the argument "Wlad's a tall guy, if he throws body shots he leaves himself open for the counter." Here's my rebuttal to this:

Wlad could throw body shots without exposing his defense. Against Pianeta (and many of his other opponents) you have a guy in a defensive shell, gloves high and backing up; when an opponent is in that state you can throw effective body shots. Pianeta was open for vicious body shots but Wlad decided to play it safe.

Actually, he landed some nasty lefts to the ribs as the fight wore on with Pianeta. It jumped out at me.