The Final Word on Wladmir Klitschko

[K-DOGG]

\

How about this I am a white Italian from Brooklyn New York I am in my 30's and I used to box. I love boxing and I give credit where it is due. Your a troll who lacks knowledge of the sport and speaks from what he THINKS he knows and I use the term THINKS very loosely. You can't even spell favorite correctly. I give Wlad credit if they had a hugging contest he would win a PLATINUM medal. He has a good jab, right hand combo, he moves well for his size and cuts off the ring. I think his brother was better then he ever was or will be. That being said Vitali lost to Lennox who in my eyes is TOP 10 behind guys like Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Marciano. As someone else said those men fought more often and for one belt.

In 1972 Ali fought 6 times........When was the last time any Heavy Weight fought 6 times in one year? Do you know what kind of a toll that takes on your hands your body etc? They also fought 15 rounds back in that era of boxing. It is like playing today's football with leather helmets....

Pretty accurate assessment of Wladimir. As I said earlier, it's not his fault that he came along in the era that he did; but when judging a career, the competition has to be taken into consideration.

Maybe Wlad wold have overcome if he had to dig down deep in a fight; but we'll never know cause after he got his scrap, he was never really challenged. He never had to get off the deck life,e Holmes and Louis, and Frazier did. He never had to come back in the face of an imminent stoppage due to a severe laceration like Marciano and Robinson and countless other greats. He never had to get off the stool in the tenth round, when he felt the closest thing to death in 120 degree heat and face down his nemesis in front of him in the rubber match of his life.

Wlad was very talented and very gifted; but placing him atop the mountain of all the other great fighters who came before him and paid their dues where he had an essentially free reign is ludicrous. Boxing greatness is earned through blood, sweat, tears, and great moments against great opposition.

The fact is when he was tested, he gassed out against Purity, imploded against Sanders, and had a panic attack after punch in himself out against Brewster.

He did improve greatly after those losses; but when did he fake his final exam to prove what he had learned? Peter? Haye? Povetkin?

For now, I'll place him in the Top 20. After further consideration, I might move him to 15 or maybe a tad higher; but I cannot fathom any universe where he has actually proven himself to be seated in anyone's Top Ten....no legitimate list anyway.

[Suckmedry]

I didn't say they were hit and run, but their style was and to some extent is still based on point scoring.

That's why you'll see straight lines, jabs and one-twos. Because that's the soviet system and it obviously is very very effective in the amateurs. They often stay amateur until their late 20s, so sometimes take that style into the pro ranks. Some have more success than others, but they generally make great amateur fighters.

Watch a guy like Lomachenko fight, amateur or pro, and tell me he's fighting in straight lines using the 1,2. Its all about angles and punches from different angles.

I think your thinking of guys like kessler or sturm who box in the classic euro standing straight up lots of jabs style, thats not soviet style boxing.

[beez721]

Pretty accurate assessment of Wladimir. As I said earlier, it's not his fault that he came along in the era that he did; but when judging a career, the competition has to be taken into consideration.

Maybe Wlad wold have overcome if he had to dig down deep in a fight; but we'll never know cause after he got his scrap, he was never really challenged. He never had to get off the deck life,e Holmes and Louis, and Frazier did. He never had to come back in the face of an imminent stoppage due to a severe laceration like Marciano and Robinson and countless other greats. He never had to get off the stool in the tenth round, when he felt the closest thing to death in 120 degree heat and face down his nemesis in front of him in the rubber match of his life.

Wlad was very talented and very gifted; but placing him atop the mountain of all the other great fighters who came before him and paid their dues where he had an essentially free reign is ludicrous. Boxing greatness is earned through blood, sweat, tears, and great moments against great opposition.

The fact is when he was tested, he gassed out against Purity, imploded against Sanders, and had a panic attack after punch in himself out against Brewster.

He did improve greatly after those losses; but when did he fake his final exam to prove what he had learned? Peter? Haye? Povetkin?

For now, I'll place him in the Top 20. After further consideration, I might move him to 15 or maybe a tad higher; but I cannot fathom any universe where he has actually proven himself to be seated in anyone's Top Ten....no legitimate list anyway.

wlad definitely fought in a weak era but its still amazing that hes dominated the way he has. even a guy like larry holmes who fought in an almost as weak era had some tough fights that could have went either way but wlad has rarely lost a round. that has to count for something coupled with the fact hes knocked out over 50 opponents. hes a top 10 atg imo but I can see where some people would have him just outside of it becuz of the weak era but anyone who has him outside of the top 15 is either clueless or a hater

[daggum]

does anyone actually watch wlad's fights or do you just go to boxrec? how do you just graze over the fact he clinched 187 times against povetkin? do you seriously consider that a "win" or even 49 times in 4 and a half rounds against pulev. do you ever factor in the cheating into the greatness equation and if he wasn't allowed to cheat what would happen...oh right we know because we saw him hit the canvas a dozen times before he started cheating.

[beez721]

does anyone actually watch wlad's fights or do you just go to boxrec? how do you just graze over the fact he clinched 187 times against povetkin? do you seriously consider that a "win" or even 49 times in 4 and a half rounds against pulev. do you ever factor in the cheating into the greatness equation and if he wasn't allowed to cheat what would happen...oh right we know because we saw him hit the canvas a dozen times before he started cheating.

not everyone just watches the povetkin fight over and over. yes,,,,that fight was a joke but clinching is a part of the game fool and most of the greats have employed that tactic to some degree. almost every fighter has had a terrible fight in there career and I haven't seen any clinching from wlad that was dq worthy besides the povetkin fiasco

[lefthook2daliva]

Wladimir Klitschko is #2 behind Lennox Lewis.

All these old boxers like Ali who only beat Americans were only champion because the Soviets weren't allowed to turn pro. Since they were allowed to turn pro they have taken over the sport, coincidence? Not really.

Wrong.

A teenaged George Foreman KTFO the best the Sovs had at the very peak of their power in 1968 at the Mexico City Olympics.

You really are pissed off about those donuts, huh?

[kiDynamite92]

I didn't say they were hit and run, but their style was and to some extent is still based on point scoring.

That's why you'll see straight lines, jabs and one-twos. Because that's the soviet system and it obviously is very very effective in the amateurs. They often stay amateur until their late 20s, so sometimes take that style into the pro ranks. Some have more success than others, but they generally make great amateur fighters.

Guys like usyk and Loma would fight in anything but straight lines.

[LacedUp]

Watch a guy like Lomachenko fight, amateur or pro, and tell me he's fighting in straight lines using the 1,2. Its all about angles and punches from different angles.

I think your thinking of guys like kessler or sturm who box in the classic euro standing straight up lots of jabs style, thats not soviet style boxing.

Guys like usyk and Loma would fight in anything but straight lines.

There's nothing general about Lomachenckho. I'm talking about 60 years of soviet amateur fighting, not the best product that's ever come out of amateur boxing.

Come on guys, have a little more perspective. This discussion was centered around 60s & 70s soviet amateur boxers.

And it's not a critique, just observation. Watch a guy like Klitschko when he first started out. Or Kovalev. Those guys have been blessed with unbelievable punching power, but the style is similar.

[Szef]

Joke list. What ranks guys like Patterson, shavers and baer over Wlad?

Which great results? Which results compares to defending your titles 15+ times?

Yes shavers was a strong puncher. Wlad still has better KO wins than Shavers has.

And losing by KO to an unheralded swede amd fighting The 2nd tier fighters of your era is better? Lol

klittard

If you try. I mean if you really try hard.







Maybe Wlad's schlong can go even deeper up inside you.

klitschko hater

Amateur boxing pre 75 was very very different from today.

Almost like pro fighting, except the Soviet's had the same point scoring style that many of them have today too.

Of course.

But the argument put forward was that the American champions weren't truly champions because they couldn't fight the soviet fighters of that time.

However, they did fight the best they had to offer in the amateurs which was very like pro fighting and they often found themselves stretched making the original point redundant.

dunno, racist?

[Szef]

as of today, wlad is no 7 on my atg hw list.