W.Klitschko's legacy

In 20 years time how would he looked back on????


And besides his technical style, is it just me that gives him a chance against great heavyweights from previous eras????

Dominant champion with a shaky chin in a weak era who uses his size well but isn't too exciting

has no legacy, none. Beat no one of real clas at HW. Can't say haye was because he beat no one of class at heavy either. Wlad also got sparked times, history will not be kind on him. Vitli will be spoke of better due to his what if fight with Lewis. But Wlad. Technically good, but a fighter that would have been fancied to lose to all the other top heavies of the late 20th century that he missed out on fighting.

Vitali imo should be remembered as a top 15-20 ATG heavyweight. Not sure about Wlad because he doesn't match up well against the greats his chin is to weak.

Wlad will be remembered as Vitalis weaker little brother and not much more, very little quality on his resume which makes the 3 KO losses even more damaging.

cant believe what people are saying!!! not the Klits fault the heavyweight scene is weak. You beat whats infront of you, I'm not even their biggest fan but people are being a lil too harsh.

But you can't rate them at all highly compared to other fighters who beat far better opposition, Vitali stacks up well against the greats whereas Wladimir does not.

The Klits deserve to be remembered for the unique quality they bring to boxing. The champion brothers.There will be a movie and the whole of Germany will go and see it. History will remember them fondly and exaggerate their accomplishments as they are the stuff of legend.

I think Wladimir gets a bit of a raw deal on here. For me, he should be - and will be - remembered as a very fine Heavyweight, just not of the elite or truly 'great' level. I do sense a degree of double standards now and then when people evaluate him; Schmeling, Walcott, Wills etc all suffered similarly surprising knockout losses as Wladimir has at certain stages of their careers, yet I never see anyone dismissing them as having absolutely "no legacy at all" or being "weak." The more I think about it, the more I find myself wondering why the same overly-critical eye isn't likewise cast upon Lewis' disasters first time out against McCall and Rahman. Of course Lewis' win column is far superior to Wladimir's, but the point still stands.

The Heavyweight division hasn't been much of a hot spot for talent since the turn of the century, I'll accept that. But even in such a climate, you simply can't achieve what Wladimir has unless you can fight a bit, so to speak. He'd be somewhere around the twenty mark in the all-time Heavyweight pantheon in my eyes, more or less on an equal footing with Vitali, and he may yet rise a couple of spots before he's done. Not an all-time great by any stretch, but certainly gets dismissed all too often on these boards, I reckon.

i actually think he'll be remember fondly, he will be a legend (or at least half of one) in germany, and will be remembered as one half of the most dominent force if the heavyweight scene since lewis. think wlad has the advantage of been able to fight for another 5 years if he wanted to (if he has the longetivty of his brother) so will be able to add to his own legacy as the division improves (which i think it is doing). vitali is the better of the too and has the more impressive cv, but if wlad fought another 10 times (which is only twice a year so very do able) then he could change that.

I don't think Vitali has a better resume at all. Wladimir definately edges it in my opinion, the two best boxers Vitali has came up against (Byrd, Lewis) he has lost to. Fair enough if he hadn't retired for 4 years and defended the title multiple times. But with another few years at close to his peak i think Wlad will comfortably be looked at as the better champion and boxer.

he only lost the byrd fight because of a shoulder injury, he was winning the fight. also lewis comfortably beats wlad for me, and vitali gave him a tougher fight until he was stopped on cuts. think arrola, johnson and hide beats wlads best wins of haye, chagaev and byrd. plus the fact that he had to get revenge for wlads KOs against purity and sanders and his tougher chin and higher KO ratio i think its hands down vitali at the moment.

I think Wlad's wins are better but thats just my opinion. Arreola is an overweight chump who's not even better than the likes of Haye or Byrd and i see no way of backing up that he is, Johnson fought nobody of note and was just cannon fodder. Atleast Wlad actually had to beat world champion's whether they are particularily good or not is up for debate.

Also Johnson was horifficly overweight, he was like 260 pounds. Can't complain with an early KO but he was hardly fighting a world beater.

The fact Wlad was stopped by Purrity, Sanders and Brewster swings it in Vitalis favour imo. Not much n their records but Vitali's loses haven't been as comrehensive. Against Byrd he was ahead and injured his shoulder, Lewis beat him fairly though but Lewis is an ATG.

Against Brewster he was ill and he just ran out of puff against Purity when he was young. To be fair it was well into his career before Purity got knocked down, not an excuse but these kind of losses have happpened to many world champions.

He's been sparked out by guys who aren't massive punchers. Vitali took some awesome shots from Lewis and took them. Wlad is maybe the more skilled boxer but Vitali is more well rounded if it gets rough he can get rough as well.

Scottrf wrote:Dominant champion with a shaky chin in a weak era who uses his size well but isn't too exciting

I like that. I'll go:

"Well-conditioned dominant champion with a shaky chin but good heart in a weak era who uses his size well; has excellent power but doesn't use it that often and so isn't too exciting"

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Dominant champion with a shaky chin in a weak era who uses his size well but isn't too exciting

I like that. I'll go:

"Well-conditioned dominant champion with a shaky chin but good heart in a weak era who uses his size well; has excellent power but doesn't use it that often and so isn't too exciting"

These sum it up about right for me. He's never displayed the kind of flair which gets people talking. I think that, rightly or wrongly, people are influenced by that.

Big difference being Chris that unlike Lewis, Wlad hasn't got a single good let alone great win to make up for those KO losses, in context of his career they are what define him, Walcott, Wills, Lewis etc. all have victories to make up for it

Haye is not a good win? Chagaev?

He has better wins than his brother.

Does amuse me there were more than a few tipping Haye to destroy Wlad but when the polar opposite happens that is not a good win for Wlad, most odd. However think people are being a little harsh on Wlad here, he is not a fighter who sets my pulse racing but for me too much play is made of his early defeats, poor as they were he was young and had probably not worked out the best style to maximise his assets and protect his weaknesses, since he has done this he has developed into a fairly solid, if unspectacular heavyweight, always in terrific condition and rarely loses a round.

Chris makes a very good point about Lewis, plenty on here are willing to forgive Lewis for having a couple of losses against guys he has no business losing to but Wlad gets slaughtered for the same. Head to head he perhaps does not do great against the elite of the division and his record ain't littered with mega stars but longevity and dominance is worth something at heavy and he scores well on both those points and in my opinion will find a place in the top 20 when the dust settles on his career.

rowley wrote:Does amuse me there were more than a few tipping Haye to destroy Wlad but when the polar opposite happens that is not a good win for Wlad, most odd.

Yeah

https://www.606v2.com/t3673-haye-vs-klitschko-prediction#71467

Thing is though.... Lewis avenged those losses without needing a big brother to do it for him

Scottrf wrote:

rowley wrote:Does amuse me there were more than a few tipping Haye to destroy Wlad but when the polar opposite happens that is not a good win for Wlad, most odd.

Yeah

https://www.606v2.com/t3673-haye-vs-klitschko-prediction#71467

Lol only 1 or 2 guys actually made the right prediction! Loads of the guys sayign klitschko would get knocked out and was useless are still saying he is no good goes to show that sometimes its lose-lose no matter what for a fighter some people just wont give no credit. Klitschko owned haye who was a quality fighter if people saying he is no good now then how come they backed him to knock klitschko out!

Waingro wrote:Lol only 1 or 2 guys actually made the right prediction!

Since you have started the gloating Scott, may as well join in. I called it for Wlad, only thing I got wrong was tipped Wlad to stop him

I don't think Wlad should be looked up on any worse than Vitali.

What has Vitali done that Wlad hasn't?

Basically, people who obviously didnt watch his fight v's Lewis, seem to think if it wasnt for an unlucky cut, he would have won.

Watch the fight, Lewis was overweight, out of condition, and basically tore Vitali's face off - Vitali hanging on in 5 and 6, and would not have gone for more than another couple anyway.

Neither have fought anyone of great note (as per above) but can only beat who is out there, and for that they should both be given equal credit.

Vitali is the stronger IMO, but his record isnt that great either, but alot is down to the era they are in - who was there for them to fight.

Top 30 AT, both of them, just

rowley wrote:Since you have started the gloating Scott, may as well join in. I called it for Wlad, only thing I got wrong was tipped Wlad to stop him

Wlad KO gets you nothing at the bookies Jeff.

Scottrf wrote:

rowley wrote:Since you have started the gloating Scott, may as well join in. I called it for Wlad, only thing I got wrong was tipped Wlad to stop him

Wlad KO gets you nothing at the bookies Jeff.

Gets me a point off Union, as I don't gamble the bookies matter little to me.

What's this nonsense about Vitali needing to take care of Wlad's losses?

- He rematched Brewster and beat him
- Sanders vacated the WBO belt to fight Vitali for the WBC
- He never rematched Purrity, and Vitali did, but it was 3 years after Wlad's loss so I don't think it's fair to say that Wlad was running scared from Purrity until Vitali took care of him!

Wlad is a top 15 heavyweight for me, his record is considerably better than Vitali's, although Vitali is probably the better fighter head to head.

I thought haye would destroy klitschko before it but admit i got it wrong and klitschko is quality.

The best prediction by the way is this dude:

by manos de piedra on Wed 20 Apr 2011, 5:42 pm


Haye is still something of an unknown quantity to me so I find it difficult to say.

Its pretty much garaunteed how Wlad will fight so there will be no surprises there. Haye on the other hand has a number of different ways he can approach it.

I think there will a very cagey first few rounds where Haye just tries to get a feel for the fight. We saw how he was against Valuev and Harrison. He didnt rush in and just try to blast them out as he did at cruiser level.

I think Haye will operate from the outside, circling and probing and just trying to keep from shipping jabs. How frequently attacks I think will depend alot on how well he gets to grip with the jab. There is a temption to think Haye might just adopt the same tactics as Valuev but I dont see it. The strategy of staying on the outside will probably the same but tactically I think he never intended to try and KO Valuev and his whole gameplan was to just nick the rounds and make Valuev miss.

I think he will modify this for Wlad and I think he is smart enough to realise how difficult it would be to do this. So I suspect he will start off patient and his plan will be to try and capitalise on any opening or mistake on Wlads part and look for KO shots.

I expect him to frustrate Wlad and make Wlad miss and chase far more than he has done in the past but I just find it hard to see how he wins rounds with no jab of his own and being on the backfoot so much.

At a push I would say a UD for Wlad. I think Haye will too elusive to get KOed himself and Wlads more cautious nature will probably mean hes happy to just win behind the jab at minimal risk.

I dont see it being a classic and suspect it will be one of those fights that doesnt really ever come to the boil unfortunately. I see the fight being a chess game punctuated by the odd attack from Haye here and there and maybe with Haye mounting a late rally needing a KO. Last couple of rounds could be good especially if Haye needs a KO and Wlad is confident enough to look for one himself.

Wlad UD 117-111, gun to head. But it all depends on Hayes approach really.

Yeah nice effort from Manos there.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Big difference being Chris that unlike Lewis, Wlad hasn't got a single good let alone great win to make up for those KO losses, in context of his career they are what define him, Walcott, Wills, Lewis etc. all have victories to make up for it

I agree on that Ghosty, and as I said that's part of the reason why I'd rank Lewis much higher, of course. But my point is that when people talk of Wladimir's losses, it seems to be end of story in their eyes. He got knocked out by lesser fighters, therefore he's a poor champion and fighter, simple as that, case closed - and I think that does him a disservice, since he avenged one of those losses fairly emphatically, has ironed out the flaws which brought about those defeats and, as I said earlier, is hardly the only Heavyweight champion to suffer such defeats.

I'll stress again that I have no desire to laud Wladimir as one of the elite Heavyweight greats, but I maintain that he isn't afforded anywhere near enough respect in general (well, outside of Germany at least).

Got to say I very much agree Chris does seem with Wlad the glass is very much half empty in most folks mind. He has been champion for seven years, there is nobody you could honestly say he has not fought who he should have faced apart from his brother for whom we all understand the reasons for not happening and in that time he has lost probably less than a dozen rounds, think you would have to look pretty hard to find a heavyweight historically you could say the same of, yet all you hear is the division is poor. This undoubtedly has some truth to it but seriously apart from delivering some excitement along the way could anyone have dealt with business as efficiently and with as much consistency as Wlad has, surely doing so deserves some kudos.

I think that with most people it's not so much a case of Wlad being a poor boxer in a poor era, it's more of a case of his style is perceived as so boring. Whilst he doesn't have a granite jaw I think that he could have performed reasonably well against some all time greats. Not an easy man to beat.

Waingro wrote:I thought haye would destroy klitschko before it but admit i got it wrong and klitschko is quality.

The best prediction by the way is this dude:

by manos de piedra on Wed 20 Apr 2011, 5:42 pm


Haye is still something of an unknown quantity to me so I find it difficult to say.

Its pretty much garaunteed how Wlad will fight so there will be no surprises there. Haye on the other hand has a number of different ways he can approach it.

I think there will a very cagey first few rounds where Haye just tries to get a feel for the fight. We saw how he was against Valuev and Harrison. He didnt rush in and just try to blast them out as he did at cruiser level.

I think Haye will operate from the outside, circling and probing and just trying to keep from shipping jabs. How frequently attacks I think will depend alot on how well he gets to grip with the jab. There is a temption to think Haye might just adopt the same tactics as Valuev but I dont see it. The strategy of staying on the outside will probably the same but tactically I think he never intended to try and KO Valuev and his whole gameplan was to just nick the rounds and make Valuev miss.

I think he will modify this for Wlad and I think he is smart enough to realise how difficult it would be to do this. So I suspect he will start off patient and his plan will be to try and capitalise on any opening or mistake on Wlads part and look for KO shots.

I expect him to frustrate Wlad and make Wlad miss and chase far more than he has done in the past but I just find it hard to see how he wins rounds with no jab of his own and being on the backfoot so much.

At a push I would say a UD for Wlad. I think Haye will too elusive to get KOed himself and Wlads more cautious nature will probably mean hes happy to just win behind the jab at minimal risk.

I dont see it being a classic and suspect it will be one of those fights that doesnt really ever come to the boil unfortunately. I see the fight being a chess game punctuated by the odd attack from Haye here and there and maybe with Haye mounting a late rally needing a KO. Last couple of rounds could be good especially if Haye needs a KO and Wlad is confident enough to look for one himself.

Wlad UD 117-111, gun to head. But it all depends on Hayes approach really.

Manos clearly cheated. He happens to be in possession of a time machine, which he used to watch Haye's "performance" and then come back here and predict it. He is masquerading behind good boxing knowledge, I tell ye.

I think Wlad and Vitali will be looked upon as legends and quite rightly because say what you want but they have been on top for almost a decade and you cant knock that logevity creates true greatness in itself

Here you are: n

It's a close run so far between the captain (Groves-DeGale) and manos (Klitschko-Haye) for the title of 'Prediction of the Year', I reckon!

I have to say that Wlad is extremely boring but very effective. He has a weak-ish chin but he and his trainer have worked on this to such an extent that he just doesn't get hit on the chin.

I was one who was sucked into the "Haye hits too fast and too hard for Wlad" belief and I am eating my large piece of humble pie. Wlad was able to adjust, nullify and ultimately eradicate Haye's speed and power advantage. Made him look ordinary and ineffective.

He is not a boxer I would go out of my way to watch (I find him so repetetive and unexciting). However, as a gifted athlete who makes the most of his advantages (size, jab) and protects his weakensses (chin, infighting) he is one of the best. The idea of boxing is to hit and not be hit. He does that rather well. It's a bit like English Rugby in the early 1990's. Heavy grinding power to demoralise the opposition. It didn't look that good, but it got the job done.

his Legacy: A brickwall who never looks flustered, was dominant a mildly weak era and wouldn't take on Vitali or Valuev.

wow_junky wrote:What's this nonsense about Vitali needing to take care of Wlad's losses?

- He rematched Brewster and beat him
- Sanders vacated the WBO belt to fight Vitali for the WBC
- He never rematched Purrity, and Vitali did, but it was 3 years after Wlad's loss so I don't think it's fair to say that Wlad was running scared from Purrity until Vitali took care of him!

Wlad is a top 15 heavyweight for me, his record is considerably better than Vitali's, although Vitali is probably the better fighter head to head.

Top 15??!! Lewis comes in at only 12 in a lot of peoples' lists and you find Wlad to be only 2 or 3 places worse? His much tougher and never knocked out brother got turned into a pizza-face by an over-weight out-of-condition end-of-his career Lewis. Wlad wouldn't even have reached the 6th round to take that epic upper-cut let alone stay standing. He also has not one W on his card that compares to any of Lewis' best wins.

Not totally slating Wlad, top 25-30 fine, but top 15 seems generous in the extreme.....

1.Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.Jack Johnson
4.Jack Dempsey
5.Rocky Marciano
6.Larry Holmes
7.James J. Jeffries
8.George Foreman
9.Sonny Liston
10.Joe Frazier
11.Gene Tunney
12.Lennox Lewis
13.Mike Tyson
14.Evander Holyfield
15.Sam Langford
16.Jersey Joe Walcott
17.Ezzard Charles
18.Harry Wills
19.James J. Corbett
20.Bob Fitzsimmons

Top hat, that is how the IBRO see the top 20 heavyweights, now am in agreement as it goes that he perhaps is not top fifteen but given Walcott is at 16 would it be that hard to argue that at the weight he has a better record than Jersey Joe, personally I don't think it would be so it ain't too far out of leftfield to argue he is a top fifteen guy.

Definitely above Langford too at Heavy as far as I'm concerned.

Again Scott an argument I can absolutely see, am a massive Langford fan but have long gone along with the argument him and Fitz deserve to be assessed on a P4P basis rather than in any division

trottb wrote:I think that with most people it's not so much a case of Wlad being a poor boxer in a poor era, it's more of a case of his style is perceived as so boring. Whilst he doesn't have a granite jaw I think that he could have performed reasonably well against some all time greats. Not an easy man to beat.

This! I reckon had he been more exciting and smashed everything in his way (besides the poor quality of heavyweights) he may have had more ratings.

P.s I'm glad it's not just me and there's a few people who feel W.Klitchsko is being judged unfairly on here. Yes the Germans will give him more praise, but even as Brit who supported Haye and was disappointed in him, I'll certainly have him in and around the top 20 on the heavyweight list.

rowley wrote:1.Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.Jack Johnson
4.Jack Dempsey
5.Rocky Marciano
6.Larry Holmes
7.James J. Jeffries
8.George Foreman
9.Sonny Liston
10.Joe Frazier
11.Gene Tunney
12.Lennox Lewis
13.Mike Tyson
14.Evander Holyfield
15.Sam Langford
16.Jersey Joe Walcott
17.Ezzard Charles
18.Harry Wills
19.James J. Corbett
20.Bob Fitzsimmons

Top hat, that is how the IBRO see the top 20 heavyweights, now am in agreement as it goes that he perhaps is not top fifteen but given Walcott is at 16 would it be that hard to argue that at the weight he has a better record than Jersey Joe, personally I don't think it would be so it ain't too far out of leftfield to argue he is a top fifteen guy.

I'd put 2 wins over Ezzard Charles and losing a close SD to Louis (that many ringside apprently thought he'd won) above any three results on Wlad's record. Would be tempted to also throw a pair of wins over Joey Maxim in there too and maybe the one over Bivins.

Which begs the question, what is Wlad's greatest win and where does that person sit on Top 20/30/50 lists??

Yes maybe this is again penalising him for fighting in a weak era but similarly elevating on a 'what could have been' basis penalises good fighters from much stronger eras.

I just can't see him beating anyone in that Top 20.

Have already acknowledged the fact there are not great names on Wlad's record but in this instance for me you have to look at two factors, firstly is there anyone from his era that stands out as a glaring ommission from his record and has he dealt with everyone he has fought as well as he could have and his brother aside think you have to say yes to both of these. As such think whilst the top tier names will deny him too high a ranking he can certainly trouble the top 15.

I personally am not arguing he deserves to be above Walcott am merely arguing it is not out of left field to do so, will not diminish Walcott's wins but you could as easily say for him his best wins such as Maxim, Charles and Bivins are pretty much all natural light heavies or were better at that weight so is as easy to question his record as anyone outside the true elite of the heavies.

Again TopHat, I think it comes down to a tendancy to over-emphasize certain wins by older fighters while airbrushing out the losses. Walcott's record was extremely patchy before he fought Louis, who beat him twice, although neither time was convincing. He then lost twice to Charles before settling their series at 2-2, before losing the title in his first defece post-Charles, albeit in a valiant losing effort. While he may have the more eye-catching names on his record, Walcott never really established himself as a dominant Heavyweight champion the way that Wladimir has. Quality of opposition is important, of course, but then so to is consistency at the highest level, hence Louis' God-like standing despite that old 'bum of the month' tag.

I'm not really a big fan of ranking fighters purely on a 'who beats who?' basis. Achievements, and everything that they include (opposition beaten, longevity, dominance of era etc) hold much more weight with me, and I simply don't see twenty Heavyweights who have achieved more than Wladimir has. In fact, I probably don't see fifteen. You can quibble a place or two because of lesser factors of course, because they aren't totally redundant even if I don't value them that highly, but the more I think about it the more compelled I am to stick Wladimir in at the (very) low end of a top twenty, and even if not, he belongs on the cusp of it.