W.Klitschko's legacy

First topic message reminder :

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????

rowley wrote: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.

To clarify, are you saying there are no glaring ommissions from Wlad's record? Whilst I agree he has dealt competently, if unspectacularly, with most of his opponents (losses aside obviously) I still think Valuez is a massive ommission. He's the only one of the era who neither K-bro held a physical advantage over (except perhaps speed) therefore given that Wlad couldn't out-muscle or out-reach him (and probably didn't have the power/ability to ko him) he chose not to fight his biggest potential adversary. (please note I'm not saying Valuez is actually any good - just that he was avoided).

Never even heard of Valuez, so I don't think it impacts their legacy.

With regards to Valuev, TopHat, from my understanding it was him who was reluctant to face a Klitschko, not the other way around. I don't think for a second that either Klitschko brother has ducked / avoided Valuev, and besides, beating the two men who conquered the Russian giant (Chagaev and Haye) with consumate ease on each occasion goes some way towards making up for that fight never happening in Wladimir's case.

Valuev is probably fair but personally I don't downgrade him too much for this as firstly I think the unwillingness to take the fight was more coming from Nik's side as King was trying to bluff him through to Marciano's 49-0 record and also because I think he is absolute bobbins, however will concede you would probably have to say as a champion operating at the same time he has indeed not been faced and dealt with, irrespective of the fact I think he would have been dealt with without too much hassle

I know what you both mean about Valuev being partly to blame (King etc) and I'm not saying he was desperately banging down their door, however how much was it the K-bros slave contracts getting in the way (which is tantamount to avoiding tactics in my opinion)?

A bit like some of the Manny/PBF discussions on the other thread, when Valuev was also a champion and arguably the only credible challenge/threat, what right do the K-bros have to try enforce such onerous contracts on their oponents? I think their reputation for this further diminishes Wlad's legacy.

From what I can remember the Valuev fight was difficult to make due to the ongoing near 2 year long dispute with Chagaev and who actually was the legitimate WBA champion.

Chagaev beat Valuev several years ago only to suffer illness which led to the WBA stripping him. Chagaev was allowed a rematch only for King to arrange the fight in a place whee Chagaevs condition would ensure he failed a medical and could thus be dismissed. I think Valuevs fight selection, tactics and numerous controversial decisions indicate someone that was being protected by King and the fact he lost to Holyfield on my card says all really need to know about his credentials. One of the worst ever heavyweight champions, even at belt holder status, in my view.

If Wlad had gone undefeated then we could say hey! Here is a fighter that would have challenged in another 'great era'. so altho i parreciate what rowley said about no glaring omission on his record, he has been knocked out 3 times, for me that ruins any chance. He has lost 3 times to terrible opponents really on anyworl list they would't break the top 100 of heavies. So no legacy, just a lot of money and hand waving victories in Germany. Vitali is diff because in his pomp he was a great talent, gave Lewis hell and never rally lost a fight aside from that.

Sean have to ask where would you place Lewis on your list, as lets not forget here he has been knocked out twice by second tier guys.

My take would be that the central issue affecting his status in years to come is that he will always be remembered as one of a pair.

Had there only been one Klitschko we would be able to say, definitively, that he was one of the most dominant champions in heavyweight history ( whether or not we would regard him as one of the most talented, ) but their being brothers is a two edged sword.

rowley wrote:Sean have to ask where would you place Lewis on your list, as lets not forget here he has been knocked out twice by second tier guys.

Both fights avenged though in generally spectacular fashion. Lewis knew he'd only lost those fights because he'd been lazy and sloppy so had no qualms about getting into shape and straight back into the ring with them to blast them out. Wlad has never shown any such desires.

HumanWindmill wrote:My take would be that the central issue affecting his status in years to come is that he will always be remembered as one of a pair.

Had there only been one Klitschko we would be able to say, definitively, that he was one of the most dominant champions in heavyweight history ( whether or not we would regard him as one of the most talented, ) but their being brothers is a two edged sword.

Agreed, and I think the way they bullied the division AS a pair exascerbates the problem. I understand not wanting to fight your brother, but to tell your alternative opponent that if you lose HE has to fight your brother, and then you again, is ridiculous.

Lewis avenged them both, and more importantly beat fighters of a better standard than Wlad, Holy, Tyson (even tho he was no prime Tyson) Golota, Tua (would still be top 3 W on Wlads list if he had beat prime tua, evne tho he never cut it really), Vitali Klit, hell Bruno and Tommy Morrison would beat 99% of the heavies out there now.

Wlad..

Ross Purity, lamon brewster and corrie sanders. No offence but they make Oliver Mccaul who was good look great, and prime Rachman who was no better than average look good.

also factor in peter flapping him around the ring and absolutley novictories of note (not his fault but still stands)

don't see that you can compare him to Lewis. Making flippant remarks such as Lewis got Ko' twice really doesnt make Wlad a top tier Heavy or Lewis any less of one. As you know rowley, you actually have to look at the facts.

I am not saying Wlad is a bum, but he has no legacy.

There has been one other top class heavy around throughout Wlad's carrer, yet the fight has never been made. That would be 'ducking' in any other circumstances.

Would Riddick Bowe be better thought of if he were Lennox Lewis's brother?

brothers cant fight, what if one of them gives the other brain damage. For what! They both make millions not fighting each other, why on earth would you want to potentially maim your own kin?

Sean was more making reference to the one factor people always refer to when assessing Wlad is the fact he has been Ko'ed three times by guys a quality heavy has no business getting KO'ed to but do not do similar for Lewis or if they do offer up the all too ready excuse he was unfit or unfocussed but offer no such mitigation for Wlad when one could equally as readily argue he had not yet developed his defensive game as mitigation, which would be as equally true as Lewis' lack of focus is.

I am no more arguing Wlad deserves to be ranked above Lewis as I do not believe that as Lewis does have the better wins on his ledger, but I do genuinely believe Wlad is often held up to a higher standard than many others are on here and a placing in the lower reaches of the top 20 is far from ridiculous.

Agree 100% the fight between them would never be an option. Ridiculous to think otherwise.

rowley bro why you always dissing on Lewis?

I'm not, I am a fan of Lewis but I do often feel he gets a pass for many things on here that other fighters do not get similar passes for, and in the case of Wlad getting knocked out by guys a decent fighter should not get knocked out by, there is no finer example than this than Lewis as he did this twice.

My issue is whenever anyone puts forward the very idea that Wlad could even sneak in the lower reaches of the top 20 heavyweights people scream from the rooftops "how could you, what about Sanders, what about Brewster?" but have no issue putting Lewis in the top ten. Appreciate there is more to ranking a fighter than who he lost to but still smacks of a little inconsistency.

true rowley but tbootom line is

Lewis got dropped by two big punches at ehavy which can and at some point will happen to everyone, (i actually thik he could have continued v ccaul but let's not get into that) he avnged them and has some pretty big wins.

Wlad may not have developed his masterful defense true, but i still think a top heavy would get to him and KTFO him, even now, prime Wlad would get ko'd by so many of the better heavies fo the past. The best version of him would have been flattended by Tyson for example IMO, it is just that no one is good enough to take him out at this time. That's why i dont think he should be rated that high.

Vitali would give so many top fighters of previous generations a run for his money. Wlad would have been tagged and stopped by almost all of them, It is just this generation of heavies are diabolical

Seanusarrilius wrote:Lewis avenged them both, and more importantly beat fighters of a better standard than Wlad, Holy, Tyson (even tho he was no prime Tyson) Golota, Tua (would still be top 3 W on Wlads list if he had beat prime tua, evne tho he never cut it really), Vitali Klit, hell Bruno and Tommy Morrison would beat 99% of the heavies out there now.

Wlad..

Ross Purity, lamon brewster and corrie sanders. No offence but they make Oliver Mccaul who was good look great, and prime Rachman who was no better than average look good.

If Tua is considered a good win for Lewis, than common logic should suggest that Chris Byrd is a good win for Wlad.

Rahman's career is riddled with losses against average fighters (Ruiz, Maskaev etc.) so again I can't see how he could be considered any better than someone like Brewster.

Even Purrity wasnt all that bad. After all, he was the victim of a robbery against Morrison (who supposedly beats 99% of the current crop).

88Chris05 wrote: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!

My prediction of Haye by KO would have been right as well if it wasn't for that blasted little toe.

Sean I would probably agree Wlad perhaps doesn't do too well head to head but like Chris whilst this is a factor is not the bee all and end all for me and have to also have to factor in an ability to improve, learn from mistakes (even Louis gets kudos for this) longevity and if the era is indeed weak, which I would never argue it isn't doing what needs to be done as comfortably as could be asked and like his style or not Wlad has done this and for me deserves a little more respect than he often gets on here.

Genuinely think people frequently confuse not very good to watch with not very good, they are obviously not the same thing.

Seanusarrilius wrote:true rowley but tbootom line is

Lewis got dropped by two big punches at ehavy which can and at some point will happen to everyone

So surely then, we shouldn't single out Wladimir for this the way some have done? I get the impression that no matter who Wladimir beat, it won't be enough in the minds of some to make up for those losses. Rowley is right in saying that people are far more lenient towards Lewis on that front, maybe even me included at times (I feel Lewis is a nailed-on top ten Heavyweight of all time). I understand that Lewis' superior collection of wins means that those defeats maybe aren't as serious in terms of his legacy, but I just don't like how they seem to be the be all and end all with Wladimir, but with nobody else.

There is nobody for Wlad to beat, that is part of the problem.

J benson

read my post again. I say tua is poor but would eb good on wlads record, it is to emphasise Wlads poor record. I also note Rahman was poor and purity was terrible so please stop!

rowely. i am not one of theose people who get confused. Wlad is very good, but he has no legacy and would be blasted against the best fighters of the 70's 80's 90's

he is only so domninant because the division is so poor. That's all i am saying. It isn't a matter of 'no matter who wlad beat' it is that he has beaten nobody, absolutley nobody of true heavyweight class. I feel i have said this various ways now

chris

i think what you have to remeber too, is wlad can be taken apart, he didnt jjust get dropped by one shot, hehas been seen flayling around the ring hoplessley on nearly a dozen ocassions, granted he has corrected that with a very good defense but if there were a top fighter in the division we would soon see him flapping all over the shop again. I am saying, wlad wouldn't beat top heavies from other eras, i am not judgng him because he has no decent opp, i am ging one further and saying quite boldly he would't measure up.

Seanusarrilius wrote:chris

but if there were a top fighter in the division we would soon see him flapping all overt he shop again

To be fair Sean that is pure speculation you have no more way of knowing that than I would if I was to say he would beat better fighters at a canter. In fact given Wlad is beating the fighters he does whilst seemingly not getting out of second gear there is perhaps more reason to believe my claim than yours.

Perhaps, Sean. Though personally, I don't think it's that out of the question at all to suggest that Wladimir could certainly beat the likes of Marciano, Frazier etc. Of course, he could lose to some of them, too. But I don't for a single second subscribe to this idea that every Heavyweight included on the IBRO list that Jeff posted earlier (for argument's sake) beats him ten times out of ten.

Seanusarrilius wrote:J benson

read my post again. I say tua is poor but would eb good on wlads record, it is to emphasise Wlads poor record. I also note Rahman was poor and purity was terrible so please stop!

Which would make Tommy Morrison beyond terrible.

Anyway, I actually agree with you that those 3 losses damage his legacy but I also tend to believe that those defeats occured before he hit his prime (which is now).

Well i have seen Wlad ko'd 3 times by very poor opposition, i see that he has a gdefense that no one has the talent to get passed, and i have seen great fighters of the past. Yes it is speculation, but so is the p4p list and we can all agree Floyd and Donaire belong in top ten.

I prefer educated guess. in that it is not unreasonable for me to say who might beat who in boxing history. for instance, i think Tyson would have beat lets say, audley...Reasonable??

Thank goodness for this thread

now now chris, when we bring the likes of Marciano into this we are getting dangerously close to arguments of the like 'MArciano isnt a heavy by todays standard' haha.

Seanusarrilius wrote:Well i have seen Wlad ko'd 3 times by very poor opposition, i see that he has a gdefense that no one has the talent to get passed, and i have seen great fighters of the past. Yes it is speculation, but so is the p4p list and we can all agree Floyd and Donaire belong in top ten.

I prefer educated guess. in that it is not unreasonable for me to say who might beat who in boxing history. for instance, i think Tyson would have beat lets say, audley...Reasonable??

Thank goodness for this thread

Again Sean at the risk of going round in circles I have seen Lewis Ko'ed by ordinay opposition, if he was to show a similar lack of focus in with a great heavy he is getting similarly sparked, however this is Lewis at his worst and so to assess him on that night against the greats is unfair, ditto Wlad. And lets not be silly about Audley, remember YES HE CAN

YES HE CAN!!!!

haha

I could have just answered this article with 'Wlad Klit legacy-What legacy?' instead of banging on so much, but i do love to bang on about things.

Wlad's fought in the weakest era of heavyweights since the gap between Tunney ad Louis. He has three losses and hasn't faced the other top heavy of his era. I know I'm alone here but I do not care if they're brothers. When they get in the ring they're boxers and it's not a team game. Two guys cannot dominate boxing, if there are two at the top then neither are dominating.

Vitali was retired for four years too. Between 2004 and 2008 the heavyweight division was so shallow my fattest friend could be a top ten contender. Wlad still didn't unify.

For me, on Lewis' list of victories, the following would have a good shot at beating Wlad.....

Tyson, McCall, Bruno, Morrison, Akinwande, Tucker, Ruddock.

Not sure any of them would beat Vitali, but then again, Vitali's best fight was a defeat to Lewis.

Im something of a Klitschko critic and have been despairing over the heavyweight dvision for some time but I agree its easy to be critical of him and some, myself included, are overly quick to do so.

I think with Wlad the approach to take is to try and get the big picture of his overall career, as you would with any fighter. This means not geting to bogged down and blinkered by the losses and trying to look at everything as a whole. However even why I do this the end result leaves alot of room for guesswork and speculation.

Hes by no means the first champion to exist in a weak era. Traditionally, longetivity and dominance have been an effective antidote to such situations. In terms of longetivity Wlad scores well. Hes had two careers as champion really. The first as the WBO champion previous to his loss to Sanders and the second one in which he is currently residing. The length of time since his last loss reflects well on him however in the area of dominance I think its really difficult to say that he has been dominant by virtue of his brother being there, who I suspect is the better all round of the two (at least was). This is what complicates things for me.

There is a view that sems to treat the two brothers as one unit which I just dont think is fair. The main response I have received against this tends to be "whats the real difference". The suggestion being that both brothers have now established themaselves as far above the competition and thus viewing them as one doesnt really matter. However at the end of the day this luxury isnt afford to other fighters so its unfair that the Klitschkos should have the best of both worlds. To me it seems natural that their individual legacies suffer from this unique position.

In respect of his losses, I think they were undoubtadly poor but that hes a much improved fighter now under Stewards tutelage. Two of his losses were down to little more than poor conditioning rather than technical ability. The losses affect his legacy as with the Lewis example, but at the same time its pretty obvious, like Lewis, that hes a level above those defeats.

What causes the biggest divide in opinion I think is head to head sort of scenario. No matter where I look in Wlads career I just can find little to convince me he beats so many of the fighters above him, and then by extention this leads one to feel that rather being a dominant champion in a weak era he is more of an average champion in a weak era especially with his more imposing brother there in the background. Others take the view that he simply hasnt had the opposition to prove otherwise.

Overall if we look at many of the criteria that we traditionally value in champion he scores very highy in terms of longetivity and taking on the biggest challenges (assuming we can forgive the siblings not fighting). This is evidenced by two seperate stints as champion and the latter of which has seen him unify 3/4 titles (holding wins over the former WBC and WBA champions Chagaev and Peter before Vitali beat him) and long undefeated stint as champion where he has dispatched most of his ranked rivals with ease.

On dominance he scores mediumly. I think its fair to say hes been at least the second best in the division post Lewis overall. But he suffeed some poor losses and never cnvinced me he was the better of the two brothers.

On stand out wins he scores poorly and I would include several poor losses in this bracket also.

The last one, ability, is the hardest to measure and I think this is why some are overly reliant on his previous losses to further there argument he really isnt that good. Its difficult to measure. For 7 years hes got things done efficiently lost very few rounds so cant be too critical of him in that regard but the overal rider which encompasses everything will be that the division was very poor.

Based on all of the above I would say he will easily make the HoF and slot in the lower end of the top 20 mark.

Colonial, sorry to go off topic but do you mind responding to the PM I sent you the other day mate, cheers.

Fists of Fury wrote:Colonial, sorry to go off topic but do you mind responding to the PM I sent you the other day mate, cheers.

Apologies Fists of Fury, I have replied there now.

I'm with Sean on this one, I cannot stand the comparisons between Wlad and Lewis as in all honesty the Ukranian doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as a great heavyweight like Lennox was. Lennox was knocked out by two fighters below his level but his general level of opposition and the manner in which he despatched some fighters like Golota, Briggs and Grant more than makes up for it, hurts his legacy nonetheless but not to the same extent as Wlad as he has no legacy. While Vitali is his brother and they're very right not to fight it doesn't alter the fact that Wladimir cannot claim to be the best in the division at any point other than Vitalis period of inactivity.

Its the Lewis and Wladimir comparisons that really irritate me.

Klitschko is quality but Lewis was better. Simples.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:
Vitali was retired for four years too. Between 2004 and 2008 the heavyweight division was so shallow my fattest friend could be a top ten contender. Wlad still didn't unify.

Wlad lost to Brewster shortly after Vitali retired so spent some of those 4 years rebuilding and developing a more effective style under Steward.
During that period, he still beat Byrd for the IBF and unified against Ibragimov (WBO). Not to mention defeating Peter (who went on to win the WBC title).

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm with Sean on this one, I cannot stand the comparisons between Wlad and Lewis as in all honesty the Ukranian doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as a great heavyweight like Lennox was.
Its the Lewis and Wladimir comparisons that really irritate me.

Let's not big Lewis up to be something he's not. It's only natural for fighters at the same weight to be compared.

Only in the appalling heavyweight division can you bandy about victories over luminaries such as Golota, Grant and Briggs as conclusive evidence of a fighter's greatness.

Overall, I'd say Wlad's legacy depends somewhat on the future of HW boxing over the next two decades.

If the division experiences a renaissance during this period and we see the emergence of several quality HW fighters, than Wlad may get overlooked as a solid but uninspiring champion during a transitional period.

However, the more likely situation would be that once the Kitschko's retire, the belts will be won and lost between fairly average fighters (similar to the WBA circus over the past decade) and the division will struggle to establish a genuine, domineering force.

In this scenario, I'd imagine that Wlad would get looked upon more fondly.

Personally, I'd rate him one level below ATG status.....which is still a good place to be.

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm with Sean on this one, I cannot stand the comparisons between Wlad and Lewis as in all honesty the Ukranian doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as a great heavyweight like Lennox was.
Its the Lewis and Wladimir comparisons that really irritate me.

Let's not big Lewis up to be something he's not. It's only natural for fighters at the same weight to be compared.

Only in the appalling heavyweight division can you bandy about victories over luminaries such as Golota, Grant and Briggs as conclusive evidence of a fighter's greatness.

Lewis is an elite Heavyweight which Wlad quite clearly is not, when has Wlad ever dispatched of any fighter in such emphatic style?

Ghosty am always loath to get sucked into threads like this because I tend to get painted as either more negative than I actually am about a fighter like Lewis or more positive than I perhaps am about Wlad, which appears to have again been the case here.

The point I am trying to make is not that Wlad compares with Lewis as I don't believe this but more whenever the subject of Wlad comes up the default position of many is to wade straight in with the negative, such as Sanders Brewster, weak era etc which is ok if you are then willing to balance this with the positive such as his dominance, seven year reign and distinct lack of rounds lost during that period, which would of course give a more balanced view of things.

The reason I have mentioned Lewis is if a similar thread come on here and myself or anyone else waded in with mention of McCall and Rahman and little else they would get absolutely mullered, and rightly so, just want the same standard to be applied across the board.

To me it depends on how long Wlad goes on for and how dominant he is after big bro Vitali retires. Think the power-sharing arrangement does both K bros harm as individual boxers but there is no denying that the K bros as a unit are something of a legend and will be remembered, whether fondly or not, will certainly be remembered in 20 years time. For a family to hold all 4 major belts simulataneously is a very good achievement whichever way you choose to slice it.

See what you're saying Rowley but in the case of Wlad I don't think his longevity makes up for those losses mainly because he has and never will face his biggest rival, whether they're brothers or not and i'm not suggesting he should face him neither can claim to be THE dominant heavyweight so puts their title reign length into perspective.

rowley dont like Lewis im thinking you was saying on another thread that he was ducking Ruiz and spainsh fighters.

Lennox did not duck anyone imo some people say Bowe but Bowe was a chicken

Waingro wrote:rowley dont like Lewis im thinking you was saying on another thread that he was ducking Ruiz and spainsh fighters.

Lennox did not duck anyone imo some people say Bowe but Bowe was a chicken

That's not at all what he was saying.

he did he said lewis ducked ruiz, its in the thread. I said fair enough if he thought that but that lewis was quality imo an didnt duck no one.