Klitschko

Was going to write a full review of this but realised I could not be bothered, so just wondered if anyone else had seen the documentary Klitschko. Me and TSMR watched it the other day and I have to say I enjoyed it a lot. Make no secret of the fact that I have a lot of time for the brothers and the documentary did nothing to change this opinion, they come across as likeable, intelligent but extremely driven individuals.

Am not sure the film will convert anyone who is not already a fan but the production values and amount of fight footage should mean any boxing fan should find enough in there to enjoy and when one sees the injuries and setbacks they have had to overcome at various times of their career it is hard not to admire them. Also as it can be picked up fairly cheaply now I would recommend it.

If it's better than there fights then you just know you're in for a whirlwind of a movie.

Sorry Alex, as someone who worked in HR I appreciate you're probably more of a romcom or musicals kind of guy but you never know if you try it you might enjoy it.

It is a very well made documentary, gives you a real insight into what life was like for the young brothers growing up, and the hurdles they had to overcome to get where they eventually got. The subtitles fly past a bit quick at times but that doesn't detract from what is a very polished documentary. It does skip over the reason for Vitali missing the Atlanta Olympics, and there's nothing about 'slave contracts', so it is not warts and all, but definitely worth a watch. I enjoyed the "Don King's Piano" story too.

https://www.606v2.com/t29906-klitschko-the-movie?highlight=klitschko

Agree on the Atlanta thing Union, is a pity it was pretty much glossed over but genuinely don’t think there is a case to argue on the slave contract thing, is a creation of people on here, as has been said countless times countless fighters through history who are top of the tree have used this to bully opponents. If you bring nothing to the table you get a tough deal, bring something to the table, be it a belt, PPV audience or mandatory status your deal reflects this.

Not seen it myself yet, Rowley, but have heard two or three fairly positive reviews to go along with yours. Will try to take a look when I can - although it's seemingly fashionable to dismiss the pair of them, I'd very much class myself as a fan of Wladimir (more an 'admirer', shall we say, of Vitali), so wouldn't mind seeing it.

Wlad comes across as the more interesting of the two brothers in the film to me Chris, as it seems clear from the beginning Vitali was more suited to the life of a fighter. Wlad seems to have almost become one through determination and will. Is also easy to forget just how low his career and reputation was around the time of the Sanders loss. To have rebuilt in quite such a fashion is to my mind admirable, although I am sure I will be told otherwise before long.

Aye, pretty much along my line of thinking with that post, Jeff.

I can half understand the old 'K-bot' and 'Drago' quips when it comes to Vitali (although in all honesty, I think big brother enjoys being seen with that aura of menace and also plays on it), but I've actually always found Wladimir to be a pretty engaging and interesting personality whenever I've seen him interviewed. Very appreciable skills within his boxing as well, despite what some others will say.

As you've mentioned, he's definitely left a fair few scribes with egg on their face. Take note, Mr Khan.

Can you get it on Betamax?

I haven't seen it but I wouldn't watch it anyway as I can't stand Wladimir's stupid Borat voice.

I much prefer David's Sarf London patois.

Rowley wrote:Agree on the Atlanta thing Union, is a pity it was pretty much glossed over but genuinely don’t think there is a case to argue on the slave contract thing, is a creation of people on here, as has been said countless times countless fighters through history who are top of the tree have used this to bully opponents. If you bring nothing to the table you get a tough deal, bring something to the table, be it a belt, PPV audience or mandatory status your deal reflects this.

I don't want to sound like Gordy or VickyG or whoever it is, but whilst I'm don't chastise the brothers for offering pittance percentages (but often still career high pay days) to undeserving non-mandatory challengers, and I don't doubt champs throughout history have used their power to bully advantages out of opponents, is there any precedent for challengers being locked into rematch clauses with multiple oppponents? I.e. the whole 'beat Wlad you have to take on Vit and then Wlad again' and so on, business.

Given that they are the #1 and #2 in the division it'd be like fighting SRL but knowing if you were monumentally successful and won you'd have to defend against both him and Tommy Hearns.

Well obviously not tophat, but unprecedented situations lead to unprecedented actions and have two brothers ruling the roost in a division is the dictionary definition of unprecedented. I am no fan or rematch clauses full stop but they are absolutely rife when a title shot is not a mandatory, the only difference with the brothers is your clause ends up against someone other than you beat first time round. If you want to be a glass half full type of guy you could say this guarantees you a chance to unify a division in two fights, you should be grateful, but this is a bit Klitschko apologist even for me.

Yes tophat - the most obvious example to my mind is Brunos shot against mccall - only if he fought Tyson in his next fight - that is a promoter thing - keeping the title within grasp.

I think King and arum had had 3 or 4 such contracts but I dont have the facts to hand - If I remember where I got em i'll post em here.

I agree with Rowley. If a kbot is kind enough to give you a title shot then a rematch is fine. Throwing in the other brother just adds to the potential to unify and make lots of money.

Too many fighters have an easy fight because the last one was hard. If you've won a title you should want to fight the best.

I have no axe to grind with K2, but I suppose the documentary must be looked at as a PR exercise that portrays both brothers in the best possible light. I doubt I would go out of my way to watch it, but would like to see it some day.

This whole slave contract thing is nonsense. No one has seen a contract and no fighter who has complained has shown a contract to see if it is true.

But lets say it is true, surely it is a good thing for us boxing fans so why are people complaining. All too often we get the top boxers avoiding each other and they are all too happy defending their one belt and avoiding other belt holders. At least the Klitschko will create a unification fight.

Why would a boxer oppose a rematch clause? Why would you oppose the chance to have a unification fight? This is the problem with boxing we get boxers avoiding fights and actually publicly stating that they will not sign a fight because if they win they might have to face another world champion in a unification fight. Madness!

I don't agree with the contracts but it's down to the fighters themselves whether they wish to sign or not.

I'm having my house decorated. I'd rather watch the paint dry than watch a K2 dvd.

victorgarco wrote:This whole slave contract thing is nonsense. No one has seen a contract and no fighter who has complained has shown a contract to see if it is true.

But lets say it is true, surely it is a good thing for us boxing fans so why are people complaining. All too often we get the top boxers avoiding each other and they are all too happy defending their one belt and avoiding other belt holders. At least the Klitschko will create a unification fight.

Why would a boxer oppose a rematch clause? Why would you oppose the chance to have a unification fight? This is the problem with boxing we get boxers avoiding fights and actually publicly stating that they will not sign a fight because if they win they might have to face another world champion in a unification fight. Madness!

Don't start this nonsense again. Its an opinion based on what many other boxers have said.

Not sure I'll be falling over myself to watch this, but I've alwAys thought that history will treat k2 kinder than we currently do. It's not their fault the opposition sucks and that no top US athletes want to be heavyweight champion of the world anymore. They beat what's put in front of them and it makes it pretty difficult to rate them historically.

Wlad in particular deserves credit for turning his career around, and he comes across well whenever I've seen him interviewed.

The contract stuff doesnt bother me. ultimately, its just a shame there hasnt been any decent tests out there for them.

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:This whole slave contract thing is nonsense. No one has seen a contract and no fighter who has complained has shown a contract to see if it is true.

But lets say it is true, surely it is a good thing for us boxing fans so why are people complaining. All too often we get the top boxers avoiding each other and they are all too happy defending their one belt and avoiding other belt holders. At least the Klitschko will create a unification fight.

Why would a boxer oppose a rematch clause? Why would you oppose the chance to have a unification fight? This is the problem with boxing we get boxers avoiding fights and actually publicly stating that they will not sign a fight because if they win they might have to face another world champion in a unification fight. Madness!

Don't start this nonsense again. Its an opinion based on what many other boxers have said.

3 boxers. One being Wach who was found with a tampered glove and tested positive for drugs. One being Haye who has said a whole lot of crap. And the other being chisora who gets in brawls and slaps his opponents at weigh ins. Hardly the people to believe now are they.

But anyway my main point was some boxing fans will sit here and write how disgraceful it is for Klitschko to have rematch clauses where the challenger will have to face the other brother in a unification fight if he wins and then complain that other boxers are ducking other fighters just so they can keep a piece of the belt.

We should be in favour of the rematch clauses so that the best fights happen. No one wants to see a challenger beat Wlad and then avoid Vitali at all costs. We would want to see them fight Vitali as it would be a massive fight.

Who cares?

Agree, Milky. Wladimir's career and subsequent standing in history once it's over will have a hint of the Holmes effect, I think, although to a lesser extent.

Particularly if a couple of his vanquished foes can win world titles once the big man from Ukraine has retired, or been usurped at the top of the division. After all, that turn of events was enough to transform what was originally considered to be a mildly embarrassing moment for Holmes (the Weaver fight) in to one of his better career moments in retrospect as the years rolled by. Ditto with the Berbick fights and, to a lesser extent, the Witherspoon affair.

milkyboy wrote:Not sure I'll be falling over myself to watch this, but I've alwAys thought that history will treat k2 kinder than we currently do. It's not their fault the opposition sucks and that no top US athletes want to be heavyweight champion of the world anymore. They beat what's put in front of them and it makes it pretty difficult to rate them historically.

Wlad in particular deserves credit for turning his career around, and he comes across well whenever I've seen him interviewed.

The contract stuff doesnt bother me. ultimately, its just a shame there hasnt been any decent tests out there for them.

I rate them highly. I just find them incredibly boring.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:This whole slave contract thing is nonsense. No one has seen a contract and no fighter who has complained has shown a contract to see if it is true.

But lets say it is true, surely it is a good thing for us boxing fans so why are people complaining. All too often we get the top boxers avoiding each other and they are all too happy defending their one belt and avoiding other belt holders. At least the Klitschko will create a unification fight.

Why would a boxer oppose a rematch clause? Why would you oppose the chance to have a unification fight? This is the problem with boxing we get boxers avoiding fights and actually publicly stating that they will not sign a fight because if they win they might have to face another world champion in a unification fight. Madness!

Don't start this nonsense again. Its an opinion based on what many other boxers have said.

3 boxers. One being Wach who was found with a tampered glove and tested positive for drugs. One being Haye who has said a whole lot of crap. And the other being chisora who gets in brawls and slaps his opponents at weigh ins. Hardly the people to believe now are they.

But anyway my main point was some boxing fans will sit here and write how disgraceful it is for Klitschko to have rematch clauses where the challenger will have to face the other brother in a unification fight if he wins and then complain that other boxers are ducking other fighters just so they can keep a piece of the belt.

We should be in favour of the rematch clauses so that the best fights happen. No one wants to see a challenger beat Wlad and then avoid Vitali at all costs. We would want to see them fight Vitali as it would be a massive fight.

Nothing to do with rematch clauses or what they pay other boxers. A rematch clause is standard. But to rematch the brother and then rematch the other and options on future fights is beyond Don King even. Perhaps not slave contracts, but Jim Crow contracts.

Isn't Don King seen as the gold standard for skullduggery in boxing?

Seems odd that people are now saying "Well Don King did it, so it's not that bad."

They know their opponents have no other opption if they want to be seen as the best in their division and make some serious money from their career, but controlling another fighter's career is immoral. Rowley, you've lambasted the situation Burley was put in by Fritzie Zivic, but the K's are getting a free pass?

Yes, a fighter should want to face the best in the division. But say Joe Bloggs gets in with Wlad, schools him and knocks him out, wouldn't he deserve 50/50 at least with Vitali and be treated as defending champion? Do you think that's what they'd get in a rematch clause?

Having said all this it does sound like an interesting documentary. Wlad's an articulate guy, as he showed at an Emmanuel Steward tribute that also featured Leonard, Holyfield, Barkley and Hearns. I don't think he's the all class angel he's portryed as but I'm open to persuasion.

Is it true that their father died of issues he'd had after chernobyl?

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:This whole slave contract thing is nonsense. No one has seen a contract and no fighter who has complained has shown a contract to see if it is true.

But lets say it is true, surely it is a good thing for us boxing fans so why are people complaining. All too often we get the top boxers avoiding each other and they are all too happy defending their one belt and avoiding other belt holders. At least the Klitschko will create a unification fight.

Why would a boxer oppose a rematch clause? Why would you oppose the chance to have a unification fight? This is the problem with boxing we get boxers avoiding fights and actually publicly stating that they will not sign a fight because if they win they might have to face another world champion in a unification fight. Madness!

Don't start this nonsense again. Its an opinion based on what many other boxers have said.

3 boxers. One being Wach who was found with a tampered glove and tested positive for drugs. One being Haye who has said a whole lot of crap. And the other being chisora who gets in brawls and slaps his opponents at weigh ins. Hardly the people to believe now are they.

But anyway my main point was some boxing fans will sit here and write how disgraceful it is for Klitschko to have rematch clauses where the challenger will have to face the other brother in a unification fight if he wins and then complain that other boxers are ducking other fighters just so they can keep a piece of the belt.

We should be in favour of the rematch clauses so that the best fights happen. No one wants to see a challenger beat Wlad and then avoid Vitali at all costs. We would want to see them fight Vitali as it would be a massive fight.

Nothing to do with rematch clauses or what they pay other boxers. A rematch clause is standard. But to rematch the brother and then rematch the other and options on future fights is beyond Don King even. Perhaps not slave contracts, but Jim Crow contracts.

But if you look at it from a fans point of view isn't it great that those rematch clauses are there (if true). We get to see the biggest fights rather than have fighters avoid each other. Imagine if Price beat Wlad a rematch clause with Vitali would be massive.

Then what would happen if Price beat Vitali aswell?

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Then what would happen if Price beat Vitali aswell?

I'm pretty sure that Haye said something about a rematch clause with their mum so it must be true if Haye has said it.

In all seriousness who knows? no one knows what rematch clauses are in place. If it is true that a winner has to face vitali I imagine that there would be a rematch with Wlad first and then a 3rd fight with Vitali. But this is all speculation as no one knows what their contracts are like.

victorgarco wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Then what would happen if Price beat Vitali aswell?

I'm pretty sure that Haye said something about a rematch clause with their mum so it must be true if Haye has said it.

In all seriousness who knows? no one knows what rematch clauses are in place. If it is true that a winner has to face vitali I imagine that there would be a rematch with Wlad first and then a 3rd fight with Vitali. But this is all speculation as no one knows what their contracts are like.

Tbh I don't think theirs any HW out their that can beat either of the 2 brothers, as for this rematch and 3rd fight with Vitali imo this is all an obsession 'keep belts in our family'. This may sound weird but a fantasy fight would be Wlad v Vitali.... why did they have to be brothers.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Then what would happen if Price beat Vitali aswell?

I'm pretty sure that Haye said something about a rematch clause with their mum so it must be true if Haye has said it.

In all seriousness who knows? no one knows what rematch clauses are in place. If it is true that a winner has to face vitali I imagine that there would be a rematch with Wlad first and then a 3rd fight with Vitali. But this is all speculation as no one knows what their contracts are like.

Tbh I don't think theirs any HW out their that can beat either of the 2 brothers, as for this rematch and 3rd fight with Vitali imo this is all an obsession 'keep belts in our family'. This may sound weird but a fantasy fight would be Wlad v Vitali.... why did they have to be brothers.

I agree if a fight happened between the two it would be amazing. Both were in their peak in 2009 when Wlad destroyed Chagaev and Vitali destroyed Arreola. If they fought each other then that would have been a great fight.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

They know their opponents have no other opption if they want to be seen as the best in their division and make some serious money from their career, but controlling another fighter's career is immoral. Rowley, you've lambasted the situation Burley was put in by Fritzie Zivic, but the K's are getting a free pass?

Is it true that their father died of issues he'd had after chernobyl?

John would argue buying someone's contract out and then ensuring they do not receive a shot is slightly different to offering someone a shot on less than equitable terms. My argument on this issue is and has always been that whilst it is true they don't do anyone any favours contracts wise the people who get really screwed are those that don't bring anything to the table such as Chisora, who had lost two of his last three and had zero support, but given he barely deserved the shot he can have no complaints. Have also said countless times we have a situation currently where anyone and everyone is consistently telling us the division is the worst it has ever been but the very suggestion Chisora or indeed anyone else should improve their offer from the Klitschko's and remove the rematch clauses by becoming mandatories is not even given consideration as a viable option.

As I said earlier I don't like rematch clauses full stop but as long as they exist promoters and fighters are going to insist on them, just can't see the point in singling the brothers out for using them to their advantage. Their father did die of cancer that they said was related to Chernobyl. He was a pilot flying over the site to dump lead on the reactor after the explosion, which is a bit of a crap job really.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Is it true that their father died of issues he'd had after chernobyl?

Apparently so JBW.

Click here

Have to respect the guy for being part of that clean up operation. I went to Chernobyl a few years ago. Not sure if I should have done really, for moral reasons as much as health. Astounding place to visit though, either way.

I watched the first 40 odd minutes of this film last night by the way. So far, the old footage and stories of their childhood (and the Chernobyl stuff) was much more interesting than slow motion footage of Shannon Briggs being smacked in the face.

The old man looks like Vladimir Putin? If I'd have been the 5'7 slaphead I'd have been asking Mrs klitschko serious questions concerning the milkman.......

why did they have to be brothers..

Same mother and father I should think.

much more interesting than slow motion footage of Shannon Briggs being smacked in the face..

That wasn't slow motion, IG.

seanmichaels wrote:The old man looks like Vladimir Putin? If I'd have been the 5'7 slaphead I'd have been asking Mrs klitschko serious questions concerning the milkman.......

The brothers used to play in radioactive puddles as boys, which may explain a few things.

Union Cane wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The old man looks like Vladimir Putin? If I'd have been the 5'7 slaphead I'd have been asking Mrs klitschko serious questions concerning the milkman.......

The brothers used to play in radioactive puddles as boys, which may explain a few things.

Also, Mrs Klitschko is 6'7.

Union Cane wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The old man looks like Vladimir Putin? If I'd have been the 5'7 slaphead I'd have been asking Mrs klitschko serious questions concerning the milkman.......

The brothers used to play in radioactive puddles as boys, which may explain a few things.

And get their kicks chucking ammunition and hand grenades on fires. Growing up in communist Russia sounded a barrel of laughs didn't it?

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:This whole slave contract thing is nonsense. No one has seen a contract and no fighter who has complained has shown a contract to see if it is true.

But lets say it is true, surely it is a good thing for us boxing fans so why are people complaining. All too often we get the top boxers avoiding each other and they are all too happy defending their one belt and avoiding other belt holders. At least the Klitschko will create a unification fight.

Why would a boxer oppose a rematch clause? Why would you oppose the chance to have a unification fight? This is the problem with boxing we get boxers avoiding fights and actually publicly stating that they will not sign a fight because if they win they might have to face another world champion in a unification fight. Madness!

Don't start this nonsense again. Its an opinion based on what many other boxers have said.

Good to have you back Az.

Rowley wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The old man looks like Vladimir Putin? If I'd have been the 5'7 slaphead I'd have been asking Mrs klitschko serious questions concerning the milkman.......

The brothers used to play in radioactive puddles as boys, which may explain a few things.

And get their kicks chucking ammunition and hand grenades on fires. Growing up in communist Russia sounded a barrel of laughs didn't it?

Don't forget hiding an anti-tank mine under dad's bed. Such japes!

Re the contracts situation, just throwing this out there, but if you really wanted your shot why not just sign the contract and then breach it?

Superfly will probably correct me on this but the way I see it, if you sign a contract that says if you beat Wlad you immediately defend against Vit and you do beat Wlad, you can simply say bugger-off and breach the contract. You'd be successfully sued for breach of contract but the K's would need to show a loss which, as we know from the Haye debacle over money/PPV rights etc, is going to be tough as the K's are apparently on TV contracts that don't allow for major PPV money and would probably make a similar amount of money for fighting a nobody as for your title.

Therefore 'loss' is minimal (as I don't think the courts value the loss of an opportunity [i.e. to fight for the belt] as monetary value is to difficult to quanitfy) and as such any damages awarded against you would be small also. Even if it was a couple of mill, you'd make that back with one or two soft defences anyway. And even if you were stripped of your titles, the way boxing works you'd still be regarded as the 'real' champ anyway.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Re the contracts situation...

But then you'd be a bonified (yes, bonified) ducker, which as we all know is the worst thing any boxer can be.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Re the contracts situation, just throwing this out there, but if you really wanted your shot why not just sign the contract and then breach it?

Superfly will probably correct me on this but the way I see it, if you sign a contract that says if you beat Wlad you immediately defend against Vit and you do beat Wlad, you can simply say bugger-off and breach the contract. You'd be successfully sued for breach of contract but the K's would need to show a loss which, as we know from the Haye debacle over money/PPV rights etc, is going to be tough as the K's are apparently on TV contracts that don't allow for major PPV money and would probably make a similar amount of money for fighting a nobody as for your title.

Therefore 'loss' is minimal (as I don't think the courts value the loss of an opportunity [i.e. to fight for the belt] as monetary value is to difficult to quanitfy) and as such any damages awarded against you would be small also. Even if it was a couple of mill, you'd make that back with one or two soft defences anyway. And even if you were stripped of your titles, the way boxing works you'd still be regarded as the 'real' champ anyway.

I don't actually understand a word of that, TopHat, but irrespective of that, we had a 400 page thread with 900,000 replies on the Klitschko slave contracts last year.

Please, lets not re-visit that one.

Does anyone really know what the terms of the contracts are? Its generally just been speculation. If they were as bad as some suggest then I doubt fighters and promoters would sign them. From the amounts of earnings reported the general splits seem to be pretty standard. People like Haye have moaned about the contracts but when it came down to it he got 50/50 with no strings attached as did Ibragimov which are the two unification fights Wlad has had. I certainly don’t think that the K2 business practices are much different from the top other promoters like Arum or Golden Boy and they are certainly nothing like Don King. Plus at least they are the guys going out and doing the fighting and reaping the spoils unlike most promoters.

Nothing to correct, Top Hat. Assuming that it's a straightforward contractual obligation then you're pretty much spot on.

A half decent lawyer would also specifically exclude "loss of opportunity" from any receoverable losses under the contract.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Re the contracts situation, just throwing this out there, but if you really wanted your shot why not just sign the contract and then breach it?

Superfly will probably correct me on this but the way I see it, if you sign a contract that says if you beat Wlad you immediately defend against Vit and you do beat Wlad, you can simply say bugger-off and breach the contract. You'd be successfully sued for breach of contract but the K's would need to show a loss which, as we know from the Haye debacle over money/PPV rights etc, is going to be tough as the K's are apparently on TV contracts that don't allow for major PPV money and would probably make a similar amount of money for fighting a nobody as for your title.

Therefore 'loss' is minimal (as I don't think the courts value the loss of an opportunity [i.e. to fight for the belt] as monetary value is to difficult to quanitfy) and as such any damages awarded against you would be small also. Even if it was a couple of mill, you'd make that back with one or two soft defences anyway. And even if you were stripped of your titles, the way boxing works you'd still be regarded as the 'real' champ anyway.

I don't actually understand a word of that, TopHat, but irrespective of that, we had a 400 page thread with 900,000 replies on the Klitschko slave contracts last year.

Please, lets not re-visit that one.

Well, I for one am happy to have Az back......

superflyweight wrote:
A half decent lawyer would also specifically exclude "loss of opportunity" from any receoverable losses under the contract.

Obviously, would have thought that went without say

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Well, I for one am happy to have Az back......

Likewise, I enjoy his musings.

I was talking about the contracts. I don't care how erudite or intelligent our forum family are, I will wager that there is not a single new or interesting thing that can be said about 'slave contracts.

superflyweight wrote:Nothing to correct, Top Hat. Assuming that it's a straightforward contractual obligation then you're pretty much spot on.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I will wager that there is not a single new or interesting thing that can be said about 'slave contracts.

It's an anagram of Travel Contacts, does that count?