Klitschko

First topic message reminder :

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.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:Although seeing the politicians trying to physically eject Vitali from their Parliament may show that they have some mental deficiancy anyway. Nutters.

I thought the punch up shown on BBC web site was just a general free for all and had nothing specifically to do with Vitali, who just stood at the back looking amused. Or did I miss another event?

I haven't seen the one on the BBC so I'm not sure. It looked like Vitali was getting jostled on this one and he said he warned them not to touch him again.

That was funny, have to admire the bloke who tried to remove them from the podium, there were about 15 of them on there and he goes straight for the 6ft 6 world heavyweight champion. He is either the bravest bloke in the world or the dumbest.

Certainly politics might become more popular over here if there were a few tear-ups.....

"Mr Speaker I'd like to ask the Prime minister.......If he'd care to step outside!!"

"love too"...............

Kill the X-factor for sure!!

Rowley wrote:

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.

I can see the differences between the two situations, but the reason I'm singling the brothers out is that they're an exception. I can't think of any two other fighters in history whose voluntary defense contracts control their opponents choices for the next few years of their career. Surely you agree that if someone came along and beat Wlad, he'd deserve at least 50/50 against Vitali. It'd be naive to presume that's what they'd get.

As for simply becoming their mandatory, I agree that's what contenders should try and do, but if they get the offer then a guy who's fighting to put food on the table is hardly gonna say "No, I'd rather fight my way up, each time risking losing and giving any champion a valid excuse not to fight me."

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Truss. Wladimir isn't a "plodder" and never has been.

Find me another 6'6", 245 lb guy who has legs as good as his, or hands which are quicker, and then maybe I'll come around to your way of thinking.

Splattered a couple of times early on in his career, sure. As was Walcott (and as Ali said of him, "Ah, Jersey Joe - now there's a man who could move!"). As was Jack Johnson. As was Schmeling.

It seems that, for some reason, it's automatically become impossible for any Heavyweight to actually improve and get better after some early career setbacks these days. Fortunately, those aforementioned old boys are given a little more leeway, for reasons which I can't fathom.

It probably has something to do with the fact that, in 1936 alone, Jersey Joe Walcott fought eight times and each time against live opponents. He also arguably defeated an all time great in Joe Louis only to be robbed on the cards. Wlad has no such claim. Also Jersey didn't have an amateur career as far as I know so he was learning on the job and also working a real job to support his family.

Personally I think Wlad's improved massively since his days when he had a love affair with the canvas. Probably the most improved fighter since Barrera's development in the years between Junior Jones and Naseem Hamed.

manos de piedra wrote:(step forward JBW!)

Yo

I think they'll go down as greats too. However I see Vitali, he's gone in against one great fighter, given him all he could handle and lost. He's always maintained since that he was unjustly stopped. It was a past it great he fought, but a still great all the same. Then we take Ron Lyle, fought Ali, was ahead on the cards when he was stopped. Has always maintained since that he was unjustly stopped. Of course Ron was into the final third whereas Vitali was two points up with half the fight still to go.

Lyle came out of prison, started late, gave two of the top five greatest heavyweights of all time wars. Also knocked out Ernie Shavers which is a more dangerous scalp than anything Vitali's claimed. Other than being taken out when he was washed up by Cooney, he got outboxed by Jimmy Young, who's a more talented boxer than anybody Vitali's faced other than Lennox and maybe Chris Byrd. No matter which excuses are made he lost to both of them. This is conjecture but if Lyle was a mile up on the cards and outweighing his opponent by 34lbs with 3 rounds left, he'd carry on if you amputated his arm.

The reason I'm comparing the two is that Klistchko's ledger isn't really that more impressive. There's more longevity, but Lyle would have plenty of longevity against the sort of guys Vitali has been facing. Quality belongs with Lyle. Yet Vitali is praised as a near top ten all time great while Lyle (who would've been champion if there'd been 5 world titles around in his day) gets no mention. The praise is disproportionate.

Also, I read on here they have superb stamina and footwork. No, they have superb brains. Neither of them move around the ring with agility and neither of them have ever lasted at a high pace. However they make their opponents work at their pace. With movement, they make the absolute most of what they've got. Wlad has rock solid fundamentals. The most strictly fundamentally sound heavyweight since Louis. But he's no mover, he makes the best of what he's got in each department. Wlad's only been able to comfortably go the distance since he stopped coming out and throwing loads of shots. Back when he fought at pace he got taken out while gassing. The only time I've seen Vitali fight at a high pace was against Lewis and he was utterly knackered after six. He held Lewis like a long lost lover throughout that round.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Truss. Wladimir isn't a "plodder" and never has been.

Find me another 6'6", 245 lb guy who has legs as good as his, or hands which are quicker, and then maybe I'll come around to your way of thinking.

Splattered a couple of times early on in his career, sure. As was Walcott (and as Ali said of him, "Ah, Jersey Joe - now there's a man who could move!"). As was Jack Johnson. As was Schmeling.

It seems that, for some reason, it's automatically become impossible for any Heavyweight to actually improve and get better after some early career setbacks these days. Fortunately, those aforementioned old boys are given a little more leeway, for reasons which I can't fathom.

It probably has something to do with the fact that, in 1936 alone, Jersey Joe Walcott fought eight times and each time against live opponents. He also arguably defeated an all time great in Joe Louis only to be robbed on the cards. Wlad has no such claim. Also Jersey didn't have an amateur career as far as I know so he was learning on the job and also working a real job to support his family.

Personally I think Wlad's improved massively since his days when he had a love affair with the canvas. Probably the most improved fighter since Barrera's development in the years between Junior Jones and Naseem Hamed.

Don't misunderstand what I was saying there, JBW. I'm not downgrading the standing of someone such as Walcott on those numerous defeats early in his career. I'm simply pointing out that plenty of people, no matter what he's done since or might do in the future, will always point blank refuse to acknowledge Wladimir as even a 'good' Heavyweight champion (yes, good in a historical context) because of the similar setbacks he had. They seem oblivious to the concept of a fighter improving throughout a career when, in fact, there are numerous examples of this (hence my points above).

I think there is a fair bit of difference between a heavyweight with probably the second best footwork after Clay....and a guy that fights with his face....

But is too big for the current mediocre crop to depose..

88Chris05 wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Come on now, Truss. Wladimir isn't a "plodder" and never has been.

Find me another 6'6", 245 lb guy who has legs as good as his, or hands which are quicker, and then maybe I'll come around to your way of thinking.

Splattered a couple of times early on in his career, sure. As was Walcott (and as Ali said of him, "Ah, Jersey Joe - now there's a man who could move!"). As was Jack Johnson. As was Schmeling.

It seems that, for some reason, it's automatically become impossible for any Heavyweight to actually improve and get better after some early career setbacks these days. Fortunately, those aforementioned old boys are given a little more leeway, for reasons which I can't fathom.

It probably has something to do with the fact that, in 1936 alone, Jersey Joe Walcott fought eight times and each time against live opponents. He also arguably defeated an all time great in Joe Louis only to be robbed on the cards. Wlad has no such claim. Also Jersey didn't have an amateur career as far as I know so he was learning on the job and also working a real job to support his family.

Personally I think Wlad's improved massively since his days when he had a love affair with the canvas. Probably the most improved fighter since Barrera's development in the years between Junior Jones and Naseem Hamed.

Don't misunderstand what I was saying there, JBW. I'm not downgrading the standing of someone such as Walcott on those numerous defeats early in his career. I'm simply pointing out that plenty of people, no matter what he's done since or might do in the future, will always point blank refuse to acknowledge Wladimir as even a 'good' Heavyweight champion (yes, good in a historical context) because of the similar setbacks he had. They seem oblivious to the concept of a fighter improving throughout a career when, in fact, there are numerous examples of this (hence my points above).

Ah, I get you. I'm not used to agreeing with someone who's complimenting a Klistchko.

As I say John am no fan of rematch clauses full stop, if a petition goes round to ban them I'll happily sign but am not going to slaughter the brothers for doing what is pretty much what every promoter on the planet does. Accept throwing the brother into the mix makes them a little different but as I sais previously it is an unusual situation. Do think as well what often gets overlooked is there are enough examples that when fighters actually bring something to the table such as a belt, an audience or a mandatory status the deal they are offered is considerably more equitable.

May be being naive but I struggle to muster up too much sympathy for people being given an opportunity at immortality they have done very little to deserve or earn. If someone offers to give me a Ferrari I am not going to whinge I don't like the colour or if he says I have to lend it his brother every other weekend.

Rowley wrote:As I say John am no fan of rematch clauses full stop, if a petition goes round to ban them I'll happily sign but am not going to slaughter the brothers for doing what is pretty much what every promoter on the planet does. Accept throwing the brother into the mix makes them a little different but as I sais previously it is an unusual situation. Do think as well what often gets overlooked is there are enough examples that when fighters actually bring something to the table such as a belt, an audience or a mandatory status the deal they are offered is considerably more equitable.

May be being naive but I struggle to muster up too much sympathy for people being given an opportunity at immortality they have done very little to deserve or earn. If someone offers to give me a Ferrari I am not going to whinge I don't like the colour or if he says I have to lend it his brother every other weekend.

First of has anyone got any proff there is a rematch clause that involves the other brother? boxer like haye bring it up a lot when they are on their own talking in an interview but they have never shown the contract to the public or brought it up to a klitschko.

Secondly, can a guy like chisora complain about having a rematch clause in a fight he didnt deserve? That's like me being offered to play for barcelona and then complaining that the terms of the contract they are offering me suck.

As I said before why would boxing fas complain of a rematch clause that involves a fight with the other brother cos that would mean the fight is two world champs fighting each other.

Also the fighter could just break the contract and get taken to court but then i am sure they could argue that the terms of the contract are unfair and should be void. The court case could take years and so it wouldnt really affect the boxer.

From experience these cases don't take long to resolve, if you sign a contract saying you'll fight whoever next then that is what you must do or lose your title, plain and simple.

I fully disagree with any clauses that mandate you must fight Wlad if you beat Vitali or vice versa, it's ridiculous and is self affirming on the part of the brothers.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:(step forward JBW!)

Yo

I think they'll go down as greats too. However I see Vitali, he's gone in against one great fighter, given him all he could handle and lost. He's always maintained since that he was unjustly stopped. It was a past it great he fought, but a still great all the same. Then we take Ron Lyle, fought Ali, was ahead on the cards when he was stopped. Has always maintained since that he was unjustly stopped. Of course Ron was into the final third whereas Vitali was two points up with half the fight still to go.

Lyle came out of prison, started late, gave two of the top five greatest heavyweights of all time wars. Also knocked out Ernie Shavers which is a more dangerous scalp than anything Vitali's claimed. Other than being taken out when he was washed up by Cooney, he got outboxed by Jimmy Young, who's a more talented boxer than anybody Vitali's faced other than Lennox and maybe Chris Byrd. No matter which excuses are made he lost to both of them. This is conjecture but if Lyle was a mile up on the cards and outweighing his opponent by 34lbs with 3 rounds left, he'd carry on if you amputated his arm.

The reason I'm comparing the two is that Klistchko's ledger isn't really that more impressive. There's more longevity, but Lyle would have plenty of longevity against the sort of guys Vitali has been facing. Quality belongs with Lyle. Yet Vitali is praised as a near top ten all time great while Lyle (who would've been champion if there'd been 5 world titles around in his day) gets no mention. The praise is disproportionate.

Also, I read on here they have superb stamina and footwork. No, they have superb brains. Neither of them move around the ring with agility and neither of them have ever lasted at a high pace. However they make their opponents work at their pace. With movement, they make the absolute most of what they've got. Wlad has rock solid fundamentals. The most strictly fundamentally sound heavyweight since Louis. But he's no mover, he makes the best of what he's got in each department. Wlad's only been able to comfortably go the distance since he stopped coming out and throwing loads of shots. Back when he fought at pace he got taken out while gassing. The only time I've seen Vitali fight at a high pace was against Lewis and he was utterly knackered after six. He held Lewis like a long lost lover throughout that round.

I think its a kind of glass half empty approach to take to either Klitschko, and seems to apply a stricter level of scrutiny to them than is generally afforded to most other heavyweight champions. Its not really give them much credit at all for being the best heavyweights in the world for a period of nearly a decade. Which, if nothing else, sets them apart from the Youngs, Lyles and so on. I appreciate your argument, and its one that can be said of many fighters but its like the argument is constantly angled to show the empty side of the glass. We will never know how the brothers would fare against most of the other greats ultimately, or even the Nortons, Lyles and Youngs and with that in mind I find it hard to deny the brothers their atual acheivements because I think fighters like Marciano, Dempsey or Jeffries for instance are no certainty to win over those aforementioned fighters either. Why is it the brothers are dragged into the absolute peak years of the division to to gain legitimacy? I dont think the overwhelming majority of posters would expect them to rule that era or argue that they should rank ahead of those that did. But put Lewis or Tyson for arguments sake back then and I would say a good many people would favour them to come unstuck against Ali and Foreman. Even if the Klitschkos were only contenders back then there are plenty of other eras I see them being legitimate champions. Plus I think what they actually have done in their own era, which is the only real tangible thing that can be measured entitles them to throw their name into the hat amongst the top 15 or so heavyweights.


If you look at two general areas - 1. How they fare head to head against other top heavyweights and contenders. 2. Divisional acheivement (longetivty, being the top heavyweights etc) you can pick and choose the elements of each you want to take to evaluate them. Taking the negatively selected approach I could state they lose to alot of other greats head to head (Foreman, Ali, Lewis, Tyson etc) and then downplay their acheivement in their own era citing lack of competition. This, for me, takes the empty side of both glasses.

Alternatively, if I put a positive spin on it, I could cite how they could beat alot of other greats (Jeffries, Marciano, Dempsey) and play up their acheivement of being the dominants heavyweights with numerous defences and massive longetivity. This takes the full side of both glasses.

My own approach is something in the middle and leaves them all in all around the 11-15ish bracket. Invariably they might finish ahead of some guys that may well have beat them but they also end up behind some guys Id favour them to beat.

Plus the shift in the heavyweight has moved so much since the days of Corbett and Fitz that I struggle to directly compare and quantify acheivements in a heavyweight division where anything plus 175lb is a heavyweight to now where the average is probably 230lbs. Dempsey for arguments sake gets credit for beating Carpentier and Gibbons. Jeffreis for beating Fitzsimmons and Corbett. Were Klitschko to predictably beat a Jones or a Hopkins they would get none. When that happens it becomes almost pointless to try and compare directly.

But anyway, Im rambling. Fair play if you manage to read through that.

May I ask which of them has dominated for a decade?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:May I ask which of them has dominated for a decade?

Well wlad has been a HW champ for 8 consecutive years, vitali 5 consecutive years. However Wlad first won the HW title 13 years ago back in 2000 And vitali won the hW championship for the first time in 1999.

Wlad won the HW title in 2000, lost the title in 03 and won it back again in 05 and has held it ever since so Wlad has been HW champ for 10 out of the last 13 years (8 years as a consecutive champ)

Vitali has not held it for as long but he did retire for 4 and a half years.

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:(step forward JBW!)

Yo

I think they'll go down as greats too. However I see Vitali, he's gone in against one great fighter, given him all he could handle and lost. He's always maintained since that he was unjustly stopped. It was a past it great he fought, but a still great all the same. Then we take Ron Lyle, fought Ali, was ahead on the cards when he was stopped. Has always maintained since that he was unjustly stopped. Of course Ron was into the final third whereas Vitali was two points up with half the fight still to go.

Lyle came out of prison, started late, gave two of the top five greatest heavyweights of all time wars. Also knocked out Ernie Shavers which is a more dangerous scalp than anything Vitali's claimed. Other than being taken out when he was washed up by Cooney, he got outboxed by Jimmy Young, who's a more talented boxer than anybody Vitali's faced other than Lennox and maybe Chris Byrd. No matter which excuses are made he lost to both of them. This is conjecture but if Lyle was a mile up on the cards and outweighing his opponent by 34lbs with 3 rounds left, he'd carry on if you amputated his arm.

The reason I'm comparing the two is that Klistchko's ledger isn't really that more impressive. There's more longevity, but Lyle would have plenty of longevity against the sort of guys Vitali has been facing. Quality belongs with Lyle. Yet Vitali is praised as a near top ten all time great while Lyle (who would've been champion if there'd been 5 world titles around in his day) gets no mention. The praise is disproportionate.

Also, I read on here they have superb stamina and footwork. No, they have superb brains. Neither of them move around the ring with agility and neither of them have ever lasted at a high pace. However they make their opponents work at their pace. With movement, they make the absolute most of what they've got. Wlad has rock solid fundamentals. The most strictly fundamentally sound heavyweight since Louis. But he's no mover, he makes the best of what he's got in each department. Wlad's only been able to comfortably go the distance since he stopped coming out and throwing loads of shots. Back when he fought at pace he got taken out while gassing. The only time I've seen Vitali fight at a high pace was against Lewis and he was utterly knackered after six. He held Lewis like a long lost lover throughout that round.

I think its a kind of glass half empty approach to take to either Klitschko, and seems to apply a stricter level of scrutiny to them than is generally afforded to most other heavyweight champions. Its not really give them much credit at all for being the best heavyweights in the world for a period of nearly a decade. Which, if nothing else, sets them apart from the Youngs, Lyles and so on. I appreciate your argument, and its one that can be said of many fighters but its like the argument is constantly angled to show the empty side of the glass. We will never know how the brothers would fare against most of the other greats ultimately, or even the Nortons, Lyles and Youngs and with that in mind I find it hard to deny the brothers their atual acheivements because I think fighters like Marciano, Dempsey or Jeffries for instance are no certainty to win over those aforementioned fighters either. Why is it the brothers are dragged into the absolute peak years of the division to to gain legitimacy? I dont think the overwhelming majority of posters would expect them to rule that era or argue that they should rank ahead of those that did. But put Lewis or Tyson for arguments sake back then and I would say a good many people would favour them to come unstuck against Ali and Foreman. Even if the Klitschkos were only contenders back then there are plenty of other eras I see them being legitimate champions. Plus I think what they actually have done in their own era, which is the only real tangible thing that can be measured entitles them to throw their name into the hat amongst the top 15 or so heavyweights.


If you look at two general areas - 1. How they fare head to head against other top heavyweights and contenders. 2. Divisional acheivement (longetivty, being the top heavyweights etc) you can pick and choose the elements of each you want to take to evaluate them. Taking the negatively selected approach I could state they lose to alot of other greats head to head (Foreman, Ali, Lewis, Tyson etc) and then downplay their acheivement in their own era citing lack of competition. This, for me, takes the empty side of both glasses.

Alternatively, if I put a positive spin on it, I could cite how they could beat alot of other greats (Jeffries, Marciano, Dempsey) and play up their acheivement of being the dominants heavyweights with numerous defences and massive longetivity. This takes the full side of both glasses.

My own approach is something in the middle and leaves them all in all around the 11-15ish bracket. Invariably they might finish ahead of some guys that may well have beat them but they also end up behind some guys Id favour them to beat.

Plus the shift in the heavyweight has moved so much since the days of Corbett and Fitz that I struggle to directly compare and quantify acheivements in a heavyweight division where anything plus 175lb is a heavyweight to now where the average is probably 230lbs. Dempsey for arguments sake gets credit for beating Carpentier and Gibbons. Jeffreis for beating Fitzsimmons and Corbett. Were Klitschko to predictably beat a Jones or a Hopkins they would get none. When that happens it becomes almost pointless to try and compare directly.

But anyway, Im rambling. Fair play if you manage to read through that.

'Twas a good post and is nothing at all wrong that I can see. I could disagree on them beating Dempsey but that's just nit picking. I do also get what Ghosty was pointing out though, that 2 guys can't exactly dominate an individual sport like boxing as one entity, but that's what makes the situation unique.

Rowley wrote:As I say John am no fan of rematch clauses full stop, if a petition goes round to ban them I'll happily sign but am not going to slaughter the brothers for doing what is pretty much what every promoter on the planet does. Accept throwing the brother into the mix makes them a little different but as I sais previously it is an unusual situation. Do think as well what often gets overlooked is there are enough examples that when fighters actually bring something to the table such as a belt, an audience or a mandatory status the deal they are offered is considerably more equitable.

May be being naive but I struggle to muster up too much sympathy for people being given an opportunity at immortality they have done very little to deserve or earn. If someone offers to give me a Ferrari I am not going to whinge I don't like the colour or if he says I have to lend it his brother every other weekend.

I would whinge. The miles per gallon on one of those things! It'd cost a weeks wages filling it with petrol and his damn brother never fills up the tank after he uses it!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Certainly politics might become more popular over here if there were a few tear-ups.....

"Mr Speaker I'd like to ask the Prime minister.......If he'd care to step outside!!"

"love too"...............

Kill the X-factor for sure!!

Does that mean in the US it would be along the lines of "would the senator like to explan that to me and my colt 45".

That wasn't what I was asking Victor, who has dominated the heavyweight division for the past decade because it can't be done by two fighters but rather one.

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:May I ask which of them has dominated for a decade?

Well wlad has been a HW champ for 8 consecutive years, vitali 5 consecutive years. However Wlad first won the HW title 13 years ago back in 2000 And vitali won the hW championship for the first time in 1999.

Wlad won the HW title in 2000, lost the title in 03 and won it back again in 05 and has held it ever since so Wlad has been HW champ for 10 out of the last 13 years (8 years as a consecutive champ)

Vitali has not held it for as long but he did retire for 4 and a half years.

You've either side-stepped or completely missed the point. Neither has dominated the decade/era, they've shared it. Wlad failed to unify in Vit's 4 year hiatus, that was his opportunity to dominate.

I dont think anyone claimed either of them dominated in the singular. They have dominated the division collectively, due to a unique situation. Neither can claim any real superiority over the other but they have both been the top heavyweights by a mile since Lewis retired.

IG did ask 'which', therefore implying the singular, when posing the question Victor answered. Either way the simple fact is they have shared the dominance not controlled it, as unique as their personal situation may be.

You'll know better than me, but why didn't Wlad unify in Vit's absence? I thought that might have been because that was when King was trying to nurse Valuev to Marciano's record but that was a different belt, it was the WBC which Vitali had when he retired and was handed back upon his return.

Not sure what the reasons were for the lack of unification during that period, boxing politics I would guess. Vitali was handed his belt back, he had to win it back, albeit by being afforded an immediate shot. Unifications are not particular easy to come by days, and even harder to maintain given how things are. How many fully unified champions have there been since the 4 belt system? Hopkins, Taylor cant think of any others off the top of my head.

Vitali wasnt handed his belt back, he had to win it back, albeit by being afforded an immediate shot.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That wasn't what I was asking Victor, who has dominated the heavyweight division for the past decade because it can't be done by two fighters but rather one.

You asked who dominated and I posted down some facts for you to make up your own mind.

However it is quote obvious Wlad has dominated. he has been a HW champ for 10 out of 13 years including 8 consecutive years. He has something like 16 world title defences in a row.

And you don't need to win ALL the belts to dominate. Politics in boxing stops a lot of fights from happening. Wlad has been the Number 1 man for nearly a decade now that is obvious.

the terms in the klits contracts are no different to those imposed by sauerland, or those don king would stipulate when offering voluntary title defences. K2 is a promotional company that tries to do the best for their business, as with all the other promotional companies. haye gave rights to several future fights by fighting valuev. probably helped him get the decision too

Lance wrote:the terms in the klits contracts are no different to those imposed by sauerland, or those don king would stipulate when offering voluntary title defences.

Not strictly true though, is it? There's no other example in history of being forced to rematch an alternative opponent (as well as the person you've already defeated) let alone that person's brother (who also happens to beat divisional #2).

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Lance wrote:the terms in the klits contracts are no different to those imposed by sauerland, or those don king would stipulate when offering voluntary title defences.

Not strictly true though, is it? There's no other example in history of being forced to rematch an alternative opponent (as well as the person you've already defeated) let alone that person's brother (who also happens to beat divisional #2).

There are probably plenty, but they don’t become widely known because few people are privy to the contacts. The 40s and 50s were notorious for shady promoters owing each favours and the cost of doing business with them often amounted to signing away your career. Nowadays I doubt the Klitschkos operate much different to any other current promoter. Few fighters out there have complete control of their own careers. They generally do the promoters bidding.

Appreciate there were probably a raft of shady dealings back in the gangster era but I still haven't heard of any comparable to this situation?

I realise we're never going to find a brother rematch clause example, but even just having to immediately defend against the divisional #2?

BRuno mccall - had to rematch Tyson,

Good example, thanks Shah.

Nearly all fighters today are told who to fight by their promoters. Arums inhousing in recent years of matching his own fighters against each other or forcing outsiders who want a shot at his fighters to sign with him I would consider pretty comparable. Pretty sure King would have had deals in place to make fighters fight an opponent of his choice in return for a shot. Didnt Mancini have to face Prior if he beat Bramble? Haye had to face Ruiz after Valuev if he won.

Few people see the contracts so I dont know for sure but other than being brothers I dont really think the Klitschkos as promoters do things massively different. I cant honestly say for sure though because I never see the contracts or what they involve. I would guess the cost of doing business in boxing with both promoters and sanctioning bodies still generally comes at a price though.

And in any even as a fan if someone did beat the divisional number 1 then the next obvious choice would be the number 2 so Im not going to complain too hard if whoever beats Vitali sets up an undisputed fight with Wlad as a result. If it was Arum or Golden Boy that handled the Klitschkos careers I dont think they would have it much different.

By not beating his closest rival it's hard to argue wlad has dominated, it has and always will make a massive difference.

I wouldn't take too much umbrage to somebody describing Wlad as a dominant champion, to be honest. He wouldn't be the first Heavyweight champion to have not fought a divisional number two, even a long-standing one; Dempsey, by hook or crook (and he does deserve to be cut some slack over the Wills issue, in my eyes), never got in the ring with the man most saw to be his biggest threat and who was considered to be so for quite a while, while Holmes let a succession of possible unification match ups with the Tates, Coetzees, Pages and Dokes' of this world pass him by. And then there's the issue of Johnson feasting off the division's chaff once he got his hands on the title.

All of these three are nigh-on universally accepted as top ten Heavies of all time, no less, and Wlad's reason for not fighting Vitali is a damn sight more understandable than Dempsey's for not fighting Wills, or Holmes' for not fighting one of the other champions recognised during his tenure, or Johnson's for not fighting Langford, Jeanette et al while champion. I'd say that Wladimir's claim to be the premier Heavyweight on the planet beyond most reasonable doubt began when he unified the IBF and WBO against the hitherto unbeaten Ibragimov in 2008, and if there was any scope for discussion he surely swept it aside in 2009 when he mauled the (again) undefeated Chagaev in what should really have been a WBA unification fight. In any case, that fight earned him the Ring belt as well, so no arguments from even his biggest detractors from that point onwards, I'd imagine.

As Heavyweights go, not all that many champions have been top dog for that long. And like it or not, plenty were predicting that Wladimir would be found out against Haye but he passed that test without a great deal of bother. Much easier to question the quality of his era rather than his level of dominance, I'd say, but there are quite a few Heavyweight champions who fall in to that bracket.

88Chris05 wrote:I wouldn't take too much umbrage to somebody describing Wlad as a dominant champion, to be honest. He wouldn't be the first Heavyweight champion to have not fought a divisional number two, even a long-standing one; Dempsey, by hook or crook (and he does deserve to be cut some slack over the Wills issue, in my eyes), never got in the ring with the man most saw to be his biggest threat and who was considered to be so for quite a while, while Holmes let a succession of possible unification match ups with the Tates, Coetzees, Pages and Dokes' of this world pass him by. And then there's the issue of Johnson feasting off the division's chaff once he got his hands on the title.

All of these three are nigh-on universally accepted as top ten Heavies of all time, no less, and Wlad's reason for not fighting Vitali is a damn sight more understandable than Dempsey's for not fighting Wills, or Holmes' for not fighting one of the other champions recognised during his tenure, or Johnson's for not fighting Langford, Jeanette et al while champion. I'd say that Wladimir's claim to be the premier Heavyweight on the planet beyond most reasonable doubt began when he unified the IBF and WBO against the hitherto unbeaten Ibragimov in 2008, and if there was any scope for discussion he surely swept it aside in 2009 when he mauled the (again) undefeated Chagaev in what should really have been a WBA unification fight. In any case, that fight earned him the Ring belt as well, so no arguments from even his biggest detractors from that point onwards, I'd imagine.

As Heavyweights go, not all that many champions have been top dog for that long. And like it or not, plenty were predicting that Wladimir would be found out against Haye but he passed that test without a great deal of bother. Much easier to question the quality of his era rather than his level of dominance, I'd say, but there are quite a few Heavyweight champions who fall in to that bracket.

Id also add that with regards to his skeptics would beating Vitali or vice versa even do much? If one doesnt rate either Klitschko then Im not sure whichever one proved to be better would acheive anything. They would merely become the better of the two as opposed to anything more. Would have been an interesting fight in the couple of years after Vitali came back but prior to that Id favour Vitali and in the last few years Id favour Wlad.

I would say that the slight difference would be that Dempsey was unequivocally the man after beating Willard as was Holmes after beating Norton and Johnson after beating Burns. They have that to their name which neither brother thus far has achieved.

A few months after Holmes won the vacant WBC against Norton, Neon Leon and Ali had their rematch which was for the WBA and lineal title, Ghosty, so Holmes wasn't top man at that stage just yet. I don't think that Ring Magazine awarded him their belt until he beat the returning Ali in late 1980, and after that he never unified against the champion of another organisation.

In that respect, I really don't see that much difference between how Larry and Wladimir ended up being considered the best Heavyweight in the world in their respective eras, as they both got there piece by piece, effectively.

Granted, none of Dokes, Page, Coetzee, Tate etc were able to establish themselves as a long-serving divisional number two the way Vitali has, but as I said above, Wlad's reason for not fighting his own brother deserves no criticism when compared to Dempsey's reasons for not fighting Wills, or Johnson's for refusing to fight his more deserving fellow blacks while champion. In the days of four 'major' sanctioning bodies it's already extremely rare - and will probably get even rarer - that any one figher holds all four belts at once, but with three out of those four plus the Ring Magazine belt to his name, Wladimir's claim to the top spot is pretty solid, for me. Not much less solid than Holmes' was, if indeed it is at all.

Can't agree with that at all Chris, Holmes was the consensus number one for years something which has thus far alluded Wlad.

ShahenshahG wrote:BRuno mccall - had to rematch Tyson,

McCall never fought Tyson, so hardly a rematch.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Can't agree with that at all Chris, Holmes was the consensus number one for years something which has thus far alluded Wlad.

Wlad is also consensus number 1 and has been for years. Always ranked as such by all boxing outlets.

azania wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:BRuno mccall - had to rematch Tyson,

McCall never fought Tyson, so hardly a rematch.

Bruno rematch az. Bruno got a Title shot against Mccall if he would fight Tyson in his next bout. So it was a rematch of sorts.

I know. Just n a wum mission again!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Can't agree with that at all Chris, Holmes was the consensus number one for years something which has thus far alluded Wlad.

Not denying that Holmes held that distinction for a little longer than Wlad has, Ghosty, but my point is that Wladimir is just as much a consensus number one as Holmes was, and that neither of them achieved that in one fight - their rise to the very top was piecemeal. As I said, when Holmes won his WBC belt in 1978, it was largely considered an insignificant portion formerly belonging to the 'real' title, which was again contested between Spinks and Ali a few months later. Ali retired as champion, the WBA belt became vacant and, for a while, there was nobody around who was really a lineal champion, or the 'man who beat the man.'

It wasn't until 1980, when the already vanquished Weaver won the WBA belt and he beat the stuffing out of Ali's remains to secure the 'Ring' version, that Holmes became the universally accepted number one. He reigned for another five years, which was excellent, but it's not far off four years since Wladimir made it impossible to argue against his claim by beating Chagaev. Like Larry, he was merely the champion of an organisation rather than the divisional king pin at first, but gradually moved himself in to the top position.

If Holmes was a dominant champion (and a consensus one), then Wladimir simply has to be classed as that as well, in my book at least.

Certainly helps though If your brother can knock out the awkward ones that annihilate you....

RIP Corrie Sanders..

At least Lewis revenged himself..

Chagaev really? Slight problem with your reasoning there would be the active again Vitali so no he didn't make it impossible to argue against, I find it impossible to argue one or the other as the main man.

Well as I said earlier in the thread, Truss, Wladimir's not the first Heavyweight champion to have shipped a defeat or two before their title reign, and he won't be the last either.

Doesn't change the fact that, for a good while now, he's been very much the best Heavyweight in the world, albeit in one of the poorer eras for the division.

I agree ghosty.............Sanders plays well for me on Vitali's record...

As does the narrow loss to Lewis......

Haye is a big leveller for Wlad.... but did Haye really have a Heavyweight pedigree??

Two lumbering heavies that got lucky in the time they were born..

I would strongly argue that in fact Vitali was the better heavyweight for some time especially when he was dismantling Samuel Peter.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Chagaev really? Slight problem with your reasoning there would be the active again Vitali so no he didn't make it impossible to argue against, I find it impossible to argue one or the other as the main man.

There was an active Wills throughout Dempsey's reign - a Wills who many thought would beat Dempsey once he started to slide after the Carpentier fight in 1921. Doesn't change the fact that Dempsey was the recognised champion and had won the fight(s) to earn that status. Similarly, many felt that 'Spoon beat Holmes and, soon after, he also held the WBC belt to bolster his claims of being the division's best - but ultimately, Holmes was still the top dog in the division in the eyes of most observers. And again, it's not as if Wladimir against Vitali has ever been a possibility, whereas Dempsey-Wills or Holmes-Witherspoon II was.

They say boxing is in a better place when you can look at it and say, "Yeah, HE is THE Heavyweight champion of the world." I think most see Wladimir as that now, but that's just my take on it.

Am I only one able to see the big difference here?

Demspey beat Willard who was the man he therefore became the man.
Wladimir has at no point during his whole career beaten anyone who has as strong a claim to be number one as he does. He didn't beat Lewis and he hasn't beaten Vitali, granted that's not is fault but i'm not going to make allowances because his big brother has dealt with some of the tougher tests out there.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I would strongly argue that in fact Vitali was the better heavyweight for some time especially when he was dismantling Samuel Peter.

fact is Wlad has been number 1 ranked by all boxing organisations for years and holds nearly every belt. Whether you like it or not Wlad has dominated the division for 8 years(before that his brother dominated). Wlad will dominate the HW division for another 5 years.

Really? How comes he's never beaten anyone ranked number one or two in the division then?

Strange sort of domination.