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.

True Ghosty, but plenty of champions have become the consensus man in their division without beating someone with just as big a claim; that's the way divisions fall and fragment sometimes. Holmes never had an ultimate showdown with another number one claimant to sort out the Heavyweight mess, did he? Unless we count the shell of Ali.

Anyway, since Wladimir's rise to the top spot (so basically, 2009 onwards) he's constantly fought the better opponents out of him and Vitali, for me. Haye and Chagaev trump Vitali's best wins in his 'second career.'

Anyway, agree to disagree on this one, as I'm off to get some zzzzzzzz. Ta-ra to all.

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

Strange sort of domination.

pretty sure he has had 3 unification fights

Never against anyone ranked number one or two though Victor.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Never against anyone ranked number one or two though Victor.

If you are a belt holder you are the top dog in your division that is why you are the champ

Not really, you can't have four top dogs in a single division. There's being a belt holder and then there's being a nailed on world champion.

Holding a belt does not make you a top dog...

Think Wlad has earned the status by default. Big bro had dealt with all his issues and by the time he retired the division was just full of gash. Wlad feasted on stiffs and made himself recognised as number one. Never beat the next best challenger other than Haye and that should be held against him in the same way it is for fighters like Calzaghe who was all too happy to defend against trash.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Holding a belt does not make you a top dog...

Think Wlad has earned the status by default. Big bro had dealt with all his issues and by the time he retired the division was just full of gash. Wlad feasted on stiffs and made himself recognised as number one. Never beat the next best challenger other than Haye and that should be held against him in the same way it is for fighters like Calzaghe who was all too happy to defend against trash.

Who hasn't he fought? He has beaten world champs had unification bouts and defeated about 5 unbeaten fighters. So who has he avoided?

Well he's not faced his main divisional rival has he.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well he's not faced his main divisional rival has he.

yeh you must be right, wad has ducked so many people and has not dominated the HW division because he has not fought his brother.

Forget that he has unified the HW division, destroyed unbeaten champs, had nearly 20 title defences in a row and been ranked number 1 for 8 years.

Yet until a few years ago most people would've backed big bro to beat him.......I think that's part of thre issue.

A victim of circumstance maybe, but it's even less helpful when the guy you can't fight is also probably the only guy around that could beat you.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Yet until a few years ago most people would've backed big bro to beat him.......I think that's part of thre issue.

A victim of circumstance maybe, but it's even less helpful when the guy you can't fight is also probably the only guy around that could beat you.

The situation is not ideal, but it depends on the argument. For most people the situation does weaken both brothers individual claim I suspect. But to what extent? Do either brothers achievements count for little or nothing as a result of not fighting each other? I would say it hurts their individual claims but the flip side is the winner of a fight between the two would then rank rank even higher. They have clearly been the best heavyweights by a distance since Lewis retired. If people were claiming their achievements were amongst the very best of all time then for sure, the uncomfortable scenario of having siblings sharing the honour would be a big issue. But not many people argue this and I don’t think the scenario is sufficient to deny them their place amongst the top twenty at a minimum. Its also not their fault that boxing has fallen into a ridiculous state that allows multiple world champions. There will be hardly any undisputed champions while this condition remains. I would guess that a lot of the skeptics wouldn’t change any opinion of the brothers even if they had fought and produced an undisputed champion. I also question whether there is all that much difference differnace between their scenario and Dempsey or Johnson for instance. Technically they may have become the man but if they don’t defend against their main rival then in practice the situation is little different. Even in a one belt system, whichever Klitschko held it would still have the stigma of never facing their brother and main rival.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hit them as hard as some for it and have warmed to Wlad over time. Would probably see Wlad ending up at c.15 in the all time stakes and his brother 1 or 2 places behind. Very hard to split them, Wlad the more technical and proficient boxer with the better longjevity and dominance but no defining fight whereas Vit has Lewis and I'd back Vit to beat Wlad more often than not.

Yes they're a victim of circumstance which is unfortunate but that doesn't mean you can disregard it. Equally I am sure there are boxers others on here could name that operated in the strongest eras achieving a lot less by comparison despite being no less capable. They are victims of circumstance also and their all time ranking reflects that.

Ken Norton perhaps. Has a win over The Greatest and ones over Quarry, Young and Cobb etc who are possibly better than anything on Wlad's CV (happy to be corrected) and would probably dominate this era as Wlad has but instead was operating at a time when Frazier, Ali, Foreman and Holmes were around.

I doubt Ken has a sniff of top 30, let alone top 20.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Don't get me wrong, I don't hit them as hard as some for it and have warmed to Wlad over time. Would probably see Wlad ending up at c.15 in the all time stakes and his brother 1 or 2 places behind. Very hard to split them, Wlad the more technical and proficient boxer with the better longjevity and dominance but no defining fight whereas Vit has Lewis and I'd back Vit to beat Wlad more often than not.

Yes they're a victim of circumstance which is unfortunate but that doesn't mean you can disregard it. Equally I am sure there are boxers others on here could name that operated in the strongest eras achieving a lot less by comparison despite being no less capable. They are victims of circumstance also and their all time ranking reflects that.

Ken Norton perhaps. Has a win over The Greatest and ones over Quarry, Young and Cobb etc who are possibly better than anything on Wlad's CV (happy to be corrected) and would probably dominate this era as Wlad has but instead was operating at a time when Frazier, Ali, Foreman and Holmes were around.

I doubt Ken has a sniff of top 30, let alone top 20.

I wouldnt argue with that too much although when the dust settles on both Klitschkos careers it will be hard to seperate them. at present I think Wlad is riding the crest because he is at his peak whereas Vitali looks past his best but all things considered at the moment I would agree that peak for peak I would favour Vitali and he doesnt have the poor defeats to his name even though Wlad has the more extensive win column.

I dont think Norton would make my top 20 (would have to think about it a bit more though) but he would definately make my top 30. He is arguably the unluckiest heavyweight out there in terms of the quality around he had to contend with and his win column is better than a whole host of guys who were actually world champion. If we are discounting his brief rather invalid title reign then he would be my pick as the best heavyweight never to actually be champion. but you could apply his unluckyness to many an era and say he would have been champ at that time, not just to the Klitschko era.

I bought the Klitschko documentary yesterday after spotting it in the supermarket. I might have to watch it later after I've endured the soaps on tv.

TopHat24/7 wrote:t no defining fight whereas Vit has Lewis

.

WOuld you not say Wlad's defining fight was Haye? The build up to the fight lasted 3 years and Haye was unbeaten at HW and he was a world champ. Yes the fight was very one sided but does that take anything away from wlad's achievement in beating Haye?

Many people backed Haye to win so it was not an easy fight on paper.

I do think WLad has another 4/5 years left in him so I def see a fight between him and Fury/Price in the future.

David Haye whilst being a very good cruiserweight isn't a defining fight at heavyweight for anyone. Defining fights are your Fraziers, Alis, Lewis', Holyfields.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:David Haye whilst being a very good cruiserweight isn't a defining fight at heavyweight for anyone. Defining fights are your Fraziers, Alis, Lewis', Holyfields.

I actually think David Haye's HW career has been more successful than his cruiserweight.

What Ruiz, Valuev, Harrison and Chisora constitutes being a successful heavyweight. Think being the unified champion at cruiserweight is slightly more successful myself.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What Ruiz, Valuev, Harrison and Chisora constitutes being a successful heavyweight. Think being the unified champion at cruiserweight is slightly more successful myself.

He was World champ for 2 years at HW

Do you think posting statistic after statistic hides the fact that Haye has only ever beaten garbage at heavyweight?

Take Ali for example he is defined by Liston, Frazier and Foreman not the likes of Folley, Patterson, Chuvalo, Norton, Lyle, Young, Shavers, Terrell or Quarry, if Haye is a defining fight then god help us all.

Don't let's mention Chisora...

Like the candyman he might turn up on our screens If we mention him...

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Do you think posting statistic after statistic hides the fact that Haye has only ever beaten garbage at heavyweight?

Take Ali for example he is defined by Liston, Frazier and Foreman not the likes of Folley, Patterson, Chuvalo, Norton, Lyle, Young, Shavers, Terrell or Quarry, if Haye is a defining fight then god help us all.

Haye burst onto the HW and beat all in front of him fairly easily.

At the time of his defeat to Wlad haye was a very dangerous and top ranked opponent.

He didn't beat Valuev easily at all, on top of that is Harrison and Ruiz hardly mind blowing stuff but if you think he's a defining fight for anyone then that's your choice however wrong you are.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He didn't beat Valuev easily at all, on top of that is Harrison and Ruiz hardly mind blowing stuff but if you think he's a defining fight for anyone then that's your choice however wrong you are.

Yes i do. You can't say he is not a defining fight because he beat poor opponents. He destroyed those opponents so easily. When he was about to face Wlad loads of peole backed him to win including boxers (non uk boxers as well) and journalists.

David Haye is the 3rd best HW out there.

It's not a defining fight is it....??????

Because he beat a guy without a pedigree..

Suppose you think Calzaghe is god then!!!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It's not a defining fight is it....??????

Because he beat a guy without a pedigree..

Suppose you think Calzaghe is god then!!!!

Of course it is a defining fight

Well yes I can say it's not a defining because it's not Victor, do you think the likes of Frazier or Foreman built a reputation based on beating Valuev, Ruiz and Harrison?

I struggle to suggest that Tua is a defining fight for Lewis and we're talking about a far more dangerous and accomplished heavyweight than Haye.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well yes I can say it's not a defining because it's not Victor, do you think the likes of Frazier or Foreman built a reputation based on beating Valuev, Ruiz and Harrison?

I struggle to suggest that Tua is a defining fight for Lewis and we're talking about a far more dangerous and accomplished heavyweight than Haye.

I am telling you it is a defining fight. If Haye beat Wlad would you say that it was not a defining fight for haye because wlad has had poor opposition? of course not. The same applies to Wlad.

Different situation entirely, Haye as a former cruiserweight would get far more credit for beating Wlad than Wlad would do for beating a former cruiserweight. Much like Holmes is defining for Spinks but Spinks wouldn't have been defining fo Holmes.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Different situation entirely, Haye as a former cruiserweight would get far more credit for beating Wlad than Wlad would do for beating a former cruiserweight. Much like Holmes is defining for Spinks but Spinks wouldn't have been defining fo Holmes.

But the idea behind it rubbishes your idea that you cant have a defining fight with someone who has beat 'bums'.

Also holyfield was mentioned earlier as a defining fight and he was a cruiserweight like haye. So why should it count against wlad beating a former CW but not holyfields victors? make your mind up.

Basically what you are saying is that other people can have a defining fight against someone who has a record of beating 'bums' but wlad is not allowed to. Also other people can have a defining fight against a former cruiserweight but Wlad is not allowed to.

Really?

I'm really struggling to see a Douglas, Moorer, Bowe, Foreman, Holmes or Tyson on Hayes record, i'm struggling to even see a Dokes or Thomas on there.

Holyfield was a great cruiserweight who went on to become a great heavyweight.
Haye was a pretty good cruiserweight who went on to become a decent heavyweight.

There really is no comparison between the two.

Hearns without Cuevas and Leonard without Duran and Benitez wouldn't have made their fight a defining one.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Really?

I'm really struggling to see a Douglas, Moorer, Bowe, Foreman, Holmes or Tyson on Hayes record, i'm struggling to even see a Dokes or Thomas on there.

Holyfield was a great cruiserweight who went on to become a great heavyweight.
Haye was a pretty good cruiserweight who went on to become a decent heavyweight.

There really is no comparison between the two.

Hearns without Cuevas and Leonard without Duran and Benitez wouldn't have made their fight a defining one.

You said that it would be a defining fight for haye if he beat wlad even though wlad has a very poor record. So why would it not be a defining fight for wlad to beat haye who as a record similar to Wlad's?

If Wlad beat Vitali would that be a defining fight? the answer should be yes but vitali has just as poor opposition as Haye.

I initially thought you were basing a definig fight solely on the opponents record but then you said haye would have a defining fight against wlad who has a 'poor' record (quality wise).

So now it seems as if you are just changing your arguments in an attempt to make yourself believe that WLad has never had a defining fight.

I believe i've already explained that.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I believe i've already explained that.

I don't believe you have. Tell me your criteria for a defining fight? is it based on your opponents win record against good fighters? If so why would haye have a defining fight against wlad who has a poor record?

Defining fights are against great fighters not decent ones who just so happens to hold one of the many world titles knocking about now. Wlad despite having a poor record is undoutably a very good boxer, with the Haye match up the smaller man would always end up getting more credit than the bigger man as he would need to overcome the odds so to speak.

Had Tunney not beaten Dempsey for instance he'd have gone the way of all the other light heavyweights who failed upon their step up not the revered figure he is now. With that Dempsey doesn't end up with getting the credit of beating a great figher but rather of beating a great light heavyweight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Defining fights are against great fighters not decent ones who just so happens to hold one of the many world titles knocking about now. Wlad despite having a poor record is undoutably a very good boxer, with the Haye match up the smaller man would always end up getting more credit than the bigger man as he would need to overcome the odds so to speak.

Had Tunney not beaten Dempsey for instance he'd have gone the way of all the other light heavyweights who failed upon their step up not the revered figure he is now. With that Dempsey doesn't end up with getting the credit of beating a great figher but rather of beating a great light heavyweight.

So if defining fights are against great fighters (everything has to be relative eg klitschko is seen as a great fighter now and would be a defining fight for anybody but in the 60's would just be a challenger according to some) then that means everything is subjective as different people believe different fighters are great/notgreat. I believe in the 2010 era david haye was a great fighter (relative to the times) and thus it was a defining fight for klitschko.

It's not entirely relative as Haye is quite clearly not as defining a win as say Liston, Frazier or Foreman. Or would you in some bizarre way say they are comparative?

How many top heavyweight champions have genuine defining fights? i would struggle to say Lewis as Holyfield and especially Tyson were well past it, Holmes fought the corpse of Ali, even Liston who beat Patterson who had a chin of pure glass is imo an overrated win and i'd struggle to call it (defining). Haye was the top fighter available in the division, had a high KO rate so obviously brought a lot of danger for Wlad and was extremely quick (a combo WK historically has struggled with), Wlad will never fight his brother i don't even know why it's brought up. It's just stupid and at no point would it ever have happened. All he can do is beat the best in the era, he has beaten Chagaev,Haye,Chambers,Byrd x2, Ibragimov,Peter x2, in recent years who were all near the summit of the division and had beaten all serious previous contenders they had faced. None of them will go down as greats but they were the best at the time, all heavyweight champions defended against complete dross. Wlad will never fight an ATG because there simply aren't any available but he's faced every other top contender and beaten whoever stepped in the ring with him.

Well said Monty. All the anti Wlad stuff is tiresome. The guy is a wonderful boxer and a credit to sport (not boxing as I believe the HW champ should be larger than life). Superb boxer who would have held his own in any era.

People go over his record with a microscope but make huge allowances for a real chump who fought near dead old men and is called an ATG. 5 defences in 4 years. What a joke.

So he's a credit to sport, but not boxing (which is a sport)? How does that work then?

Easy. He is a consumate sportsman most of the time. His media image is as such. But for me personally I prefer the HW champ to be larger than life. Boxing is not just a sport. People play sports. You dont play boxing.

That is just a cliche... Boxing is a sport and if he is good for sport he is good for boxing.

I have respect for what the drone brothers have achieved. Especially Vlad. He was doing some funny dances n the ring not so long ago.

Of course it was a cliche.

K2 for me are more boring than golf. They are gentlemen (or seem to be). But for heavens sake, boxing needs more than gentlemen who seem to behave like gentlemen inside the ring also but not dispatching over-matched opponents earlier. That for me (personal thing) is bad for boxing. It they had slightly more personality and charisma than an IKEA shelf, then perhaps they would be good for boxing generally.

Fantastic boxers though.

azania wrote:Of course it was a cliche.

K2 for me are more boring than golf. They are gentlemen (or seem to be). But for heavens sake, boxing needs more than gentlemen who seem to behave like gentlemen inside the ring also but not dispatching over-matched opponents earlier. That for me (personal thing) is bad for boxing. It they had slightly more personality and charisma than an IKEA shelf, then perhaps they would be good for boxing generally.

Fantastic boxers though.

It could be a language barrier. They are loved in Germany/Ukraine and they speak better German/Ukranian so maybe that's why. It must be difficult getting your personality across in your 4th language

I doubt they say different things to different people whatever the language. Too humble and nicey nicey for me.

Hate the term defining fight. One fight does not define a career, if it did we would have Kirkland Laing in our top ten Brits or Buster Douglas in our top ten heavies. Careers are defined over a career, the clue is in the word.

Haye is not a great win in the panteheon of heavyweight wins but as many have already said he represented about the best the division had to offer at the time and was dealt with with relative ease by Wlad. What I do find interesting though is many on here were tipping Haye to beat Wlad prior to the fight but I am yet to see any great re-evaluation of Wlad's abilities on the back of him proving said folk wrong, despite this suggesting he is somewhat better than people thought.

Got to say I do think for some folk the decision is made with Wlad and little he can do will chnge this, for the last five years minimum the only thing stopping him proving he is without a doubt the premier heavyweight in the world is refusal to fight his own brother, as far as reasons for not facing the best at your weight surely this is one of the better ones but alas not.

As Chris has ably illustrated heavyweight history and indeede most of our top tens are littered with guys who have given their best challengers a miss some for understandable reasons (Dempsey, Corbett) some because they couldn't be arsed (Johnson) yet none of these guys seem so punished for their failure to fight the best their division as as Wlad is. Would half way be able to understand it if anyone was arguing Wlad was a top five of all time but am fairly sure nobody is.

I think the more I read about Johnson - the less I like and rate him and some of his wins - in particular the Jeffries fight.

"One fight does not define a career"........No s**t...

But wins against top quality fighters at or around their peak prove a fighters worth....

You give me Toney and Hoppo on Jones jr record... for all Vitali's heavyweight title fights....

What has Jones got to do with it?