Vitali Klitschko - Time to Move on?

by bhb001 Mon 15 Jul 2013, 11:26 am

First topic message reminder :

I have a lot of time for Vitali Klitschko. He has fought well over the years and is a very good heavy weight champion. However, he hasn't fought for almost a year, his last two opponents weren't really world class, has no fight on the horizon and is 42 years old this week. So, should he retire? This is an intelligent man with qualifications most of us can only dream about. He is in Parliament in his own country, isn't he? If so, that's a full time job! To my mind, now is the time for him to go, head held high. People will say he is ducking some real challenges, but why hang around when he has nothing to prove? It's not like he hasn't got a life outside of boxing. Any serious counterpoints to this?

I hope this doesn't descend into a "bash Vitali" thread or "he's afraid of all the whipper snappers out there", but don't hold out too much hope.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:41 pm

Yes he has bhb.............Had a very good career unfortunately his brothers success means they'll probably both end up marking the other down..........

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:42 pm

bhb001 wrote:Cheers for derailing the thread, by the way. Back to the question; Has Vitali K done enough now to say goodbye with head held high?

He needs 1 or 2 more fights with 2 good ko's. stirvene and then pulev and he can go with his head held high.

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:43 pm

Other than quitting once Vit has done all that has been asked of him and more. Great boxer who would have held his own in any era.

CS p off. You are a debate free zone.

by Rowley Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:48 pm

Az ease up on the insults, simmering differences from the news section are not and will not be carried over onto here, because I can assure you they will not be dealt with in this instance by removing the section.

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:49 pm

azania wrote:Other than quitting once Vit has done all that has been asked of him and more. Great boxer who would have held his own in any era.

CS p off. You are a debate free zone.

What did I do? You always resort to insults when someone disagrees with you. Just debate back or ignore me no need to be offensive.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:49 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
azania wrote:Other than quitting once Vit has done all that has been asked of him and more. Great boxer who would have held his own in any era.

CS p off. You are a debate free zone.

What did I do? You always resort to insults when someone disagrees with you. Just debate back or ignore me no need to be offensive.

Or do some shoulder press with him..

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:53 pm

The problem I have with the Klits is that they highlight Boxing's inadequacies. Two brothers running the division as If the greatest prize in sports is as cheap and easy as a footballers wife...

The fact that they continue to do it at 37 and 42 is also a problem........I mean Holmes was past it at 35............

In a decent era they'd be well past it.............

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:55 pm

It's not an issue of not agreeing? Feel free to disagree. But debating means being honest and answering questions. Something you do your very best to avoid.

Have k2 made fury an offer? Simple yes or no question.

Apologies rowley.

by kingraf Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:55 pm

As an aside, has this ballpark figure of five million a man for Haye-Fury been confirmed?

by Rowley Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:56 pm

Think it is best guess based on projected PPV figures Raf.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 3:56 pm

azania wrote:It's not an issue of not agreeing? Feel free to disagree. But debating means being honest and answering questions. Something you do your very best to avoid.

Have k2 made fury an offer? Simple yes or no question.

Apologies rowley.

Golotkin hasn't made an offer to fight Murray I imagine.................Klit probably hasn't made an offer but I fail to see what difference it makes as he's not his mandatory......

by manos de piedra Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:00 pm

Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson (mandatory) and Mormeck. However after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 12 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:01 pm

manos de piedra wrote:Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson and Mormeck. However the after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 1 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

Can't argue with that..

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:01 pm

Still not answering my question.

by Rowley Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:02 pm

Give it time Truss, you are not as creative a thinker as some round here.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:05 pm

azania wrote:Still not answering my question.

Mate until any of us know for sure a Klit hasn't approached Fury.........then you'll never get one...

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:10 pm

Give me an educated guess.

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:11 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
azania wrote:Still not answering my question.

Mate until any of us know for sure a Klit hasn't approached Fury.........then you'll never get one...

Exactly. No one knows what has gone on.

by winchester Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:12 pm

manos de piedra wrote:Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson (mandatory) and Mormeck. However after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 12 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

What mitigating circumstances for offering those guys fights? More excuses?

by manos de piedra Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:16 pm

The liklihood is the Klitschkos have not offered Fury a match. What conclusions do you therefore draw?

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:17 pm

Not even an educated guess?

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:17 pm

manos de piedra wrote:Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson (mandatory) and Mormeck. However after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 12 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

I agree with everything.

I would like to add that Klitschko v Fury has only really been a decent match up in the last 7/8 months. It was only this time last year that Fury was fighting people like vinnie maddalone and martin rogan and getting floored by pajvic so it was clear fury was not ready then.

The reason in my view that klitschko v fury hasn't happened is because of timing issues. Fury wasn't ready last year to face a klitschko and this year when he is ready Wladimir klitschko has managed to finally get to fight povetkin who is ranked number 2 by the ring magazine and is also the wba HW champion and it looks like vitali klitschko is going to fight his mandatory, stirvene (we can't criticise boxers for fighting mandatories and also stirvene is a tough boxer too).

If Fury gets through the fight with Haye and wins then of course a fight with klitschko will happen. If fury loses then the fight will happen if fury manages to rebuild.

But to summarise neither fury nor klitschko has ducked each other, due to timing they haven't been able to organise a fight yet.

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:19 pm

winchester wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson (mandatory) and Mormeck. However after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 12 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

What mitigating circumstances for offering those guys fights? More excuses?

What are your views on povetkin who wlad klitschko is due to fight soon and stirvene who vit klitschko looks likely to fight? Google the two names if you have not heard of them before.

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:25 pm

No conclusions manos other than the business of boxing (it stopped being a sport ages ago) is never as simple as certain haters like to claim with boxer x ducking boxer y because boxer x decided to fight a.n other.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:27 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
azania wrote:Still not answering my question.

Mate until any of us know for sure a Klit hasn't approached Fury.........then you'll never get one...

Exactly. No one knows what has gone on.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:27 pm

Azania no offence but you used to call Price a ducker over Fury........

Are you coming out the closet as a hater ??

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:29 pm

Of course I did. But in response to the multi times fury has been called a ducker. They both did the same thing but one gets chastised and the other gets a pass.

by manos de piedra Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:34 pm

winchester wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson (mandatory) and Mormeck. However after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 12 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

What mitigating circumstances for offering those guys fights? More excuses?

You might think they are excuses, I think they are mitigating circumstances.

After being heavyweight champions for the last 6 years successively in which they have beaten nearly all top challengers its inneviteable that opponent choices become limited, especially in the heavyweight division. On top of that there are two champions which means challengers are beaten frequently and on top of that, the they have been reasonably active (Wlad especially). I dont think there can any arguments with them fighting Haye or Adamek in 2011 who were both generally ranked in the top 5. Since then its gotten thin. However as I mentioned, there were few challenges around that had not been beaten. They were forced to go further down ranks to find opponents.

Of the last few opponents:

Pianeta - they had offered Solis a fight who was credible. A fight with Povetkin had been ordered later that year so Pianteta became a stop gap for Wlad to keep busy.

Charr - Vitali gave Haye first dibs on the Septemebr date. Haye opted for Chisora.

Wach - relatively weak opponent but few meaningful alternatives at the time

Thompson - mandatory, had to fight

Chisora - underqualified but coming off a credible performance against a top rated heavyweight.

Mormeck - underqualified, few meaningful alternatives though

Where does Fury fit in that picture? He has only emerged on the world level with wins over Johnson and Cunningham in the last 12 months and has been building his own career steadily and gaining much needed experience. At this exact time now, he might just about be a qualifed opponent if you use the very lowest bar of Klitschko defences but I cant see how prior to the last 12 months when he was out of shape, puncjing himself in the face, scraping wins over the likes of McDermott that he could have been considered a viable opponent.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:37 pm

manos de piedra wrote:
winchester wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson (mandatory) and Mormeck. However after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 12 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

What mitigating circumstances for offering those guys fights? More excuses?

You might think they are excuses, I think they are mitigating circumstances.

After being heavyweight champions for the last 6 years successively in which they have beaten nearly all top challengers its inneviteable that opponent choices become limited, especially in the heavyweight division. On top of that there are two champions which means challengers are beaten frequently and on top of that, the they have been reasonably active (Wlad especially). I dont think there can any arguments with them fighting Haye or Adamek in 2011 who were both generally ranked in the top 5. Since then its gotten thin. However as I mentioned, there were few challenges around that had not been beaten. They were forced to go further down ranks to find opponents.

Of the last few opponents:

Pianeta - they had offered Solis a fight who was credible. A fight with Povetkin had been ordered later that year so Pianteta became a stop gap for Wlad to keep busy.

Charr - Vitali gave Haye first dibs on the Septemebr date. Haye opted for Chisora.

Wach - relatively weak opponent but few meaningful alternatives at the time

Thompson - mandatory, had to fight

Chisora - underqualified but coming off a credible performance against a top rated heavyweight.

Mormeck - underqualified, few meaningful alternatives though

Where does Fury fit in that picture? He has only emerged on the world level with wins over Johnson and Cunningham in the last 12 months and has been building his own career steadily and gaining much needed experience. At this exact time now, he might just about be a qualifed opponent if you use the very lowest bar of Klitschko defences but I cant see how prior to the last 12 months when he was out of shape, puncjing himself in the face, scraping wins over the likes of McDermott that he could have been considered a viable opponent.

Oh dear that's a lot of painstaking rebuttal to waste on Winchester....It's a bit like David Cameron having a half hour heated debate with his milkman over europe!!!!!!!!!

by bhb001 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:41 pm

The only circumstances that I can see when I will admit that K2 are ducking Fury is if Haye is beaten by Fury and neither of the brothers offer him a fight. At that point, Fury would have beaten two top ten (ish) opponents in succession and shown that he deserves a shot. Fury should then be knocking down their door to get that fight and so it will be easy to see if a duck is happening or not. Until then, saying that they are ducking him because he hasn't been begged to fight Wlad is akin to saying Calzaghe ducked Froch when it was reall that Froch was beneath Calzaghe's radar. At least at that time Froch was calling for a fight, which is more than Fury is.

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:42 pm

The milkman would know more.

by bhb001 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:45 pm

Manos, such a well researched rebuttal is not on and you know it!! Next you will be asking Winchester to answer specific questions without trawling out the same old opinion based on a conversation he had in a pub last week.

by manos de piedra Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:48 pm

The Haye v Fury fight should just be sanctioned as an eliminator. They are both top 5 in the WBC. That way it shouldnt even be an issue. The problem I would forsee is that even if Fury beats Haye, he may not be keen to face a Klitschko, especially Wlad and he money will become a big issue to the point where you have a repeat of the Haye/Klitschko saga's. If Fury gets his hands on the WBC belt somehow then his demands will be gigantic for a unification I think.

by azania Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:54 pm

Vit is the wbc champ and both would do him.

by bhb001 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 4:55 pm

manos de piedra wrote:The Haye v Fury fight should just be sanctioned as an eliminator. They are both top 5 in the WBC. That way it shouldnt even be an issue. The problem I would forsee is that even if Fury beats Haye, he may not be keen to face a Klitschko, especially Wlad and he money will become a big issue to the point where you have a repeat of the Haye/Klitschko saga's. If Fury gets his hands on the WBC belt somehow then his demands will be gigantic for a unification I think.

That is definitely an issue, but would not be Wlad ducking Fury. It would be Wlad offering the same terrible terms as he does all his non-mandatories and Fury choosing not to take them. I doubt I would say that Fury was ducking Wlad at that stage either; more that he is just holding out for a better offer.

by manos de piedra Tue 16 Jul 2013, 5:11 pm

I think if Fury got a title they would look to do what Haye did. Milk it a bit. Make good money fighting winnable fights. No need to rush straight in with the best in the division. Let the clamour fight build and pressure Wlad into accepting a more favourable deal.

If Fury did beat Haye and become mandatory for Vitalis belt, Im not even sure he would go for it yet. Mandatory might get a couple of million against Vitali which is big. But he is old and if you wait for the belt to free up then you get a winnable shot at the vacant and a much more financially lucrative position. Espeically with Wlad probably desperate to claim all four.

by winchester Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:21 pm

People keep writing Fury off saying he wont fight the Klitschkos but of course he would want to fight for the title. The Klitschkos are the ones with the power to offer him a match so it speaks volumes they are willing to offer fights to a lot of other fighters but not to Fury. I think Haye is actually a more dangerous opponent for Fury than the Klitschkos based on styles.

by Rowley Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:25 pm

It is frustrating isn't it Winchester, if only there was some system in boxing that forced champions to face certain fighters, oh well one can dream.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:30 pm

Rowley wrote:It is frustrating isn't it Winchester, if only there was some system in boxing that forced champions to face certain fighters, oh well one can dream.

Does winchester think the Klits have avoided Fury ??

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rowley wrote:It is frustrating isn't it Winchester, if only there was some system in boxing that forced champions to face certain fighters, oh well one can dream.

Does winchester think the Klits have avoided Fury ??

he has completely ignored the recent comments about why fury and klitschko haven't had a fight yet and has just carried on saying klitschko is ducking him. Like a broken record.

by winchester Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:36 pm

The Klitschkos havent offered him a match but have offered worse opponents matches so theres good reason to believe they dont want to face Fury. I also think they realise Fury has the size and style to beat them and they want to hang on as long as they can. Vitali Klitschko is 42 and still trying to hang on.

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:41 pm

winchester wrote:The Klitschkos havent offered him a match but have offered worse opponents matches so theres good reason to believe they dont want to face Fury. I also think they realise Fury has the size and style to beat them and they want to hang on as long as they can. Vitali Klitschko is 42 and still trying to hang on.

have you read the comments about why they haven't fought?

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:42 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson (mandatory) and Mormeck. However after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 12 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

I agree with everything.

I would like to add that Klitschko v Fury has only really been a decent match up in the last 7/8 months. It was only this time last year that Fury was fighting people like vinnie maddalone and martin rogan and getting floored by pajvic so it was clear fury was not ready then.

The reason in my view that klitschko v fury hasn't happened is because of timing issues. Fury wasn't ready last year to face a klitschko and this year when he is ready Wladimir klitschko has managed to finally get to fight povetkin who is ranked number 2 by the ring magazine and is also the wba HW champion and it looks like vitali klitschko is going to fight his mandatory, stirvene (we can't criticise boxers for fighting mandatories and also stirvene is a tough boxer too).

If Fury gets through the fight with Haye and wins then of course a fight with klitschko will happen. If fury loses then the fight will happen if fury manages to rebuild.

But to summarise neither fury nor klitschko has ducked each other, due to timing they haven't been able to organise a fight yet.

read the above winchester

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:44 pm

manos de piedra wrote:
winchester wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:Theres a bit of middle ground that can be established. The Klitschkos recent opponents have not been great and there is some argument to say that Fury would have been a better choice. I think there has been mitigating circumstances for several of the recent opponents but Mormeck and Pianeta for instance were really scraping the barrell. 2012 was a pretty weak year with Chisora, Charr, Wach, Thompson (mandatory) and Mormeck. However after the Klitschkos beat Haye and Adamek in 2011 there was an abscence of qualified challengers that had not already been beaten. Its only really within the last 12 month period or less that you have a few guys emerging that could be possible challengers in the future - Fury, Pulev, Stiverne. The next Klitschko opponents are likely to be Povetkin and Stiverne who are generally considered top ten heavyweights now so they would very credible opponents, if not neccessarily given much chance of winning.

I could concede that Fury may have been a better choice than a couple of the last guys and I would even concede the assumption that he would take the fight if offered (dubious) but surely some perspective within that has to be acknowledged. Namely that the Klitschkos have fought almost every rated challenger and always fought their mandatory. The significance of that means that a boxer has 4 seperate sactioning bodies to plot a mandatory course to a shot where the Klitschkos have never refused one. Otherwise, its trying judge the Klitschkos over a mere 12 month window when they have been around for over well over a decade with a record of fighting rated challengers thats impocsible to ignore with credibility.

What mitigating circumstances for offering those guys fights? More excuses?

You might think they are excuses, I think they are mitigating circumstances.

After being heavyweight champions for the last 6 years successively in which they have beaten nearly all top challengers its inneviteable that opponent choices become limited, especially in the heavyweight division. On top of that there are two champions which means challengers are beaten frequently and on top of that, the they have been reasonably active (Wlad especially). I dont think there can any arguments with them fighting Haye or Adamek in 2011 who were both generally ranked in the top 5. Since then its gotten thin. However as I mentioned, there were few challenges around that had not been beaten. They were forced to go further down ranks to find opponents.

Of the last few opponents:

Pianeta - they had offered Solis a fight who was credible. A fight with Povetkin had been ordered later that year so Pianteta became a stop gap for Wlad to keep busy.

Charr - Vitali gave Haye first dibs on the Septemebr date. Haye opted for Chisora.

Wach - relatively weak opponent but few meaningful alternatives at the time

Thompson - mandatory, had to fight

Chisora - underqualified but coming off a credible performance against a top rated heavyweight.

Mormeck - underqualified, few meaningful alternatives though

Where does Fury fit in that picture? He has only emerged on the world level with wins over Johnson and Cunningham in the last 12 months and has been building his own career steadily and gaining much needed experience. At this exact time now, he might just about be a qualifed opponent if you use the very lowest bar of Klitschko defences but I cant see how prior to the last 12 months when he was out of shape, puncjing himself in the face, scraping wins over the likes of McDermott that he could have been considered a viable opponent.

by winchester Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:47 pm

You act like you know for a fact the reason they havent fought. You dont. They havent offered him a match but have offered matches to worse opponents. This is a fact. Chisora, a guy Fury beat got offered a match. Their sparring partners have got offered matches. Fury has not been offered a match. In my opinion the reason is that they think he is too risky, they are old and they want to remain champions as long as possible. They have people like you and others on here making excuses for them so they can get away with offering matches to whoever they want instead of taking on dangerous opponents like Fury who is a proper heavyweight, is bigger than them and has an aggressive style that can bully them. Why would they ofer Fury a match when they have supporters like you who dont care if they fight worse fighters?

by Champagne_Socialist Tue 16 Jul 2013, 10:50 pm

winchester wrote:You act like you know for a fact the reason they havent fought. You dont. They havent offered him a match but have offered matches to worse opponents. This is a fact. Chisora, a guy Fury beat got offered a match. Their sparring partners have got offered matches. Fury has not been offered a match. In my opinion the reason is that they think he is too risky, they are old and they want to remain champions as long as possible. They have people like you and others on here making excuses for them so they can get away with offering matches to whoever they want instead of taking on dangerous opponents like Fury who is a proper heavyweight, is bigger than them and has an aggressive style that can bully them. Why would they ofer Fury a match when they have supporters like you who dont care if they fight worse fighters?

Read the above comments that I quoted that will answer your post Smile

by bhb001 Wed 17 Jul 2013, 8:11 am

It's a dark day in hell when facts take precedent over the opinion of one individual, CS. I remember the day when a challenger would pop up occasionally and say "I wouldn't mind fighting for the world title" instead of waiting for the champion (there can only be one!) to offer it to them on a plate.

by TopHat24/7 Wed 17 Jul 2013, 9:07 am

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rowley wrote:It is frustrating isn't it Winchester, if only there was some system in boxing that forced champions to face certain fighters, oh well one can dream.

Does winchester think the Klits have avoided Fury ??

he has completely ignored the recent comments about why fury and klitschko haven't had a fight yet and has just carried on saying klitschko is ducking him. Like a broken record.

by Sponsored content