The Klits legacy - Is dependent on what comes after !!!

Whatever happens to the Klits in the near future we do owe them a certain debt of gratitude..........

1. They have brought a certain level of quality to the heavyweight division in desperate times...........Though I've always thought World Boxing would have been better served had Haye won that fight........

2. In an age of gutter no class personality............Haye, Hide, Chisora and now wilder....They have brought a certain dignity and respect to the Heavyweight title and shown you can have certain standards and moral fibre and excel in Boxing............."Nice guys finish last" certainly doesn't/didn't apply to these guys......

However the Klits have helped Lennox Lewis legacy no end by taking the title away from the mainstream and hiding it to a certain extent in Germany.........It makes Lewis look like the LAST OF THE MOHICANS...............I think with time Lewis will be a top 10 heavyweight........Legacy tends to improve when people realise what they have lost !!

Which brings me to the KLITS..............Yes they are maligned as one dimensional types now and mauling types................

But make no mistake If when they've gone and garbage like Fury, Chisora and Wilder types start playing pass the parcel with the title with other stiffs.............. In years to come their legacy will blossom and they will garner more and more respect...and shoot up the rankings.

However If say a look-the-part Joshua cleans up at heavy.......and makes a statement then in all likelihood the Klits legacy will become more of a Head- of-a-disappointing era-footnote......

Like a lot of fighters the Klit legacy depends on what happens in the few years after !!

No point passing judgement now !!

Vitali Klitschko is a cheat who was thrown off the Ukrainian team prior to the Atlanta Olympics for steroid abuse. Moral fibre? Nice guy?

For me it depends on where the next H/W champion hails from.

Should America wrestle back the title to the US then I think they will look down upon the Klits rule. Make no doubt about it the H/W title IS the marquee prize in boxing and the Klits have kept it and the money it brings across the pond.

The problem with the Klits is that the dye has already been cast with regards the H/W division. Its got a rich history of being exciting and important in the sporting world with the 70's era and the emergence of Tyson in the 80's. The Klits era has hardly been exciting so will be viewed very much like the Marciano/Walcot/Charles era or the Holmes era.

Respected but largely forgotten.

Great article

Plenty of fighters legacies have improved because of what followed onetwo

Lewis being a prime example..

I'll ignore the malcontent

Glad you like the article...I aim to please

Having no class has never stopped heavyweights being highly regarded. Tyson was a r***ist and he is still loved.

The brothers will probably both slot inside the top 20, regardless of what follows. They are both very boring so will be largely forgotten by the masses.

I think Wlad will be top 20..............But I'm not sure Vitali will.........

Not sure Tyson is loved..

Think the excitement he brings is missed..........

Plus the Tyson case wasn't open and shut.

As for Vitali's drug bust........We all do silly things when we are young.

To an extent that is true Truss but oh can only excuse a man so much because if his age. The brothers do conduct themselves very well but all is not as it seems. Regular rumours of very poor contracts, steroid abuse etc...

Of course if fighters bothered to whip themselves into shape they wouldn't be subjected to poor contracts so swings and roundabouts I suppose.

I find the contract issue quite odd to be honest, on the one hand it represents a rather odd clause in which Wladimir essentially asks Vitali to help him out... On the other it gives their conqueror a chance to unify the division in one fell swoop. Is it really any different to promote contracts where the boxer has to fight the stablemate of an opponent should he win?

Vitali to me goes top 20, Wladimir is obviously higher by virtue of his figures. I give Vitali a way better chance of beating anyone of note (taller, stronger, reinforced chin), but Wladimir's right hand is an anvil, and he gets through enough times... It's curtains.

The klits will always be remembered fondly by myself.
I feel they have served there purpose over the years,and depending on which klit you get, they are always willing to take on a hard man.

If the next big thing in HW boxing actually challenges Wlad, loses, and then regroups to dominate for a significant amount of time after Wlads departure, then this looks good for Wlad.
Alternatively and more realistically, the next dominant HW will probably be more exciting than Wlad and will cite the excuse of not being ready whilst Wlad was around, and the general public will feel that they are watching a 'great'.

Not sure a loss to Wlad would be a bad thing...Vit got experience from Lennox and it hasn't hurt his legacy

Sanchez - Nelson...

In terms of Wlads legacy, if he fights and wins the next big thing in HW boxing, then this adds to his legacy.
If the next dominant HW defeats all comers after losing to Wlad, then Wlads legacy will be increased significantly.
The question is though, how long does he plan on staying? He could be around for another 5 years, Vit fought at 41 and possibly only retired because he was in politics.

Can't see anyone dominating. Mainly because they're all as useless as each other.

Wlad doesn't have a legacy other than beating the worst set of HWs from any era ever known. He doesn't have anything you could consider ATG worthy on his resume, not his fault but we can't rate him any higher than he should be based on this.

The guy who has the tools to do so was Haye. But if you'd given him the heart and chin of say a Hatton (using a homegrown fighter) I suspect the outcome may have been different.

Ifs buts and maybes aside there's no one on Wlads average level, they're all just well below average. Save for his brother who knocks Wlad out inside 5.

Bring back Lewis for £100m to fight Wlad!!!!

What ATG heavy did Dempsey beat ???

What ATG did Louis beat ??

What ATG did Holmes beat (Norton isn't regarded as a great)

and these are all great heavyweights....

Pick Haye to beat all Dempsey/ Louis/Holmes opponents bar maybe Shavers, Walcott and Witherspoon.........and he didn't really beat Witherspoon....

Ok rephrase Trussie, what fighter has Wlad beat that you could consider top 40 material? Fighters you've mentioned above certainly have guys in those ranking realms.

It's a difficult question to answer..............But I'd pick Sanders and Haye to beat most of Holmes, Louis and Dempsey's opponents...

Top 40 lists are biased in favor of old fighters...........But Walcott (1-1) and Norton apart.......Haye is higher than anything Holmes beat (Witherspoon you can count I suppose but I won't thought he lost)..

Myself I'd have Haye above the Schmelling types but I concede he won't be.......

You have a point in suggesting Wlad's opposition hasn't been all that.........But you over egg the pudding somewhat when you dismiss his opponents completely...

Haye was a very good win........So was Sanders for Vitali..

Because Haye has showed remarkable form as a heavyweight hasn't he ? He barely got past the inept Valuev. Haye wouldn't last 5 minutes in Louis reign.

Cheers Rodders

Always welcome Rod...

Got to say Haye would stand out as one of the better heavyweights in the 40's, would be a solid number two behind Louis I would imagine.

Always a pleasure mate.

He could well be , but I don't think he'll the stomach for it. Haye has hardly no form as a Heavyweight he took on the champion and lost almost every round, would you place money on him beating the Baer brothers, Carnera ? I wouldn't.

Cheers Rodders

If he actually got in the ring with them i'd expect him to win yes, Primo and Buddy are pretty comparable to Valuev in their levels of uselessness. Max would be the tougher ask but by the time Louis started his reign he was splitting a couple of fights with Farr, was woefully inconsistent and rarely bothered trying.

Carnera is a lot better than Valuev, he has similar skillet to Wlad, Haye is not a supremely skillful fighter we saw him try to fight a larger fighter with good outfighting skills on the outside. We watched him try to land a single big punch trying to end it all, becoming increasingly wild and desperate. What people have to understand is that Joe Louis’s predicament was very similar. He said that he could not get round Primo Carnera’s jab, and that he was unable to land any shots to the head in the early rounds. That puts him in pretty much the same boat as David Haye. The difference is that Louis realised that he was going to have to fight on the inside. Above all he realised that he would have to invest several rounds in a body attack, before he could even think about going to the head. He realised that., Haye can't slip or a parry a jab to get his feet planted to land his power, i have no confidence he'd last in Louis era.

Cheers Rodders

Carnera isn't anything better than pretty damn ordinary and that is being very kind to him, the difference between he and Haye in ability is huge not to mention the speed and power difference. You do like to make out Louis' era is better than it actually is, it's no better than todays lot really.

If Carnera is ordinary then so is Wlad , Haye couldn't figure out the Valuev puzzle , he couldn't potshot his way to victory against Canera. I find it strange you presuming Haye cleans house in Louis era , when how many fights at HW as he had ? He lost comprehensively in one and barely scraped past Valuev. What form does he have ?
Cheers Rodders

Sorry but Wlad is in no way comparable to Carnera, you really are showing yourself to be a bit rose tinted. Haye did figure out the Valuev puzzle, he won that fight easily from where I was sitting, you can do the lazy think and point to the scorecards but at no point was he under any threat.

Dereck Chisora has more ability than Carnera plus he doesn't have the mafia to thank for making his career anything other than a shambles.

That's garbage HH to generalise the mafia I'm not labelling Carnera as a great fighter, but a good fighting champion who brought the title out of mothballs, and defended it against worthy challengers. Came back quickly from his defeats to Maloney, Sharkey, Baer and Louis with quality wins over Paulino Uzcudun, King Levinski, Victorio Campolo and Walter Neusel respectively. His career path shows a steady record of general improvement in rematches, particularly in his title winning effort as on film with Sharkey , I'm sorry Carnera's record dwarfs Hayes whether you like it or not , and whether you want to label it rose tainted. Cheers Rodders

Rodders.........I watched Baer vs Carnera......11 times he was down !! and It was pretty embarrassing.......A lot of people didn't buy into the Carnera - Sharkey match.......

I think you are over rating Primo a bit Mate.........

But no worries...

This isn't about records Rodney, it's about the fact I can use my eyes and see that Haye is far more talented than Carnera. If you're calling wins over Uzcudun and Neusel quality then i'm not even going to bother discussing that era with you. I know you think the 40's are immeasurably better than the current day but the heavyweight division was pure crap.

As far as Carnera goes it's not a generalisation to link him with the mafia because he was a mafia backed fighter and as such his record has to be taken with a pinch of salt. What is real and what is staged in his career is up for discussion. He was a slow lumbering oaf of a man with very little actual ability, somebody with the speed of Haye would have a field day with him. That is why he's not comparable to Wlad because of their respective speed, whilst not being blessed with middleweight speed he is very nimble for a 250lb man.

How would Haye have a field day ? He didn't have a field day with Valuev did he ? Carnera is generally underrated. His reputation is harmed by rather loose fix talk and he is the victim of the size double-standard--even when he won it was dismissed because he was so much bigger than his opposition. That is really not relevent in heavyweight boxing.By the way, watch a selection from rounds 4-9 of the Baer fight on youtube. Carnera looks pretty good. Hayes record doesn't stand up to Carnera's and to say ah well he looks better on film is fanciful.

Truss, Nat Fleischer was at ringside and described it as a terrific uppercut on the chin. Sharkey got overly aggressive after stunning Carnera with an overhand right, ducked down in his traditional style and got caught. That's all there is to it.

Cheers Rodders

He does look better on film there is no two ways around that, Carnera is for my money the worst heavyweight champion of all time. You can do your usual and over rate every single Louis opponent or you could look at the reality and it is that they were a load of crap with the odd great light heavyweight thrown in. If we're talking about who wins in a head to head then a dodgy mafia influenced record doesn't mean a great deal.

To get things back to the original question I do think you raise a reasonable point Truss. Depending what follows we can often get a different perspective of softening of stance on a fighter or era. Whilst I am not going to suggest Wlad is as good as him folk do tend to forget that a good number of the criticisms levelled at Lewis, such as being overly cautious, allowing overmatched opponents to stick around too long, these criticisms seemed particularly prevalent.

However since Wlad has took many of these worst facets to extremes Lewis' reign is considered a golden era we look back on with dewy eyed nostalgia. Nothing inherently wrong with that, he was a fine heavyweight. However the point remains his legacy has definitely been helped by what has gone before him. Not unrealistic to think the same could happen for Wlad, who I personally believe history will be reasonably kind to.

Didn't Primo Carnera once get KTFO by a Zulu POW who hadn't been in a fight in his life? Some skillset

Apparently so, raf. A propaganda stunt by Mussolini which backfired miserably.

I think it's almost certain that Wladimir's standing will improve as the years of his retirement pass. To one extent or another, that's been the way it is for most Heavyweight champions.

Thing is, I just don't think there is a young Heavyweight coming through the ranks who looks an outstanding candidate to become THE next champion, or even a half-dominant one. I think such a scenario has helped Lewis' standing immensely; after he hung 'em up, we saw fromm 2004-2008 what I'd consider the worst few years in the history of the division; Vitali temporarily retired, Wlad not yet part-unified or totally dominating like we're used to seeing him do so now, one of the few genuinely classy Cruiserweight champions in Haye yet to chuck his hat in to the division and nary a decent fighter under the age of 30 to be found, leaving the likes of Shannon Briggs, Sergei Liakhovic, Oleg Maskaev, Samuel Peter, John Ruiz, Nikolai Valuev etc passing the belts between them, often only just scraping past opposition such as an obsese Toney who'd been training on hamburgers and pints of syrup and a fossil which once went by the name of Evander Holyfield.

As has been discussed before, many of the criticisms aimed at Wlad (fighting 'scared', lack of really defining fights, stoppage losses to journeymen etc) were often aimed at Lewis during his reign, albeit to a lesser degreee most of the time. But once we were left with the above state of affairs, suffice to say more people started to realise that Heavyweight boxing had been lucky to have Lewis and that his achievements deserved more commendation that they first realised.

If (and it's a distinct possibility) we have a similar situation over the next few years with names such as Arreola, Stiverne, Fury, Banks, Price, Perez, Pulev, Wilder etc, then even Wlad's biggest critics might start thinking that he wasn't all that bad after all.

88Chris05 wrote:
If (and it's a distinct possibility) we have a similar situation over the next few years with names such as Arreola, Stiverne, Fury, Banks, Price, Perez, Pulev, Wilder etc, then even Wlad's biggest critics might start thinking that he wasn't all that bad after all.

Until AJ cleans house....... choo choo...!!

I've never understood the comparisons between Lewis and Wlad, if anyone could show me a single fight where Lennox fights scared would be greatly appreciated.

Cautious is probably a fairer description the scared.

He was a intelligent guy, he could sniff out when he had reason to be cautious and when not - leading to his blow-outs of big dangerous threats like Grant and Golota and why he was happy to goad Bowe.

Pity he got sloppy with Rahman......

I've always got the impression that Lewis had supreme confidence in his ability whereas Wlad doesn't to an extent.

Agree. I think Wlad has always been very aware of his weaknesses, and fair play to him he's learnt how to deal with them extremely effectively.

Didn't someone (possibly Manny?) once quote Wlad saying something along the lines of being a great boxer but wishing he could 'fight' like his brother?

I'm not saying that 'fighting scared' is how I'd describe it, Hammersmith. I agree with you that it's largely a misnomer, and that fighting apparently 'scared' usually just translates as fighting cautiously (albeit sometimes a bit too cautiously in both men's cases), sensibly or intelligently. But nevertheless, rightly or wrongly, some of Lewis' critics look at his cagey, stand off performances against Holyfield and Tua and feel he could / should have been more emphatic, just as they do when they look at Wlad's showings against Ibragimov or Haye.

The only time you can really be critical of Lewis for getting way too cautious would be against Evander first time out, I think, as Holyfield was just never at the races that night and Lewis could have got him out of there in the middle stages, but even then Lewis should still have got the nod as we all know. I tend to think that, when a fighter wins and wins comfortably, the end pretty much justifies the means and you can't be too critical about how they've gone about the job (well, in most cases anyway!). But for whatever reason, some people disagree, and pretty strongly in the cases of these two. Particularly Wlad, of course, who as you say just ain't got as much killer instinct as Lewis showed every now and then.

You can never tell with Wlad's 'killer instinct' though, as hasn't he admitted to deliberately dragging matches out to please the German crowd/tv execs??

I think fighting cautiously is more understandable in certain fights, for instance for Wlad I can see why he was cautious against Haye but against Povetkin he should have stepped it up and got him out of there.

Unless you're certifiably insane like Ibeabuchi then fighting cautiously against Tua is the way to go, almost impossible to hurt while capable of ending it with one punch.

I don't like the comparisons between the two at all and think it's a slight insult to Lewis but that's just me, he showed enough times he could up the pace when he needed to. Strangely he was a lot more aggressive against men of similar stature to himself like Grant, Briggs, Golota or even Vitali. Also have to note that throughout his championship reign he didn't benefit from having huge physical advantages over almost all of his opponents.

I don't like the description of fighting scared for any guy. End of the day Wlad has more than enough money now to never have to fight again, if he was genuinely scared he could just pack up and live a life of some luxury.

kingraf wrote:Didn't Primo Carnera once get KTFO by a Zulu POW who hadn't been in a fight in his life? Some skillset

Kay Masaki.  

Don't be too harsh on Primo (the professional boxer), he did manage to knockdown the amateur, half staved POW before getting knocked out.

https://www.606v2.com/t27036-primo-carnera

Can we all leave Da Preem alone, I like the guy. He was rubbish but nowhere near as rubbish as he gets credit for on occasions. Have read enough about him to believe both the Uzcudin and Loughran wins were on the level, nobody else between Tunney and Louis managed two defences but don't see the likes of Baer, Braddock or Schmeling being the punchline quite so frequently as Carnera has to endure.

it could just be that the undernourished Kay was simply a freak fighter the likes of which the world never got to see because of the combination of apartheid, and the war. I doubt it, but who knows?

The harder they fall was based on Primo...

So they must have thought he was crap then as well..

Believe I am right in saying he sued the makers of that Truss. Good film though, Bogart’s last ever screen role.

With regard to the fix allegations I am not going to try and pretend every fight he had was on the level but the number of fights he had which were fixed is seriously exaggerated. What happened is when he moved to the States his long term managers were basically eased out by the mob. This inevitably irritated them somewhat but since you did not complain too loudly to a guy like Owney Madden how the ex manager gained his revenge was in writing a book claiming nigh on every fight Carnera had was not on the level.

Unfortunately for Carnera these allegations stuck. However any kind of sensible analysis of these allegations would have realised a good portion of them would have been logistically impossible and prohibitively expensive to have actually carried out. As I say not to say none of his fights were fixed but the inference that he was managed to the title without ever having a fair fight, as suggested by The Harder They Fall is grossly unfair.

If you're going to knock Primo then for the same reasons shouldn't you detract the Liston 'wins' from Ali??