Should the way Klit lost affect his overall standing ??

Watched the fight twice.....It's obvious he didn't want to commit against a bigger guy.....The first natural one he fought.....

If you wanted to be a an a-hole you could also point out that he got his brother to sort out the dangerous Sanders !!...

Sure other heavies may have been bullies but they also took their licks when the tide was against them...The tide wasn't against Wlad and he wouldn't take them...

Fury I reckon wins the second fight too because Wlad seems to have lost heart.

I'm wondering if he ever had much in the way of heart anyway..

Time perhaps to consider he's too high...

Depends on the second fight. Could just be overtraining or inability to adjust during a fight or sudden ageing. No use being able to see the opening if you can't take them. I think he just got old and this was made worse by fury actually showing something he'd not prepared for - good boxing skills. Or could just be like Louis - so successful in his way that he couldn't adjust in the first fight and ended up losing - then in the next fight splattered him. It was such a limp performance especially compared to the one against Pulev that I can't help but feel he's lost it all. I appreciate that most people won't agree with me but the second fight will probably cement Wlads legacy for good or ill.

I thought he was gun shy.... Holmes couldn't see the openings against Spinks but still got hit plenty trying....

But maybe your right and I'm being harsh..who knows...

All about opinions...

Possibly - I don't disagree with it entirely but I wonder if its just a man used to dominating and controlling being hesitant in the face of alien territory like Lee was against Saunders.

Wlad lost heart after he lost his first fight with Steward in his corner. At that time even Vitali was telling him to retire but Wlad carried on and remained unbeaten for 8 or 9 years before he met Fury so I think its fair to say Wlad had heart.

I just think he met a guy who he could not figure out mentally and that coupled with his physical size made Wlad hesitant in the fight. I see Wlad winning the rematch now he has gone 12 rounds with Fury and remained on his feet.

I think throughout Wlads career Wlad was scared of getting KNOCKED OUT so he developed a unique style that protected his chin whilst still retaining the power to KO anyone.

He has had a taste of Fury and I see him beating Tyson in the rematch.

Good thread.

I've got to admit I underestimated Fury's ability to actually out box Wlad,but he did and won easily.However I think we will see a different Wlad in the return.Fury isn't a big puncher and even though he landed a few big shots Wlad was in no danger of being stopped and he will know that and be prepared to take a few more risks and go for the knockout himself.

I think Klitschko is just a pretty limited heavyweight and Fury exposed that.

He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Have a feeling holding the title for ten years will be enough for him to be regarded as great...

Whether it's right is another matter

hazharrison wrote:He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Do you have to be such a classless pr*ck all the time? Always levelling drug accusations without the nerve to do it out right. Yeah he ain't the greatest heavy in history but at least he had enough respect for the title to turn up in the best of shape and always do enough to win. To come back from humiliating defeats and adjusting to what was necessary. He also fought every single one of his mandatories and nearest rivals. I get it you don't like him and someone who had the foresight to be born 30 years prior to you hasn't approved of him. But that's no reason to try and sully his reputation ... a reputation which comes under enough fire as it is. Grow up or grow a spine and accuse him directly if you've the nerve. He's got a twitter account so he's pretty accessible. The rest of your post is a fair argument and one hard to argue against but it seems to me that for someone who doesn't like getting hit he's done pretty well to get so far ahead. Whether he's great or not we will see but if Marciano or the boilermaker are greats then I don't see klitschko being far behind.

Wlad is up there in age and Fury is better than most think. He was very gun shy in there though. I think the Wlad that beat Haye would of put him away.

I don't think anything different will happen in the rematch, if Klitchsko gets brave he is getting knocked out

Yojimbonufc wrote:Wlad is up there in age and Fury is better than most think. He was very gun shy in there though. I think the Wlad that beat Haye would of put him away.

He was gun shy because Fury took his jab away

Do think the manner he lost affects his standing, but only really due to the pscyological battle Team Fury comprehensively won.

Jameel McLine was the same height and reach as Wlad, and weighed more, but was dealt with comprehensively.

Fury's size wasn't the exclusive factor that won him the fight.

It will affect a little, however if he loses the rematch his standing will tumble!

Many have praised Wlad, saying that 'Wlad 2.0' would give any heavyweight trouble because of his style, but not his fault he hasn't got the competition to prove it. When a guy of Fury's ability soundly beats him in his own backyard, he can't not get criticised and if gets beaten again I think he rightfully drop considerably in ATG HW rankings.

I've always thought Fury was better than most give him credit but he should never be able to comprehensively beat a suppose ATG HW.

Wlad will be feeling the pressure for this fight!

I think it also depends on what Fury goes on to achieve. If say Fury wins the re-match, and then goes on to defend his title for a while, then in a few years people will remember that Wlad was 39 when he lost, and see it more as a passing of the torch after a long reign (albeit one shot on quality). If Fury gets splattered in a fight or two, though I think the loss affects Wlad's standing more.

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Do you have to be such a classless pr*ck all the time? Always levelling drug accusations without the nerve to do it out right. Yeah he ain't the greatest heavy in history but at least he had enough respect for the title to turn up in the best of shape and always do enough to win. To come back from humiliating defeats and adjusting to what was necessary. He also fought every single one of his mandatories and nearest rivals. I get it you don't like him and someone who had the foresight to be born 30 years prior to you hasn't approved of him. But that's no reason to try and sully his reputation ... a reputation which comes under enough fire as it is. Grow up or grow a spine and accuse him directly if you've the nerve. He's got a twitter account so he's pretty accessible. The rest of your post is a fair argument and one hard to argue against but it seems to me that for someone who doesn't like getting hit he's done pretty well to get so far ahead. Whether he's great or not we will see but if Marciano or the boilermaker are greats then I don't see klitschko being far behind.

Jesus - who threw you nuts?

I wouldn't accuse a fighter outright on here. As the chaps running this thing have explained multiple times: they don't fancy being sued for defamation. I've merely stated that he's always had the dice loaded in his favour.

He deserves credit for wringing every drop out of his career but he's never been a great fighter (which has always been my stance).

What would be the point in accusing a fighter of something via Twitter? How does that take nerve. It takes about as much nerve as calling someone a "classless pr**k" on a forum.

Marciano was a great fighter - Klitschko never has been. That's a fundemental observation - if you can't see that in their performances, then it's pointless quibbling with you on here.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Do think the manner he lost affects his standing, but only really due to the pscyological battle Team Fury comprehensively won.

Jameel McLine was the same height and reach as Wlad, and weighed more, but was dealt with comprehensively.

Fury's size wasn't the exclusive factor that won him the fight.

To be fair, McCline was a pudding. Fury isn't a great fighter but he can fight a bit.

Fury wasn’t the first big guy Wlad had fought: Mariusz Wach is about the same size. He, however, is painfully slow and limited.

The key, as we all know, to Wlad’s success has always been the jab. It keeps people at bay and sets up his right hand. His substantial size and reach advantage has enabled him to land and establish it against the vast majority of his opponents, regardless of whether or not they were faster than him. Wach was as big/bigger, but slower.

Fury was not only bigger, but faster. It’s not as if he has a textbook, ramrod jab but it, along with his constant movement, was enough to prevent Wlad from setting himself. It wasn’t the whole story though: I think we very definite signs of Wlad’s age starting to tell. Fury did a great job of messing up Wlad’s timing and limiting his opportunities to throw, but there were also a great number of times when Wlad could’ve thrown but… just… didn’t. It was bizarre to watch.

Wlad also appeared to spend the entire fight worried about something that I feel he now knows doesn’t exist – Fury’s power. Ok, maybe ‘doesn’t exist’ is a bit harsh but, if he isn’t completely shot, I’d certainly expect him to enter the rematch knowing that he’s got less to worry about than he thought and be less hesitant about being in range. That’s why, I think, quite a few people are tipping Wlad to win the rematch. But then, knowing it and acting on that knowledge are two very different things for a fighter as old and so heavily ingrained in their ways as Wlad.

Looking forward to it though. More so than the first fight.

With regards to it affecting Wlad's standing, although I do think age played a significant factor, it did show (to me) that he's very poor at adapting, which marks him down I feel. He's had a blueprint and it's worked. Fury took him out of that and he appeared clueless. We should rightly expect more of someone for them to be considered a 'great'. Or maybe I'm being harsh. Haven't fully decided yet.

Fury hardly did anything for 12 rounds either....Didn't need too !!.........So this faster stuff for me is not really relevant...

Fury won because Wlad was too intimidated to throw anything..

Qoxiivi wrote:Fury wasn’t the first big guy Wlad had fought: Mariusz Wach is about the same size. He, however, is painfully slow and limited.

The key, as we all know, to Wlad’s success has always been the jab. It keeps people at bay and sets up his right hand. His substantial size and reach advantage has enabled him to land and establish it against the vast majority of his opponents, regardless of whether or not they were faster than him. Wach was as big/bigger, but slower.

Fury was not only bigger, but faster. It’s not as if he has a textbook, ramrod jab but it, along with his constant movement, was enough to prevent Wlad from setting himself. It wasn’t the whole story though: I think we very definite signs of Wlad’s age starting to tell. Fury did a great job of messing up Wlad’s timing and limiting his opportunities to throw, but there were also a great number of times when Wlad could’ve thrown but… just… didn’t. It was bizarre to watch.

Wlad also appeared to spend the entire fight worried about something that I feel he now knows doesn’t exist – Fury’s power. Ok, maybe ‘doesn’t exist’ is a bit harsh but, if he isn’t completely shot, I’d certainly expect him to enter the rematch knowing that he’s got less to worry about than he thought and be less hesitant about being in range. That’s why, I think, quite a few people are tipping Wlad to win the rematch. But then, knowing it and acting on that knowledge are two very different things for a fighter as old and so heavily ingrained in their ways as Wlad.

Looking forward to it though. More so than the first fight.

With regards to it affecting Wlad's standing, although I do think age played a significant factor, it did show (to me) that he's very poor at adapting, which marks him down I feel. He's had a blueprint and it's worked. Fury took him out of that and he appeared clueless. We should rightly expect more of someone for them to be considered a 'great'. Or maybe I'm being harsh. Haven't fully decided yet.

It was the threat of being hit that made Wlad so tentative. And remember: Fury is not a big puncher for a heavyweight (I'm sure he hits hard enough, the sheer size of him, saying that).

Fury's movement threw Klitschko off - he couldn't predict (and therefore time) Fury with anything.

If Fury can be consistent, he can do better next time. His right hand was pretty poor but when he did land one late on, he buckled Wlad's knees. He could just as easily turn up in poor shape and catch one on the chin (and end up the new Leon Spinks).

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Do you have to be such a classless pr*ck all the time? Always levelling drug accusations without the nerve to do it out right. Yeah he ain't the greatest heavy in history but at least he had enough respect for the title to turn up in the best of shape and always do enough to win. To come back from humiliating defeats and adjusting to what was necessary. He also fought every single one of his mandatories and nearest rivals. I get it you don't like him and someone who had the foresight to be born 30 years prior to you hasn't approved of him. But that's no reason to try and sully his reputation ... a reputation which comes under enough fire as it is. Grow up or grow a spine and accuse him directly if you've the nerve. He's got a twitter account so he's pretty accessible. The rest of your post is a fair argument and one hard to argue against but it seems to me that for someone who doesn't like getting hit he's done pretty well to get so far ahead. Whether he's great or not we will see but if Marciano or the boilermaker are greats then I don't see klitschko being far behind.

Jesus - who threw you nuts?  

I wouldn't accuse a fighter outright on here. As the chaps running this thing have explained multiple times: they don't fancy being sued for defamation. I've merely stated that he's always had the dice loaded in his favour.

He deserves credit for wringing every drop out of his career but he's never been a great fighter (which has always been my stance).

What would be the point in accusing a fighter of something via Twitter? How does that take nerve. It takes about as much nerve as calling someone a "classless pr**k" on a forum.

Marciano was a great fighter - Klitschko never has been. That's a fundemental observation - if you can't see that in their performances, then it's pointless quibbling with you on here.

The difference is are you willing to back up your accusations? You throw these accusations around like you're the oracle but it's easy to make accusations when no can adequately call you out on them. I think it would be refreshing if you accused Klitschko to his face and took the consequences.

I can see the difference in their performances but history has added weight to a record bolstered by crippled former greats and never greats who came up to fight a tough gritty fighter with excellent stamina and almost took him. A froch without a ward to put him in his place with the other not quite greats. Marciano is undefeated and that'll put him ahead of wlad always but Marciano benefited from circumstance as much if not more than him.

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Do you have to be such a classless pr*ck all the time? Always levelling drug accusations without the nerve to do it out right. Yeah he ain't the greatest heavy in history but at least he had enough respect for the title to turn up in the best of shape and always do enough to win. To come back from humiliating defeats and adjusting to what was necessary. He also fought every single one of his mandatories and nearest rivals. I get it you don't like him and someone who had the foresight to be born 30 years prior to you hasn't approved of him. But that's no reason to try and sully his reputation ... a reputation which comes under enough fire as it is. Grow up or grow a spine and accuse him directly if you've the nerve. He's got a twitter account so he's pretty accessible. The rest of your post is a fair argument and one hard to argue against but it seems to me that for someone who doesn't like getting hit he's done pretty well to get so far ahead. Whether he's great or not we will see but if Marciano or the boilermaker are greats then I don't see klitschko being far behind.

Jesus - who threw you nuts?  

I wouldn't accuse a fighter outright on here. As the chaps running this thing have explained multiple times: they don't fancy being sued for defamation. I've merely stated that he's always had the dice loaded in his favour.

He deserves credit for wringing every drop out of his career but he's never been a great fighter (which has always been my stance).

What would be the point in accusing a fighter of something via Twitter? How does that take nerve. It takes about as much nerve as calling someone a "classless pr**k" on a forum.

Marciano was a great fighter - Klitschko never has been. That's a fundemental observation - if you can't see that in their performances, then it's pointless quibbling with you on here.

The difference is are you willing to back up your accusations? You throw these accusations around like you're the oracle but it's easy to make accusations when no can adequately call you out on them. I think it would be refreshing if you accused Klitschko to his face and took the consequences.

I can see the difference in their performances but history has added weight to a record bolstered by crippled former greats and never greats who came up to fight a tough gritty fighter with excellent stamina and almost took him. A froch without a ward to put him in his place with the other not quite greats. Marciano is undefeated and that'll put him ahead of wlad always but Marciano benefited from circumstance as much if not more than him.

I think you must have me mixed up with someone else pal. I have my own theories about 40-year old men who look like Arnold Schwarzenegger but that's not for here. I can't prove any fighter has cheated if they haven't failed a test. in the flip side, the testing protocol is so pathetic, it's virtually meaningless. It is what it is.

I don't agree with that assessment of Marciano (a familiar 606 line thrown down by someone at sometime and adopted by the rest). He was a wonderful champion (something Froch has never truly been) - odd comparison. Ez Charles - though no heavyweight - was better than anyone Klitschko faced (by a country mile).

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Do you have to be such a classless pr*ck all the time? Always levelling drug accusations without the nerve to do it out right. Yeah he ain't the greatest heavy in history but at least he had enough respect for the title to turn up in the best of shape and always do enough to win. To come back from humiliating defeats and adjusting to what was necessary. He also fought every single one of his mandatories and nearest rivals. I get it you don't like him and someone who had the foresight to be born 30 years prior to you hasn't approved of him. But that's no reason to try and sully his reputation ... a reputation which comes under enough fire as it is. Grow up or grow a spine and accuse him directly if you've the nerve. He's got a twitter account so he's pretty accessible. The rest of your post is a fair argument and one hard to argue against but it seems to me that for someone who doesn't like getting hit he's done pretty well to get so far ahead. Whether he's great or not we will see but if Marciano or the boilermaker are greats then I don't see klitschko being far behind.

Jesus - who threw you nuts?  

I wouldn't accuse a fighter outright on here. As the chaps running this thing have explained multiple times: they don't fancy being sued for defamation. I've merely stated that he's always had the dice loaded in his favour.

He deserves credit for wringing every drop out of his career but he's never been a great fighter (which has always been my stance).

What would be the point in accusing a fighter of something via Twitter? How does that take nerve. It takes about as much nerve as calling someone a "classless pr**k" on a forum.

Marciano was a great fighter - Klitschko never has been. That's a fundemental observation - if you can't see that in their performances, then it's pointless quibbling with you on here.

The difference is are you willing to back up your accusations? You throw these accusations around like you're the oracle but it's easy to make accusations when no can adequately call you out on them. I think it would be refreshing if you accused Klitschko to his face and took the consequences.

I can see the difference in their performances but history has added weight to a record bolstered by crippled former greats and never greats who came up to fight a tough gritty fighter with excellent stamina and almost took him. A froch without a ward to put him in his place with the other not quite greats. Marciano is undefeated and that'll put him ahead of wlad always but Marciano benefited from circumstance as much if not more than him.

I think you must have me mixed up with someone else pal. I have my own theories about 40-year old men who look like Arnold Schwarzenegger but that's not for here. I can't prove any fighter has cheated if they haven't failed a test. in the flip side, the testing protocol is so pathetic, it's virtually meaningless. It is what it is.

I don't agree with that assessment of Marciano (a familiar 606 line thrown down by someone at sometime and adopted by the rest). He was a wonderful champion (something Froch has never truly been) - odd comparison. Ez Charles - though no heavyweight - was better than anyone Klitschko faced (by a country mile).  

Not at that point. All time certainly, but not by then. Story of his record right there with e possible exception of Moore who was then as hopkins has been in recent years good enough to beat the average and above average but destroyed by anyone of real ability.

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Do you have to be such a classless pr*ck all the time? Always levelling drug accusations without the nerve to do it out right. Yeah he ain't the greatest heavy in history but at least he had enough respect for the title to turn up in the best of shape and always do enough to win. To come back from humiliating defeats and adjusting to what was necessary. He also fought every single one of his mandatories and nearest rivals. I get it you don't like him and someone who had the foresight to be born 30 years prior to you hasn't approved of him. But that's no reason to try and sully his reputation ... a reputation which comes under enough fire as it is. Grow up or grow a spine and accuse him directly if you've the nerve. He's got a twitter account so he's pretty accessible. The rest of your post is a fair argument and one hard to argue against but it seems to me that for someone who doesn't like getting hit he's done pretty well to get so far ahead. Whether he's great or not we will see but if Marciano or the boilermaker are greats then I don't see klitschko being far behind.

Jesus - who threw you nuts?  

I wouldn't accuse a fighter outright on here. As the chaps running this thing have explained multiple times: they don't fancy being sued for defamation. I've merely stated that he's always had the dice loaded in his favour.

He deserves credit for wringing every drop out of his career but he's never been a great fighter (which has always been my stance).

What would be the point in accusing a fighter of something via Twitter? How does that take nerve. It takes about as much nerve as calling someone a "classless pr**k" on a forum.

Marciano was a great fighter - Klitschko never has been. That's a fundemental observation - if you can't see that in their performances, then it's pointless quibbling with you on here.

The difference is are you willing to back up your accusations? You throw these accusations around like you're the oracle but it's easy to make accusations when no can adequately call you out on them. I think it would be refreshing if you accused Klitschko to his face and took the consequences.

I can see the difference in their performances but history has added weight to a record bolstered by crippled former greats and never greats who came up to fight a tough gritty fighter with excellent stamina and almost took him. A froch without a ward to put him in his place with the other not quite greats. Marciano is undefeated and that'll put him ahead of wlad always but Marciano benefited from circumstance as much if not more than him.

I think you must have me mixed up with someone else pal. I have my own theories about 40-year old men who look like Arnold Schwarzenegger but that's not for here. I can't prove any fighter has cheated if they haven't failed a test. in the flip side, the testing protocol is so pathetic, it's virtually meaningless. It is what it is.

I don't agree with that assessment of Marciano (a familiar 606 line thrown down by someone at sometime and adopted by the rest). He was a wonderful champion (something Froch has never truly been) - odd comparison. Ez Charles - though no heavyweight - was better than anyone Klitschko faced (by a country mile).  

Not at that point. All time certainly, but not by then. Story of his record right there with e possible exception of Moore who was then as hopkins has been in recent years good enough to beat the average and above average but destroyed by anyone of real ability.

No idea what any of that means. Charles was a better heavyweight than any heavyweight Klitschko ever fought. Had Klitschko faced anyone with that ability (the slightly faded version of Charles), who was a similar size to him, he'd have been soundly walloped.

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Do you have to be such a classless pr*ck all the time? Always levelling drug accusations without the nerve to do it out right. Yeah he ain't the greatest heavy in history but at least he had enough respect for the title to turn up in the best of shape and always do enough to win. To come back from humiliating defeats and adjusting to what was necessary. He also fought every single one of his mandatories and nearest rivals. I get it you don't like him and someone who had the foresight to be born 30 years prior to you hasn't approved of him. But that's no reason to try and sully his reputation ... a reputation which comes under enough fire as it is. Grow up or grow a spine and accuse him directly if you've the nerve. He's got a twitter account so he's pretty accessible. The rest of your post is a fair argument and one hard to argue against but it seems to me that for someone who doesn't like getting hit he's done pretty well to get so far ahead. Whether he's great or not we will see but if Marciano or the boilermaker are greats then I don't see klitschko being far behind.

Jesus - who threw you nuts?  

I wouldn't accuse a fighter outright on here. As the chaps running this thing have explained multiple times: they don't fancy being sued for defamation. I've merely stated that he's always had the dice loaded in his favour.

He deserves credit for wringing every drop out of his career but he's never been a great fighter (which has always been my stance).

What would be the point in accusing a fighter of something via Twitter? How does that take nerve. It takes about as much nerve as calling someone a "classless pr**k" on a forum.

Marciano was a great fighter - Klitschko never has been. That's a fundemental observation - if you can't see that in their performances, then it's pointless quibbling with you on here.

The difference is are you willing to back up your accusations? You throw these accusations around like you're the oracle but it's easy to make accusations when no can adequately call you out on them. I think it would be refreshing if you accused Klitschko to his face and took the consequences.

I can see the difference in their performances but history has added weight to a record bolstered by crippled former greats and never greats who came up to fight a tough gritty fighter with excellent stamina and almost took him. A froch without a ward to put him in his place with the other not quite greats. Marciano is undefeated and that'll put him ahead of wlad always but Marciano benefited from circumstance as much if not more than him.

I think you must have me mixed up with someone else pal. I have my own theories about 40-year old men who look like Arnold Schwarzenegger but that's not for here. I can't prove any fighter has cheated if they haven't failed a test. in the flip side, the testing protocol is so pathetic, it's virtually meaningless. It is what it is.

I don't agree with that assessment of Marciano (a familiar 606 line thrown down by someone at sometime and adopted by the rest). He was a wonderful champion (something Froch has never truly been) - odd comparison. Ez Charles - though no heavyweight - was better than anyone Klitschko faced (by a country mile).  

Not at that point. All time certainly, but not by then. Story of his record right there with e possible exception of Moore who was then as hopkins has been in recent years good enough to beat the average and above average but destroyed by anyone of real ability.

No idea what any of that means. Charles was a better heavyweight than any heavyweight Klitschko ever fought. Had Klitschko faced anyone with that ability (the slightly faded version of Charles), who was a similar size to him, he'd have been soundly walloped.

Again he might have been a once great but he wasn't a great fighter then. As for if he'd been the size of Klitschko - he'd probably be slower and ungainly and maybe unable to utilise his skillset because of his build, maybe he couldn't handle the weight or maybe his stamina would be shot. He could possibly never develop the skills he did because of his build, he might have been turned into a long range boxer because that's where his strengths would lie instead of where they did. That's probably the most moronic argument there is.

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He doesn't like being hit - he's just rarely fought anyone good enough to fight back. He's a front runner and has always had it all his own way in Germany (whose drug testing protocol is appalling).

Never a great, nowhere near.

Do you have to be such a classless pr*ck all the time? Always levelling drug accusations without the nerve to do it out right. Yeah he ain't the greatest heavy in history but at least he had enough respect for the title to turn up in the best of shape and always do enough to win. To come back from humiliating defeats and adjusting to what was necessary. He also fought every single one of his mandatories and nearest rivals. I get it you don't like him and someone who had the foresight to be born 30 years prior to you hasn't approved of him. But that's no reason to try and sully his reputation ... a reputation which comes under enough fire as it is. Grow up or grow a spine and accuse him directly if you've the nerve. He's got a twitter account so he's pretty accessible. The rest of your post is a fair argument and one hard to argue against but it seems to me that for someone who doesn't like getting hit he's done pretty well to get so far ahead. Whether he's great or not we will see but if Marciano or the boilermaker are greats then I don't see klitschko being far behind.

Jesus - who threw you nuts?  

I wouldn't accuse a fighter outright on here. As the chaps running this thing have explained multiple times: they don't fancy being sued for defamation. I've merely stated that he's always had the dice loaded in his favour.

He deserves credit for wringing every drop out of his career but he's never been a great fighter (which has always been my stance).

What would be the point in accusing a fighter of something via Twitter? How does that take nerve. It takes about as much nerve as calling someone a "classless pr**k" on a forum.

Marciano was a great fighter - Klitschko never has been. That's a fundemental observation - if you can't see that in their performances, then it's pointless quibbling with you on here.

The difference is are you willing to back up your accusations? You throw these accusations around like you're the oracle but it's easy to make accusations when no can adequately call you out on them. I think it would be refreshing if you accused Klitschko to his face and took the consequences.

I can see the difference in their performances but history has added weight to a record bolstered by crippled former greats and never greats who came up to fight a tough gritty fighter with excellent stamina and almost took him. A froch without a ward to put him in his place with the other not quite greats. Marciano is undefeated and that'll put him ahead of wlad always but Marciano benefited from circumstance as much if not more than him.

I think you must have me mixed up with someone else pal. I have my own theories about 40-year old men who look like Arnold Schwarzenegger but that's not for here. I can't prove any fighter has cheated if they haven't failed a test. in the flip side, the testing protocol is so pathetic, it's virtually meaningless. It is what it is.

I don't agree with that assessment of Marciano (a familiar 606 line thrown down by someone at sometime and adopted by the rest). He was a wonderful champion (something Froch has never truly been) - odd comparison. Ez Charles - though no heavyweight - was better than anyone Klitschko faced (by a country mile).  

Not at that point. All time certainly, but not by then. Story of his record right there with e possible exception of Moore who was then as hopkins has been in recent years good enough to beat the average and above average but destroyed by anyone of real ability.

No idea what any of that means. Charles was a better heavyweight than any heavyweight Klitschko ever fought. Had Klitschko faced anyone with that ability (the slightly faded version of Charles), who was a similar size to him, he'd have been soundly walloped.

Again he might have been a once great but he wasn't a great fighter then. As for if he'd been the size of Klitschko - he'd probably be slower and ungainly and maybe unable to utilise his skillset because of his build, maybe he couldn't handle the weight or maybe his stamina would be shot. He could possibly never develop the skills he did because of his build, he might have been turned into a long range boxer because that's where his strengths would lie instead of where they did. That's probably the most moronic argument there is.  

I didn't suggest Charles turn into The Hulk. I said that if Klitschko had faced anyone his own size with the ability the version of Charles that fought Marciano had - he'd have been beaten to a pulp. Charles put in one of his best performances in years (against top ten rated contender Coley Wallace) prior to facing Marciano. Charles was still a tremendous fighter.

So if something that has never existed had existed Klitschko would be beaten to a pulp? Can you not see how stupid this argument is? Was it Coley Wallace who subsequently lost the rest of his matches post Charles including to 2 novices?? Or was he the one getting slapped around by Lamotta 4 or 5 years earlier?

ShahenshahG wrote:So if something that has never existed had existed Klitschko would be beaten to a pulp? Can you not see how stupid this argument is? Was it Coley Wallace who subsequently lost the rest of his matches post Charles including to 2 novices?? Or was he the one getting slapped around by Lamotta 4 or 5 years earlier?

Not really. You were comparing Klitschko to Marciano and downplaying Rocky's opposition. I'm saying that if Klitschko had to face what Rocky did, he'd have been wiped out. My point is that Marciano fought much better men than Klitschko ever did. Klitschko fought absolute garbage in the main.

Wallace was Ok, nothing special (he beat Marciano as an amateur). Charles's performance was excellent against him, though (which was my point). Charles could still fight when he fought Rocky.

So an excellent performance against a substandard opponent is your evidence that he was still great? Even though his opponent subsequently lost all his matches against opponents about as useful as pianetta or worse?

I think Wlad's performance was a dreadful showing of non-committal apathy once he realised he couldn't jab his way to victory as normal. He was so poor, it made me wonder why others hadn't tried the same technique before. For someone allegedly so good, this fight was a disgrace. I know it's easy to kick a guy when he's down, but he obviously thought he just needed to go through the usual motions to beat Fury and had no plan B. For a so-called A-grade fighter, that's ridiculous complacency.

I don't think Fury will hold the belts for too long, but credit must be given to him and his team for proving most of the world wrong.

How often has Klitschko actually impressed? How often has he actually impressed against a half decent opponent? Povetkin? - rubbish performance. Lucky not have been DQed for fouling him out of the fight. Haye? Barely landed a meaningful punch. A great fighter might well find himself undermatched amongst a weak generation of fighters. But you would expect them display greatness in their performances the majority of time as oppsoed to picking up four losses and career highlight reel that would send most to sleep. The performances that might make think you were actually watching a quality fighter are few and far between. Klitschko has always come across as a decent physical athlete with great natural power but an extremely basic boxing formula and very vunerable with several glaring weakenesses. It has got the job done for the most part in the midst of a really poor division but getting the job done does not equate to being a great fighter against the kind of opposition he has had.

ShahenshahG wrote:So an excellent performance against a substandard opponent is your evidence that he was still great? Even though his opponent subsequently lost all his matches against opponents about as useful as pianetta or worse?

Wallace was a top ten ranked fighter. Charles, by all accounts, looked superb against him. While he wasn't quite what he was, he could still fight (evidenced by his performance against Marciano). The Charles and Walcott wins are underrated. Marciano's performances (in general) were also great. Carl Froch indeed.....

catchweight wrote:How often has Klitschko actually impressed? How often has he actually impressed against a half decent opponent? Povetkin? - rubbish performance. Lucky not have been DQed for fouling him out of the fight. Haye? Barely landed a meaningful punch. A great fighter might well find himself undermatched amongst a weak generation of fighters. But you would expect them display greatness in their performances the majority of time as oppsoed to picking up four losses and career highlight reel that would send most to sleep. The performances that might make think you were actually watching a quality fighter are few and far between. Klitschko has always come across as a decent physical athlete with great natural power but an extremely basic boxing formula and very vunerable with several glaring weakenesses. It has got the job done for the most part in the midst of a really poor division but getting the job done does not equate to being a great fighter against the kind of opposition he has had.

Spot on.

I think the way he lost does destroy several myths, some very popular at times on this board, about Wlad's technical ability. His footwork, timing, and accuracy have all been lorded, but Fury soundly outboxed him, especially with regards to positioning. He was exposed as having less than the stellar boxing ability he's been attributed with, and his deficiency in footwork compared to Fury was key in him only landing about 69 punches.

I personally have always thought of Klitschko as a good fighter not a great one, so his standing IMO wouldn't have changed had he won or lost.

Good fighter in arguably the worst era of Heavyweight boxing,with nothing to beat, both Wlad and Vitali have fought one great fighter between them a past it Lewis.

It certainly does affect his standing. Been battered before and everybody knew he had his weaknesses there but now he's been outboxed too. He's a very good fighter but the praise on him has gone way over the top since he beat Haye. His brother would have beaten him easily

catchweight wrote:How often has Klitschko actually impressed? How often has he actually impressed against a half decent opponent? Povetkin? - rubbish performance. Lucky not have been DQed for fouling him out of the fight. Haye? Barely landed a meaningful punch. A great fighter might well find himself undermatched amongst a weak generation of fighters. But you would expect them display greatness in their performances the majority of time as oppsoed to picking up four losses and career highlight reel that would send most to sleep. The performances that might make think you were actually watching a quality fighter are few and far between. Klitschko has always come across as a decent physical athlete with great natural power but an extremely basic boxing formula and very vunerable with several glaring weakenesses. It has got the job done for the most part in the midst of a really poor division but getting the job done does not equate to being a great fighter against the kind of opposition he has had.

I think he impressed up until his first loss, then he became the boring safety first boxer that we have grown to love/hate, and in the last couple of years, Pulev apart, became less impressive with every fight and then he hit rock bottom with that wilful performance against Fury in what must be one of the worst HW title fights in modern times. If Fury beats him again I feel that will be how he will be remembered, losing to the first fighter who showed ambition.

cant say im wlad's biggest fan, never have been purely because he bores me to tears. vitali was always the better fighter. the main reason wlad was successful was his size, and he fought a clever gamplan (if not illegal in most places) to use his size. no one was ever really given a chance due to the size difference. smaller guys fighting on the outside who werent allowed to fight on the inside is a pretty tough situation for any fighter let alone the poor standard that wlad has fought.

as to the op question, more than likely in my opinion. unlike what others have said i dont think fury is all that and soon as he fights a big guy willing to punch (aj, wilder) he'll get flattened. which will only increase the effect of this loss. if fury proves me wrong then it will lessen the effect but still have question marks over the manner of defeat

Wlad is 39, most people make excuses for boxers at that age as they tend to be ruining their legacies going forward.

Maybe Wlad felt old in training for this fight and had that little doubt going into the fight, perhaps he just couldn't do what he wanted in training and this was what made him gun shy.

He has taken the rematch but could have felt forced into it by family / friends who are unable to see what he knows from his training?

I believe over time we will think of him in high regards due to his longevity but would expect him to have been beaten by most other greats in fabled head to head matches, so pretty much what we thought before.