Wladimir Klitschko’s place in history is stronger than Floyd Mayweather’s

[Freedom2013]

Mickey Vann: Wladimir Klitschko’s place in history is stronger than Floyd Mayweather’s

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/wladimi ... yweathers/

If we consider Floyd Mayweather, a very intelligent boxer, as one of the greatest of modern times then we must also give Wladimir Klitschko, who has ruled at heavyweight for many years, at least the same credit.

Unlike Mayweather he hasn’t moved up and down in weight, nor has he fought exclusively on home turf. He has fought many times in America – as well as Germany – while he’s also fought in Switzerland and Russia. Lamon Brewster beat him in Germany eleven years ago, as did Corrie Saunders before that. He has had 67 fights and only lost three of those; the metal toughness exhibited to come back from defeat and prove himself time and again is something Mayweather has not done. And like Mayweather, Klitschko makes special fighters look ordinary.

Perhaps Mayweather is the slicker fighter, but Klitschko’s place in history should be regarded as highly, if not higher. Very few champions – Floyd included – have dominated their divisions like Wladimir. If one of my sons asked me who he should use as a role model between Floyd (rarely boxed out of Las Vegas) Mayweather and Wladimir Klitschko it is a no-brainer.

It looks like Klitschko’s fight with Tyson Fury will now take place on November 28. I don’t for one minute think his injury that caused the postponement is in any way a smoke screen, but I do believe the Klitschko camp are apprehensive, and I think this has been the case ever since the fight was announced.

I understand that the Klitschko team insisted on a return clause in the contract and the return to be in Germany before the contracts would be signed – this for me is not the actions of a team full of confidence.

However, credit to the fighter for taking on Fury in the first place and yet again fighting the best he could; this could not always be said of Mayweather.

[gilgamesh]

Didn't we have this thread already? Or did I read it somewhere else?

[Freedom2013]

Didn't we have this thread already? Or did I read it somewhere else?

This is the only thread in BoxRec about Mickey Vann's comments.

[gilgamesh]

Well at any rate. His place in history is not stronger than Mayweather's so Mickey Vann is wrong. Only way Wladimir surpasses the mark Floyd has made is if he ties or breaks Joe Louis' title defense record.

[Boxerbeetle]

Not sure which "special" fighters Wlad has made look ordinary?

[jujigatame]

I like Wlad (even to the point of considering him the #1 P4P fighter in the sport now) but I can't agree with this at all. Wlad has 3 KO losses on his record, and his biggest wins were over guys like Pulev, Povetkin, and Chagaev, while Floyd beat several fellow P4P talents. No comparison at all.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Such silliness, PAC fought, beat, knocked down and knocked out more Ring rated P4Pers in history and didn't stay squirreled away in Manila with hometown officiating doing it.

Wlad next, then Roy, then TUE, but only maybe only for now. He'll be revised down once it hits the fan. Looks like someone with an ax to grind already torched part of his fleet. Waiting for the shoe store to start dropping on him.

[Chepppaaa]

as a wrestler yes

did he box?

[Bard of Boxrec]

Uh, no.

[Lackeos]

I like Wlad (even to the point of considering him the #1 P4P fighter in the sport now) but I can't agree with this at all. Wlad has 3 KO losses on his record, and his biggest wins were over guys like Pulev, Povetkin, and Chagaev, while Floyd beat several fellow P4P talents. No comparison at all.

What does 3 losses have to do with anything? Are you new to boxing? I know you're not, but with this comment, you're acting like you are. The quantity of losses that a fighter has has no bearing on their all-time rank. It's just a number, and it's useless in a vacuum. Again, you should know that. Sugar Ray Robinson had 19 losses -- a fact that I know you already know. Henry Armstrong had 21 losses -- there's no way that you don't already know that. Roberto Duran had 16 losses -- pretty sure that's not news to you. So then you should know that it's pointless to mention that Wlad's meaningless number is 3. All 3 of Wlad's losses came before his peak in skill, and they have no bearing on anything.

[Evander]

Is this the same Mickey Vann who as a judge scored the Pernell Whitaker v Julio Cesar Chavez fight a 115-115 draw ?

[jujigatame]

The quantity of losses that a fighter has has no bearing on their all-time rank. It's just a number, and it's useless in a vacuum.

I'm not looking at them in a vacuum and would not consider them meaningless. He lost 3 times, all by KO, all to middling fighters he had no business losing to.

And you ignored the other half of my argument which is more important anyway. Wlad's resume, while great, does not stack up to Mayweather's. Not even close.

[Badhusker]

I like Wlad (even to the point of considering him the #1 P4P fighter in the sport now) but I can't agree with this at all. Wlad has 3 KO losses on his record, and his biggest wins were over guys like Pulev, Povetkin, and Chagaev, while Floyd beat several fellow P4P talents. No comparison at all.

What does 3 losses have to do with anything? Are you new to boxing? I know you're not, but with this comment, you're acting like you are. The quantity of losses that a fighter has has no bearing on their all-time rank. It's just a number, and it's useless in a vacuum. Again, you should know that. Sugar Ray Robinson had 19 losses -- a fact that I know you already know. Henry Armstrong had 21 losses -- there's no way that you don't already know that. Roberto Duran had 16 losses -- pretty sure that's not news to you. So then you should know that it's pointless to mention that Wlad's meaningless number is 3. All 3 of Wlad's losses came before his peak in skill, and they have no bearing on anything.

Well the comparison is kind of stupid in the first place, imo. Depending on what kind of variables you want to include or exclude, you could make the argument for either guy I suppose. Comparing the number of current or former champs they fought, for example. Records for the most part don't matter, unless you are able to go unbeaten over 19 years. Even Marciano did it over only 7, and quit at 32. Wlad hasn't been KO'd for about 20 fights now. Both are great champions.

This thread is just another opportunity to take a shot at Floyd, but guess what...no one cares. Some people will keep googling his name to find stuff to rip on him. The best fans he has.

[Lackeos]

The quantity of losses that a fighter has has no bearing on their all-time rank. It's just a number, and it's useless in a vacuum.

I'm not looking at them in a vacuum and would not consider them meaningless. He lost 3 times, all by KO, all to middling fighters he had no business losing to.

And you ignored the other half of my argument which is more important anyway. Wlad's resume, while great, does not stack up to Mayweather's. Not even close.

Well I don't disagree with the whole thing. I mean, I think Wlad's best wins are probably Haye, Byrd, Povetkin, and Pulev, IMO, but w/e. Either way, they are not as exceptional as Mayweather's best scalps. But Wlad has generally dominated by greater margins than Mayweather has (on official scorecards, sure, but even more so in real margins of damage dealt). I believe Mayweather had the better career, but I think there are arguments to keep the gap halfway close, especially since Wlad has widely gained acceptance as top 10 all-time in his division and is still a threat to notch more key wins before retirement.

But the original point stands -- let's not mention quantity of career losses in a vacuum in this discussion or any other. Sugar Ray Robinson has lost more times than Charlie Zelenoff has. What information can we extrapolate from that? 0 information about the boxers, but it reveals a lot about how unimportant it is to count the W's and L's. JCC Jr. started out his career 46-0-1, Paul Spadafora was 48-0-1, and Vasyl Lomachenko is 4-1; so which of them is the best boxer? A pre-prime defeat or a post-prime defeat are not as damning as an in-prime defeat. A defeat to a great opponent is not so bad as a defeat to a poor opponent. A narrow loss is not the same as a wide loss. A win is not a win without telling me who you've beaten -- having the padded record of a Wanheng Menayothin (39-0) or a William Fernando Souza Bezerra (41-0) does not outweigh the 15 measly little wins on the record of Guillermo Rigondeaux or the 9-0 Artur Beterbiev.

[Heretic]

One big difference between the two is that Wlad has ducked no one. (before some idiot brings it up... No Vitali does not count.) Mayweather has been cherrypicking for hes entire career. Without the careful management of his career I believe he would have loss or two somewhere in there.

There is really not much that Wlad could have done to have better career. Hes pretty much done all that there is to do in the division hes in. The same can't really be said about Floyd.

[jezzamundo]

Wlad hasn't had to duck anyone because there hasn't been anyone worth ducking. The heavyweight division has been pitifully weak for over a decade now, with the exception of two Ukranian brothers. I don't think Wlad can be seriously considered for the all-time heavyweight top 10 considering the lack of top fighters on his resume. Not his fault, but that's the way I see it. I'm also confident that prime-for-prime, Lennox Lewis would wipe the floor with him in less than three rounds.

As for comparing his resume to Floyd's, I think he falls well short. He's clearly the top heavyweight of his era (although I think Vitali was better, Wlad has the better resume) but that's about it.

[jujigatame]

I just want to reiterate one more time, I'm not looking at Wlad's losses in a vacuum. It's not the number of losses that matters. It's that he lost by KO 3 times to average opponents that he was a big favorite against, and beside the loss to Purrity (where he was young but still had 24 fights under his belt) they were all smack dab in the middle of his career. They weren't like B-Hop's first loss where it was his pro debut.

And still, the more important point is that he's just had a lower level of competition in general. Everyone rightfully lambasted Floyd for fighting Berto, but Wlad had had several opponents on that level (Wach, Pianeta, Leapai, Mormeck) in the last few years alone. To find another opponent that poor on Floyd's record you have to go back a decade to Henry Bruseles.

[Boxing Writer]

I'm also confident that prime-for-prime, Lennox Lewis would wipe the floor with him in less than three rounds.

I don't think so at all. Wladimir Klitschko isn't Michael Grant. I think Wlad vs Lewis prime for prime would be very cautious jab-clinch affair from BOTH fighters. Any of them had the power to KO each other at any time of the fight, but I think there is a good chance that fight would go the distance. I think it would be a 50/50 fight.

[Boxing Writer]

As for Floyd, I rank him higher than Wlad. Yes, I think Floyd should have lost to Castillo (1st fight), so he should be 48-1 instead of 49-0. And yes, Wlad (ulike Floyd) fought all the best available opponents, and most of them were in their prime - Haye, Byrd-1, Povetkin, Pulev, Ibragimov (the most underrated win in Wlad'd resume IMO). But Floyd's opposition was clearly better, even if we conider the fact that most of his best opponents were past their prime.

[koolkc107]

Ummmmmmmm...NO.

As a matter of fact, Wlad's place in history is going to be much further back from the top than many think.
History may even treat his brother a little kinder, since Vitali actually fought a HOF guy.
Who is the HOF guy on Wlad's resume? What guy has he fought that makes us say
"hell yes, that guy is definitely going to Canastota"? Maybe Sam Peter?

I dunno...

By way of contrast, Floyd has beaten 2 men who are already in the HOF. (Gatti, DLH)
There are another 5 or 6 who are sure-fire bets to wind up there as well. (Genaro Hernandez, JMM, JLC, Shane, Pac, Cotto)
And still another 4 or 5 after that who have a more than decent chance to make it. (Judah, Canelo, Hatton, Corrales, C. Hernandez, J. Chavez).

It really isn't even a fair or close comparison. Wlad just hasn't had the opportunity to test himself that Floyd has.

[Badhusker]

How many former world champions has Wlad beaten? Floyd's number must pretty near 20. Wlad probably has about half that I am guessing. It kind of hard to compare the two when one of them has been regarded as the top pfp guy for most of the last decade or so.

Wlad is a great champion too. Not his fault, but he suffers the same criticism that Marciano did - lack of quality competition. Rocky was unbeaten, but is not often talked about as one of the top heavyweights in history.

[Lackeos]

I'm also confident that prime-for-prime, Lennox Lewis would wipe the floor with him in less than three rounds.

There's 27 people that Lennox Lewis failed to wipe the floor with in less than 3 rounds, and all of them are worse than Wlad.

[koolkc107]

I'm also confident that prime-for-prime, Lennox Lewis would wipe the floor with him in less than three rounds.

There's 27 people that Lennox Lewis failed to wipe the floor with in less than 3 rounds, and all of them are worse than Wlad.

Maybe, but an old, out of shape Lennox sent Vitali (the brother who punches as hard but has a much better chin)
to a plastic surgeon.

No way Wlad takes the shots his brother did and stays conscious.

[punchoutsb]

I'm also confident that prime-for-prime, Lennox Lewis would wipe the floor with him in less than three rounds.

There's 27 people that Lennox Lewis failed to wipe the floor with in less than 3 rounds, and all of them are worse than Wlad.

"Prime for prime" is the important piece here. In Wlad's prime (which came after all three losses and is ending now...possibly ended after Pulev), nobody wipes the floor with him in less than three rounds. Nobody. He's too good at avoiding big shots and clinching when it gets tough. Lewis wasn't a particularly early starter either. Also, Wlad's power isn't to be discounted; he's got the power to stop anybody, especially a guy like Lewis.

There are obviously heavies throughout history who could beat Wlad, and Lewis is likely one of them. But people who think it would be a cakewalk are horribly misguided. History will treat Wlad the same way it treated Lewis; in twenty years he'll be overrated too. It's fair play though since both were underrated when they actually competed.

[jezzamundo]

Perhaps saying 'I'm confident' is overstating it, but I think it's the most likely result. We honestly don't know how a prime Wlad would perform against a top heavyweight, because he has never fought one. Given his power and Lewis's average chin, Wlad certainly has a good punchers chance of beating Lewis. I actually think Wlad's jab is better too, so I don't think it would favour Lewis to make it a boxing match, I just see him roughing Wlad up on the inside early in the fight.

Maybe, but an old, out of shape Lennox sent Vitali (the brother who punches as hard but has a much better chin)
to a plastic surgeon.

No way Wlad takes the shots his brother did and stays conscious.

Vitali didn't hit close to as hard as Wlad. Agreed that Wlad could never take the punishment against Lewis that Vitali did, but on the other hand, Lewis could never take the punches from Wlad that he took from Vitali and remain upright.