Prime Wladimir Klichko vs Prime Golota

[ron4972]

Vlad would win this fight by knockout or TKO. Golota would have his moments, and would hang in there until about the eighth round. But Vlad's superior size, skills, jab, strength, and power would be too much for Golota. Add to this that, in his prime, Vlad used ugly but effective clinching tactics that could nullify anyone's offensive.

[Ambling Alp II]

Kltischko got stopped out by Purritty, Sanders, and Brewster in his prime. With his chin, you have to give Golota a puncher's chance. Of course Golota always seemed to find ways to lose big fights and would probably do it again in this case.

[DrDuke]

Kltischko got stopped out by Purritty, Sanders, and Brewster in his prime. With his chin, you have to give Golota a puncher's chance. Of course Golota always seemed to find ways to lose big fights and would probably do it again in this case.

I guess, when Klitschko lost those, he wasn't prime. Well, he was in prime physical conditions, but he wasn't prime overall, cause his fighting style hadn't been polished yet. Probably in the Peter fight he had already reached the top in every his aspect.

[Ambling Alp II]

He had 24 fights before he got stopped by Purritty.
He had 41 fights and was almost 27 years old when he was stopped by Sanders.
He was 28 and had had 44 fights when he was stopped by Brewster.
You have to count those as being in his prime. If you don't then the vast majority of fights don't count because at least one guy was not yet in his prime.

He was not actually a better fighter when he was beating all those stiffs the next several years. He did employ a different strategy to mask his major weaknesses (chin and stamina.) By holding constantly, he was much less likely to get tagged and he didn't have expend as much energy. This was enough to win a lot of late round stoppages and decisions against stiffs.
However that isn't enough to be an elite fighter.
Had he fought an elite fighter, he would have had a better chance of winning by fighting his more aggressive style.

[DrDuke]

He had 24 fights before he got stopped by Purritty.
He had 41 fights and was almost 27 years old when he was stopped by Sanders.
He was 28 and had had 44 fights when he was stopped by Brewster.
You have to count those as being in his prime. If you don't then the vast majority of fights don't count because at least one guy was not yet in his prime.

He was not actually a better fighter when he was beating all those stiffs the next several years. He did employ a different strategy to mask his major weaknesses (chin and stamina.) By holding constantly, he was much less likely to get tagged and he didn't have expend as much energy. This was enough to win a lot of late round stoppages and decisions against stiffs.
However that isn't enough to be an elite fighter.
Had he fought an elite fighter, he would have had a better chance of winning by fighting his more aggressive style.

Wlad is an elite fighter, he's an ATG for sure. His opposition wasn't too tough, but it wasn't fully stiff. He didn't face other ATGs, like Lewis or Holyfield, or Tyson had done before him, but he faced some tough guys like Povetkin or Haye.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess it may depend on what you consider an ATG. For example, I don't think he was anywhere near the level of Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis.

[BoxBuzz]

I guess it may depend on what you consider an ATG. For example, I don't think he was anywhere near the level of Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis.

Just curious as to why....he's been pretty active, and his time at the top is comparable isn't it?

[DrDuke]

I guess it may depend on what you consider an ATG. For example, I don't think he was anywhere near the level of Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis.

I'd say, he was near.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess it may depend on what you consider an ATG. For example, I don't think he was anywhere near the level of Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis.

Just curious as to why....he's been pretty active, and his time at the top is comparable isn't it?

No, not at all comparable. He was the top of a hill, they were at the top of a mountain. Doesn't matter how active you are.
He had major flaws, they didn't. His losses were against far weaker opponents. (I'm not counting all four of the fighters when they were way past it.) Their best wins were better than his.

[HomicideHenry]

Its hard for people to excuse Wladimir Klitschko's losses, when he was in line to fight Lennox Lewis for the undisputed Heavyweight title before getting bombed out by Corrie Sanders.

I'll excuse him for losing to Ross Purrity, despite his 24-0-0 record. Why? Because Purrity arguably was the best and/or most dangerous man he fought to that point; plus he was winning every single round until he completely gassed out. Had the fight been just ten rounds, it'd of been an easy victory for Wladimir.

He was 40-1-0 before Sanders. He already made people forget all about the Purrity loss. He defeated Mercer, Botha, Byrd, Shulz, Jackson, Bostice, McCline... He was a solid top notch contender... He was absolutely in his prime. It cannot be excused. The ONLY argument you can make about the loss is that Sanders is arguably the most underrated heavyweight of the 1990s and 2000s, so it was faulty matchmaking all the way around.

Lamon Brewster, though.... That's probably the biggest asterisk against Klitschko... Sure, he avenged the loss but by that time Lamon Brewster was fighting half blind, and was himself coming off a loss... So it was an empty victory.

As for Golota... I'd lean towards Wladimir winning against him... Klitschko made mincemeat of Byrd, and certainly lasted longer against Brewster than AG did... Besides, he lost to two men very much like Klitschko: Lennox Lewis & Michael Grant.

[Boxing Writer]

He had 24 fights before he got stopped by Purritty.
He had 41 fights and was almost 27 years old when he was stopped by Sanders.
He was 28 and had had 44 fights when he was stopped by Brewster.
You have to count those as being in his prime. If you don't then the vast majority of fights don't count because at least one guy was not yet in his prime.

He was not actually a better fighter when he was beating all those stiffs the next several years. He did employ a different strategy to mask his major weaknesses (chin and stamina.) By holding constantly, he was much less likely to get tagged and he didn't have expend as much energy. This was enough to win a lot of late round stoppages and decisions against stiffs.
However that isn't enough to be an elite fighter.
Had he fought an elite fighter, he would have had a better chance of winning by fighting his more aggressive style.

He was in his prime against Sanders and Brewster, but definitely not against Puritty.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was in the Olympics and had 24 pro fights already. In modern times, most guys with that much experience are already fighting for WBS titles. If you are going to say he wasn't in his prime yet, he had to be close enough where you can't use the "too inexperienced" excuse in a loss to a journeyman.

[DrDuke]

He was in the Olympics and had 24 pro fights already. In modern times, most guys with that much experience are already fighting for WBS titles. If you are going to say he wasn't in his prime yet, he had to be close enough where you can't use the "too inexperienced" excuse in a loss to a journeyman.

Current champs could be on top earlier, but they were still raw, when they captured the belts. Joshua, Wilder, Parker - all of them. Their main tests appeared with ther defences. I guess, it's promotion's influence. Today the comers are promoted much better. And today it's easier to follow rises of the comers.

[Boxing Writer]

He was in the Olympics and had 24 pro fights already. In modern times, most guys with that much experience are already fighting for WBS titles. If you are going to say he wasn't in his prime yet, he had to be close enough where you can't use the "too inexperienced" excuse in a loss to a journeyman.

Wlad was only 22. For comparison, Lennox Lewis didn't even turn pro at that age and was clearly nowhere near his prime at 26 when he went the distance against Levi Billups. And Lewis already fought better guys than Billups, whie Puritty was clearly Wlad's best opponent at that moment.

[Ambling Alp II]

The key is Lewis beat Levi Billups; he didn't stop him but he beat him. Not stopping someone you should have is not nearly as bad as losing to someone that simply wasn't very good.

Was Purritty clearly better than anyone Klitschko had fought to that point? I dunno. He was not a good fighter though. He got beat plenty of times before and after this fight and it wasn't always to good opposition.

Klitschko actually got stopped by journeyman. It wasn't like he was some completely inexperienced prospect thrown to the wolves.
This is an embarrassing loss. There is no legitimate reason to excuse it.

[Boxing Writer]

The key is Lewis beat Levi Billups; he didn't stop him but he beat him. Not stopping someone you should have is not nearly as bad as losing to someone that simply wasn't very good.

Was Purritty clearly better than anyone Klitschko had fought to that point? I dunno. He was not a good fighter though. He got beat plenty of times before and after this fight and it wasn't always to good opposition.

Klitschko actually got stopped by journeyman. It wasn't like he was some completely inexperienced prospect thrown to the wolves.
This is an embarrassing loss. There is no legitimate reason to excuse it.

Yes, Lewis beat Billups, but couldn't stop a guy who was knocked out many times before (and after) including being obliterated in 44 seconds by light-hitting cruiserweight Orlin Norris. Puritty was better than Billups - bigger, stronger, harder puncher and much more durable, and Lewis was 26 against Billups while Wlad was only 22 against Puritty.

Ross Puritty was definitely better than anyone of his 24 previous opponents. Cody Koch had great record and wasn't a bad figter, but his best wins were Willie Phillips and Booker T. Word. Mark Wills was very tough journeyman in his prime but he was shot when he fought Wlad. Puritty knocked out Jorge Luis Gonzalez and Joe Hipp and arguably beat Tommy Morrison, knocking him down twice in a fight. He also knocked out in 2 rounds undefeated Danish prospect Mark Hulstrom right before beating Wlad. And, by the way, Hulstrom returned after that loss with a fight against Levi Billups, beating him on points.

[Ambling Alp II]

He beat Jorge Gonzalez? That changes everything.

You left out the part where Purritty lost to Cleveland Woods, Alexander Mirohnickeako, John Sargent, Derek Isaman, King Ipitan, Will Hinton, Brian Nielson, Corrie SDanders, Eliesa Castillo, among many others.
Purritty was never close to be a contender. It's an embarrassing loss.

Yes, Lewis was 26. He also had only 18 pro fights while Klitschko had 24. A guy with 24 pro fights (not mention and extensive amateur career) should beat someone like Ross Purritty.

Yes Lewis did not stop a guy he should have. But he won. Almost ever great fighter had at least one unimpressive win.
None have three embarrassing losses.
Again, an unimpressive win is better than an embarrassing loss.

[Boxing Writer]

He beat Jorge Gonzalez? That changes everything.

You left out the part where Purritty lost to Cleveland Woods, Alexander Mirohnickeako, John Sargent, Derek Isaman, King Ipitan, Will Hinton, Brian Nielson, Corrie SDanders, Eliesa Castillo, among many others.
Purritty was never close to be a contender. It's an embarrassing loss.

Yes, Lewis was 26. He also had only 18 pro fights while Klitschko had 24. A guy with 24 pro fights (not mention and extensive amateur career) should beat someone like Ross Purritty.

Yes Lewis did not stop a guy he should have. But he won. Almost ever great fighter had at least one unimpressive win.
None have three embarrassing losses.
Again, an unimpressive win is better than an embarrassing loss.

Lewis already fought guys, who were much better than Billups - Mason, Ocasio. Puritty was Wlad's best opponent at the time he fought him. And my point is NOT that unimpressive win is the same as any loss. My point from the very beginning was that Wlad couldn't be in his prime at 22 if Lennox Lewis wasn't in his one at 26.

[Boxing Writer]

A guy with 24 pro fights (not mention and extensive amateur career) should beat someone like Ross Purritty.

And if Puritty was that bad, why than former WBO champ Tommy Morrison (who had 43 pro fights including a lot of figt fights against top-10 opponents) couldn't beat him, when Puritty himself was 8-8? Wlad had much less fights against MUCH weaker opponents and fought better, much more experienced version of Puritty (24-13-1).

[keithmoonhangover]

Stylistically the Golota that fought Bowe is a really hard night for Wlad.

[Cojimar 1946]

I dont find the argument that Holyfield, Tyson, and Lewis fought in some sort of golden age to be very persuasive. We have actual cases of guys from that era including the best of the era losing to guys from Wladimir's era.

[Ambling Alp II]

A guy with 24 pro fights (not mention and extensive amateur career) should beat someone like Ross Purritty.

And if Puritty was that bad, why than former WBO champ Tommy Morrison (who had 43 pro fights including a lot of figt fights against top-10 opponents) couldn't beat him, when Puritty himself was 8-8? Wlad had much less fights against MUCH weaker opponents and fought better, much more experienced version of Puritty (24-13-1).

Yes he got a draw with the great Tommy Morrison. Look at the guy's record. It is 30-20-1. He lost early in his career, the middle of his career, later in his career. You can make excuses for the losses and make a big deal about a draw; You can do that with anyone.
So yes, Purrity was that bad. He was never even a contender. A supposed ATG should beat him.
It's an embarrassing loss. If that was the one like that, that is one thing. However he had Sanders one. Then the Brewster one. These were not just tough losses on an off night.

You want to say that he wasn't quite in prime, fine. He had to be pretty close. Certainly, close enough to beat journeymen.
Ali was 22 and had 19 fights when he fought Sonny Liston. There a million other examples.
Klitschko wasn't just some green kid. He had an extensive amateur background. He already had 24 pro fights. So yes, at 22, he should have beat Ross Purrity.

[Cojimar 1946]

There are plenty of people who feel the same way about Lewis's losses. That knockout losses to McCall and Rahman should disqualify him from consideration as an ATG.

[Ambling Alp II]

Lewis had two, Klitschko had three.
None of Lewis losses were to journeyman.
The McCall fight was a premature stoppage.
These do hurt Lewis all time standing, but not nearly to the extent that it hurts Klitschko's.

[keithmoonhangover]

We have actual cases of guys from that era including the best of the era losing to guys from Wladimir's era.

Can you expand on this please.