Why Vitali Klitschko is Great

[DrDuke]

Vit wasn't great. Period. This post topic should be banned. This is iteration no. 1,051.

Vitali seems to be a one of the most popular and controversial topics in boxing community. That's because he's treated by the observers like a great and taken as a great by casual fans. I mean, every man, woman and dog of our times knows, that there were Klitschko brothers and they were whooping everybody around. But those, who follow boxing closely, knows, that it was majorly Wlad, while Vitali took the minor part, so to speak. This phenomenon causes an argument between the part of fans, who follows the mainstream bias, the more objective part of the boxing community and the hater circles, which just pour their biased sh1t everywhere.

[littlepug]

Jesus Chavez for instance. Had the same injury basically from like the 2nd round on against Erik Morales, and he still fought the entire fight basically with only his left arm, and made it competitive.

Yep, basically it’s the fighters that set the bar for what’s possible in the ring and fans judge them accordingly, so if a fighter retires in his corner with a broken jaw then he will be judged harshly as we’ve seen many overcome that injury and win so that’s where the bar is set, same goes for any injury or obstacle put in a fighters way, if it’s been overcome by just one boxer then that’s the standard we judge them by.

Nobody should ever judge a fighter for saying enough, but you can't pretend it's a win when you do. Byrd would have.

Heck, Paul George played half a season with both rotators jacked.

Perhaps “judge” was the wrong word to use as every individual fighter has his own point at which it’s time to throw in the towel but it’s the fighters that push on through those points to win that set the bar and elevate the sport above most others.

[Onetimeonly]

Yep, basically it’s the fighters that set the bar for what’s possible in the ring and fans judge them accordingly, so if a fighter retires in his corner with a broken jaw then he will be judged harshly as we’ve seen many overcome that injury and win so that’s where the bar is set, same goes for any injury or obstacle put in a fighters way, if it’s been overcome by just one boxer then that’s the standard we judge them by.

Nobody should ever judge a fighter for saying enough, but you can't pretend it's a win when you do. Byrd would have.

Heck, Paul George played half a season with both rotators jacked.

Perhaps “judge” was the wrong word to use as every individual fighter has his own point at which it’s time to throw in the towel but it’s the fighters that push on through those points to win that set the bar and elevate the sport above most others.

I think you said it perfectly. Everyone isn't Frazier.

[Ambling Alp II]

you and others from time to time have tried to sugarcoat this. He was "literally beaten". That is a fact.

Almost no word from you is a fact. You talk about honesty, while you crook other people's words all time. Like you just did in another thread - after you were accused in not giving a credit to modern fighters on example of Bonavena and Haye, you claimed that you had been called biased for calling Bonavena's era better than Haye's one. Not even close to reality. The same with Klitschkos. You will never give them credit and you'll deny all the good of them and you will call other people excusing them, when other people are just being objective and not willing to excuse Klitschkos at all. You know what, f*ck such "facts".

Their era was not very good for heavyweights, in my opinion. I don't think the late 1960s and early 1970s (with some obvious exceptions)was very good for light heavyweights. That's my opinion. Every weight class has it's ups and downs.

I think they (Vitaly in particular) are vastly overrated by some people; certainly not by some others. I think we should use the same barometers to rate them as anyone else. Their apologists often don't want to do that. That is bias.
You said Klitschko was not literally was beaten. He was. You saying f*ck the facts says a lot more about you then me.

[DrDuke]

you and others from time to time have tried to sugarcoat this. He was "literally beaten". That is a fact.

Almost no word from you is a fact. You talk about honesty, while you crook other people's words all time. Like you just did in another thread - after you were accused in not giving a credit to modern fighters on example of Bonavena and Haye, you claimed that you had been called biased for calling Bonavena's era better than Haye's one. Not even close to reality. The same with Klitschkos. You will never give them credit and you'll deny all the good of them and you will call other people excusing them, when other people are just being objective and not willing to excuse Klitschkos at all. You know what, f*ck such "facts".

Their era was not very good for heavyweights, in my opinion. I don't think the late 1960s and early 1970s (with some obvious exceptions)was very good for light heavyweights. That's my opinion. Every weight class has it's ups and downs.

I think they (Vitaly in particular) are vastly overrated by some people; certainly not by some others. I think we should use the same barometers to rate them as anyone else. Their apologists often don't want to do that. That is bias.
You said Klitschko was not literally was beaten. He was. You saying f*ck the facts says a lot more about you then me.

I didn't say f*ck the facts, I said f*ck such "facts", what was a quite clear allusion to a false nature of things, which had been presented as facts. It's just ridiculous, that I have to explain it now to you.

Vitali wasn't being beaten, despite your desperate will to see it such way. Vitali was comfortably outpointing Byrd. However, I'm in doubts, should I explain another thing to you, a one who was scoring the bout for Byrd. This kind of biased view won't be broken by any explanation.

[Ambling Alp II]

Vitaly wasn't beaten? OK thanks. Hopefully Boxrec will update in this in the Database.

[DrDuke]

Vitaly wasn't beaten? OK thanks. Hopefully Boxrec will update in this in the Database.

Omg, are you a fool or just pretending? Why should I right such obvious things, that you can't just look on the record, point at loss and say: "He lost! He was beaten! He sucks!"?

[fanman]

To be fair, when vitali fought the great Lennox lewis , he was giving him a very good fight. Albeit an older lewis.
Vitali dominated all his fights, and only lost by injury and cuts. Though the Lewis fight was very much up in the air at the time of the stoppage.
His first reign, never really got going. Beat the very good sanders, to avenge his brother, then only Danny williams, and retired. Second reign. Beat the - at the time - very dangerous Sam peter, who had given wlad a hard fight - and beat him coming off a 4 year layoff, very impressive. Then no exceptional defences really. Beat the good cruiserweight adamek. As mentioned , Wlad was in the driving seat of the division at this point, and taking out most of the top contenders.

So, he was very good. Remember he craved the Lennox Lewis rematch, so did aspire to greatness. But the opponents weren't really there, plus the break for injury.
Wlad's legacy is greater.
Vitali was a good fighter. With his huge size, skills, and good chin, he would have been a threat to any heavyweight in history. But lack of great victories, and a second reign as the junior heavyweight champion, means his legacy falls short of the very best by quite a distance.

[Ambling Alp II]

Vitaly wasn't beaten? OK thanks. Hopefully Boxrec will update in this in the Database.

Omg, are you a fool or just pretending? Why should I right such obvious things, that you can't just look on the record, point at loss and say: "He lost! He was beaten! He sucks!"?

OMG!!
Never said he sucks. Just that he is nowhere near great. There is nothing to suggest that he was great. He never beat a great fighter. Never beat a really good one. Quit in one of the biggest fights of career. Does not look impressive at all when you watch him. He was good enough to beat OK fighters and tomato cans. That makes him better than them; not anywhere near great.

Some heavyweight fights off the top of my head:

Corbett was winning the Fitzsimmons fight, but then was beaten .
Corbett was winning the first Jeffries fight, then was beaten. .
Fitzsimmons was winning the 2nd Jeffries fight, then was beaten.
Johnson was winning the Willard fight, then was beaten.
Conn was winning the first Louis fight, then was beaten.
Chalres was winning the third Walcott fight, then was beaten.
Walcott was winning the first Marciano fight, then was beaten.
Liston was winning against Martin, then was beaten.
Tate was winning against Weaver, then was beaten.
Bruno was winning one score card, tied on tow others, against Lewis, then was beaten.

Nobody says these guys weren't beaten. But with Vitaly Klitschko, because he was a head on the judges scorecards, somehow it's totally different. It's not. He lost. Get over it.

[DrDuke]

Nobody says these guys weren't beaten. But with Vitaly Klitschko, because he was a head on the judges scorecards, somehow it's totally different. It's not. He lost. Get over it.

The thing is, every mentioned one was KOed. Vitali quit. He wasn't KOed, he wasn't losing, he wasn't hurt by Byrd, he just quit because of the injury.

Did you see Klitschko vs Sanders, Peter, Adamek, Chisora?

Wasn't he impressive there?

They all weren't great. But why weren't they good? Have you seen other fights of them?

Why Vitali's wins over them aren't impressive?

[Onetimeonly]

The four of them might win 3 RDS combined against Byrd.

[DrDuke]

The four of them might win 3 RDS combined against Byrd.

Adamek could make it competetive against Byrd. The remaining three are tough, but made for slick boxers. Adamek could box. Byrd aguably lost to Oquendo. Adamek was on about the same level with Fres.

[Onetimeonly]

The four of them might win 3 RDS combined against Byrd.

Adamek could make it competetive against Byrd. The remaining three are tough, but made for slick boxers. Adamek could box. Byrd aguably lost to Oquendo. Adamek was on about the same level with Fres.

Not at heavy, but I think he'd be the most competitive. Sanders or Peter wouldn't put a glove on him.

[Onetimeonly]

Then again, adamek got toyed with by Dawson in his prime.

[oogiebe]

Nobody says these guys weren't beaten. But with Vitaly Klitschko, because he was a head on the judges scorecards, somehow it's totally different. It's not. He lost. Get over it.

The thing is, every mentioned one was KOed. Vitali quit. He wasn't KOed, he wasn't losing, he wasn't hurt by Byrd, he just quit because of the injury.

Did you see Klitschko vs Sanders, Peter, Adamek, Chisora?

Wasn't he impressive there?

They all weren't great. But why weren't they good? Have you seen other fights of them?

Why Vitali's wins over them aren't impressive?

Vit's always a challenge on head to head, but yeah, he did quite vs Byrd. The great ones don't quit.

[DrDuke]

Nobody says these guys weren't beaten. But with Vitaly Klitschko, because he was a head on the judges scorecards, somehow it's totally different. It's not. He lost. Get over it.

The thing is, every mentioned one was KOed. Vitali quit. He wasn't KOed, he wasn't losing, he wasn't hurt by Byrd, he just quit because of the injury.

Did you see Klitschko vs Sanders, Peter, Adamek, Chisora?

Wasn't he impressive there?

They all weren't great. But why weren't they good? Have you seen other fights of them?

Why Vitali's wins over them aren't impressive?

Vit's always a challenge on head to head, but yeah, he did quite vs Byrd. The great ones don't quit.

I think, we've already come to consensus, that he wasn't great, if not to count the "opinion" of the thread opening troll.

[Ambling Alp II]

Nobody says these guys weren't beaten. But with Vitaly Klitschko, because he was a head on the judges scorecards, somehow it's totally different. It's not. He lost. Get over it.

The thing is, every mentioned one was KOed. Vitali quit. He wasn't KOed, he wasn't losing, he wasn't hurt by Byrd, he just quit because of the injury.

Did you see Klitschko vs Sanders, Peter, Adamek, Chisora?

Wasn't he impressive there?

They all weren't great. But why weren't they good? Have you seen other fights of them?

Why Vitali's wins over them aren't impressive?

It doesn't matter if he was ko'd or not. He lost. Think what you are saying. With your reasoning If a guy thinks he is winning on the scorecards, he can just quit and then it's not considered a loss. Why bother continuing if it doesn't count as a loss?

Liston quit against Ali. Scorecards were even. Should we count that as a draw? Of course not.
Quitting is worse than getting ko'd. Qutting when it's not a hopeless situation is far worse. You should have a lot more respect for Walcott getting ko'd by Marciano in the 13th round that Klitschko quitting against Byrd. Walcott went out like a champion.

Yes I saw Klitschko in those fights. No, he was not impressive. Not at all.
Ever notice that rarely does anyone ever say anything specific about what Klitschko was great at? What are we supposed to be impressed about? That dazzling foot movement? That blinding hand speed? That left hook? Jab? Uppercut? Body punching? Head movement? Heart? How often do you hear about it.
Instead it's KO%, excuses for losses. Mythical fight wins. Why? Because there is nothing there.

Calling his opponents "good" is relative. Were they good compared to than a journeyman? Sure. would they be considered good by the standards of the best opponents than any great fighter beat? No. A resounding no.

There are literally dozens of heavyweights who we rarely even talking about that beat far better fighters than Klitschko beat. Many would have beat Byrd. Many would have beaten that version of Lewis.

[DrDuke]

Nobody says these guys weren't beaten. But with Vitaly Klitschko, because he was a head on the judges scorecards, somehow it's totally different. It's not. He lost. Get over it.

The thing is, every mentioned one was KOed. Vitali quit. He wasn't KOed, he wasn't losing, he wasn't hurt by Byrd, he just quit because of the injury.

Did you see Klitschko vs Sanders, Peter, Adamek, Chisora?

Wasn't he impressive there?

They all weren't great. But why weren't they good? Have you seen other fights of them?

Why Vitali's wins over them aren't impressive?

It doesn't matter if he was ko'd or not. He lost. Think what you are saying. With your reasoning If a guy thinks he is winning on the scorecards, he can just quit and then it's not considered a loss. Why bother continuing if it doesn't count as a loss?

Liston quit against Ali. Scorecards were even. Should we count that as a draw? Of course not.
Quitting is worse than getting ko'd. Qutting when it's not a hopeless situation is far worse. You should have a lot more respect for Walcott getting ko'd by Marciano in the 13th round that Klitschko quitting against Byrd. Walcott went out like a champion.

Yes I saw Klitschko in those fights. No, he was not impressive. Not at all.
Ever notice that rarely does anyone ever say anything specific about what Klitschko was great at? What are we supposed to be impressed about? That dazzling foot movement? That blinding hand speed? That left hook? Jab? Uppercut? Body punching? Head movement? Heart? How often do you hear about it.
Instead it's KO%, excuses for losses. Mythical fight wins. Why? Because there is nothing there.

Calling his opponents "good" is relative. Were they good compared to than a journeyman? Sure. would they be considered good by the standards of the best opponents than any great fighter beat? No. A resounding no.

There are literally dozens of heavyweights who we rarely even talking about that beat far better fighters than Klitschko beat. Many would have beat Byrd. Many would have beaten that version of Lewis.

I consider Vitali's bout vs Byrd as a loss, but I don't consider it as a beating. This word just has wrong context for me. I also think that this loss of Vitali is both honorable and dishonorable. It's honorable because to outpoint Byrd is a quite big deal. It's dishonorable because of the fact of quitting. Anyway, even if this loss of him brings dispute, then the Lewis loss is 100% honorable.

Liston's quit against Ali isn't like Vitali's one against Byrd, because Vitali was winning objectively, while Liston-Ali wasn't an even fight objectively, the scorecards sucked there. Also, Vitali quit because of an injury, while Liston quit because he wanted it no more.

KO% is a bad argument. Klitschko was truly impressive with other things. With a very good ability of using his size and reach, his jabs and one-twos were like a wall for many, they were mauling. Klitschko also had a good movement. Obviously no shades of Ali or Gene Tunney, or Larry Holmes, but just a good movement for such big guy. Look how he was moving against smaller Sanders, Arreola and Peter, look at his precision in the Peter fight. It was barely possible to give a one single round to Peter, Arreola and Adamek.

Peter, Sanders and Adamek wasn't good only in relation to journeymen. Sanders won Wlad and gave a tough fight to Rahman. Peter KOed Maskaev and won James Toney twice, second time not even close. Adamek schooled Arreola, won Eddie Chambers and Steve Cunningham twice. Chisora was robbed against Helenius, gave hell to Whyte, KOed Takam.

Arreola became a fringe / gatekeeper, but by the moment of facing Vitali he was seen as a rising contender. The same could be said about Kevin Johnson and Solis. Retrospectively it's possible to call them no more than OK while they were in prime, yes.

Based on that, it's fair to say, that Vitali has several dominant wins over good opponents. Sanders, Peter, Adamek and Chisora were good and they weren't just defeated, but dominated. Lewis fight is also very important to his legacy. It's the biggest argument. Not very good guy won't fight like that even against poorely prepared Lewis. That's defines Vitali as a very good boxer.

Vitali wasn't great, but was very good for sure.

[oogiebe]

The thing is, every mentioned one was KOed. Vitali quit. He wasn't KOed, he wasn't losing, he wasn't hurt by Byrd, he just quit because of the injury.

Did you see Klitschko vs Sanders, Peter, Adamek, Chisora?

Wasn't he impressive there?

They all weren't great. But why weren't they good? Have you seen other fights of them?

Why Vitali's wins over them aren't impressive?

Vit's always a challenge on head to head, but yeah, he did quite vs Byrd. The great ones don't quit.

I think, we've already come to consensus, that he wasn't great, if not to count the "opinion" of the thread opening troll.

For folks who have come to a consensus, we certainly rehash this topic a lot.

[DrDuke]

Vit's always a challenge on head to head, but yeah, he did quite vs Byrd. The great ones don't quit.

I think, we've already come to consensus, that he wasn't great, if not to count the "opinion" of the thread opening troll.

For folks who have come to a consensus, we certainly rehash this topic a lot.

We just all love Vitali. Gotta open a Vitali fanclub and make Alp its leader.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't hate him personally; though I'm not a fan of drug cheats.

It's the obsession people have about him. He is constantly on Mythical Fights and people have him beating fighters far superior than anyone he actually beat. I actually don't comment on the many of them. there are just so many that it seems that way.
He gets a lot credit for losing to a past it version of Lewis. If he was truly a hard puncher, he would have taken Lewis out that night. If he was a good defensive fighter, his face would not have looked like that and he would not have been stopped. Lewis was there for the taking and he couldn't do.
Then he gets credit for lasting 6 rounds like it was some sort of heroic achievement. We have all seen countless fighters going many more rounds in just as bad shape.
Then there is a Byrd fight, the only other major fight he had. Byrd looked awful. So did Klitschko. It was a terrible fight. Yet somehow he gets credit because of the ridiculous scorecards that had him way a head. Then we are supposed to excuse quitting. With three rounds to go. Umn no. Quitting is worse than getting ko'd. A really good fighter wins this fight.

I guess now we are supposed to be impressed with his movement and his jab. Wow.

Corrie Sanders (a fringe contender at best) is supposed to be a big win. So is Adamek, So is Samuel Peter. Even a stiff like Derek Chisora? You don't have to be that good at all to beat guys like this.

Enough is enough. How nobody brings him for say a few weeks? Is that even possible? He is probably the most talked about fighters on this Forum and certainly on the Mythical Fights Forum. How about nobody says anything, good or bad?
There are so many guys who were better that we talk about so much less. How we about talk about them?

[DrDuke]

I don't hate him personally; though I'm not a fan of drug cheats.

It's the obsession people have about him. He is constantly on Mythical Fights and people have him beating fighters far superior than anyone he actually beat. I actually don't comment on the many of them. there are just so many that it seems that way.
He gets a lot credit for losing to a past it version of Lewis. If he was truly a hard puncher, he would have taken Lewis out that night. If he was a good defensive fighter, his face would not have looked like that and he would not have been stopped. Lewis was there for the taking and he couldn't do.
Then he gets credit for lasting 6 rounds like it was some sort of heroic achievement. We have all seen countless fighters going many more rounds in just as bad shape.
Then there is a Byrd fight, the only other major fight he had. Byrd looked awful. So did Klitschko. It was a terrible fight. Yet somehow he gets credit because of the ridiculous scorecards that had him way a head. Then we are supposed to excuse quitting. With three rounds to go. Umn no. Quitting is worse than getting ko'd. A really good fighter wins this fight.

I guess now we are supposed to be impressed with his movement and his jab. Wow.

Corrie Sanders (a fringe contender at best) is supposed to be a big win. So is Adamek, So is Samuel Peter. Even a stiff like Derek Chisora? You don't have to be that good at all to beat guys like this.

Enough is enough. How nobody brings him for say a few weeks? Is that even possible? He is probably the most talked about fighters on this Forum and certainly on the Mythical Fights Forum. How about nobody says anything, good or bad?
There are so many guys who were better that we talk about so much less. How we about talk about them?

You don't need to hate a fighter personally to be a hater.

You were given arguments, to which you say just: "No!", that's a pure unappreciation of a fighter and everything related to him. Even Byrd, whom you take more or less fair, was terrible for you against Klitschko, while it was regular Byrd. He was in his prime then. That's ridiculous.

Who was better than Sanders by the moment of Klitschko facing him? You won't name a 10. The same with Peter by the moment of their meeting. They were top 10 fighters. Sanders had just KOed younger Klitschko, Peter had just KOed Maskaev and became a champion. That's not being fringe. And Chisora is around top 10 for 10 years already.

You are a hater, cause all that stuff was of yours was a pure bias, denying of quite evident things.

And this sh1t is being repeated for quite a while, you're right. Why then you repeat this, if you don't like this subject? Cause you being a hater enough to write all this stuff again and again. If you weren't hating, you wouldn't give a sh1t. At least that frequently.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't just say no. I give reasoning. Maybe you don't like them, but I give them.
Who was better than Corrie Sanders? Who was in the Top 10 at the time? Well you are missing the point. You can be the #1 fighter in one era and be nowhere near the #1 in another era.
At the time, Lewis had just quit. Tyson and Holyfield were way past it. The contenders were Byrd, Tua and Rahman, Ruiz, (all past their limited best)and his brother Wladimir.
The division was so bad around this time that Roy Jones moved up in weight and won a heavyweight title belt. An obese James Toney was competing with contenders.

If you want to argue that Sanders was better than this less than stellar group, fine. Doesn't mean Sanders was very good. He had been a round a long time and was never in the Top 10 until he beat Wladimir. That is more of an embarrassment for Wladimir than anything.

I'm a hater? OK, call me hater. There are certain guys that I think some people vastly overrate. You and some others vastly overrate Klitschko. Other people besides me don't think he was that good either in case you have never noticed.
There are some people that you like to rag on. You and your little buddy used to rag on Cleveland Williams and Jack Johnson a lot. I suppose you aren't an Ali hater?

It might seem that I rag on Klitschko a lot. Well, there are more threads about him than anyone else. Naturally he is going to get ripped more and praised more than others.
Why do I repeat it? Well I often ignore threads on him. Go back and look at the Mythical Fights and see the ones that I didn't comment on. You might be surprised.
What should we who don't think Klitschko was that good do? There is a Mythical fight about him constantly or a thread about him constantly. Are we just supposed to be quiet all the time, and pretend that he is a legend, or would beat one guy after another that was better than him in the Mythical Fights section?

[DrDuke]

They say, the greatness is defined by how you compete in your era, by the way. That's why Wlad was a great champion and Vitali was a good title-holder.

I could rag at Jack Johnson, but I have him in my top 20 of ATG HWs, so I rate him fairly. And what about Ali? I rate him even higher.

And, of course, you might miss some Vitali related threads, but still often you discuss him in other ones. We are doing it right now and in the same fashion as always.

[oogiebe]

They say, the greatness is defined by how you compete in your era, by the way. That's why Wlad was a great champion and Vitali was a good title-holder.

I could rag at Jack Johnson, but I have him in my top 20 of ATG HWs, so I rate him fairly. And what about Ali? I rate him even higher.

And, of course, you might miss some Vitali related threads, but still often you discuss him in other ones. We are doing it right now and in the same fashion as always.

Wash; rinse; repeat.