BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote:The premise was that those men were seldom ever (if ever) knocked out, until they met Vitali.

Is not a fighter a real, true, proven puncher when you're capable of knocking out men who have never been stopped before or only were stopped once or twice in their career?

That ain't no "arm-punching".... but if it is.... then if Klitschko did put weight into his shots, and threw proper punches... I think he would have easily killed someone, since alot of you are saying he was half-assing it throughout his whole career.

I'm still not sure what important point that makes. Stopping guys like Gomez is a nice notch on the resume, sure, but it doesn't strike me as being the mark of some kind of legendary puncher.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying I don't think he hits hard, I do. But as with most things, there is middle ground. I don't think he had freakish power, just like I don't think he was a great fighter. He was a very good fighter with very good power who used his attributes well against (relatively) limited competition.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

"SaadOffTheDeck"]I certainly didn't read that novel.

You should have. It was a good read.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Knowing the author, I knew it wasn't for me. KO% is the flimsiest excuse for Vitali.

He wasn't the second coming of Earnie Shavers but nor was he Jimmy Young. He could crack. He just wasn't an ATG puncher. KO percentages can be deceiving, especially if you have a record like Alex Stewart's or Don Steele's. Vitali's opposition was a bit better than that though. Okay, so guys like Larry Donald, Ross Purity and Vaugn Bean were lower level opposition. But they weren't easy to stop either. He overwhelms his opponents with his size, volume, and punches to their guard. At the end of the day, he usually got the job done especially when he was prime.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:The premise was that those men were seldom ever (if ever) knocked out, until they met Vitali.

Is not a fighter a real, true, proven puncher when you're capable of knocking out men who have never been stopped before or only were stopped once or twice in their career?

That ain't no "arm-punching".... but if it is.... then if Klitschko did put weight into his shots, and threw proper punches... I think he would have easily killed someone, since alot of you are saying he was half-assing it throughout his whole career.

I'm still not sure what important point that makes. Stopping guys like Gomez is a nice notch on the resume, sure, but it doesn't strike me as being the mark of some kind of legendary puncher.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying I don't think he hits hard, I do. But as with most things, there is middle ground. I don't think he had freakish power, just like I don't think he was a great fighter. He was a very good fighter with very good power who used his attributes well against (relatively) limited competition.

A well balanced post.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote: You should have. It was a good read.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Knowing the author, I knew it wasn't for me. KO% is the flimsiest excuse for Vitali.

He wasn't the second coming of Earnie Shavers but nor was he Jimmy Young. He could crack. He just wasn't an ATG puncher. KO percentages can be deceiving, especially if you have a record like Alex Stewart's or Don Steele's. Vitali's opposition was a bit better than that though. Okay, so guys like Larry Donald, Ross Purity and Vaugn Bean were lower level opposition. But they weren't easy to stop either. He overwhelms his opponents with his size, volume, and punches to their guard. At the end of the day, he usually got the job done especially when he was prime.

You could have just agreed with me.

Riddick Blowe wrote:You sure love the Klitschkos.

I didn't always. A decade ago, I was Vladimir's biggest critic. But since that time, I'd say he's not only the best European heavyweight of all time, he's fast approaching the top ten of all time. His brother Vitali, who many said was the superior Klitschko, is now considered the weaker one. This somewhat perplexes me, considering I don't know what it is he could have done to of ruined his popularity following the Lewis bout.

Either one of them, in my view, are top 11-15 heavyweights of all time. And, in my view, if Vladimir can match Holmes record, and then match Louis's record, and possibly surpass it--- then I would say Klitschko is indeed a top ten heavyweight. Poor division or not; the same can be said of both Holmes and Louis as well. Even Lennox Lewis, for the most part, fought in an era where his best opponents were older versions--- yet he didn't do as much (in terms of numbers) that Vladimir has done.

I guess we will all have to agree to disagree. I chalk it up to being pro-American hatred. If either of them were from, say, Boston instead of Kiev they would be boasted as the best out there. Because they are both humble, nice guys--- instead of degenerates like Tyson--- they are considered boring. Because they are tacticians, rather than sluggers, they are deemed dull. Vladimir or Vitali either one, could of defeated the heavyweight division top 100 and it still wouldnt make a difference with people.

I think it's clear why he's seen as weaker. His resume isn't nearly as good as his brother's, and his brother also had much more consistency and longevity.

I do agree both brothers would be more popular in the English speaking world if they were American, or British for that matter. But I don't think they'd be seen as rivaling the absolute elite like Ali, Frazier, etc anyway. I think the losses(for both) and less than entertaining style(mainly for Wlad now) loom large for them.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:You sure love the Klitschkos.

I didn't always. A decade ago, I was Vladimir's biggest critic. But since that time, I'd say he's not only the best European heavyweight of all time, he's fast approaching the top ten of all time. His brother Vitali, who many said was the superior Klitschko, is now considered the weaker one. This somewhat perplexes me, considering I don't know what it is he could have done to of ruined his popularity following the Lewis bout.

Either one of them, in my view, are top 11-15 heavyweights of all time. And, in my view, if Vladimir can match Holmes record, and then match Louis's record, and possibly surpass it--- then I would say Klitschko is indeed a top ten heavyweight. Poor division or not; the same can be said of both Holmes and Louis as well. Even Lennox Lewis, for the most part, fought in an era where his best opponents were older versions--- yet he didn't do as much (in terms of numbers) that Vladimir has done.

I guess we will all have to agree to disagree. I chalk it up to being pro-American hatred. If either of them were from, say, Boston instead of Kiev they would be boasted as the best out there. Because they are both humble, nice guys--- instead of degenerates like Tyson--- they are considered boring. Because they are tacticians, rather than sluggers, they are deemed dull. Vladimir or Vitali either one, could of defeated the heavyweight division top 100 and it still wouldnt make a difference with people.

Some good points mentioned here. I'll also ad that people quite often mistake "unimpressive" for "ineffective" and that simply isn't the case. I personally don't enjoy watching Wladimir Klitschko fight because his style and manner of winning lack "excitement" but regardless of what I or others think, he's gotten the job done for 10 years.

HomicideHenry wrote:If either of them were from, say, Boston instead of Kiev they would be boasted as the best out there.

I hate it when this old, tired line gets wheeled out. It's just so, so false. More popular, probably.

HomicideHenry wrote:
Sometime in the near future I will have to create a thread, going in full detail w/ pictures and film, promoting the merits of earlier styles/stances which generated punching power to a greater degree than stances/styles today. As I mentioned before, the three-knuckle system of boxing was superior to the current two-knuckle system because A) more surface area, and B) it followed the 'power line' of the human anatomy more naturally than the two-knuckle frame line.
.

oh, god. we're back onto enzymes and natural valmorification

dude, at this point you may as well be saying Vitali punches hard because he always ensures that Jupiter is aligned with Saturn, and that the cosmic forces are more properly brought to bear when the natural qua mechanics is actually expressed via the supernatural medium qua explosive spirituality

Counter-puncher wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:
Sometime in the near future I will have to create a thread, going in full detail w/ pictures and film, promoting the merits of earlier styles/stances which generated punching power to a greater degree than stances/styles today. As I mentioned before, the three-knuckle system of boxing was superior to the current two-knuckle system because A) more surface area, and B) it followed the 'power line' of the human anatomy more naturally than the two-knuckle frame line.
.

oh, god. we're back onto enzymes and natural valmorification

dude, at this point you may as well be saying Vitali punches hard because he always ensures that Jupiter is aligned with Saturn, and that the cosmic forces are more properly brought to bear when the natural qua mechanics is actually expressed via the supernatural medium qua explosive spirituality

Wasn't that Lou Nova with the cosmic yoga punch?

Counter-puncher, you make no solid argument. You do not even remotely try and demonstrate that your thesis is correct. You give no illustrations, or examples in pictures or in film. Yet, I believe I can give numerous examples, just by looking back into the 18th-early 20th century, by the simple fact that alot of men were capable in those days of going up several weight classes and not only dominating larger opponents, but in most cases knocking them stone cold. How could this possibly be, unless it strictly had to do with (in those times) that their stances, positions, were all built around the premise of generating the most amount of power possible?

Fitzsimmons, Dempsey (Nonpariel), Burns, Langford, Blackburn, Norfolk, the list goes on and on, and even into the time of Mickey Walker you saw comparably smaller men beating well-known heavyweights of the era by knockout. How is it possible? Skills alone and timing and reflexes isn't the complete answer, it was often about technique and leverage. Klitschko, in my view, is a throwback fighter to those earlier times.

A less romantic thing to consider henry is that sometimes a lighter fighter decided to even things up by loading their gloves - it did happen.

Those kinds of incidents were few and far between, and I doubt very much that any of the HOF'ers I listed ever did such a thing even once in their careers.

HomicideHenry wrote:Those kinds of incidents were few and far between, and I doubt very much that any of the HOF'ers I listed ever did such a thing even once in their careers.

'When in Rome do as the Romans do', I remember reading that Jack Blackburn knew about loaded gloves from when he fought in Battle Royals (I think it was in 'The Corner Men' book). I understand that you feel very strongly that these heroes of yesterday could vanquish far heavier opponents, - why can't they today? The sport of boxing was very unscrupulous back in the 20's 30's and 40's and was gangster riddled after that.

HomicideHenry wrote:Counter-puncher, you make no solid argument. You do not even remotely try and demonstrate that your thesis is correct. You give no illustrations, or examples in pictures or in film. Yet, I believe I can give numerous examples, just by looking back into the 18th-early 20th century, by the simple fact that alot of men were capable in those days of going up several weight classes and not only dominating larger opponents, but in most cases knocking them stone cold. How could this possibly be, unless it strictly had to do with (in those times) that their stances, positions, were all built around the premise of generating the most amount of power possible?

Fitzsimmons, Dempsey (Nonpariel), Burns, Langford, Blackburn, Norfolk, the list goes on and on, and even into the time of Mickey Walker you saw comparably smaller men beating well-known heavyweights of the era by knockout. How is it possible? Skills alone and timing and reflexes isn't the complete answer, it was often about technique and leverage. Klitschko, in my view, is a throwback fighter to those earlier times.

Which Klitschko? I'd not put either of them as technique punchers, they seem to have real strength and get plenty of body into their shots but they are massive men; if they get their shoulder into a punch it's like a full bodyweight shot.

Part of the issue in the early days is that there were many who built a reputation within their home state and had not really had any real competition when they met a good fighter. I agree with you that there were some master boxers and terrible hitters but they were as few as today.

palooka wrote: 'When in Rome do as the Romans do', I remember reading that Jack Blackburn knew about loaded gloves from when he fought in Battle Royals (I think it was in 'The Corner Men' book). I understand that you feel very strongly that these heroes of yesterday could vanquish far heavier opponents, - why can't they today? The sport of boxing was very unscrupulous back in the 20's 30's and 40's and was gangster riddled after that.

I highly doubt reports of 'loaded gloves', only for the fact that it is more likely that you would break your own hand, or injure your hand superficially, if you had plaster or concrete, etc. inside the glove or on the hand wraps. Cleveland Williams, in the 1960s, demonstrated this for RING magazine when they investigated the allegation that Dempsey had loaded gloves against Willard--- the stuff crumbled instantly on impact and in mere moments turned to powder.

One popular theory, I have heard before, is that iron bars or wooden handles were sometimes stitched into the palm of the gloves, to create a harder fist--- but if you look at gloves from the 1860's to the 1940s--- you never did see this feature in gloves. Only modern gloves, of the passed twenty-thirty years have had this. Even still, this doesnt account for the many kayos in the pre-glove era between small men and big men. But if one were to believe iron/wood bars inside gloves, then you would (again) have to surmise that because the fist is now more compact than before, it also gives it no release for tension; which means, the risk of injury (fractures) increases. Both trains of thought, though tempting, are both flawed.

palooka wrote:
Which Klitschko? I'd not put either of them as technique punchers, they seem to have real strength and get plenty of body into their shots but they are massive men; if they get their shoulder into a punch it's like a full bodyweight shot.

Part of the issue in the early days is that there were many who built a reputation within their home state and had not really had any real competition when they met a good fighter. I agree with you that there were some master boxers and terrible hitters but they were as few as today.

Vladimir is the classic textbook boxer. Albeit, he is more of a modern style. Vitali is more along the lines of a late 19th century-early 20th century boxer. Vladimir's two-knuckle method of punching, in combination with a safety first style, often leads to kayos in late rounds or to go the distance. Vitali opts for the three-knuckle method, and has a more aggressive style, which leads to kayos occuring early on in fights--- or him being capable of stopping men who never were stopped, or seldom ever were stopped in their careers. Size and weight does play a crucial part, yes, but the technique in my view is what does it.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:You sure love the Klitschkos.

I didn't always. A decade ago, I was Vladimir's biggest critic. But since that time, I'd say he's not only the best European heavyweight of all time, he's fast approaching the top ten of all time. His brother Vitali, who many said was the superior Klitschko, is now considered the weaker one. This somewhat perplexes me, considering I don't know what it is he could have done to of ruined his popularity following the Lewis bout.

Either one of them, in my view, are top 11-15 heavyweights of all time. And, in my view, if Vladimir can match Holmes record, and then match Louis's record, and possibly surpass it--- then I would say Klitschko is indeed a top ten heavyweight. Poor division or not; the same can be said of both Holmes and Louis as well. Even Lennox Lewis, for the most part, fought in an era where his best opponents were older versions--- yet he didn't do as much (in terms of numbers) that Vladimir has done.

I guess we will all have to agree to disagree. I chalk it up to being pro-American hatred. If either of them were from, say, Boston instead of Kiev they would be boasted as the best out there. Because they are both humble, nice guys--- instead of degenerates like Tyson--- they are considered boring. Because they are tacticians, rather than sluggers, they are deemed dull. Vladimir or Vitali either one, could of defeated the heavyweight division top 100 and it still wouldnt make a difference with people.

Title defenses and KO%s don't mean much unless they are against good opposition. There are certainly far more than 11-15 heavyweights who could have had as many "title" defenses as him if they fought that weak of competition. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis fought some tomato cans, but they also fought some very good fighters as well.

This has nothing to do with where they are from. Watch the film. They aren't that good.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Title defenses and KO%s don't mean much unless they are against good opposition. There are certainly far more than 11-15 heavyweights who could have had as many "title" defenses as him if they fought that weak of competition. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis fought some tomato cans, but they also fought some very good fighters as well.

This has nothing to do with where they are from. Watch the film. They aren't that good.

Just out of curiosity, who would you say beat the better opposition, Vitali Klitschko or Tim Witherspoon?

Witherspoon by a mile.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Title defenses and KO%s don't mean much unless they are against good opposition. There are certainly far more than 11-15 heavyweights who could have had as many "title" defenses as him if they fought that weak of competition. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis fought some tomato cans, but they also fought some very good fighters as well.

This has nothing to do with where they are from. Watch the film. They aren't that good.

Just out of curiosity, who would you say beat the better opposition, Vitali Klitschko or Tim Witherspoon?

Ditto Witherspoon...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Witherspoon by a mile.

Fair enough, but why?

Witherspoon's 'loss' to Holmes alone was light years ahead of what either Klitschko did.

Why? Because he beat better fighters.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Why? Because he beat better fighters.

Perhaps. And I have always credited Spoon as having good opposition. But let's examine things a bit more closely. Pulling a name out of the hat, Tony Tubbs is probably among one of his better scalps and a decent fighter to be sure. But he showed up for that bout weighing somewhere around 244 lbs and the affair was hardly crowd pleasing. Greg Page didn't look much prettier and neither was the event. Are these not very similar types of opponents and performances that we so often accuse Wlad and Vitali as facing and having?

They were better fighters than Sam Peter & Corrie sanders. So were Bruno, Snipes, Smith & Williams. I also thought Tim edged Holmes and beat Mercer. Vitali's resume is crap, Wlad's is more comparable to Tim's. Though I'd still rate Tim higher.