candyslim wrote:I'm a massive fan of Joshua but I think you're being a bit harsh on Klitschko. It's not his fault the quality of opposition was poor and the only other heavyweight of exceptional quality was his brother.
I grant you it did herald a period in the doldrums for boxing but you can't really blame them alone. Where was the conveyor belt of American talent arriving to challenge them?
Screw that excuse about his opposition being poor. Wlad could have still made the division more exciting and brought some entertainment to it. He's just so dull and boring that he made everything else around him dull and boring as well. There's nothing better than seeing Wlad flop all over the ring like he did that night against Sanders and I can't wait to see it again.
I agree the Brewster and Sanders were entertaining fights. Two of the fights Klitschko lost. Klitschko later avenged the Brewster loss.
Overall Klitschko has had a very successful boxing career.
very successful and very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very boring
jezzamundo wrote:
Fair enough, but who did Wlad (or Vitali) ever beat who would be a threat to any of the great heavyweight champions of the past? They're clearly the outstanding heavyweights of their era, but I fail to comprehend how anyone could describe their competition as being anything but weak. You only have to look at recent history to see that the 90s had far greater depth of talent. There's no way the Klitschkos would have been the dominant champions in the 90s that they were in the 2000s, though they may have won a share of the title at some point.
Vitali was winning the Lewis fight on all scorecards at it's conclusion... He was a much better Heavyweight and he retired the cowardly fouling Lewis... Wladimir never lost a round to Chris Byrd yet and Byrd would be a threat to beat many great Heavyweight Champions of the past... Eddie Chambers was a tremendous boxer in his prime and would box rings around some past greats.. Larry Donald easily out-boxed Evander Holyfield and Vitali is the only man to stop him.. Alexander Povetkin is a great Heavyweight and would slaughter guys like Marciano, Sharkey, Baer, Schmeling, Patterson, and Foreman who he'd easily jab to death... And a lot of other guys the K Bros beat would find some past champs easy meat.. Danny Williams knocked out Mike Tyson but couldn't do a damned thing in his Klitschko fight prior to getting flattened.
Your bias for present-day fighters is unreal and you seen unable to grasp the concept that wins over a post-prime fighter are less meaningful. I agree that Chambers was a good boxer, but he was a tiny heavyweight and small even for cruiserweight and never had much pop - Wlad should have stopped him a lot sooner than he did. Holyfield was a shell of his former self when Larry Donald beat him - that win means practically nothing when comparing Vitali and Evander. Tyson was a shot fighter more than a decade past his best when Danny Williams beat him. As for Povetkin beating a prime George Foreman - no chance!
He'd wreck George... Just too skilled... I find it a little odd how far past their primes so many ATG Heavyweights were when trying to explain away their defeats at ages 23 to 35... But when the K-Bros suffer a loss lets just take those as the only important fights they ever fought... How hard to you think Wladimir will be jumped on when he loses to Anthony Joshua??? He's not going to be given any slack and condemned for his lack of effort.
Kalan wrote:
Vitali was winning the Lewis fight on all scorecards at it's conclusion... He was a much better Heavyweight and he retired the cowardly fouling Lewis... Wladimir never lost a round to Chris Byrd yet and Byrd would be a threat to beat many great Heavyweight Champions of the past... Eddie Chambers was a tremendous boxer in his prime and would box rings around some past greats.. Larry Donald easily out-boxed Evander Holyfield and Vitali is the only man to stop him.. Alexander Povetkin is a great Heavyweight and would slaughter guys like Marciano, Sharkey, Baer, Schmeling, Patterson, and Foreman who he'd easily jab to death... And a lot of other guys the K Bros beat would find some past champs easy meat.. Danny Williams knocked out Mike Tyson but couldn't do a damned thing in his Klitschko fight prior to getting flattened.
Your bias for present-day fighters is unreal and you seen unable to grasp the concept that wins over a post-prime fighter are less meaningful. I agree that Chambers was a good boxer, but he was a tiny heavyweight and small even for cruiserweight and never had much pop - Wlad should have stopped him a lot sooner than he did. Holyfield was a shell of his former self when Larry Donald beat him - that win means practically nothing when comparing Vitali and Evander. Tyson was a shot fighter more than a decade past his best when Danny Williams beat him. As for Povetkin beating a prime George Foreman - no chance!
He'd wreck George... Just too skilled... I find it a little odd how far past their primes so many ATG Heavyweights were when trying to explain away their defeats at ages 23 to 35... But when the K-Bros suffer a loss lets just take those as the only important fights they ever fought... How hard to you think Wladimir will be jumped on when he loses to Anthony Joshua??? He's not going to be given any slack and condemned for his lack of effort.
You may be right regarding Wlad being criticised for losing to Fury and possibly now Joshua - to me, losing those fights does little to detract from his legacy (although winning them would enhance it significantly). As for Povetkin beating Foreman, we'll have to agree to disagree as I don't see that happening in a million years - unless we're talking about a fat, post-Moorer Foreman.
I'm talking about the Foreman who was beaten by the 213-pound feather hitting Jimmy Young, who sported a record of 20-5-2 -- and who lost 4 out of his next 5 fights after beating Foreman ... Foreman wasn't exactly a ball of fire or an example of a tremendously skilled Heavyweight in that fight.
Kalan wrote:I'm talking about the Foreman who was beaten by the 213-pound feather hitting Jimmy Young, who sported a record of 20-5-2 -- and who lost 4 out of his next 5 fights after beating Foreman ... Foreman wasn't exactly a ball of fire or an example of a tremendously skilled Heavyweight in that fight.
George was undeniably poor that night and you couldn't call him post prime. Clearly the Ali loss affected him greatly as he was never the force he was before that. You'd have to suppose a '73 Foreman would beat Jimmy Young.
On the other hand, Jimmy Young was a very skilled, though inconsistent and drug-affected heavyweight. On one of his good days, I'd pick him to outpoint Povetkin.
Replace exciting with good and I agree with you. I actually think Wlad was a pretty exciting heavyweight before his loss to Corrie Sanders because he had a more aggressive style - I guess that could be considered his pre-prime. Once he was under the tutelage of Emmanuel Steward and in his prime, he became a much more defensive fighter, which was more effective but much less exciting - or more boring, whichever way you want to look at it. He always had one-punch knockout power, but the way he would break down overmatched opponent over the course of the fight was hardly exciting.
I don't think many of the top level boxers are very exciting to watch. GGG is a notable exception and my favourite fighter to watch for a long time.
jezzamundo wrote:
Your bias for present-day fighters is unreal and you seen unable to grasp the concept that wins over a post-prime fighter are less meaningful. I agree that Chambers was a good boxer, but he was a tiny heavyweight and small even for cruiserweight and never had much pop - Wlad should have stopped him a lot sooner than he did. Holyfield was a shell of his former self when Larry Donald beat him - that win means practically nothing when comparing Vitali and Evander. Tyson was a shot fighter more than a decade past his best when Danny Williams beat him. As for Povetkin beating a prime George Foreman - no chance!
He'd wreck George... Just too skilled... I find it a little odd how far past their primes so many ATG Heavyweights were when trying to explain away their defeats at ages 23 to 35... But when the K-Bros suffer a loss lets just take those as the only important fights they ever fought... How hard to you think Wladimir will be jumped on when he loses to Anthony Joshua??? He's not going to be given any slack and condemned for his lack of effort.
You may be right regarding Wlad being criticised for losing to Fury and possibly now Joshua - to me, losing those fights does little to detract from his legacy (although winning them would enhance it significantly). As for Povetkin beating Foreman, we'll have to agree to disagree as I don't see that happening in a million years - unless we're talking about a fat, post-Moorer Foreman.
Are you guys the goons that love to discuss Povetkin to the point of nauseam? Do you realize just how insignificant Povetkin is and in turn Wlad's "legacy"? Let it go. I've never seen so many discussions for such insignificant boxers.
Kalan wrote:
He'd wreck George... Just too skilled... I find it a little odd how far past their primes so many ATG Heavyweights were when trying to explain away their defeats at ages 23 to 35... But when the K-Bros suffer a loss lets just take those as the only important fights they ever fought... How hard to you think Wladimir will be jumped on when he loses to Anthony Joshua??? He's not going to be given any slack and condemned for his lack of effort.
You may be right regarding Wlad being criticised for losing to Fury and possibly now Joshua - to me, losing those fights does little to detract from his legacy (although winning them would enhance it significantly). As for Povetkin beating Foreman, we'll have to agree to disagree as I don't see that happening in a million years - unless we're talking about a fat, post-Moorer Foreman.
Are you guys the goons that love to discuss Povetkin to the point of nauseam? Do you realize just how insignificant Povetkin is and in turn Wlad's "legacy"? Let it go. I've never seen so many discussions for such insignificant boxers.
jezzamundo wrote:
You may be right regarding Wlad being criticised for losing to Fury and possibly now Joshua - to me, losing those fights does little to detract from his legacy (although winning them would enhance it significantly). As for Povetkin beating Foreman, we'll have to agree to disagree as I don't see that happening in a million years - unless we're talking about a fat, post-Moorer Foreman.
Are you guys the goons that love to discuss Povetkin to the point of nauseam? Do you realize just how insignificant Povetkin is and in turn Wlad's "legacy"? Let it go. I've never seen so many discussions for such insignificant boxers.
It is a boxing forum Einstone.
Exactly. Why tie up the site's server with comments about a drug using suspended boxer that sucks anyway? Useless, like most of your points dipshiit.
caldo2025 wrote:
Are you guys the goons that love to discuss Povetkin to the point of nauseam? Do you realize just how insignificant Povetkin is and in turn Wlad's "legacy"? Let it go. I've never seen so many discussions for such insignificant boxers.
It is a boxing forum Einstone.
Exactly. Why tie up the site's server with comments about a drug using suspended boxer that sucks anyway? Useless, like most of your points dipshiit.
caldo2025 wrote:
Exactly. Why tie up the site's server with comments about a drug using suspended boxer that sucks anyway? Useless, like most of your points dipshiit.
How are those +1's piling up for you, Caldumb?
Way better than your jokes are doing Thesauruzio.
Of course you can't actually add them up, can you, Caldrone? Here is a hint; it is waaay less than the amount of hooves you walk on.
man wrote:the older you get the more you glorify
the past. the same happened to the ATGs.
Yes, it is happening to ATGs, but not to their fights. There are fights like Frazier-Ali, Norton-Ali, Bowe-Holyfield, Holyfield-Tyson, and so on - you probably would not mind rewatching them, no matter if you consider Ali to be really "The Greatest" or if you have Holy inside or outside HW top10. Wlad fights are difficult just to watch, and the idea of rewatching them sounds almost sick Tyson also started in weak era, but at least he demolished his opponents whenever possible.
Of course you can't actually add them up, can you, Caldrone? Here is a hint; it is waaay less than the amount of hooves you walk on.
Tyson also started in weak era, but at least he demolished his opponents whenever possible.