BoxRec

Typical hyperbole that characterizes the age we live in. He fought a bad fight at nearly forty years old, but he has never been without some limitations in the ring, a little truth on both sides.

I know one thing for sure, there has never been a fighter in the history of boxing, that wouldn't have people dumping on him and calling him overrated on message boards if he fought today, and if he dared to lose a fight, or look human, god help him. So, I figure Wlad's place in history is safe, one day he will be a boxer of the past who is remembered more for his victories than his defeats.

What victories will he be remembered for? Ibragimov? Haye? Povetkin? These fights are unwatchable, and after that we're in Tony Thompson and Calvin Brock and Ruslan Chagaev hell. History will not be kind.

I guess he will be (somewhat) remembered for the number of defences rather than for any particular match (because I agree, it would be hard to select something).

Which means his popularity will diminish quickly, because the bare fact of having 20+ defences in a row is not interesting at all... if most of them are unwatchable.

Tuan_Jim wrote:What victories will he be remembered for? Ibragimov? Haye? Povetkin? These fights are unwatchable, and after that we're in Tony Thompson and Calvin Brock and Ruslan Chagaev hell. History will not be kind.

Yes, and there will be a few other names as well. He will be remembered as a great fighter who fought in a weaker era, not unlike Holmes and Marciano, who are venerated for the most part now (especially Holmes). I mean do people come on and talk about what a joke Holmes is for fighting a parade of, shall we say, non hall of fame opponents before being bested twice by a light heavyweight?? First of all, that's absurd, but also we don't dump on past fighters in nearly the same way that we do current fighters.

He was boring at times, but he had some pretty spectacular knockouts as well, particularly earlier in his career, and the accomplishments are there. I am curious as to accomplished fighters who are remembered unkindly? I am a pretty big fan of boxing and I can't really think of any immediately. Granted, I greatly admire guys who have the courage and will to actually fight, and then to do it well, my respect is pretty well off the charts. But, I think it is safe to say that fighters are remembered more fondly once they retire. I am sure it will be the case here. You will not be able to keep up your lather of hate for a guy like Klitschko and you will move on to something else, all that will remain will be "boxing historian" types who love all old fighters, it's just human nature.

Its ironic how before this fight so many were saying Klitschko was top ten worthy (myself included). I know myself I said that if Fury couldnt do it, then it was a foregone conclusion that Klitschko would shatter Louis's record. I think legacy wise, he will be treated poorly, far worse than the likes of Holmes and others who were successful champions in suspect eras. It is a hard pill to swallow for Klitschko, because after all nobody expected Tyson to last a few rounds let alone completely embarass the man.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

squiggy wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:For 10 years we've had to listen to idolatrous Klitschko obsessives worship this man.

The obsessives are the Klitschkos haters. Acknowledging dominance never should've gotten anyone labelled a nuthugger, particularly when there was little else to talk about on the heavyweight scene for a decade.

I don't generally bother to engage with people who express themselves with terms like "haters" and "nuthhuggers"

Nor do I; in fact, it is the first time I have used either word. It seemed appropriate in this case, but I very much hear what you're saying here.

Tuan_Jim wrote: because they are obviously operating on limited capacity, but how did Wladimir Klitschko dominate? Within this 9 year stretch there was a full 4 year period where his bigger, tougher brother was actively defending the WBC title. How can you dominate the division when there's someone else defending a legitimate belt, who most people concede is the less graceful but much better fighter?

Wladimir can't simply absorb his brother's accomplishments and be called the dominant champion. To credit him with ten years of total supremacy is demonstrably untrue. The fact that it all began with Wlad selecting an easy rematch with the waning Chris Byrd rather than the other fight that was offered him, a risky rematch with Lamon Brewster who at that time was still knocking guys heads off speaks volumes.

None of what you said about Vitali's career here is news. He existed, he fought, he had a belt, he was arguably better, the two brothers never fought. You don't say.
I understand that their accomplishments tend to get lumped together as what The Klitschko Brothers did, and that that's weird. None of it makes Wladimir not "a dominant champion."

HomicideHenry wrote:nobody expected Tyson to last a few rounds.

Nonsense

crusader wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:nobody expected Tyson to last a few rounds.

Nonsense

You forget I was one of the few on this site who said Fury would win.

Most people on this site said Fury would get sparked out in a few rounds.

HomicideHenry wrote:

crusader wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:nobody expected Tyson to last a few rounds.

Nonsense

You forget I was one of the few on this site who said Fury would win.

Most people on this site said Fury would get sparked out in a few rounds.

I didn't forget, and to your credit you've been on Fury's bandwagon for years rather than suddenly joining now that he's the champ.

From what I've seen I'd say that opinion was split roughly 80/20, with many people who picked Wlad acknowledging that Fury could cause him problems; it was hardly Tyson-Douglas stuff.

Tuan_Jim wrote:For 10 years we've had to listen to idolatrous Klitschko obsessives worship this man. Fencing Chris Byrd, Ruslan Chagaev, Tony Thompson and the gang elevated Wladimir to all-time great status. No one could ever point to one single great defining win but still, he was the best ever. No one could master his elaborate jab, grab, jab, grab, jab, grab, grab grab grab grab grab frugal right hand style.

Now we've come to the end of this entertainment-free decade of passive, feminine-style boxing (200+ holds initiated versus Povetkin, one of his 'major' victories), and watched him so dismally surrender his titles, can we finally accept this man cannot fight? Can we accept he is hugely limited and one-dimensional? Fury with a rare (for this era) combination of fearlessness, fitness, aggression and a work rate romped to a decision. Had Wladimir made a serious attempt to mix it up at the end he would have been KOd (again).

He is certainly a puncher. But the man can't take a punch, mentally unravels in a fight and, unsurprisingly, can be easily outboxed by someone who refuses to be transfixed by his jab. Delighted by Tyson Fury confirming what a lot of smart boxing fans have said for years.

totally agree

crusader wrote:x3

Shame on Wlad for losing at nearly 40 for the first time in over a decade

I'm sure that some people have been waiting years for this...I don't doubt that they'd respond the same way if he hadn't dropped another fight until he was 50.

Wlad was on top for 11 years. Virtually unheard of in sports. Unlike Mayweather he ducked nobody. If he's too old heavyweight boxing will become more obscure. Personally I think he knocks Fury out in the rematch then retires.

pound per pound wrote:Unlike Mayweather he ducked nobody.

did he fight his brother?
at least his brother fought lennox lewis, and lewis fought tyson and holyfield.
both tyson and holyfield were past it in the early 2000's, but since wlad
got sparked for the 2nd time already by then, both tyson and holy could
have tested him and lewis would have blasted him away. the biggest names
during wlad's era aren't even on his record.

sucracristo wrote:

pound per pound wrote:Unlike Mayweather he ducked nobody.

did he fight his brother?
at least his brother fought lennox lewis, and lewis fought tyson and holyfield.
both tyson and holyfield were past it in the early 2000's, but since wlad
got sparked for the 2nd time already by then, both tyson and holy could
have tested him and lewis would have blasted him away. the biggest names
during wlad's era aren't even on his record.

...not so fast...
Did Wlad fight his brother? ..of course not, nor did anyone in his right mind expect him to...you are right saying that Lewis fought Tyson and Holyfield who were past it, I'd say waaaay past it..the rest of your arguments are just assumptions...The facts are that around 2003 and 2004 neither Tyson nor Holyfield presented any real danger, they were in fact on a losing streak...their scalps would have belonged to a "nice to have" category but could be hardly characterised as career defining ...

Some of you guys talk some utter crap. What about Wladimir's fights against Pulev, Peter and Chris Byrd? The David Haye fight was not bad either.

Wladimir got beat by a rising prospect. What the hell were Ali, Frazier, Tyson and Lewis doing that was so amazing at 39? Wladimir was wanting a shot against Lewis for thre years when Lewis was number 1, and Wladimir was number 1 contender for two of those years. Did Lewis fight him no, instead he fought Tyson who was only ranked number 9 contender. Lewis ducked Wladimir just like he ducked Chris Byrd and any other south paw his entire career.

greg wrote:The facts are that around 2003 and 2004 neither Tyson nor Holyfield presented any real danger

to the guy who got destroyed in 2003 by sanders...
tyson ko'd etienne in the first round in 2003. no danger my ass.
and as far as the expecting him to fight his brother crap, don't say he dominated the
division with his brother fighting all his battles for him. even the holyfield of 2003
would have been dangerous to the wlad who got ko'd in 2 by sanders in 2003.
and again, wlad didn't fight lennox lewis, who would have destroyed him.
don't give me this crap about him dominating the division.

Davidkeir1986 wrote: Lewis doing that was so amazing at 39?

lewis has a win over wlad's brother, who was better than wlad, at almost 38.
wlad lost to fury at 39 and looked bad, so comparing wlad's accomplishments
at 39 to any past champion isn't really the best comparison. in his previous
fight wlad had a point taken away for holding, because wlad was a really boring
wrestler

for 9 years i boxed with my length,until a bigger man came and did what i do to fighters to me. i am soppy and really disrespectful to a true champ who mastered his skill. just father time time caught up with, but also a big fast danger man came about

sucracristo wrote:

Davidkeir1986 wrote: Lewis doing that was so amazing at 39?

lewis has a win over wlad's brother, who was better than wlad, at almost 38.
wlad lost to fury at 39 and looked bad, so comparing wlad's accomplishments
at 39 to any past champion isn't really the best comparison. in his previous
fight wlad had a point taken away for holding, because wlad was a really boring
wrestler

Exactly Lewis was retired after being beat by Vitali at only 37 year old, and Lewis only won the fight on cuts. What was more embarrassing for Lewis is he pulled out the rematch, because he didn't want to be beat on by Vitali again. Then retired to duck fighting Vitali. At least Wladimir is going to rematch Fury.

sucracristo wrote:

greg wrote:The facts are that around 2003 and 2004 neither Tyson nor Holyfield presented any real danger

to the guy who got destroyed in 2003 by sanders...
tyson ko'd etienne in the first round in 2003. no danger my ass.
and as far as the expecting him to fight his brother crap, don't say he dominated the
division with his brother fighting all his battles for him. even the holyfield of 2003
would have been dangerous to the wlad who got ko'd in 2 by sanders in 2003.
and again, wlad didn't fight lennox lewis, who would have destroyed him.
don't give me this crap about him dominating the division.

...Tyson and Holyfield were damaged goods, never a serious threat around that time...Tyson retired in 2004-2005...I wonder why?, Holyfield continued fighting but lost more than the half of his fights. Wlad reclaimed the world title around 2005, got all major belts except one plus Ring belt and made a large number of succesful defences beating the best available till he lost to Fury at the age of 39...Those are the FACTS. The way you interpret them is up to you. If that's not dominating division, I don't know what is...

...and by the way, Wlad didn't fight Lewis because Vitaly retired him...Why didn't he come back?...'cause he was 37 and a smart guy, simple as that...