BoxRec

Now personally I dont think they do,I know their styles arent the most exciting to watch,etc but they're very good at what they do and theres no denying that.People say the heavyweight division is so poor,etc and its definietly true that its not as strong as it used to be but the same time i think the fact that wlad and vitali have dominated it so much makes people say its crap rather than these guys are quality fighters,if you look at some of the fighters they've faced and are going to face you'll see theres a fair few who were very good amateurs ie ibragimov,chagaev,solis,etc.Anyway just my opinion

no and i dont think history will be fair but thats the way the cookie crumbles

They're good at what they do for sure, but what they do is pretty robotic and uninspiring, the problem is that Heavyweights now by and large are so big and unfit they can only throw 30 punches a round and spend the rest of the time mauling and the Klitchkos are seen as the poster boys for this generation.

It's no myth that heavyweights at the top end were better in say the 90's, look at the footage, they were simply better fighters and people actually wanted to see them fight.

Flump wrote:They're good at what they do for sure, but what they do is pretty robotic and uninspiring, the problem is that Heavyweights now by and large are so big and unfit they can only throw 30 punches a round and spend the rest of the time mauling and the Klitchkos are seen as the poster boys for this generation.

It's no myth that heavyweights at the top end were better in say the 90's, look at the footage, they were simply better fighters and people actually wanted to see them fight.

The whole robotic thing is a very eastern european trait style wise i think,as kids etc i think they're constantly drilled on technique and repetition until they master it.You rarely see eastern europeans who dont do the fundamentals very well.

.[/quote]You rarely see eastern europeans who dont do the fundamentals very well.[/quote]

Er sorry mate you are wrong.
Both Klits cant even throw a simple upercut to save themselves BUT they would have stopped most of the 90s heavyweights due to size.

Adamj1987 wrote:no and i dont think history will be fair but thats the way the cookie crumbles

Nah, their reputation will rocket a few years after retirement, it's always the way with HWs. Happened with Lewis and Bowe, even Bruno gets more credit now than he used to amongst serious fans. You could call it "rose tinted specs" or "don't appreciate it till it's gone" syndrome depending on your viewpoint.

Wladimir definitely doesn't.

What annoys me is that they are seen as a pair, rather than judging them on their own merits.

One of them is a great fighter, the other fought one great fight in his entire career and is still living off it..... yet some muppets think he's better

The biggest negative influence on both men's legacies is the fact that, for very valid reasons, they can never fight each other. Makes it hard for either to claim the undisputed number one spot.

LeedsLad wrote:Wladimir definitely doesn't.

What annoys me is that they are seen as a pair, rather than judging them on their own merits.

One of them is a great fighter, the other fought one great fight in his entire career and is still living off it..... yet some muppets think he's better

Being seen as one helps more than hinders them. A win is seen as a Klitchsko win and there is never calling for them to face an opponent beaten by the brother. It makes each look more dominant.

Vitali's most memorable fight was his defeat to Lewis.

Wlad's most memorable fights are the ones he lost also.

That pretty much says it all for me. Good boxers yes, entertaining and memorable. NO!!

Adamj1987 wrote:no and i dont think history will be fair but thats the way the cookie crumbles

Absolutely 20 years from now they will be talked about with the ATG's and rightly so. There size and skill would have given them a good chance Vs anybody. But still pick all the top echelon over them. Size meant nothing to Joe Louis for example. He'd have just had a bigger target to aim at.

The boring ass robots get too much credit IMO

jab jab step back jab
step back jab jab jab
Jab jab cross step back jab jab

They should be remembered as the most boring fighters to ever grace a square ring

Jon Saxon wrote:.

You rarely see eastern europeans who dont do the fundamentals very well.[/quote]

Er sorry mate you are wrong.
Both Klits cant even throw a simple upercut to save themselves BUT they would have stopped most of the 90s heavyweights due to size.[/quote]
I disagree,ive seen them throw uppercuts before in fights but maybe they dont do it that often because its a risky tactic

lefty wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:.

Er sorry mate you are wrong.
Both Klits cant even throw a simple upercut to save themselves BUT they would have stopped most of the 90s heavyweights due to size.

I disagree,ive seen them throw uppercuts before in fights but maybe they dont do it that often because its a risky tactic

Bollocks. VitKlit still punches like a kickboxer, i.e. he is a total arm puncher. If he could put any bodyweight at all on his shots his opponents' heads would land in row 36. Obviously, being fit & eighteen stone means you don't need to be a true puncher, but it's absolute bollocks to suggest he's some sort of technical master when he fights almost exactly like a better-conditioned, better-coordinated Jess Willard.

He's very good at making the most of what he has & uses his physical advantages supremely well but as far as actual boxing technique goes, no. Just... no.

Wladdy on the other hand is a much much better boxer, turns the hips into his shots, bends the knee behind the the jab, gets fantastic leverage on everything. Unfortunately his level of caution since being splattered all across the ring a few times makes him almost as dull to watch as his big bro'.

They deserve recognition as the best of this era, but which young heavyweight has been capable of challenging their physical advantages with science & guile? Their legacies will be hurt by the lack of same to challenge them but conversely for people to somehow suggest that they're unbeatable is drivel of the highest order. Holyfield the night of the second Bowe fight, the Witherspoon who brawled with Mercer, Mercer the night he fought Lewis, the Bowe who pounded Jorge Luis Gonzalez, the Golota who ruined Bowe, the Tyson who brawled with Ruddock, Big George thudding that pole of a jab into their faces, these would've given us a much clearer picture of what they truly can do. Instead, we've had the fat remnants of Rahman, Samuel "I got outboxed by a fat James Toney" Peter, that Cuban cruiserweight, Ruslan Chagaev, a flabby semi-retired golfer with a china chin (who gave them both rather more than something to think about) & oh gods just thinking about their list of challengers has made my brain melt.

Their legacies are built on scraps & leavings, has-beens & never-weres, tumbleweeds & skeletons strewn across a wasteland. History (if compiled by someone with an ounce of sense, & ranking them purely on who they beat & how) should accord them the status of a footnote, a curio, a what-might-have-been, as much space as all those champs between Tunney & Louis. Fair? No. Do I care? Not one jot.

Of course, on the Interwebs, "what might have been" outweighs "what actually transpired", so yeah: they are the greatest boxers of all time, in any weight division, they're very nice lads (which I doubt, but somehow changes people's opinions of their fistic worth), they're very humble (again, wtf?) & they are definitely, definitely not gay in any way shape or form. Oh no sir. & having a Hugo Boss logo on your shorts does not make you a pudendum at all.

Datsue wrote:

lefty wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:.

Er sorry mate you are wrong.
Both Klits cant even throw a simple upercut to save themselves BUT they would have stopped most of the 90s heavyweights due to size.

I disagree,ive seen them throw uppercuts before in fights but maybe they dont do it that often because its a risky tactic

Bollocks. VitKlit still punches like a kickboxer, i.e. he is a total arm puncher. If he could put any bodyweight at all on his shots his opponents' heads would land in row 36. Obviously, being fit & eighteen stone means you don't need to be a true puncher, but it's absolute bollocks to suggest he's some sort of technical master when he fights almost exactly like a better-conditioned, better-coordinated Jess Willard.

He's very good at making the most of what he has & uses his physical advantages supremely well but as far as actual boxing technique goes, no. Just... no.

Wladdy on the other hand is a much much better boxer, turns the hips into his shots, bends the knee behind the the jab, gets fantastic leverage on everything. Unfortunately his level of caution since being splattered all across the ring a few times makes him almost as dull to watch as his big bro'.

They deserve recognition as the best of this era, but which young heavyweight has been capable of challenging their physical advantages with science & guile? Their legacies will be hurt by the lack of same to challenge them but conversely for people to somehow suggest that they're unbeatable is drivel of the highest order. Holyfield the night of the second Bowe fight, the Witherspoon who brawled with Mercer, Mercer the night he fought Lewis, the Bowe who pounded Jorge Luis Gonzalez, the Golota who ruined Bowe, the Tyson who brawled with Ruddock, Big George thudding that pole of a jab into their faces, these would've given us a much clearer picture of what they truly can do. Instead, we've had the fat remnants of Rahman, Samuel "I got outboxed by a fat James Toney" Peter, that Cuban cruiserweight, Ruslan Chagaev, a flabby semi-retired golfer with a china chin (who gave them both rather more than something to think about) & oh gods just thinking about their list of challengers has made my brain melt.

Their legacies are built on scraps & leavings, has-beens & never-weres, tumbleweeds & skeletons strewn across a wasteland. History (if compiled by someone with an ounce of sense, & ranking them purely on who they beat & how) should accord them the status of a footnote, a curio, a what-might-have-been, as much space as all those champs between Tunney & Louis. Fair? No. Do I care? Not one jot.

Of course, on the Interwebs, "what might have been" outweighs "what actually transpired", so yeah: they are the greatest boxers of all time, in any weight division, they're very nice lads (which I doubt, but somehow changes people's opinions of their fistic worth), they're very humble (again, wtf?) & they are definitely, definitely not gay in any way shape or form. Oh no sir. & having a Hugo Boss logo on your shorts does not make you a pudendum at all.

Well wlad was the one i was focussing on more to be honest when i said that

Datsue wrote:

lefty wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:.

Er sorry mate you are wrong.
Both Klits cant even throw a simple upercut to save themselves BUT they would have stopped most of the 90s heavyweights due to size.

I disagree,ive seen them throw uppercuts before in fights but maybe they dont do it that often because its a risky tactic

Bollocks. VitKlit still punches like a kickboxer, i.e. he is a total arm puncher. If he could put any bodyweight at all on his shots his opponents' heads would land in row 36. Obviously, being fit & eighteen stone means you don't need to be a true puncher, but it's absolute bollocks to suggest he's some sort of technical master when he fights almost exactly like a better-conditioned, better-coordinated Jess Willard.

He's very good at making the most of what he has & uses his physical advantages supremely well but as far as actual boxing technique goes, no. Just... no.

Wladdy on the other hand is a much much better boxer, turns the hips into his shots, bends the knee behind the the jab, gets fantastic leverage on everything. Unfortunately his level of caution since being splattered all across the ring a few times makes him almost as dull to watch as his big bro'.

They deserve recognition as the best of this era, but which young heavyweight has been capable of challenging their physical advantages with science & guile? Their legacies will be hurt by the lack of same to challenge them but conversely for people to somehow suggest that they're unbeatable is drivel of the highest order. Holyfield the night of the second Bowe fight, the Witherspoon who brawled with Mercer, Mercer the night he fought Lewis, the Bowe who pounded Jorge Luis Gonzalez, the Golota who ruined Bowe, the Tyson who brawled with Ruddock, Big George thudding that pole of a jab into their faces, these would've given us a much clearer picture of what they truly can do. Instead, we've had the fat remnants of Rahman, Samuel "I got outboxed by a fat James Toney" Peter, that Cuban cruiserweight, Ruslan Chagaev, a flabby semi-retired golfer with a china chin (who gave them both rather more than something to think about) & oh gods just thinking about their list of challengers has made my brain melt.

Their legacies are built on scraps & leavings, has-beens & never-weres, tumbleweeds & skeletons strewn across a wasteland. History (if compiled by someone with an ounce of sense, & ranking them purely on who they beat & how) should accord them the status of a footnote, a curio, a what-might-have-been, as much space as all those champs between Tunney & Louis. Fair? No. Do I care? Not one jot.

Of course, on the Interwebs, "what might have been" outweighs "what actually transpired", so yeah: they are the greatest boxers of all time, in any weight division, they're very nice lads (which I doubt, but somehow changes people's opinions of their fistic worth), they're very humble (again, wtf?) & they are definitely, definitely not gay in any way shape or form. Oh no sir. & having a Hugo Boss logo on your shorts does not make you a pudendum at all.

P.s why dont you think they are nice guys?

Datsue wrote:

lefty wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:.

Er sorry mate you are wrong.
Both Klits cant even throw a simple upercut to save themselves BUT they would have stopped most of the 90s heavyweights due to size.

I disagree,ive seen them throw uppercuts before in fights but maybe they dont do it that often because its a risky tactic

Bollocks. VitKlit still punches like a kickboxer, i.e. he is a total arm puncher. If he could put any bodyweight at all on his shots his opponents' heads would land in row 36. Obviously, being fit & eighteen stone means you don't need to be a true puncher, but it's absolute bollocks to suggest he's some sort of technical master when he fights almost exactly like a better-conditioned, better-coordinated Jess Willard.

He's very good at making the most of what he has & uses his physical advantages supremely well but as far as actual boxing technique goes, no. Just... no.

Wladdy on the other hand is a much much better boxer, turns the hips into his shots, bends the knee behind the the jab, gets fantastic leverage on everything. Unfortunately his level of caution since being splattered all across the ring a few times makes him almost as dull to watch as his big bro'.

They deserve recognition as the best of this era, but which young heavyweight has been capable of challenging their physical advantages with science & guile? Their legacies will be hurt by the lack of same to challenge them but conversely for people to somehow suggest that they're unbeatable is drivel of the highest order. Holyfield the night of the second Bowe fight, the Witherspoon who brawled with Mercer, Mercer the night he fought Lewis, the Bowe who pounded Jorge Luis Gonzalez, the Golota who ruined Bowe, the Tyson who brawled with Ruddock, Big George thudding that pole of a jab into their faces, these would've given us a much clearer picture of what they truly can do. Instead, we've had the fat remnants of Rahman, Samuel "I got outboxed by a fat James Toney" Peter, that Cuban cruiserweight, Ruslan Chagaev, a flabby semi-retired golfer with a china chin (who gave them both rather more than something to think about) & oh gods just thinking about their list of challengers has made my brain melt.

Their legacies are built on scraps & leavings, has-beens & never-weres, tumbleweeds & skeletons strewn across a wasteland. History (if compiled by someone with an ounce of sense, & ranking them purely on who they beat & how) should accord them the status of a footnote, a curio, a what-might-have-been, as much space as all those champs between Tunney & Louis. Fair? No. Do I care? Not one jot.

Of course, on the Interwebs, "what might have been" outweighs "what actually transpired", so yeah: they are the greatest boxers of all time, in any weight division, they're very nice lads (which I doubt, but somehow changes people's opinions of their fistic worth), they're very humble (again, wtf?) & they are definitely, definitely not gay in any way shape or form. Oh no sir. & having a Hugo Boss logo on your shorts does not make you a pudendum at all.

bit hypocritical mate

mike john wrote: bit hypocritical mate

Er... So let's focus on what they've done then: near enough fvck all, dominated the poorest field of challengers it's possible to imagine, so therefore it's impossible to properly judge them. Good, that's that case closed. Should've just written that & saved my lunchbreak, thanks for your wonderful input.

Oh, hang on, I wrote that as well!

lefty wrote: P.s why dont you think they are nice guys?

My point is I give not a flying fvck whether or not they are nice guys as it has no relation on their "worth" as fighters.

D'you see?

Datsue wrote:

lefty wrote: P.s why dont you think they are nice guys?

My point is I give not a flying fvck whether or not they are nice guys as it has no relation on their "worth" as fighters.

D'you see?

Fair enough just asking geez!

On the one hand, they've beaten everyone around them (except Haye - but let's not start that again). That's all they can do, and they'll be seen as the best heavyweights of their era for that reason.

On the other hand, watching them makes me fall asleep.

Also - they always seem like nice guys in front of the camera, but I'm not a fan of the way they do business. If you want a shot at them, you have to almost sell them your soul. If you beat the first one, you have to fight the 2nd one. If you beat him, you have to rematch the 1st one. And so on. Their cautious style inside the ring is reflected in their dealings outside of it; i.e. they are terrified of defeat.

No way do they get the recognition they deserve.

Two amazing specimens the pair of em. Both highly intelligent, Extremely healthy and in great condition, amazingly effective and both genuinely humble.

IMO they are two of the top 10-15 heavyweights of all time.

lefty wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:.

You rarely see eastern europeans who dont do the fundamentals very well.

Er sorry mate you are wrong.
Both Klits cant even throw a simple upercut to save themselves BUT they would have stopped most of the 90s heavyweights due to size.[/quote]
I disagree,ive seen them throw uppercuts before in fights but maybe they dont do it that often because its a risky tactic[/quote]

They dont do it often because they CANT throw it properly.

Wlad tried it a few times in his last fight and looked like a complete rookie.
Dont get me started on how bad older bros fundamentals are.

Even Lewis was kinda stiff in places but his uppercut looks like a thing of beauty compared to the robots.
Hell Riddick Bowe's was probably the best i have ever seen in the division.

Face it mate you are wrong.

Jon Saxon wrote:

lefty wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:.

You rarely see eastern europeans who dont do the fundamentals very well.

Er sorry mate you are wrong.
Both Klits cant even throw a simple upercut to save themselves BUT they would have stopped most of the 90s heavyweights due to size.

I disagree,ive seen them throw uppercuts before in fights but maybe they dont do it that often because its a risky tactic[/quote]

They dont do it often because they CANT throw it properly.

Wlad tried it a few times in his last fight and looked like a complete rookie.
Dont get me started on how bad older bros fundamentals are.

Even Lewis was kinda stiff in places but his uppercut looks like a thing of beauty compared to the robots.
Hell Riddick Bowe's was probably the best i have ever seen in the division.

Face it mate you are wrong.[/quote]Well il admit to the uppercut thing but you cant say overrall that wlad doesnt have good technique?!