BoxRec

The Klitschkos's are definitely good boxers,but they haven't done enough to be considered in the same league as Dempsey,Willis,Tunney,are Joe Louis are Muhammad Ali.No amount of title defenses will hide the fact that the Klitschko's have never beaten an elite heavyweight boxer in their entire careers.To claim their underrated is terrible. Every win in both Klitschkos resume comes against fighters years and years beyond their prime with padded records,with no name fighters who they shouldn't been fighting with at all.The biggest & most impressive win on both Klitschkos resumes is Samuel Peter was the best fighter a Klitschko beat.The best opponent Vitali fought was the worst verision of Lennox Lewis an in the worst shape in his career and he still stopped Vitali.Since Vitali's defeat to Lewis,the brothers made a career out of dominating a very weak heavyweight division,although it wasn't their faults there opponents lacked quality.

Povetkin and Haye are better than Peter.

I guess the question comes down to.... "How many past heavyweights can you name, who would beat both Klitschko brothers?"

Once that question is settled, then you have to ask "How well do the Klitschko's do in fights with the top ten all time greats?"

After all that is answered, then you try and figure where in the big picture do they fit in. It's hard to say someone is not great when the Klitschko's accomplished a few things no one else did.... For Vitali, he's the only champion to return after four years (no tune ups) and regain the championship... For Vladimir it's being a dominate champion for eight years, and in sheer volume of defenses, is comparable to Larry Holmes or Joe Louis.

I guess, for me, it all comes down to be retrospective. It took a long, long time before people began to take a look back at Larry Holmes and admit his greatness. Same with Lennox Lewis, and same (to one degree or another) Ezzard Charles and Gene Tunney. None of those men were valued or really given their due respect when they were fighting, and only in the decades since have they gotten a measure of respect. Hell, when I first became a boxing fan no one had Holmes in their top ten heavyweights of all time. Nowadays, people not only have him in their top five, they ask "Could he be the greatest of all time?".... When Lewis retired, no one dared say he was a top ten heavyweight, and these days you have people saying he's a solid lock for the top five.

I imagine, in the years to follow, people will appreciate the Klitschko's more. Personally, I think Vladimir is a top 10-15 heavyweight of all time, and his brother Vitali is top 15 worthy also (albeit I do believe Vitali was the better brother, but Vladimir accomplished more). I always say "Imagine someone like Ali (all 6'3" and 210 pounds of him) facing either of the brothers, and picture how that fight would go." Maybe Ali wins the decision, but it doesn't come easy when Ali never faced someone quite like the brothers in his entire career. Yes, Foreman and Frazier and Norton are better than them.... but, they were also in the same size bracket as Ali. Combine the size factor in with the skill factor of the Klitschko's just being shy (not by much) of the guys from the 60s and 70s and 90s, you have a real issue and problem.

I know that is not a popular opinion, and people will crap all over it, but that's the way I see it. I would say the problem with the Klitschko's, which does hold them back, is both men did not have the ability to adapt. They fought fights the way they wanted to, and never really changed that approach to their game, and whenever someone came along who forced them to think or fight outside the box---- they looked weak, average, and above all else hopeless to do anything about it (Vladimir more so than Vitali).

HomicideHenry wrote:I guess the question comes down to.... "How many past heavyweights can you name, who would beat both Klitschko brothers?"

Well, the subject is about their place in history - based on real achievements - and not about hypothetical fights.

So, while they have quite a number of defences, very good comeback and so on... there is still no one win over ATG or even HOF-er... frankly, it is difficult to find a fight worth rewatching, so I think they will be forgotten pretty quickly.

henry, good post ...

gregor wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I guess the question comes down to.... "How many past heavyweights can you name, who would beat both Klitschko brothers?"

Well, the subject is about their place in history - based on real achievements - and not about hypothetical fights.

So, while they have quite a number of defences, very good comeback and so on... there is still no one win over ATG or even HOF-er... frankly, it is difficult to find a fight worth rewatching, so I think they will be forgotten pretty quickly.

Yes, but, you have to think in a projective sense too as to how well they would match up with others in the past... Why?.... Take Joe Louis, by and large most of the men he fought were far and away from the HOF, and most of the good fighters he fought were passed their prime or were undersized... Yet Joe Louis generally tops the list or is in that number two spot.... Why? Because sometimes it is NOT who you have beaten, but how you did it. I suppose that argument can be made with the Klitschko's because despite their fights being comparitively boring affairs, the fact remains how many people can you name so much as ever won a single round from them in their prime? Larry Holmes sure didn't have that many exciting fights, but it is by sheer dominance and volume that he's measured by.

People who discredit Wlad are only one step above the people who discredit Floyd.

At this point, I don't understand how you choose to spend time on a boxing forum
but still have such a "unenlightened" view of the sport. I guess that's the internet.

HomicideHenry wrote:Because sometimes it is NOT who you have beaten, but how you did it..

I agree with this. It seems that many fans are more concerned with "how you fought" as opposed to "how easily you won".

There are also the "who you fought people". But those people are generally history buffs who never compare fighters to who they've actually fought. They'd rather insert mythical matchups that like god, have no proof, yet they stick to these imaginary fights as facts.

The only actual proof that remains is that Wlad was way better than his competition for almost 10 years.
So even if the competition was weak, we can't hold Wlad down to that standard because he proved he was WAY better than the rest.
And he proved it against the only people he could have actually fought.

Or do you guys still insist on comparing Wlad to the dust of Jack Dempsey?

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I guess that's the internet.

That's humanity.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Because sometimes it is NOT who you have beaten, but how you did it..

I agree with this. It seems that many fans are more concerned with "how you fought" as opposed to "how easily you won".

There are also the "who you fought people". But those people are generally history buffs who never compare fighters to who they've actually fought. They'd rather insert mythical matchups that like god, have no proof, yet they stick to these imaginary fights as facts.

The only actual proof that remains is that Wlad was way better than his competition for almost 10 years.
So even if the competition was weak, we can't hold Wlad down to that standard because he proved he was WAY better than the rest.
And he proved it against the only people he could have actually fought.

Or do you guys still insist on comparing Wlad to the dust of Jack Dempsey?

Interesting choice, using "Jack The Giant Killer, Slayer of Ogres" as your chief example as to why Klitschko shouldn't be historically great. Dempsey is one of the very few men of yester year that I can name who potentially could have beaten the large men of today. Why? Because he beat men comparable in size quite often: Fred Fulton, Carl Morris, Jess Willard, to name three. HOWEVER, we're also talking about THE Jack Dempsey who never fought Harry Wills, who never fought Sam Langford, and during his championship reign fought the likes of light heavyweight Carpentier and previously unknown Luis Firpo. It's what you would call in the business, "low risk, high reward" matching a champion up against a hard sell. How were they able to make the public buy into these fights, you may ask? Well..... Jack was a draft dodger, and Carpentier was a war hero... and they played that up to the hilt. Luis Firpo, on the other hand, was matched up with the ancient (but still enormous) Jess Willard and by beating Willard by knockout (something only Dempsey previously done) people bought into him as being something of a threat, when in fact team Dempsey knew he never beat anyone of consequence.

Fact of business, Tunney was probably the first real challenge Dempsey faced in nearly seven years. And by that time he was too old and too slow to do a damn thing about it. Not crapping on Dempsey... but if we're going to make comparisons here, then let's do them with the tinted glasses off our eyes, okay?

Do you consider Mike Tyson historically great?

Ricky_ wrote:Do you consider Mike Tyson historically great?

Don't know if that question is towards me or someone else, but for my two cents.... I'm on the fence about Tyson.

Why? Cus the thought always comes back to me, that if it were anyone else, who defeated the same caliber of men that Tyson did on the way up and as champion... I don't know if I would have called them great... What made Tyson "great" was how he did it. If someone else had fought the likes of Tubbs, Thomas, Tucker, etc. and just won decisions over them nobody would have cared. So, its certainly not who Tyson beats that makes him great, its how he did it. I think in the years that have followed since his ultimate retirement, most can see that he wasn't the top man of the 80s' or the 90's. The 80's belonged to Holmes, and the 90's belonged to Holyfield. Lewis and Tyson and Bowe, were just there and had their successes. Lewis, though, managed to have his own time in the 2000's. I think of all the fighters Tyson didn't fight: Mercer, Bowe, Briggs, Morrison, Damiani, Foreman, etc. and when you think back on it, his resume gets less and less impressive. Sure, he was exciting, unpredictable and that made him the biggest PPV star in the world, but is he top ten worthy? I don't think so. I think he's in that #11-15 category.

Vitaliy is a top 5 heavyweight all time. Never been knocked down or stopped. Technically never lost a fight and beat up Lennox Lewis. On top of that came back from retirement at the age of 37 and boxed past the age of 41.
Considering his size and ability to box in a very unorthodox style he would most likely beat all the top heavyweights. The only ones who would give him difficulty in the ring would be prime Wlad and prime Foreman.

klitoris wrote:Technically never lost a fight and beat up Lennox Lewis.

I think you'll find technically Vitali lost to Lennox.

psychod1986 wrote:The Klitschkos's are definitely good boxers,but they haven't done enough to be considered in the same league as Dempsey,Willis,Tunney,are Joe Louis are Muhammad Ali.No amount of title defenses will hide the fact that the Klitschko's have never beaten an elite heavyweight boxer in their entire careers.To claim their underrated is terrible. Every win in both Klitschkos resume comes against fighters years and years beyond their prime with padded records,with no name fighters who they shouldn't been fighting with at all.The biggest & most impressive win on both Klitschkos resumes is Samuel Peter was the best fighter a Klitschko beat.The best opponent Vitali fought was the worst verision of Lennox Lewis an in the worst shape in his career and he still stopped Vitali.Since Vitali's defeat to Lewis,the brothers made a career out of dominating a very weak heavyweight division,although it wasn't their faults there opponents lacked quality.

You really want to compare the Klitschko's resume with Jack Dempsey's? Marrying actresses doesn't count for either Jack nor Wlad. Dempsey did split a couple fights with Fireman Jim Flynn and beat the great Wille Meehan.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:Do you consider Mike Tyson historically great?

Don't know if that question is towards me or someone else, but for my two cents.... I'm on the fence about Tyson.

Why? Cus the thought always comes back to me, that if it were anyone else, who defeated the same caliber of men that Tyson did on the way up and as champion... I don't know if I would have called them great... What made Tyson "great" was how he did it. If someone else had fought the likes of Tubbs, Thomas, Tucker, etc. and just won decisions over them nobody would have cared. So, its certainly not who Tyson beats that makes him great, its how he did it. I think in the years that have followed since his ultimate retirement, most can see that he wasn't the top man of the 80s' or the 90's. The 80's belonged to Holmes, and the 90's belonged to Holyfield. Lewis and Tyson and Bowe, were just there and had their successes. Lewis, though, managed to have his own time in the 2000's. I think of all the fighters Tyson didn't fight: Mercer, Bowe, Briggs, Morrison, Damiani, Foreman, etc. and when you think back on it, his resume gets less and less impressive. Sure, he was exciting, unpredictable and that made him the biggest PPV star in the world, but is he top ten worthy? I don't think so. I think he's in that #11-15 category.

Interesting parallels between Tyson and Dempsey including the nickname Iron Mike. They had somewhat similar styles and both were considered Massive Punchers, and were both loved/hated. It's not that they won but how they won. Both peaked early. Dempsey also avoided all the black fighters, even though he said later that he had wanted to fight them. Another way Tyson & Dempsey are similar.

I'd rate the K. Brothers higher than either one because The K brothers had staying power. Being American, I'd like to say different.

ttornado wrote:

klitoris wrote:Technically never lost a fight and beat up Lennox Lewis.

I think you'll find technically Vitali lost to Lennox.

Yes but Lewis only won by means of punching Vitali's face into the A&E so it doesn't count.

Nothing sickens me more than years and years of seeing the negativity and discrediting of the Klitschkos, especially Wladimir.

Wlad clearly is an ATG heavyweight.

I don't even bother to read the junk on threads like this. The Klitschkos were the most dominant heavyweights in the history of boxing, and contrary to what the US media keeps blubbering this in the most international and biggest and strongest period in heavyweight boxing history.

Some good posts by homicidehenry.

I think you have to consider the klitschkos greats. Where you rank them is one thing but for their accomplishments they are at least a part of the discussion.

The fact that they both had a large size [and talent] advantage may well play a part in their being not appreciated.
And yes vladimir did seem to show a certain aversion to any risk taking or artistic boxing and seemed unsteady under fire. Vitali meanwhile never lost a fight except by injury or cuts and seemed very dominant over his opposition. The fact that the threat vitali offered persrsuaded lewis into retirement is a point of credit.

I think ot is a fair guess to say that only the most talented of the big big men would have put away a prime vlad and that vitali would give any heavyweight in history a hell of a fight.

Wladimir Klitschko would have to be considered at the very least one of the Top 15 all time Heavyweights I would think simply because of the length of his reign, but the manner in which he lost went a long way in diminishing my opinion of him for sure.

I'm harsh on Vlad, always thought Vitali was the greater one.. but their both great.

There's no way of resolving these comparisons of fighters sometimes up to 100 years apart.

fanman wrote:I think you have to consider the klitschkos greats.

Come on, there are two of them. Wlad made good number of defences and dominated the division for ~10 years, so I agree he should be there.

But Vitali? Yes, he was dominant vs. B level fighters and his comeback is hard to believe. On the other hand, his best opponents are Lewis and Byrd... he lost both fights... and the first half of his career he was fighting tomato cans. I do not think wins over Peter, Johnson (both of them ), Arreola, Solis and Chisora make one an ATG.

I will just say that you have started an unlimited topic.....