Why the hate for big brother?

The Klitschko's divide boxing fans like no other when it comes to HW's. Modern fans and Europeans consider them the best ever and the current era the strongest and US/English fans and older gen consider them weak champions in a weak era.

All that aside though I completely understand how Wladimir can receive such criticism. Despite his dominance of the division never before seen, his fights are rather boring, systematic and sometimes outrageous with all the hugging. He seems not to want to engage in anything resembling a rough crowd pleasing fight.

But WHY in hell would anybody feel that way about Vitali? I have heard from guys like blockbust etc on this forum how bad Vitali is but really, his fights with Lennox, Johnson, Sanders and Williams were very impressive! He delivered us breathtaking smash fests against very strong opposition. He was not afraid to put his body on the line to deliver the results!

In my opinion Vitali Klitschko should also be considered alongside the other great exciting heavyweights. The good times didn't finish when Lewis retired but a little later when Vitali did!

I dont think anybody hates him. Its just that he has a goofy style and is holding the belt hostage ..

Why isnt he fighting stiverne? And he got his ass beat by an old, disinterested lewis.

How old was Lewis? 37? That's virtually prime for a modern HW! He was barely 5 or 6 lbs over his usual weight and seemed pretty bloody keen to fight in the lead up to it! Haven't you seent he pre fight interview with Lennox? I seen Lewis get spanked harder than I ever did before, not just caught with a freak big shot.

Lennox is virtually considered worldwide by most sober boxing fans as the greatest h2h heavyweight of all time and Vitali certainly gave him all he could handle. Where the disrespect comes from I don't know!

Yeah he's held the belt hostage long enough but he is about to retire and let Wlad, Arreola, Stiverne fight it out so I can't see the problem. It seems more like Euro hate to me! Sad!

Fair points. For brothers they certainly don't fight the same way and should never be grouped together like that. There's the fact that they inevitably wouldn't ever fight, and they are kind of a promotional entity to boot, I think people just judge them together for that. It has been a weak era, imagine if they weren't brothers and Wlad never fought Vitali lol.

I don't think it's a weak era at all. Haye, Arreola, Povetkin, Thompson, Peter, Stiverne and virtually all the top heavies through the 00's and 10's would be competitive in any era.

I think Vitali pre retirement could have spanked his little brother stupid and knocked him out. Wlad was more agile than Vitali and he fought aggressive back then but he had not the spirit or the chin of big brother. From Vitali's return though I feel Manny's training had turned the tides and from 07-08 onwards this Wladimir beats Vitali but not in an impressive fashion.

My top 6 prime for prime, h2h all time are

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Wladimir Klitschko
3. Vitali Klitschko
4. Riddick Bowe
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Mike Tyson

i dont mind them. they are just very overrated by some people. i understand that wlad is just a boring fighter but that doesnt factor into what i think of him as a fighter.

They are publicly down trodden by an enormous percentage of the boxing world whilst being the heavyweight champions for the best part of a decade and so dominant no clear top contender exists. Only 1 other heavyweight has ever done this (Lewis). How can they be "overrated".

Who had better win opponents than the Klitschko's?

Lennox Lewis? Maybe

Evander Holyfield? Perhaps

But none of the below...

Riddick Bowe? Fought mismatched opponents for the most part and only wins of great significance are against Holyfield!

Mike Tyson? Fought bums until he won the championship, fought good fighters until he got locked up, then fought shit for wins and everytime he stepped up to the plate for the big time got wasted!

Larry Holmes? Fought a lot of bums but some good opponents too. The good opponents like Witherspoon gave him all he could handle, he got beaten by cruiser Spinks and wasted by Tyson. Best win was probably a green Mercer.

Muhammad Ali? Fought bums and cruisers when "prime", Liston was a plodder, this Ali was too weak to threaten a modern HW. A stronger 70's Ali indeed fought better opponents but apart from George Foreman they were nothing special. Frazier and Norton would be knocked out today by journeymen and Shavers barely knew how to box! Lyle was no better than Austin or Brock.

George Foreman? Beat exclusively bums and weak jawed opponents. Only barely could box. Everytime he faced a decent opponent (Young, Ali, Holyfield, Morrison, Briggs) he lost!

Only Klitschko's, Lewis and Holyfield can claim to have "beaten strong opponents".

wlads reign is stoopid, how anyone can buy the level of corruption in his fights is beyond me

vitali tho is exciting at times although it seems to be gone now and i doubt he will fight a top contender again

Wlad is a bori fighter that uses his advantages well in a weak division.

Vitali is a solid and fairly exciting fighter, that would have worked well in any era.

Wlad's dominance of the division never before seen? The only thing never before seen is someone being lauded as a standout dominant champion with a tag-team partner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

They are publicly down trodden by an enormous percentage of the boxing world whilst being the heavyweight champions for the best part of a decade and so dominant no clear top contender exists. Only 1 other heavyweight has ever done this (Lewis). How can they be "overrated".

Who had better win opponents than the Klitschko's?

Lennox Lewis? Maybe

Evander Holyfield? Perhaps

But none of the below...

Riddick Bowe? Fought mismatched opponents for the most part and only wins of great significance are against Holyfield!

Mike Tyson? Fought bums until he won the championship, fought good fighters until he got locked up, then fought shit for wins and everytime he stepped up to the plate for the big time got wasted!

Larry Holmes? Fought a lot of bums but some good opponents too. The good opponents like Witherspoon gave him all he could handle, he got beaten by cruiser Spinks and wasted by Tyson. Best win was probably a green Mercer.

Muhammad Ali? Fought bums and cruisers when "prime", Liston was a plodder, this Ali was too weak to threaten a modern HW. A stronger 70's Ali indeed fought better opponents but apart from George Foreman they were nothing special. Frazier and Norton would be knocked out today by journeymen and Shavers barely knew how to box! Lyle was no better than Austin or Brock.

George Foreman? Beat exclusively bums and weak jawed opponents. Only barely could box. Everytime he faced a decent opponent (Young, Ali, Holyfield, Morrison, Briggs) he lost!

Only Klitschko's, Lewis and Holyfield can claim to have "beaten strong opponents".

---

this is about my limit. ive tried to give you the benefit of the doubt up until now but this post just pushing me over the edge. the 70's is known as the golden age of HWs, yet you are saying that right now, which is known as the worst HW division in history, the HWs are better? if austin and brock are as good as lyle then the klits would have to be #1 and #2 HWs of all time. if as you say, this HW division is so good, i might even say that the klits are the best of all time p4p since they are so easily walking through everybody.

lets take a look at a great fighter from the past. ill take joe louis. he fought all bums obviously. hence the name "the bum of the month." he almost lost to a light HW which makes him no match for anybody in this day and age because they are too big. oh wait! i forgot that he fought multiple big guys. primo carnera was 6'5 1/2 260 pounds, max baer was 6'3 210 pounds, buddy baer was 6'6 250 pounds, abe simon was 6'4 240 pounds. he also lost to schmelling who was 200 pounds and charles who was a former light HW. actually, that list right there is already a lot better than todays HWs and there are more people that louis fought.

the big factor is so overrated. like i always say, there is a reason that the klits took over once lewis retired along with the other decent HWs of the time. its because they werent good enough to dominate with some competition. again, if you truly think that people like ray austin and calvin brock are as good as ron lyle then you must have only heard names of old boxers but never seen them fight. and those 2 fighters were never even thought of to be any good by anyone. ray austin has always been known to be a bum. so again, if he is that good, this HW division is amazing which makes the klits the best ever. and we all know that isnt true.

so like i said before, i dont mind the klits, but i just dont like that they are overrated. although ive never seen anybody overrate them as much as you. i might as well start claiming that chris john is the best featherweight ever because of his dominance of the featherweight division.

Sorry powerpuncher but you have just upstaged yourself with that comment. Take a good look at 193lb Scmelling who today we would regard as a cruiserweight. Not one CW would come to fight looking like Scmelling today for a start and his style was so crude by today's standards he wouldn't stand a chance in that division today let alone against the heavyweights.

More the point, those giant heavies of the past Louis fought are NOTHING like the giant boxers that are common place today, where a 220lb 6'2" fighter might be considered "too small to make a serious impact!!" sometimes. Simon, Carnera, Baer, they were all absolute oafs! The Nikolay Valuev's of the distant past relying completely on their size to be effective. The big guys today are skilled fighters and tremendous athletes as well as being tall and heavily muscled.

In Louis's day the small guys had the skills. Today the big guys have the skills as well! Joe Louis was wasted by Scmelling and almost knocked out by Danni Devito look alike Tony Galento. What HW today would seriously be threatened by him? Louis is an ATG but he is no Evander Holyfield or David Haye and cannot really cut it with good big men. Only with acromegalic Carnera and co.

The real golden age was the 90's. More specifically from the crowning of Tyson to the 1st retirement of Vitali. This was a global era with the opening up of Eastern Europe in competition with great American and British heavyweights. It was an era of superheavyweight punchers and the most exciting fights ever captured on film.

I never claimed guys like Austin were great in this era. Only that guys like that would be a handful for champs of the past.

Ali got dropped by Cooper, Louis got dropped by Galento. Austin would knock Cooper and Galento out without a fight!

I thought @Saddo had started this thread in the wrong section. :-\ ;D

vitali has slowed down quite a bit from his entertaining best before his first retirement but he is still very far removed from a boring style in my opinion... he looks very awkward but he gets out the way of punches well and throws back and doesnt over clinch... Why do some people "hate"? errr because its the internets and that what people do if you like someone you make up reason why their great and if you dont then you make up reason why they are crap S: the truth is out there... somewhere :S

No hate, fact remains they were seen as vulnerable in era where heavyweight competition was stepped up a gear. Not exactly a high gear at that.

The way they market themselves as atg does grate boxing aficionados due to the lack luster resume they both carry. the long enduring ring entrances and pre match pageantry is sickening. (though still entertaining) The boring style shameless style Wladimir possesses, I give Vitali credit where it's due though, he's tough as nails a lot more interesting

The arrogant righteous elitist position they take on their image is annoying and a turn off for anyone who prefers not to caress his balls. The slave contracts they have their opposition take because they have cornered the HW market is uninspiring. There's more

@Max Power praising Vitali is not a bad thing to do, he is a good fighter or was. However you do not have to critize the 1970's era. That is crazy.

Ali fought 3 greats and we never got to see his prime. Greatness is not determined by size otherwise Valuev would have been the greatest, it is determined by what they achieved, against top fighters, showing great courage, heart and determination.

Vitali Klitschko's resume consists exclusively of unbeaten or virtually unbeaten top ranked highly skilled fighters (since championship days) of which there are a lot of elite power punchers. How much better a resume can you possibly get?

The only difference between the quality of Lewis's resume which nobody questions and the resume of the Klitschko's is that the names on Lewis's resume are recognisable to American and British fans and that is the whole thing!

The stand out names for LEwis were Holyfield and Tyson which were past their best when LEwis fought them.

Ibragimov wasted Briggs and Holyfield.... Wladimir dispatched Sultan.
Williams bashed Tyson.... Vitali slaughtered Danny!

It's clear. The opponents of the Klitschko's are no worse than what Lennox had atleast at the time he fought them.

Golfer Corrie Sanders is no worse for example than Grocery store owner Zelijko Mavrovic!

@Master

I'm not criticising the 1970's, Ali fought everybody who was anybody against some tough contenders and emerged the best. George Foreman, Larry Holmes also products of that great time.

I'm simply highlighting that if you scrutinise that resume some of his opponents were not exactly stellar and certainly overmatched!

Of the entire 70's the only heavyweights who would provide any serious level of competition to the 90's, 00's and today's landscape would be a 74 style Muhammad Ali (the 220lb lean version who beat Foreman not the skinny kid from the 60's or the fat plodder who lost to Leon) and not surprisingly Larry Holmes and George Foreman who did in fact compete in the 90's!

Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes were the last of the great outfighters who were not particularly big punchers and had very limited inside game but made up for it with their handspeed and their range as well as advanced ring IQ. Foreman was the tanker of the 70's and 90's, could hit hard and take a lot of punches, a formula for success in any era and into advanced age.

Ron Lyle was a good fighter and tough opponent but seriously watch his fights. This isn't a masterful boxer or a particularly devastating hitter compared to what would come later. His fight with Foreman really outlined how limited both guys really were. I think he would do ok today but no better than any other Klitschko opponent.

And no chinny fighters like Frazier or Norton could ever hope to survive in an era of superheavyweight punchers I'm sorry but that's a fact!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Sorry powerpuncher but you have just upstaged yourself with that comment. Take a good look at 193lb Scmelling who today we would regard as a cruiserweight. Not one CW would come to fight looking like Scmelling today for a start and his style was so crude by today's standards he wouldn't stand a chance in that division today let alone against the heavyweights.

More the point, those giant heavies of the past Louis fought are NOTHING like the giant boxers that are common place today, where a 220lb 6'2" fighter might be considered "too small to make a serious impact!!" sometimes. Simon, Carnera, Baer, they were all absolute oafs! The Nikolay Valuev's of the distant past relying completely on their size to be effective. The big guys today are skilled fighters and tremendous athletes as well as being tall and heavily muscled.

In Louis's day the small guys had the skills. Today the big guys have the skills as well! Joe Louis was wasted by Scmelling and almost knocked out by Danni Devito look alike Tony Galento. What HW today would seriously be threatened by him? Louis is an ATG but he is no Evander Holyfield or David Haye and cannot really cut it with good big men. Only with acromegalic Carnera and co.

The real golden age was the 90's. More specifically from the crowning of Tyson to the 1st retirement of Vitali. This was a global era with the opening up of Eastern Europe in competition with great American and British heavyweights. It was an era of superheavyweight punchers and the most exciting fights ever captured on film.

---

from that statement right there you lose all credibility from anybody who knows anything about boxing thus a debate with you is pointless.

You cannot seriously be implying a champion from 80 years ago would be anything but a journeyman for a modern HW! Those are very rose coloured glasses your wearing if you are!

you cannot seriously be considering that david haye is better than joe louis. again, talk to any boxing expert and they would all call you crazy.

That depends on what kind of boxing "expert" your talking about? A historian? Means little to nothing!

A modern boxing analyst with no idealogical axe to grind will look at the footage of Louis, notice his rudimentary boxing skills in a sport that wasn't even technically complete yet (more of a barn yard brawl) coupled with his lack of speed, size, conditioning and power and conclude that Joe Louis would probably not be advised to box as a professional today (assuming he did not receive the same training and diet a guy like Haye has which changes the whole scenario).

To be simple, I give Louis about... FIVE SECONDS before Haye finds his jaw and KHTFO!

Louis fought not a single opponent who has any relevance to modern boxing at all.

Could you imagine how hard you would be laughed at were you to claim that a football lineman from 1930 could win best on ground in 2013 on a football forum? Sorry but comedy gold mate! ;D

the football analogy doesnt work because of the size difference between now and then. the linemen now are so much bigger now.

anyways, i am just going to assume that you have never actually watched anybody fight before the 90's because of the things that you say. joe louis is such a complete fighter. he is probably the best combination puncher that i have ever seen. he has great footwork and throws almost technically perfect punches.

you act like people in the 30's and 40's are the same as fighters from 1890. by the time louis came around, boxing had been around for a long time. its not as if it was still brand new. there were great training camps and they had great conditioning techniques. actually, the HWs back then were far superior conditioning wise than the HWs now.

go watch a sugar ray robinson fight and tell me that he wouldnt be relevant today.

i dont get why a boxing historians opinion means nothing when they have studied boxing for years and have seen so many fights and know so much more than you. that makes no sense at all. that just means that you want to be ignorant probably because it is bliss. thats what i hear anyways.

and again, saying that haye would KO louis in 5 seconds is beyond laughable and makes you look very uneducated in boxing history so if i were you, i would refrain from saying things like that so that for future reference people arent thinking that you are stupid.

Of course SRR would be relevant today. But unfortunately for you and your kind I HAVE seen the fights. Joe Louis does not look like an all world beater today. Do you really think Haye would lose to Schmelling or get dropped by Tony Galento? Come man the quality of boxing is so bad nobody watches it for any reason other to compare how far we have come.

SRR had a WIDE wide open defence and when you analyse his ring craft and scrutinize his performances properly you see he doesn't really stand a chance against Mayweather and modern greats.

Sorry but you have exposed yourself as a nostalgist! And that's fine if you are, but you wont be selling me on a fantasy past that for the most part, never actually existed.

I've seen my fair share of fights to know the truth Mr. Puncher ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Of course SRR would be relevant today. But unfortunately for you and your kind I HAVE seen the fights. Joe Louis does not look like an all world beater today. Do you really think Haye would lose to Schmelling or get dropped by Tony Galento? Come man the quality of boxing is so bad nobody watches it for any reason other to compare how far we have come.

SRR had a WIDE wide open defence and when you analyse his ring craft and scrutinize his performances properly you see he doesn't really stand a chance against Mayweather and modern greats.

Sorry but you have exposed yourself as a nostalgist! And that's fine if you are, but you wont be selling me on a fantasy past that for the most part, never actually existed.

I've seen my fair share of fights to know the truth Mr. Puncher ;)

---

Just out of curiousity, have you ever boxed? What do you consider 'rudimentary' about joe Louis? He punches like a boxing textbook.

What is wrong with you @Max Power? You seem an intelligent guy.

If Joe Louis lived today with the diet and training he would be over 200lb today. With Louis technique, skills and power he would be a force in any time period. Greatness is defined by what you did in your time period and against your respective opponents. Joe defended his title 25 times, that is a mark of greatness.

David Haye has beaten Ruiz and Audley. He lost to Thompson. There is no comparison.

Yeah sure I have, I wouldn't be here otherwise.

And yeah I've heard this one before "The most text book puncher". It's almost as scripted as some of Broner's interviews.

What exactly does that mean? What pro boxer would NOT be able to throw a text book punch? Honestly by definition that is what a fighter is supposed to be able to do BEFORE they turn pro!

So are we comparing Louis's right hand to Lennox's, his jab to Larry's his hook to Morrison's or his uppercut to Tyson's now?

Louis was dominant because he lived in an era where larger heavyweights were devoid of anything we might call skills and of the ones who did have them he was the biggest. A bruiser to be sure, but technical marvel he was not! And at 6'2" 205lbs there is no "master plan" that he could implement to gain a victory over most modern HW's.

I can't imagine Louis beating Jones Jr. or Ruiz to be honest.

I can't imagine Louis beating Jones Jr. or Ruiz to be honest.[/QUOTE]

You must be playing with us, nice joke. :)

How old are you guys? I am 32. To be making claims that an ancient warrior like this would equate to anything more than a punch bag today you must be 100 years old or atleast a relative of his family! :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

How old are you guys? I am 32. To be making claims that an ancient warrior like this would equate to anything more than a punch bag today you must be 100 years old or atleast a relative of his family! :cool:

---

But what is your boxing background? What do you know about it, about how to throw punches, footwork,etc...? Because Joe Louis throws perfect punches, every one of them, and his footwork/balance is impeccable. That seems to be the opinion of most boxing people, from Eddie Futch to Freddie Roach.

I'm wondering if Max power and powerpuncher aren't actually the same person with some kind of low grade Schizophrenia:D I like the idea very much.

Did you seriously say Louis had rudimentary boxing skills? Please log off and never post on here again.

Now I am no pro or coach my friends, but Futch and Roach are trainers and have a vested interest in making claims like that. The facts are, they like us have access to video footage of Louis and to word of mouth.

I'd rather believe in my own 2 eyes because I can SEE that Louis's style of fighting with his total package would not be nearly as competitive today as it was in his day.

Louis was the most skilled of his time, I'll give you that!

Tell me then powerpuncher, I would like to know how, in what way, that you suppose Joe Louis has better balance and footwork and better punching technique than modern fighters?

Because they and their coaches have access to the same footage and material of Louis as you do and what you are implying is that they are all and have been stupid and ignorant for nearly the last century to implement and build upon Louis's skills and refine them as in every other sport.

Have fun watching your black and white footage of Joe Louis beating bums of the month while I enjoy colour HBO with the soothing anecdotes of my mate Larry Merchant enjoying such classics as Bowe vs Holyfield.

@Master I am not claiming Haye is greater than Louis, his achievements come nowhere near of course, in this regard Louis is #1. And bring Louis to modern times, give him modern training and diet then sure he would be a force but as they are/were, h2h, Louis loses big!

However all is not as it seems. The "heavyweight division" of Louis's time is the "cruiser AND the heavyweight" divisions of today combined. NOW when you compare the records of the 2 fighters you will see that David Haye's resume is out of the world good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

@Master I am not claiming Haye is greater than Louis, his achievements come nowhere near of course, in this regard Louis is #1. And bring Louis to modern times, give him modern training and diet then sure he would be a force but as they are/were, h2h, Louis loses big!

However all is not as it seems. The "heavyweight division" of Louis's time is the "cruiser AND the heavyweight" divisions of today combined. NOW when you compare the records of the 2 fighters you will see that David Haye's resume is out of the world good!

---

Haye has a better resume than Louis. :vd: In the words of Roger Mayweather: "You don't know shit about boxing".

I have just pulled up Joe Louis resume to reassure myself I am not mistaken... And wasn't.

Ok VG_Addict, what opponents of Louis are of better quality than Haye's COMBINED record of cruiser and heavy? Is it 193lb Schmelling who can barely support his bodyweight on his stick legs or the acromegalic Carnera who is just a small version of Valuev with even LESS boxing skills??? OR perhaps it is that emporer penguin Galento who I'm not sure would even be ALLOWED to box with David Haye. You know the guy who drank a gallon of whiskey before each bout and almost had Louis knocked out.

Yeah Haye would be sweatin them guys!! lol

You mean besides Jersey Joe Walcott?

Look I know Walcott is a skilful boxer and all that. But his performance even against his olden days opponents was not exactly the stuff champions are made of. He is like Carl Williams of the 80's, good fighter but a borderline bum with regards to record. Not a challenge for a modern HW! He LOST almost 25% of his fights!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

I'm wondering if Max power and powerpuncher aren't actually the same person with some kind of low grade Schizophrenia:D I like the idea very much.

---

you caught us. me and my other half just like to get on here and debate.