Subpar Foe Doesn’t Mean Klitschko’s Not an All-Timer - Boxing News
U agree or disagree with this bullshit?
Printable View
Subpar Foe Doesn’t Mean Klitschko’s Not an All-Timer - Boxing News
U agree or disagree with this bullshit?
Klitschko is an excellent champion , you don't go on for that long if you are crap.
its the same old argument. yes he has the numbers but no he isnt an all time great. fortunate timing in the sport. he has improved over the years but he wouldnt be anywhere near as dominate if the division was at least decent.
Nobody said he was crap.. We are just questioning his " ATG " status..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
Longevity is its own form of substance. Look at Hop, at no point was he ever as good as Roy was at his best. But when people argue the best since Leonard they usually argue Floyd, Pac, and Hop. The only thing giving a Hop argument substance is longevity. If longevity is substance for Hop it can be for Wlad as well. The longer he reigns the more people will have to acknowledge the validity of his reign. Especially now that his brother is gone it removes the stigma "they" ruled. A faster way to legitimacy is a qualified rival but lacking that dominance over duration suffices.
All Time Great is understatement.
He's second only to maybe Lennox Lewis if anybody at all!
Most of Wladimir's good opponents would be champ previously let alone Wladimir himself imo.
Put Sultan Ibragimov in the 70's and he'd be whacking guys out left right and centre.
I hear you Ron but Wlad and Hopkins isn't a fair comparison imo..
Only way we can compare is Wlad's reign VS Hop's reign at 160 where they both made many defences against mediocre oppositions.
But Hopkins jumped up in weight to beat many elite competitions in a fairly deep division while Wlad has been dominating in the weakest era of his class against C level fighters..
Big difference..
its isnt the subpar foe that means hes not an all timer, there are so many other factors that make his reign insignificant
All champions have to fight mandatories. Wlad has been dominating for 10 years...he can only fight the heavyweights in his era so you can't hold that against him. All he does is win.
If it's not the opponents then what are those other factors that make this reign "insignificant".Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
I can think of not much more "significant" that has EVER happened in 150years of boxing like the HW championship being removed from it's base country and locked it down on the other side of the world. That will be hard to forget and a little hard to top don't you think?
Even if your not a Wlad fan and I know that's a lot, it's impossible to mistake the achievement.
other champs box :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerIf it's not the opponents then what are those other factors that make this reign "insignificant".Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
I can think of not much more "significant" that has EVER happened in 150years of boxing like the HW championship being removed from it's base country and locked it down on the other side of the world. That will be hard to forget and a little hard to top don't you think?
Even if your not a Wlad fan and I know that's a lot, it's impossible to mistake the achievement.
Your a hardline on that Wlad cheating thing aren't you eric..
Yes, Wladimir doesn't know how to box. I would say that nobody revolutionised boxing like Wladimir did. He proved that all those things that those previous champs did were unnecessary in the case of himself and next to worthless in the case of his opponents.
Every opponent has the same plan. They're going to move, they're going to feint, they're going to go to the body blah blah and then when the fight comes, it's not that they aren't good. It's that they can't!
Did you watch the Thompson and Wach fights again? MOST of Wladimir's fights are boxing matches with only a little wrestling.
Povetkin and Peter are the worst examples, nothing else is that bad.
He's had some stinkers like Ibragimov but that was about as pure a boxing match as you can get.
He just unfortunately doesn't have a crowd pleasing style at best, but why would he want to jeapordise his titles by being a reckless brawler if he doesn't have to?
Listen Wald is lucky that he got to come in after the 90's guys were getting old. Vitali might have a case as well but he could not dethrone old man Lewis they came at the right time. This division is like the 80's pretty much so i would expect there to be a long reigning champ. You are trying to compare these guys to old timers but if we go by that logic then these guys are lucky they weren't trying to be champs 20 years earlier really because they just be some top guys in the 90's and not these untouchables they are now at the moment. Wald got smacked down by contenders and a journeyman from 90's and if Vitali could not last with 38 year old Lewis, who in his prime a 38 year old Holyfeild hung with and i think deserved a draw. The Brothers might make it to the top 10 but you can't knock out old guys who did just as much in there times so kinda hard to judge were to really put them its not all about head to head, its about how resume is to how good are these guys they are fighting. Now i am only judging these by mid 80's and up is when fighters were getting bigger that's the realm in which they should be judge the 80's and the 90's.
I think the Klitschkos are for sure ATG HW champs, but it's just weird rating them because it's hard to separate them because they both cleaned up the HW division together.
I'm no fan of Klitschko's style, but a 10 year reign at the pinnacle of Boxing which is the Heavyweight Championship of the world in NEVER insignificant.Quote:
its isnt the subpar foe that means hes not an all timer, there are so many other factors that make his reign insignificant
In short, your statement is completely idiotic...
Wald doesn't want to be old school, he doesn't want to be everyone's favorite fighter, he doesn't want to have a pleasing style, he wants to win.
He is a boxer! Recently, some of you were posting about the jab being a lost art, Wlad could have beaten Leapai with his jab alone.
A lot of us want to downgrade what he has accomplished due to the sorry state of the heavyweight division. That is not his fault or his concern and beside what everyone wants to believe, I would give him an excellent chance against any past champion.
Is he the most exciting fighter I've seen? No, and half of the reason is because of his opponents. Is he fortunate he is the champion right now? Sure, but some of us talk like he should put out a disclaimer after every fight, something like this. "I'm a crap champion, all my opponents are crap, the heavyweight division is crap, don't watch my crap fights, and nothing is going to change in the foreseeable crappy future."
Man!! Let's give the guy a break, once in a while, he is doing the best he can with what he has to work with.
Wlad is legit. He'll never be ranked in the top 5 heavyweights of all time or even perhaps the top 10 heavyweights of all time. After that though, he clearly merits inclusion.
The heavyweight division has always been either the worst division in the sport or pretty damn close and if any of the local adolescent pee stains want to challenge this old senile prick on the fact then step up to the plate. Its one of the oldest and has been a lame division since 1865 while the other much better divisions around it carried little fanfare. Its also the geocentric division while carrying albeit the last remnants of racism
The reason is pretty basic and almost evolutionary. THEY ARE BIGGER. Its a phallic symbol and it has consistently proved to be the weakest both in competition and ability. This era stands out because you have a chinless safety first 7 foot 250 pound giant grappling bore fest as its messiah. Yeah I know whatever works right. Wrong.
In my old man opinion the mid sixties to mid seventies was the best division because of the competition levels and size similarity. There were no super heavyweights close to seven feet tall and those that came before the sixties that were close to that size were flailing trees in the wind.
Wlads going for the consec record. Its a quantity verses quality thing and you cant on the one hand shit on Joe Louis and then worship Wlad if he breaks it. If you do then its time to take out that I'm a dumb fuck t-shirt that you have not worn since you had to ask a buddy which way the condom goes on.
Louis - 25
Holmes - 19 or 20 if you include Frazier
Wlad - 15
Tommy Burns - 11
"Names" don't tell the story and never have. Roy Jones routinely gets beat by people that could not have been his bucket boy. But they will live off that in their community. Felix Sturm never left Germany after the Oscar fight and made millions. Poncho Villa beat Jimmy Wilde when the ghost with the hammer had one foot in the grave and because of that is more reviled then perhaps he should be.
Larry Holmes has some names. Most of which were in the same boat as Wilde before Villa. His timing on busting into the division was impeccable and no doubt orchestrated by Mr. King. Who did he beat and when did he beat them? Apparently karma caught up with him and he lost to a lh who had just moved up to that weight and with it matching Marciano's record. Every "name' opponent Holmes fought were pretty much done so his defenses fall under quantity not quality. Guys like Witherspoon, Willams and even Bonecrusher were all boxing virgins who barely had their feet wet. Anyway they were not names
Tommy Burns although an important historical figure for breaking the colour barrier and telling racists like author Jack London to go fuck himself didn't really do all that much. Jim Flynn and Philly Jack who had 100 + fights dont really cut the mustard and the Jack Johnson fight was a lark. Johnson not only carried him. it was arranged prior to the bout for the cops to come in and save the day. Big props for wearing 4 ounce gloves though. Burns took the title from Hart rather then stay at middle and fight Ryan. His first defense was against Jim Obrien who was 0-1-0 and then Walker who was 0-5-0. Then Flynn and Jack Obrien back to back drawing one of them. So that covers his first 5. Then Squires who was 19 and 1 followed by Moir who was 12/3. Now in fairness the 10 consecs started with Flynn so lets call him and Obrien 1,2,3 and Squires and Moir 4 and 5. Palmer was next at 23/7 followed by Roche who was 7/1. His eighth defense was against Jewey Smith who was 2/0 followed by two more fights with Squires. And then Bill Laing who was 16/4 prior to the Johnson fix.
Wlads consecutive reign is at least as impressive as Holmes or Burns if we are objective about things. In addition its been as good as other shorter reigns like Marciano and Johnson. Its always been at least for me the manner in which he goes about his "domination" I mean I understand that the idea is to get hit and not get hit but just as fundamental is the fact that it is a boxing match.
I'll end this the way I started it. The heavyweight division has always been the weakest division in boxing or second to cruiser at times after it came on stream regardless of the prestige it garners.
Even the golden era of the division was weaker then those others around it. For example, Durans light weight domination was completed overshadowed at the time.
absolutely palQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
boxing is a corrupt sport, we see that week in week out
but in my memory, wlads is the most consistently extended blatently corrupt reign in history, more corrupt than sven ottke, I long for the day he gets into some trouble and we'll see the lengths the refs and officials go to to keep him in the fight
mind you they go to pretty extreme lengths everytime he fights any way
and every fight of wlads I have watched since his second reign has consisted of extreme holding, not just those two, if youd like me to watch another, one you feel he didn't bass his strategy on holding then let me know :)
and for the record, Im not saying wlad cant box, he definitely can, and if he had have been made to fight within the rules all his carear he would have become champ and lost it and probably won it and lost it again, he wouldn't have had the reign he has had
Did he hold much this last fight eric?
No it does not mean he is not an ATG just as it did not mean it for Joe Louis, Tyson and Holmes. Longevity adds to a champions legacy
didnt watch itQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
i would be surprised if he didnt
but at the same time the level of opposition wasnt exactly frightening
just like if he got in with you he probably wouldnt need to hold, although he probly would just for old times sake :)
why would anybody bring up the "boring" style when it comes to being a great fighter? how about it never gets mentioned again from either side because it is a ridiculous argument.
wlad has already showed his weaknesses against average-below average opponents. once the division pretty much entirely cleared out, he started taking over. it wasnt a coincidence. i understand that his reign does raise his all time status, but that doesnt mean that he becomes a top 10 HW ever. he is in the top 20 based on his reign rather than what i perceive as skill. just like someone like bowe was probably better than HWs who are ranked higher than him all time, but he doesnt have much of anything to show for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44absolutely palQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
boxing is a corrupt sport, we see that week in week out
but in my memory, wlads is the most consistently extended blatently corrupt reign in history, more corrupt than sven ottke, I long for the day he gets into some trouble and we'll see the lengths the refs and officials go to to keep him in the fight
mind you they go to pretty extreme lengths everytime he fights any way
and every fight of wlads I have watched since his second reign has consisted of extreme holding, not just those two, if youd like me to watch another, one you feel he didn't bass his strategy on holding then let me know :)
and for the record, Im not saying wlad cant box, he definitely can, and if he had have been made to fight within the rules all his carear he would have become champ and lost it and probably won it and lost it again, he wouldn't have had the reign he has had
What about Muhammad Ali eric?
You cannot bash Wlad for cheating when most would agree that he would win most anyway.
Muhammad was gifted almost half an entire career, I would say that tops Wlad.
You cannot bash Wlad for cheating when most would agree that he would win most anyway. we will never know and its a daft point anyway, might as well give united a couple of penalties head start, theyd win the game anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44absolutely palQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
boxing is a corrupt sport, we see that week in week out
but in my memory, wlads is the most consistently extended blatently corrupt reign in history, more corrupt than sven ottke, I long for the day he gets into some trouble and we'll see the lengths the refs and officials go to to keep him in the fight
mind you they go to pretty extreme lengths everytime he fights any way
and every fight of wlads I have watched since his second reign has consisted of extreme holding, not just those two, if youd like me to watch another, one you feel he didn't bass his strategy on holding then let me know :)
and for the record, Im not saying wlad cant box, he definitely can, and if he had have been made to fight within the rules all his carear he would have become champ and lost it and probably won it and lost it again, he wouldn't have had the reign he has had
What about Muhammad Ali eric?
You cannot bash Wlad for cheating when most would agree that he would win most anyway.
Muhammad was gifted almost half an entire career, I would say that tops Wlad.
and i dont think he would have won all of those fights had he been stopped from cheating, maybe he would have gone in to them all as the better boxer? maybe he wouldnt, but at the very least one of his opponents would have got to him and the fights would have been a lot more entertaining in the main
Muhammad was gifted almost half an entire career, I would say that tops Wlad. I am too young to really appreciate the Ali era, i wasnt around to watch it whilst it was happening, the fights i have seen i havent seen any gifts, point me out one that is a gift and ill watch it. I know ali also fought subpar opposition, but i havent seen any excessive cheating
so i dont think it is anywhere near the reign of wlad in terms of consistent prolonged excessive corruption
There has only really been a few fights were i think Wald has over did it compared to past greats when i comes to holding. I think you have grudge because of the Haye fight were Haye ran then hugged Wald trying to blow him. Wald may not be the best to ever walk the planet but you have some grudge over him its got to be that i guess. Reason being before the Haye fight you never mention Wald in such a bad light but after he beat Haye and in that fight Wlad was not the one going for holds or running so it was pretty much Haye. I don't think you should hate Wald for that thought dude come on now.
:) you think so do youQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
you must have studdied my posts well
one point is tho, wlad has over held in more than just a few fights, id say its more like just a few fights where he hasnt
is it so inconceivable that all the people who wlad makes so rich wouldnt want wlad to still be champ in 10 years?
Well it was mostly in the Haye build up you kept building up Haye and pissing lyle off but you never called Wald a cheat till after he beat Haye and it was not Wald doing most of fouling could be wrong maybe there another reason you do. I am just saying before the fight you never called Wald a cheat before.
you are right i definately wasnt as vocal about it in the pastQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
i am bored of it now tho, id like the HW division back, it was always clear what was going on
before, during and after the haye fight and the several fights before and since all i hear is how much of gentlemen the klits are, how good they are for boxing
are they fuckers like, wlad cheats all the way through the majority of his fights and putting his opponents at more risk in the process, ok wlad is the champ and has a very good set up and is very good at what he does
see it for what it is tho
Eric not getting better when they leave dude just going to fighters worse then them pretty much. Might get more exciting i guess but in truth the level will go down. I may just disagree with you hear but out of all Walds fights i only think maybe 15 percent of them were he really over did but to each his own.
yep, if you dont think that what wlad is doing is extreme blatent cheating then each to their own as you sayQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
ill have to disagree with on your opinion that it wont get better once hes gone too
i think its will get a lot better, there might be a short low period, but once that is done we could have some exciting title fights again, only sticking point is if we get another wlad opperation taking over
Not many big men are like the Brothers for there size they are way fast and can really box when they feel like it only Bowie and Lewis were like them. I am pretty sure there won't be a reigning champ but the talent pool right now is not a good one really and the eastern Europeans are kinda kings of hws now.
His 70's fights. His version of holding is not just a clinch and a reset, it's wrestling with grabbing behind the neck and pushing the head down. His signature move was pushing the head down. Check out all the clinches in Ali/Frazier 1 and watch him do this. It's a lot worse than Wlad's style.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44You cannot bash Wlad for cheating when most would agree that he would win most anyway. we will never know and its a daft point anyway, might as well give united a couple of penalties head start, theyd win the game anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44absolutely palQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
boxing is a corrupt sport, we see that week in week out
but in my memory, wlads is the most consistently extended blatently corrupt reign in history, more corrupt than sven ottke, I long for the day he gets into some trouble and we'll see the lengths the refs and officials go to to keep him in the fight
mind you they go to pretty extreme lengths everytime he fights any way
and every fight of wlads I have watched since his second reign has consisted of extreme holding, not just those two, if youd like me to watch another, one you feel he didn't bass his strategy on holding then let me know :)
and for the record, Im not saying wlad cant box, he definitely can, and if he had have been made to fight within the rules all his carear he would have become champ and lost it and probably won it and lost it again, he wouldn't have had the reign he has had
What about Muhammad Ali eric?
You cannot bash Wlad for cheating when most would agree that he would win most anyway.
Muhammad was gifted almost half an entire career, I would say that tops Wlad.
and i dont think he would have won all of those fights had he been stopped from cheating, maybe he would have gone in to them all as the better boxer? maybe he wouldnt, but at the very least one of his opponents would have got to him and the fights would have been a lot more entertaining in the main
Muhammad was gifted almost half an entire career, I would say that tops Wlad. I am too young to really appreciate the Ali era, i wasnt around to watch it whilst it was happening, the fights i have seen i havent seen any gifts, point me out one that is a gift and ill watch it. I know ali also fought subpar opposition, but i havent seen any excessive cheating
so i dont think it is anywhere near the reign of wlad in terms of consistent prolonged excessive corruption
As for gifts, there are numerous examples but probably the most obvious would be Ali vs Young. He was pretty soundly beaten, yet awarded the victory only a little shame facedly.
I don't consider any of Wlad's fights cheating personally with the exception of a grey area in the Povetkin fight. That COULD be considered cheating.
Even his next most clutchy fight Sam Peter, there was only half as much grappling as Ali's most grabby affair vs Frazier and as noted the clinching for Wlad was legal there, for Ali it would today lead probably to disqualification.
So no I don't really understand where your going with Wlad cheating because otherwise you'd have to say the same for Ali for one.
And what about Ruiz, he held a lot. Foreman.. Foreman pushed ppl all the time.
just watched itQuote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerHis 70's fights. His version of holding is not just a clinch and a reset, it's wrestling with grabbing behind the neck and pushing the head down. His signature move was pushing the head down. Check out all the clinches in Ali/Frazier 1 and watch him do this. It's a lot worse than Wlad's style.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44You cannot bash Wlad for cheating when most would agree that he would win most anyway. we will never know and its a daft point anyway, might as well give united a couple of penalties head start, theyd win the game anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerQuote:
Originally Posted by erics44absolutely palQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
boxing is a corrupt sport, we see that week in week out
but in my memory, wlads is the most consistently extended blatently corrupt reign in history, more corrupt than sven ottke, I long for the day he gets into some trouble and we'll see the lengths the refs and officials go to to keep him in the fight
mind you they go to pretty extreme lengths everytime he fights any way
and every fight of wlads I have watched since his second reign has consisted of extreme holding, not just those two, if youd like me to watch another, one you feel he didn't bass his strategy on holding then let me know :)
and for the record, Im not saying wlad cant box, he definitely can, and if he had have been made to fight within the rules all his carear he would have become champ and lost it and probably won it and lost it again, he wouldn't have had the reign he has had
What about Muhammad Ali eric?
You cannot bash Wlad for cheating when most would agree that he would win most anyway.
Muhammad was gifted almost half an entire career, I would say that tops Wlad.
and i dont think he would have won all of those fights had he been stopped from cheating, maybe he would have gone in to them all as the better boxer? maybe he wouldnt, but at the very least one of his opponents would have got to him and the fights would have been a lot more entertaining in the main
Muhammad was gifted almost half an entire career, I would say that tops Wlad. I am too young to really appreciate the Ali era, i wasnt around to watch it whilst it was happening, the fights i have seen i havent seen any gifts, point me out one that is a gift and ill watch it. I know ali also fought subpar opposition, but i havent seen any excessive cheating
so i dont think it is anywhere near the reign of wlad in terms of consistent prolonged excessive corruption
As for gifts, there are numerous examples but probably the most obvious would be Ali vs Young. He was pretty soundly beaten, yet awarded the victory only a little shame facedly.
I don't consider any of Wlad's fights cheating personally with the exception of a grey area in the Povetkin fight. That COULD be considered cheating.
Even his next most clutchy fight Sam Peter, there was only half as much grappling as Ali's most grabby affair vs Frazier and as noted the clinching for Wlad was legal there, for Ali it would today lead probably to disqualification.
So no I don't really understand where your going with Wlad cheating because otherwise you'd have to say the same for Ali for one.
And what about Ruiz, he held a lot. Foreman.. Foreman pushed ppl all the time.
i couldnt put in words how far from being as bad as wlads style it is :)
thats an opinion, mine is much more positive on the state of the division without wladQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
like ive said a number of times i think wlad would have been beaten off at least one of his opponents over the last several years if he was made to fight within the rules
but lets say wlads cheating isnt cheating, lets say holding is in the rules, id rather have 5 years of less tallent and more excitement, id like to enjoy a HW title fight again
mind you the main reason i dont enjoy them is because wlad is allowed to cheat so much, if he wasnt his fights would undoubtably more exciting
Forget the Povetkin fight for a minute, we know that was the worst right.
Compare it to Sam Peter fight, there are more and more dirtier clinches in the Frazier fight than there were in Wlad's first fight with Peter.
What is it about Wlad that constitutes cheating to you? I'm confused now.
The whole holding thing got massively exaggerated after Povetkin as if he ONLY won that way.
Yet BEFORE that fight he was accused of it only mildly and more criticised for his endless jabbing.
nope there definately wasntQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
and i was of the opinion that wlad hurrendously excessively cheated by holding long before the provetkin fight, the provetkin fight was just funny
it amazes me that people actually defend it
it would be one thing if he adopted an exciting method of cheating, id accept people defending it because they enjoyed watching it
Well I don't condone the Povetkin fights holding, that was a bit much for me. I will defend him in the light of Muhammad Ali and John Ruiz employing similar or in my opinion worse tactics to win regularly.
As I said once before, Wladimir only clinches those short ass opponents who rush at him. If they tried to BOX Wlad they would get their face punched in. Wlad's optimal place to have his opponent, where he wants them, is at the end of his jab and later his right.
Foreman pushed his opponents off him to get them there. Wladimir grabs them and then seperates. I don't think that's cheating. I think it's a legal clinch. You cannot eliminate it from boxing, you must learn to clinch to survive.
look mate we are on opposite polls when it comes to opinion on this, i cant see how anyone could put what wlad does in anywhere near the same bracket as ali, forman, ruizQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
you asked me to watch ali v frazier, i did and the two are so far apart, they resemble different sports
if an alien came down from mars and you explained boxing to him, gave him the rule book then showed him a wlad fight and you said "would you say that this is boxing?" i reckon the little green fellow would say nah