What are your biases?

With the plethora of "titles" available during both decades, it's silly to assume that both brothers would never have won a title.

 

I think PBF is a great fighter. And I was a big fan of his when he was at 130 and 135. But I don't think he's as good as people say or think he is. If he were, he would not have been so careful all these years about who he fought. The plain fact is, PBF probably would have losses on his record at this point had he conducted his career the last six years like a true champion does.

 

Anyone saying Wlad and Vitali couldn't have replicated what guys like Bruce Seldon, Frank Bruno, Berbick, Smith, Tubbs (or for that matter Chagaev, Maskaev, Byrd, etc) managed is just being provocative.

But guys like Tyson, Holmes, Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe etc would have edged them out, IMO.

 

I'm agreeing with you in large part, but only Lewis is the pick over the Klitschkos in my mind.

I think a good argument can be made for Bowe. I think an okay argument can be made for Tyson. I think a weak argument can be made for Holmes. I think no argument can be made for Holyfield. Sure, Holyfield could win against a Klitschko--he got the win against Bowe one time--but he is a loss machine at heavyweight for a reason: He wasn't all that great as a heavy.

 

Dude beat Bowe, Tyson and went close enough with Lewis in the rematch to suggest he would have edged him out in his prime. 'Loss machine?'. He beats either Klitchsko. Tyson KTFO Wlad and makes Vitali fight cautiously enough to drop a decision in a total stinker. Bowe would KO Wlad....though Vitali-Bowe would be problematic, IMO. 50/50 fight. Holmes beats either one going away. IMO.

 

In 1996, Tyson was about finished. Just because Vegas didn't know,doesn't mean it wasn't so.

 

I didn't have Holy winning any Bowe fight, but even if you did have him winning the 2nd, it's not like Bowe was in his best shape. His wins over Tyson are excellent, but Tyson is not either Klitschko in any way. He is far easier to hit, far easier to headbutt, and his power is far less straight. Holyfield got out-pecked by Moorer. Holy almost got outfought by a 5'1" Qawi. He is simply overrated, imo. I thought Lennox owned him in both fights. And then you get into the Ruiz days...

Holmes couldn't beat a lot of fighters going away. Hell, I thought he could have lost the decision to The Truth. I like Holmes a lot, but I don't think he beat anyone like the Klitschko's.

I was never a Bowe fan, but Bowe brings things to the table that the Klitschko's haven't seen. An in-shape Bowe is a handfull for anyone who has ever existed because of his talent and his heart.

 

Cool. One way or another they're all interesting fights. I wonder if one day a super computer will answer all these questions for us.::

 

Picking a fight at the point in his Holmes' career where he was clearly slipping doesn't exactly prove anything.

 

I always said that, in 2000, Wlad had the beating of Holyfield. Too much jab. Wlad would have gassed after 7 rounds but Holyfield would have been beaten so badly by then as to be incapable of mounting any offense, and the fight would be stopped. As you say yourself, once Holy couldn't get the old nut working then he would be in trouble.

 

Holmes was hurt by Cooney, who had maybe one infinitesimally small fraction of the variety and nous that Vitali had. He wasn't slipping the night Cooney took him 12 rounds and hurt him with a body shot that left Larry holding the ropes. That said I always liked Holmes as a guy who, in his prime, could defuse dangerous fighters.

 

Klitschko infinitely better than Cooney?

They were both good, not great fighters. Certainly, one was not infinitely better than the other.

 

I guess it's just as well nobody actually said that, then.

 

I'd say your statement could reasonably be interpreted to imply Klitschko was a far, far better fighter. Is that not what you meant or believe, then?

"Vitali Klitschko" &, "Nous" in the same sentence is difficult enough for me to comprehend.

 

A picture is a thousand words..............

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlwX2BHkMcA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlwX2BHkMcA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Yes, Klitschko was a better fighter than Gerry. Gerry had a left hook, Vitali has a lot of cute punches, as alluded to by Manny Steward in the above clip.

I never said Vitali was "infinitely better", I said Cooney had a fraction of the variety and cuteness that Vitali has. But Vitali was better and would have done a lot better verus Holmes, Spinks and Foreman than Gerry did.

 

Vitali would clearly have done alot better against Holmes than Cooney

 

I have to disagree. Klitschko has become such an over-rated figure since little brother was blasted out a few times.

 

So? Cooney was definitely a harder one shot puncher than Vitali. Cooney had flaws, but he was a legit powerpuncher who was capable of hurting any heavy with one shot. Vitali is a fighter who scores his stoppages by accumulation. And it's not like Cooney was a bad fighter, he just wasn't the fighter the media hoped he would be. And Cooney was finished and just in it for the cash by the time of the Spinks and Foreman fights, so using those as examples don't work.

 

Sorry, I am not impressed with this clip of Vitali beating on a fat, crying heavybag.

 

Do you mean that was posted as an advertisement for Klitschko?

For all the criticism of his competition, even fossilised versions of Lyle, Norton & Young would rank ahead of the likes of Arreola.

 

One thing I'll say about Vitali - his defence is purely about judgement of range and having the footspeed along with his height to get him out of harms way. That's pretty much all he's got. Against guys like Peter, Johnson, Areloa, etc it's money, but I think aggressive guys with quick feet (Tyson, Holyfield for instance) would have given him serious problems & made him look very ungainly.

 

Quick feet helps but I dont think it'd be enough,.. the only way to tag them really is either a stinking, strict counterpunching spoiler who plays the "follow me, follow me" game,.. or fighters who rival thier own heights,.. Vitali ESPECIALLY can have his defence mechanism completely unravelled by a height rival,.. Lewis landed frequent bombs and despite this, he still wouldn't put his hands up,.. :: ,..he archs and bends around a bit, but he's a real sucker for a jab against a tall opponent. Barely any exist though because most tall heavyweights are weighed down by thier mass too much and get beat by more nimble heavyweights before they even reach contender status.

 

Vitali would beat the crap out of Holmes.

 

His height and power would cause Holmes problems...but Holmes is technically much better. As such things more than even out and I would make Holmes to slight favourite.

 

agREED. Vitali's a stylistic puzzle for most, but one the Holmes of say 77-82 was smart enough and still FAST enough to solve. The only times Vitali has faced heavyweights who weren't slow as molasses, (Hide & Byrd) I saw more than enough to suggest a guy of actual quality with comparable footspeed would make Vitali look very clumsy and scrambling. And limit that amazing output of his CONSIDERABLY. (yes I know Hide got knocked the fuck out in 2, his chin would be glass at welterweight). I regard Vitali as an excellent fighter, BTW I think he would be a top, TOP contender in any era, including the 70s and a champion at some point in most. He's just not quite as good as the very top guys.

 

I think he'd be exposed in a manner a lot of people seem to think unlikely against most all-time greats, & be beaten by a great number of top contenders through the division's history. I simply don't see a great fighter on any level, save perhaps durability. Good, yes, but his flaws are completely concealed by the puddle-depth of a division choking on mediocrity.

 

Nah....

What is going on is that his awkward unconventional style that is deemed "sloppy and amateurish" by purists such as yourself (and with good reason)..has actually distracted you..actually has concealed the fact that his physical gifts: height, power, chin, weight, athleticism and stamina are tremendous in combination....better in fact than 99% of historical heavyweights.

His gifts make up for his deficiencies in style and convention and that's why he'd prove difficult to beat in any era.

 

You know what, you're right, I was watching the Hide-Klitschko fight again the other day and Hide showed in the first three minutes the right plan to beat Vitali. It sounds stupid as it was just one round but Vitali looked completely befuddled. Hide was landing hard shots, and picking his moments at the right time. If I was David Haye I would base my gameplan around that.

 

More difficult than he otherwise would be, yes (so I can see what you're saying), but difficult, outright? I do not believe so. He's a sitting duck for any fluid boxer.

 

Agreed on all counts. And in the context of the whole MM angle it's worth noting that Hide is a good 3 inches shorter than Ali or Holmes and a sight naturally smaller. That first round is why Im so convinced Holyfield would beat him too since Hide basically fought like a poor mans Holyfield there stylistically, making Vitali look very clumsy. IMO, Vitali is another in the historic line of dominant heavyweight champions who've come along with a new innovative style as cyrptonite to the dominant heavyweight model of that era - in todays case big fat losers who move like they're boxing in setting concrete.