Vitaly Klitschko fights Solis tomorrow

Chris Byrd lost to Ibeabuchi and Wlad, but for a brief fleeting year or so, May 2000 to July 2001, he was Americas Darling.

I sincerely believe that the Ring and ESPN people would eat all of a basic American cake than have slice of somewhat richer European gateaux.

Shit is shit but when its your shit then thats all the better..

 

Most disingenuous. He won the title after 18 months as a fighter. I guess thats cos Mike was so special and had nothing to do with the general ineptness of guys like Slammin Sammy, Irish Mick and Trevor Berbick.

I would give Tyson credit for what he did, post-Berbick to pre-Douglas, but his route to the Championship, rooted in the pre-Superheavyweight era as it was, is easily one of the easiest fastest-tracked routes to a heavyweight title on record.

 

DOH! I forgot! ::

 

True, I am a big fan of them but I also call it how I see it and I think I am objective, just like anyone else does.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I think you have said often that Klitshkos get along because they have the size edge (unfair), that they would have no chance against Holyfield, Holmes, Frazier and such (which I strongly disagree with) and that the division is worst ever (although not in great shape, it gets exaggerated a great deal). If I have gotten you wrong, I am sorry about that

 

Bullshit. If anyone is being disingenuous, it's you (as usual). The likes of Jameson and Scaff are not out of line for a fighter that early in his career.

Nice try at spinning things, but as usual you are talking out of your ass in your attempts to down other fighters in your attempt to make Wlad and Vitali look better.

And as usual..you are more interested in trying to sound clever than producing anything useful or actually worth reading.

 

What fighter am I "Downing"??

Tysons route to the WBC title was easy and fast-tracked.

Only fighter who maybe had it easier was Marciano.

I wasn't trying to make the Klitschkos look better. As far as preaching about the Klitschkos goes, there is no real point. People have their minds made up, either way.

 

I do think the Klitschkos do get by, at least partially, to their size advantge...which I don't think is unfair to say. And to be honest...I don't think it's objective to act as if their size advantage DOESN'T matter. Of course it does. And that doesn't mean I think they are the current version of Primo Carnera (sorry, Irish...I beat you to it.).

And I don't recall ever saying they would have NO chance against the fighters you mentioned. I either you are mistaking me for someone else or are exaggerating here.

And to me...the current division is in the worst shape for as long as I have been a fan. I never thought I would see the day when I wasn't at least interested in seeing a fight between top heavies of the time...but that is how I feel most of the time these days.

And like I told Hut-Hut...I WISH the division was better. It's not like I enjoy seeing the division being so lackluster.

 

Their size is definitely an advantage (and one they expertly exploit). Just like Ali's speed was. Nobody ever criticised Ali for winning because he was faster than everyone else, though. That'd be strange and absurd.

The division was probably in it's worst ever shape 5 years ago. It's now in better shape and looks to be improving, IMO. That just isnt apparent because we've got very dominant champions.

 

You keep mentioning a couple of journeymen that Tyson faced early on in his career as if anyone thinks they were significant. He fought better opposition than them as his career progessed, which you (as usual) choose to ignore. You are trying to make it sound like he fought the likes of Jameson and Scaff and then right from them into a title shot...which wasn't the case.

 

This. Foreman got by with his power and chin, Frazier got by with his upper body movement and stamina etc

Making such absurd claim would indeed be easily classified as being against the fighter in question

 

I just don't see your arguement about size. There is a reason there are weight classes in boxing (and I KNOW they are heavies).

And as for "expertly exploiting"...I don't know. It has worked well against the flotsam and jetsam they have faced, but I can't help but think better quality oppositon would find a way around the size advantage.

 

Yes, but their size is natural for the weight division they are in. By same standards you should punish Thomas Hearns for having so much reach for a welterweight and using it to his effect. Yet, nobody would probably rank Hearns lower historically even though he got by with his reach

 

I don't agree. The reason the cruiserweight division was created was because heavies were getting bigger and fighters who were a little too big for the light-heavies were at a size disadvantage.

So I don't see a size disadvantage being the same as some other attributes. It's easy and convienient to lump them all together and claim it's "absurd" to think so, but it doesn't work for me.

 

Well I'm glad you know it.:TLC: That's one weight class. Until that changes, they're fighting other heavyweights and should get judged on that basis. If size was all it took sans expertise, McCline, Valuev, Grant, Whitaker, Austin, etc etc etc etc would be great heavyweights, too.

 

Why not?

 

Wladimir is listed at 6´6 1/2
Lennox is listed at 6´5

I´d bet that on average the opponents of Wladimir were slightly taller than Lewis´. Does that mean Lewis was only successful due to his size?

 

I never said they strictly won due to being bigger, but to say being 5 or 6 inches taller and anywhere from 30 to 50 lbs heavier in a fight doesn't matter, is to me, being purposefully blind.

 

No, but I also consider Lewis to be a better fighter than either Klitschko.

And again...I NEVER (no matter how much the Klitschko apologists try to make it sound like I did) said they were successful ONLY due to their size.

But to pretend that their size isn't a significant advantage is just being stubborn.

The one time Vitali fought someone his own size who had world class skills, he lost. And that was a ready to retire Lewis who wasn't even at his best.

 

Wladimir was fighting guys like Ross Purritty, Axel Schulz and Phil Jackson 18 months away from his WBO title bid vs Chris Byrd.

18 months before he fought for the WBC title, Mike Tyson was facing Slammin Sammy Schaff and Irish Mike Jameson.


How do Sammy Schaff and Mike Jameson do versus Schulz, Purritty and Phil Jackson?

 

This conversation makes my head hurt.

Fine. Lets discount every win either man has had against guys under 240lb. They're the 2nd & 3rd greatest fighters in the +240lb division that you've seen fit to invent in the history of the entire sport. :Thumbs:

Agreed?

 

WTF?? This isn't rocket science. I get the feeling folks are just being difficult for the Hell of it.

I've already given my thoughts on size advantage. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over.

 

Whilst BWJ may not be the guy who first said that the Klitschkos only won because of their size, it does appear to be a special rule for them nonetheless, despite the fact that size, chin, style, stamina, speed, and power are but one of the few variables over which most fighters have no real control. We take fighters as we find them. It would be farcical if somebody wrote that Ali only won fights because of his speed, and that therefore his entire resume is up for review.

 

But you haven't yet told us why being bigger counts against a fighter while being faster does not, since both are mainly born attributes.

 

Should they fight on their knees to make it fair?

 

Yawn. I don't see this conversation being remotely productive because apparently some folks are more interested in being sarcastic than actually having a discussion.

I've said all I'm gonna say on this.

 

Don't quit. Quitting is for Quitschkos. Is that what you are? A Quitschko?

 

Whats your point here caller? Tyson rattled off 27 wins in said 18 months and generated enough excitement to warrant a shot. Wlad lost within his first 27 fights and subsequently had to rebuild public prestige with slightly harder fights like Shultz & Barrett (who're really the only guys much better than Green, Tillis or Jesse Ferguson at the time Wlad fought them).

I don't see what this tangent has to do with anything....

 

Ok I was being sarcastic and all, fair enough, but I'd be interested to hear your counter argument to UGBKs point about Hearns, it was a good one

 

Yawn. No matter what I say, you will disagree because it doesn't work in favor of the Klitschkos. And I hate wasting time. I've already wasted enough time talking to folks whose minds are already made up.

 

I for one am not trying to be sarcastic here, I just seriously can't follow your logic and for that I would like to understand.

If I have gotten it correct, you respect skills such as combination punching, movement, all-around skills etc. and you don't see Klitshkos being particularly good in these. The thing is though, you are going to be a bit clumsy and have trouble throwing hook combinations when you are 6'6, so I don't think it is fair to compare them directly to smaller guys that way either