What are your biases?

Ramonza has serious rose tinted glasses to any fighter that is not of this generation.

I'm not a fan of Vitali, and I'm not a fan of heavyweights in general, but Vitali wouldn't be easy pickings for any heavyweight.

He's big, he's tough, he's unpredictable, and surprisingly hard to hit.

Also his weird, sloppy looking punches are strangely accurate, he pretty much almost connects at a good rate.

I'd also make prime Holmes only a slight favourite, mainly due to speed and his excellent jab.

I also agree the worst style for Vitali is someone who could close the distance quick like Tyson, and reel off quick combos.

His fight against Arreola isn't exactly a good benchmark, the fat heathen brought nothing to the table, but looking at Vitali's whole career, it's clear he's very hard to beat, even if most of the time he does look somewhat beatable and sloppy etc.

 

He's very hard to beat through his career, because certain characteristics enhance that difficult, but moreso than the strength of the division? I am truly scratching my head to come up with a weaker era. His resume is pretty atrocious (through no fault of his own, but it's there). For all the criticism of, say, Holmes' era, almost all the top guys got themselves into shape to go a hard twelve or fifteen, & keep pressing until the end, however outmatched.

It is one thing to fight in a weak era (though this one is exceptionally lacking), but Klitschko has the compounded problem of fighting in an era where the sub-par contenders are not only in poor condition --- they are literally in worse shape than the average man on the street.

Klitschko is what he is. A very durable, hardened fighter with a good, solid jab, a great chin, pretty strong set of lungs, a decent punch & extremely limited in-ring fluidity, both offensively & defensively. He is a God amongst insects, as is his brother (who has always been the more talented of the two). Of course, I guess it's a lot easier to attack me, rather than discuss Klitschko as a fighter.

He simply isn't that great a boxer, & it has nothing to do with who was born when. That is beyond facetious.

 

The thing is though, what can Klitschko do about it without creating a time machine?

 

Nothing. I want to make clear that I'm not against fighters purely on resume, if they're lacking in this regard. Biggest example in my instance would be Ricardo Lopez, who I think is just the most beautiful thing with two gloves on. I mourn Lopez's case, because he's a man I think could do things in that ring which would've seen him best opposition ten times greater than what he actually did. His story is a sad one.

I cannot say I see anything similar when watching Klitschko (either of them, in fact). All I can do is assess their domination of an appallingly shallow era, compounded by the lack of conditioning of already-soft contenders, & analyse them as fighters, & what I perceive they can & can't do, & to what extent --- like anyone. I do feel, up against better adversaries, Vitali & his brother would not prove to be as great as some feel. Hey, that's Boxing. Debating is the business.

My conclusion is that they would each rank as top 20-25 all-time HW's. No higher.

 

Fair enough, I guess I'll have to agree to disagree, they might not be pretty imo but they are damn efficient, not fluid but they get the job done. I also think they would have been as efficient in any era too, but that's something we'll never know.

Good shout on Lopez by the way, absolutely incredible fighter, Alvarez gave him two good tussles though.

 

Where would you place them in history, Slice?

 

It's hard to say because their careers aren't over yet, but I would have Vitali somewhere around 15th to 20th right now. I think Wlad is more skilled as you say but Vitali has fought and beat better competition, plus has fought a legitimately great, top 10 heavyweight in Lewis on more or less even terms. Vitali has the opportunity to climb higher if he were to beat convincingly a guy like Haye, who whilst not an all-time great heavyweight, is one of the big name of his era. I pretty much agree with your placement of Wlad to be honest, as it stands, but he also has the opportunity to climb higher.

 

I don't think I would really argue tooth-&-nail with that, either.

 

No it isn't. I'm sure most posters here would agree with me, you clearly have a soft spot for those old time Marcus of Huckleberry fighters.

For instance, you stated that in boxing history, Corrales doesn't stand out in the bravery department. Absurd.

Name 5 fighters that are not just AS brave, but braver than Corrales, with reasons why.

 

Again, we go toward your perception I'm biased, rather than anything to do with Klitschko. I guess it would never occur to you certain factors would favour fighters of the past against current fighters, & that's where one is lead in their thinking? Must be a lot simpler to just write it off as, "Old-timer syndrome" --- something I'm sure you'd look the other way on if I were, "heavily biased toward modern fighters," as so many people are.

As for yuor challenge, I'd be happy to take you up on it. Truly. First, let me ask you this --- do you consider it a plausible case for me to make, or am I just wasting my time?

 

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that, because although I don't profess to have elite schooling in boxing history, I've seen my share of fights throughout boxing history.

I'm also a fan of a few old school fighters (Cerdan, Robinson, Hank, Carpentier, Louis). Louis is actually one of only a couple of heavyweights I like, Tyson being my favourite heavyweight of all time.

And from I have seen, I strongly disagree that Corrales' bravery is nothing exceptional in boxing history, in fact I think he's one of the bravest fighters ever.

By the way, I wouldn't look the other way on a bias towards modern fighters at all, some people are too biased towards modern fighters, like Ugo, but personally I think just by nature, modern fighters can become underrated in an all time sense. Not through any fault of most boxing fans, or any bias, it's more that they are taken for granted, they are here and now, they don't have the same magic and mythical status that the all time greats do. But looking at it objectively, I think Pacquiao is one of the very best fighters ever for example, alongside Duran.

 

True, Hide did well for a round, but remember also that it was the first time Vitali fought at world level and the leap from his previous opponents was huge so it might have taken some time from him to settle and adapt. Also Vitali back then didn't seem to have nearly the same confidence as after the Lewis fight. Against Larry Donald, another guy with pretty good movement and speed, Vitali didn't lose a round