A few questions about the Klitchko's from a boxing newb

[McMurder]

A what?

a "rake" is a old boxing term describing a guy who get's knocked down that will get to his feet almost immediately and hit you in face without warning similar to accidentally setting foot on a rake and having it pop up and hit you in the face.

You would be hard pressed to find a rake in this day and age.

 

[StompHisFace**]

i like the fact the the top 2 are white guys !

 

[Pirao]

They are hated because they aren't american, and americans were used to dominating the HW division, just like Lewis was, when he was still active. They'll be better viewed when they retire, as european HWs will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future.

 

[Kimura77]

........nevermind,i started a new thread

 

[amhlilhaus]

1) Based on dominance top 15.
P4P sucks.

3) They'd lose to Ali, beat Tyson.

.

beat tyson is a ridiculous proposition when wlad shits when someone tries to punch him, still to this day against people nowhere near as fast, or hard hitting, as mike tyson.

vitali has the stones to fight him, but wlad would crumble after just a couple of rounds, or get dq'd for repeated football tackles.

 

[smithgr]

They are beating everyone put in front of them generally by TKO or KO but they are generally safety first fighters softening their opponents up from behind a tight defence and excellent jabs before going for finishes which can lead to boring fights particularly when the people they are really that big a threat to them. They would give anyone in history a competitive fight but so far imo don't deserve to be too high in all time of P4P lists due to the lack of competition in their reigns

 

[Breakfast Bar]

They are an interesting, maybe an unprecedented, case in HW boxing history. They probably win a higher percentage of rounds than any other HW champ has and their KO % are near the top. That would imply dominance, but both have lost to less than great fighters and neither has beat any great fighters. It should be remembered that even the greatest HW fighters, Ali and Louis, are known most for their life and death struggles against other great fighters (Ali winning 2 after losing 1 to Frazier, taking a beating from Foreman before the KO, splitting close decisions with Norton...Louis avenging the Schmelling loss, coming from behind to KO Conn, etc.) than they were for 100% dominating fights. What great fights do the Klitschkos have in their legacy? When have they come from behind or overcome adversity to win? Vitali-Lewis and Wlad-Peter I are the only fights I can think of that even come close to back-and-forth affairs. It's tough to be popular with American fans in a sport like boxing without overcoming challenges in big events. That's something that's missing on the Klitschkos resumes.

I think they would be considerably more popular in the U.S. (they are already popular elsewhere) if either they were forced to come from behind in order to secure some of their wins or, if they are going to be as dominant as they usually are, if they would have won all of their fights.

 

[LEWIS540]

They are an interesting, maybe an unprecedented, case in HW boxing history. They probably win a higher percentage of rounds than any other HW champ has and their KO % are near the top. That would imply dominance, but both have lost to less than great fighters and neither has beat any great fighters. It should be remembered that even the greatest HW fighters, Ali and Louis, are known most for their life and death struggles against other great fighters (Ali winning 2 after losing 1 to Frazier, taking a beating from Foreman before the KO, splitting close decisions with Norton...Louis avenging the Schmelling loss, coming from behind to KO Conn, etc.) than they were for 100% dominating fights. What great fights do the Klitschkos have in their legacy? When have they come from behind or overcome adversity to win? Vitali-Lewis and Wlad-Peter I are the only fights I can think of that even come close to back-and-forth affairs. It's tough to be popular with American fans in a sport like boxing without overcoming challenges in big events. That's something that's missing on the Klitschkos resumes.

I think they would be considerably more popular in the U.S. (they are already popular elsewhere) if either they were forced to come from behind in order to secure some of their wins or, if they are going to be as dominant as they usually are, if they would have won all of their fights.

You make a good point with this- everyone likes a good Rocky story.....

I would say Mayweather is similar to them (dominating, cautious), and he seems to get a better reputation. Maybe it is because he is undefeated. Maybe it is because he is American.

 

[Breakfast Bar]

You have to have a narrative as a bigger-than-life athlete. One is the Rocky narrative...you are so tough that you fight through hell and win or lose you give it 100%. Another is the Roy Jones/Floyd Mayweather narrative...you are so good that nobody can even challenge you to force a competitive fight. The Klitschkos are closer to the latter scenario, but (like with Jones and Tyson and other unbeatables) the narrative breaks down when you have to factor in losses like the ones Vitali had to Lewis and Wlad had to Sanders and it causes serious cognitive dissonance when you try to place losses to Lamont Brewster, Chris Byrd and ROSS PURRITY into that story. Instead, the story becomes how bad the competition must be or how protected the fighters are...maybe justifiably.

 

[zxcvbnm]

you add these factors in:

1. their freakish height and physical advantages
2. their horrible, safety first non-risk taking tactics they can use because of that
3. wladimir's questionable losses to questionable opponents. people will forgive losses, but not ko losses to pretty much what amounts to journeymen
4. vitali is legitimate, but he's fought no one and lost to the toughest opponent he faced

and its a massive mess.

germans may approve of their sleep-inducing fights, but americans certainly wont. i dont understand the race thing because of this. if they were exciting, it would be different. mayweather is seen as a safety-first fighter, but he's a different type. dazzles with speed and combinatoins, can make anyone look amateurish. even if floyd was the most boring person in the world, people would still admire his skills. no one enjoys jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab right hand, against opponents that are at a significant height disadvantage.

 

[ThirdPartyView]

Instead, the story becomes how bad the competition must be or how protected the fighters are...maybe justifiably.

Protected? How are they protected? They've fought everyone in an (admittedly weak) HW division that's willing to fight them and are now scrounging for lower level guys since the remaining top guys want nothing to do with them. Seriously, provide more details on this claim - thanks.

 

[ThirdPartyView]

3. wladimir's questionable losses to questionable opponents. people will forgive losses, but not ko losses to pretty much what amounts to journeymen

All-time greats like Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson lost to less-than-spectacular opponents, so I'm not really sure what this means. And let's not forget one of the greatest upset KOs of all-time by Mike Tyson to 40:1 underdog, James 'Buster' Douglas who was the definitive journeyman/fringe contender.

 

[Gurkha]

They are bigger than the elite HW of 50-60 years ago.

If you look at the heaviest HW fights ever, the top 20 will all be from the last 20 years, i'm sure.

Sure you can bring out pictures of the odd big guy, but there skills are no match for the Klits, and they were the exception not the rule.



Besides the guy in that picture is a rake.

I take it you haven't heard of Primo Carnera or Jess Willard. FYI Both were HW Champions of their time (both were freakishly big).

 

[Gurkha]

Thing is, if they were actually to invent a time machine, how many people think the likes of Tunney, Dempsey, Louis or Marciano would beat the Klitchkos?

A lot of people will say The klits will have no chance, but the reality is a lot different. Times change. There are no professional sportsmen from 50 years ago who would do well in today's environment. Training, nutrition etc is a lot more advanced. The klits are also a lot bigger than the HWs of 60 years ago.

But that said, the legacy of the Klits will be a lot less. They have fought in a weak era, have fought no other greats, and have a very safe (boring?) style.



So in summary, ability wise, they are right up there (top10 maybe 5).
Legacy wise, they are way down the list.

I agree that in most sports, most Champions of the past would not be relevant today.

I don't think the same logic applies to combat sports though. I do believe that people were a lot tougher in the past.

Nutrition : If you are eating enough vegetables, animal products and some grain you have enough. You don't really need a lot of supplements and chemicals to make you healthier. If you're living a rural lifestyle, with plenty of fresh-air, labour and fresh food you'll be healthier and stronger than most people who live city lives and spend 2 hours in the gym everyday.

Training : Modern-day training techniques are very beneficial for runners, swimmers etc. etc. but for boxing? I don't think training techniques have really changed in the past 50 years.

 

[LEWIS540]

I take it you haven't heard of Primo Carnera or Jess Willard. FYI Both were HW Champions of their time (both were freakishly big).

They were the exception, not the rule.
The top 10 heaviest HW title fights have all been in the last 20 years........

 

[Breakfast Bar]

Protected? How are they protected? They've fought everyone in an (admittedly weak) HW division that's willing to fight them and are now scrounging for lower level guys since the remaining top guys want nothing to do with them. Seriously, provide more details on this claim - thanks.

It was a general statement about how fans react to fighters who haven't beaten a lot of other great fighters or had many competitive fights. In the case of the Klitshkos the criticism is how weak the division was. In the case of Dempsey or Tyson the criticism is that they didn't fight the best fighters available. I'm not even claiming this is my opinion, just the inevitable outcome of not having compelling matches the way that HWs like Louis and Ali did.

 

[Pirao]

It was a general statement about how fans react to fighters who haven't beaten a lot of other great fighters or had many competitive fights. In the case of the Klitshkos the criticism is how weak the division was. In the case of Dempsey or Tyson the criticism is that they didn't fight the best fighters available. I'm not even claiming this is my opinion, just the inevitable outcome of not having compelling matches the way that HWs like Louis and Ali did.

Louis had compelling matches? Lol, yeah that's why they were called the bum of the month club...

 

[Kimura77]

Louis had compelling matches? Lol, yeah that's why they were called the bum of the month club...

Damn and i thought you knew what you were talking about.....


In the 29 months from January 1939 through May 1941, Louis defended his title thirteen times, a frequency unmatched by any heavyweight champion since the end of the bare-knuckle era. The pace of his title defenses, combined with his convincing wins, earned Louis' opponents from this era the collective nickname "Bum of the Month Club".

Despite its derogatory nickname, most of the group were top-ten heavyweights. Of the twelve fighters Louis faced during this period, five were rated by The Ring as top-ten heavyweights in the year they fought Louis: Galento (overall #2 heavyweight in 1939), Bob Pastor (#3, 1939), Godoy (#3, 1940), Simon (#6, 1941), and Baer (#8, 1941); four others (Musto, Dorazio, Burman, and Johnny Paycheck) were ranked in the top ten in a different year

 

[Sharkey]

Louis had compelling matches? Lol, yeah that's why they were called the bum of the month club...

Louis' 'Bum of the Month' tour only lasted five months, my friend, and was only five fights long. Went from Dec of 1940 to Apr of 1941. A couple of those "bums" were fighters that were considered to be top 5 contenders at the time they faced Louis, as well.

Don't know why guys like you try to discredit Louis' whole reign over such a insignificant period of time when compared to the length of his whole reign. It was only a small fraction of his total title defenses if speaking numerically too.

 

[Pirao]

Damn and i thought you knew what you were talking about.....


In the 29 months from January 1939 through May 1941, Louis defended his title thirteen times, a frequency unmatched by any heavyweight champion since the end of the bare-knuckle era. The pace of his title defenses, combined with his convincing wins, earned Louis' opponents from this era the collective nickname "Bum of the Month Club".

Despite its derogatory nickname, most of the group were top-ten heavyweights. Of the twelve fighters Louis faced during this period, five were rated by The Ring as top-ten heavyweights in the year they fought Louis: Galento (overall #2 heavyweight in 1939), Bob Pastor (#3, 1939), Godoy (#3, 1940), Simon (#6, 1941), and Baer (#8, 1941); four others (Musto, Dorazio, Burman, and Johnny Paycheck) were ranked in the top ten in a different year

Exactly copied from wikipedia, well done, I see your are a boxing erudite

That Tony Galento was at one point considered the #2 HW shows what a weak era it was. Chris Arreola is a well conditioned, elite athlete compared to him :icon_lol:

Louis' 'Bum of the Month' tour only lasted five months, my friend, and was only five fights long. Went from Dec of 1940 to Apr of 1941. A couple of those "bums" were fighters that were considered to be top 5 contenders at the time they faced Louis, as well.

Don't know why guys like you try to discredit Louis' whole reign over such a insignificant period of time when compared to the length of his whole reign. It was only a small fraction of his total title defenses if speaking numerically too.

Nope, it was 13 fights, not 5, and yes it's a significant part of Louis' defences.

I don't try to discredit Louis' reign, he was a great champion, I just find it funny how people constantly bash the Klitschkos and their weak era, yet Joe Louis' era was apparently all fine and dandy.