Ruslan Chagaev vs. Wladimir Klitschko

[sport historian]

It's hard to tell the baby boomers that the emperor has no clothes. Ali has become a symbol of their youth. I find it hard to see how a relatively light punching small heavyweight could still dominate either Klitschko. Especially now that Wladimir is content to out box his opponents from the outside.

Ali was good in his time but he is overhyped. That being said Ali would get destroyed by any of the top 20 heavyweights of today. Today's fighters are considerably stronger and faster than fighters from 30 years ago.

You guys are both right on. Another thing about Ali is that he really sucked in some fights. Wepner knocked him down, Norton broke his jaw, and most of his post Frazier fights were snoozefests as he rope-a-doped for 12 rounds, (the kind of thing that would get a Klitschko roasted by announcers today). I watch his fights today and he is lousy except for hand speed which is fine fighting 205 lb guys but he wouldn't have the power to go at it with the big heavy's today. Why is it every other sport is better then in the old days because of the superior conditioning of today's affletes---except for boxing. I think we know why.

People liked him for the show biz thing and his trash talking which was novel back then. It's not about his skill which is over rated because as you said they like to remember the ol' days.

Does this mean Wladimir Klitschko did not "really suck in some fights?" Klitschko has been stopped 3 times. From a historical standpoint, it is hard for a heavyweight champion to be seen as an all-time great if he was kayoed that many times when fairly young.

 

[Charles Martel]

Does this mean Wladimir Klitschko did not "really suck in some fights?" Klitschko has been stopped 3 times. From a historical standpoint, it is hard for a heavyweight champion to be seen as an all-time great if he was kayoed that many times when fairly young.

Like yourself, the media people tend to focus on those three fights and ignore all his KO wins. He has a higher KO percentage than Tyson, Lewis, Ali, Holmes, and Jack Johnson, black men who are practically worshipped by boxing "historians" like yourself.

To such people, if you dare mention that Ali should have had a loss on his record in that fight with Henry Cooper, since Clay and his cornerman had to cheat to survive, it's like blasphemy. If you talk about Ali's losses to Frazier and Norton, or mention his being knocked down by Wepner, then you will be called a racist.Edited by: JD1986

 

[jaxvid]

You guys are both right on. Another thing about Ali is that he really sucked in some fights. Wepner knocked him down, Norton broke his jaw, and most of his post Frazier fights were snoozefests as he rope-a-doped for 12 rounds, (the kind of thing that would get a Klitschko roasted by announcers today). I watch his fights today and he is lousy except for hand speed which is fine fighting 205 lb guys but he wouldn't have the power to go at it with the big heavy's today. Why is it every other sport is better then in the old days because of the superior conditioning of today's affletes---except for boxing. I think we know why.

People liked him for the show biz thing and his trash talking which was novel back then. It's not about his skill which is over rated because as you said they like to remember the ol' days.

Does this mean Wladimir Klitschko did not "really suck in some fights?" Klitschko has been stopped 3 times. From a historical standpoint, it is hard for a heavyweight champion to be seen as an all-time great if he was kayoed that many times when fairly young.

The isssue wasn't about Vlad, it was about Ali and his 5 career losses and many horrible fights and questionable wins on decision. If people think Ali is "the Greatest" then it's worth looking at the quality of his fights to see whether they justify his reputation. Why you brought up Klitschko's losses I have no idea. It is also rumored that he was drugged in one of his losses, but maybe that's just a white supremicist excuse.

 

[white is right]

If you go back to the turn of the century(19th to 20th), many fighters lost early in their career and this was never held against them. Both Dempsey and Johnson lost to guys that they would have destroyed in their primes. Their reputations haven't been sullied by these losses. I think the reason why these guys are still viewed as legends while Lewis(Lewis got their because he beat up on shop worn Tyson and stalled twice against Oldyfield) and Wlad have been trying get to that level is because of the fact that their losses have been captured on video.

 

[whiteathlete33]

I honestly don't know why Wladimir lost to Corrie Sanders, Ross Purity, or even Lamon Brewster. His stamina problems are far behind him now. I don't look back at his past. All I care is that he is dominating the division like never before.

The loss to Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster aren't that bad as they where very good fighters at the time. Klitschko was dominating the Brewster fight until he fell apart. The loss to Ross Purity is bad though. Ross Purity is a bum and Wlad was dominating that fight but fell apart at the end. Edited by: whiteathlete33

 

[white is right]

Wlad lost to Purrity because of inexperience. He was hitting Purrity with everything but the kitchen sink and doing this every round. He didn't know how to win rounds with just his stick and take a breather. Against Sanders he was bum rushed and didn't know how to fight a south paw. He also used to be in an attacking stance back then. Manny has made him a more defensive fighter who can switch modes more. Against Brewster it was combination of the two previous losses and maybe nefarious skull duggery. Edited by: white is right

 

[ironfist]

I keep telling all of you here. Wlad was drugged in the first Brewster fight. I know it to be a fact! Who drugged him? You have one guess.

 

[Maple Leaf]

It's hard to tell the baby boomers that the emperor has no clothes. Ali has become a symbol of their youth. I find it hard to see how a relatively light punching small heavyweight could still dominate either Klitschko. Especially now that Wladimir is content to out box his opponents from the outside.

Ali was good in his time but he is overhyped. That being said Ali would get destroyed by any of the top 20 heavyweights of today. Today's fighters are considerably stronger and faster than fighters from 30 years ago.

You guys are both right on. Another thing about Ali is that he really sucked in some fights. Wepner knocked him down, Norton broke his jaw, and most of his post Frazier fights were snoozefests as he rope-a-doped for 12 rounds, (the kind of thing that would get a Klitschko roasted by announcers today). I watch his fights today and he is lousy except for hand speed which is fine fighting 205 lb guys but he wouldn't have the power to go at it with the big heavy's today. Why is it every other sport is better then in the old days because of the superior conditioning of today's affletes---except for boxing. I think we know why.

People liked him for the show biz thing and his trash talking which was novel back then. It's not about his skill which is over rated because as you said they like to remember the ol' days.

Does this mean Wladimir Klitschko did not "really suck in some fights?" Klitschko has been stopped 3 times. From a historical standpoint, it is hard for a heavyweight champion to be seen as an all-time great if he was kayoed that many times when fairly young.

Historian, check your history:

Lennox Lewis was KO'd by Rahman and McCall. That's 2 when he WAS experienced.

Tyson was KO'd by Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride. That's 5 when he WAS experienced.

We all know how those losses have zero effect on either's credibility and reputed prowess.

Larry Holmes lost twice to a little pecker called Micheal Spinks and was buffaloed by Tyson. None of THAT seems to matter.

If your are looking for perfection there is only Marciano, the greatest cruiserweight of all time...

History is fun when you have the facts!

 

[sport historian]

It's hard to tell the baby boomers that the emperor has no clothes. Ali has become a symbol of their youth. I find it hard to see how a relatively light punching small heavyweight could still dominate either Klitschko. Especially now that Wladimir is content to out box his opponents from the outside.

Ali was good in his time but he is overhyped. That being said Ali would get destroyed by any of the top 20 heavyweights of today. Today's fighters are considerably stronger and faster than fighters from 30 years ago.

You guys are both right on. Another thing about Ali is that he really sucked in some fights. Wepner knocked him down, Norton broke his jaw, and most of his post Frazier fights were snoozefests as he rope-a-doped for 12 rounds, (the kind of thing that would get a Klitschko roasted by announcers today). I watch his fights today and he is lousy except for hand speed which is fine fighting 205 lb guys but he wouldn't have the power to go at it with the big heavy's today. Why is it every other sport is better then in the old days because of the superior conditioning of today's affletes---except for boxing. I think we know why.

People liked him for the show biz thing and his trash talking which was novel back then. It's not about his skill which is over rated because as you said they like to remember the ol' days.

Does this mean Wladimir Klitschko did not "really suck in some fights?" Klitschko has been stopped 3 times. From a historical standpoint, it is hard for a heavyweight champion to be seen as an all-time great if he was kayoed that many times when fairly young.

Historian, check your history:

Lennox Lewis was KO'd by Rahman and McCall. That's 2 when he WAS experienced.

Tyson was KO'd by Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride. That's 5 when he WAS experienced.

We all know how those losses have zero effect on either's credibility and reputed prowess.

Larry Holmes lost twice to a little pecker called Micheal Spinks and was buffaloed by Tyson. None of THAT seems to matter.

If your are looking for perfection there is only Marciano, the greatest cruiserweight of all time...

History is fun when you have the facts!

A question if I may, has Klitschko ever been knocked down and rose to KO the man who decked him? Two or three more years at the current level would indeed make Klitschko a great champion.

 

[The Hock]

Yes, you may question, Historian. For I am here to teach.

Well, Vlad got up from three knockdowns (from rabbit punch like shots) to win against Samual Peter, having Peter out on his feet at the end of the fight.

He also got up from a knockdown to win against DaVaryl Williamson by technical decision.

That's twice as many times as Joe Frazier or Ali or Larry Holmes managed to do so.

And the nuthugger media tries to knock him down every day too. But Vlad just gets up and knocks the press on their ass with performances like he turned in against Chagaev. Even if they won't admit it. Edited by: The Hock

 

[Maple Leaf]

It's hard to tell the baby boomers that the emperor has no clothes. Ali has become a symbol of their youth. I find it hard to see how a relatively light punching small heavyweight could still dominate either Klitschko. Especially now that Wladimir is content to out box his opponents from the outside.

Ali was good in his time but he is overhyped. That being said Ali would get destroyed by any of the top 20 heavyweights of today. Today's fighters are considerably stronger and faster than fighters from 30 years ago.

You guys are both right on. Another thing about Ali is that he really sucked in some fights. Wepner knocked him down, Norton broke his jaw, and most of his post Frazier fights were snoozefests as he rope-a-doped for 12 rounds, (the kind of thing that would get a Klitschko roasted by announcers today). I watch his fights today and he is lousy except for hand speed which is fine fighting 205 lb guys but he wouldn't have the power to go at it with the big heavy's today. Why is it every other sport is better then in the old days because of the superior conditioning of today's affletes---except for boxing. I think we know why.

People liked him for the show biz thing and his trash talking which was novel back then. It's not about his skill which is over rated because as you said they like to remember the ol' days.

Does this mean Wladimir Klitschko did not "really suck in some fights?" Klitschko has been stopped 3 times. From a historical standpoint, it is hard for a heavyweight champion to be seen as an all-time great if he was kayoed that many times when fairly young.

Historian, check your history:

Lennox Lewis was KO'd by Rahman and McCall. That's 2 when he WAS experienced.

Tyson was KO'd by Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride. That's 5 when he WAS experienced.

We all know how those losses have zero effect on either's credibility and reputed prowess.

Larry Holmes lost twice to a little pecker called Micheal Spinks and was buffaloed by Tyson. None of THAT seems to matter.

If your are looking for perfection there is only Marciano, the greatest cruiserweight of all time...

History is fun when you have the facts!

A question if I may, has Klitschko ever been knocked down and rose to KO the man who decked him? Two or three more years at the current level would indeed make Klitschko a great champion.

What Hock said is correct but he missed one fight: Wladimir lost to Lamon Brewser in their first fight -though he was in the middle of obliterating him- and in their second fight he finished what he started and Brewster's corner called it quits.

 

[sport historian]

Thanks for the comments. Wladimir Klitschko will be one of the great champions if he continues for 2-3 more years at his current form.

 

[The Hock]

I left out the first Brewster fight because it didn't pertain to Historian's question. But, as Maple Leaf says, Vlad was obliterating Brewster before his strange collapse. The stigma from that fight was strike two in Vlad's career, and the Peter fight was set up to be strike three.

Vlad stepped up to the plate, won, and has been winning and improving ever since.Edited by: The Hock

 

[Thrashen]

I have all Wlad's fights on DVD. I must say, Wlad VS. Brewster #1 was perhaps the lamest "KO" I've ever seen in the HW division. I don't think Brewster's punch would have KO'ed a flyweight.

I'm not suggesting WK was drugged (as is popular opinion)...but the KO was weird as hell. Afterwards, he didnt look KO'ed, he looked sick.

Naturally, his next fight VS. Brewster was almost pointless. Similar to the first few rounds before WK was KO'ed in fight #1....Brewster fought terribly.

The Corrie Sanders fight, on the other hand, WK was completely ROCKED by Sanders (and never recovered). Nearly every heavyweight, in any ear, would have fallen from that punch. As others said, Wlad was bum-rushed and flat out lost the belt....then Vitali absolutely crushed Sanders a few months later, haha.Edited by: Thrashen

 

[whiteathlete33]

Corrie Sanders was a very good fighter when he beat Wladimir. He is way over the hill now.