Originally Posted by SILENCER
It seems like a lot of people are making their decisions based on chins. That has nothing to do with who the better fighter is. If it does then ask yourselves a simple question: who's the better fighter, James Toney or Roy Jones? Both great fighters, but Toney definitely has the better chin. I'd say the majority of us would say Jones is the better fighter, though. Sure Wlad got kayoed early in his career and then taken out by Sanders, but Brewster beat him because he just had nothing left in the tank. Sanders just had a bazooka for a straight left that would have leveled just about every heavy who got hit with it. Klitschko's problem at that time was his defense, not his chin. And what has Klitschko done since his last loss? Improved. His defense is better, his pace more measured- you can see him in there thinking instead of simply trying to blast away opponents (which would probably work with 99% of them). He could have pulled the trigger on Calvin Brock 1-2 rounds earlier than he did, he could have taken out Austin in a single round, he could have put Chris Byrd away sooner considering Byrd played right into his fight. It wasn't lack of ability that made these kayoes come later, Klitschko was playing chess master and once all the pieces were in the right order he moved in for a checkmate.
"Wlad has perfect textbook technique. Stance, movement, punches, etc..
Vitali is the tougher guy, but not "skilled" like Wlad.
When Wlad gets hit his reaction is to stop the other guys momentum, recover and then take control of the action.
When Vitali gets hit, his reaction is to exchange.
Wlad is an architect. Vitali is a wrecking ball"
Everyone agrees that Vitali is tougher and meaner..
But people just seems to believe that Wlad's fundamentals and basic 1-2 makes him a better boxer than Vitali..
As i said, that is only one dimension.. Vitali brings so much more to the table (without even talking about his tougness and stronger mentality), Vitali would be much harder to prepare for...