Who Was Not A Great Fighter?

Wlad is greatness. That decade long run (2004-2014) he put together was one for the ages. Barely lost a round. Vitali is more a case of "what if?" A big gap in the middle of his prime, lots of injuries.

 

I'm not running down Wlad. I think he's great, too. But Wlad always deferred to his older brother. Still does.

YOU are the one running down Vitali Klitschko.

Vitali beat Puritty and Sanders, who Wlad didn't beat AT ALL.

Vitali had a dozen successful defenses of the WBO and WBC belts.

Hell, Wlad never would've been a champ at all if he had to beat Corrie Sanders for a title.

Vitali won the WBC title twice from guys (Sanders and Peter) who had Wlad down on the deck a combined SEVEN times and beat the snot out of him.

Vitali was great. Wlad was great.

Name another heavyweight champion with 12 successful title defenses who wasn't great? Only five guys have more combined defenses than Vitali - Joe Louis. Larry Holmes. Muhammad Ali. Lennox Lewis. And Wlad.

Wlad never won a fight after he turned 39. Vitali was also the second-oldest heavyweight champion in history, only Foreman was older.

He was never behind in a pro fight. Never lost a decision. Never put down. Only lost on a shoulder injury and cuts.

Retired at 42 on top as champion. First ballot Hall of Famer.

He's in rarified air. If Vitali wasn't great, then basically nobody was great.

 

That's rather hard to do when you fight Ali three times, and twice you're on the wrong end of dubious scoring.

 

Corrie Sanders knocked him down, but it wasn't given.

 

I think Norton won their first and THIRD fight. But that would change everything; and boxing history, and ATG list.

 

"But Wlad always deferred to his older brother."

Vitali implored Wlad to retire pre-Peter 1, Wlad barred him from his training camp.

"Hell, Wlad never would've been a champ at all if he had to beat Corrie Sanders for a title."

Same could be said of Byrd, who Vitali ducked after losing to. Or Lewis.

"Name another heavyweight champion with 12 successful title defenses who wasn't great?"

Many say the same of Wilder: "He had 10 consecutive defences over 5 years but wasn't great". It's usually based on criticisms of his quality of the opposition beaten, criticisms you have made of Vitali.

"Wlad never won a fight after he turned 39. Vitali was also the second-oldest heavyweight champion in history"

Wlad was 39 when he beat Jennings and was the oldest Ring champion in heavyweight history. Everyone recognised he was "the man", not so for 40+ Vitali or 45+ Foreman.

"Only lost on a shoulder injury and cuts."

Fighters have had (or alleged) serious shoulder injuries and not quit.

 

Heavyweightpunchcounts had Norton outlanding Holmes too in a very close fight.

 

Troy Roberts has a strong case for knocking Vitali down too.

 

By every measure, Vitali Klitschko was a great heavyweight.

The problem argumentative people with narrow vision have is they compare him only to Wlad, and say ... Wlad had more defenses, Wlad beat Byrd ... but it's a flawed argument.

Wlad had more defenses than 99 percent of the heavyweight champions. Wlad reigned longer than 99 percent of the heavyweight champions.

You compare Vitali to ALL the heavyweight champions (presently and in history), not just to his brother.

That's why Vitali was a first ballot hall of famer. And others wait a decade (or decades) to get in.

A dozen successful defenses over two reigns. One of the highest KO percentages in heavyweight history. Never knocked down. Never lost a decision. Never down on the cards when a fight ended. Only lost twice due to injuries (while leading both fights at the time). Second oldest heavyweight champion in history.

Retired as champ on top - twice, actually.

Great stuff by any measure at heavyweight.

 

By every measure ? No that is simply false.

For starters , he is one of , if the only up and comer who failed the passing of the torch test against the previous champ on his last legs. This is essentially a greatness test and he failed it.
It would be like Marciano losing to Joe Louis, Ali losing to Listion , Mike Tyson losing to Holmes to give just a few examples. Furthermore he lost that fight because he didn't have skills that you could call great. Joe Bugner had a greater set of skills than Vitali if you know what you're looking at.

2. He quit against Byrd and neglected the rematch despite having an ironclad rematch clause.
There is a long list of reasons why taking rematches and avenging losses is the mark of greatness. No ATG quits against a creampuff like Byrd then steps aside to make Byrd fight his younger brother instead.
These two huge red flags hold more weight than any argument that tries to attempt to claim wins over Arroela , Peter , decade past best Sanders , Ademk etc makes somebody an ATG.

 

Very good for me.

 

Vitali may be a H2H monster,but his resume is not that of a great fighter..

 

Very good but not great, he never established he was even the best European middle .

 

Who you are defending against is more important than how many times you do so,imo.

 

Great puncher with many flaws including one of character.