Which Klitschko Brother Was The Best?

So again: ifs and wouldas. Durability is a key component to fighter's overall ability. As they say, the best ability is availability. If you can't stay healthy it means you lack it. Glass body is the same type of weakness as a glass jaw - you are born with it and can't really work on it. Somehow, Wlad done a lot more in his career with his glass jaw than Vitali with his glass body. That means Wlad had a lot more strenghts than Vitali as he was able to mask his biggest flaw. Vitali couldn't - he wasn't getting injured all over the place. The whole picture points to Wlad being better as his strenghts surpassed his weaknesses.

And again: if I told you that out of 2 fighters fighting in the SAME ERA, one defeated way better competition, way more Top 10 guys, won more belts, had twice as more title defences, was considered THE champion while the other wasn't, was rated higher in 10 out of 12 years they were fighting, and told you he wasn't the better one, you would laugh my ass out of the forum.

 

Wlad.

 

In terms of achievements, Wlad is better because he was more dedicated to the sport than Vitali, as far as I remember, Vitali had a long break and then returned to boxing, but in any case, he was more lethal than Wlad in the later years of their careers, but Wlad was technically better...

 

I get your argument, but you’re blending two different things into one. A better résumé doesn’t automatically mean a better fighter. That’s true in every era.

Wlad had the longer run because of timing, matchmaking, Steward’s influence, and a style that lent itself to staying safe and winning rounds. Nothing wrong with that, he built a great legacy. But that doesn’t mean he was harder to beat head-to-head than Vitali.

Vitali wasn’t “glass bodied.” He didn’t break down during fights. He was never knocked down, never mentally folded, and the only losses were a shoulder injury and a doctor stoppage. That’s not the same thing as someone being fragile. Those aren’t durability failures in the way a weak chin is.

Résumé strength and head-to-head ability don’t always match. It’s the same reason people say Bowe was a better fighter than his résumé shows, or why Corrie Sanders was more dangerous in the ring than his record suggests.

Wlad had the greater accomplishments, no question. But Vitali’s toughness, chin, and style made him the harder guy to beat in a ring. Two different types of “better.”

That’s all I was saying.

 

Wladmir, and it isn't really close.

Power Wladmir
Hand speed Wladmir
Chin Vitali
Technique Wladmir
Accuracy: Wladmir
Footwork Wladmir
Ring IQ Wladmir
Defense Wladmir
Stamina Vitali
Versatility Wladmir
Combinations Wladmir
Head movement Vitali
Physical strength Even or slight edge Vitali

People like Vitali because in some ways, he was a tough, throwback fighter who never showed an ounce of fear. He's huge, as strong as a bull, and could be entertaining throwing a high volume of shots. Could occasionally show underrated defense with his swaying and foot positioning, but...that's it. His resume isn't all that great either and is lucky to crack top 20.

Wladmir on the other hand is either slightly ahead or way ahead of Vitali in more than half a dozen departments and had a vastly superior career/resume. It's hard to place Wladmir outside the top 10.

As for who'd win, well no I don't agree with the common opinion Vitali wins because he's outgunned in so many areas. Vitali lacked raw power and usually needed an accumulation of shots to get rid of even medium level opponents, so stopping or knocking out Wladmir wouldn't be easy given the clash of styles. Vitali wouldn't be able to out jab his brother, so he can forget about having any sort of success at long or mid range. He'd need to apply a ton of pressure every minute of every round to have some success, and even his sturdy chin would be in trouble eating so many flush 1-2's and hooks from one of the hardest hitters in history. I would actually predict Wladmir stopping Vitali late. Sheer toughness can only carry you so far when you have so many disadvantages and the opponent is not only more skilled, they're about the same size.

 

Wladmir's losing effort to Joshua was one of the most respectable ways for an old champion to leave the division.

 

Well, a better fighter should be able to put together a better resume. If he doesn't then, how exactly is he better if he didn't beat better guys and didn't accomplish as much?

What timing, what matchmaking? Wlad fought everybody - that's what great fighters do. Vitali didn't. Even when he was holding the WBC belt for the first time, he defended it against Danny Williams instead of someone from the Top 10. He could have been matched better, but that's on him. Then, after Rahman became his mandatory, he tried to petition WBC to have another soft touch, but they refused. That's the matchmaking he done. Also, Steward’s influence was a key factor in Wlad's success, but that's what great fighters do - they link up with great trainers. Turned out it was a match made in heaven.

He definitely was glass bodied. He injured himself swinging at air against Byrd. He also got injured in every other training camp after that, culminating in breaking down in 3 camps in a row preparing for Rahman. Injuries might have ruined his career, that's the definition of being fragile and a durability failure. If you can't fight because you keep breaking down, that's your weakness.

People say a lot of stuff based on ifs and wouldas. I can make the argument for Ike being better than a lot of great boxers H2H just off an eye test and the fact that he was never beaten. But that would be ridiculous. Ike also has better wins than Vitali, so he's better than him.

If you fight against lower level competition, of course you're harder to beat, lol.

 

I think we’re still using different definitions of “better.” A résumé measures what a fighter accomplished. Head-to-head ability is about who would be harder to beat in the ring. Those have never been the same thing in boxing.

If résumé automatically meant the better fighter, then Corrie Sanders was better than Wlad, Rahman was better than Lennox, and Moorer was better than Holyfield. Nobody seriously rates those fighters above the champions they upset. Most observers would favor prime Wlad over Sanders in a series. That shows why résumé and ability are not identical categories.

On the “glass body” idea, Vitali did not break down from punches or from being physically overwhelmed. He was never knocked down in his professional career and was never stopped by punches. His major setbacks came from structural injuries, like the torn rotator cuff against Byrd or later shoulder issues. That is different from having a weak chin or poor punch resistance. In the ring, he consistently showed toughness and durability against hard punchers like Lewis, Sanders, and Peter.

Looking at actual in-ring evidence rather than résumés, every time Vitali stepped up he was either controlling the fight or competitive until an injury or a doctor stoppage. Against Lewis, he was ahead on all three scorecards when the doctor stopped the fight due to the cut. Being ahead doesn’t guarantee he would have won, but it does show he wasn’t being dominated. There isn’t a fight where he was outclassed or dominated from start to finish. Wlad, despite his achievements, had several nights where once hurt he wasn’t able to recover. That’s relevant when discussing head-to-head vulnerability.

Both brothers were elite heavyweights in their own ways, which is why comparing them requires separating career accomplishments from style and head-to-head qualities. Wlad’s résumé is outstanding and he earned it. His style under Steward maximized safety, control, and consistency, and he fought in an era that allowed him a long run of championship fights. Vitali, on the other hand, lost significant portions of his prime to injuries, and his peak years overlapped with Lennox Lewis, who retired immediately after their fight. That is timing, not ability, and timing has always shaped boxing legacies.

As for matchmaking, taking the Lewis fight on short notice was the opposite of choosing a safe route. It was the top opponent available. After that, injuries removed years of opportunities. Meanwhile, Wlad had close to a decade of continuous title reign and frequent defenses, which is why he accumulated more top-ten wins. Résumé length reflects opportunity and longevity, not automatically who was harder to beat.

The Ike comparison doesn’t really apply. Ike had two good wins and then his career ended suddenly. Vitali fought for many years, won titles in multiple reigns, was never knocked down, and his only losses came from an injury and a doctor stoppage in a fight he was leading. Their careers aren’t comparable.

Nobody ever outboxed Vitali from start to finish or knocked him out. That matters when discussing who was hardest to beat in a ring. Reasonable people can disagree on how much weight to give résumé versus head-to-head ability, but they measure different things.

Being harder to beat head-to-head doesn’t guarantee you end up with the deeper résumé. It means that in a hypothetical matchup, or in real fights before injuries, you were less vulnerable and harder to break. Vitali had those qualities. Wlad built the broader résumé and legacy. Both things can be true at once.

I’m not saying Vitali had the better career. I’m saying that in a pure head-to-head sense, he was the harder man to beat. That’s the entire point.

And both brothers were great in their own ways, which is why separating résumé from head-to-head ability is the fairest way to compare them.

 

That's actually super fair. I'm swayed. Wlad has the best performance and best resume.

 

Sounds about right.

 

He came in excellent shape so light on his feet.