I'm no Klitschko fan, but hear this - If Wlad goes on like this for another 5 years - exactly like this, beating everyone as champion - what you gonna say then? A winning fighter is a good fighter. Live with it.
if the oposition is awfull who cares if he wins or not,wasnt Brian Nielsen something like 47-0 ive never heard anyone talking about how good he was.
He knocks out a guy with a solid chin and good record, as a WK fan I'm happy with that. The critics whine like little pigs, what do they expect? WK is not a reckless fighter, he makes a few mistakes but doesn't wade in like he did in his early days. Yeah, keep knocking them out Wlad!
Neilsen wasn't taking on and beating the best contenders of his era, was he? If there was no Klitschko there would still be a #1 heayvweight in the world. Klitschko is the best of them. That's pretty much a fact at the moment, and that you don't care for it is mostly irrelevant. OOoooo, Ultimate Fighter is on.
Agreed. He barely dropped more than a round and stopped an akward, 6'6" 250lbs southpaw with a very strong chin. He was getting a little roughed up early, but TT took more and more hands and went into a turtle from the 5th, leaving Wlad in complete control.
hes a good fighter but the other guys are so weak that for me its irrelevant if he keeps beating them or not. if the division doesnt get some new talent in the future than he can keep fighting till hes 50 against these bums.
This really reaffirms to me that 95% of this board has never played sports on a competitive level and have no comprehension of what goes on at high level sports. In addition, Tyson, Lennox, Ali, Evander, etc... all had awkward ass opponents who gave them weird fights. I was actually impressed tonight with Wlad. As mentioned, he fought a huge southpaw with a high guard the entire fight and an iron chin. Yet Wlad adjusted and knocked him out with a vicious short right hand.
You're missing the point: The point is that Klitschko keeps winning and people are criticising him for the way he wins. The way he wins isn't relevant. It doesn't matter if people don't like it.
Exactly. I'm not a WLad fan, but he does what expected against these sorts of opponents - he outclasses them. It's not his fault the division is so mediocre these days. Another couple years of this, wait 20 years, and they'll be talking about him like Larry Holmes. Back in the day - and I was there - critics said Holmes was nuthin' special and hadn't fought anybody either.
Legacy will absolutley be about the W and L column and the number of contenders he beats. IF he keeps winning, the frustrations of fans who want to see a more exciting figher will not matter.
To summarise my position: Wlad does many things well but is too reticint to be compared to the true greats (his style would cost him against these men). But that style makes him very dominant against top tier competition (as opposed to ATG opposition). If, as champion, he is beating the best available and continues to do so, he will he judged a great fighter. Guzman, if he does the same, will achieve the same. Losses are to be judged as and when, whether they are suffered by top 35 HW of all time, or a top 100 p4p fighter of all time, which Pacquiao is. Thanks for the props, by the way.