I've seen a lot of discussion about Vitali Klitschko lately...

That's enough for me to put this topic to bed.. Until it resurfaces in about two weeks...

 

I'm not impressed with Vitali's resume.
His comeback after 4 years off was impressive though.

 

Only because Sam Peter and Tomas Adamek are slightly better than Larry Donald and Vaughn Bean.

 

It's not Vitali's fault he was in a **** poor era, people are delusional though to say he isn't a Head to Head nightmare for most fighters in the history of the sport.

 

How was Vitali in a **** poor era?

He turned pro in 96, there were ample names for him to fight from 98 onwards.

Why was he facing Jose Ribalta 12 years after Tyson. You telling me there was nobody better was available in 98?

And why was he meant to face Ruddock initially instead of Byrd? Is that the best Vitali could do? Pull Ruddock out of the morgue?

Of all the names he was feasting on bums and corpses and his record shows that.

 

Vitali didn't fight in a poor era. He fought in his brother's era. That was the problem.

The two best heavyweights over a 10-year period not only didn't fight (because they were brothers), but they both used that relationship to their advantage by not necessarily cleaning up their own messes.

If Ali and Frazier had been brothers, and refused to fight each other, they could've taken turns beating Jimmy Ellis and Jerry Quarry and Joe Bugner forever. And THAT era would've been considered a terrible era ... because the two best never fought and the top contenders they did fight were no match for them. Remember how easily Frazier and Ali beat all the top contenders of the late 60s and early 70s.

And if Ali had faced Foreman before Frazier did, Frazier never would've had to face him, because his BROTHER had already beaten him. And if Foreman had beaten Frazier first, and Ali knocked out Foreman, that would've somehow wiped the loss from Frazier's record.

The Klitschko brothers did that repeatedly. Puritty and Sanders stopped Wlad, then Vitali beat Puritty and Sanders, so SOMEHOW that meant Wlad was "avenged" and Wlad didn't have to worry about fighting Puritty or Sanders again himself.

Byrd defeated Vitali, so Wlad fought Byrd twice ... and Vitali never had to worry about fighting Byrd again (even though Wlad had the time to fight Byrd twice, you'd think Vitali could've fought him instead at least one of those times).

The Klitschkos - and media and fans - just seemed to accept that the "Klitschkos" took care of the guys who beat them, when they often didn't.

Other champs who weren't brothers didn't get the same consideration.

Had the Klitschkos not been brothers and faced each other once, twice or even three times, and had they had to go back and AVENGE THEIR OWN losses, their era would probably be viewed as one of the better ones.

The Klitschkos can never complain about the era they fought in because they played a major role in making sure the compelling rematches against the guys who beat them never took place ... and they decided - because they were brothers - that the two best heavyweights over the last 10 years never fought even once.

Those two factors can destroy a division - which is kind of what they did.

 

Excellent post. I've felt the same exact way for years, and Lennox Lewis even commented on the situation himself in an interview once. The Klitschko's ruled the division as "dynasty." This works fine in team sports but doesn't transition well into boxing.

 

What names such as Mike Tyson, Frans Botha, pensioner Evander Holyfield? He would have wiped the floor with them.

 

So why did lewis avoid him for 2 years if he is DUCKING top guys? the reason why he became a pro is to fight Tyson,which wouldn't matter anyway because beating him up at that point is pointless! the next best thing to fighting Tyson was Lewis not old washed up Holyfield in the 2000's who was never Lewis.

 

Exactly. I mean Elieser Castillo beat Ross Puritty after Ross beat Wlad. If Wlad said after Castillo's win: "Well, Castillo beat Puritty, so my loss is avenged," people would've looked at each other like he was high.

But when his brother beat Puritty, the only reason the fight was made was for "revenge." And when Vitali won, the "family honor" was restored and apparently Wlad didn't have to fight him again.

I never understood why people bought into that.

And I understand that they didn't fight each other because they were brothers, HOWEVER no division can have two dominant fighters in it for 10 or 12 years without the two fighting. It's not like they could move up or down to another division. They were both there for the duration. There had to be some closure. And there never was, because they were related.

Since the two best never fought, and the other fighters couldn't put up a stiff challenge to either, the fans looked elsewhere.

 

David Tua
Ike Ibeabuchi
John Ruiz
Andrew Golata
Corrie Sanders ( earlier )
Hasim Rahman
Michael Grant

Not sure that all these fights were makable depending on the scene and the circumstances, but there were definitely better opponents between 1998-2000 than a lot of the garbage he was fighting.

 

In some ways I think Wlad's resume would have flourished more had Vitali stayed retired. Not that his comeback presence had any significant affect but still. And I share your confusion on why/how the fans deemed their tag team system as acceptable. I certainly didn't.

 

How is it a tag team system? you can only fight a certain amount of fights per year anyway? Wlad fought the better opposition regardless because of the belts he had,Vitali by contractual agreements was limited.If anything you got to see more top guys overall in championship fights,its no different now with Wlad basically taking on the entire boxing world since no one is fighting eachother up until Wach sighned to fight Povetkin...Wilder is just going thru the motions hes a non factor until proven in at least 3 title defense with a TOP guy.

 

Read doublechin's post above. He's encapsulated the situation beautifully.

 

I stopped with Byrd defeated Vitali but then wanted to see how foolish it gets..like Lewis is saying he was or referring that Byrd beat Vitali,the Byrd Lewis shyed from by the way.Lewis will say anything to cement his legacy. What I wrote is how the business is run,not what Lewis excusus of this guy fought that guy is. vitali could easily bring up two instances Lewis was flattened but he never did,it never happened to vitali. he even makes a foolish remark on them not fighting each other,sums him up and his agenda there.