Would the Klitschko's be top ten fighters in the 70's?

1)true, agreed. and based on how those 3 fight, wlad would have dominated them all, knocking out wepner for certain

2)leon spinks does not win. leon does not beat either of them and would be lucky to take rounds off wlad. he drew with ledoux for ****s sake. he did have a notable win over ali...that's it. with his impressive reign of zero defenses and zero notable wins afterwards, it's totally reasonable he'd beat them both

3)Jimmy Young could pull a byrd on vitali but not on wlad

4)lyle is getting DANGEROUSLY overrated on this forum. i like the guy but with notable wins such as getting knocked out by foreman in 5, ali in 11 and outboxed by quarry and young i can see how he has reached such lofty h2h status

klits are getting **** on with this thread and it's swinging too far the other way from undying love to unending hatred. the klits are very, very good heavies. comparing them to ledoux, wepner and ****ing bobick is a joke.

they are not on the level of ali, frazier or even foreman but ****s sake, of COURSE they'd be contenders. let's keep it in reality a bit

 

I say they would be gate keepers, nothing more. They both might have gotten a title shot, but would be beaten by the ATGs of the 70's.


The thing you have to ask yourself is WHO HAS THE KLITS EVER FOUGHT AT THAT LEVEL AND WON AGAINST?

No one. Vitali quit against Chris Byrd, who would have been no more than good, but safe tune-up fight in those day. And he got his face blasted off by and old, out of shape and past-it Lewis.

Wlad got KO'd by 3 guys who wouldn't even have got title shots back then and more than likely would have been guys used as record padding back those days.

So what exactly is in these guys history that shows they would be able to compete with Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Fraizer, Spinks, Lyle, Shavers, etc.?


I don't get it. :huh

And I find this thread entirely disrespectfull to the those great fighter of that era.

 

I understand where people say that Frazier could slip past Wladimirs jab then land on him, but they act like it's a forgone conclusion that it's going to happen exactly like that. What happens when Wladimir lands a right hand on him as he's trying to get in? They probably wouldn't win every matchup that they were in during that era but they would give hell to and have a damn good chance of beating any heavyweight from any era.

 

Vitali yes, Wlad no chance.

 

really though, you honestly think wlad has no chance to be top 10 and that guys like jimmy ellis and ernie terrell are that much better than him?

 

I dunno. Wouldn't they be too young to compete in the '70s? In 1979 Vidalee would've been 8 and Wlad woulda been 3. I think Leon Spinks coulda taken both at once....

..

 

Please calm down and think about it from a realistic perspective. Both brothers are obviously skilled, athletic and dedicated. Together with the way they tower over their opponents makes then a handfull for anyone. I know Wlads chin and his abiltiy to deal with pressure has looked terrible in a couple of his fights, but on the other hand he has some serious power. Vitiali does not hit as hard, but is on the other hand very durable.

I don't know how different match ups would have turned out. Even very educated guesses tends to go wrong when reality knocks on the door. But to say with supreme confidence that every contender that was around would have run over them smells like stupidity a long way. Saying that they would loose some and win some is probably a lot more realistic.

 

very well put:good which probably means that you'll be labelled a nut hugger. i remember a time when being a fan of the klits came with derision and insult because many, many of their fans made outlandish claims. Now it seems like the most outlandish and poorly thought out statements are coming from those that dislike the klits and current heavies to such a degree that reality has long since been abandoned in their arguments...

 

Even in you count the Klitschkos opponents for nothing you can still look at factors like the brothers skill, athletisism, size and talent (in Vitalis case toughness, in Wlads case punshing power) and make conclusions from that.

People that want to critizise the K-brothers usually go for their worst performances ever. It is understandable but hardly fair. An athlete is not equal to his worst **** ups. (Especially using the Chris Byrd fight to make a case against Vitali is REALLY questionable. Most professional sportsmen, I think, would agree that is it up to every athlete to decide if they should jepordize their whole career over a single win.)

Try to turn it around. Look at the worst performences of the fighters from the 70's that you list, and try to argue from that point of views that they would be contenders in any other era. The bottom line is: To count the brothers out completly is jumping to conclusions. Dislike them if you like, but stay realistic.

 

how about the ali from the young fight vs wlad from the 2nd Peter fight?

how about the frazier from jumbo cummings against vitali from lewis/kirk johnson fights?

sounds fair to me

 

Could Sugar Ray Robinson whip Lou Thesz in a street fight or MMA? Will the Woolly Mammoth clone bully members of his hairless herd? Actually, we wont know until we die and go to heaven but I wouldnt be surprised if a Eurasian team of scientist tries some sort of genetic experimentation like they have been doing with chimps and humans

 

But you also must consider who they lost against. Would Shavers, Fraiser, Lyle or Foreman lose against the likes of Brewster, Byrd or Purrity?

 

Following that idea look at the losses of Ali, L. Lewis...

That logic is not valid.

 

would wlad lose to tex cobb? i love tex but the current wlad would destroy him. would vitali 2004 lose to jimmy young, tommy morrison or axel schultz?