Wladimir Klitschko the Anti-Tyson, The President of the United States of America & History’s Eye

By Boxing News - 07/15/2008 - Comments

wladimir463568.jpgBy Matt McGrain: I’ve always felt it ironic that the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States of America, is so thoroughly and helplessly defined by his times. The Nixon administration certainly didn’t create the conditions surrounding the most paranoid period in America’s recent history, but nothing surmises the paranoia and self-hatred surrounding the Vietnam era better than that most mired of Presidents. But even the great Presidents are defined by the time in which they Govern – Kennedy the visionary at a time of great change, Roosevelt, probably the greatest President in United States history, was afforded the chance to become so during the extraordinary circumstances of the 1930’s. Of course, greatness is not a matter of circumstance alone and each of these men did extraordinary work, but it is fair to say that Roosevelt would not have been a four-term President had he been elected to position in the 1970’s.

I also feel that ex-Presidents are generally more interesting than Presidents. There are exceptions, most notably the President who came to be owned most thoroughly by the public due to the circumstances of his personal life, Bill Clinton, but in general I feel more able to properly appraise an ex-President once he has been free from the shackles of office for a number of years.

Ex-Presidents are fascinating because they are (generally)free of political controversy, free from the constraints of their office where before they had to be very definite and, conversely, can be frank where they were once oblique. Jimmy Carter’s extraordinary interviews concerning the Iran hostage crisis is a fine example. Carter comes to life where once he seemed lukewarm.

Just like incumbent Presidents, incumbent Heavyweight Champions of the world are also hard to define. They are defined by the times in which they fight. Most important are the fighters they share the era with. Era’s like the 1970’s and 1990’s are stacked with world class fighters – multiple all time greats – and many fine contenders which, as any obsessive boxing fan knows “might have been champion in another era”. The late 2000’s for example. Secondly, it is nice if the Heavyweight champion can have a mortal enemy to help define him – just try to imagine Jack Johnson without Jim Jeffries or Gene Tunney without Jack Dempsey or Muhammad Ali without Joe Frazier for some idea of what I mean. Technical aspects too, can come to define a fighter – did the fighter take advantage of his era’s politics to draw the colour line and fail to fight the great black fighters of his generation, did the fighter define himself over 10, 13, 15 or 15+ rounds, did the fighter test himself against a variety of styles and sizes? But the hardest factor to overcome is a fighter with a dearth of competition to hand.

But even a heavyweight with great fighters for company can sometimes be misunderstood during his time as a contender and champion. Take the greatest of them all, Muhammad Ali. Ali, in his first incarnation as Cassius Clay, then as Champion, shared an era with not one, but two all time greats at the weight, the box-puncher Sonny Liston and the undersized swarmer Floyd Patterson. Two very different styles, two very different fighters, both to be regarded as greats in the divisions history. For traditionalists and the public at large, there was always something “funny” about the young Cassius and the fledgling champion Ali. Not a puncher, he didn’t stand and trade, he didn’t throw the big punches with proper form, he wore his hands at his waist, he clowned, he danced – and he didn’t give a shit for the establishment. Ali was not respected. Even after he beat Sonny Liston twice, he was not regarded as a “proper” champion. People saw his style as somehow “not manly” – people were very ready to believe there were something strange about both Liston fights, and Patterson’s back injury in his fight with Ali was an excuse many were very ready to pounce upon. After a European tour, the absolute destruction of Cleveland Williams it was during the Terrell fight that Ali finally seemed to gain respect from the wider boxing world, in no less of a shape than Joe Louis who spent a few rounds in the US commentary position and was very impressed by Muhammad. Weeks later, Ali had his title taken from him for failing to be inducted into the United States armed forces.

If even a great champion sharing an era with two other great champions can be misunderstood as a fighter because of his style of fighting, what about a champion who shares an era with no great fighters, and with set of contenders that seem unable to compete with him? A fighter with no great rivalry, and seemingly no chance of developing one? What about Wladimir Klitschko? Wladimir is far and away the best heavyweight competing currently. But he may be the most unpopular #1 since Muhammad Ali announced his religious conversion and change of name (Ali often told with great mirth of Sonny Liston’s ring walk for the re-match in Miami where an excited white spectator extolled ex-con African-American Sonny to “kill the nigger”).

Klitschko’s unpopularity can be summed up in one word; style. Like Ali before him, Klitschko is not seen as a “proper” heavyweight champion because of the way he fights. This is to be expected. A fighter who is dull (and Klitschko is dull) will never be as popular as his twisted mirror image, Mike Tyson, but nor should this unpopularity affect his standing. Mike’s style was terribly aggressive and technically pretty sound, very, very exciting to watch, but he was also quite limited – like many fundamental fighters, Tyson suffered from a lack of options. Combined with his apparent mental weakness – not overtly there until his post-prison career, they can be observed a little earlier, Mike’s frustrations in the Smith fight, for example – Tyson lacked for a plan B, and when plan A went begging, he would always be a little lost. Against other great fighters, this would often leave him coming up short – as was seen – but it made him absolutely lethal against B and C level competition. It’s possible that Tyson could have gone unbeaten in this current era, for example, despite the fact that his style was essentially a young man’s style. Tyson’s manner of fighting, mapped around his natural aggression, power, speed and excellent punch resistance was pretty rigid and is the opposite of Wladamir Klitschko’s. But I will argue that whilst being total opposites, Klitschko’s style is every bit as fundamental, and as rigid, as Mike’s.

Wladamir has excellent power, and like Ali’s first great defining rival, Liston, he punches accurately and with authority. His jab and his overhand right are technically excellent, punches that can be made the foundation for any offence. But unlike Mike, he doesn’t’ have devastating speed or great punch resistance. As we know, the younger Klitschko has lost two title fights by KO, against Sanders and Brewster. Since that time his style has altered somewhat – Klitschko is perhaps best described as a puncher with a boxer’s style, but unlike Lewis before him, he has not shown the adaptability that Lennox exhibited (against Micheal Grant for example). But Wlad’s style has developed through necessity.

Klitschko is a great athlete, but he lacks the most manly of athletic traits, stamina. So he is nervous about committing a great deal of energy to an attack early in the fight because he may suffer for it later, as appeared to be the case against Brewster in their first fight. This means that Klitschko has come to rely very heavily upon his one-two, an excellent combination that doesn’t leave the puncher to vulnerable to counters, and the jab alone, which is the least counterable of shots as well as the easiest to land. Of course, this is deeply frustrating for the fans because they see accuracy and power and want to see it wielded with the type of ferocity that Tyson managed. But Klitschko, like Tyson, can only fight one way, but rather than because of what he has naturally got, like Mike, Wlad is defined by what he naturally lacks. Fighting like Tyson would be very, very dangerous for him. A fighter who somehow survives a Wladimir Klitschko onslaught will be very dangerous later on should the champion gas, and a fighter who can counter-punch and carries power will dump him straight on his backside, perhaps for 10. His vulnerability in the chin department also means that Wlad often can’t press an opponent, even a hurt one and this means he is sometimes guilty of “admiring his handy-work” as Richie Woodhall put it during his excellent colour commentary for Setanta’s broadcast of the Thompson fight. Klitschko will land, but then rather than fire in hooks and uppercuts – punches an observer could be forgiven for thinking Wlad had failed to master – he carefully watches an opponent to see how hurt he is. This is why Klitschko waited until Thompson was literally broken mentally before pressing his attack. He needed to know that once he pressed his man, that man would fall and not get up. Underwhelming as a spectacle? Perhaps. It’s also absolutely world class generalship and impressively efficient. I will submit that if Klitschko was fighting in the light-middleweight division he would be lauded for his high KO ratio (Close to 90%), fantastic balance and ring intelligence by hardcore fans insisting he is near the top of the pound for pound argument (which, in my opinion, Wlad is as things stand). Because of his high visibility as the Heavyweight champion of the world, Wlad – like the President of the US, the Heavyweight Champion of politicians – is held to higher standards than his peers, and even those who filled exactly the same position before him. More is expected, understandably, but perhaps unfairly.

Given that this is the case, Klitschko has absolutely found the right style for him, one that allows him every bit as lethal against B and C level competition as Mike Tyson was. Despite his shortcomings, Klitschko, in this incarnation, has managed to make himself every bit as invincible as Mike would be in this era. I find this impressive and commendable. Of course, Klitschko should never be rated as highly as Tyson. Mike could arguably beat any fighter in history with his style, though there are plenty I would make a favourite over him, whereas reticence in boxing is a stylistic disadvantage if it is inflexible. The irony is that Klitschko, despite his cautious attitude, would probably be reduced to a puncher’s chance against other great fighters, despite his great boxing skills.

But Klitschko himself is a great fighter. I believe that with the passage of time, this will become apparent. He is a rather dull fighter, especially considering his physical gifts, and history will always remember him as such, rightly. He is also likely to retire as undefeated champion of the world with plenty of knockouts and a lot of W’s in the results column. In the end, analysis of Klitschko’s style and why it works or doesn’t is valid, but fans pissing endlessly about his style being boring are rather missing the point – which is winning. Wladamir Klitschko is the greatest fighter in his class and reportedly earned $12 last time out. Fans expecting him to adjust his style in these circumstances, when he is also hugely popular in Germany and other areas of Europe, just to pleas them – and the legendary “casual fan” – is a touch naïve.

Hoping he is beaten is fine, though. As long as they understand the hope is likely to be in vain.



Comments are closed.