Why the Klitschkos cannot be considered historically great

By Anthony Mason - 04/26/2014 - Comments

wladimir33By Anthony Mason: I find it very confusing when people compare the Klitschkos to the all-time great heavyweights. The Klitschkos are definitely good boxers, but they have not done anything to stand out and be considered in the league of a Dempsey, Wills, or Tunney, let alone a Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali. No amount of title defenses will hide the fact that the Klitschkos have never beaten an elite heavyweight boxer in their entire careers. To claim that they are historically underrated is a terrible farce.

Simply reciting statistics such as the Klitschkos win-loss record, number of defenses, or KO ratios demonstrates an inability to use logical thinking and an inability to put these misleading statistics into context. After the Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson, and Lewis era was finished, the post early 2000s heavyweight division became the weakest division in the history of any weight class of any era since perhaps the beginning of boxing as a sport. Some may say that you cannot blame the Klitschkos for having to fight in a weak era. Well, you definitely cannot give them a lot of praise for it either.

Every win in both Klitschkos resumes come against fighters years and years beyond their prime, with padded records, with no-name fighters who should not be in a boxing ring to begin with, or some combination of these flaws. The biggest and most impressive win on both Klitschko’s resume is Samuel Peter. Despite his limitations, Peter still managed to knock down Wladimir three times in one fight. Samuel Peter as a boxer’s best win does not make them an all time great heavyweight, and certainly not an all time great pound for pound boxer by any stretch of the imagination. In a weak era where Samuel Peter was the best fighter a Klitschko beat (and one that Wladimir struggled with), it doesn’t matter if the Klitschkos have 1000 title defenses or knockouts. They will not be among the historically elite.

The best opponent that Vitali Klitschko fought was the worst version of Lennox Lewis. Even at 38 years old, past his prime. and in the worst shape of his career, Lennox was losing by the slimmest of margins on the scorecards (58-56) to a prime Vitali Klitschko. Comically, irrational fans attempt to use this slim edge as validation that Klitschko “won” the fight. By this fallacious logic, Tommy Hearns should have beaten Sugar Ray Leonard in 1981. After all, Tommy Hearns had an even larger lead on the scorecards than Vitali did over Lennox before the fight ended.

In spite of Lennox’s relatively unimpressive state, he still managed to take complete control of the fight heading into the 6th round and smashed Vitali’s face so badly that a medical professional could not allow Vitali to get further annihilated. In hindsight, Lennox Lewis exposed Vitali as a weak champion fighting in a weak era like Rocky Marciano. Vitali was not dominating the fight. He had a decent start, and as the fight went on he was eating uppercuts left and right and continued to clinch excessively. Lennox Lewis (remember – a 38 year old, well past his prime, out of shape Lennox Lewis) still gave him fits and forced a doctor to stop the fight because Vitali was taking such a beating. Ironically, people consider this to be Vitali’s shining moment. This proves how weak of a champion Vitali is. Getting his faced smashed while having the slimmest of leads on the scorecard against an opponent well past his prime is considered by many to be Vitali’s crowning achievement.

I have repeatedly heard fans use the same senseless arguments over and over in an attempt to validate the legitimacy of the Klitschkos as all-time great champions. I will break apart these ridiculous points in the next few paragraphs.

1) Vitali is 45-2 with losses coming by injury stoppages and a 87% KO ratio. Wladimir is 62-3 with 52 KOs. Few boxers can match these numbers.

And who was the best opponent these boxers beat? Samuel Peter. Padded records mean nothing. Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one point. Eric Esch was 63-1-3 at one point. Memorizing statistics does not prove anything when you fail to put them in context. I highly doubt anyone is foolish enough to put Eric Esch above Evander Holyfield despite the fact that Esch has a higher winning percentage. If someone like Holyfield fought both Klitschko’s level of competition, he would walk through them without a scratch.

2) Lennox Lewis was afraid of Vitali and ducked a rematch.

First of all – Lennox Lewis made Riddick Bowe duck HIM, he fought Holyfield twice, was willing to fight Tyson throughout his career, fought Mccall and Rahman even after being KOd, but some people are foolish enough to think he is scared of fighting Vitali Klitschko of all people?

Secondly as mentioned several times – Lennox was 38, past his prime, in his worst shape ever, and he still stopped Vitali Klitschko. In spite of Vitali being six years younger and in much better shape, he was still beaten to a pulp. After taking the fight on two weeks notice and still winning, what more did Lennox need to prove?

Thirdly – Why should a man in the physical twilight of his career (Lennox) risk his health for one more fight when he only took the fight on 2 weeks notice in the first place, (still winning by TKO) and already proved his place among the all time greats? Lennox isn’t in the position of Joe Louis who had to come back and fight because of IRS problems, so Lennox had no reason to risk his health after already risking it for over a decade against elite boxers – not boxers of the quality that the Klitschkos face.

3) The Klitschkos are not given respect because they are foreign.

Really? Fitzimmons, Turpin, Marquez, Morales, Barrera, Pacquiao, Chavez Sr, Duran, Monzon, Sergio Martinez, Golovkin, Adonis Stevenson, Maidana, Rigondeux, Donaire, etc. do not get respect?

4) The Klitschkos have X amount of title defenses.

Again, memorizing and reciting statistics does not prove anything. Look at the men that the best heavyweights had to fight compared to the Klitschkos – Bowe, Lennox, Moorer, Tyson, Evander, Morrison, Spinks, Foreman, Patterson, Frazier, Norton, Liston, Moore, Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, Sharkey, Langford, Wills, McVey, Tunney, Joe Jeanette, Dempsey, etc.

Now lets compare the Klitschkos’ opponents – Peter, old washed up Mercer, old washed up Rahman, Chris Byrd, Orlin Norris, Purrity, Sanders, 38 year old past his prime Lennox, Chisora, Haye, Povetkin, Eddie Chambers, etc. The most disappointing part is that they actually lost to some of these fighters on the list. It does not matter how many champions or beltholders the Klitschkos fought. None of them were elite. There is a HUGE difference in level of competition. Even if the Klitschkos had 1000 defenses, it is not worth much if they come against “Bum of the Month” opposition.

5) Past heavyweights such as Larry Holmes and Jack Johnson were not respected as boxers until long after their career was over. The same should happen with Wladimir and Vitali.

Comparing Larry Holmes and Jack Johnson to the Klitschkos is comparing apples to oranges. Heavyweights who were looked down upon in the past, but are respected as boxers today, such as Holmes and Johnson, fought competition such as Shavers, Norton, Cooney, Spinks, Langford, Mcvey, Fitzsimmons, etc. They did not fight relatively weak opponents like Haye and Peter. There is no sense in comparing the Klitschkos to all-time greats who were initially disrespected, and given praise later on after their careers.

Anyone who legitimately believes the farce that either Klitschko is an all time great heavyweight (let alone a historically great pound for pound fighter) is simply one of the many sheep that blindly follow the herd. You do have to give the Klitschkos credit for dominating the division, even though it is incredibly weak. That in itself deserves some merit. However, given their failures against 38 year old Lennox, Sanders, Purity, and Brewster as well as their incredibly weak competition, there is nothing to suggest that the Klitschkos are all time greats, and they should never be placed in that discussion.



Comments are closed.