Birthday Boy Vitali Klitschko Promises More Drama Vs. Adamek Than Wlad-Haye Fight...WOODS |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Michael Woods | |||
|
Tuesday, 19 July 2011 14:26
|
|||
There was a beehive worth of buzz leading up to the Wladimir Klitschko-David Haye fight in some circles, though in the US, there was an absence of expected electricity. That was largely stemming from the fact that the fight took place in Hamburg, and wasn't truly promoted in the States like it could've been. But some of us strongly considered the possibility that the actual contest wouldn't match the pre-fight hype, the two plus years of heated back and forth between crap-stirrer David "All Hat, No Cattle" Haye and Wladimir. And sad to say, the clash was a bigger dud than most anyone predicted, as Haye went all Gandhi that night, and Wlad didn't let his blood reach a boil, didn't let Haye's verbal campaign distract him from his strategy. Adamek is the anti David Haye, in many ways. He will never be tasked with hyping a fight, as he is a soft spoken man who is disarmingly down to earth, almost shy, in public settings. TSS Universe, please weigh in. Could Adamek break Vitali's ten fight winning streak? Or will he have to be happy with being rewarded for patience and resilience with a career-high payday, his IRA fight? astro1 says:
It's just too bad that the heavyweight division has come to this. So few fights with so few fighters. Robert Curtis says:
Finally, a heavyweight fight worth waiting for! Vitali will be fighting a Pole, a hungry European with fast hands, conditioning and guts. Adamek is not some butterball American loser who wishes he had a football contract and can't push his fat butt away from the dinner table or the crack pipe. Adamek will come to FIGHT! Vitali better not show up old. This fight needs a good ref that will stop the big Lurch Ukrainian from hugger-mugging and leaning on the smaller Adamek. Robert Curtis says:
Fibbin'-about-his-age, 40-year-old Sonny "Night Train" Liston would murda' this 40-year-old superbum. Please don't anybody tell me that jive about Sonny not being old. When God Said, "Let There Be Light." Old Night Train said, "Okay, Boss!" And turned on da darn switch. Hehehehehe! Holla! @Radam: LOL! Thanks for the laugh! Robert Curtis says:
It's amazing how I can get this excited over so little. It's like a drop of water fell on my parched tongue in the middle of the Sahara desert which is today's heavyweight division. LOL! If this were 1974, I probably wouldn't want to see these guys stinking up an Ali undercard. Let me get on my bicycle and back-pedal a bit. I believe this will be a decent fight between an aging champ and a brave challenger. A forty-something boxer today is not as impressive in today's boxing climate as George Foreman was in 1995. But I do think if Vitali doesn't hug Adamek all night like a chimp humping a banana tree, this could be an active competitive fight. Radam G says:
@Bobby C: LMFAO! "...a chimp humping a banana tree..." Where do you come with such side-cracking jive. Man? I'm about to break a rib laughing my arse dizzy. Holla! Joe says:
Adamek is a pro and he's going into the fight "thinking" he can win it. I just don't know if he can withstand that hammer in his face for the first four rounds. And for what it's worth - I think Vitali is the REAL "Heavyweight Champion of the World" - The Greatest Title in Sports. Joe says:
Too bad Sonny ran into that crazy kid Cassius. (I love to watch Sonny's old fights, the head movement, jab, right and that left hook - Eddie Machen was a brave son of a gun..._) mortcola says:
Whatever armchair criticisms ya got, whatever complaints of boredom ya keep making....they keep winning by a mile, with unusually high punch outputs for heavyweights, and historic KO percentages. I'm getting a little bored of it too. All hyped for SOMETHING to happen in the Haye fight - and then, you know what. Adamek will try hard and throw lots of punches, but he will barely win a round. Yes, Sonny Liston was great....always entertaining in an angry-bear-with-skills way. But he wouldn't have gotten inside on the K's either. He might have gotten into Wlad's head. But, I like dealing with facts whenever possible. 6 years and then some, no one has come close. Much as I admire the bros, I'll be glad when the era is over too. FighterforJC says:
The truth about the Klitschko brothers is that they undermine the legacies of the great heavyweights we hold so dear to our hearts. The fact is, boxing has NEVER seen a more dominant fighter like the Klitshckos, and it most definitely has never seen a heavyweight as invincible as the bros. As great as Ali, Tyson, Louis, Foreman, Holmes and Holyfield were, they always looked human even in their most glorious moments. The Klitschkos, on the other hand, for those of you who play videogames, are the equivalent of a glitch or a cheap level boss. No matter how hard you try or how many times you try, you get the same results. It's like a programming error that makes a game unplayable, that's what the Klitschkos are; like a cheap boss in some fighting game who is not governed by the same rules and algorithms as the other characters. Truth is, it is not enough for the Klitschkos to leave the scene. They MUST be beaten in order to protect the legacies of yesterday's great heavyweights. Old school boxing fans desperately want to see them lose. They look at the invincibility of the Klitschkos and are stuck on, "say it isn't so!" Radam G says:
YUP! Ain't nuffin' around, so they should be winning by miles. A grave digger can beat a corpse all day or for years, then bury that muthastinkers. Holla! Radam G says:
The K-bros/docs are like the Harlem Globewreckers -- I mean Globetrotters. The G-Team plays a tomato-can team. The K-bros/docs fight tomato-can chumps. The G-Team will always win and the K-bros/docs will do the same. They are wonderful entertainment for Germany. Not even in their native country do the fans want to see them. This is why they never fight at home. Holla! Condor says:
Mortcola - Where do you rank the Klitschkos P4P? I rank them very high -top 5- based on the STRICT definition of P4P. I'd be very interested in reading where you put them. Generally, heavyweights get no consideration in the P4P conversation, which baffles me (Avila, whose list appears frequently, doesn't consider either top 20; he'll list Mosley, Pavlik, Paul Williams, etc, above Vitali, which is asinine in my opinion). Just curious as to your stance here. Thanks. FighterforJC says:
On pure dominance and consistency I would rate the Klitschkos above Pacquiao. Pacquiao bests them on excitement and drama and perceived better quality of opposition. T mortcola says:
Mortcola - Where do you rank the Klitschkos P4P? I rank them very high -top 5- based on the STRICT definition of P4P. I'd be very interested in reading where you put them. Generally, heavyweights get no consideration in the P4P conversation, which baffles me (Avila, whose list appears frequently, doesn't consider either top 20; he'll list Mosley, Pavlik, Paul Williams, etc, above Vitali, which is asinine in my opinion). Just curious as to your stance here. Thanks. Hi Condor - Plenty of knowledgeable boxing people don't like the Klitschko's styles. Although, they are extremely different fighters in almost every technical and stylistic way, which raises the spectre of bias against the ridiculously dominant Ukrainian Ph.D's. Radam always keeps me on my toes, though I think he's really off about them. He says they are like the Globetrotters playing the stooges - problem is, the K's have done it against every other team in the NBA, and have come back after their different but meaningful setbacks and been even more dominant. Few in history have ever dominated their divisions as thoroughly or for as long; while the division is weak, they are so far above fighters we ORIGINALLY though highly of (Peter, Chambers, Arreola, etc) that it is really unclear how bad the division is - NO ONE IN HISTORY has dominated THEIR heavyweight division as thoroughly. So there is too much fuzzy math involved to say for sure where they would have been in the 70s. I say that, conservative style aside, Wlad's technical and athletic abilities and intelligence make him a favorite over nearly any champion in history, with the questionable chin making those fights pick-em. And, yes, those fights would have been boring. Vitali has different skills and strengths - both brothers are more solid and versatile than George Foreman ever was, and I can't imagine Joe Frazier getting anywhere near any of their chins, any more than he did against big George. Tyson struggled with Tony Tucker and Mitch Green, big but smaller than either Klitschko; Holmes barely survived Carl the Truth Williams and Tim Witherspoon. Ali only beat Foreman by taking advantage of his primitive naivete, letting him pound and pound, pecking at him intermittently until George was ready to be plucked, exhausted; Ali struggled mightily with little Ken Norton and Joe Frazier, barely survived Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young, even though he was f-in' brilliant against guys like Terrell, Williams....he was the GOAT, almost, despite barely making it past good but not great guys. No one has EVER gotten the best of an exchange with either Klitschko, except Sanders who beat a young Wlad by bum-rushing and freaking him out, and Lennox Lewis, who is an all time great heavyweight who only in the imagination was on his way to winning a fight in which he was getting slammed - remember, Vitali has proven his chin again and again - if not for the cut, who would have survived more of those first six rounds? So, boredom and conservatism criticisms against both K's notwithstanding, and maybe true, there is nothing but revisionist bias that places either of them lower than the top ten. There is an argument to be made that either of them deserves to be in the top five. Not much higher, because neither has had to fight for his life in the ring in a true war - partly because since the first Peter fight, no one has come close to hurting either of them. So, if you need classic drama to put them in GOAT debates, you're justified in demoting them. I dig that stuff too. Wlad's ability to become that dominant, conservatively, while keeping his KO percentage, after needing to come back from humiliation and re-tool his approach, attests to character and smarts. Again, nothing but "what if?" thinking allows you to make them underdogs in any era. Boring, yes. But in the top ten or better in any era. Radam - I dig results. And consistency. What fills the glass half full is good enough to make them that consistently better than anyone else. The empty half of the glass is all entertainment and drama related. Its the fizz. My friend and sparring partner, great ref Wayne Kelly, was the ref Gatti fights, for Bowe Golota, for several Klitschko fights - we've talked long about the warfare mentality, and how the Klitschkos just neutralize most of what the other guy can conceivably do. Cool to hear it from a world class ref who's seen and dealt with the toughest stuff. Radam G says:
Wow! mortcola! No matter who you name that GOAT Ali barely got by, it was because da GOAT's opponents were in shape and could fight. Who in the heck has the K-bro/docs fought who was in shape and could BOX? No one! Even Lennox Lewis wasn't in shape when he torched that arse of Big Bro/Doc Vitali. Blindness in heart is more darker then in the eyes any day of the week. Your blindness is in the heart. This is why you cannot see that the K-bros/docs are the greatest ever B-fighters -- Bums! Fighting a bunch of sorry-a$$ tomato cans, stiffs and cadavers from situations and other sports that they failed in means nothing. The K-bros/docs should've fought and beat James "Lights out" Toney about five or six years ago, than they would have something to show -- a bit of creditability for beating a very good contender, if not great. Maybe they should have even fought and beat Holyfield three or four years. I have nothing against the K-bros/docs. But I know what time it is and the game. mortcola says:
Hey Rad - Even though you speak badly of my heart, I respect you. I think you know the sport and you have integrity and high standards about it. I also think you get really caught up in rhetoric and imaginative retro-fantasy. I know, its more fun that way. But I think my objectivity is bigger than yours. Details: first, Vitali stepped WAAAY up in competition to fight Lewis on short notice, and became the first man to EVER outfight Lewis consistently. Torched that a__? Sliced open a cut. Lewis may have been a few pounds over; not much, and no worse than Ali was for many of his 70s fights. Vitali landed the more and better shots, and dictated the pace, until the flesh started to fall out of his head. Fact: James Toney has never been more than mediocre against a major heavyweight, and got OUTBOXED by SAM PETER, who was carved seventy-eleven ways by the K-bros. Fact: Jimmy Young was a small, fairly soft heavyweight. Beat Foreman, truly beat Ali. Wouldn't have done a thing against the K's. Norton....Ali was great, but he was very, very human, and if it weren't for his incredible chin, he wouldn't have survived the hellacious beatings he took from many of his opponents. Condor says:
Thanks for the response Mortcola. I always appreciate reading your stuff. And an interesting tidbit about Wayne Kelly. Bowe-Golota 1 was actually a hell of a good fight. Artless, but high drama considering how highly regarded Bowe was at the time. The chasm between the Klitschkos and their respective opposition is greater than that of any other top fighter and his respective opposition today. That counts for something in my book. It's not like their resumes are thin or the sample size too small; this has been the case for YEARS. Maligning the Klitschkos opposition is a convenient, albeit tired scapegoat. You're on the mark when you state that the entertainment value is not always there, primitively speaking (although their KO percentages are very high), and people generally want more blood. Vitali hospitalized Briggs but it wasn't enough. Wlad KO's Chambers in the 12th but it should have been sooner, etc. Objectively speaking, a case can be made for Vitali as #1 P4P today and Wlad certainly top 3/5. Radam G says:
C'mon, mortcola! I'd not dare spoke badly of your ticker. WTF! You are just blinding yourself and changing a bit of history for your K-Boys. For example, Mike Tyson tore those arses up of Mitch Green and Tony Tucker. He didn't struggle. He won by convincing decisions. But I guess you are just being subjected. And your perturbation and size deductions of GOAT Ali's opponents are just plain old foul. Ken Norton was not small or smaller than Ali. And Ron Lyle was one fighting fool. GOAT Ali never fought a man who couldn't fight. But it is all good. I understand human nature quite well. It is what it is. mortcola says:
Still mixing apples and oranges, and painting the past all rosy, Radam. Ali is one of my heros - I was also born into the love of boxing - and I have studied and attempted to implement things I learned from Ali, in my own little way. Incredible creativity, intelligence, subtlety, courage under fire. But Ali did not carve up lots of the gusy he beat; he was given terrible trouble by good, strong fighters, even relatively small ones by today's standards, who fought him evenly or better, and if it weren't for his chin, he would have been in even bigger trouble. What...would...happen...in...the...ring? That's the approach I take. Your argument comes down to supposition and fantasy - Ali and the old-timers interest you more, they were part of a more dramatic generation of boxing. In the ring, what would have happened....would Lyle have ever gotten near Vitali's chin and snaky upper body, while avoiding the shots that have broken the skulls of larger men? No strategy, implemented by any fighter of any style or size, has gotten over on Vitali - only a cut did it, period. Would Norton have gotten out of the second round against Wlad, or his brother? Would Frazier have had any more success against either of them than he did against a Foreman who was smaller and cruder than either Klitschko? As far as weaknesses to be exploited, there have been none exploited against Vitali, and only a blitzkrieg has done it to Wlad....and now, no one has been able to duplicate it. In fact, I have no more proof of my claim than you do of yours about who would win. I play the combinations of styles in my head, and I don't see anything different happening when 70s individuals fight fantasy fights against the "boring" K's. What I have to go on (and, remember, I am getting bored of the Klitschkos, too), is that they have shown no tactical weaknesses except for Wlad's earlier vulnerabilities, and the results are pretty much the same no matter who is in the ring with them. Aggressive bombers might get the mental breakdown shot in against Wlad, but not usually. SOmeone might cut Vitali - anyone can cut or swell; and I still don't get why he quit with the shoulder injury against Byrd, unless he was coolly doctorially calculating the long term risk-benefit of continuing with a torn rotator. But, all respect, I honor and admire Ali, and I agree with you about so much. But whether I am a Klitschko "fan" or not, my analysis is solid. If I'm wronger than you are, we'll never know. Thanks for sparring with me. FighterforJC says:
These are the fighters I would give a solid chance of beating either Klitschko, in no particular order: mortcola says:
Good one, F4jc - We're talking real boxing matchups now. Holyfield would have made it entertaining, but he was a very rhythmically predictable fighter, and could be lulled into auto-pilot. Foreman could just plain paralyze you with those, as you say, sweeping hooks. He was not slow at all in his prime. He had no finesse to getting in, though - he was utterly defenseless against Lyle, for example, having no choice but to go punch for punch. But a young Foreman is a good bet against anyone in history - his ability to be out-thought and broken down by finesse and counterpunching by fighters who could make him lunge was exemplified in the Ali and the Young fights. A prime Bowe could do some serious work against any good heavyweight - but he was pretty well dominated by Golota, who had a diluted version of the K's strengths. Tyson always got his licks in, true. Prime Tyson is a smart bet against practically anyone. But he was at his worst against tall, physically stronger fighters with good jabs. And we all know where the mental toughness factor fell apart with him. Never bad in that department, just not as good. As far as the Lewis fight goes - who would have had the second wind, who would have toughed it out, whose power would have won out - who knows? Fights have ebb and flow, and the cut pre-empted any definitive answers. Ibeabuchi? Wild cared. IMpressive as hell; self-destruct. Thanks for this. Good work. FighterforJC says:
Quick thoughts before I go on my run... Condor says:
"The Foreman who fought Lyle was not the same one who fought Frazier the first time and Norton. He was much more hesitant and lacking in confidence. The Bowe who fought Golota was the damaged goods from the three wars with Holyfield. The punishment Bowe took from Holyfield was insane. Bowe took full shot after full shot from Holyfield in their 3 fights." Radam G says:
You are one funny guy, mortcola, and loaded with bullsh*tology, maxims and bulljive. I like that line: "...born into the love of boxing." Hehehehehehehehe! I was 40-0 as amateur before I started to the first grade. I had 380 amateur bouts -- won 373 of them. I'm one of the few champions to win world titles in both the amateurs and pros. And I'm one of the few to win national amateur championships in three different countries that I'm considered a citizen of. And I can go on forever about me. But I won't. I am having the fun time of my life hiding in plain sight, BABBBEEEEE! Everything is good. Condor says:
And last thing, if it was SO EASY to dethrone these guys, if they posed NO risk, wouldn't someone step up and say, "Shit, why not, I'll be the heavyweight champion of the world for a few months ... make a quick 8 figures, cash in, why not." Money talks. Money talks. Remember, that option, that blockbuster lottery ticket is on the table for anyone on this planet, and it has been for YEARS, yet no one can cash it in. mortcola says:
You are one funny guy, mortcola, and loaded with bullsh*tology, maxims and bulljive. I like that line: "...born into the love of boxing." Hehehehehehehehe! I was 40-0 as amateur before I started to the first grade. I had 380 amateur bouts -- won 373 of them. I'm one of the few champions to win world titles in both the amateurs and pros. And I'm one of the few to win national amateur championships in three different countries that I'm considered a citizen of. And I can go on forever about me. But I won't. I am having the fun time of my life hiding in plain sight, BABBBEEEEE! Everything is good. You crack me up with your wisecrackin' defense of the sorry-arse K-bros/docs. I'm not the only who boxed and know da game of boksing, who know that the K-bros/docs are some lucky, sorry-arse cats. Close to a 100 percent of the boxing minds of the world will tell you that they ain't sh*t. And the heavyweight division is nothing. Enough said. Smokin' Joe Frazier would kayoed them in the same night. The young George Foreman woulda broke their jaws. The old one woulda broke those ribs and jaws and a$$es. Even Jerry Quarry would have stopped them. Terry Daniel and Chucky Wepner would have finish them off. Gerry "The Gentleman" Cooney would have murda' da bums. His chief sparringmate, Chip "Big Chocolate Chip" Tyler woulda beat 'em silly. You have much luv of the Klits. More power to you and your great bullsh*tology. Ya' are da best with it. And FJC! He's da MAN of ________ _______! Holla! Hey Rad - The more you slam me, the more I'm getting to like you. I would like to buy you a San Miguel and pick your brain. As for boxing records, I will put mine against yours anyday...and lose. 13-3 as an amateur. I was told at 19 that I could have been turned into a serious pro middleweight - if I didn't spend so much time on philosophy and other mind altering substances. And at 47, I regularly spar with middle aged guys and some young pros - one of them praised me for slipping a right hand yesterday, saying "yeah, I guess you used to be able to box". The old master trainer in my gym is Filipino, Dom Marino, who discovered Gerry Cooney, whom I know, whose house was around the corner from mine, and trained him until Valle was brought in; the guys I train with include the guys Cooney came up with, and hung out with - many of whom are still around. Tomorrow at 8:30, I'll be yelled at by Kathy Wildcat Collins, who held the Jr. Welterweight women's title and fought Christy Martin to a disputed majority decision (and the best trainer I've had). Thing is, I've been a deep, diehard boxing student and watcher and critic since I was 7 (Ali-Frazier 1), and the boxing people I know in the neighborhood and with IBF know I'm not just a fan...I'm known for knowing the sport. As for the boxing minds, I know a lot of them personally, and, well, they don't think the K's ain't sh-t. You're making that up. I don't go for "fan" mentality, and I demand a lot of the fighters I praise. I just see a few things differently from you. But, uh, do you really think Chuck Wepner would have finished them off? Would you care to revise that opinion? I mean, you were doing great.... and then you took us to sillytown. BTW, stop hiding in plain sight. Who are you, Radam? Now I want to know more about this career of yours..... FighterforJC says:
"The Foreman who fought Lyle was not the same one who fought Frazier the first time and Norton. He was much more hesitant and lacking in confidence. The Bowe who fought Golota was the damaged goods from the three wars with Holyfield. The punishment Bowe took from Holyfield was insane. Bowe took full shot after full shot from Holyfield in their 3 fights." But that's part of being great. One can't be at his absolute zenith -Ali v Cleveland Williams- EVERY night. One could argue that on that sleepy morning in Japan, James Douglas could have hung with ANY man in all of human history. And I'd be inclined to agree. But longevity, consistency, dominance, and no off-nights, they matter. A body of work, over time, matters. Being past your prime is a far cry from being punch drunk the way Bowe was against Golota. Holyfield was past his prime when he fought Tyson and Lewis, but not the mess Bowe was. With Foreman-Lyle, Foreman was simply not the same fighter, even if he may have been in his phyiscal peak. brownsugar says:
Adamek comes to fight.... he may be over matched(actually outsized). But there's no way this could possibly be LESS entertaining than Haye vs Wlad. Radam G says:
You definitely have a boxing elite champion mentality -- headstrong to the max and high strung and won't relax. But a bit naive and uninformed. I can name five, 10, 15 or 20 boxing superminds right off the top of my head. They will surely and quickly tell you that the K-bros/docs "ain't sh*t!" Not even close to dat and a bag of chips. Hehehehehe!
|
I will believe it, when I hear it, because I darn sure will not see it. I've heard that life starts at 40. WTF! I guess that we are some dead muthasuckas before 40. Maybe this explain the dam* death of the nowadays heavies. Doc Vitali K should shine like a muthaliver. But he'll still be a dead man walking at that age. And you already know that the heavies are some pitiful jive suckas. Doc Vitali has made a bad diagnose. He ain't gonna do s***, but use his son's peepee on those handwraps for his bad-arse mitts. And besides, Doc Vitali doesn't need to do much more of anything to make this bout more dramatic than his little bro's bum-and-chump fest.
Fibbin'-about-his-age, 40-year-old Sonny "Night Train" Liston would murda' this 40-year-old superbum. Please don't anybody tell me that jive about Sonny not being old. When God Said, "Let There Be Light." Old Night Train said, "Okay, Boss!" And turned on da darn switch. Hehehehehe! Holla!