Vitali Klitschko
- Stories during his career
By Irish
13.05 - We all are
quite focused on Wladimir Klitscho right now, and
who wouldn't be, following his removal of Jefferson
in 2 easy rounds and his one sided beating of Chris
Byrd. However, recently I had begun to feel that
Vitali, once the standard bearer of European heavyweight
hopes, has gone somewhat unnoticed as of recent,
and unfairly so. It was my inablilty to find worthwhile
reading material on Vitali at any major site that
prompted an unplanned and surprise internet check.
I managed to find some articles and upon reading
them decided I'd better sit down and let you all
know what I'd found.What I found related to Dr Klitschko,
yes, but my search also returned several other articles
of interest, which I have decided, over the course
of the next few days, to share with you. What follows
are several short articles. Please look at them
as both individual stories aswell as chapters in
the same book. They're all connected in one way
or the other, but I' ll let you draw the connection
for yourselves.
Chapter 1
I wasn't aware until
yesterday that Don King had visited Nadia Klitschko
(Vlad/Vitalis mother) in Kiev back in 1996.Yes,
it's true. Apparently he turned up in Kiev and spoke
to Nadia at length. Nadia, simple but highly intelligent,
saw through Dons' baloney. King left empty handed
and apparently quite drunk thanks to Nadias Vodka.This
story was run by Kevin Mitchell of the Guardian
Observer on Tuesday, May 23 2000. Apparently King
also alluded to the fact that the brothers would
make serious money...due to the colour of their
skin. The story ran on forwards and centered mainly
around the careeer and impact and "importance"
of one Jack Johnson before suddenly fast - forwarding
to the unfortunate conclusion of Vitalis Championship
defence vs Chris Byrd in April 2000. Thats a 2 month
gap between that fight and the publication of the
article. Bear that in mind for the remainder of
the chapter.
The article worked
like this..it gave a cursory introduction which
makes an otherwise ignorant or uninformed casual
sports fan (the type which would be all too aware
of Hitlers antics in Berlin in 1936 but fully ignorant
of the significance of Schmellings KO of Louis in
1936 or his pre-fight treatment in the Yankee stadium
in 1938) aware of the Klitschko brothers..their
physical dimensions and their race, their origins
and their achievements. it also lets them know that
where Mrs Nadia Klitschko lives isn't quite as bad
as the neighbourhood that Mr King hails from:
"..He'd run a
numbers racket in a neighbourhood bleaker than this"
What you must notice
is that the author isn't quoting King. The author
says this himself. He makes up Kings mind for both
King and for us. To my eyes what this is is an attempt
to prevent any reader from drawing the conclusion
that the brothers hail from a tough run down neighbourhood
like the preponderance of their American counterparts.
How often have we heard the sobs stories of Bowe,
Tyson at all? If you don't believe me then ask yourselves
this..Why has the author made that comment then?
Just bearing in mind the old "Ivan Drago"
stereotype should be enough to make things clear.
The author deliberately sets out [early in the article]
to let you know that these guys don't hail from
as tough a neighbourhood as you might have been
led to believe. Of course the natural conclusion
which would be drawn then is that if they're not
from a tough neighbourhood...then how can they be
tough? This question gets answered, albeit indirectly,
by the author somewhat later in the article. But
we all know that the brothers hail from a tough
Communist past and had very little in the way of
material things for much of their life. And had
to attend military and athlethic
academy. But the author doesn't tell you this. All
he tells you is that Don King has seen worse. Well
guess what, we give a f***.
However the author
then changes tack, focusing on the rise and fall
of Jack Johnson and the rise and fall of Vitali
Klitschko. Much of the material is unimportant...but
there is one common link which needs to be made
between the two. Essentially the author focuses
on the "Great White Hope" of 1908-1915.
He breaks it down-Johnsons rise to the throne, Johnsons
reign and Johnsons demise. But he focuses mainly
on Johnsons reign,given that this was the period
during which the "Hope" campaign got underway
in earnest. He notes the desperate search for a
heavyweight possesed of the requisite skills and
the right pigmentation who would win back the championship.
Then the article cuts to Berlin March 18 2000, the
night Wlad put a hurting on Wolfgramm. The author
noted the weirdness of the setting when he said...
"The evening was
a little weird in another sense: A Russian icon
in a German sporting shrine. Local boxing writers
confirmed that the Klitschkos were superstars, but
it would be nice if they were actually German"
So, what's the guy
saying, that the German people are embracing the
Klitschkos as they are great white hopes, but it
would be even better if they were actually German!Is
that it? Previously the author had referred to the
fact that- "Overall this was a decidedly white
evening" in what I believe to have been a poor
attempt to compare the gathering to a congregation
of whites who were grateful that the
heavyweights performing for their pleasure were
at least white, if not actually German. He then
goes on to say the following :
"..I was getting
uncomfortably close to a truth that I had not been
seeking, one which anyone even remotely familiar
with professional boxing knows to be valid: white
guys make money; big white guys make lots of money.."
Obviously this guy
hadn' t heard of KoKo Kovacs, who cannot make fights,
not to mention money. But hey he was in Grand Canaria
so that sun tan is probably to blame. Furthermore
anybody that has seen Hasim Rahman act like an auctioneer
over the last few days and walk away with a deal
which will surely see him defend against opposition
not only inferior to the Klitschkos but inferior
to the Klitschkos opposition has to laugh at the
implication that "big white guys make lots
ofmoney" at the expense of someone else.That
someone else being, the implication would have it,
big black guys. Let me ask you something...how much
did Lewis get offered and ultimately make for his
defences vs Rahman, Tua, Botha and Grant?? Then
ask yourself how much Rahman has today walked away
with to fight fighters vastly inferior to the above
mentioned competition (Remember that Ruiz (!) is
first up for Rahman and no mention has been made
of Lewis or Tyson in the deal!) It would seem to
me that, fine, it is true to say that big white
guys make big money, but that it is even more accurate
and indeed more relevant to state that big American
guys (regardless of colour) make more money than
anyone else, black or white.One only has to compare
Lewis' renmueration package with that of Rahman
to see that such is the case. It seems to me that
the author is attempting to portray a scene,a scene
not all that different from that scene he portrayed
earlier-that of the Great White Hopes in the early
part of the century. It's like "Are they German?
No? But they're white, right? Good! I don't know
why he has introduced this element into the article,
because thats not how any of us look at the brothers.
Ring magazine in their HW roundup were the exact
same...when they said of Wladimir "He's big.
Real
big. And he's white" Yeah, so?
Anyways,I won't dwell.
Just so you know.The last point which I'd like to
make is this..you remember what I told you to bear
inmind in the first paragraph? Right, good. Now
get this. The finalpart of the article cuts to the
buildup and aftermath of the Byrd fight. Prior to
the fight Vitali is described as being "6ft
8" and nearly 18 stone of lean muscle".
The author notes that Vitali is "the unbeaten
cosmopolitan mugger" where as Byrd is the "black
American gospel singer" (I thought he was a
boxer but hey) whom Vitali is he notes, expected
to "crush" Ah yes the good old days of
Rocky IV.The reader should note this:that the author
of the peice tries hard to make out that, yes, he
believes that the injury was genuine and that Vitali
did the right thing and that the Yank commentators,
Larry Merchant included, are wrong to criticise
him.I do not feel this way. I for one detect a thread
of mocking sarcasm running threw the final paragraphs
of the article. An example perhaps? Sure...
"But it all goes
wrong.Horribly.the rotator cuff muscle on Vitalis
left shoulder is torn.from the third round onwards
he boxes on in the most awful pain, yet manages
to lead comfortably up to the tenth round."
Let's just stop there
for a moment.Does anyone else get the impression
that what the author is saying is that the fact
that Vitali supposedly so badly injured as of round
3 was able to lead on the cards up until round 10..therefore
suggesting that he wasn't that badly injured at
all and could have of in fact contuinued if he really
wanted to. I mean what the guy is saying really
is that if he made it this far, why not all the
way to the end. Of course Klitschko fans and Vitali
himself know that the real reason that Vitali retired
was that his shoulder was going to be irreparably
damaged if he continued any further. However the
author seems to put it down to cowardice, but cannot
come straight out and and admit this. We all know
that Vitali retired cos he had the brains to do
so rather than keep going and earn a pyhrric victory.and
yes the author refers to Vitalis brains too, but
not in a nice way..:
"His doctorate
in sports psychology and medecine; he decided he
cannot do the final three and surrenders"
He doesn't say that
Vitali decided that he "shouldn't do the final
three" which is what really happened. Instead
he says that Vitali decide he "cannot"
do the final three.There is a difference.Subtle
as it is it is there nonetheless. In reply to Larry
Merchants quip that "Champions do not give
up just like that" the author responds:
"I am not sure
that Larry has ever torn a rotator cuff muscle"
.I know that the author may appear sincere but to
me he is not, instead using sarcasm and humour to
belittle the man and make him out to be a quitter
without having the balls to step right up and say
it.
Remember the point
I made to you all about there being 2 months almost
between the fight and the writing of the article?
Well get this..the article ended with the following
statement:
"Two days later
Vitali went into hospital for an operation which
was given a 90 per cent chance of restoring his
shoulder to working order. If it does not work his
stab at history as a white heavyweight is gone."
Sorry,but what the
guy ought have said was that his stab as at history
as a heavyweight (period!) was gone. Where does
this guy get off suggesting that Vitali is in this
to make an impact as a white heavyweight and white
heavyweight only? What sort of a comment is that
to make.If his shoulder had not healed then his
career as a heavyweight was over. I'd just like
everybody to note the importance of that comment
made by the author. Basically, to me, the whole
article was hell bent on depicting the Bros as "Great
White Hopes" as evidenced by the heat they
were causing in Germany. He tries to depict Vitali
as a quitter but doesn't want to say it straight
up instead preferring to use patronising and sarcastic
language as a front. At least Kellerman and Katz
et al, for all their shortcomings, said it straight
up.This guy couldn't or wouldn't say it. Just note
that.
Finally - It was made
public only 3-4 weeks after the fight that:
1.His shoulder had been seriously hurt
2.That he needed an operation immediately
3.That he was going to recover
I mean, we knew all
these things right? This article came out some 7-8
weeks after the fight and at least 4 weeks after
the findings listed above. Yet no reference was
made to the findings by the author of the article.You'd
think that he'd have included them. It's not like
the facts weren't available, yet he didn't include
them, and I'm under no illusions as to why not.
The purpose of this
article was just to show you that supposedly objective
pieces written about the brothers may have cryptic
passages which when examined with an open mind reveal
something else. Always keep this in mind especially
when reading articles which on the surface seem
to be pro-Klitschko. They may not always be such.
In the next chapter
I will be looking at how Vitali was perceived before
his fight with Herbie hide and how he was perceived
during his reign and after his loss to Byrd. Many
of the articles I will be relying on will be taken
from the Boxing Monthly magazine. A magazine who
referred to the undercard of Lewis-Botha as a "BlueChip"
one..yet strangely made no reference..not one, to
Wlads demolition of Monte Barret on that very undercard.
Vitali Klitschko - Stories during
his career - Part 2
By Irish
19.05 - As you well
know by know I have decided to string together a
few articles on Vitali Klitschko recently as I feel
that as of late he has struggled to get out of his
younger brothers shadow, a shadow which has grown
with Wlads explosion onto the world scene beginning
with his 1-sided demolition of Chris Byrd and his
emphatic blowout of Derrick Jefferson.
However, if being
in his younger brothers shadow is something new
to Vitali, being regarded as something of a relative
nobody isn't. Right now Vitali is the European Heavyweight
Champion. That was a title he held before he fought
Herbie Hide and it has come to my attention that
that is not the only similarity between the pre-WBO
and post-WBO Vitali,for both the pre and post WBO
versions of Vitali were/are somewhat of an underrated
and under appreciated entity.
True, Vitali was
understood to be Hides toughest test since his game
showing versus Riddick Bowe, who thrashed him in
6 rounds in March 1995, though not with some difficulty,
in a fight in which Hide was bounced from pillar
to post by a substantially bigger opponent. Here,
for me is the interesting thing. Hide got whupped
by Bowe,who stands 6'5" tall and weighed around
17st plus for his fight with Hide. Let's look at
it this way. My readers will have noted that I
like to examine things in the context of timescales.
Well here's another timescale for your perusal.
Less than 1 year after he beat Hide, Bowe was beaten
into early retirement by one Andrew Golota, a fighter
not all together different to Vitali Klitschko in size,
style and skill, power etc.Golota brain damaged
Bowe in those two fights. Now, knowing that Vitali,who
held the European belt and with his consumate amateur
and professional records was every bit as good as Golota,
wouldn't you think that Vitali would have had it
in him to do to Bowe what Golota did (perhaps minus
the low blows) and as such would have had the beating
of Hide aswell??
Well the folks at
Boxing Monthly didn't seem to think so. When Vitalis'
vital statistics were compared to those of Hide,
the Boxing Monthly crew opined that:
"Everything
points to a potentially difficuult night for the
mercurially talented Hide...."
However there is
a huge difference between plain old difficult
and downright impossible. The article continued,noting,as
we are all too familiar with by now, the indecisive
outcome of the first Holyfiled-Lewis clash at MSG
on March 13 1999 which ended in a draw. The author
felt that such an indecisive outcome paved the way
for
"the
next generation to step up and make their claim"
One could assume
that the members of this "generation"
of would-be claimants to the Heavyweight throne
included Messrs Klitschko, one of whom, Wladimir,
was by now running around town with an Olympic Gold
Medal slung around his neck (and a girl on each
bicep!) and the other, Vitali, was the European
Champion and therefore a top 10 fighter with the
WBC. However the article instead referred to Michael
Grant (since exposed) and Ike Ibeabuchi (since diagnosed)
and made no mention of either Klitschko as being
a memeber of the new generation of heavyweights
who were supposedly going to be able to rip the
throne from an ageing Holyfield and seemingly disinterested
Lewis. Indeed when Wlad was mentioned it was John
Hornewer who was doing the talking. Hornewer was
acting as Hides aide and confidante at the time:
"..We
also had Ross Purritty lined up and he would have
been valuable on a number of levels not least because
he destroyed Klitschko's younger brother, Wladimir,
when they fought in the Klitschko's home city of
Kiev last year. Having Ross in camp would have been
of huge psychological value, Vitali knowing that
Herbie was sparring with the guy who took his brothers
unbeaten record. The Klitschkos are very similar
in style"
Ok.Look at it this
way.Boxing Monthly didn't seem to think that Klitschko
(either of em) belonged to the new generation of
heavies destined to take over from lewis and Co.
But not only that they were in Cahoots with a guy
who felt that Wlad was "destroyed" by
Purritty and that the fact that Hide was sparring
with the man responsible for this "destruction"
would have some sort of a detrimental effect on
Vitalis psychological state in the lead up to the
fight. You begin to see my point, a point made in
an earlier article-that objectively phrased and
worded articles may only be that on the surface.The
author referred to Hornewer as being someone whose
"grasp on all things heavyweight
is second to none" which can
only mean that he too thinks that Purritty "destroyed"
Wlad and that Vitali would be unduly upset by the
fact that Hide was sparring with this same Purritty.
To think that is surely ridiculous.Nothing could
be further from the truth.For me it illustrates
just how lightly Vitali was taken.I'm not saying
that they ruled him out, what I am saying is that
they made light of his chances for all the wrong
reasons.And that to me is the essence of disrespect.Instead
of looking at what happened to Bowe vs Golota and
what happened to Hide vs Bowe,and coming to the
conclusion that what happened to Hide vs Bowe could
therefore happen to him vs Klitschko,the author
and his contributor decided that the deciding factor
might have been for Herbie to spar with Mount Whittaker
and Ross Purritty. Hardly the right set of criteria
to pick a winner off.
Indeed the author
stated that he believed Hide had it in him to beat
any heavyweight in the world on his day,but felt
that the fight wasn't likely to hinge on things
physical. So Klitschkso size doesn't matter it seems.The
author believed that Hide could "take
care of business inside of 8 rounds".
As it is he got laid out in less than 6 minutes
but that is not my point.My point
is that not enough attention was paid to that possibilty.
Sure, Klitschkos physical attributes and amateur
record were alluded to but they were skimmed over
and regarded as ancillary rather than primary facts
which ought be taken into account.After all it was
Hides "mental state" that was going to
decide the winner according to the magazine. What
baloney is that? Klitschko was in effect being described
as a guy who could win that fight if his opponent
screwed up and not if he himself fought well. In
fact the magazine was adamant that Klitschko:
"will
be up for it and ready,we can be sure of that..but
that the outcome of this fight is unlikely to hinge
on things physical, it is Hides state of mind which
will be crucial"
It's common
knowledge that Hide,after round 1, stated that "It
would be embarassing to lose to this guy" Hide
won round 1 on my card, and got laid out in round
2. Simply put Vitali took 1 round, figured the guy
out and then laid him out.Hide mental state never
came into it. Vitali simply figured him out. Period.
It had nothing to do with sparring partners or state
of mind or anything, it was just a plain old demolition
of a fighter who was tipped to win for all the wrong
reasons.To me, the tipping of a guy to lose for
all the wrong reasons is tantamount,if not equal
to, disrespect.It is that same disrespect so usual
to Vitali before the Hide fight which has been revisited
upon Vitali in recent times since the loss to Byrd
just over 1 year ago.
But, for a
short period of time and 2 fights, Vitali enjoyed
some respite, though little, from the Media.He summarily
dispatched American Obed Sullivan in what ranks
probably as the easiest and most impressive 9 rounds
of the big Ukrainains career. Sullivan had given
the aforementioned Grant hell and had gone the distance
with Rahman, Ferguson and since drawn with highy
ranked (though not so highly regarded) Larry Donalds.
Vitali turned him into a human punching bag and
dominated for 9 rounds. However he still couldn't
secure respect,Showtimes Bobby Czyz expressing disappointment
at Klitschkos lack of power. What Bobby didn't realise
was that Vitali was just getting in some rounds
and using his head.What he was in effect doing was
availing of some top quality sparring. Boxing 2000
magazine were also a little sparse in their praise
of Vitali, asking could he go to war on the inside
and fight fast fights for long periods, though they
did note that he was capable of making the most
of his height and reach advantages, something they
noted fellow behemoths Michael Grant and Mount Whittaker
had not yet mastered. Against the slow but dangerous
Ed Mahone Vitali took no such chances, choosing
to blast out the American in 2 one-sided rounds.
Then came the Byrd fight and the sternest test of
Vitalis career.
"Oh
dear. On the verge of a major US TV deal, Vitali
Klitschko was an undefeated Ukrainian Super-man
who had cruised to the WBO heavyweight title on
a spotless stream of KO's. but late sub challenger
Chris Byrd threw a spanner in the works and transformed
his won career."
Such were the words
of Glyn Leach in May 1999's Boxing Monthly. It was
time for the disrespect to begin again.First off
you'll notice that Leach (whose magazine I no longer
buy) started off by describing Vitali as a "Ukrainian
Super-Man"..referring of course to
you-know-who and you-know-what.No need to elaborate,we'll
keep moving. The best was yet to come.Imagine your
career had just taken a turn for the worse and then
you had to sit down and read this:
"The
love affair between the White Hope brigade and Vitali
Klitschko may well be over following the massive
Ukrainians retirement loss to "blown up Super
middleweight" Chris Byrd in Berlin on April
fools day."
A quick dissection
of the qoute illustrates the intent of the author
to make little of Vitali. Note how "massive
Ukrainian" is juxtaposed with
"blown up super middleweight Chris
Byrd". Note also the reference,
that old,tired jibe,to the " white
hope". Note particularly the
reference to the "White Hope brigade".
Klitschko supporters are portrayed as mere rabble
following the giant in the hope that he can unseat
the negro champ.In short, it's a cheap shot and
one that should not be tolerated,especially in light
of the exemplary behaviour of the German supporters
who showed appreciation of Byrds game effort.Indeed
it was Riddick Bowes "brigade" of "followers"
(mere hoodlums in reality) who rioted and stampeded
when Golota (a Caucasian) beat on Bowe like a rented
mule in 1996.But inspite of all of the above it
is Klitschko and his supporters who stand accused
and not Bowe and his ilk. The irony is not wasted
on this writer but it comes as NO SURPRISE
to me either.It is nothing new to see this kind
of treatment being dished out to fighters of European
extraction and their supporters while American fans
riot for no apparent reason other than the opponent
didn't behave as "expected"..Indeed such
was the authors rush to pillory Vitali that he reported
that he quit on his stool "claiming
an injury to his right shoulder".It
was his left shoulder, actually.
Making a long story
short,the author opined that the fight had developed
such that Byrd, landing "demoralising"
punches from the mid point on , had taken a turn
so that Byrd fancied the job and that Vitali did
not.The author seemed to think that Byrds body shots
were crucial to his victory. Whatever,Vitali retired
with a genuine career threatening injury, an injury
that was to his left shoulder and not his right
shoulder as noted by the author. The way I
look at is that if they don't even know a fact as
rudimentary as which arm was injured, then they
are unlikely to have a grasp on what happened during
the fight,now are they.To me, that is disrespect,
plain and simple.If you're not even going to be
bothered finding out what really happened in there,instead
preferring to concoct your own version of events
then you cannot expect to be taken seriously.
The author of the
piece assumed that Klitschkos career was through.
Hey, if he can't beat Chris Byrd who CAN he beat,right?Of
course. That is probably why he felt comfortable
making the comments that he made.However, Vitali
has not gone away. He's a military man, an educated
man who posseses a lot more heart than certain folk
would like to believe.Having spent 8 months out
of the game recuperating Vitali bounced right back
and was singularly impressive in beating Timo Hoffmann.
As usual Vitali couldn't secure respect. Think about
it. Mike Grant suffers a quick albeit hard defeat
to Lewis,1 month after Vitali lost. 14 months on,
and we have not seen Grant since. Interestingly
we have not seen Grants backers (Merchant/Lampley
etc) make any mention of him either.How ironic then
that Boxing Monthly referred to the "love
affair between the white hope brigade and Vitali
Klitschko" as being over. If
any love affair was over it was between the Great
American Hype and his own brigade
of sycophantic followers. Over a year later
it is they (Grants followers) who have failed to
resurface. The Klitschko fans are here. Vitali is
here. As far as we are concerned, nothings changed
and nothings ended. It's business as usual. But
they don't tell you this. The Grant love affair
is over. But thats being quietly swept under the
carpet. Grant is finished. In the meantime Vitali
comes back from an 8 month hiatus while recovering
and immediately takes a tough 12 rounder for the
European Championship. He spends 8 months out of
the game and goes 12 rounds in his first fight back.Impressive.
Then Orlin Norris lay down for the easy pay day.
And all in the mean time Grant is doing nothing
and Vitali still cannot secure respect. It's simply
incredible that he goes through what he went through
and has both his own name and that of his supporters
dragged through the muck, and still comes back to
secure a #3 world ranking with the WBC and WBO.
The real Hype, the real "American Hype Brigade"
have all withered in the mena time.Yet incredibly
no mention of that is made.
Now, May 17 2001
and 1 year on since the loss to Byrd,Vitali
Klitschko is riding high again but still is disrepected
by mainstream (american ) media types. In a way
the success of youger brother Wladimir has allowed
him to recuperate and rebuild quietly while the
galamorous younger Klitschko basks in the media
spotlight.He too is finding it difficult to secure
respect, but not nearly as difficult as he is finding
it to secure opponents. But as a less complicated
man than his older brother, he is unlikely to find
that hard to cope with.Instead he rests assured
that the unwillingness of opponents to fight him
is probably the gretaest compliment of all.Vitali
too has failed as of late to secure meaningful opponents,
fighters such as Donalds and Mercer choosing to
price themselves out of fights rather than lose
their inflated purchased rankings, as well
as their teeth and senses. With time on their sides I
look forward to the day when both brothers can claim
world honours and force popular media to respect
them as world class pugilists instead of writing
disrespectful articles about them.In the mean time
Vitali must soldier on as best he can, safe in the
knowledge that he was able to take the hardest punches
of all, those punches thrown by an invisible opponent
(the media), while the real Hype, Michael Grant
has withered in the mean time as have his supposed
fans. Using that to his advantage, I see no
reason why 12 months from now Vitali Klitschko
will not be a World champion again.
