What To Make Of Wladimir?

He was still upright when the referee signalled his end. As Anthony Joshua launched himself at Wladimir Klitschko late in the eleventh round of their battle at Wembley Stadium, the fading 41-year-old did his best to stave off perdition. He didn’t succeed, though not because Klitschko wilted under duress; a swift, perhaps overanxious referee determined that conscience could not permit further punishment and he wedged himself between the two giants. Joshua, Britain’s rare monarch to have earned his status through deed, strutted back to his corner, hips quacking languorously, in full control of the small city that had assembled at Wembley. Klitschko, meanwhile, could do nothing but take refuge in grace.

And he did, as Klitschko has at each step of his career. He congratulated the victor, thanked the English crowd for its support, made no excuse for his loss and resisted lamenting whether, had the referee only been less compassionate, he could have fought on. That Klitschko behaved with such decency is no surprise to those intimate with his career, but equally predictable was the crowd’s favourable response.

Mobs are magnanimous when the loser exhibits class, because its members can relish a two-part prostration: first the enemy loses, ideally after absorbing maximum physical trauma; second, he thanks them for providing the stage upon which his own bloodletting could be possible. The total submissiveness of this interaction allows the fans, who only moments earlier had bayed for his destruction, to recognize the fighter’s humanity and bask in collective, self-congratulatory sentiment over the bond formed with the beaten man.

So in loss, Klitschko won, a result that seems undoubtedly true, however unlikely it is that any fighter enters boxing to seek public validation through getting bested. But while it’s naturally a compliment to suggest someone has gained respect, it is also, in this instance, a slight, if one considers that it had only been gained through a result contrary to his objective.

That it took a loss to foment regard highlights the apathy with which Klitschko has always been seen. But against Joshua, after having been pasted in the fifth round to square the knockdown count in the sixth, Klitschko didn’t fight behind a curtain of fear; he boxed, for once, free of ennui, as if the danger AJ posed had made him braver by necessity. But Klitschko’s newfound courage was not, alas, enough, as his reticence to finish Joshua in the bout’s middle proved he’d yet to free himself from mental bonds that had long leashed his instincts to destroy: this was a tactical error, allowing AJ to survive, which the Ukrainian admitted to during the fight’s autopsy.

Klitschko, sporting a sizeable gash overtop his left eye, was serene after the loss.

After the bout, a swollen-eyed Klitschko conducted his own postmortem from a press conference podium. He did so in his usual even manner, showing the fine analytical capacities which facilitated his impressive education. Listening to Klitschko speak, one is left to ponder how this intelligence has impacted his career; it doubtlessly helped his apprenticeship in boxing, helping him to master the variety of skills that make him a rare complete heavyweight, but this glut of consciousness is also what may remind him, each time he enters the ring, that a single unseen punch could reintroduce him to the horror first experienced versus Ross Purrity in Kiev.

Klitschko’s perceived fragility, twinned with the flaccid era over which he reigned, had always precluded his acceptance. While he’s been a model of comportment beyond the ring, carrying himself with the regal self-possession of a statesman (which, it must be said, can equally alienate him from those who prefer their heroes less polished) seldom has he thrilled inside it. Klitschko has no win in which he dominated a man of historical importance, only a string of successful title defenses over foes whom no boxing anthology will enshrine in print. Save for his defeats, much of it was forgettable, and the inconsequence of those he bested should ensure none of these wins appear better with time.

Given the unlikelihood that Klitschko beats Joshua in a rematch, what might his future in boxing be? He may continue to fight successfully for as long as he wishes, for the sport’s shallow talent pool will at least allow that, but with Joshua’s ascendance and the probability he will continue to improve, there is little reason to believe Klitschko will regain his titles. If this is true, how may Wladimir be remembered?

Joshua is led back to his corner as Klitschko attempts to rise.

However cruel, history may relegate him to a thread linking the generation that concluded with Lennox Lewis’ retirement and the one started by Anthony Joshua. In those intervening years, there were no heavyweight matches of lasting import; that is, until November 28, 2015, when Tyson Fury removed Wladimir of his titles only to then fall off a metaphorical cliff. As a boxer, people will recall Klitschko’s vaunted punching power, fine skills and superb conditioning, and grouse over a style that coursed from tepid to fetid, concluding their remarks with sentences that begin by “If only…”

They will also, naturally, recall his questionable chin, which betrayed him three times early in his career, after which Klitschko spent a decade insulating it. However imposing, he rarely looked convinced of himself in the ring, a quality other champions were at least better at feigning. It always seemed as though Klitschko had built his temple on a shaky foundation, one that would surely topple whenever a strong breeze circumvented his jab.

But against Joshua, a man rightfully considered the most difficult opponent of his career, Wladimir demonstrated a mettle he’d been accused of lacking. It made no impact on the final result, but after his anemic performance versus Fury, which calcified the doubts of critics, this surge in public estimation must have felt gratifying. At Wembley Klitschko ‘showed his heart,’ which proved sturdy enough for him to remain competitive even if he wasn’t obdurate enough to win. This result had a two-fold benefit, because Britain’s prodigal son was legitimized by so precarious a victory, and Wladimir, for once, had given fans a portal into his fighting soul, which proved more substantive than imagined.

In perhaps the fight’s most iconic moment, Wladimir’s chin proved resilient.

It is harsh to trivialize Klitschko’s career by situating it as a bridge between the last noteworthy era and Joshua’s new dawn, but it’s equally difficult to envisage his accomplishments, however consistently he delivered them, taking on greater value with time. But this analysis may be meaningful only to us observers, whose external judgements bring us no closer to the personal realities of those who make boxing’s history. Klitschko can be proud of a long and distinguished career, whose subjective value is known to him alone, and equally satisfied with his decorous behaviour. In front of a microphone, rather than in a ring, is the public circumstance in which Wladimir always looked strongest, and it was his burden that his physical resources could not be employed with equal confidence to his intellectual ones.

Let us attempt to conclude, then, with an observation and some questions. Versus Ross Puritty, Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster, Wladimir Klitschko was dispatched within the distance. It’s arguable that both he and the public never divested themselves of these early traumas, which Klitschko later positioned as formative trials and fans saw as truth of his frailty. But in none of these defeats was he conclusively knocked out. Each loss ended by external intervention, and however sad the sight of a flailing heavyweight is, he at least tried to battle on.

If these fights birthed his fragile reputation, his defeat to Joshua somehow restored it. Resisting neat summarization, Wladimir’s legacy will spawn a rare diversity of reaction: from fandom to respectful salutation, indifference, hostility and dismissal. His greatest triumph before the English-speaking boxing mob, whose respect is relative to a boxer’s aptitude for harm, resulted in defeat. Is this, then, the truest commentary on his career: that Klitschko’s best effort versus a man of equal physical stature still saw him beaten? Does that invalidate his earlier deeds, in which he ruled a division without anyone who approached Anthony Joshua’s ability?

Klitschko exhibited class following his second straight defeat.

Decisive commentary is difficult. One could become mawkish and find beauty in his loss to Joshua; easier, still, would be to cite Wladimir’s unerring conduct as his greatest success. Neither of these are satisfactory. Wladimir Klitschko’s career, at once impressive and unsatisfying, was made on professionalism, consistency and well-managed risk. He showed himself conquerable in hard circumstances and strong in favourable ones, behaving with an imperial air not usually found in boxers. This doubtless esteemed Klitschko to those in search of chivalry, and alienated him from fans who see only plasticity in a man’s shine. As a prizefighter, the loudest cheer he received outside of Germany occurred when Wladimir thanked the Wembley crowd for attending his destruction.

When he exited the ring in London, losing for the second time in two fights, Klitschko had conclusively ceded the division. He had done so going out on his feet. His reputation, having ascended in loss, was once more upright. In that, perhaps, Wladimir can find momentary satisfaction.                         — Eliott McCormick

14 thoughts on “What To Make Of Wladimir?

  • May 10, 2017 at 5:08 pm
    Permalink

    Fury was younger than Joshua was when he beat Wlad. He beat a younger Klitschko., and humiliated him: touching his arse, posing with hands behind back, taking very little punishment, and clearly and easily beating him over 12 rounds on Wlad’s home patch. Joshua was powerful and athletic but comparatively straight-forward, with suspect stamina. Seems a bit rum to view Joshua as “rightfully the most difficult opponent” of Wlad’s career. I do not think Wlad suddenly got old for Fury, and was mystically re-juvenated for Joshua; Fury made him look that bad with superior tactics / an awkward style. That said, Fury’s fight was horrible to watch (albeit very tense) and I would prefer to watch Joshua, but credit where credit is due to the fat man.

    Reply
    • May 11, 2017 at 12:14 am
      Permalink

      Good article. No need for all the big words. I had to look up meanings on several words. And I am a college grad

      Reply
      • May 11, 2017 at 8:46 am
        Permalink

        Sorry man. Thanks for reading.

        Reply
        • May 15, 2017 at 1:14 pm
          Permalink

          looks like humiliating the career of one of the best boxers of all time…I think you,mr elliot,should have thought twice before writing such a scorning article.it might be so difficult 4u to appreciate how modesty and determination are combined in a character who is doing a deadly sport and had suffered from 3 destructive defeats..

          Reply
      • May 11, 2017 at 6:56 pm
        Permalink

        Me to but brilliant stuff

        Reply
    • May 11, 2017 at 8:45 am
      Permalink

      Fury was almost 27 years and four months old when he beat Klitschko; Joshua is presently 27 years and seven months old, so the difference is negligible. Fury beat a marginally younger Klitschko, but based on the way he fought two weeks ago, physical atrophy hasn’t much set in yet for Wladimir (I suppose you could say that Fury psychologically destroyed Wladimir, and if you did, I would counter by arguing that it was precisely this mental beatdown that freed Wlad to fight with the abandon he showed at Wembley) . I am all for giving Tyson Fury credit: however ugly that fight was, he still won outright and deserves much credit for a clever performance. But I will stick by my assessment of Joshua being the most difficult opponent of Wlad’s career, because unlike Fury, AJ beat him up. Thanks for reading and taking time to comment.

      Reply
      • May 11, 2017 at 9:48 am
        Permalink

        Great article… I would love to see a rematch. I agree Joshua will keep getting better but Wlad hopefully can use his ring experience to bring a winning /improved game plan next time…what do you think Eliott? Can he adjust or will it be more of the same only faster?

        Reply
        • May 11, 2017 at 10:28 am
          Permalink

          Thanks Dave. I think Klitschko is still physically capable of boxing at a high level, but I wonder whether he truly wants another rematch, considering the physical and mental investment it would entail (especially since, in losing, he saw his reputation improve and could ostensibly retire in good standing with the boxing public). His fight plan on April 29 had him poised to win, had he only pressed harder for a stoppage in the middle rounds, and if they were to fight again, I wonder whether Joshua would be emboldened by his victory and box more aggressively in the opening rounds, in which case WK may be in some trouble. For now, I have no idea what’s in Wlad’s heart and whether he wants to continue, so we’ll see where he goes in the next few months. Thanks for reading and your comment.

          Reply
  • May 10, 2017 at 7:00 pm
    Permalink

    Man this article really is giving a lot of credit to the nocbin having Joshua? I don’t know if you can stroke this guys egovany much more. I believe in rematch which will now carefully be avoided by Eddie Hearn and Joshua as well as any other top heavy weight that Klitschko’s finishes him. Joshua still in my eyes hasnt proofed himself with that piss poor performance. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if the referee was there to jump in as early as possible esp after hearing those laughable ridiculous judges score cards. Anyway the HW division is still garbage. Joshua isny better than Klitschko’s and they both palenin comparison to the real heavyweight king Tyson Fury.

    Reply
    • May 11, 2017 at 9:00 am
      Permalink

      Again, I fully believe in giving Fury credit where it’s due. To suggest Joshua’s performance was ‘piss poor’ is to dismiss a courageous show, however flawed it may have been. My intention wasn’t to stroke AJ’s ego (what is a nocbin?), but he, too, deserves credit, for stopping a former champion very late in a difficult. Hopefully we can see AJ and Fury get in the ring soon, whereupon we’ll see who owns the heavyweight division. Thanks for the comment.

      Reply
  • May 11, 2017 at 7:04 am
    Permalink

    Did you watch the same fight…?

    Congratulations to AJ for battling back to win when a more aggressive, persistent Klitschko could (should) have finished him in the 6th.

    To judge him (WK) a slim chance on a rematch after such a knife edge contest is simply foolish and biased.

    Reply
    • May 11, 2017 at 8:54 am
      Permalink

      My judgment is based on the assumption that Joshua will learn from his mistakes and not allow himself to cede the middle of the fight; in my view, it’s more realistic to foresee a savvy, confident and prepared Joshua having an easier time with Klitschko in the rematch than it is to envision Wlad finding within himself an untapped reservoir of strength and evening the score. Thanks for the comment.

      Reply
  • May 12, 2017 at 6:26 am
    Permalink

    I am always quite impressed with the quality and analysis of the articles on the Fight City, thank you for your in depth analysis. I do tend to agree with most of the points that have been made, even with the fact that a rematch would probably end with an earlier KO for Joshua; however i do not really believe the fight was stopped too early, a comment seen a few times on this site, i do not think WK was going to survive round. Keep up the good work.

    Reply
    • May 12, 2017 at 8:54 am
      Permalink

      Thanks for writing in Marius.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *