By T. Kaye

01.08 - For The Reader: J.Probsts article was intended to draw an analogy between the Gerry Cooney-Larry Holmes Heavyweight Title Clash of 1982 and any potential Lewis-Klitschko bout. For those that have not read the article, it is essentially the opinion of Mr Probst writ large-his prediction that Wlad will lose to Lewis being based on examination of the Holmes-Cooney bout and the hype and analysis that had respectively preceded and followed that bout. What follows is an examination and personal critique of Mr Probsts rationale in deciding that, right now, either Klitschko brother would lose to Lewis.Mr Probsts article appeared on the Max Boxing site on July 2, 2002.

Chapter 1

Holmes beat Cooney, and Lewis will beat Wlad, for apparently the same reasons, per Mr Probst. This was the jist of his article and the author does himself no favours by highlighting [impliedy and unintentionally] the vast technical gulf that exists between Klitschko [Wlad] and Gerry Cooney. He refers to the "deft accuracy and patience" and the "technically superior showing" of Wlad when he fought Byrd, portraying Byrd as Pernell Whittaker fought large, making the patience and technical savvy of Klitschko all the more laudable. Cooney was never a fighter in this mould, he was essentially a big and not overly heavy/muslced, left hooker. Probsts attempt to draw close lines of resemblance between Klitscho and Cooney is dealt a self-administered blow when he refers to Homles flooring of Cooney in the second round by " a punch that no experienced pugilist should've been caught with cleanly enough to floor him" - he refers to Cooney being steered into combinations by Holmes, much the same way that Tua and Ibeabuchi were steered into cominations by Byrd. But Klitschko was never steered into those same combinations by Byrd and did not expend confidence or energy that the aforementioned contenders did. Picking on Cooneys mistakes and allowing them to form the base of an argument that Wlad is there to be hit is goofy rationale. Cooney had never been tested in a "knucleballer" kind of way before he fought Holmes the same way Wlad was against Byrd. Cooney was not a jabber, he was a hooker with a par right hand and some body shots. Klitschko is an athlete that stands the same height but weighs a good 10 pounds of solid muslce more. The technical and physical differences between Cooney and Klitschko are significant, and Probst fails or omits to pick up on this. Cooney is referred to as a "stalker" [think Felix Trinidad] but Klitschko, as we well know, is nothing of the sort, being best described as a counter punching boxer-puncher who turns bomber occassionally. Technically and physically, Cooney-Klitschko are at best incongruent comparators. This incongruency is highlighted further when the stylistic differences between Lewis and Holmes are examined, as I will do later.

Chapter 2.

We bear in mind that Cooney-Holmes is a fight neccessitating consideration when examing the intangibles of Klitschko-Lewis. What was the ultimate outcome of Cooney-Holmes? Cooney lost, but how. Probst says that Cooney "began the slow slide into oblivion" and "succumbed to the deep water he'd never been in..only having gone eight rounds once, it was clear that his lack of experience hurt him badly". This is convenient conjecture, taking the Cooney situation and grafting it onto Wlads. Its apt that we think back to comments made by Don Turner, Mike Grants old coach, during the prime years of Holmes reign. Turner had it that Holmes had the heart of a pea and wanted to quit vs Shavers, Weaver etc. Long after Larry was put out to pasture, Turner was to coach Holmes at the fag end of his [2nd] career, coaching him in losses vs the likes of Brian Nielsen. Turners principles seemed to have deserted him and were replaced by wages, paid by Holmes. Klitschko was humiliated [aged 22] versus Ross Purritty, who, apart from championship belt, sounds like he had all the experience and balls that Holmes had had against Cooney. Wlad has been in that deep water before, a fight where he landed all his big bombs, to no effect. The lack of dedication in the gym, the distractions, the photo-shoots and the complaceny and inexperience he had all cost him dear, at a very young age. He has not made the same mistake twice.Remember, per Probst, it was not technical skills that cost Cooney ["it wasn't one particular weakness that did Cooney in, merely the lack of real fight experience to draw on"] but a lack of experience. It's unfair that a loss that Wlad suffered and was berated for for so long should now be conveniently swept under the carpet to facilitate comments to the effect that he has no experience. A beating an humiliation at the age of 22 in front of 2 men and a dog is worth just as much as one in front of the glitterati of Vegas. Not that he fought in front of two men and a dog either, but in front of a sold out Kiev house. But hey they only dig him cos he's white, right? Sure.

Chapter 3.

Probst buys big and buys high in the "experience stakes". Read his article, read this article, and experience counts for a whole load. More than any highlight reel KO's and relative comparisons of opposition. [..that experience counts for a helluva lot more than highlight reel knockouts and relative comparisons of opposition" So relative comparisons of opposition rank, as indicators of how a fight will go, are vastly inferior to comparisons of experience. What does Probst do? He performs a double-contradiction on the spot. One, he launches into an immediate comparison of competition. Two, the comparison is selective. In fact his argument doubles over and starts to eat its ownself. What Probst says is essentially this

1. That relative comparisons of opposition are inferior sources of information when considering the possible outcomes of a fight.

2. That we must, in order to realistically and accurately predict the winner of any prospective Lewis-Wlad fight, delve into relative comparison of opposition.

3. These relative comparisons show Lewis as the probable winner, despite his previous insistence that relative comparisons of opposition count for jack as evidenced by the outcome in Cooney-Holmes.

Bunkum.The argument has no chance of impressing even ardent Lewis fans.But Probst kills it by putting it to us that Klitschko is doomed to defeat because the tea leaves in the cup...sorry the relative comparisons of opposition, say so.But the same relative comparisons of opposition said that Cooney would cruise vs Holmes, and Probst himself highlights this [see above quote] as an inaccurate and inferior method of reckoning. Either relative comparisons of opposition count or they don't. Heavyweight history says they don't.But Probst in hindsight says they don't, and that they do, in foresight. This, in the words of the Old Dirty Bastard, is something unique. It might even be funny if he hadn't gone so far as to very selctively pick their fights vs common opponents to paint the picture he wants painted.

Relative Comparisons Of Opposition

Mercer and Norton were the common opponents selected. Probst is fast to point out that Lewis struggled versus Mercer, Wlad blew him away. Holmes went 15 life and death rounds with Norton. Cooney took Norton out in under 1 round.First off, Probst makes an error of the technical sort by saying that Cooneys win over Norton propelled him into contendership status. Wrong. It merely consolidated Cooneys #1 ranking with the WBA/WBC, which he'd had going into the Norton fight.Cooney lost to Holmes, and Probst decides that because Lewis near lost to Mercer and Wlad looked good versus Mercer, that Lewis will beat Wlad.

Again, this is conjecture of the worst sort.Lewis destroyed Botha in 2 simple rounds, and Botha was in better shape than he was when he fought Klitschko, yet Wlad was taken 8 rounds and deep by an out of shape [and remember that Botha had, by his own admission, or claim, pneumonia going into that bout.] Does not that too count? Apparently not. Probst has been selective in the extreme. Does Lewis drubbing of a better Botha, if we follow the Mercer-Norton formula, not also mean, by that same reckoning that Lewis is up against it versus Wlad? Probst does not make sense. He initially states that relative comparisons of opposition don't really count, then relies on extreme, hand-picked examples of that same stuff in order to bolster a bold claim that Lewis will win. This is unacceptable, and Probst had better come up with more proper reasons as to why Lewis will win

Chapter 4.

And this he unflinchingly does too.He notes that physical advantages Klitschko has held will be non-existent versus Lewis. This is convenient, because we all know that however big Wlad fights, Lewis fights bigger,he has never ever been an inside fighter, [something which Wlad has done better than any big heavyweight, Bowe and Ali included] and has won a fair share of his own fights by fighting large and using long-arm as opposed to strong-arm tactics,usually after being stung badly by his opponent.See both Holyfield fights, the Briggs bout and his desperate ineffictiveness versus Mavrovic and Akinwande. If Wlad will surrender physical advantages by fighting lewis, then Lewis will surrender them by fighting Wlad, and even more so, given that he is smaller than Wlad. By that same token, you may be sure that Wlad will throw more that whatever dismal number of power punches Tyson threw vs Lewis.Reference is made to Wlads marking up easy. Wlad bruises slightly under his left eye,thanks to their being a neat scar there, left courtesy of the head of an opponent. Lewis swelled and cut vs Mercer, Tyson [mouse] and Holyfield [badly enough the second time around]. Nothing serious, but while Probst says that Lewis will swell Wlad, he ought have noted that Lewis stands a better chance of being swollen by Wlad,who has swollen Byrd,Barret [cut him to] and Jefferson, inter alia.

Chapter 5

As Lewis himself says, "styles make fights" Probst obviously adheres to this school of thought, and the styles, per Probst [ as one would imagine], clash in Lewis favour.Lewis, he notes, has the means to reduce the effectiveness of Klitschko. But on what is this based? All of Lewis fights versus "big-men".? This is the biggest man he's ever fought.Lewis has fough big versus relatively smaller fighters like Holyfield and still got caught. The rest he's either blown out, easily or otherwise [Compare Briggs and Grant] or been blown put by - Rahman and McCall. Lewis will use his "big fight background" to know what to do and when to do it, reasons Probst. Think abck to Manfredy-Mayweather, when the skinny had it that the extra benefit of 12 round "Championship Bouts" [WBU] possessed by Angel Manfredy was going to give him that intangible benefit over Mayweather.Mayweather blew him out. Why? 'Cos his amateur experience more than negated any supposed extra big-fight pro experience that Manfredy had.Klitschko has that amateur experience,a nd a whole lot of pro-experience to go with it.

Chapter 6.

Again Probst insists that experience counts, "especially when you're hit harder than you've ever been hit before and taken to the limit of a place you've never been"....we've all never been a lot of places. Once place Lewis and Klitschko have been is the canvas. Klitschko got up. Lewis did too, but was stopped both times. It's odd that the chin of an untested fighter be subject to more scrutiny than that of a fighter who has been tested, and found to be wanting in that department, namely Lewis. Klitschko may not ultimately take that great a shot, but Probsts reasoning that Lewis will hit and hurt him as never before is unreasonable, because while he doesn't mention it, Klitschko will hit Lewis and we all know what will happen when that does happen.Getting KO'd twice by lesser men than Klitschko is not an experience that counts. Probst infuriating refusal to refer to the Purritty fight hides important facts from the uninformed reader. Klitschko was found wanting, and was seen to take shots that Lewis wouldn't have, not at that stage of the bout anyways. Klitschko has been deep, somewhere Cooney never was, and his bouts with Purritty and Byrd make relative comparisons to Cooney all the more inappropriate. Klitschko got all the "tough rounds" he needed versus Purritty, and it's worth noting that no 22 y.oa. up and comer had attempted a scheduled 12 rounder versus Purritty before [Grant/Byrd went for 10 rounders]. Again, Probsts reference to Cooneys easy ride is all the more incongruent with Wlads path.

Chapter 7.

Probst questions Wlads desire, pointing out that size, skills and power only take you so far. Now he is confusing chin with desire. Klitschko showed all the desire he needed to show vs Purritty. His corner stopped the fight. It's Klitschko who has asked for the fight, not Lewis. Rahman and McCall did not need a "helluva chin" to beat Lewis. All they needed were right hands. Probst paints a picture of Lewis picking Wlad apart, but Lewis has never been a low-risk boxer of the magnitude that Holmes was vs big-punchers. He's a big figher who is cautious, vulnerable due to his low left hand, a fighter who uses long-arm rather than strong-arm tactics, who is virtually useless on the inside and who has a moderate chin. Lewis has never picked anybody apart, whenever his opponent doesn't come to him he seems ineffective-see Akinwande and Mavrovic. As for Lewis taking out Vitali easy-again this is inaccurate. Vitalio KO's anyone he can hit, and can hit anyone. Look at Vitali-Lewis as a shootout, but Vitali couldn't have any worse a chin. Vitali is cautious enough himself,and he's psychologically tougher than Grant, who was swallowed whole by the moment when he fought Lewis. Don't expect Vitali to charge Lewis, he'll wait and look to pick his spots.If Rahman can wobble Lewis with the jab, then so can either Klitschko.

Conclusion.

Needless to say I pick Wlad to win. I said before that the essence of disrespect was framing a man as a loser, and for all the wrong reasons. Cooney is white, Wlad is too, and thats all they have in common. Ditto Lewis and Holmes. Snide and thinly veiled references that Wlads "middle class" roots will let him down are uncalled for. Middle class in mid-80's Soviet Russia/Ukraine is lower class by everybody elses standards. Kiev in 1986 became one of the most dangerous cities on eart, thanks to radiation. Wlad and his family are not Nomenklatura as some have suggested. What most inspired Holmes were barbs he suffered post-Bobick. Purritty is Wlads Bobick, and come whenever they fight don't expect Wlad to lose 'cos he didn't want it enough. If a fight versus McCline will not prepare Wlad for Lewis, then a fight versus Grant does not prepare Lewis for Wlad. Probst suggests that Klitschko fight somebody like Holmes. He's forgetting something.

Klitschko is Holmes.