Klitschko vs. Ibragimov: This Time Goliath Wins (And My Brief Thoughts On Pavlik-Taylor II)

After their documentary on Joe Louis, HBO ran their replay of the PPV fight between Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor and the heavyweight unification match between alphabet titlists Wladimir Klitschko (ranked #1 by The Ring and nearly universally recognized as the best heavyweight in the world) and Sultan Ibragimov (ranked #5 by The Ring) in New York's Madison Square Garden.

Before moving on to the heavyweight fight, I'll offer some thoughts on Pavlik-Taylor. I'd seen Taylor fight before and had not seen Pavlik, though I'd closely followed articles on Pavlik's career. Taylor looked pretty much the same as the fights of his I'd seen before he won the middleweight championship. His footwork wasn't bad but was a long way from great, he threw great explosions of combinations when he felt like working, and he had a great jab when he threw it. He did appear to have finally, after firing Emmanuel Steward, to have listened to him a little. He fought a better fight against Pavlik, stayed off the ropes for most of the right, and showed discipline and will to win. Pavlik was just better than he was and even more disciplined with an even stronger will. Pavlik's left jab was consistent from first bell to last bell and it had a clear effect on Taylor's game plan. Pavlik's punching was busy and consistently solid, hard and straight without overcommitting to haymakers and leaving himself too open. No, Pavlik's defense is not perfect and I have to agree with Emmanuel Steward that he is not a great puncher but merely a good puncher. What he is, however, is an excellent offensive boxer who uses little movements of glove and shoulders to maximize his effectiveness while jabbing hard and moving steadily forward. I was impressed. His style may be 'ordinary', but Pavlik himself is far from an ordinary fighter. The best comparison that comes to mind is Nino Benevuti, another tall-fighting and straight punching offensive boxer whose style and power were not extraordinary but who used his skills and the power he had to great effect. Unlike some of the online community, I didn't see any controversy in the decision. The judges had it right.

Now that I've gone on longer than I intended to about Pavlik-Taylor, I turn to Klitschko-Ibragimov. The big news on the internet is going to be how Klitschko should have knocked Ibragimov out easily instead of settling for such an awkward and lopsided shutout. Armchair fighters will be as hard on Klitschko as Max Kellerman was in the postfight interview and I can see why, but I don't agree. First and foremost, Klitschko utterly dominated a guy whose style clearly gave him fits. He threw his jab great and when he committed to really punching he landed his right and the left hook well, but he was clearly never comfortable. His very size advantage made the fight awkward against a southpaw whose stance meant he had to expose himself to an inside right hook in order to throw a big punch with either hand.

I thought Klitschko's jab and wait strategy was smart, and if Ibragimov had made a clear mistake that would have been the end of it. When Klitschko threw the right he landed it more often than not. He didn't throw the right as often as he should, not because of what looked to me like overcaution but rather because of what looked to me to be a lack of comfort. Maybe he felt flat or maybe fighting a little southpaw who did a lot of moving made it hard for him to get his rhythm. The referee didn't help. Klitschko scored what I thought were two legitimate knockdowns: once with a check hook in the eighth round that would have made Floyd Mayweather proud, which the referee mistakenly dismissed as a shove because of the size discrepancy between the two men, and once with a combination in the ninth round where the referee failed to correctly rule that the ropes held Ibragimov up. Both instances were clear and Wayne Kelly's failure to rule correctly clearly contributed to Klitschko's failure to find his comfort zone. In the first case, yes, Klitschko's size and strength meant that Ibragimov was more thrown to the mat by his follow through then dropped by the punch itself; but a punch was landed. It was not a shove or a throw, there was no foul. Klitschko hit Ibragimov cleanly and the follow through sent the smaller man to the canvas. That is a legitimate knockdown whether the referee liked it or not.

Off the HBO broadcast, I scored the fight 119-107 for Klitschko. I scored the first round even because, while Klitschko did not throw a single true punch, the Ukrainian's ring generalship and size advantage rendered Ibragimov's attempts to punch totally ineffective. I gave the second round to Ibragimov because, while Klitschko began to land jabs, Ibragimov did some good bodywork in spots. I scored the remaining ten rounds for Klitschko. I gave him 10-8 rounds in rounds eight and nine because it may be the referee's decision as to whether a legal knockdown has been scored, it is the judge's decision to award points based on the dominance of one fighter in a given round and whether the knockdowns were recognized by the referee or not they were clear proof of Klitshcko's dominance. I gave Klitschko a third 10-8 round in round eleven because, in a round he was already winning easily, he exploded with a power combination at the end of the round that sent Ibragimov staggering back into the ropes and looking badly shaken up.

Klitschko's performance was reminscent of some of the performances of Ezzard Charles and Larry Holmes; dominant but unsatisfying in an aesthetic sense. The lack of aesthetic appeal should not convince the discerning boxing fan or student that the fight was anything other than a dominant performance in difficult, even ugly, circumstances by an exceptional fighter.