I was pleased to see Wladimir Klitschko retire last week.
Nobody wants to go out on a defeat (although historically fighters often do) but in Klitschkoโs case, given the manner of his performance and the scale of the occasion the fact that he lost didnโt mean that he didnโt go out on a high. He did. I was lucky enough to be ringside and Iโll always remember that fight just as much for Klitschkoโs final, glorious last stand as I will for Joshuaโs win.
Iโve been thinking, in the days since he announced his retirement, about what his career has maybe taught us about boxing, and about sport generally and in the end it came down to a couple of things.
Firstly, it confirmed my long-held belief that itโs utterly pointless to compare fighters from different eras. That doesnโt mean I donโt do it, I do, because itโs fun, but thereโs no point to it as far as Iโm concerned. All any fighter can do is be the best in their division(s) in their own era, and thatโs not an opinion, thatโs a statement of fact. To criticise a boxer because their competition wasnโt perceived to be stiff enough is totally absurd but that was the situation the Ukrainian found himself in, until probably the final chapter of his career when due credit began to be more forthcoming.
How would he have fared in the 60s and 70s, the accepted golden era of heavyweight boxing, people would ask? We donโt know, is the answer, and what is more, we never will. It seems to be the curse of dominant champions that people question their achievements on the grounds that they appear to have come too easily, that such a level of superiority is somehow suspicious.
But nobody has questioned Usain Boltโs greatness have they?
Why? Because he set world records and proved that he was the fastest man of all time. But in boxing you canโt set the same type of records, those measurements canโt be made and therefore valid comparisons between competitors from different eras become impossible.
Klitschko was the best of his time and thereโs not a boxer who has ever lived who has been able to claim any greater achievement than that. It isnโt possible.
The second thing that the life and works of big Wlad showed us, I think, is that early defeats donโt define a fighter. Itโs a strange one this because most people would agree with that. A pet hate for many fight fans these days, and I share it, is that unbeaten records are far too prized, that the sport was healthier in years gone by when boxers would be matched tough early, get that โ0โ off their back and learn from defeats.
But in the case of Klitschko people seemed to make an exception. Iโve lost count of the amount of times Iโve heard someone say โyeah but he lost to Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster, he canโt be that good.โ Now that statement assumes two things: One, that Sanders and Brewster, who both held the WBO heavyweight title during their career, and had records of 38-2 and 29-2 at the time they met Klitschko, were a pair of incompetents, which they were not: And, two, that defeats set your career bar in stone, that they define your true level of ability forever, which is ridiculous.
They were damaging defeats, no question, but WK did what all champions do which is learn from them and improve. I read a good quote recently from Brother Colm OโConnell, the Irish missionary and athletics coach known as the โGodfather of Kenyan running.โ โWinnersโ, he said, โare losers who have evaluated themselves.โ
Iโm not some kind of Klitschko groupie, heโs not a hero of mine, but I admire him enormously, as I do anyone who squeezes every last drop out of their talent, and who refuses to allow their setbacks to define them, no matter how much others might want them to.
And thatโs what he did.
I suspect that his career will become more celebrated the longer heโs retired. Itโs another curse of dominant champions that they are often made to wait to receive the accolades they deserve whilst more maverick performers, who disappointed as often as they excelled, are celebrated like heroes.
But in sport dominance doesnโt guarantee popularity and, like many before him, Wladimir Klitschko is now more popular, off the back of a defeat, than he ever was when he quite simply didnโt know how to lose, when winning was pure routine.
โEverybody loves a winner.โ Strangely, itโs not really true.