Inconvenient truth - Boxing will miss the Klits!!

First topic message reminder :

Whilst I think having two brothers holding the greatest prize in sports simultaneously cheapens Boxing....Makes the greatest prize seem almost easy to win........Bit like the williams sisters in tennis....(Great achievements like conquering Everest etc should ideally be for those with great heart, ambition and talent.._

One has to admit that once these guys go there is nothing left!!! No charisma, no real talent (not that these guys had much)....

In fairness they have brought dignity to the sport and whilst they haven't transcended they have brought a modicum of skill and prestige to the game..

Worry for Boxing is.. it was deteriorating with these guys in charge except for the brief Haye episode which ended in a shambles!!!

What the hell is it going to be like after they have gone....???

My American bros aren't up to it and Price and Fury are lacking in either talent or charisma...

Boxing is synergesic if the heavies are exciting it reaches down to the lower weights and garners interest...good for the sport!!

Inconvenient truth is we'll miss the Klits........enjoy them while they are here I suppose!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You not think the fact two brothers can walk in and just take heavy titles...cheapen the greatest prize in sport??

I do.

Did the Williams sisters walking into to ladies tennis and winning all the titles cheapen the sport?

Did the Everly Brothers waking into music and gaining a load of massive hit records cheapen Rock n Roll?

No offense but that comment was a bit silly Truss

The Williams sisters had to play against eachother

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The Williams sisters had to play against eachother

And I agree that is a downside of their domination. Still doesnt change the achievements of each brother though

In fairness Steffan, Vitali got his shot at the WBO title by beating Herbie Hide (nuff sed) and then his crack at the WBC title due to the fact Lewis vacated it and he faced Sanders who looked like he'd just walked into the arena via Burger King

VK gets his shot after a loss to Lewis and Danny Williams got his shot after beating up the corpse of Tyson. There was plenty of walking into title shots back then...and lets not forget Wlad walking into a few shots himself....vs Sanders (arf)

By the way, the Williams sisters playing each other showed their willingness to test themsleves against the best out there

I think its more the state of boxing rather than anything the Klitschkos have done that cheapen the sport. Simply put, in a one belt system this couldnt happen. I understand their reason for not fighting and while it bothers me that two men can claim to be equal champions I think its the ridiculous structure of the sport that is primarily to blame rather than two blood brothers not wanting to fight competitively.

In every division in the sport the belts are cheapened, heavyweight is no different but at least the Klitschkos have beaten everything else in the competition outside each other and have a somewhat valid reason for not fighting each other unlike two other fighters out there both claiming to be the best.

Again Dave could say Lewis got his WBC belt by Bowe dumping it in the bin, literally. Is alas the nature of the game today. How a guy gets the belt is becoming less relevant, what he does when he gets it is what matters.

Personally I dont see all the fuss about the heavyweight division. Boxing has evolved, man has evolved. Accept that the heavyweights will never be what they were. There are so many other good weight categories out there. Live in the future not the past. Just my opinion but id rather look forward to Mayweather v Ortiz, Froch v Ward, and a whole lot more fights in other weights categories than worry about the decline if a division that was always gonna be affected as man got bigger

I would also add that in a practical sense, once the two brothers decide not fight it becomes largely irrelevant whether they share the titles or not because the ultimate answer of which is better will never be solved. Even if one of the brothers decided to give up his belts allowing the other to capture them it still doesnt answer the question. On the surface we have one champion but the real issue hasnt been addressed. Instead you would still have the two brothers dominating the competition with one being the champion and the other being the number one challenger for the best part of a decade. Noone would still be any wiser as to who was better and in legacy terms the problem of not facing your biggest rival would still be an issue.

Steffan is spot on. Apart from three periods, lasting roughly a decade each, the heavyweights have always lagged behind the standards of other divisions. Just now, we have a marvellous array of fighters at featherweight and below; credible fighters at lightweight; Mayweather, Pacquiao and a strong supporting cast of welters and light-welters and even some signs that light-heavyweight might recapture former glories.

Enjoy what we have; there is plenty to enjoy. Just don't expect too much from the big guys. History suggests that we have another decade or two to endure before the next saviour of the heavyweights emerges.

Steffan wrote:Personally I dont see all the fuss about the heavyweight division. Boxing has evolved, man has evolved. Accept that the heavyweights will never be what they were. There are so many other good weight categories out there. Live in the future not the past. Just my opinion but id rather look forward to Mayweather v Ortiz, Froch v Ward, and a whole lot more fights in other weights categories than worry about the decline if a division that was always gonna be affected as man got bigger

The thing is steffan heavyweight boxing attracts more attention from people who dont even follow boxing but are happy to watch 2 BIG guys fighting each other. Tyson was a good example a big guy knocking other big men over. The smaller weights dont provide that kind of entertainment.

rowley wrote:Again Dave could say Lewis got his WBC belt by Bowe dumping it in the bin, literally. Is alas the nature of the game today. How a guy gets the belt is becoming less relevant, what he does when he gets it is what matters.

Which again, is a stick used to beat VK with...what's his resume post-Lewis? It really ain't that great which, as many have already said, isn't Vitali's fault but it sure as hell doesn't help in trying to assess his 'greatness'. The idea that because he has a 90%+ KO ration he would somehow automatically be competitive in any era is a difficult one when the quality of opposition he HAS faced would still be fodder in any era.

How WOULD he fare against the Ali's, Frazier's, Foreman's Holmes' Tyson's when he's never fought anyone who could adequately replicate their respective styles?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Steffan wrote:Personally I dont see all the fuss about the heavyweight division. Boxing has evolved, man has evolved. Accept that the heavyweights will never be what they were. There are so many other good weight categories out there. Live in the future not the past. Just my opinion but id rather look forward to Mayweather v Ortiz, Froch v Ward, and a whole lot more fights in other weights categories than worry about the decline if a division that was always gonna be affected as man got bigger

The thing is steffan heavyweight boxing attracts more attention from people who dont even follow boxing but are happy to watch 2 BIG guys fighting each other. Tyson was a good example a big guy knocking other big men over. The smaller weights dont provide that kind of entertainment.

I agree with your point but in some ways I disagree as Hatton and Calzaghe for example brought massive interest to their respective countries. Same as Manny does with the Philippines and Marquez does with Mexico. Can you see any future legends at heavyweigt coming from England, Wales, the Philippines and Mexico. I certainly cant. Its a dead weight category

How would Louis have fought against them??? Jeffries? Dempsey???

argument can be used to many a heavy champ..

Personally I think Vitali and Wlad should be spoke about separtely.

I don't think Wlad will be missed at all but Vitali a little.

Granted the standard will drop when they go but then again i'd rather watch Arreola any day of the week over Wlad even though he's nowhere near as good as him.

Titles will change hands more often due to the current standard but at least it will be more interesting than knowing you're going to go to sleep watching Wlad!

Louis and Dempsey etc faced and felled bigger guys than themselves so we can at least make an educated guess as to how they might fare against the K's but where are the Dempsey, Ali, Louis clones...especially on Vitali's record?

We can make an educated guess how vk would get on......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:We can make an educated guess how vk would get on......

Which one is that? I know you don't know how to spell Wladimir's name.

Based on what, beating up Danny Williams?

Well we make educated guesses all the time don't we with our fantasy matchups..

Why should Vitali vs Ali be any different....

Vitali would take the centre and pump out the jab and Ali would have to box around him with combinations.....

Fact is though that many of our predictions are based on a similar head-to-head match up that actually existed. Whist it may be easy to say how Vitali would fight, it's a bit harder to predict the outcome. I'm struggling to think of a HW of the quality of Ali or Louis or even Dempsey that Vitali has faced in order for use to make that educated guess.

Again, I think the key word would be 'educated' in that we'd hopefully be using a valid basis for comparison as opposed to flipping a coin.

You're better off flipping a coin..

Well, given you've failed to provide me with examples of who Vitali faced that could replicate the qualities of Ali, Louis or Dempsey thus providing you with the requisite knowledge on which to base your assumptions, I'd suggest you keep that coin in order to ring for a taxi home!

If everybody had the qualities of a Dempsey, Ali, Louis etc they'd be champions themselves wouldn't they!!

But then surely the point would be to see how Vitali fared against other Champions? Wasn't aware that once you became Champion you were immune to defeat

Well Im not quite sure comparing a rusty Willard returning to the ring after 3 years to a peak Klitschko is doing Klitschko justice really any more than saying David Haye is comparable to Ali.

Haye beat a bigger man than either Klitschko himself so I think its too simplistic to say because a fighter has beaten someone of similar size then it automatically equates to a realistic evaluation of how they would fare. Haye hit and ran against Valuev, it worked. He did the same against Klitschko and it didnt.

Due to the level of competition available t the Klitschkos and other circumstances against them I think there is only so far they can go in legacy terms and I think most have them around the lower reaches of the 20 mark which I think is probably fair all things considered. The debate centres around whether this is a handicap for them or a help. Obviously if you throw them into the golden era of heavyweights its highly unlikely they even make the lower 20s as much of their legacy is built on dominance and longetivity which I think its fair to say they would not have in the 70s. But we could do that to Marciano, Tyson, Holmes, Lewis, Dempsey, Jeffries and so on with similar consequences for them so Im not sure what taking this point of view ultimately acheives other than what is reasonably obvious.

I think that the peak versions of both, at least almost certainly with Vitali, would see them be contenders in any era but for them to dominate as they have now it would take one of the several very weak periods in heavyweight history such as the one we have now. But if you remove all the specualtion of how they might fare against x,y and z and look at solely what they have accomplished for me it entitles them at the very least to a claim for the lower 20s spots if not a garaunteed placing there outright.

I always rated Vitali very highly and think he's been unlucky to be in the era he's in. Not saying he would've beaten the best of bygone eras but would've given any heavyweight a hard time.

As for Wlad I never rated him before the Haye fight. I had a feeling that he might freeze being in a fight of such magnitude but after his clinical shutdown of Haye I gained a lot more admiration. Some posters discredit him for not getting the KO but I was impressed anyways.

They will be missed but probably not massively so.

Theres no doubt they will be missed hugely in Europe. After that I think it depends who takes over after them. america are unlikely to sit up unless an American champion emerges, and if the likes of Povetkin Helenius and so on take over from the Klitschkos and the titles become fragmented their indifference is likely only to grow and perhaps as rowley says their respect for the clarity the Klitschkos provided may even increase.

Personally I wont particularly miss them, even assuming inferior fighters pick up where they left off. If we are lucky we get some competitive fights in the division, but against the backdrop of what would be a sub par division. My feelings were largely similar during the Holmes period where my enthusiasm for heavyweight boxing waned having been spoiled for the best part of two decades before it. I look back now on the Holmes era with more respect for him as a champion but there are few fights there I would rush back to watch and rarely was the pulse set racing during his long reign.

Colonial Lion wrote: I look back now on the Holmes era with more respect for him as a champion but there are few fights there I would rush back to watch and rarely was the pulse set racing during his long reign.

Thats a fair point Colonial and one I often think gets overlooked, whilst I am not going to argue watching Wlad can be painfully dull t'was often the case with guys who are looked on with some nostalgia, as you say at the time Holmes was often looked upon as a workmanlike champion and often considered fairly devoid of charisma, perhaps inevitiably following Ali, likewise Lewis was often considered overly conservative and not always a guy who set pulses racing. Accepted Wlad perhaps takes this to extremes but this idea that Wlad stands apart as a dull and uninspiring champion is simply not the case, as others have rightly or wrongly been accused of likewise.

agreed on many of your points truss, but after such a spell of dominance it will be nice to see a heavyweight fight where we dont know the winner before hand. bit like nadal and federer always winning it its nice to see some one else come along in a major with a chance.

Holmes and Lewis were facing better fighters, simple explanation really.

Well Holmes and Lewis are ranked above the Klitschkos accordingly and always will be.

I seldom see arguments made that the Klitschkos are top ten or top five heavyweights of all time. The general discussions seems to be whether or not they are worthy of top 20 placing or at a push sneaking into the 15 mark.

You seem to adopt the position that because parallels can be drawn between Holmes or Lewis and the Klitschkos that people are putting them on an equal pedestal in terms of their historical placing when I must say I very rarely see this argument being suggested.

My point with Holmes was that after a pretty stellar twenty years of heavyweight boxing, his reign was pretty uneventful and rarely captured the imagination to any large degree. At the time most publications I encountered would have had Holmes listed behind the likes of Frazier, Foreman or Liston and it wasnt until a number of years later that Holmes began to rise up the ratings to the point where he is now almost always in the top 7/8 heavyweights despite having very few standout individual victories. In my experience he is now almost always rated above Liston and Frazier and its not uncommon to see him above Foreman also. I certainly dont expect to see the Klitschkos up there anytime but its possible that a decade or so after they are gone and the division lapses further still that people look back on their reign with more respect if not neccessarily enjoyment or longing. Which is more or less how I see Holmes reign now 30 odd years later.

For me it depends what route the Heavyweight division takes over the next 10-15 years, if it seriously takes off again then i don't think opinion will change too much, if it continues to slowly go downhill then they will be celebrated more and climb up the rankings. Whatever happens they will definately get a little more credit than they do at the moment.

Not sure if the death of heavy boxing is terminal......All these titles and the rise of cage fighting and WWf may have made it so even a Tyson couldn't renew interest..

Hope I'm wrong..

I blame boxing itself more for the decline insofar as the numerous titles and increased divisions have left the heavyweight divisions populated by behomoths with a size over skill impetus.

The days where quality skilled light heavies would go up and challenge grow fewer and fewer. In previous eras where there was an abscence of real quality in th division you could generally count on some quality from the lower divisions to fill the void. Uniquely, the current poor heavyweight division has also coincided with a generally poor light heavyweight division and an appalling cruiser one also which has further limited any talent progressing upwards since Jones Jr brief forray or at a push if you want to include Adameck and Haye.

The fact a 45 year old Hoppo is cleaning up drives your point home Colonel..

Exactly TRUSSMAN66. I dont think there has ever been a case before in the history of the sport whereby both the light heavyweight division and the heavyweight division has gone the best part of a decade with so little talent simaltaneously.

Also nowadays any light heavyweight tempted to move up feels that they need to pile on 20/30 pound bulk in order to stand a chance and I think the temptation is lessened by the fact they risk being outsized by 40/50 lbs if they dont.

Good points Colonial, hopefully Adamek does well and shows that you don't have to be huge to challenge the big men.

Must admit I have reservation about Adamek as I just dont think he has the talent, whatever about the size being a factor. His power at the weight seems very mediocre which isnt too surprising for a former light heavyweight in todays era of heavyweights but would be concerned that he couldnt find either the power or combinations to put away somebody like McBride who is barely even a 12 round fighter these days.

Think the fact he is at heavyweight is really just to underscore how weak the division is as even at his more natural light heavyweight he didnt excell. I think its just a case of the division not producing enough talent.

The McBride result was disappointing, i did hope for him to win a bit more convincingly, if Adamek loses then i think he will head back down or maybe call it a day.

Steve Cunningham has made noises about moving up would anyone give him much of a chance against the K Bro's?

Not really Kev but i suppose they have as much a chance as most Heavyweights just now, would be good to see either Steve or Adamek in with Haye.

It would be a bit more like the heavyweight division of long ago before the new breed of 'super' heavies we have seen over the last decade and a half.