When will the Klitschkos Retire?

First topic message reminder :

The two brothers have been arond for ages now it seems and lets be honest now that Haye has retired the division will go back to being very boring. Dont get me wrong I think the Klichkos are quality but you have to admit the division is not exciting and they are boring to watch and boring to listen to. Imo the division needs another spark of life but where will that come from? Like Haye said the division is full of bums at the moment guys like Mormeck who lets not forget got knocked out by David Haye are fighting for a world title he will have no chance and will get knocked out. I reckon there are good prospects in Britain like Fury, Price and Perez but will they fight the Klichkos before they retire? The two brothers are getting old now and there are no big fights in the division not many people want to see their fights now that Haye has retired so can anyone see them retiring soon? If we are lucky they could retire in 1 or 2 years that would be perfect coz guys like Price, Fury, Perez and Hellenius would be coming through and fighting for world titles I think this would make the division far more exciting and who knows maybe in America there could be some good heavyweights by then and the division could really get going. Maybe Haye would think of coming back and we could see him in with guys like Fury fighting for world titles that would be quality! Some say it is not the Klichkos fault but you have to admit the division is boring with them in it and they set up rubbish fights tbh I think most people are hoping they will just retire soon.

Tbh the klichkos are quality and without them it would just be fat lumps fighting for the title lol.

Scottrf wrote:Tbh the klichkos are quality and without them it would just be fat lumps fighting for the title lol.

Dass wrote:Not if the excitement at supposed world level is based on such a pathetic standard of fighter.

Take Fury v Chisora which while being enjoyable in some areas to watch it was also so poor in many others. A good bad fight as its known, it would have been a disgrace if either had picked up a world title belt after that.

Compare Fury vs Chisora to, purely for the sake of example, Tyson vs Holyfield or Ali vs Foreman, and there's just no contest. The fatties look like just that-fatties.

Scottrf wrote:Tbh the klichkos are quality and without them it would just be fat lumps fighting for the title lol.

imo you've hit the nail on the head there m8.

Scottrf wrote:Tbh the klichkos are quality and without them it would just be fat lumps fighting for the title lol.

Thise guys are still fighting for titles but the problem is the are fighting the klichkos so they have no chance the fights are so one sided who wants to see this?

If the klichkos retired it would be more interesting the fights would be alot closer there would be some good fights in there.

Yes the klichkos are quality, dont get me wrong but they are boring and make the divison boring

Well obviously Waingro, yes, Haye's physique was (and has always been) very impressive, certainly more impressive than the high majority of current Heavyweights. But I think too many people overplayed how significant that was when it came to Haye. He simply wasn't good enough a boxer to prosper against the Klitschkos, six pack or not. At Heavyweight, when faced with problems he seldom had at Cruiserweight (navigating a reach disadvantage, being the weaker man in clinches etc), he was exposed as something of a brawler without a great punch. If it were all down to physique, then Mike Weaver and Frank Bruno would have been the two outstanding Heavyweights of the eighties, rather than Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson.

Of course, being in good shape is still important; there's a difference between being muscled and firm without being absolutely ripped to the bone (such as Holmes, Lewis etc) and being a beer-bellied beefster with a decent set of biceps, such as the names you think are set to make the division more exciting once the Klitschkos have gone. We don't want someone whose claim to immortality is having the best looking set of abs - we want someone who is at least in good fighting shape and, more importantly, has the right skillset to make a lasting mark on the Heavyweight division (if they have the abs etc, great). But right now, we don't have anyone matching that description. As such, we need the Klitschkos until we do, or until the brothers simply have nothing more to give to the sport.

Waingro wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Tbh the klichkos are quality and without them it would just be fat lumps fighting for the title lol.

Thise guys are still fighting for titles but the problem is the are fighting the klichkos so they have no chance the fights are so one sided who wants to see this?

If the klichkos retired it would be more interesting the fights would be alot closer there would be some good fights in there.

Yes the klichkos are quality, dont get me wrong but they are boring and make the divison boring

Waingro I think we all agree that the division is not exactly filled with thrills. But why is it the blame seems to rest with the Klitschkos? This seems perverse to me. Would it not be easier to point the finger at the host of heavyweights that simply are not good enough, not in good enough shape or not motivated enough? Its like you are giving all these guys a pass for being rubbish and blaming the Klitschkos for being good.

Waingro wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Tbh the klichkos are quality and without them it would just be fat lumps fighting for the title lol.

Thise guys are still fighting for titles but the problem is the are fighting the klichkos so they have no chance the fights are so one sided who wants to see this?

If the klichkos retired it would be more interesting the fights would be alot closer there would be some good fights in there.

Yes the klichkos are quality, dont get me wrong but they are boring and make the divison boring

Imo it would be worse because at least the champions are quality atm. If they retired the guys the klitckos beat would get the titles. Might be closer fights but fat lumps like Arrola and Peters would be world champions lol.

Tbh though if more people get a chance to win a belt it might be more interesting tho.

Oh I long for the ratings you used to be able to put on the old BBC 606. I know how many stars this tosh would get!

manos de piedra wrote:

Waingro wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Tbh the klichkos are quality and without them it would just be fat lumps fighting for the title lol.

Thise guys are still fighting for titles but the problem is the are fighting the klichkos so they have no chance the fights are so one sided who wants to see this?

If the klichkos retired it would be more interesting the fights would be alot closer there would be some good fights in there.

Yes the klichkos are quality, dont get me wrong but they are boring and make the divison boring

Waingro I think we all agree that the division is not exactly filled with thrills. But why is it the blame seems to rest with the Klitschkos? This seems perverse to me. Would it not be easier to point the finger at the host of heavyweights that simply are not good enough, not in good enough shape or not motivated enough? Its like you are giving all these guys a pass for being rubbish and blaming the Klitschkos for being good.

Spot on.

Think Rowley might be getting the IP address of anyone who's used the 'l*l' abbreviation here, tracking them down, inspecting their family tree and checking if they have any foreign blood from a few generations back in the hope of being able to pull some strings at work and get them chucked out of the country, so many have there been on this thread! Can see him going in to meltdown.

This article suggests the Klitschkos should retire because they're too good for the opposition. Absolute garbage. Do we want a similar situation to 2006 where you had 4 crud champions that would milk their belts rather than face each other? The Klitschko's have saved the heavyweight division from complete desolation.

I'm sure Alexander Povetkin shares the same view as the author though.

By the same arguement, can Scotland have another ball as Brazil won't let them have the one on the pitch.

bhb001 wrote:By the same arguement, can Scotland have another ball as Brazil won't let them have the one on the pitch.

Now I like the way you're thinking a couple of seasons ago had you got rid of Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Chelsea Villa would have won the league. Works for me.

Its probably like saying if you got rid of Celtic and Rangers out of the Scottish League it would be better.

More competitve yes, but lower quality and less marquee. I somehow doubt interest or excitement int he league would be any greater without its two biggest teams. More likely it just shrinks if anything.

The thing is, they're not setting records, setting their sport alight or making anyone go "wow".

I can only sense the reason they continue is money? I mean they're not chasing records like Tiger did, Federer did, Schumacher did etc. They're not covering themselves in glory by fighting bum after bum. Their legacies are non existant due to a lack of opposition etc. Again, through no fault of their own.

They shouldn't retire because there's no-one worthwhile to fight, but they (or those who back them) shouldn't complain when no-one rates them or gives them their dues for running through a series of heavyweights that wouldn't survive against c-class heavies of years gone by.

Waingro for some who loves to talk about the KLITSCHKO brothers so much can't you at least remember to spell their names correctly?

coxy0001 wrote:

They shouldn't retire because there's no-one worthwhile to fight, but they (or those who back them) shouldn't complain when no-one rates them or gives them their dues for running through a series of heavyweights that wouldn't survive against c-class heavies of years gone by.

Two things, am not sure I have ever heard either of them complain about this, also would not confuse you not rating them with no-one rating them, you do not speak for everyone.

Manos - at least Celtic and Rangers play each other several times a season. There is a rivalry

Coxy - they are to boxing what Simon Cowell is to music ...

Twitchey wrote:Manos - at least Celtic and Rangers play each other several times a season. There is a rivalry

Coxy - they are to boxing what Simon Cowell is to music ...

That doesnt really have any bearing on my analogy. You are taking ut the two biggest teams/stars out of a weak division. Might make it more competitve but I dont think it makes it more exciting or more interesting.

People would be as uninterested in the heavyweight division as ever if the Klitschkos left, is what my opinion is.

They'll probably retire long before you learn to spell.

As earlier posters have said, I'd guess 2 years max for Vit and maybe 4 for Wlad, and I don't see either losing a bout between then and now.

And as for suggesting the division would be better without its best fighters, the only two who aren't, frankly, an embarrassment, is about as ret@rded as your spelling!

TopHat24/7 wrote:They'll probably retire long before you learn to spell.

As earlier posters have said, I'd guess 2 years max for Vit and maybe 4 for Wlad, and I don't see either losing a bout between then and now.

And as for suggesting the division would be better without its best fighters, the only two who aren't, frankly, an embarrassment, is about as ret@rded as your spelling!

Calm down, he's only here to talk boxing imo.

manos de piedra wrote:

Twitchey wrote:Manos - at least Celtic and Rangers play each other several times a season. There is a rivalry

Coxy - they are to boxing what Simon Cowell is to music ...

That doesnt really have any bearing on my analogy. You are taking ut the two biggest teams/stars out of a weak division. Might make it more competitve but I dont think it makes it more exciting or more interesting.

People would be as uninterested in the heavyweight division as ever if the Klitschkos left, is what my opinion is.

I understand your analogy and opinion Manos, but I differ in opinion, because I feel that rivalries are very important to sport.

Why not extend the same anology (SPL to Heavyweight boxing) and consider how boring the SPL would be if Rangers and Celtic not only didn't play each other, but equally shared each others winnings? In my bizarre hypothetical scenario, would the SPL be better without Rangers and Celtic: hell yeah!

I can understand how the millionnaire brothers don't want to fight each other, but the fact that there is not even a pretend rivalry between the brothers makes it even more boring.

rowley wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

They shouldn't retire because there's no-one worthwhile to fight, but they (or those who back them) shouldn't complain when no-one rates them or gives them their dues for running through a series of heavyweights that wouldn't survive against c-class heavies of years gone by.

Two things, am not sure I have ever heard either of them complain about this, also would not confuse you not rating them with no-one rating them, you do not speak for everyone.

No-one rates them in the top 20 then.

Mainly because a rating in said top 20 would be based upon a resume of fighters they've beaten.

And neither has a win over a heavyweight you could put in the top 50.

Twitchey wrote:I understand your analogy and opinion Manos, but I differ in opinion, because I feel that rivalries are very important to sport.

If you need a rivalry to get excited about an event - the sport is already in trouble.

The Kbros are exciting because they're both massive, both can move and box and punch like a freight train. Surely that's exciting?

coxy0001 wrote:And neither has a win over a heavyweight you could put in the top 50.

Between them they've beaten half the fighters in Azania's "50 who'd whip Marciano".

oxring wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:And neither has a win over a heavyweight you could put in the top 50.

Between them they've beaten half the fighters in Azania's "50 who'd whip Marciano".

Hahaha, must admit that made me laugh out loud. Or as Rovverly says "lol"

16.Jersey Joe Walcott
17.Ezzard Charles
18.Harry Wills
19.James J. Corbett
20.Bob Fitzsimmons

That is the bottom five of the IBRO's top 20 heavies, am not saying I would have either brother in there but have long argued it is not too far out of leftfield to make an argument for either brother replacing anyone of those guys, particularly if they are judged solely on their heavyweight exploits.

There's an argument for putting a Kbro as high as Jersey Joe - who seems to be placed so highly as much for giving Marciano hell (once) but still losing as for his wins.

I couldn't face a Kbro above Ezzy Charles though. Even if we're only counting Ezzy's work at HW. His win over Louis is better than all their best wins.

As such - it leaves us with Wills, Corbett and Fitz. Fitz' HW resume isn't great, so one of them could sneak in at 20. But Corbett? The father of modern boxing? Couldn't put Wlad over him.

Corbett got knocked out by a Middleweight.

Oxy not sure I would have him over Corbett, but his record at heavy is pretty sparse. Would never underplay the influence he had in the development of the sport but a win over an ageing and booze addled Sullivan before getting sparked by a middleweight (albeit a great one) does not make for the thickest of ledgers.

rowley wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

They shouldn't retire because there's no-one worthwhile to fight, but they (or those who back them) shouldn't complain when no-one rates them or gives them their dues for running through a series of heavyweights that wouldn't survive against c-class heavies of years gone by.

Two things, am not sure I have ever heard either of them complain about this, also would not confuse you not rating them with no-one rating them, you do not speak for everyone.

Fight! Fight! FIGHT!

I think a decade or two after the Klitschkos retire they will ultimately make the top 15 of most publications in something of a Larry Holmes effect. Its just going to be too hard to dismiss a decade long reign of dominance even if the opposition isnt amazing. Theres no chance they will rated outside the top 20 when the dust settles.

BALTIMORA wrote:

rowley wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

They shouldn't retire because there's no-one worthwhile to fight, but they (or those who back them) shouldn't complain when no-one rates them or gives them their dues for running through a series of heavyweights that wouldn't survive against c-class heavies of years gone by.

Two things, am not sure I have ever heard either of them complain about this, also would not confuse you not rating them with no-one rating them, you do not speak for everyone.

Fight! Fight! FIGHT!

Tell him to go get another five guys (one two not included) make it a fair fight.

Waingro wrote:

rowley wrote:Waingro was not commenting on Haye's condition but I do think his technique is sadly lacking, and so it goes for the division, if someone has technique they have no conditioning and vice versa, is it too much to ask someone would put a bit of graft in so they could perhaps have both at the same time?

Not sure abouts Hayes technique mate tbh I think hes quality but lets not forget how much bigger klichko is to him i also think his tactics were wrong this is why i would like to see a rematch I reckon Haye would have a better chance

Quality how?

Even John Ruiz outjabbed him for significant periods.

Hit and run is not the same as solid technique, unless a fighter can pull it off with the brilliance and the handspeed of Ali. Wlad Klitschko, like it or not, proved himself to be a superior technician to Haye, who simply relied on smash and grab raids and hoped that one big right hand would topple his man.

coxy0001 wrote:The thing is, they're not setting records, setting their sport alight or making anyone go "wow".

I can only sense the reason they continue is money? I mean they're not chasing records like Tiger did, Federer did, Schumacher did etc. They're not covering themselves in glory by fighting bum after bum. Their legacies are non existant due to a lack of opposition etc. Again, through no fault of their own.

They shouldn't retire because there's no-one worthwhile to fight, but they (or those who back them) shouldn't complain when no-one rates them or gives them their dues for running through a series of heavyweights that wouldn't survive against c-class heavies of years gone by.

Bull. Wladimir has such an easy life he might as well chase Joe Louis record.

They jointly hold all 4 world title belts. The whole of the heavyweight division belongs to the Klitschko family so your claims that their legacies are "non-existant" is rubbish.

The rest of your post is your usual drivel.

Before it stops being decent, please keep it decent lads.

Re: Corbett -

He also beat Kilrain and the not-that bad Charley Mitchell (Eng HW champ, drew with Sullivan on one of his Euro tours, first man to deck the great champion, before Sullivan tore him apart, before being stopped by the Police Gazette in 3).

So actually - Corbett has a couple of decent names on his resume. Kilrain certainly compares favourably with Haye, Thompson and Fast Eddie, no?

Probably not. Not sure Wlad would get much credit for the equivalent of an English HW champ when you ignore unifications with an unbeaten Chagaev and Ibragimov though.

See what you're saying Oxy but do get the impression with Wlad the glass is always half empty, in an era when the division is weak all one can ask of someone is they keep winning and fight everyone out there and the obvious and understandable fact he will never fight his brother aside Wlad has done this and whilst he may not provide too many thrills along the way he rarely loses a round in doing so.

Personally think it is not unreasonable to have Wlad above any of those in the IBRO's bottom five, I find it hard enough to settle on a ten so am unlikely to try and place anyone beyond that but would not tax me to greatly to make an argument I don't think.

Scottrf wrote:Probably not. Not sure Wlad would get much credit for the equivalent of an English HW champ when you ignore unifications with an unbeaten Chagaev and Ibragimov though.

Chagaev I'll give you - but not big Sultan.

Has to be one of the worst titlists in history.

Mitchell put down a peak Sullivan and managed to take a not-that-faded Sullivan 39 rounds.

It is my opinion that big Ig couldn't do that, awkward southpaw that he was.

TBH - I've lost/will lose this argument and should back out gracefully. I'm not putting Wlad in ahead of Ezzy or Corbett due to my own liking for Ezzy and gentleman Jim. Which isn't objective really.

Besides - I've argued for years that Wlad is criminally underrated - so I shouldn't contradict that now.

Whoever said that he'll be rated higher in 10 years - is probably bang on.

88Chris05 wrote:Think Rowley might be getting the IP address of anyone who's used the 'l*l' abbreviation here, tracking them down, inspecting their family tree and checking if they have any foreign blood from a few generations back in the hope of being able to pull some strings at work and get them chucked out of the country, so many have there been on this thread! Can see him going in to meltdown.

Rumour has it a couple of the residents of the Dale Farm site used the 'L*L' abbreviation and when Rowley found out he went ballistic and started making a few phonecalls, culminating in their current violent persecution and expulsion. You have been warned.

oxring wrote:

Whoever said that he'll be rated higher in 10 years - is probably bang on.

Now on that we have can agree Oxy, particularly as Helenius and Fury appear to be the future of the division, could definitely be a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

They jointly hold all 4 world title belts. The whole of the heavyweight division belongs to the Klitschko family so your claims that their legacies are "non-existant" is rubbish.

The rest of your post is your usual drivel.

Drivel? And you then come across as though they have a legacy?!?

I would ask if you know anything about boxing, but that'd be a silly question and one i and most of the board already know the answer to.

Legacy?

How many fighters have they beat who you could list in the top 50 heavies of all time? How many HoF fighters have they beaten? How many P4P fighters have they beaten? How many of their younger foes will go onto greater things once they've gone?

I'll answer: Zero.

I did say that it was through no fault of their own the division has the least amount of talent in since the 1980s (the worst era for heavies, and even that decade looks stacked compare to now).

You can't build a legacy on beating on guys that would've lost to c-class fighters in years gone past. It's not the KBros fault, but you can't excuse the level of opposition when trying to hype up their legacy. They quite simply don't have one, they have no career defining wins over anyone you could argue to be half decent!

And Louis fought guys like Conn, Walcott, Schmeling etc etc etc. If Wlad decides to go past his record then there'll always be a massive, MASSIVE asterisk by that achievement. I might as well tell you why - Wlad is beating guys that beyond average.

Didn't Ottke defend various titles something like 20 times, one of them 15 times?!!?!? I mean we should all bow down and worship him now should we!?!??

Surprise to see you back on here after your new 'hope' of supporting someone remotely half decent looked distinctly average against a British level fighter.

The Ottke comparison is a red herring as well you know Coxy, Ottke also made no effort to face the best guy in his division at the time, never left his own back yard and needed some more than favourable refereeing and judging to hit his total. None of these accusations can be levelled at Wlad, when someone outside big brother has emerged as a perceived threat they have been dealt with and he has never needed any help from refs or judges to do so.

You said they will have a "non-existant" legacy which renders everything else you say as meaningless claptrap. They will be remembered fondly (or not) for decades to come. Kings of this era, first ever family to hold all titles, Wlad unified twice and likely to go for for many years............oh no sorry that's a non existant legacy right there.

I couldn't be bothered going through the rest of your brown discharge. Got better things to do.

Super D Boon wrote:You said they will have a "non-existant" legacy which renders everything else you say as meaningless claptrap. They will be remembered fondly (or not) for decades to come. Kings of this era, first ever family to hold all titles, Wlad unified twice and likely to go for for many years............oh no sorry that's a non existant legacy right there.

I couldn't be bothered going through the rest of your brown discharge. Got better things to do.

More like you either lack the attention span to do so or you have no retort.

And you seem to ignore the point. They aren't fighting anyone of note, and that isn't there fault. They're not being tested so will their achievements be recognised in years to come as being something special?

Don't bother replying because you're too simple to understand the point i'm making. Bum of the month club is probably lost on you, that derogatory term will probably be rejigged in 20 years time and passed to them when we look upon who they took on.

I prefer to think of the Marquez brothers as being the modern day great boxing brothers. By an absolute country mile as well.

coxy0001 wrote:And you seem to ignore the point. They aren't fighting anyone of note, and that isn't there fault. They're not being tested so will their achievements be recognised in years to come as being something special?

Yes, when context is lost, numbers remain.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:And you seem to ignore the point. They aren't fighting anyone of note, and that isn't there fault. They're not being tested so will their achievements be recognised in years to come as being something special?

Yes, when context is lost, numbers remain.

That has almost Yoda like wisdom Scott, well done.

rowley wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:And you seem to ignore the point. They aren't fighting anyone of note, and that isn't there fault. They're not being tested so will their achievements be recognised in years to come as being something special?

Yes, when context is lost, numbers remain.

That has almost Yoda like wisdom Scott, well done.

Both sniffing glue more like

coxy0001 wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:You said they will have a "non-existant" legacy which renders everything else you say as meaningless claptrap. They will be remembered fondly (or not) for decades to come. Kings of this era, first ever family to hold all titles, Wlad unified twice and likely to go for for many years............oh no sorry that's a non existant legacy right there.

I couldn't be bothered going through the rest of your brown discharge. Got better things to do.

More like you either lack the attention span to do so or you have no retort.

And you seem to ignore the point. They aren't fighting anyone of note, and that isn't there fault. They're not being tested so will their achievements be recognised in years to come as being something special?

Don't bother replying because you're too simple to understand the point i'm making. Bum of the month club is probably lost on you, that derogatory term will probably be rejigged in 20 years time and passed to them when we look upon who they took on.

I prefer to think of the Marquez brothers as being the modern day great boxing brothers. By an absolute country mile as well.

It doesn't matter that the Ks are not fighting anyone of note, like you said it's not their fault. The fact is they are the kings of their time. The time may be dire but they are not. They will leave a lasting legacy in years to come simply based on the fact they are so dominant in the here and now, the fact they are Eastern Europeans gives them a certain uniqueness and they are massive in Germany and the former eastern bloc. I've tried my best to explain it so even YOU can understand it. Hardly a non existant legacy.