Contracts

First topic message reminder :

After another victory for the Brothers K this weekend, quite a few posters have been highlighting the Klits contracts as the stumbling block to a fight with David Haye amongst others.

The term "slave contract" has been bandied about and the general feel was that the contracts were heavily favoured towards the champs.

On another thread discussing Samuel Peter, a poster mentioned about after his first loss, he went away and got a few wins to make himself the mandatory challenger again. Something that David Haye doesnt want to do.

So my question is, how much power do the champions have in the contract negotiations when facing a mandatory?

If Chisora had been a mandatory, what would have been the difference in purse and contract details for example.

My final word on the subject would be that I suspect the reason this debate has gone on so long is I disagree with the basic premise that the brothers rip people off. For me to rip someone off you have to fail to pay them what you owe them which to the best of my knolwedge the brothers have never done. All I can see them off being guilty of is driving a very hard bargain, is it harder than needed, maybe but we're into the realms of the subjective there.

My own view and it appears to have been proven is nobody has to sign a contract, every fighter be it Chisora or anyone else has the option of grafting and getting to the point where they negotiate from a stronger position and think the examples Manos has provided such as Haye and Ibgrabimov demonstrate you do that you get a better deal.

"My own view and it appears to have been proven is nobody has to sign a
contract"

rowley your stance dimminshes the sport of boxing- it shouldnt be about money men- it shouldnt be controlled by promoters. the best should fight the best- they dont just get way more money than the opponents- we as public lose out on fights because of the moneymen that hurt the sport!

To be fair though myst, from what I can gather in relation to the brothers is the only guys who have been tied to harsh contracts are guys such as Chisora who fall a good way short of the description of "the best" and in reality have done the square root of sod all to deserve the shot. If as I suggested Chisora had walked away from the offer would we as fans feel genuinely deprived? Would the brothers legacy be ruined? Would any accusations of ducking be justified? Would it have led to three years of Manny Floyd debates? Not a bit of it, most would have not cared a jot, myself included.

What massive Klitschko fights have we lost out on? Valuev is only semi realistic opponent over the last number of years the Klitschkos didnt face. But Wlad convincingly beat the two guys that had beat him.

As much as I think the argument of moneymen ruining the sport has merit. It also diminishes the sport when guys like Chisora and Haye can feel entitled to generous title shots on the back of doing little or nothing to earn them.

The Klitschkos got to where they are by winning fights in the ring and beating the other oppsition. They went through traditional routes of winning the Euro belts, Intercontinental titles, eliminators etc in order to move up the rankings and build their fanbase. When they did lose, they went back and earned their shot again by fighting eliminators again and becoming nukmber 1 contenders. They didnt crash press conferences demanding freebies. As champions they have continued to fight the best the division has to offer for the most part. Some would argue this entitles them to call the shots. I cant see how they owe guys like Chisora anything. I find the representation of Chisora as screwed over fighter and victim in this by some people as pretty hard to understand.

Manos

I dont think Chisora believes he was entitled to a title shot through merit or any other means. The issue is that he was dicked around by Wlad.

azania wrote:Manos

I dont think Chisora believes he was entitled to a title shot through merit or any other means. The issue is that he was dicked around by Wlad.

Which was at least partially understandable and ultimately compensated for.

azania wrote: Yep, Warren's a hypocrite. We all know that. Even he knows that. But K2 are fine, upstanding gentlemen, who help the starving, feed the homeless, provide a pension plan for old retired boxers.

Haven't you come to the realisation yet that no one is trying to argue this? It doesn't matter how many times you write it - this is not what the people arguing against you are saying.

azania wrote: John Gotti handled himself with dignity in public <----- chance for you to run off on another wild tangent completely out of context.

Why say things like this if you know people will use it against you? It's you that brings things out of context. The Don King statement is ridiculous enough (and I'm guessing you feel a wee bit embarrassed about writing that), but at least King was a boxing promoter - Gotti was a gangster that ordered the death of numerous people. That's what you're comparing the Klitschko's to now? That you put your wee sarcastic disclaimer in after doesn't alter the fact that you are the one that's bringing these out-of-context and wildly exaggerated comparisons into the debate.

You can't just win an argument by selectively dismissing what other people are saying, and continuing to pretend they've said something else. It shows a complete lack of reasoning ability.

http://www.boxingscene.com/oner-livid-wladimir-laughed-smirked-haye-chisora--49850

Read this...Wladimir is a hypocrite and two faced in my opinion.

Box

The point I'm making is that anyone can give to the poor/homeless/charities etc. It will not make them saints.

azania wrote:Box

The point I'm making is that anyone can give to the poor/homeless/charities etc. It will not make them saints.

The point that everyone else is making, and that you have still yet to grasp, is that no one is calling them saints.

PBF all that from one of the most immoral individuals in the sport. Your argument is going from strength to strength.

Trottb

All the journalists there saw him act that way got nothing to with this individual he is just pointing at the hypocrisy of Wladimir.

Azania, there is a heck of middle ground between being a saint and a scumbag.

There are few human beings in the world that would qualify as saints. But there are alot of people who believe the Klitschkos are good individuals who represent themselves and the sport with dignity and involve themselves in worthwhile causes without neccessarily being beyond certain criticisms or being classified as saints.

If your argument was they are not saints, then congratulations I think you will find people agree with you for the most part in what was never a point argued in the first place really. But its not neccessary to portray someone as the devil in order to prove they are not a saint.

manos de piedra wrote:But its not neccessary to portray someone as the devil in order to prove they are not a saint.

Sums it up, for me.

Joe Louis might be the most universally loved and respected boxer of all time, yet he had a few skeletons tucked away.

Just as we all do.

Windy

Hows the media portraying Haye and Chisora in Germany?

Surprisingly low key, PBF.

It made the national news the day after, but hasn't been heard of since.

Adam D wrote:

azania wrote:Box

The point I'm making is that anyone can give to the poor/homeless/charities etc. It will not make them saints.

The point that everyone else is making, and that you have still yet to grasp, is that no one is calling them saints.

And there it is again! You can't just make up what other people are saying!

If the point of your argument was to claim that the Klitschko brothers are hypocritical in using their 'nice guy' image to mask strict negotiating tactics then I think you've found a lot of people to agree with you.

I honestly don't know where else you want to go with this. It seems like you want to ignore other people's responses, then argue that the Klitschkos are amongst the worst people in boxing. You seemingly want to erase anything positive they ever may have done in their lives, or argue against anyone who points out those positives, because you find the bothers' hypocrisy irritating. It's really quite silly.

Time to give up chewing on the ends of this debate, and put it to bed I think.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:But its not neccessary to portray someone as the devil in order to prove they are not a saint.

Sums it up, for me.

Joe Louis might be the most universally loved and respected boxer of all time, yet he had a few skeletons tucked away.

Just as we all do.

You ungrateful git you say that as if its a bad thing. I'd happily keep my old skeletons in the closet if I could live for eternity

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Manos

I dont think Chisora believes he was entitled to a title shot through merit or any other means. The issue is that he was dicked around by Wlad.

Which was at least partially understandable and ultimately compensated for.

How was it compensated for?

Adam D wrote:

azania wrote:Box

The point I'm making is that anyone can give to the poor/homeless/charities etc. It will not make them saints.

The point that everyone else is making, and that you have still yet to grasp, is that no one is calling them saints.

The point is that people are putting them on a pedestal tey dont belong on. They are no different from any other boxer. So what that they do some work for UNESCO. So does Angelina Jolie. She's taken her charitable work so far that she adopte some of them.

azania wrote:

Adam D wrote:

azania wrote:Box

The point I'm making is that anyone can give to the poor/homeless/charities etc. It will not make them saints.

The point that everyone else is making, and that you have still yet to grasp, is that no one is calling them saints.

The point is that people are putting them on a pedestal tey dont belong on. They are no different from any other boxer. So what that they do some work for UNESCO. So does Angelina Jolie. She's taken her charitable work so far that she adopte some of them.

I think the latter point shows just how illogical and idiotic your argument is.

By this logic - one can only be placed on a pedestal if totally, 100% good - which is frankly impossible. Personally, as a man of faith, I could argue with you from a spiritual perspective about this - but I will try to remain secular so we are speaking on the same wavelenght.

Not one man is perfect and beyond falling. As Windmill put it - everyone has a skeleton in their closet somewhere.

I'll give you several examples.

In 2008 I was wandering past the Bod on my way to a lab, when I came upon a tumultuous throng, shouting and baying DALAI LLAMA (dalai llama) STOP LYING (stop lying). What causeth this hue and cry? I thought as I looked upon the mob. The Dalai Llama was here to speak on Chinese influence in Tibet - at a time in the run up to the Beijing Olympics where global sympathy for the cause of Tibet was at an all time high. Apparently, he had banned a popular Tibetan Buddhist prayer. So an angry mob abused him through the streets of Oxford. The Dalai Llama has done many, many good deeds and spoken tirelessly on the importance of peace. Should he be banned from any pedastals for this act of religious intolerance? An act that I would not pretend to comprehend the intricacies of...

The analogy here being that the Kbros have done many good deeds - should they be banned from a pedestal for being a tough negotiator? Given that none of us have actually been HW champion of the world - it would seem to me that our criticism is premature.

A different example and one more pertinant to you:

Mahatma Gandhi is a globally recognised figure who had a massive influence upon 20th century politics and 20th century thought. He (amongst other things) was a pioneer in the field of civil activism. Amongst others upon whom he was a great influence stands Martin Luther King.

Yet, according to current theory, he was a Bisexual, misogynistic hating racist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/mahatma-gandhi-bisexual-_n_841410.html (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with bisexuality of course - merely trying to place the book in the context with which it describes Gandhi).

Martin Luther King was allegedly a sex addict who loved orgies.

Should these great, great men be stripped of their pedestals due to the unproven/unproveable accusations against them?

Of course not.

It is the balance which is important. There was a German once in the not too distant past. Fantastically athletic - Olympic standard skier and fencer. Talented musician, son of a composer father - and a concert standard violinist himself. Insanely brave - volunteering to be tail gunner (in a Do117 I believe), flying in over 100 combat missions over the USSR. In Greek times, his deeds would be sung to us today as some form of demigod.

The catch? He was Reinhard Heydrich, chair of the council which proposed and organised the Final Solution and widely accepted architect of the holocaust.

There is not one man who can be fair, kind, good and honourable in all their dealings.

Does that mean that none of us should stand on pedestals? No - quite the reverse. We need people to admire and aspire to. If below average moral negotiating devalues above average humanitarian work, political work, intelligence, wit, and athletic ability - then there really is no hope for us all.

Ox

The adjectives "classy", "humble", "humility", "gracious", "intergrity", "caring for the sport" and others follow the K2 around. My point is, they are far from it. Boxing is littered with vile scum, sharks and users and abusers on the take and on the lookout for themselves only. They are in that group. No different, better or worse than many or any.

I knew about Heydrich. Go to Namibia about 20 years ago. It was an eye opener.

"Far from it"

Thus far - the only criticism with an ounce of evidence that you have found is the tough negotiating.

If you feel to the contrary - may I suggest that you tabulate your evidence and present it under categories - so that I may respond to each point with greater ease and clarity.

oxring wrote:"Far from it"

Thus far - the only criticism with an ounce of evidence that you have found is the tough negotiating.

If you feel to the contrary - may I suggest that you tabulate your evidence and present it under categories - so that I may respond to each point with greater ease and clarity.

So far the only defence put up for the K2 is "others have done similar" plus they work for UNESCO and help the poor.

Hate to get dragged in again but one point I do not wish to get lost in all this which I am not sure has been made clear is that to my knowledge as of yet no accusations have been made or substantiated of the brothers ever failing to pay, in full, the amounts stipulated on the contracts they negotiate with other fighters. If this is indeed the case they are a step above Warren and King to name but two and so to my mind do not deserve to be lumped in with them.

This is because there is a clear distinction between being a tough negotiator and being a rip off merchant. For me it is like this, if I promise to buy something off someone for £10 and give them £5, I have ripped them off, if I give them £10, I haven't. If a realistic price for that item happens to be £20 that is a different issue, this means they have either agreed to a deal they shouldn't have or I am one hell of a tough or talented (depends on perspective) negotiator.

List of offences please Az. You're the prosecution - you have to make the case.

As I said - its a balance. Does UNESCO, poverty, 2 phds, medical bills and political activism count for more than tough negotiating? I'd say yes.

I watched a programme on Hitlers personal train last year. The death of Heydrich after an abush by the Czechs made Hitler get extra security. Dont know what happened in Namibia mind. Am currently studying African artifacts that are 600 years old. Not sure what anything I have said has to do with the Klitschkos mind

I will be glad when they both retire to be honest and hopefully some new fighters can come through. On saying that heavyweight boxing is pretty poor on the whole whoever is fighting in it nowadays

oxring wrote:List of offences please Az. You're the prosecution - you have to make the case.

As I said - its a balance. Does UNESCO, poverty, 2 phds, medical bills and political activism count for more than tough negotiating? I'd say yes.

Cant be bothered to be honest. But Floyd does as much and pays for funerals. I suppose we should ignore his excesses.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:List of offences please Az. You're the prosecution - you have to make the case.

As I said - its a balance. Does UNESCO, poverty, 2 phds, medical bills and political activism count for more than tough negotiating? I'd say yes.

Cant be bothered to be honest. But Floyd does as much and pays for funerals. I suppose we should ignore his excesses.

You've jumped the shark - you can't jump it again.

Floyd is about to spend some time contemplating his own excesses at the pleasure of the State of Nevada. For why? Nothing serious, just beating up his former partner and threatening their child. Oh - and then posting racist videos on twitter/youtube.

Remind me - when did either of the brothers K last beat up an ex partner? I must be forgetting...

The defence isn't that "others are worse so they're OK". Its that you blow the K2's "offences" out of all proportion whilst minimizing those of fighters you like.

This is hypocrisy at its worst.

And can't be bothered is lazy - as you full well know.

oxring wrote:Oh - and then posting racist videos on twitter/youtube

Calling Manny......'Poochio'?

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:"Far from it"

Thus far - the only criticism with an ounce of evidence that you have found is the tough negotiating.

If you feel to the contrary - may I suggest that you tabulate your evidence and present it under categories - so that I may respond to each point with greater ease and clarity.

So far the only defence put up for the K2 is "others have done similar" plus they work for UNESCO and help the poor.

Not really, no. You seem to have a disregard for good behaviour and humanitarian efforts bordering on disdain. Most of the arguments you have put forward against them have been either untrue or only partially true. Your comparisons of them to the likes of Gotti and King are barely even worth dignifying. You see you seem to be blurring the lines between them as boxers, businessmen and persons to suit your position.

If you want to argue the point about them as businessmen solely. Then I think I can speak for most in here in saying that yes, in that regard they dont operate any more generously than others do in their position. Nobody has really disputed that, in fact many have confirmed this. But you seem to want to take this outside the context of being businessmen and extend it on to define them as people. When the arguments of their behaviour, represantation of their sport, significant humanitarian efforts, involvement in organisation designed to help former boxers etc is put forward in their favour of them as general human beings then you retreat back to businessmen argument. Which nobody has disputed. And the cycle repeats itself. You havent really provided us with what you think business men of their "image" should be offering unranked opponents either.

If you want to talk about them as purely fighters, fine. If you want to talk about them as businessmen, again fine. But if you want to talk about them as the complete package as people, and try and define their entire person by solely concentrating on the businessman aspect whilst systematically ignoring everything else positive about them then I think your argument collapses.

Your argument that because they dont operate any more generously as businessmen makes them no different from anyone else is little stronger than saying that because their style of fighting is boring it makes them bad people. The criticism is just taken way out of context.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:List of offences please Az. You're the prosecution - you have to make the case.

As I said - its a balance. Does UNESCO, poverty, 2 phds, medical bills and political activism count for more than tough negotiating? I'd say yes.

Cant be bothered to be honest. But Floyd does as much and pays for funerals. I suppose we should ignore his excesses.

You've jumped the shark - you can't jump it again.

Floyd is about to spend some time contemplating his own excesses at the pleasure of the State of Nevada. For why? Nothing serious, just beating up his former partner and threatening their child. Oh - and then posting racist videos on twitter/youtube.

Remind me - when did either of the brothers K last beat up an ex partner? I must be forgetting...

The defence isn't that "others are worse so they're OK". Its that you blow the K2's "offences" out of all proportion whilst minimizing those of fighters you like.

This is hypocrisy at its worst.

And can't be bothered is lazy - as you full well know.

As I said, St Klitchko. I deliberately bring up boxers with dodgy backgrounds, dubious attitude but strong negotiating tactics. On this board, Floyd has been chastised for his demands regarding Manny. But as far as I know he doesn't go out to deliberately disturb fighters just before their ring walk. Make ridiculous demands for others to follow. When he does its picked up on.

Khan is another. Ridiculously criticised, insulted (he gives massively to charity, sets up schools for disadvantages and some more) yet that is cast aside. No worries. Now we come to the K2 boys. Impose some ridiculous stipulations in the contract to give their family every chance to keep hold of a belt. Applauded because others do it. No they dont.

They are control freaks, indentured labour contracts, liars, media manipulators.....but they work for UN and help other boxers.

Floyd gives turkeys to homeless on thanksgiving in Harlem... Khan helped Pakistan Earthquake victims. Donated massively to various charities. The only downside is his dodgy driving and knocking off Jordan (allegedly - unforgivable to bang that bucket but each to their own).

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:"Far from it"

Thus far - the only criticism with an ounce of evidence that you have found is the tough negotiating.

If you feel to the contrary - may I suggest that you tabulate your evidence and present it under categories - so that I may respond to each point with greater ease and clarity.

So far the only defence put up for the K2 is "others have done similar" plus they work for UNESCO and help the poor.

Not really, no. You seem to have a disregard for good behaviour and humanitarian efforts bordering on disdain. Most of the arguments you have put forward against them have been either untrue or only partially true. Your comparisons of them to the likes of Gotti and King are barely even worth dignifying. You see you seem to be blurring the lines between them as boxers, businessmen and persons to suit your position.

If you want to argue the point about them as businessmen solely. Then I think I can speak for most in here in saying that yes, in that regard they dont operate any more generously than others do in their position. Nobody has really disputed that, in fact many have confirmed this. But you seem to want to take this outside the context of being businessmen and extend it on to define them as people. When the arguments of their behaviour, represantation of their sport, significant humanitarian efforts, involvement in organisation designed to help former boxers etc is put forward in their favour of them as general human beings then you retreat back to businessmen argument. Which nobody has disputed. And the cycle repeats itself. You havent really provided us with what you think business men of their "image" should be offering unranked opponents either.

If you want to talk about them as purely fighters, fine. If you want to talk about them as businessmen, again fine. But if you want to talk about them as the complete package as people, and try and define their entire person by solely concentrating on the businessman aspect whilst systematically ignoring everything else positive about them then I think your argument collapses.

Your argument that because they dont operate any more generously as businessmen makes them no different from anyone else is little stronger than saying that because their style of fighting is boring it makes them bad people. The criticism is just taken way out of context.

There's always a rider.

Steffan wrote:

oxring wrote:Oh - and then posting racist videos on twitter/youtube

Calling Manny......'Poochio'?

I'm not going to repeat what he said in full - as it was very, very, obviously racist and very obviously offensive.

Might I suggest caution with your text if you wish to contend that Floyd was not being racist through quoting tracts of his speech?

Your argument that because they dont operate any more generously as businessmen makes them no different from anyone else is little stronger than saying that because their style of fighting is boring it makes them bad people. The criticism is just taken way out of context.


Wlad is a superb talent. Not the most exciting but extremely effective. For me a great boxer.

azania wrote:As I said, St Klitchko. I deliberately bring up boxers with dodgy backgrounds, dubious attitude but strong negotiating tactics. On this board, Floyd has been chastised for his demands regarding Manny. But as far as I know he doesn't go out to deliberately disturb fighters just before their ring walk.

Are you serious or are you just taking the urine? They disturb people before their ring walk - therefore they cannot be good human beings?

azania wrote:Impose some ridiculous stipulations in the contract to give their family every chance to keep hold of a belt. Applauded because others do it. No they dont.

They are not good human beings because they have a rematch clause in the contract?

azania wrote:They are control freaks, indentured labour contracts, liars, media manipulators.....but they work for UN and help other boxers.

Control freaks, indentured labour contracts: Really? Could you provide us with a copy of their contract to provide evidence to this claim?

Liars: Evidence please
Media Manipulators: Evidence please.

Your hatred against them is seems unbalanced.

oxring wrote:

Steffan wrote:

oxring wrote:Oh - and then posting racist videos on twitter/youtube

Calling Manny......'Poochio'?

I'm not going to repeat what he said in full - as it was very, very, obviously racist and very obviously offensive.

Might I suggest caution with your text if you wish to contend that Floyd was not being racist through quoting tracts of his speech?

I wasnt contending it I was just asking. I didnt think 'Poochio' was considered racist anyway. Floyd is always moaning about how blacks have to earn credit more than other people in America so he should pack it in whatever he has said

azania wrote:Your argument that because they dont operate any more generously as businessmen makes them no different from anyone else is little stronger than saying that because their style of fighting is boring it makes them bad people. The criticism is just taken way out of context.


Wlad is a superb talent. Not the most exciting but extremely effective. For me a great boxer.

Yes so would you entertain an argument that because he is a great boxer he must, therefore be a great person?

Because you are basically doing that in reverse by saying because they are no more generous businessmen than others, they cant possibly be any better people than others.

Incidentally, Mayweathers charitable contributions and offer to pay for Fraziers funeal are worthy acts and evidence of decency. What gives the Klitschkos the edge in my mind is the fact they havent been convicted of domestic abuse and the like.

Steffan wrote:

oxring wrote:

Steffan wrote:

oxring wrote:Oh - and then posting racist videos on twitter/youtube

Calling Manny......'Poochio'?

I'm not going to repeat what he said in full - as it was very, very, obviously racist and very obviously offensive.

Might I suggest caution with your text if you wish to contend that Floyd was not being racist through quoting tracts of his speech?

I wasnt contending it I was just asking. I didnt think 'Poochio' was considered racist anyway. Floyd is always moaning about how blacks have to earn credit more than other people in America so he should pack it in whatever he has said

Go watch the full clip online. It wasn't "Poochio" I was referring to.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:As I said, St Klitchko. I deliberately bring up boxers with dodgy backgrounds, dubious attitude but strong negotiating tactics. On this board, Floyd has been chastised for his demands regarding Manny. But as far as I know he doesn't go out to deliberately disturb fighters just before their ring walk.

Are you serious or are you just taking the urine? They disturb people before their ring walk - therefore they cannot be good human beings?

azania wrote:Impose some ridiculous stipulations in the contract to give their family every chance to keep hold of a belt. Applauded because others do it. No they dont.

They are not good human beings because they have a rematch clause in the contract?

azania wrote:They are control freaks, indentured labour contracts, liars, media manipulators.....but they work for UN and help other boxers.

Control freaks, indentured labour contracts: Really? Could you provide us with a copy of their contract to provide evidence to this claim?

Liars: Evidence please
Media Manipulators: Evidence please.

Your hatred against them is seems unbalanced.

Kindly point out where I've said they were not good human beings? Not a rematch clause, buit a rematch after a fight with the brother.It ties a particular boxer up for 3 fights and that doesn't include the indentured pabour part of the contract usually known as options. Others do it though, so its all gravy.

You're objecting to the "pedestaling" of them - largely done because they're probably the most cerebral HW champions since Tunney and do a lot of great and good charity and humanitarian work as well as promotion of our sport.

Your reason they shouldn't be on a pedestal?

A rematch clause in a contract.

Sound fair to you?

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Your argument that because they dont operate any more generously as businessmen makes them no different from anyone else is little stronger than saying that because their style of fighting is boring it makes them bad people. The criticism is just taken way out of context.


Wlad is a superb talent. Not the most exciting but extremely effective. For me a great boxer.

Yes so would you entertain an argument that because he is a great boxer he must, therefore be a great person?

Because you are basically doing that in reverse by saying because they are no more generous businessmen than others, they cant possibly be any better people than others.

Incidentally, Mayweathers charitable contributions and offer to pay for Fraziers funeal are worthy acts and evidence of decency. What gives the Klitschkos the edge in my mind is the fact they havent been convicted of domestic abuse and the like.

Its not a case of either or. Liston was a great boxer but......

oxring wrote:You're objecting to the "pedestaling" of them - largely done because they're probably the most cerebral HW champions since Tunney and do a lot of great and good charity and humanitarian work as well as promotion of our sport.

Your reason they shouldn't be on a pedestal?

A rematch clause in a contract.

Sound fair to you?

Tut tut. If you believe all I've said is that they include a rematch clause, then all power to you.

You've been given a free platform to present your case:

Which consists of:

"They tie up boxers careers with ridiculous rematch clauses and as for their charitable work it makes me want to vomit and anyway other boxers also do good deeds (including those who drive dangerously and injure people seriously in collisions and those who beat their ex girlfriend and threaten their child)"

Therefore they shouldn't be pedestalled.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Your argument that because they dont operate any more generously as businessmen makes them no different from anyone else is little stronger than saying that because their style of fighting is boring it makes them bad people. The criticism is just taken way out of context.


Wlad is a superb talent. Not the most exciting but extremely effective. For me a great boxer.

Yes so would you entertain an argument that because he is a great boxer he must, therefore be a great person?

Because you are basically doing that in reverse by saying because they are no more generous businessmen than others, they cant possibly be any better people than others.

Incidentally, Mayweathers charitable contributions and offer to pay for Fraziers funeal are worthy acts and evidence of decency. What gives the Klitschkos the edge in my mind is the fact they havent been convicted of domestic abuse and the like.

Its not a case of either or. Liston was a great boxer but......

Yes, agreed. It isnt a case of either or. And because the K2 are no more generous businesswise than any other fighters does not mean they are not fine people and deserve recognition for all the good things they do.

oxring wrote:You've been given a free platform to present your case:

Which consists of:

"They tie up boxers careers with ridiculous rematch clauses and as for their charitable work it makes me want to vomit and anyway other boxers also do good deeds (including those who drive dangerously and injure people seriously in collisions and those who beat their ex girlfriend and threaten their child)"

Therefore they shouldn't be pedestalled.

This is the problem. Tyring to win an argument by deliberately misquoting me, leaving other things I've said out, and making up your own context.



But having said that, your argument for them is that all other boxers do the same thing and they give money to charity so they should be on a pedestal.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Your argument that because they dont operate any more generously as businessmen makes them no different from anyone else is little stronger than saying that because their style of fighting is boring it makes them bad people. The criticism is just taken way out of context.


Wlad is a superb talent. Not the most exciting but extremely effective. For me a great boxer.

Yes so would you entertain an argument that because he is a great boxer he must, therefore be a great person?

Because you are basically doing that in reverse by saying because they are no more generous businessmen than others, they cant possibly be any better people than others.

Incidentally, Mayweathers charitable contributions and offer to pay for Fraziers funeal are worthy acts and evidence of decency. What gives the Klitschkos the edge in my mind is the fact they havent been convicted of domestic abuse and the like.

Its not a case of either or. Liston was a great boxer but......

Yes, agreed. It isnt a case of either or. And because the K2 are no more generous businesswise than any other fighters does not mean they are not fine people and deserve recognition for all the good things they do.

So do other boxers who do the same type of thing. I dont see them on any pedestal. In fact quite the opposite. Others get slated, trashed for cashing in on their bargaining power. K2 get a free pass. I dont hate them, I dislike their deification (spelling).

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:You've been given a free platform to present your case:
Which consists of:

"They tie up boxers careers with ridiculous rematch clauses and as for their charitable work it makes me want to vomit and anyway other boxers also do good deeds (including those who drive dangerously and injure people seriously in collisions and those who beat their ex girlfriend and threaten their child)"

Therefore they shouldn't be pedestalled.

This is the problem. Tyring to win an argument by deliberately misquoting me, leaving other things I've said out, and making up your own context.
But having said that, your argument for them is that all other boxers do the same thing and they give money to charity so they should be on a pedestal.

No its not you ignorant boor.

The argument is that in balance - K2 come off positively and well. Their boxing career, combined with political work, educational performance, charity work, social activism more than makes up for tough contracts.

Did someone...just call somebody else...a 'boor'

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Your argument that because they dont operate any more generously as businessmen makes them no different from anyone else is little stronger than saying that because their style of fighting is boring it makes them bad people. The criticism is just taken way out of context.


Wlad is a superb talent. Not the most exciting but extremely effective. For me a great boxer.

Yes so would you entertain an argument that because he is a great boxer he must, therefore be a great person?

Because you are basically doing that in reverse by saying because they are no more generous businessmen than others, they cant possibly be any better people than others.

Incidentally, Mayweathers charitable contributions and offer to pay for Fraziers funeal are worthy acts and evidence of decency. What gives the Klitschkos the edge in my mind is the fact they havent been convicted of domestic abuse and the like.

Its not a case of either or. Liston was a great boxer but......

Yes, agreed. It isnt a case of either or. And because the K2 are no more generous businesswise than any other fighters does not mean they are not fine people and deserve recognition for all the good things they do.

So do other boxers who do the same type of thing. I dont see them on any pedestal. In fact quite the opposite. Others get slated, trashed for cashing in on their bargaining power. K2 get a free pass. I dont hate them, I dislike their deification (spelling).

Yes but again you are going back to the business end of things and using it as the primary thing that matters.

What other boxers out there are you thinking of that both do similar amounts of good and deserve to enoy the image the Klitschkos have which you resent? And bear in mind acts like domestic violence, biting opponents, trash talking people, brawling in public and these kind of things are going to seriously hurt their credentials with many people.