The Klitschko Brothers.

Would they get more respect if they were Americans? They've been described as boring and robotic who dont bring any drama into the HW division. Would the press reaction be the same if they hailed from across the pond? Imo they would be lauded as ATGs if they were American.

Thoughts?

If they were called Chip and Chuck Johnson and were from Texas they'd be the most famous sportsmen around, and the yanks would be saying what a great era for HW's it is..

My thoughts are you cannot guarentee they would - can you name the last American superstar that had their style?

Americans prefer excitement and aggression and this is heavily shown in their judges scorecards and quite frankly the klitschko's just dont provide the excitements nor aggression Americans and Brits for that matter want

I don't think they would. Not like Holmes got credit and there are never really in decent fights. American's don't get behind their boxers all that much and the profile of the sport isn't that high compared to other times.

The fact that they are never in decent fights means they are leaps above their opposition. In America they would be seen as invincible and more marketable.

azania wrote:Imo they would be lauded as ATGs if they were American. Thoughts?

That's way too simplistic an argument for me, Azania, and I don't really see what you're basing it on. Even Holmes, in an era where boxing was attracting a larger audience and more media coverage, and after well-publicized fights against Ali and Cooney, hardly found the Americans lauding him as an all time great; and let's be frank, he'd proven himself a lot more than either Klitschko currently has.

The Americans, as much as they sensationalize things now and then, aren't pretending that this current Heavyweight era is anything other than a poor one, full of poorly-conditioned so-called 'highly-ranked' contenders who disappear from the title picture just as fast as they arrive there. Even the most blighted of boxing fans can see that a shot to pieces, forty-six year old Holyfield taking Valuev (supposedly the third Heavyweight in the world behind the Klitschkos at the time) to a razor-thin decision is hardly a glowing reference to the weight class.

As has already been pointed out, fighters with such a robotic style are rarely lauded, unless they vanquish a host of outstanding fighters - which neither Klitschko brother has.

Two white American HW champs - they would be superstars. Look at the coverage some of the terrible great white hopes have had, imagine how much more it would be if they were the real deal. And to say VK lacks aggression is a bit off the mark. He barely takes a backward step and has a ~ 90% KO ratio.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Imo they would be lauded as ATGs if they were American. Thoughts?

That's way too simplistic an argument for me, Azania, and I don't really see what you're basing it on. Even Holmes, in an era where boxing was attracting a larger audience and more media coverage, and after well-publicized fights against Ali and Cooney, hardly found the Americans lauding him as an all time great; and let's be frank, he'd proven himself a lot more than either Klitschko currently has.

The Americans, as much as they sensationalize things now and then, aren't pretending that this current Heavyweight era is anything other than a poor one, full of poorly-conditioned so-called 'highly-ranked' contenders who disappear from the title picture just as fast as they arrive there. Even the most blighted of boxing fans can see that a shot to pieces, forty-six year old Holyfield taking Valuev (supposedly the third Heavyweight in the world behind the Klitschkos at the time) to a razor-thin decision is hardly a glowing reference to the weight class.

As has already been pointed out, fighters with such a robotic style are rarely lauded, unless they vanquish a host of outstanding fighters - which neither Klitschko brother has.

Holmes came after Ali and suffered because of it. If he were around now he would be the biggest thing on the planet. What is interesting with Holmes is that he shared equal prize money with Cooney. Crazy but true.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Two white American HW champs - they would be superstars. Look at the coverage some of the terrible great white hopes have had, imagine how much more it would be if they were the real deal. And to say VK lacks aggression is a bit off the mark. He barely takes a backward step and has a ~ 90% KO ratio.

I'm glad you said that. Cooney springs to mind. God knows why as Tommy Mo was a far better boxer and prospect who fought and beat better guys than Cooney.

azania wrote:The fact that they are never in decent fights means they are leaps above their opposition. In America they would be seen as invincible and more marketable.

Doesn't necessarily mean that at all though, does it? There have been plenty of stinkers with two guys of similar ability.

I think they would be unquestionably higher rated and more appreciated but even the most patriotic American fan would not deny they operated in a weak era.

Holmes suffered because the glamour in the division wasnt there, he followed on the back of a highly competitive era and his pr wasnt great - beat up an old Ali, criticised Marciano etc. He was seen as a bit of moaner and not really great marketability. But few doubted his ability and when push comes to shove I seldom see him denied his dues for his talents. Underapreciated maybe, but not underrated.

I wouldnt argue Wlad is his current format is anything other than efficient and seldom excited but Vitali is actually an exciting boxer who just lacks competition. Hes aggressive, trades on his chin, is not afraid to trade and can fight several different ways. If he had the competition around then his fights would be more like the Lewis/Sanders battles as opposed to the Arreola/Peter kind of fights.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:The fact that they are never in decent fights means they are leaps above their opposition. In America they would be seen as invincible and more marketable.

Doesn't necessarily mean that at all though, does it? There have been plenty of stinkers with two guys of similar ability.

No it doesn't/ Just trying to project how they would be marketed. Imo if they were american, their lack of opposition would not be debated as much. Rather their talents and how they dominate the division would be the talking point.

IMO if they were american most website and companies would have them in the P4P top 10,probably even top 5.Americans would gloat about there dominence and how they've beat all the contenders in the division.

Liam_Main4 wrote:IMO if they were american most website and companies would have them in the P4P top 10,probably even top 5.Americans would gloat about there dominence and how they've beat all the contenders in the division.

Very probable, but Wlad in particular would still be about as interesting to watch as a piece of linoleum. Americans are patriotic, but they still have preferences. Dirrell has been booed badly on multiple occasions, as an example off the top of my head. If a guy is dull to watch, the crowd will always notice that.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If they were called Chip and Chuck Johnson and were from Texas they'd be the most famous sportsmen around, and the yanks would be saying what a great era for HW's it is..

The most famous boxer ever is a muslim named Muhammad.

heavyweights are always the ones to watch for the masses - the queastion was - if they were american would they be moer popular.

the answer is yes, because they would have the american arrogance/confidence to back up their huge talent.

considering no other man on earth could beat them in a boxing match - that to me says you have talent. hope haye changes that in july though....

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If they were called Chip and Chuck Johnson and were from Texas they'd be the most famous sportsmen around, and the yanks would be saying what a great era for HW's it is..

The most famous boxer ever is a muslim named Muhammad.

its no shock that if muhammed remained a christian and didnt change his name - he would have been even more popular.

just the way the world works for some reason.

If Wlad destroys Haye do people think he will become more, less or stay the same popularity wise in the UK and America?

Fight Fitness

GeoffSnapes wrote:If Wlad destroys Haye do people think he will become more, less or stay the same popularity wise in the UK and America?

Fight Fitness

If he destroys him in his usually manner of dissecting him with the jab and stopping him late then I doubt views will change drastically in the U.S, where Haye isnt rated that highly anyway.

If he wins a thriller and a FOTY candidate then the U.S might sit up and he could gain a bit more popularity.

WK is never going to be popular in the states because he isn't American. If Floyd Mayweather can become a huge PPV draw then it's safe to say the US public aren't too concerned about agressive fighting styles.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:WK is never going to be popular in the states because he isn't American. If Floyd Mayweather can become a huge PPV draw then it's safe to say the US public aren't too concerned about agressive fighting styles.

The thing about Mayweather though is that he has the role of pantomime villain down to a tee. A lot of people watch his fights simply in the hope of seeing him lose. There's a very good reason why Mayweather's never been in a FOTY, whereas Gatti's been in FOUR.

Wasn't Wlad v Peter a barnstormer?

Michaels, Sean wrote:Wasn't Wlad v Peter a barnstormer?

It can't have been because it happened in recent times!

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:WK is never going to be popular in the states because he isn't American. If Floyd Mayweather can become a huge PPV draw then it's safe to say the US public aren't too concerned about agressive fighting styles.

The thing about Mayweather though is that he has the role of pantomime villain down to a tee. A lot of people watch his fights simply in the hope of seeing him lose. There's a very good reason why Mayweather's never been in a FOTY, whereas Gatti's been in FOUR.

For whatever reason, Mayweather is a defensive fighter (that's not the same as a fighter with a defence) yet he still pulls in the crowds, so that proves Wlads style is not the reason for his lack of popularity in the US. Of course we all knew that anyway, as VK is almost purely a come forward attacking fighter with an unbelievable KO ratio and yet he isn't popular either.

WHy are we all beating arounf the bush.

We all know why HW boxing isn't popular in the US. It's because they're best can't compete with the best from the rest of the world. When the US no longer dominate a sport the toys come out of the pram and they say they're not playing. And rather than give any other nation credit and admit they've been bettered they just say that they're not trying anymore. It's all very childish.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Two white American HW champs - they would be superstars. Look at the coverage some of the terrible great white hopes have had, imagine how much more it would be if they were the real deal. And to say VK lacks aggression is a bit off the mark. He barely takes a backward step and has a ~ 90% KO ratio.

Wasn't it VK who stated he drags his fights out longer for the crowds/tv coverage?? hardly an aggressive statement! The last time I saw all out aggression from VK was the Lewis fight. Ok he has a high KO ratio but compare the aggression you get from VK to an young tyson and you will undoubtly see the difference between aggression and a strong punch

IMO I would rather watch the genius defensive skills of Mayweather over the defensive skills of either Klitschko which is why i can see PBF being a massive draw. Even in the Mosely fight that punch Mosely threw that PBF rolled onto his shoulder - watched it go past his face then lay a right hand on mosely was 1st class

Dont get me wrong I take nothing away from either Klitschko who are excellent fighter but are just not exciting in their bouts

Noone went to watch the all American unification match of Bradley vs Alexander. Paul Williams was on P4P lists and never had great support.

i think the vitali lewis fight was a great fight too

No1Jonesy wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Two white American HW champs - they would be superstars. Look at the coverage some of the terrible great white hopes have had, imagine how much more it would be if they were the real deal. And to say VK lacks aggression is a bit off the mark. He barely takes a backward step and has a ~ 90% KO ratio.

Wasn't it VK who stated he drags his fights out longer for the crowds/tv coverage?? hardly an aggressive statement! The last time I saw all out aggression from VK was the Lewis fight. Ok he has a high KO ratio but compare the aggression you get from VK to an young tyson and you will undoubtly see the difference between aggression and a strong punch

IMO I would rather watch the genius defensive skills of Mayweather over the defensive skills of either Klitschko which is why i can see PBF being a massive draw. Even in the Mosely fight that punch Mosely threw that PBF rolled onto his shoulder - watched it go past his face then lay a right hand on mosely was 1st class

Dont get me wrong I take nothing away from either Klitschko who are excellent fighter but are just not exciting in their bouts

Tyson is very much the exception rather than the rule. And thats before you even go into how good was Tyson overall.

There are only a handful of heavys in history that have anywhere near the explosiveness of Tyson and probably only Dempsey could rival Tyson in terms of popularity in tht regard. Going back over generations popular heavies like Holyfield, Marciano, Ali, Jeffries etc were not all quick KO artists but it didnt affect their popularity.

Ive heard various rumours about the Klitschkos that they sometimes carry opponents and offer them bonuses for lasting the distance and so on. Im not sure how true they are but if there was any stock in them it would simply be because the European crowds seem to favour a spectacle over a quick KO.

If Vitali is given a stern test or a fighter that has a go then you see he really is an aggressive fighter that doesnt give any quarter. Sanders and Lewis fights are good examples. When the competiton is weak and just trying to survive then he might not have Tysons finishing ability but there are few heavyweights in history that do.

manos de piedra wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Two white American HW champs - they would be superstars. Look at the coverage some of the terrible great white hopes have had, imagine how much more it would be if they were the real deal. And to say VK lacks aggression is a bit off the mark. He barely takes a backward step and has a ~ 90% KO ratio.

Wasn't it VK who stated he drags his fights out longer for the crowds/tv coverage?? hardly an aggressive statement! The last time I saw all out aggression from VK was the Lewis fight. Ok he has a high KO ratio but compare the aggression you get from VK to an young tyson and you will undoubtly see the difference between aggression and a strong punch

IMO I would rather watch the genius defensive skills of Mayweather over the defensive skills of either Klitschko which is why i can see PBF being a massive draw. Even in the Mosely fight that punch Mosely threw that PBF rolled onto his shoulder - watched it go past his face then lay a right hand on mosely was 1st class

Dont get me wrong I take nothing away from either Klitschko who are excellent fighter but are just not exciting in their bouts

Tyson is very much the exception rather than the rule. And thats before you even go into how good was Tyson overall.

There are only a handful of heavys in history that have anywhere near the explosiveness of Tyson and probably only Dempsey could rival Tyson in terms of popularity in tht regard. Going back over generations popular heavies like Holyfield, Marciano, Ali, Jeffries etc were not all quick KO artists but it didnt affect their popularity.

Ive heard various rumours about the Klitschkos that they sometimes carry opponents and offer them bonuses for lasting the distance and so on. Im not sure how true they are but if there was any stock in them it would simply be because the European crowds seem to favour a spectacle over a quick KO.

If Vitali is given a stern test or a fighter that has a go then you see he really is an aggressive fighter that doesnt give any quarter. Sanders and Lewis fights are good examples. When the competiton is weak and just trying to survive then he might not have Tysons finishing ability but there are few heavyweights in history that do.

Ok maybe using Tyson was a bit excessive - I was just trying to get across the difference between aggression and a strong punch because as VK has a high KO ratio I would not class him as an aggressive fighter - i would label Tua more aggressive then VK

VK does what he does really well and eventually finishes his opponent off - a great example of the non aggression was his fight against Sam Peter - I feel he could've stopped Peter any round after the 3rd....

Its these lacklusture performances that move people away from him and why people would rather watch fighters like Haye who has not made anywhere near as much a dent in the current HW scene as the Klitschko's have but he brings the aggression and excitement that the bro's just do not

No1Jonesy wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Two white American HW champs - they would be superstars. Look at the coverage some of the terrible great white hopes have had, imagine how much more it would be if they were the real deal. And to say VK lacks aggression is a bit off the mark. He barely takes a backward step and has a ~ 90% KO ratio.

Wasn't it VK who stated he drags his fights out longer for the crowds/tv coverage?? hardly an aggressive statement! The last time I saw all out aggression from VK was the Lewis fight. Ok he has a high KO ratio but compare the aggression you get from VK to an young tyson and you will undoubtly see the difference between aggression and a strong punch

IMO I would rather watch the genius defensive skills of Mayweather over the defensive skills of either Klitschko which is why i can see PBF being a massive draw. Even in the Mosely fight that punch Mosely threw that PBF rolled onto his shoulder - watched it go past his face then lay a right hand on mosely was 1st class

Dont get me wrong I take nothing away from either Klitschko who are excellent fighter but are just not exciting in their bouts

Tyson is very much the exception rather than the rule. And thats before you even go into how good was Tyson overall.

There are only a handful of heavys in history that have anywhere near the explosiveness of Tyson and probably only Dempsey could rival Tyson in terms of popularity in tht regard. Going back over generations popular heavies like Holyfield, Marciano, Ali, Jeffries etc were not all quick KO artists but it didnt affect their popularity.

Ive heard various rumours about the Klitschkos that they sometimes carry opponents and offer them bonuses for lasting the distance and so on. Im not sure how true they are but if there was any stock in them it would simply be because the European crowds seem to favour a spectacle over a quick KO.

If Vitali is given a stern test or a fighter that has a go then you see he really is an aggressive fighter that doesnt give any quarter. Sanders and Lewis fights are good examples. When the competiton is weak and just trying to survive then he might not have Tysons finishing ability but there are few heavyweights in history that do.

Ok maybe using Tyson was a bit excessive - I was just trying to get across the difference between aggression and a strong punch because as VK has a high KO ratio I would not class him as an aggressive fighter - i would label Tua more aggressive then VK

VK does what he does really well and eventually finishes his opponent off - a great example of the non aggression was his fight against Sam Peter - I feel he could've stopped Peter any round after the 3rd....

Its these lacklusture performances that move people away from him and why people would rather watch fighters like Haye who has not made anywhere near as much a dent in the current HW scene as the Klitschko's have but he brings the aggression and excitement that the bro's just do not

I would agree with you on the Peter fight but the problem is he is under pressure to deliver an event to the European audiences. In America they would much prefer to see an opponent finished off but on the Continent it seems the crowds are much more interested in just watching a dominant one sided performance with a late stoppage. Fights that are over quickly there seem to be treated as not getting value for money.

I would probably differentiate slightly between finishing and aggression though. I wouldnt classify the brothers as natural finishers but they are aggressive. They spend virtually the whole fight on the front foot, dominating the ring and throwing lots of punches. They are not particulalry adept at finishing off their opponent though (either by choice or otherwise Im not sure).

Haye strikes me as quite a cautious heavyweight, who has he really gone for? Ruiz maybe, I forget exactly how that fight went.

eddyfightfan wrote:i think the vitali lewis fight was a great fight too

His fight with Sanders too.

And if people want to see agressive boxing check out his fight wirh Kirk Johnson - Brutal.

Re the point about VK saying he'd carry an opponent into the later rounds. That just shows that Klit would try anything and everything to please TV audiences, but some just aren't interested.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:WK is never going to be popular in the states because he isn't American. If Floyd Mayweather can become a huge PPV draw then it's safe to say the US public aren't too concerned about agressive fighting styles.

The thing about Mayweather though is that he has the role of pantomime villain down to a tee. A lot of people watch his fights simply in the hope of seeing him lose. There's a very good reason why Mayweather's never been in a FOTY, whereas Gatti's been in FOUR.

For whatever reason, Mayweather is a defensive fighter (that's not the same as a fighter with a defence) yet he still pulls in the crowds, so that proves Wlads style is not the reason for his lack of popularity in the US. Of course we all knew that anyway, as VK is almost purely a come forward attacking fighter with an unbelievable KO ratio and yet he isn't popular either.

Difference between Mayweather and Wlad is that Mayweather has a personality. If he was the same dull, uncharismatic type of person that Wlad is, then I dare say he'd have similar fan appeal. Wlad's boring style and lack of character make him uninteresting.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:WK is never going to be popular in the states because he isn't American. If Floyd Mayweather can become a huge PPV draw then it's safe to say the US public aren't too concerned about agressive fighting styles.

The thing about Mayweather though is that he has the role of pantomime villain down to a tee. A lot of people watch his fights simply in the hope of seeing him lose. There's a very good reason why Mayweather's never been in a FOTY, whereas Gatti's been in FOUR.

For whatever reason, Mayweather is a defensive fighter (that's not the same as a fighter with a defence) yet he still pulls in the crowds, so that proves Wlads style is not the reason for his lack of popularity in the US. Of course we all knew that anyway, as VK is almost purely a come forward attacking fighter with an unbelievable KO ratio and yet he isn't popular either.

Difference between Mayweather and Wlad is that Mayweather has a personality. If he was the same dull, uncharismatic type of person that Wlad is, then I dare say he'd have similar fan appeal. Wlad's boring style and lack of character make him uninteresting.

Good point. Pernell was an excellent boxer but as dull as dishwater. Hardcore boxing fans appreciated him but Joe 6Pack couldn't pick him out in a line up with one other person.

I actually find Wlad to be pretty interesting to listen to. His points about boxing are intelligent and well made and he seems to have a good understanding of it.

The two brothers are a big deal in their own part of the world where they are heavily involved in media, politics, humanitarian work and so on. I can see what people mean in terms of they dont have the kind of WWF, OTT sort of image that generates the kind of tabloid headlines that fuels the media over here but I dont think they are boring unless people are craving that kind of tabloid stuff. Id much rather listen to the two brothers talk than Lennox Lewis who never has much to say or Holyfield praising the Lord for instance.

Well personally I am not interested in boxers eulogising on how to cure global hunger of the Euro bail outs. I want boxers to be larger than life and threaten to rip their opponent's heads off for fun.

The K bros may be very intelligent, but they are boring as hell to watch.

If a Muslim named Muhammad can become the most popular fighter in America anyone can.

Rather than the fact that the Klitschko's are not American, I think the main reason the K's have struggled to gain more recognition in America is because there is a lack of quality American HW's that can rival them.

If America could produce a HW with the talent, charisma and popularity of Haye......a boxing star that could become a genuine rival and legitimate threat to the K's, than I think the American media would take a bigger interest in the division, and subsequently take more interest in the brothers.

Within the next few months, Wlad will probably become one of the most recognised boxers in Britain as the hype between him and Haye builds up in this country.

On the other side of the pond, America has failed recently to produce a top class and marketable HW that can be involved in a largely publicized, mega-fight with one of the Klitschko's.

Only these type of fights are capable of gaining the attention of casual fans and can bring a foreign boxer into the limelight.

manos de piedra wrote:I actually find Wlad to be pretty interesting to listen to. His points about boxing are intelligent and well made and he seems to have a good understanding of it.

The two brothers are a big deal in their own part of the world where they are heavily involved in media, politics, humanitarian work and so on. I can see what people mean in terms of they dont have the kind of WWF, OTT sort of image that generates the kind of tabloid headlines that fuels the media over here but I dont think they are boring unless people are craving that kind of tabloid stuff. Id much rather listen to the two brothers talk than Lennox Lewis who never has much to say or Holyfield praising the Lord for instance.

That's a very fair point, and one I agree with (I'm SICK of hearing boxers like Ward talk of god), but at the same time the brothers Klit seem a bit TOO po-faced.

All these boxers who talk of god is mainly for home (US) consumption. I find it funny to hear Evander talk of god whilst fathering a football team from several women.

Wlad has a more squeaky clean kind of image which I think is due to his better English and friendlier persona.

Vitali has always had a kind of brooding and menacing presence I have found. I get the impression he hates dealing with the media whereas Wlad actually enjoys it. Vitali looks angrier and his fights in the past have proved hes pretty tough mentally and physically.

Of the two I would definately prefer to face Wlad even if at this stage he may actually be the better fighter.

azania wrote:

Thoughts?

~ Still waiting sir for the 0.1 version of Thought Process to take up that empty space of your vacuum.

They have and are being lauded as HOF locks by many no matter how many critics may litter the landscape with the most blithering comments imaginable. That Mr. Greenburg can't even distinguish between them is proof of the incompetence that has driven the mighty HBO to it's knees as an organization of any relevance.

I know the poor dear majority of lads that come to this site are mightily impressed with prearranged jaw to jaw hot air and unseemly posturing as excitement. Just as you are with St Ali's career in spite of him showing up out of shape for too many of his fights that were of such poor quality that the great man was booed prodigiously quite hard and quite often in his day.

So the question naturally arises, if their critics were moles and voles instead of blathering yoyos, would the K brothers be more exciting?

I must try to tie these goal posts down.

So now it's down to WK not having a great personality like Mayweather. OK.

As Albert has said. Surely no one over the age of 12 takes any notice of scripted smack-talk.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I must try to tie these goal posts down.

So now it's down to WK not having a great personality like Mayweather. OK.

As Albert has said. Surely no one over the age of 12 takes any notice of scripted smack-talk.

Eh? The only point I was making re Mayweather is that despite not having a style which brings widespread appeal, he at least makes for an interesting pre-fight. The Klits seeming lack of a sense of humour, coupled I suspect with...not so much a language barrier, but certainly a cultural difference, makes them rather drab figures much of the time.

They're too nice, and pretty rubbish at being the bad guys. Threatening to 'do a paintwork' on an opponent's face doesn't capture the attention, the imagination, or the headlines in the same way threatening to eat someone's children does, sad to say. Look at some of the guys who stand out in boxing, and more often than not it's the guys who displayed character, either in or out of the ring.

IF the Klitsckos were American they'd be promoted as the great white hope not the great white hope not. They're good nature and lack of attitude in interviews would be a massive selling point. Guys like Tyson had to play the bad guy because white America wouldn't give a damn otherwise. With the K's white America would tune in to 'hope' they win.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If they were called Chip and Chuck Johnson and were from Texas they'd be the most famous sportsmen around, and the yanks would be saying what a great era for HW's it is..

The most famous boxer ever is a muslim named Muhammad.

He was a member of the nation of Islam, and not accepted as a true Muslim.

Anyway, that was before 9/11. Things would be a bit different nowadays don't ya think?

The NOI was still seen as menace and he alienated alot of America with his behaviour.

However beating Liston, Patterson, Norton, Frazier, Bugner and Chuvalo twice, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Terrel and Folley in spectacular style kinda helped.

Each of which are better than any Klitschko victory in my opinion.

If Ali, Frazier and Foreman were Russian I think that era would be remembered slightly differently.

Not if they had the same fights. Great fights are great fights no matter where you're from.