Will the Klits legacy suffer because they are white???

First topic message reminder :

This is a contentious subject but if you grew up in America in the 80's you'd know that there was a widely held opinion that White people couldn't fight. Cooney was a laughing stock...everytime Bobby Chyz won he'd say my trainer always say I'm a black man in a white man's body....and if a kid was good like Pazienza, Mancini they'd say he had a black man's heart....I'm honestly not kidding you....

Since the very old days generally and since Marciano at heavy Boxing has always been dominated by blacks mainly, orientals and hispanics with the odd exceptions..

Obviously the balance has been redressed to a certain extent with the multitude of titles about....

But it is a valid question that as the perception has been in certain quarters that white people can't fight..

Is it the reason why the Klits aren't taken that seriously..is being White hurting them!!

Scottrf wrote:Black, but didn't look like Tyson?

You mean, you've found a way to tell the difference?

I'm saying nothing.

I dont think colour has any baring on it imo. The Klitschkos are boring yes but they are the best out there by a country mile. I personally would not care what colour the heavyweight champ was as long as I looked forward to his fights. I really hoped Morrison would go on and become a real superstar because he was exciting and a change in the division.

eddyfightfan wrote:like i've said, i have hand on heart never noticed- i think were that starved of good champions that we readily accept most people, look at our previous record of greats....

calzaghe- italian/welsh
lennox- canadian
naz- english but practiving muslim
chisora (not a great but a modern example) zimbae born
khan- english muslim

i think that list shows most english men like myselfs will not allow little things like not actually been english get in the way of supporting the best hope our country offers.

Why bring up the religion in terms of where they are from? Muslim is not a place any more than Christian is.

Scottrf wrote:Black, but didn't look like Tyson?

You mean, you've found a way to tell the difference?

Scott having been a frequent and long time reader of posts, if not a very frequent poster, I know that you are undoubtedly very knowledgable when it comes to boxing and it's history - but this post is total garbage and has massively dented my opinion of you. I find racism whether it be in sport or anywhere completely laughable. The concept that the colour of your skin should have an effect on your status as a human is beyond a joke. I would like to think we have all grown out of this simple and shallow way of thinking but hey ho...

Having faced White and black people in kickboxing I can honestly say I was scared before both fights in fairly equal measure. But if honest, I once had a fight with an opponent from Thailand and to be fair I was more nervous about that one (rightly so as it happens ) but that was because kickboxing originated in Thailand and they simply are the overall masters, and not because of the colour of his skin.

Was a joke Jack...

Scottrf wrote:Was a joke Jack...

Difficult to spot the humour in written text. Didn't want to go off on one, but my wife has suffered racial abuse so it's kinda close to my heart.

The Kilts legacy probably suffers more because they are Ukranian as opposed to being white. If they were two brothers who grew up in Boston or New York and then went on to dominate heavyweight boxing the American public would lap it up.

Interesting views on Lennox "being" Canadian. Speaking as a Scottish person who left at 9 years old, I still identify myself as being Scottish and would take it as a grave insult if any one saw fit to try and state otherwise. That being said I would never represent any country other Scotland if I had the application to match my considerable athletic prowess

I'm not sure how easy it would have been for Lennox to represent Britain at that point in his life, many factors to consider like his maturity, was it economically viable for him to do so in his early twenties. Also he in all liklihood had loyalties to his coaches, team mates, friends etc..

Have to agree that the whole Canada argument smacks of bitterness.

I'm so Scottish in fact I called the Klits the Kilts!!

JACKMAGIC wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Was a joke Jack...

Difficult to spot the humour in written text. Didn't want to go off on one, but my wife has suffered racial abuse so it's kinda close to my heart.

You can't really have thought I meant it seriously...

Scottrf wrote:

JACKMAGIC wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Was a joke Jack...

Difficult to spot the humour in written text. Didn't want to go off on one, but my wife has suffered racial abuse so it's kinda close to my heart.

You can't really have thought I meant it seriously...

Mate when you have witnessed your nearest and dearest getting racially abused it you can't help but admit to yourself that there are still people in that mindset. I admit I was shocked by it. Seemed out of character for you. I am a firm believer that we are all forced to be waaaay to PC and the like, but you have to know that was a dicey move Mr Scott! Obviously now nothing meant by it so it's all good.

If the K bros finish together with all the belts their legacy in the coming years will be just fine - the "white" issue won't harm them at all. Despite the derision they suffer a lot of it is due to jealousy and the eternal misconception that unless there's a powerful black American fighter around then the division must be weak.

The Klitschkos have added something very unique to the history of the heavyweight division. (ie. there are two of them, they are gentlemen, very well educated and have a deep interest in politics and philanthropy).

The fact they are "good guys" will enhance their standing as the baddest men on the planet have not always proven to be very nice - eg. Tyson a violent naughty person and Holyfield, a man who never learned how to use a condom.

Don't laugh at your own jokes, it's only a short step up from using L*L

If not him, who else will?

Truss, do not agree that Cooney was a laughing stock of a fighter.He was heavy handed ,had a great kayo record. Easy to say ,after the Holmes loss(in which he was thoroughly beaten in every round),however he was genuinely seen as an exciting prospect and for good reason. He came up short against a boxing genius ,after all. More damaging was the much later loss to Foreman, however,his love for the sport was irrevocably damaged by the fallout of the Holmes fiasco.He never fought "for the white man" ,but had it thrust on him(shades of Schmeling,perhaps)and was incidentally ,like the K's, a philanthropist and clever guy.

Super D Boon wrote:and Holyfield, a man who never learned how to use a condom.

What did he used to do with them? On a cricket tour to SA we used fill them up with water and throw them from the 15th floor of the hotel on to homeless people outside. Great fun.

Were you part of Mike Gatting's well-received and fondly remembered team,Sean?

andygf wrote:Were you part of Mike Gatting's well-received and fondly remembered team,Sean?

No but there were a few fat barstewards with us.

Tend to agree with this. There are a number of reasons the K brothers aren't appreciated, their skin colour being one as is their nationality. If they were American or even British then the narrative would be very different re the quality of the heavyweight division.
It is partially their own fault also as they can be boring to watch at times whilst Vitali (who doesn't need to be as catious as Wlad) as he's
more than capable of tear up.
They aren't the silkiest boxers in the world but you can't expect guys that size to be a dancing slikster. Their obviously incredibly strong and I do believe that when opponents get in the ring with them and feel their power/ strength most get intimidated and go into a shell.

Bluto spoke to a couple of well respected American historians post Klitschko and think for them the major frustration with Wlad in particular is in a fight like the Haye one where they have every physical advantage and an opponent woefully out of their depth after about three or four rounds he never really puts the foot down and tries to put the exclamation point on his dominance by knocking the guy bandy.

Have to say why I understand the whole if it ain't broke don't fix it approach this is heavyweights we are talking about, and against a lot of their opponents you do get the impression with a little caution thrown to the wind a lot of their recent opponents could be bowled over.

rowley wrote:Bluto spoke to a couple of well respected American historians post Klitschko and think for them the major frustration with Wlad in particular is in a fight like the Haye one where they have every physical advantage and an opponent woefully out of their depth after about three or four rounds he never really puts the foot down and tries to put the exclamation point on his dominance by knocking the guy bandy.

Have to say why I understand the whole if it ain't broke don't fix it approach this is heavyweights we are talking about, and against a lot of their opponents you do get the impression with a little caution thrown to the wind a lot of their recent opponents could be bowled over.

Even Steward gets annoyed with Wlad about that.

Can well believe it Scott, remember Manny was calling for Lewis to step it up and get the job done against Tyson way sooner than he chose to do so

That's coming from Steward who saw Hearns step it up and let loose too soon and get stopped for it more than once.

I do agree to a point Rowley. As I said it is partially their own fault. Strangely I do blame Vitali more than Wlad even though he's isn't quite as catious. We all know that Wlad is vulnerable so I understand it from him a bit more. Vitali takes as good a shot as about anybody I can remember so he doesn't need to fight like that.
If they were more concerned with providing a good show it would certainly help. However I don't believe it's the whole picture. If the heavyweights were so poor as is constantly being stated then it should be within reach for one of the American's to give the K bros a decent fight. That obviously isn't the case. I do think it offends American boxing enthusiasts sensibillities to see the heavyweight division totally outwith their grasp at the moment.

End of the day Bluto I am conflicted with Wlad ultimately he goes in the ring, wins and barely takes anything in return, we can all talk of the greater responsibility to the sport and the like but we are not the ones with 18 stone of heavyweight trying to take our head off. He will get out of the game with his health, money and brains intact and a good number of defences. Could also argue that everybody knows what he will do is for his opponents to force him out of his game.

However for all that I do see the flipside, with how inept-outgunned a lot of his opponents are it would not take too much risk to let his hands go and add a few thrills to the mix, have to feel were he to do this many of the cynics may warm to him because in terms of his fitness, conditioning and conduct outside the ring there is much to admire.

rowley wrote:Bluto spoke to a couple of well respected American historians post Klitschko and think for them the major frustration with Wlad in particular is in a fight like the Haye one where they have every physical advantage and an opponent woefully out of their depth after about three or four rounds he never really puts the foot down and tries to put the exclamation point on his dominance by knocking the guy bandy.

Have to say why I understand the whole if it ain't broke don't fix it approach this is heavyweights we are talking about, and against a lot of their opponents you do get the impression with a little caution thrown to the wind a lot of their recent opponents could be bowled over.

This is why I hate comparisons to Lewis who whilst a fairly safe fighter could step it up and take his man out at will, he did of course have the misfortune of facing a few iron chinned guys like Holyfield, Tua and Mavrovic who he did nail numerous times without them budging. Can't imagine him letting Wlads opposition like Haye seeing the later rounds let alone the final bell.

I do like the guys too so maybe I err on the positive side with them. Have watched a few Wlad fights when I've been really annoyed at what had been served up. Ibragimov being right up there. The Haye fight was decent from Wlad though. Haye was the more culpable for me for any perceived lack of action. I didn't feel ripped off or frustrated at the end of that fight and thought criticism of Wlad was unwarranted. For me he did try and press the action though he could still have done more.
Just a side note. I think people are a bit unfair with heavyweights at times. Most guys at the top have one punch knockout power. It's not like at welter or the middles where you can afford to take shots to land your own. With how heavy and strong alot of heavies are I know I do understand to a degree the desire to be catious.

Slowly Slowly this forum is becoming the Trussman show like it was was on the BBC 606 too many Cliche`s ..he has no depth ..he is the quick one line put down.. i find most of his remarks tepid....... IMO

And uneducated quip at Cooney's expense....

I think it's because:

->They're not Amercian.
->They've not faced and defeated opposition who have established any legacy in their own right.
->Vitali lost to Lewis - an old fat Lewis and Wlad has been KTFO by 'B' level fighters.
->They look awkward and I am seriously unconvinced they'd be at all effective against a committed and aggressive fighter like Frazier, Tyson or Foreman.

The problem with a thread like this...it gets ruined by weakminded individuals....

But some interesting opinions offered and thanks for the mature posters who took the subject seriously..

Going back to the original point of this thread:

"Is it the reason why the Klits aren't taken that seriously..is being White hurting them!!"

IMO the answer is an emphatic no. The issue is what the media and core boxing fans frequently regurgitate - that the state of the heavyweight division is weak and prosaic, especially when compared to that of previous generations.

And if anything I, boxing fans and a lot of pros out there disagree with your assumption that the K brothers are not taken seriously. Voices may not be expressed with strident approval of their quality and strengths, but their legacy will be cemented 10 years after they hang up their gloves. In future generations, just like Joe Lewis, Rocky Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, etc have been used as comparators with fighters of this current generation - so will the K brothers. They are taken very seriously, and their dominance is a reflection of what all the aforementioned have achieved - being great boxers of their generation.

Personally i dont think the suffer because they are white.

More to the fact they're not American.

If you lookat your Kelly Pavlik's, Tommy Morrision's of this world and you'll find they got more exposure in America because they were white.