Are the Klitschko's Boring?

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren the point is if they where American they would be household names, then people would look at them differently-Americans love nothing better than a winner, and an American winner at that.

I believe they're starting to get the respect at the moment from Boxing experts and Boxing fans, very casual fans still will barely know them and that will never change.

But they are global, and are household names already. Didn't you and some others, me included, mention this already?

Bobby Baccala

walshb wrote: »

But they are global, and are household names already. Didn't you and some others, me included, mention this already?

They're not household names in the extent that other american heavyweight champs would be though like Ali, Frazier, Tyson etc.
I agree that if they were american they would certainly have a much much bigger fan base.
I doubt they're celebrated in japan or africa like tyson and ali would have been

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

But they are global, and are household names already. Didn't you and some others, me included, mention this already?

Bren most people around when Tyson was peak would have seen all his fights as they where on tv every time, it's only recently that the klitschko's are getting on regular tv over here, in Germany they have been on tv like Tyson was in his day

They are known to most men but most women even know who Tyson is, grannies even-sure they seen him on tv often

If Vitali was not such a big fella he could walk through town unnoticed

RiseToTheTop

I know how they are unknown to the general public. I asked some guys at my course back in 2008 if any of them know who the Klitschko's were. Only 1 of the 10 of the guys knew.

Which is a shame TBH, I never saw the day the Heavyweight titlists wouldn't be knows. They knee the top Welterweight though. They didn't know the top light-heavyweights nor cruiserweights either. I doubt they knew the top flyweights, etc.

cowzerp

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

I know how they are unknown to the general public. I asked some guys at my course back in 2008 if any of them know who the Klitschko's were. Only 1 of the 10 of the guys knew.

Which is a shame TBH, I never saw the day the Heavyweight titlists wouldn't be knows. They knee the top Welterweight though. They didn't know the top light-heavyweights nor cruiserweights either. I doubt they knew the top flyweights, etc.

I find it hard to believe that they knew Margarito or Cotto, or if they knew them that they knew they where welterweights, in saying that at the time The 2 had just fought on mainstream television so i suppose they may have known them.

I also find it hard to believe they did not know david haye was the top cruiser at the time either.

Risetothetop i respect your opinion on the brothers, personally i think its too harsh and does not take into account where they are based etc, where their tv deals where most their careers etc

I disliked Calzaghe very strongly and many disagreed with me, not getting into that here-just accepting that opinions differ.

walshb

I will concede that if they were American that they would be even more well known, but I still believe that the claim by sxt that 'if they were American they would be considered really great, and even GOAT,' to be off the mark. As I said, plenty of Americans do rate them, but many do not. Same across the globe.

runboyrun

cowzerp wrote: »

I have never sent you a message in your inbox so don't know where your getting that from, and if i do that-that is a nicer thing to do than infract/ban you.

And usually it is normal to like a post that you are in agreement with, I'm hardly going to like posts that i don't agree with, Hardly anyone is backing you anyway-i think it's your aggressive way of writing.

i have a message in my inbox from you warning me to leave the personal abuse out ....

apparently nearly 45% of the poll are in agreement with me....that's 45% of the poll think they're boring.....

we don't know what % of the remaining 55% who voted no feel although they are not boring they are not very exciting.....i'd guess the % is fairly high....

if the poll was 1) boring 2) not boring and 3) average I'd say probably 30% of the remaining 55% would say average, or higher IMO

cowzerp

You got an official warning for personal abuse, thats not a letter on your inbox and nothing to do with opinions, thats a simple break in the charter rules, I'd usually do that if I was letting you know your on the way to trouble

MMAIRELANDFAN

runboyrun wrote: »

i have a message in my inbox from you warning me to leave the personal abuse out ....

apparently nearly 45% of the poll are in agreement with me....that's 45% of the poll think they're boring.....

we don't know what % of the remaining 55% who voted no feel although they are not boring they are not very exciting.....i'd guess the % is fairly high....

if the poll was 1) boring 2) not boring and 3) average I'd say probably 30% of the remaining 55% would say average, or higher IMO

41% OF THE POLL, SO IF YOU WANT TO ROUND IT YOU SHOULD ROUND IT TO THE CLOSEST WHICH IS 40%

Caps on by mistake!

walshb

MMAIRELANDFAN wrote: »

41% OF THE POLL, SO IF YOU WANT TO ROUND IT YOU SHOULD ROUND IT TO THE CLOSEST WHICH IS 40%

Caps on by mistake!

Or 42 percent; suits his argument better;)

gene_tunney

I know this has been discussed to death, but I'd like to make a point. If you look at Tyson's resume and compare it to the Klitschko brothers, its fairly obvious who comes out on top.

Tyson was lauded for KO'ing journeymen; the Klitschko brothers are slated for knocking out "cans" who are clearly superior opponents than Tyson's bum of the month club.

RiseToTheTop

gene_tunney wrote: »

I know this has been discussed to death, but I'd like to make a point. If you look at Tyson's resume and compare it to the Klitschko brothers, its fairly obvious who comes out on top.

Tyson was lauded for KO'ing journeymen; the Klitschko brothers are slated for knocking out "cans" who are clearly superior opponents than Tyson's bum of the month club.

Examples of said superior opponents whom the Klitschko's beat?

If I were to throw in my 2 cents, I think Vitali's 32 opponents before Lewis (bar Herbie Hide) where not better than Tyson's early opponents.

gene_tunney

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Examples of said superior opponents whom the Klitschko's beat?

If I were to throw in my 2 cents, I think Vitali's 32 opponents before Lewis (bar Herbie Hide) where not better than Tyson's early opponents.

Let's take Wlad and Tyson's 5 best wins(IMO)

Tyson
Ruddock (good fighter)
Tucker (good fighter)
Spinks (blown up light heavy)
Bruno (89 version, had been KTFO by Bonecrusher Smith and Witherspoon)
Thomas (already beaten by berbick, went on to lose 4 of his next 5 after Tyson)

Wlad
Peter (undefeated 2005 version)
Byrd (2000 version)
Haye
Chambers (undefeated)
Chagaev (undefeated)

After you take the top 5, you can get plenty of decent wins for Wlad, but outside of 2 or 3 others, Tyson's resume is full of bums. Anytime he ever faced anyone that was good he got KTFO.

gene_tunney

That said, I acknowledge a prime Tyson would KTFO a prime Wlad, due to the style match up, but career wise, you have to rate Wlad higher.

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

Tyson's resume is full of bums. Anytime he ever faced anyone that was good he got KTFO.

Good because they beat him? That's funny. Tyson destroys/dominates all (1986-1989; 4 years) unifies the whole division, becomes a global star, and this was all against bums?

And, by your reasoning, Douglas somehow is good, yet Tucker is a bum? A bum who stopped Douglas to win the IBF title.

That is ludicrous. They were at that time the worlds best HW fighters. How can they be bums?

Tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs, Smith, Bruno, Berbick, Spinks, Ruddock, Williams were not bums. And, really, most believe that a prime and focused and Rooney trained Tyson beats Douglas every time.

One thing is for sure, Corrie Sanders and Lamont Brewster get destroyed vs. the best Tyson. Destroyed. As does Wlad.

gene_tunney

I never said Buster Douglas was good. In fact, he was a gatekeeper at best.

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

I never said Buster Douglas was good. In fact, he was a gatekeeper at best.

That night in Tokyo he would have eaten alive any Wlad or Vit opponent that I can think of. And, he would have beaten Wlad all night. Vit of course is a different proposition. Buster was far from a bum. He had consistency isues, but when prepared, Buster was a very good HW.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

That night in Tokyo he would have eaten alive any Wlad or Vit opponent that I can think of. And, he would have beaten Wlad all night. Vit of course is a different proposition. He was far from a bum. He had consistency isues, but when prepared, Buster was a very good HW.

1 Hit wonder Bren, he fought very good against a 70% Tyson and the reason Tyson was not 100% was because he thought it would be easy, Either brother would have easily beat Douglas any night.

Douglas did fight well but was not ever a top boxer.

cowzerp

With a 60% for the bro's not been boring then we have a good number that clearly like watching the brothers, i think they are winning fans over this part of the world.

walshb

But, 60 percent would be well down in comparison to other great HWs, yes? In that sense they would be boring in comparison.

I bet Sonny Liston would get at least 90 percent, eh?

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

But, 60 percent would be well down in comparison to other great HWs, yes? In that sense they would be boring in comparison.

I bet Sonny Liston would get at least 90 percent, eh?

Not alot of love for poor old Sonny on here I've noticed but that's another thread.......

Are they boring? No. Are they exciting? Not particularly. Are they good at what they do? They sure are.

walshb

My view: If they had the real challenge I think they could be damn exciting, particularly Vitali, whose chin is very good. Now, I know folks will say that they are so good that the challenge will always look poor. I don't buy that. I think the challenges are just very average, and would be average thru other eras.

I think if a a poll was conducted on HW history's weakest era, this current crop would score badly.

RiseToTheTop

Who'd win between Vitali and this version of Joe Louis?:

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

I think the challenges are just very average, and would be average thru other eras.

I think if a a poll was conducted on HW history's weakest era, this current crop would score badly.

Bren I agree that a poll would probably come to this conclusion, but the people voting would not realise how poor Marciano's was, as we went through Listons that was weak, Tysons era was as weak as any,

And the coverage of boxing now is at its worst and the press loves to knock the strength of boxing now, especially the American press who coincidentally don't have a great heavyweight, as soon as 1 arrives the press will big up Heavyweight boxing again.

RiseToTheTop

People would rate Marciano's era weak too.

Whaddya mean "Liston's era". His era is the same as Patterson, Ali, Cleveland Williams, early Joe Frazier.

I for one can see a dip in this heavyweight generations from Liston and Tyson's era. They are overweight, they are poor at boxing. One look at them and the likes of Liston would have em out pretty quick.

cowzerp

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Whaddya mean "Liston's era". His era is the same as Patterson, Ali, Cleveland Williams, early Joe Frazier.

Ok so if Frazier is in Listons era then I can put Tyson, Holyfield, Tua, Morrisson, in Vitalis!

Patterson was tiny and not a challenge-bad example
Ali destroyed Liston twice
Williams is just like most challengers now, would be just a challenger who you would not rate if around now
Frazier never fought Liston so moot point

Actual fights
Listons era (Ali, Patterson, Williams!) and lots of terrible records bums.
Williams fighter before Liston had 9-15-0 record before that 20-6-6 so he was hardly a world beater!! He bet Nobody of note and lost to anyone with even a semi decent record so your left with Ali and Patterson.

Vitalis era (Lewis, Sanders, Briggs, Adamek) plus about 7 more equal to Williams or better.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Ok so if Frazier is in Listons era then I can put Tyson, Holyfield, Tua, Morrisson, in Vitalis!

Patterson was tiny and not a challenge-bad example
Ali destroyed Liston twice
Williams is just like most challengers now, would be just a challenger who you would not rate if around now
Frazier never fought Liston so moot point

Actual fights
Listons era (Ali, Patterson, Williams!) and lots of terrible records bums.
Williams fighter before Liston had 9-15-0 record before that 20-6-6 so he was hardly a world beater!! He bet Nobody of note and lost to anyone with even a semi decent record so your left with Ali and Patterson.

Vitalis era (Lewis, Sanders, Briggs, Adamek) plus about 7 more equal to Williams or better.

None of the guys you mentioned are superior to Cleveland Williams bar Lennox Lewis who is an ATG heavyweight (who I was never a fan off) Vitali lost to a 38 year old Lewis encase you forgot? The other 3 aren't exactly world beaters and I'm surprised you use Adamek as hes a very small heavy who wouldn't cut it in any era.

Cleveland Williams was shot in the 60s and was never the same fighter afterwards.

kryogen

Vitali was ahead on points V Lewis, was desperate to fight on but the fight doc, rightly, wouldnt let him. He would have destroyed Lewis, getting caught by a lucky punch can happen to anybody. Using it as a stick to beat Vitali is so silly

RoverZT

kryogen wrote: »

Vitali was ahead on points V Lewis, was desperate to fight on but the fight doc, rightly, wouldnt let him. He would have destroyed Lewis, getting caught by a lucky punch can happen to anybody. Using it as a stick to beat Vitali is so silly

Lucky punch lol.

Lewis was hitting him with good shots from every angle.

Watch the fight and tell me Lewis didn't inflict damage.

Lewis handspeed was pretty slow as well, a fresher Lewis with quicker hands would have outboxed him with ease.

Lewis was a far more skilled more boxer, much better technique, zip to his shots, balance, speed.

Far superior athlete and boxer.

Vitali is great but flawed.

Ref saved Vitali's career as Lewis was hitting him with such ease.Pity the ref stopped it.40 years ago he wouldn't have.

Maravilla33

I love the whole Vitali was ahead on points he only lost on cuts argument. The cut was caused by Lewis's fists. He opened it up and worked on it till Vitali couldn't continue. There is nothing unfair or lucky about it. Vitali started strong but Lewis was coming into it and to say he would have been destroyed is silly. I don't get the lucky punch comment either Lewis hit him with some massive shots which he fully intended to hit him with so how was it lucky? This was an overweight 38 year old Lewis as well.

Again I'm not a fan of Lewis at all but credit where its due he beat Vitali.