Klit Fans Under 25 And Klit Crits Over 25

[bowerboy]

Just reading through a lot of the posts and some of the praise for the Klitschkos and comparisons of todays level of heavyweight compared to those of the 80's and 90's seems just absurd.

I am assuming that all the Klit lovers were not around and watching boxing in the 80's and 90's.

I cannot for the life of me imagine that anyone who was a boxing fan in the 80's and 90's would say the quality of the heavy weight division is better now than it was then...it just seems utterly absurd.

So you think I am on the right track? Surely the Klit lovers must be all under 25 years old??

[Champion]

http://i42.tinypic.com/2v96rsp.jpg

[Squire]

The 00s weren't that bad. Two prime top 15 ATGs were active during it (Lewis and Wladimir). Lewis was probably a top 5 ATG, and Wladimir's place can still rise. It's harder to say where Vitali would rank. Not top 15, but coming off a 4 year layoff to capture the WBC while he was well past prime and then defend it for 10 straight fights suggests he was better than the wins he picked up in his prime indicates on paper.

2 ATGs and one debatable ATG plus no shortage of good contenders isn't such a bad era. The 90s happened to be one of the best eras in terms of overall quality so it had a hard act to follow

[Danebrogen]

Everything was better the back in the day, not just boxing. I remember the DynaTAC 8000x, what a phone that was. Much better than the shitty coasters they call cellphones today. It seems cellphone companies today just don't have the technical understanding of the sweet science that the makers of the past had.

[Big Left]

If you know boxing, then you know that Wlad is dominating a weak HW scene. He has never fought a A class HW.

[On The Money]

Originally Posted by bowerboy

Just reading through a lot of the posts and some of the praise for the Klitschkos and comparisons of todays level of heavyweight compared to those of the 80's and 90's seems just absurd.

I am assuming that all the Klit lovers were not around and watching boxing in the 80's and 90's.

I cannot for the life of me imagine that anyone who was a boxing fan in the 80's and 90's would say the quality of the heavy weight division is better now than it was then...it just seems utterly absurd.

So you think I am on the right track? Surely the Klit lovers must be all under 25 years old??

Wrong pal. The kid haters that talk about the 80's like they were around then are the jokes and liars. The quality of the US heavyweight has declined, not in Europe. I couldn't care less about the US scene, the European fighters led by the super dominant Klitschko's have cleaned them out.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Squire

The 00s weren't that bad. Two prime top 15 ATGs were active during it (Lewis and Wladimir). Lewis was probably a top 5 ATG, and Wladimir's place can still rise. It's harder to say where Vitali would rank. Not top 15, but coming off a 4 year layoff to capture the WBC while he was well past prime and then defend it for 10 straight fights suggests he was better than the wins he picked up in his prime indicates on paper.

2 ATGs and one debatable ATG plus no shortage of good contenders isn't such a bad era. The 90s happened to be one of the best eras in terms of overall quality so it had a hard act to follow

I disagree with you about the 'good contenders' bit. I think Byrd could be considered to be behind Wlad, Lewis and Vitali and I don't think he's a top 50 heavyweight of all time. That's what this era lacks, I think. A good bunch of contenders. The top 10 has been very shallow for about 7 or 8 years now, with awful fighters like Helenius and Dimitrenko being ranked around the top 5.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Big Left

If you know boxing, then you know that Wlad is dominating a weak HW scene. He has never fought a A class HW.

You know, if you look back at tapes from the 80s, which was another weak era, you'll see fights between journeymen who actually look good. They are in shape, they're busy, they are athletic and they put on good fights, despite only being journeymen. Every level of heavyweight boxing has declined, from the world elite to the journeymen. Go back a few decades and you'll see fights with boxers who both have average records, yet they will be impressive fighters. Watch something like 'Biggers Better' and you'll see guys with average records who are atrocious fighters.

[Big Left]

Originally Posted by On The Money

Wrong pal. The kid haters that talk about the 80's like they were around then are the jokes and liars. The quality of the US heavyweight has declined, not in Europe. I couldn't care less about the US scene, the European fighters led by the super dominant Klitschko's have cleaned them out.

The fact that the best HWs are European now has nothing to do with it. Wlad/Vitali are Elite but after that you are looking at people like Haye, Povetkin, Adamek - how do you think those guys would do against a Ruddock, Bruno or Golota?

[Squire]

Originally Posted by Jack

I disagree with you about the 'good contenders' bit. I think Byrd could be considered to be behind Wlad, Lewis and Vitali and I don't think he's a top 50 heavyweight of all time. That's what this era lacks, I think. A good bunch of contenders. The top 10 has been very shallow for about 7 or 8 years now, with awful fighters like Helenius and Dimitrenko being ranked around the top 5.

You might be right. How about 'decent contenders'?

The decade suffered massively from an entertainment perspective though, that's true. Not enough contenders fighting and too many options for a fighter to cash out without having to really earn a shot. First it was the multiple belts on offer, so there was always a 'champion' to fight. Then when the brothers held belts together, there were two big payday fights on offer. Twice as many guys landing the big fights while only having to do half the work to earn those paydays. That's one reason I hope Vitali stays retired

[On The Money]

Originally Posted by Big Left

The fact that the best HWs are European now has nothing to do with it. Wlad/Vitali are Elite but after that you are looking at people like Haye, Povetkin, Adamek - how do you think those guys would do against a Ruddock, Bruno or Golota?

Pulev, Povetkin and Haye would have beaten all three of them. Adamek would have been even money. Bruno was slow, glass chinned and had no stamina. Ruddock had no jab or chin. Golota was another slow behemoth.

And PS, I know what I'm talking about. I'm 44 and remember the mid 70's scene, never mind the 80's.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Squire

You might be right. How about 'decent contenders'?

The decade suffered massively from an entertainment perspective though, that's true. Not enough contenders fighting and too many options for a fighter to cash out without having to really earn a shot. First it was the multiple belts on offer, so there was always a 'champion' to fight. Then when the brothers held belts together, there were two big payday fights on offer. Twice as many guys landing the big fights while only having to do half the work to earn those paydays. That's one reason I hope Vitali stays retired

Yeah, I agree with that completely.

[bowerboy]

80's weak era?? With the excitement of Tyson?? You are kidding right??

[On The Money]

Originally Posted by bowerboy

80's weak era?? With the excitement of Tyson?? You are kidding right??

Who else though? Tyson cleaned out the post Ali bums.

[bowerboy]

Who else?? Oh just some club fighter called Larry Holmes...but he was rubbish..so yeah i guess with Homes dominating the first half of the 80's and Tyson lighting the world on fire in the second half of the eighties you could say it was a poor era.