'Dark Lord' Adam Booth: The K brothers expect to be lauded as ATGs. I don't buy it.

true but considering that he has some decent B wins and not an A win in sight, I guess his longevity should be rewarded but putting him up there with the elite of all time great heavyweights is ridiculous in my opinion. he's had the heavyweight division sowed up for years but the specific era he's operating with, comparatively speaking, is doo doo butter.

 

When I say ATG I was meaning like in the 20ish range which I think is fair for Wlad.

Anywhere above 50 for Vitali is a joke.

 

:smoke Take note . when anyone claims this era is incredably weak they dont know squat about heavyweight history . If they claim the K BROs arnt all time greats the same thing applys . yep

 

Fighting like that probably made a whole let of sense while he was in there.

 

ATG heavy, or ATG, period?

 

Wlad and Vitali can't do anything about their competition level. However, if they are to become recognized as greats, they need to do two things:

1. Dominate without any losses.

2. Beat their opposition impressively.

Neither brother has done either of those. Wlad obviously has his losses to three fighters who aren't near the top 50 heavyweights of all-time and Vitali was beaten by the two best fighters he has fought. You can argue with the result but you'd be presuming over facts. Secondly, neither brother has dominated all their opposition like they should. How many Wlad fans were saying he'd knock Haye out? Most, and he should have too, considering how easy it was for him and yet he didn't. That will hurt his legacy. In the same manner, Vitali should be destroying fighters like Briggs, Adamek, Johnson etc., not letting them survive for such a long time.

In an era without any greatness for them to test themselves against, it's hard for the brothers to become greats. What they aren't doing, however, is making a case for themselves.

One thing which will hurt their legacy is the favourable choice of opposition. Now that they both hold world titles, they can pick and choose who they fight and they take advantage of that. That'll hurt their legacies when they retire.

 

Anyone who thinks either Klitschko belongs anywhere near the ATG list should be shot.

 

, excluding the being shot part, I agree with your disagreement.

 

The history of boxing shows many cases of ATG loosing to opponents not near the top fifty list. Thats not a legit argument.

The Klitschko brothers will be mentioned in the same breath as Lewis and Tyson, due to beeing dominating champs. Competitors from other eras will shrink in their shadows.

 

only to some. I guarantee you no serious boxing pundit will agree with your assertion.

 

If a boxer loses to poor opposition, that's fine as long as he beats good opponents. The Klitschkos have either lost to the best they fought or lost to poor opposition, and unlike former greats, haven't beat anyone special themselves.

The problem is with this sort of record, is that there's no proof of how good that fighter is. It's just purely hypothetical.

 

Heavy obviously.

 

For a short moment I believed this was an educated attempt to troll.

These debates seems to fallow a pattern: greats of the past are given the benefit of doubt. Champs of today are not.

You dont know what would happen if Haye where to run through Alis resume. It is all guessing.

 

What kind of argumentation is this?

1. Losses can always happen in boxing. Even if you are beating a prime ATG every weekend you can still suffer a fluke loss against someone who is inferior to yourself. You are trying to create a unique criteria for boxers who reign in assumed week eras, but the Klitscko brothers are not the first to do that.

2. They beat them impressivly. They KO or stop them.

You require Wlad to knock 100 percent of his opponets out to acknowledge him? What champ in history has ever done that?

 

oh man, what a Brittard circle jerk this is turning out to be