Klitschkos are hated because...........

then I would say your friends are not boxing fans. :yep

 

Wow, with 390 posts you're questioning my intelligence...wow!! Give me your best shot, my man!!

You state that all fighters have been involved with stinkers...this is true. So why make this your main criticism against the Klitschko Bros? They have KO'd over 90% of their opponents. You make it seem like watching their fights is like watching a John Ruiz hugfest.

Be consistent, or is that too much to ask a man of your obvious intellect?

 

This thread appears to be getting very animated...

The brothers Klit are both good boxers. But that's about it really. Neither should be mentioned in the same breath as the top heavies of all time, but they will be thought of as the gate keepers in the HW division in the late naughties. There is no shame in that. It's a marvellous acheivement. But to go on and say they are part of boxing history implies that they are something bigger.

They're not.

I hear people say that they have poor opposition which is why they will never break the top ten HWs list. While it's a true observation that the opposition has been poor, this is no excuse. Tyson was one of the most recognisable men on the planet while on top of his game, when his opposition level was poor, because he was the HW champion of the world. Most people wouldnt recognise the Klits if they walked into them. The HW champion of the world should be the pinnacle of sporting acheivement. I think the general public's apathy towards the Klit's is a reflection of their abilities.

Good boxers, both of them. Not greats.

 

The verdict is still out on the Klitschko Bros...they're still fighting in their prime. The window of "prime time" for a heavyweight is much larger than that of any other weight class.

Time will tell how good they really are. That's about all anyone can assess at this point.

 

It wasnt just Tysons boxing that made his so recognizable. Its was his outrageous behavior that did most of that. People were interested in tyson because he could freak out at any moment. He was a circus freak side show.:deal

 

Not in the 80's, in his pomp. He was just badass. No freak outs. In fact he came across as mild mannered most of the time. He was a circus freak side show from prison and beyond but prior to that it was all ability and raw aggression that people were drawn to.

The Klit's are good boxers but they are not appreciated by the general public because they are not particularly exciting to watch in the ring or able to empathise with out of the ring. They're not appreciated by the boxing afficiando because they have few people to test themselves against and therefore we cant rate them that highly.

Someone just mentioned about them being prime now. That could be a very good point, if they clear out the division in the next five years (and the division is of a decent standard) then maybe we'll start rating them higher. Until that point they are just another two in a long list of good heavyweight champions. Not great ones.

 

atsch What don't you get? Tyson had trouble with tall fighters. People that want to dream up a fight between prime Tyson and prime Wladimir often mention the Peter fight in reference to Wladimir, but completely forget the Douglas, Lewis and Tucker fights. Neither Douglas or Tucker are anywhere as fast, accurate or powerful as Wladimir. And again, Peter cheats and scores knock downs on illegal blows.

 

In all fairness, i think Tyson, during that short window of domination, would have been a tough fight for anyone throughout history. But, during that time span, who did he dominate worth mentioning? Isn't that the same thing? Isn't that most Klitschko critics' biggest argument? Their lack of names on the resume? What's the difference?

 

Tyson's best win is either ancient inactive Holmes or Spinks who was a Light Heavyweight.

I like Tyson but the guy did not beat anyone worth a crap. He did however bring huge excitement after the boring Holmes era. Mike Tyson saved Heavyweight Boxing and made it meaningful again and for that I am very thankful to him. :deal

 

That's the same point I made earlier up.

My main criticism of Tyson is his resume. Same with the Klit's. The difference for me is that Tyson, during this period, appeared great. Whether he was or not is a different matter.

The Klit's though, I have never seen appear to be great.

 

I agree. They are on top and obviously very good. From what fights ive seen they are not very exciting and seem to not take very many chances. Its just their style i guess.

 

Nutty fans for sure. I don't particularly like either of them for the same reasons as yourself. (btw 'fan' is an abbreviation of fanatic to begin with)

 

That's a fair assessment. Although, it all depends on what you're looking at. Both fighters, Wlad and Iron Mike, have KO'd the great majority of their opponents. Iron Mike did it with one punch and Wlad does it with a methodical beatdown. Which one proves more...that is debatable. Do you think maybe, that he appeared "greater" because of the image created by the media?

Quite honestly, i think that Tyson brand of knocking out his opponents with one punch was ultimately bad for the heavyweight division. Now, the casual fan has made this the measuring stick for "greatness" in the heavyweight division. Joe Louis didn't win in this fashion, neither did Holmes or Ali.

In my opinion, the media ruined the way we perceive heavyweight boxing today.

 

I don't care what people often mention. The idea that Peter is anything close to a prime Tyson is laughable. He's slower than ****ing molasses and has about as much boxing skill as my three year old nephew.

 

Is intelligence measured by how much twaddle a person writes on a boxing message board?