A Non-Bias good read on the Klitschkos and the issues with their reign.

Not fighting each other

First off I like to say that it is 100% understandable why they DO NOT fight. They are brothers and it is impossible. They just have the bad luck (speaking from a boxing sense) to be related. The issue is this:

If Vitali was not related to Wladimir, they would have fought 2-3 times already. Vitali would have at least been a 50-50 if not outright favorite against Wladimir. This really does distorts his title defense numbers and his reign of dominance. He shared his reign with a fighter who is his equal or nearly so. He shared his dominance with a fighter who have a very real chance of beating him and ending his title defense streak. This is troubling because there are a number of ATG'S who would have had better reigns, better records and better defenses than they had, if they never fought the clear #1 challenger to their throne.



I find the Vitali-Wladimir situation especially bothersome despite the fact it is by far the most excusable. A large part of Wladimir's legacy is based off of stats and numbers. Of consecutive title defenses and overall number of wins. Vitali could have put an end to this and snapped his various streaks. If Vitali wasn't related to Wladimir, for all we know Wladimir would have been knocked out 5 times instead of 3. Which effectively shoot him out of the top 10 spot(a spot that he will surely get, but a spot which he might not have received if Vitali was not his brother)










Defeats
It is a very romantic and endearing thing to have a brother who is willing to avenge you. Romantic and endearing yet ultimately it detracts from your legacy in that you needed someone else to avenge your losses. A true champion avenge his own defeats and more importantly PROVES he is capable of that immense task to walk back into the lion's den and vanquish your once vanquisher.

Wladimir not avenging his loss against Sanders is the one that stands out the most. It stands out because a number of boxing experts are dubious as to weather or not Wladimir could have even avenged the loss if he had wanted to. The Pre-Steward Version of Wlad against a Sanders who have fought his multiple easily exploited weaknesses is at best a 50/50 fight... hence giving even more voice to the detractors in their opinion that Wlad on purposely pushed Sanders to Vitali.. a fighter who is more stylistically suited at the time to deal with the hard hitting South Paw.
What's even more confusing is the questionable stories Wladimir and Vitali's camps will come out with in regards to the rematches. The most frustrating one would be of Chris Byrd 'avoiding a rematch with Vitali because that fight was too dangerous''.. Yet Byrd fought the more skilled and much more stylistically challenging Wladimir right after.

All in all.. the Klitschkos are a unique time weave in heavyweight history and have both shown integrity,honor, and a sense of morality outside the ring that has largely been missing from the heavyweight scene over the years (Bar Lewis) Still one must admit to the faults and questions this unique reign brings.. History will remember the Klitschkos as good champions, they will remember them as great role models, but they will also remember these very very obvious issues their reign brings.

 

Explain what is false with what I said?

 

Explain what is wrong with the article I posted.

You can't just use that excuse. I can also go 'look at YOUR post history you jump from post to post defending Klitschkos and cheering them on.. so you are bias'.

 

Very Good points but.

1- Floyd and Pacquaio's resumes are no where near as emphasized on title defenses as Wladimir's... Their resumes are of the lower weights and is about jumping weight divisions and fighting good fighters from multiple weight classes. It's very different from that of a heavyweight.

2- Bowe fought Holyfield.. who was the #1.. The 90's were stacked with a bunch of #1-#3's .. in what ever order you feel pleased.. with Lewis coming out at the top when it was all said and done.

3-This era has a very very clear #1 and #2... The 90's #1 -#4 at whatever time could also have been talked about as the #1 and #2.

Early 90's. You could make a case that Tyson and Holyfield were 1-2. (They fought eventually when they were still decent) After Tyson you can make the case Holyfield and Bowe were #1 and #2.. They definitely fought during their primes.. After that you can say Lewis was #1/#2 to Holyfield's #1/#2 . They remained at that spot all the way up until 99.. where they did fight.

So throughout the 90's the #1 did fight the #2..

The one case being right after the 4 men Tournament... Bowe as the clear #1 and Lewis was the clear #2.. and during those years the 1 did duck the 2. But order was soon restored when Bowe fell off the map and Holyfield re surged ... hence taking his top 2 spot.. Which he than fought Lewis.


To top it all off.... the bottom line is.
The TWO best heavyweights of the 90's.. were Lewis and Holyfield. No debate.
They fought twice.

Once again.. the lower weights work differently in Pac and Floyd because they were able to go up so many weight classes and take on the #2 and #3's there... Wlad and Vitali are forever stuck in one division and forever not able to fight each other.