. And that's why they dominated their era, and no one could really touch them? Or, was it the quality of the other fighters around in that time frame, that helped the Bros enjoy such longevity? Or a mix of the two??
Little of both. The HW division tends to be weak, because there simply aren't that many 6'3+ 220+ pound men who can fight.
It isn't helping these days that big athletically gifted men can make more money pursing other sports. Especially if they have what it takes for basketball. With basketball, they don't even need to be NBA level. The best of the guys one rung below NBA level can still earn big money playing overseas. Hell, my sister's sister-in-law is married to a guy who was a college star, washed out quickly in the NBA, but has now had a long career playing in various leagues overseas making real money while not risking brain damage. Basketball is definitely eating into potential quality SHWs a good bit.
The K bros are two of the best to ever do it at heavyweight. They actually ruined their era because they were too much better than the others, and since there were two of them, the other guys tended not to fight each other (i.e Haye v Adamek, Arreola v Povetkin, Solis v Chagaev, Peter v. Brewster, etc.).
Wladimir Klitchko is an ATG and a great long record, but he was very safety first and boring in alot of his fights. Him dropping Pulev with huge left hooks was one of his best performances later on, But then he should of done the same to Jennings the next fight. consistently boring! But great fighter.
They were both great. Of course Vitali doesn't have a very good resume....he began his career as a kick boxer, didn't turn pro until 25, retired at 33 for 4 years, and came back as a titlist while 38 years old as his brother was unifying and collecting the better challengers. He lost to Lewis, but that loss might be Lewis' best win over a younger man, and was a redemption bout for two men criticized for not having a war mentality.
Especially once Wlad unified and got very busy. It became a race for the contenders to cash out against him.
He's 13-1 in title fights not even counting the WBO belt, which he held earlier (and the loss was due to cuts). I think his resume is criticized too much because he won too easily.
It's not always a case of both tho imo. Joe Louis would have still reigned a decent length of time, even against top notch guys. He did OK having a, not so strong heavyweight division to kick around in. Now look at Tommy Burns. He defended lord knows how many times. He wasn't an ATG but he did OK with the contenders around. So, just sometimes, it can depend on the champ /and /or, the quality of the other fighters.
They were often simply too good for their often mediocre opposition. The fact they wouldn't fight each other just made it worse as that would have generated huge interest and was a potential super fight. Some opponents were so below their level it was like watching a barbarian attempt to fight a seasoned Roman soldier. Their fundamentals and skill were basically overkill. Even though they both produced devastating highlight reel KOs and were huge guys with muscles, they just weren't that appealing because of their reserved personalities and one sided fights.
Yes the Kiltschko brothers are very good. Every heavyweight who ever lived would find them a great challenge. They'd beat a lot of them but inevitably lose to a fair few as well.