"You have to beat a great to be a great." We hear this often. Currently we see this phrase bleated most commonly by people who wishes to deride the Klits. But not only is it untrue, it isn’t even logical. For example, how did anyone ever get to become a great? Let’s go back to the beginning. Let’s think of the first boxing champion. He would never have been able to beat a great. There were none to beat, he was the first and best. So he could not have been a great. So the next champ beats the first champ. The second champ isn’t a great because the first champ wasn’t a great – because he had no greats to beat. The third champ also can’t become a great because still no-one has beaten a great. If the only way to become a great is to beat a great then there would never have been any greats. At least one person has to be able to become a great without defeating a great. The cycle would never be able to begin without this amendment to the rule. So this rule that “you have to beat a great to be a great” must have exceptions. Otherwise it is impossible that any boxers were ever a great. Now that we know the rule is not valid, the question is “what else can someone do to prove they are a great”? Or, in the case of the Klits “Can they become greats in a division that they dominate, without other great heavies to fight against” The answer is obvious to anyone who knows anything about boxing. Of course they can. Again, let us apply logic. Let us say that a “great” boxer is an A+. A very good boxer is an A. A good boxer is a B. A journeyman is a C. Those who would attempt to deny the Klits the opportunity to be called greats would say that they are A grade fighters beating up on B or C grade opposition. However, an A grade fighter cannot beat up B or C grade opposition forever. Because of this one truth that every boxing fan knows. Styles make fights. An A grade fighter will lose to a B or even a C grade fighter if they are a stylistic mismatch. So far the Klits have done a pretty good job of demolishing all of the B or C grade fighters. Have they done enough to be considered greats yet? Maybe, maybe not. But if they continue to do what they are doing, even if they don’t have any other great fighters to beat, they can surely eventually be considered as greats within their own right. Naturally those who hate the Klits for whatever deranged reason will try to say that the Klits have only beaten D grade opponents. Blah blah blah, you know the usual tripe they come up with. But for anyone who appreciates logic, you will see how their arguments are flawed.
no one is saying the Kilts arent great fighters its just that we have to keep these Klit lovers in check when they say stupid **** like Vitali/Wlad beats every ATG heavyweight H2H
No, you are being rational. Your point of view is fair. People are saying that the Klits can never be considered as greats because they fight in what they perceive as the worst period for the heavy division.
People said the same thing about Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes during their eras. Fans do not like dominance of the heavyweight division since their isnt another division to step up to. There was a thread here a few weeks back of what makes a fighter great, and most believe its the ability to overcome the odds. Its just that those odds werent there for Vitali and Wlad to be considered great during their reign, but if they retire on pace without any devastating losses they WILL be perceived as great.
Yes, yes they did. Look how that turned out for them. Given the benefit of this history lesson, you would think that people may be able to put aside their nonsense. You would think that they could make rational or constructive observations. Instead we get hate-motivated delusions. I felt a need to show that what is being said by some of these people is not supported by logic or even common sense.
A great fighter DOESN'T need to beat great fighters in order to be great himself..... In order to be labled great, all you gotta do is prove to be the best of your era in your own weight class.... So, if you grab a title belt and clean out the division one by one, it is possible to be considered great...... You just gotta be the dominate force....... Vitali Klit is great at heavyweight, while a guy like Tim Witherspoon had his chances, but he blew them....... Riddick Bowe MIGHT'VE proven great had he had more dedication and drive....... Ike Ibeabuchi is a never wuz......... MR.BILL
You and I know this. But the haters will say anything to attack the Klits. Would you agree that their line of reasoning is actually illogical when analysed with some thought?
Oh yeah it also depends on the era when your fighting. Most people consider Calzaghe great yet he spent 10 years fighting in a pretty poor divison. Its just something that a boxer can't help and is unfair to complain at. However sometimes boxers go up in weight (even if it puts them at a disadvantage) like Ricky Hatton or James Toney. Its a shame more boxers don't do this really when in a crap divison.
Good post. Fighters have to be judged on ability over anything else, otherwise the circularity you addressed ensues. Accomplishments are important only insofar as they highlight a fighter's ability.
Also what many don't want to admit is that overall, today's athletes in various sports are bigger, stronger, faster, better trained with better equipment and techniques... With that being said, its almost impossible to compare eras as to who would beat who in regards to boxing. I don't necessarily think that today's heavyweight division is weak, it just has very dominant boxers on top of it, that's all.. A boxer continuously cleaning out his division for a very long period of time eventually deserves to be remembered amongst the Greats !!
Everything you've written is wrong. Ricky Hatton would look like Ali in the ring againt an amateur. You only know how good someone is by who they are fighting. Pavlik looked like a sub-novice against Hopkins. I could go on.
You do have to beat a great to become a great.... you have fighter A with mad Skills lets say for example Mayweather Jr Do you think he would even have an arguement at being the best P4P fighter had he not fought. Corrales Castillo De La Hoya Hatton Marquez No he would not they would laugh at his ass and probably rate him as a B level fighter becuase when you take those names away your left with what? Gatti Mitchell Ndou Bruselless Corley Sosa it doesnt look very good does it? The problem that the Klitschkos are stuck with, is the Heavyweights today do not give a **** about the game as the heavy weights of the sport. So the Top Heavys you have today are in reality a B level or C level Heavy compaired to the likes of Vitali Klitschko and Wlad who are obviously A level....... there really is no B level in todays heavyweights it goes from both Klitschkos who are A level down to C level from there..... Sorry but the Klitschkos may never have on single career defining win due to the lack of talent in their own divison.
You have both conveniently missed the part of the original post which explains this. An A grade fighter will eventually lose to a B or C grade fighter if the lesser fighter is a stylistic mismatch. So if a fighter fights enough B or C grade fighters and dominates them all, then he has proven that he is not just an A grade fighter but real A+ great fighter. And Bazooka, you did exactly what I said people would attempt to do in a transparent effort to rob the Klits of any chance to achieve greatness. Seeing the logic of the "styles make fights" rule meaning the Klits do have a chance of being classifed great I already said that people who really wanted to deride them would rush to say that their opposition was actual D level. Or E level. Or whatever it takes to try to stop the Klits from having an opportunity to prove themselves. Sorry, but it doesn't work. They will fight enough B or C level fighters to prove themselves. Whether they win or not against enough of them to be considered greats is another matter. They have the opportunity, something that the haters will try to deny them despite logic.