All great heavyweights have a big win over a top challenger -- What about the Klits?

The Klitschkos are fighting the people in fron of them. They are dominating a dreadful division. Domination does get recognized in time though and they will gt more respect in years to come.

However I hate them, I think adominating heavyweight should be able to deliver someexciting knockouts. If you have seen one Klit fight you have seen them all. The predicatability of it depresses me.

 

And Buster Douglas is the guy who beat Mike Tyson - wtf is your point?

 

Actually, yes. *25* consecutive defenses of his HW crown.

Holmes has the W over Ken Norton. I'm afraid that win trumps anything on either Klit's resume...

 

Hilarious.

 

Louis and Walcott are ATG HWs, Archie Moore is an ATG LHW.

 

Tyson's destruction of Spinks is better than anything either Klit has produced.

 

Tua ****ing sucks, he should have went into wrestling like the other Samoans, he could have possibly made an impact there. Dude what the **** has he ever done that would make you believe that he would beat either Klitchko?

 

Buster Douglas also beat a prime Oliver McCall. His win over Tyson is 1000x better than any win the Klitschko's have, or ever will have. That is my point.

 

Just out of curiosity which great fighter during their era should the brothers have fought but did not?

 

My point was that having a great win doesn't make you a great heavyweight, in the same vein that not having a standout win doesn't necessarily exclude you from being a great heavyweight - especially when the names aren't there to fight.

 

Just one great heavyweight in one fight - not enough to judge someone's ability on, especially when a fight is stopped on a cut. A legitimate stoppage? Yes, but hardly a measure of domination - and only the truly ******ed would try and say it is so.

As for Wlad, there was no-one there at all. Let's be blunt - if Wlad isn't a great heavyweight, then Hopkins wasn't a great middleweight.

 

They can fight each other you know....