Boxing Historians: Worst excuses ever used to duck a fighter

@Dubblechin, You and I have different views on the credibility of the Klitschko brothers reign. I give them a pass for not fighting each other, you don't and plenty others share your opinion. The situation wasn't ideal and I can't argue boxing wasn't worse off because of it. It would have been cool if they did fight although I suspect it may not have been the most fiercely contested clash no matter how hard they sparred against each other.

Thanks for all the examples of siblings fighting you provided after telling me you weren't going to though.
We are going around in circles here and I can't see either of us changing our minds about how "lame" or not brothers not fighting each other is. You are telling me the Klitschko's aren't soft and their mother wasn't saintly but I never believed either to start with.

The Charlo's never fought at 154 and I never thought they should feel compelled to either even though both were world champs simultaneously, I won't have a problem if the same happens at 160 but accept you and others might.

They did PURPOSELY SHARE the heavyweight championship. Both were the heavyweight champion.
(like it or not this is what happened and history books will record such, everybody has the right to accept or not accept this, much like fights where you feel a fighter was wrongly declared the winner/loser)

 

The Charlos aren't the heavyweight champion. The Charlos aren't expected to be able to beat Golovkin at middleweight (one division up). They aren't expected to be able to beat James Degale at 168 or Adonis Stevenson at 175.

That's the difference between the heavyweight class and all others.

The heavyweight champion of the world is the man who can beat EVERYONE. You can't have TWO. There's ONE heavyweight champion.

And the Klitschkos DID share the title Purposely. They spoke for years about wanting to hold all the titles together. And THEY DID IT. They beat lesser fighters and rounded up all the belts and held all the titles together.

But they refused to face each other, even though they were the two best by far and there was a question as to which was actually the better of the two.

Because, through K2, they both made money when either of them defended the title.

It was a conscious financial decision to share the titles and make money of each other defending the other belts.

It didn't happen by accident. Neither called out the other and insisted only one could be champ.

If you read interviews with Wlad, he said he was the champ. If you read interviews with Vitali, he said he was the champ and held the same title Ali and all the greats did. But they purposely ducked their chief rival and the arguable number-one in the division (the other brother) ... so they could share the profits together.

It's fine if you bought their "mom" excuse. Many did. But the comparisons with fighters in the lower weight classes don't work because the fighters in the lower weight classes are only supposed to be able to beat fighters their weight or lower.

The heavyweight championship always held more status because it was different than all the other titles.

The man who held it was the top fighter in the world ... and could beat everyone. Not just people his size or smaller.

Like I said before, BOTH wanted the title as best in the world and both claimed he was the best in interviews, but neither would get in the ring and prove it against the other.

So can either really claim he was the real world heavyweight champion if neither ever beat the best heavyweight in the world to earn the title as the best himself?

 

First of all, the HW champion doesn't mean he can beat everyone, that is your interpretation. Plenty of champions have been defeated then went on to become champion, even if undefeated that doesn't mean they cannot be defeated, even by a vanquished opponent on another given night (like Bowe/Holyfield). No doubt a lot of people view the HW championship this way, I don't necessarily and even if I did I would be willing to bend this criteria given my feelings on the situation with the Klitschko brothers.

I know they both held titles at the same time, even if it was on purpose I still give them credit as champions.

I didn't buy any "mom" excuse, I accept they didn't want to fight their brother regardless of what their mother may have felt about it. I bought the "brother" excuse.

Yes, either can claim to have been the real heavyweight champion even though they never faced the next best (each other) - although I have already pointed out that Wlad surely did fight the next best HW during the times Vitali was retired (a considerable length of time) and Wlad took on all comers. I don't think this applies to Wladimir during his whole career although there is a good argument to be made against Vitali's claims.

 

YOU ARE WRONG.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHO THE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD IS. The man who can beat everyone. That's not my interpretation. That's why the title was considered the biggest prize in sports for DECADES.

Didn't you know that?

I can understand why people who came up watching boxing when the title was SHARED might not know that.

But that's what its all about. And why people like ME hated the Klitschkos' run.

And you don't get to be heavyweight champion of the world by beating THE SECOND BEST GUY or the THIRD BEST GUY.

You get it by beating the BEST guy in the division. Neither brother did that. Ever. That's all I'm saying.

So, you can make a solid argument neither really was.

If they could make more with one of them being champ, they'd have done that. But they could make more by sharing the belt and making twice as many defenses as they could with one champ, so they did that.

The "mom" excuse was just that ... an excuse. It was all about money.

Other heavyweight champs in history could've formed their own promotional company and shared titles. And others may still try to do that down the road.

Financially, it worked out great for the Klitschkos. But they all but turned the division into a joke for the better part of a decade and it'll take years for it to recover.

I stand by my claim that the MOM excuse was one of the worst excuses for ducking in history.

 

I knew that many boxing fans romantically viewed the heavyweight crown as such but personally I never bought that the HW champ was necessarily unbeatable, maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by "can beat everyone" though.

I can accept that the HW champ is the best boxer but from what you are saying it sounds as if you think the guy who holds the title can't be beaten, until of course, he is. This may even be the case in some instances but Shannon Briggs for example was likely very beatable and probably not the guy "who can beat everyone".

You say I am "WRONG" but it really is a matter of opinion. Your view may be held by a majority but that doesn't mean it is right and another is wrong.

One other point I want to add is that we are discussing 'prize-fighting' so your complaints about the Klitschko's motivations being financial in nature isn't really surprising, it is a business as well as a sport after all and business will always come first, unfortunately for us fans.

I do have a question. If money was the sole reason for the Klitschko's never fighting, wouldn't it have made sense to face each other towards the end of Vitalys reign thus ensuring all the belts stayed with K2 plus the massive revenue a fight between them would have generated by then?

 

Yes, you are wrong. You can be considered the best fighter in the world and heavyweight champion and still lose your next fight. And the person who held it wasn't guaranteed a long reign. But the title of heavyweight champion wasn't something to be shared. It designates one man as the best fighter in the world. It was that way for the vast majority of the sport's history. It's only considered "nostalgia" now because the Klitschkos decided to "share" it and people who began following the sport during that period not only considered the heavyweight division just like the others, but most considered it among the worst divisions in the game. Something to be ridiculed.

BECAUSE THE TWO BEST HEAVYWEIGHTS NOT ONLY NEVER FOUGHT FOR MORE THAN A DECADE, they feasted on weaker opposition and shared the proceeds. So it did become a joke. When top fighters never fight, interest dies.

Regarding Vitali's retirement, Vitali Klitschko was off for more than a year when he retired in December 2013. He was going to be forced by the WBC to face Bermane Stiverne (his mandatory). The month before Vitali retired, Ukraine erupted in anti-government protests and Vitali was one of the leaders.

http://cdn1.thecomeback.com/queensb...s/sites/93/2014/02/vitali-klitschko-smoke.jpg
http://mit.zenfs.com/224/2014/01/VITALI-STRUGGLE-ATTACK-730.jpg

At that point, Vitali was 42 years old, had zero interest in boxing and quit. He was so gripped in the political scene at that time people were worried he was going to be killed.

There was no desire to start a camp to fight Stiverne and then have a camp to fight his brother when he was 43 years old. Politics in his home country became central to his life instead.

Are you that new of a fan that you weren't around like three years ago? (That's not an insult, just asking.)

 

Once there is one World Heavyweight Champion again, and the best fight the best again, people who came up during the Klitschkos' reign will get an idea of how big the heavyweight title is ... compared to the others ... and how much damage the Klitschkos did by keeping it split on purpose.

 

By your reply am I to assume that you believe they would have fought if not for the political situation?

I was following boxing but admittedly not as closely as now, I have kind of gravitated to and from the sport since childhood. I wouldn't be insulted, I don't mind being labelled a "casual" like some others here as I no doubt am in comparison to the majority of posters particularly in the classic section.

 

Some people need to get a grip, both brothers did right by not fighting each other. They had nothing to prove to anyone, just shows how gifted they were.

 

I'm sure when Vitali vacated the WBC belt, he and others at K2 figured Wlad would beat the lesser Stiverne as soon as the fight could be made. I don't think Vitali felt Stiverne was going to take the belt from him had Vitali decided to continue defending his title ... or that the WBC belt would be hard for Wlad to pick up if Vitali dropped it to concentrate on the problems in Ukraine.

Unfortunately for them, as soon as Stiverne won the vacant title, the WBC said Stiverne had to fight Wilder before unifying with Wlad (who was already calling Bermane out). And Wlad started losing himself not too long after.

They milked their situation about as long as humanly possible.

 

Yes they did have something to prove.

They could've proved who was the real Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Who was the best heavyweight in the world when the Klitschkos shared the title? Was it Vitali ... the deadly serious family man, who lived in Eastern Europe and had one foot in the political scene in Ulkraine ... or was it the surfing playboy Wlad who lived in California, banged Hollywood starlets and hung out with the Red Hot Chili Peppers?

That isn't too much to ask, considering they chose this profession, actively sought the titles and both insisted he was the best.

If two other heavyweight champions grab the belts, prove themselves to be the two best in the world, and refuse to fight for years while profiting off each others' defenses ... I hope you have the same attitude toward them.

Because while nearly every man who has fought for the world heavyweight championship wanted to prove he was the best of them all ... the Klitschkos proved you can make money beating lesser names and sharing the title ...

Which means I doubt it'll be the last time it happens.

 

I've got a brother myself and although we've been competitive all our lives and have had the odd quarrel no way in hell would I go through a training camp with the intentions of causing him harm, you're talking out of your arse I'm afraid.

 

Both were ring Magazine champion at different times. The Klitschko's were far from belt milkers. A belt milker would be Wilder, who has yet to defend against one top ten ranked Magazine contender.

Both Vitali and Wlad fought plenty of Ring Magazine contenders, including some #1, #2, and #3 ranked opponents. Combined they beat more top ten ranked opponents than either Ali or Louis. Indivuduually both had excellent title records.

Outside of not fighting each other, they didn't miss out on much. In fact, Vitali was ducked by both Haye and Valuev and Lewis obviously wasn't interested the the re-match he kept talking about either.

A fighter can only meet his best options, which both of them did on many occasions,

 

You and your brother don't beat up other human beings for a living, do you?

Do you punch men in the head and try to knock them unconscious to pay the bills?

That's the beauty in their excuse. Most people would say "I'd never hit my brother, either." And they can count the number of people they may have struck in their entire lives on a finger or two.

Because most people don't beat the living hell out of other human beings for their livelihood, either.

The Klitschkos did. They not only did it .... they LOVED IT. They loved beating another human being unconscious ... or torturing another guy with the jab like they were pulling the wings off a butterfly ... and once he was rendered totally defenseless ... then they'd go in for the kill.

They loved it.

And they discussed beating the crap out of each other in the gym, too. They had no qualms about hitting each other.

Until they discovered they could just beat up lesser guys and win their belts ... and share the money.

 

Well, if Wilder and Joshua decide to hold all the belts and start their own promotional company and never fight ... I hope everyone says "it just shows how much talent they both have" ...

But I doubt that will happen.