Dominance is Boring (Heavyweight Scene)

I found this story on a boxing blog while doing some heavyweight research. I'm not sure if I can post the link, but I'd like to post the story regardless. If this is not allowed I apologize.

Since the retirement of Lennox Lewis the heavyweight division has been considered the wasteland of boxing by many. Since Lewis’s departure the division has been taken over by the two headed monster known as the Klitschko brothers. Many people complain that since they have a monopoly on the division they making it boring. Additionally the two have said multiple times that they won’t fight each other, instead feasting on what many people consider weak challengers.


I look at it a different way. If you look at the Klitschko brothers as one, they rule the division in mostly the same fashion Lewis did. I think fans have become bored with one (Lewis) or two (Klitschko’s) dominating the heavyweight scene. Instead of seeing these fighters as some of the best of the era, they become disinterested because with the exception of a few surprises, the division has been ruled by the same three men for 15 years. It’s easy to become more interested in the smaller weight divisions when they have more competitive fights, which in turn, breeds new superstars. In turn, dominance is boring.


Lewis’s heavyweight division may go down in history as being a little better than this, the Klitschko’s era, but is it really that much better. Again, we’ll leave the Klitschko’s as a single entity, while comparing some of the top challengers of their era to the top challengers of Lewis’s era.
The top challengers in Lewis’s era included: Oliver Mccall, Ray Mercer, Andrew Golota, Evander Holyfield, David Tua, Hasim Rahman, Mike Tyson (stretch?), and Vitali Klitchko.
The Lewis era ended with his fight against Vitali in June of 2003. Naturally, this is when the Klitschko era began. Here are the top challengers for both of the Klitschko’s since then: Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders, Samuel Peter, Chris Byrd, Chris Arreola, Lamon Brewster, Ruslan Chagaev, Tony Thompson, and Eddie Chambers.


(Note: John Ruiz was one of the top challengers in both of these era’s, but none of three superstars of these eras fought him. The reasons are numerous, but focus on one thing. John Ruiz is/was boring as hell, but his “unique” “style” of “fighting” made him a tough challenger. Just ask Golata, Rahman, and Holyfield.)


I admit, right off the bat Lewis has the flashier looking names, but when you look at both sets of names side by side, when keeping in mind the times of their career’s when they became a challenger to one of the three dominate champions it isn’t as one-sided as it seems. If you put the top challengers in Lewis’s era in a round-robin tournament against the top challengers of the Klitschko’s who gets the most wins? I will be realistic and say Lewis’s era comes out slightly ahead, but am I totally out of my mind to think Peter, the Sanders that beat Wlad Klitschko, Thompson and Byrd (who could theoretically be on both lists, but Lewis refused to fight him) can’t hang with those versions of Golata, Rahman (that beat Lewis) McCall (also beat Lewis) Tua and Holyfield? Does Lewis’s version of Tyson unequivocally beat any of the guys on Klitschko’s list? In my opinion, my fictional round robin tournament is closer than your average boxing fan would think.


In addition to boxing fans growing bored of the heavyweight division because of the dominance of these three guys, American fans have grown bored because the country hasn’t had one of it’s own ruling the division since Holyfield. American’s like to cheer on their own, as most countries like to cheer on their own. But hear this, heavyweight boxing is not on life support. The Klitschko’s, David Haye (to a degree), Valuev, fill arena’s all over Europe every single one of their fights. The money being made for the top guys is among the best of any fighter in any division, and the fans are rapid. So, in terms of heavyweight boxing in Americans, it looks like it could be a personal problem.


I said this about Lewis and I feel the same way about the Klitschko’s, if you wiped them off the face of the boxing landscape we would have thought both era’s as being pretty competitive. If we had competitive fights between B and C level fighters, instead of three A + fighters beating up on all those fighters than these era’s would go down as being better, if not great era’s of heavyweight boxing. After all, if there are no legit A+ fighters around than it makes everyone else look better.


If the Yankees, Lakers, and Patriots won every title since 1995 then MLB, NBA, and the NFL wouldn’t be as popular as they are today. I’m personally a fan of dominance, but I’m biased, I’ve loved the heavyweights since I was a flyweight. If fans want to see this as hope, then be happy that Vitali is close to retiring, and Wlad is probably not that far behind. However, for the next two years I expect the two headed monster to remain on top.


Dominance is boring.

 

Tyson's dominance lasted just over 4 years from his first title. After that the title was passed around between Douglas, Holyfield, Bowe, Moorer, an era many consider exciting. Also, Tyson was not only a once in a life time boxer but a once in a life time person, definitely entertaining. However, we're going on 15 years with three people dominating the entire division.

Joe Louis - I would have to do more research on him. Again, i think he's an enigma because he owns the all-time record for longest champ and longest heavyweight reign, but I have no idea if the press thought his "bum of the month" club was exciting or not.

 

Well, it's not my point to start an argument, just the point of the story was dominance over 15 years and how it has made fans grow boring. While it didn't contradict what you said you wrote it in a post made about the dominance of three boxers over 15 years. I agree, Tyson wasn't boring, nor Patterson, nor Louis.

 

Teddy Atlas trained Kirk Johnson?