Klit vs Klit vs legacy damage.......

Pleantyf heavyweights have built impresive legacies without meeting the best available challenger.

John L Sullvan did not meet Peter Jackson.

Jim Jeffries didn not meet Jack Johnson when it would have counted and vice versa.

Jack Dempsey did not meet Harry Wills.

It is highly debatable whether Larry Holmes met the best challengers available during his title reign.

Mike Tyson did not meet Evander Holyfield when it would have counted e.g. before he went to prison.

Lennox Lewis did not meet either Holyfield or Tyson when it would have counted for the most.

 

Not that much.

Jack Johnson fought Sam Langford, but never defended againt him.

Dempsey never fought Wills. This point counts regarding both their legends, because according to guys on these pages, it was not entirely Dempsey's fault, and Wills had a part in it by pricing himself too high. Yet both are considered legends.

Joe Louis failed to fight a host of black contenders. There was a great thread on it awhile back.

Marciano, never fought Nino Valdez. This is a huge stretch, but there are guys on these boards who feel that he might not have wanted a part of a big, modern sized heavy (I am not one of them).

Floyd Patterson never fought anybody.

Holmes openly ducked Page and Thomas.

Bowe threw a belt in the trash rather than face Lewis.

And yet all these men are still considered great. Seems to be we can cut the brothers some slack.

 

And they all lost points for their legacy for it. Some worse than others. For instance, as JT said, Holyfield did everything to fight Tyson, but Mike lost to the tune-up fight Douglas and later pulled out of a scheduled match, where Cooper replaced the replacement. Tyson dropped his belt to avoid Lewis, as did Bowe.


In case of the Klitschko's, it does hurt their legacy. Though it should be said that Vitali wasn't seen as a main player until the Lewis fight in 2003, and retired in 2004 until 2008. Wlad, on the other hand, was a top contender from 2000 to 2003 (Sanders) or 2004 (Brewster), and re-established himself in 2005 (Peter), clearly being the best, until Vitali came back in 2008, who (in my opinion) has only proven himself to be the clear #2 after his additional wins over Gomez and Arreola.

So realistically, their overlap of being the clear #1 and #2 is only one or two years up to now. Nothing that compares to Dempsey and Wills (7 years), but perhaps to Holmes-Thomas or Jeffries-Johnson? Although, Johnson did lose to Marvin Hart in 1905..


In the end, i can understand them not fighting each other, but it will be something missing on their resume. However, beating all up-and-comers still means a lot.

 

And I am pretty sure Valdez would have gotting his title shot had he beat Moore, or Baker, and look good in some of his 54 fights, instand of stinking em out. You have to win impressive in that era also.

 

Yep, it hurts their legacy a little bit. And there's nothing anyone can do about it, that's just the way it is and that's completely fair and justified for me.

 

As I said, its a stretch to me. I have heard the argument made is all.

Behind Alis, Louis, Lewis, Holmes and maybe Foreman and Holy, Marciano is favorite heavy.