Klitschkos have crushed the myth

what do you mean by that? care to explain (i know what the word means but not sure why did you use it)?

 

I'm not going to give you a hard time, but you'd probably be as close as you'd need to be by referring to them as Slavs(Russian, Ukranian, Polish, Belarus, Check, Slovakian), unless of course you're talking about Hungarians, Romanians, Khazaks, Uzbeks, Tatars, Latvians or Estonians...blah blah blah
Yeah, ok, you might as well call them Eastern Europeans.

 

Cant see that many ukranians being happy to be called russians or maybe the other way around too, i wonder are ukranians more pissed than canadians being mixed up for americans

 

Anyone who doesn't see the correlation between the NBA, NFL, cable television, PPV, and the decline in HW boxing is a fool. The Klits are beneficiaries of this.

If it had nothing to do with this then please tell me why the Euro fighters are not dominating in weight classes where guys are too small to hope to play in the NBA or NFL? Those weight classes look "surprisingly" the same as they always where.

I am not knocking Euro fighters, but you guys are really trying to say something other than what you are directly saying.

 

I mostly agree. The Klitschkos would have given headaches to the vast majority of American heavyweights from any era.

A guy like Wladimir moves quite well on his feet for a guy his size. His combination of athleticism and power could very well overwhelm many greats from the past.

I think the peek-a-boo style would be his biggest problem. I definitely see a prime Mike knocking him out.

 

Doubtful and if so, because of skill or skillful use of size?

Both Klits are great athletes and even greater professionals, but I don't see them standing a chance in the 60's-90's.

 

I do, but yes their size plays a big role in it. Through the years, they've mastered the art of fighting tall and they happen to tower in size most heavyweights from the time span you mentioned. I just think their ability to properly use their size would quite often overcome the fact that some guys from the past may be a little more athletically gifted.

 

I understand this is just the european inferiority complex at play with a bit of racial elements, but I'll answer anyway. Anyone who knows boxing knows that our best haven't been boxing in years. Even in the smaller divisions there aren't as many American boxers as there used to be. Our athletes are in other sports(NBA, NFL, and MLB) and boxing isn't any where near as popular in this country as it used to be. People have been pointing this out since Holyfield and Lewis(not American) got old.

Are you guys really dumb enough to believe that Calvin Brock, John Ruiz, Eddie Chambers, Hasim Rahman, Chris Arreola, Lamon Brewster, or Ray Austin are as good as Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Riddick Bowe, or Evander Holyfield? Compare those names and think about it. Old Shannon Briggs won a Heavyweight title during the european "REIGN OF TERROR" for goodness sakes. That's the same guy that couldn't get any where near a title during the 90's when he was in his prime. Add to the fact that a 46 year old Holyfield lost a controversial decision to Valuev and it just proves that this debate is stupid and not worth anyone's time.

 

There's a bigger correlation between how boxing is marketed to kids as (opposed to basketball and football) and the declining numbers that have been going on since boxing was forbidden to be a school sport. That was the first domino tipping. There were also a number of other factors at play- better economic options, corruption, etc.

Ironically enough, though, people have their timelines way off on when the decline actually started happening and are missing the big picture by using the "quick fix" excuse of pointing to the NBA and NFL and figuring the problem's just started since the 90's. From a pure numbers standpoint, the best American boxing has ever been was in the 1920's and 1930's where there were annually 8-10 thousand licensed pros in the US alone. The numbers have been declining ever since, and while people don't want to hear it, the overall talent pool was already drying up by the 60's and 70's, let alone the 80's and 90's.

The only difference? There may have been fewer Americans boxing, but there still wasn't much professional foreign competition at the top level. Nothing exists in a vaccuum- people around the world saw our fighters and the attention and prestige they got, and started emulating them. Vitali got his inspiration watching Mike Tyson on a raggedy old TV, for example. The increased globalization of the sport is what's exposed boxing as a declining mainstream sport in our county, but the bleeding's been going on for decades. The only difference is now the rest of the world's caught up and we've had an unprecedented amount of foreign champions across the board as a result. People didn't pay as much attention to the decline because the champs were still American and we've been fortunate to have a couple superstars like Ali and Tyson that generated a ton of interest.

If people use the argument that the Klitschko's are taking advantage of the decline in US boxing competition, it's only fair to hold every champion of the last 40-50 years to that same standard because none of them won their titles when boxing was the most popular sport, along with baseball, measured by both fans and participants.

As a result, I don't see holding that against the Klitschko's being very fair for anyone. I give credit to the guys who won in the ring because to discredit them using "what-if" scenarios like "our best fighters aren't fighting" means that everyone across the board starts to look bad because of that and I'd rather find a reason to give a fighter credit than to discredit him.

 

Nationality has no bearing on how good a fighter is.

 

Great post, great analysis. :good

 

They have certainly crushed the idea that large (over 6' 6") heavyweights lacks skill and athleticism.

First time in history, have there has been such big, AND good heavyweight fighters. That is quite amazing.

And their accademic achievements are another story, entirely.

 

Its easy to come up with excuses, euros could just as easy say that the overwhelming popularity of football (soccer) in europe takes the vast majority of athletes in the lower and middle weight classes while also pointing out that this is not necessarily the case with american sports where smaller guys are often squeezed out and may therefore look to other sports for their careers. Yet almost everytime we hear the heavyweight division mentioned americans are out with the same old line everytime, our best guys are playing other sports!! I dont hear anywhere close to the amount of excuses coming from the other side. In fact i dont hear any at all.

 

NiKO and NiKO only crushed that myth.

 

Will you please ****ing post about something else for once?