Why do the Klitschko's get so much disrespect?

not only that, but the fact that their fans say "They" rule the heavyweight division, makes their accomplishments look ****.

vitali beating a decent opponent every now and then and never fighting wlad himself takes away from wladmir's achievement as champ

 

Why do Klittards keep on making threads exactly like this one?

No other group of fans does the same, its beyond pathetic.

 

your ****ing delusional, there hasn't been an american heavyweight hero active who wasn't old and/or way out of their prime weight range (toney and holyfield) since even before the klitschkos became serious contenders, and heavyweight was on the decline before the klitschkos established themselves as such. the klitschkos showed up, and as world class athletes, with a handful of rough spots dominated a historically weak division.

 

The Klitschko brothers recieve a lot of criticism most of it unwarranted. you want to talk about a weak division? With the exception of Ali, Frazier, Foreman every other decade can be considered weak Larry Holmes fought a long string of mediocre fighters (not discussing Ali in 1980) after that it was one champion handing it to the next no real dominance at the same time. Tyson then Holy then Lewis

Both of these men come into every single fight, in shape, with respect for the other fighter and win. you can give them a hard time for "Being Boring" but their KO percentages are impressive. I liken it to watching a soccer game, there is excitement during each run at the goal then when they finally score it's awesome.

We could also debate that their resume's are just as impressive as say Mike Tyson's his biggest fights were all losses Lewis, Holy etc he had some good wins but by no means did he take down any world beaters. unless they were well past their prime...someone mentioned Mercer on Wlad's resume, is that any worse than Larry Holmes on Tyson's?

Critics yell loudest when they have little substance. I for one believe both Klitschko brothers are a credit to the sport and do generate a lot of excitement in a division that sorely needs it. argue their merits all you want but in 10 years their true relevance and contribution to the sport will be more appreciated

 

................seriously?

 

so you're saying Mike Tyson beat a Prime Larry Holmes, they were both very young strong fighters who beat a fading champion (Mercer older than Holmes) but the question isn't outrageous

 

NO, only YOU have written those words.

And you wrote those words so that you could win an argument.

Sadly for you its not the argument that the OP was talking about.


you need to try again, and this time stick to the issue involved.

 

Tyson and Lewis were the very epitome of dominant.

a post that refers to itself. magic.

 

an even older holmes beat a decade younger mercer. soooo yeah its outrageous

 

so herol, the part about dominance was that none of them were at their prime at the same time... each dominated the division for a period themselves

The Prime Larry Holmes comment was asking Ghetto to clarify his post of "seriously"

I'm sorry if english isn't your first language, if that's the case then I can see the misunderstanding

 

I respect your opinion however that doesn't preclude the validity of my comparison...

 

Yes it does.

Holmes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mercer

 

The concept of young fighters beating a faded "Name" fighter remains

 

thats a very good post very well put together

 

Holmes is more than a name fighter, he's a heavyweight ATG. Mercer was never more than a contender.