View Full Version : Is this heavyweight climate the worst in history?


KO'er
10-11-2011, 05:22 AM
There has been no good American heavyweights, only the 2 Klitschko brothers. David Haye came along in 2010 but he was all.

We all know who the Klitschko's are going to face next and we all know they are going to beat them, proceeding cautiously, using the jab and more than likely getting a unspectacular late stoppage. People say the early 80's was bad, which it was, but I don't think it was as bad as this age.

Ali was there until 1978, Norton until 1980, Holmes until 1985. But though when Holmes winning all the time was similar to the Klitschko's, from 1978-1985 (when Holmes reigned) was only 7 years. Tyson hit the scene then. We waited 8 years for Wladimir Klitschko VS David Haye, which was the biggest Heavyweight fight by far since Lewis-Klitschko. I don't think we are going to get another Tyson coming anytime soon, cleaning out the division.

IMO this is the worst age in history for heavyweight boxing. What do you guys think?

JAB5239
10-11-2011, 05:58 AM
There has been no good American heavyweights, only the 2 Klitschko brothers. David Haye came along in 2010 but he was all.

We all know who the Klitschko's are going to face next and we all know they are going to beat them, proceeding cautiously, using the jab and more than likely getting a unspectacular late stoppage. People say the early 80's was bad, which it was, but I don't think it was as bad as this age.

Ali was there until 1978, Norton until 1980, Holmes until 1985. But though when Holmes winning all the time was similar to the Klitschko's, from 1978-1985 (when Holmes reigned) was only 7 years. Tyson hit the scene then. We waited 8 years for Wladimir Klitschko VS David Haye, which was the biggest Heavyweight fight by far since Lewis-Klitschko. I don't think we are going to get another Tyson coming anytime soon, cleaning out the division.

IMO this is the worst age in history for heavyweight boxing. What do you guys think?

This is the worst in my opinion, followed by the years....
1928 to 1935
1978 to 1985
1955 to 1963
1915 to 1928
1937 to 1945
1985 to 1992
1903 to 1908
1937 to 1945
1963 to 1970
1899 to 1905
1908 to 1915
1993 to 2003
1970 to 1978

Anything before 1899 I simply don't want to speculate on and I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time. But right now as a quick list and not going over everything in detail this is how I see the heavyweight divisions rankings. I know some era's are shorter than others and There are some years left out and some years overlap. Don't ask me to explain that other than thats just the way my mind works. :dunno:

BattlingNelson
10-11-2011, 07:34 AM
It is NOT the worst. The problem is that there's 2 brothers on top who's far and away superiour to everybody else, but at least there's 2 great fighters and those 2 would be competitive in any era. So the problem is that the 2 top fighters will never fight each other (Which is understandable).

I think the era after Dempsey/Tunney (30'ies) was worse as was the era after Ali and possibly also the later and post Marciano era.

New England
10-11-2011, 01:08 PM
It is NOT the worst. The problem is that there's 2 brothers on top who's far and away superiour to everybody else, but at least there's 2 great fighters and those 2 would be competitive in any era. So the problem is that the 2 top fighters will never fight each other (Which is understandable).

I think the era after Dempsey/Tunney (30'ies) was worse as was the era after Ali and possibly also the later and post Marciano era.




a terrific point that cannot be overstated

who is to say the klitschko brothers (were they not brothers, of course) wouldnt have some terrific fights against eachother.


i will say this, the top ten is weak and the journeymen and fringe contenders are all out of shape, which is a relatively new phenomenon



and also i think we can all agree that american talented big men don't box anymore, and that's not likely to change any time soon

sure, we might get lucky and have a len bias type talent born next to a boxing gym, but he's likely to play basketball or football or even hockey and baseball and get recruited to play high level collegiately or even get drafted to a pro team as a youth

SBleeder
10-11-2011, 01:16 PM
85-90 was the worst IMO. At least the early 80s had Holmes.

SCtrojansbaby
10-11-2011, 01:53 PM
The heavyweight division was FAR FAR worse circa 1982 then it is right now there is no way anybody who isn't biased can say otherwise

RubenSonny
10-11-2011, 02:05 PM
It is NOT the worst. The problem is that there's 2 brothers on top who's far and away superiour to everybody else, but at least there's 2 great fighters and those 2 would be competitive in any era. So the problem is that the 2 top fighters will never fight each other (Which is understandable).

I think the era after Dempsey/Tunney (30'ies) was worse as was the era after Ali and possibly also the later and post Marciano era.

What's the bracket for that?

Ziggy Stardust
10-11-2011, 02:07 PM
There has been no good American heavyweights, only the 2 Klitschko brothers. David Haye came along in 2010 but he was all.

We all know who the Klitschko's are going to face next and we all know they are going to beat them, proceeding cautiously, using the jab and more than likely getting a unspectacular late stoppage. People say the early 80's was bad, which it was, but I don't think it was as bad as this age.

Ali was there until 1978, Norton until 1980, Holmes until 1985. But though when Holmes winning all the time was similar to the Klitschko's, from 1978-1985 (when Holmes reigned) was only 7 years. Tyson hit the scene then. We waited 8 years for Wladimir Klitschko VS David Haye, which was the biggest Heavyweight fight by far since Lewis-Klitschko. I don't think we are going to get another Tyson coming anytime soon, cleaning out the division.

IMO this is the worst age in history for heavyweight boxing. What do you guys think?

Easily the worst. It actually makes the fat coke heads of the '80s look semi-competent and the '80s were (now) the second worst era for Heavies. Only biased Klitlickers think otherwise. David Haye the best contender of this era? Please. Haye loses to Tucker, Thomas, Witherspoon, Dokes, and probably Page too.

Poet

SCtrojansbaby
10-11-2011, 02:20 PM
I'll take Haye Adamek Chambers Povetkin and Dimetrenko over Weatherspoon, Dokes and freaking Gerrie Coetzee every day of the week.

Of course 2 great fighters(Wlad and Vitali) > 1 great fighter(Holmes)

Greatest1942
10-11-2011, 02:46 PM
This is the worst in my opinion, followed by the years....
1928 to 1935
1978 to 1985
1955 to 1963
1915 to 1928
1937 to 1945
1903 to 1908
1985 to 1992
1963 to 1970
1899 to 1905
1908 to 1915
1993 to 2003
1970 to 1978

Anything before 1899 I simply don't want to speculate on and I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time. But right now as a quick list and not going over everything in detail this is how I see the heavyweight divisions rankings. I know some era's are shorter than others and There are some years left out and some years overlap. Don't ask me to explain that other than thats just the way my mind works. :dunno:

I will never have the "1937 to 1945" era that high on the worst list. IMO it was equal to some eras you listed below.

JAB5239
10-11-2011, 05:34 PM
I will never have the "1937 to 1945" era that high on the worst list. IMO it was equal to some eras you listed below.

Looking at it I think I moved it and actually meant to move 85 to 92. I'll edit it.

rorymac
10-11-2011, 05:40 PM
I'll take Haye Adamek Chambers Povetkin and Dimetrenko over Weatherspoon, Dokes and freaking Gerrie Coetzee every day of the week.

Of course 2 great fighters(Wlad and Vitali) > 1 great fighter(Holmes)
Why do you post in the history section if your mind is so closed to the past???

them_apples
10-11-2011, 06:47 PM
the heavyweight division has often gone through shaky times.

TBear
10-11-2011, 07:00 PM
I'll take Haye Adamek Chambers Povetkin and Dimetrenko over Weatherspoon, Dokes and freaking Gerrie Coetzee every day of the week.

Of course 2 great fighters(Wlad and Vitali) > 1 great fighter(Holmes)

This is humor right?

tyger
10-11-2011, 08:57 PM
This is the worst and weakest era!

McGoorty
10-11-2011, 09:10 PM
There has been no good American heavyweights, only the 2 Klitschko brothers. David Haye came along in 2010 but he was all.

We all know who the Klitschko's are going to face next and we all know they are going to beat them, proceeding cautiously, using the jab and more than likely getting a unspectacular late stoppage. People say the early 80's was bad, which it was, but I don't think it was as bad as this age.

Ali was there until 1978, Norton until 1980, Holmes until 1985. But though when Holmes winning all the time was similar to the Klitschko's, from 1978-1985 (when Holmes reigned) was only 7 years. Tyson hit the scene then. We waited 8 years for Wladimir Klitschko VS David Haye, which was the biggest Heavyweight fight by far since Lewis-Klitschko. I don't think we are going to get another Tyson coming anytime soon, cleaning out the division.

IMO this is the worst age in history for heavyweight boxing. What do you guys think?
It must be close to the worst, but take Tyson out and 1983 to 89 really stank.... god it was putrid seeing the trash they gave Mike to fight.

BennyST
10-11-2011, 11:10 PM
a terrific point that cannot be overstated

who is to say the klitschko brothers (were they not brothers, of course) wouldnt have some terrific fights against eachother.


i will say this, the top ten is weak and the journeymen and fringe contenders are all out of shape, which is a relatively new phenomenon



and also i think we can all agree that american talented big men don't box anymore, and that's not likely to change any time soon

sure, we might get lucky and have a len bias type talent born next to a boxing gym, but he's likely to play basketball or football or even hockey and baseball and get recruited to play high level collegiately or even get drafted to a pro team as a youth

This is what it all boils down to for me. It's not the top guy, or guys. Those two are great fighters who would be up there in any era. But, a division is not made good, great or even close to it by two fighters alone. Especially if those two fighters don't/can't fight each other for whatever reason. I know they are brothers, but that still means that the two best fighters of the last six/seven years haven't and won't ever fight each other.

Nonetheless, it comes down to the rest of the field for me. What makes an era great is not the champion or champions, but the top ten and other fringe contenders. This top ten is, in my opinion, the worst I have ever seen maybe from any division in any era. The two top fighters are consistently in great shape, can fight a full championship fight without gassing out completely and are clearly elite world class athletes. The same absolutely cannot be said for the people that pass themselves off as professional fighters of world class.

I think the previous eras that some are saying equals this one in it's terrible state are overlooking the general talent of the rest of the field in comparison. I'm certainly not saying they are great eras by any means, but this isn't actually so bad at all: There were a lot of highly talented fighters and although some were inconsistent, they were overall in shape, came to fight, highly skilled and when at their best were able to take on anyone and give a great, hard fight.
1985
Michael Spinks, Champion
Pinklon Thomas
Larry Holmes
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tubbs
Greg Page
Gerrie Coetzee
Trevor Berbick
Carl Williams
Mike Weaver
Michael Dokes

A few years earlier when Holmes was still king.
Larry Holmes, Champion
Gerrie Coetzee
Greg Page
Michael Dokes
Pinklon Thomas
Tim Witherspoon
Mike Weaver
David Bey
John Tate
Trevor Berbick
Frank Bruno

Years later when Tyson was the man.
Title Vacant
Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Michael Dokes
Francesco Damiani
Tim Witherspoon
Orlin Norris
James (Buster) Douglas
Carl Williams
Razor Ruddock
Gary Mason

When Lewis was at his best and Holyfield was still great.
Title Vacant
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Michael Grant
Michael Moorer
Shannon Briggs
Chris Byrd
Ike Ibeabuchi
David Tua
Andrew Golota
Hasim Rahman

A few years earlier when Bowe was daddy of the division. That's a solid top ten.
Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Michael Moorer
Evander Holyfield
Bruce Seldon
Frank Bruno
George Foreman
Alexander Zolkin
Henry Akinwande

I just struggle to see a comparison to this.
Current rankings:
Wladimir Klitschko
Vitali Klitschko
Alexander Povetkin
Tomasz Adamek
David Haye (retired?)
Eddie Chambers
Robert Helenius
Alexander Dimitrenko
Dennis Boytsov
Chris Arreola

BennyST
10-11-2011, 11:38 PM
A lot of the guys that aren't well remembered by today's boxing and heavyweight division fans, such as Greg Page, Tim Witherspoon, Dokes etc. will be thought of as nothing and maybe on the level of an Eddie Chambers, Chris Arreola, Dimitrenko or something like that.

However, each and every one of those above were incredibly talented fighters. I don't believe they reached their potential, possibly because of some exceptional champions at the very top, and maybe even underachieved but overall they were, and would have been, a handful for anyone at the time.

Someone like Page or Dokes makes each and every prospect today look comparatively unskilled, untalented and not much of a prospect at all.
A 15 fight young up and coming prospect in Greg Page:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IcX5eH4QD-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What was considered the future great of the heavyweight division a number of years back now: Undefeated at about 20-0 here.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/q-3fCd_LZVU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Two of the lesser known champs of that era by many people today. Mike Weaver and Pinklon Thomas.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cUYaRzGDhBQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

One of the best champs of the previous eras against one of the top ten contenders (and brief champs) of that 80's era. Holyfield and Michael Dokes.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YtvA4STO6Fk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When I look at the general skill, will, and all around ability, it all seems closer to me. The majority of the top ten are all very, very good fighters. There were the standouts of course, but often there rest of the competition was extremely close, hard fought and hard won and full of great talent and those same fighters were all good enough to challenge and really test the top guys. It just doesn't seem that way anymore. A lot of the top ten, apart from the two stand out fighters, just can't fight a full fight well, at a good pace, with skill.

SCtrojansbaby
10-12-2011, 12:30 AM
This is humor right?

No Terrible Tim Weatherspoon and Gerrie Coetzee are worse then any of todays contenders

Scott9945
10-12-2011, 12:55 AM
No Terrible Tim Weatherspoon and Gerrie Coetzee are worse then any of todays contenders

You have no idea what you are talking about. Spoon beats all the current contenders. Coetzee was as good as any of them too.

SCtrojansbaby
10-12-2011, 02:18 AM
You have no idea what you are talking about. Spoon beats all the current contenders. Coetzee was as good as any of them too.

I would take Haye Adamek and Povetkin to beat Terrible Tim Weatherspoon.

Scott9945
10-12-2011, 03:22 AM
I would take Haye Adamek and Povetkin to beat Terrible Tim Weatherspoon.

Not me. And the name is Witherspoon.

them_apples
10-12-2011, 04:01 AM
I would take Haye Adamek and Povetkin to beat Terrible Tim Weatherspoon.

I certainly wouldnt

KO'er
10-12-2011, 04:54 AM
Lets face it, aside from Povetkin*, was the last major contender out there against the Klitschko's. He won titles a lower weight classes and looked the best of the pack, but he was too small in the end for Vitali. He came in at 216lbs but that was 216lbs with much muscle added on, he still had a 175lbs man's chin. If he was naturally around the 220lbs range, he would have fared much much better.

*With Povetkin, it was only when the WBA made Wladimir's title "WBA Super Heavyweight" did Povetkin win the vacant "WBA Normal Heavyweight" (my words) title. Even though he is a champ, and I recognize his championship status, he won against a fighter who Wladimir KO'd before and who I think Vitali would beat too.

These factors don't look good when assessing the strength of the top 10 of this era.

BKM-2010
10-12-2011, 04:18 PM
Most eras have a dominant champion. Most of them aren''t that competitive like in the 70s and 90s. Today we have not 1 but 2 dominant champions. Good enough for me.

Greatest1942
10-12-2011, 05:55 PM
Most eras have a dominant champion. Most of them aren''t that competitive like in the 70s and 90s. Today we have not 1 but 2 dominant champions. Good enough for me.

Good for you...atleast its good enough for someone...two dominant champs who never fights each other.

Ziggy Stardust
10-12-2011, 08:41 PM
I certainly wouldnt

Adamek would have had his career ended at Cruiserweight by Evander Holyfield.....he wouldn't have gotten a chance to move up and get decapitated by Witherspoon :cool9:

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
10-12-2011, 08:43 PM
I certainly wouldnt

Povetkin = age 32 with 22 career fights all versus journeymen :hahahaha9:

Poet

Scott9945
10-12-2011, 10:22 PM
Povetkin = age 32 with 22 career fights all versus journeymen :hahahaha9:

Poet

He looked like a genuine contender until he foolishly hired Teddy Atlas, the most overrated trainer ever.

Ziggy Stardust
10-12-2011, 11:24 PM
He looked like a genuine contender until he foolishly hired Teddy Atlas, the most overrated trainer ever.

Eh, he has some natural talent but at the rate he's going by the time he gets the experience to make use of that talent it's going to be time for him to retire. He's basically squandered his career before it even got started.

Poet

JAB5239
10-13-2011, 02:59 AM
Most eras have a dominant champion. Most of them aren''t that competitive like in the 70s and 90s. Today we have not 1 but 2 dominant champions. Good enough for me.

Sorry but there is no such thing as two champions, only one can be the best. So we're left with a champion and one legitimate contender, but they'll never fight each other. Wonderful!! As far as the rest of the division goes.....we have a former light heavyweight who is tough and has heart, but meager talent. We had a former cruiser weight who had talent but no heart. We have Wlad fighting ANOTHER cruiser weight who has never beaten a top heavyweight. His brother wanting to fight the guys his Wlad just beat and who was scared to throw punches and ran for his life. A couple of guys who are being hyped but have limited experience and a bunch of slobs unwilling to face each other so as they don't mess up a possible future payday. Don't fret though. This is the worst ever heavyweight era, but as soon as the Klits are gone it will be quickly replaced. Vitaly doesn't fight anybody good and Wlad is boring as hell, but they do have talent. When they go the heavyweight landscape can only get bleaker.

BKM-2010
10-14-2011, 05:19 AM
Sorry but there is no such thing as two champions, only one can be the best. So we're left with a champion and one legitimate contender, but they'll never fight each other. Wonderful!! As far as the rest of the division goes.....we have a former light heavyweight who is tough and has heart, but meager talent. We had a former cruiser weight who had talent but no heart. We have Wlad fighting ANOTHER cruiser weight who has never beaten a top heavyweight. His brother wanting to fight the guys his Wlad just beat and who was scared to throw punches and ran for his life. A couple of guys who are being hyped but have limited experience and a bunch of slobs unwilling to face each other so as they don't mess up a possible future payday. Don't fret though. This is the worst ever heavyweight era, but as soon as the Klits are gone it will be quickly replaced. Vitaly doesn't fight anybody good and Wlad is boring as hell, but they do have talent. When they go the heavyweight landscape can only get bleaker.

Well then open your eyes because right now we have TWO champions and they are both the best. Diffirent times. This is not 1988 anymore, this is how Boxing is nowadays. And yeah, I agree that once they are gone it will most likely be the worst era ever without a doubt. Unless somebody else comes along which is always possible. One thing about heavyweight eras though is that there is always a passing of the torch at some point.

As far as the rest of what you said, I already know that you don't like the Klits and I don't expect you to admit there are talented fighters now so I won't even bother to try and change your mind.

BKM-2010
10-14-2011, 05:24 AM
Good for you...atleast its good enough for someone...two dominant champs who never fights each other.

Most people I've spoken to wouldn't want to see two brothers who are close fight eachother in a proffessional prize fight.

JAB5239
10-14-2011, 05:59 AM
Well then open your eyes because right now we have TWO champions and they are both the best. Diffirent times. This is not 1988 anymore, this is how Boxing is nowadays. And yeah, I agree that once they are gone it will most likely be the worst era ever without a doubt. Unless somebody else comes along which is always possible. One thing about heavyweight eras though is that there is always a passing of the torch at some point.

As far as the rest of what you said, I already know that you don't like the Klits and I don't expect you to admit there are talented fighters now so I won't even bother to try and change your mind.

Sorry son but a title doesn't make you a champion and the times are irrelevant. One person can only be the heavyweight champion, there is no tag team. Wlad is the champ, thats it. Vitaly is the #1 contender. Because they won't fight, which is understandable, it weakens the division. This happens ANYTIME a champion and the best contender don't fight going back to Johnson-Langford and Dempsey-Wills. The rest of the division is rubbish.

As far as me supposedly not liking the Klits....I like them fine. They're both good people and are good fighters. But the fact is that Wlad is boring in mine and the opinions of many others, and he's been afraid to mix it up since his knockout losses even though he almost always has every conceivable advantage over his opponents. I like watching Vitaly but he is WAY over rated considering his comp. If you or anyone else would like to argue these facts with me than feel free. None of this makes me a hater, it makes me a realist.

BKM-2010
10-14-2011, 02:20 PM
Sorry son but a title doesn't make you a champion and the times are irrelevant. One person can only be the heavyweight champion, there is no tag team. Wlad is the champ, thats it. Vitaly is the #1 contender. Because they won't fight, which is understandable, it weakens the division. This happens ANYTIME a champion and the best contender don't fight going back to Johnson-Langford and Dempsey-Wills. The rest of the division is rubbish.

As far as me supposedly not liking the Klits....I like them fine. They're both good people and are good fighters. But the fact is that Wlad is boring in mine and the opinions of many others, and he's been afraid to mix it up since his knockout losses even though he almost always has every conceivable advantage over his opponents. I like watching Vitaly but he is WAY over rated considering his comp. If you or anyone else would like to argue these facts with me than feel free. None of this makes me a hater, it makes me a realist.

You're alone in that train of thought and it isn't based on facts. Yes we used to have one heavyweight champions but now there can be several. People are mixed in opinions on who's number 1 between Wlad and Vitali. They have both beaten top contenders for several years now and def titles, the only way to find out who is better is if they fight. But they won't, so they are the 2 champions of this era. It's a very special time and I don't think we'll ever see this again in the sport. I don't see how them not fighting eachother weakens the devision? I think

Vitali has beaten plenty of top fighters. Ranked high and in their prime. Peter, Arreola, Gomez, Solis, Adamek etc. You just think they're all bums but that's your opinion. Hopefully in the next few years young up and comers like Badr Hari can make the devision stronger.

joseph5620
10-14-2011, 02:33 PM
You're alone in that train of thought and it isn't based on facts. Yes we used to have one heavyweight champions but now there can be several. People are mixed in opinions on who's number 1 between Wlad and Vitali. They have both beaten top contenders for several years now and def titles, the only way to find out who is better is if they fight. But they won't, so they are the 2 champions of this era. It's a very special time and I don't think we'll ever see this again in the sport. I don't see how them not fighting eachother weakens the devision? I think

Vitali has beaten plenty of top fighters. Ranked high and in their prime. Peter, Arreola, Gomez, Solis, Adamek etc. You just think they're all bums but that's your opinion. Hopefully in the next few years young up and comers like Badr Hari can make the devision stronger.

No he isn't and what he said is factual. Historically, nobody is ever going to remember those fighters you mentioned as top heavyweights. Whether you like it or not.

BKM-2010
10-14-2011, 02:36 PM
No he isn't and what he said is factual. Nobody is ever going to remember those fighters you mentioned as top heavyweights.

Most younger boxing fans don't remember good fighters from a long time ago who aren't memorable but that doesn't mean they weren't solid competition and at the top in their time.

joseph5620
10-14-2011, 02:40 PM
Most younger boxing fans don't remember good fighters from a long time ago who aren't memorable but that doesn't mean they weren't solid competition and at the top in their time.

The difference is that a true top fighter in the historical context has a resume to back it up. Maybe you can name some quality wins by Arreola, Solis, Gomez, Adamek, or Peter in the heavyweight division. Vitali's best win is over a fighter that lost to Chad Dawson. That speaks for itself.

NChristo
10-14-2011, 03:04 PM
I don't really get how you can have more then 1 champion and how can 2 people be the 'best' ?, isn't that contradictory of the term ?.

There can only be one person who is the best, the same as there can only be one person who is the champion.

JAB5239
10-14-2011, 05:47 PM
You're alone in that train of thought and it isn't based on facts. Yes we used to have one heavyweight champions but now there can be several. People are mixed in opinions on who's number 1 between Wlad and Vitali. They have both beaten top contenders for several years now and def titles, the only way to find out who is better is if they fight. But they won't, so they are the 2 champions of this era. It's a very special time and I don't think we'll ever see this again in the sport. I don't see how them not fighting eachother weakens the devision? I think

Vitali has beaten plenty of top fighters. Ranked high and in their prime. Peter, Arreola, Gomez, Solis, Adamek etc. You just think they're all bums but that's your opinion. Hopefully in the next few years young up and comers like Badr Hari can make the devision stronger.

There have been multiple titles and claimants since the 1910's, but there is a certain lineage which determines who the true champion. Im not sure if Wlad has met all the requirements to be called a lineal champion yet, but he holds the majority of titles, has the better wins and is seen by experts as the more talented fighter. Seems Im not the only one riding that train of thought.

And if you can't see how a champion and his most threatening challenger not fighting weakens a division than I don't know what to tell you. I understand it under these circumstances, but it blurs the line on who is actually champion for some less knowledgeable fans.

Oh, and beating top fighters doesn't mean you're beating good fighters.

davros2010
10-14-2011, 06:33 PM
If wlad and Vitali fght one of them would lose and then he would be no1. Its a shame there brothers the division is in a terrible state as it is but a trilogy between those 2 would have at least given the division some life. Most of the young fighters are not really that good. I just hope someone like Michael Hunter jr can be good when he turns pro.

Marchegiano
10-15-2011, 02:18 PM
yes, it is the worst era of all time. **** you Marciano hatin' *****s. During his era you'll find the ***** with the most KO's, the ***** who held the belt the longest, and the undefeated *****. Telling how old they were doesn't negate anything I just said. Because those record still stand, and those figures were active together you have a period in time no boxer has come close to achieving . Every year their records stay strong their stock goes up. They did something your boy can't. It doesn't matter who the **** your boy is 'cause they ain't breaking those records no time soon. As great as Ali was, He was not so much better then his competition that he could go undefeated. Most people look at that as "strong era" I see it as a weak champion. A Strong champion dominates the **** out of the division. No era in boxing had such huge dominant forces then when Moore, Marciano, and Louis were all active. It's not weak. It's great...it's unbeaten to this day........Dealing with the K bros would be scary....I only weigh 168ish.....dealing with Louis and Marciano is god damn terrifying. Rocky's my man because Rocky's who I personally would be most afraid to face. Before anyone claim 180lbs ain't scary I agree there.....cracking skulls, haemorrhaging brains, punching 1000 lbs concrete cylinders and moving them a foot. over 25 opponents retiring with in 5 fights after facing him of those a good 17 reported admission the reasoning for retiring being the power Marciano delivered, and lastly to most terrifying piece of knowledge of them all. The Glock report! Rocky hits harder then a gun. He hits harder then a standard issued police side arm. If the bullet was the size of his fist then you'd be receiving a lighter blow then Rocky himself can deliver...wow..Oh yeah and the fact that it take about 80 psi on a knuckle, or roughly half-inch si, to break open a human skull. Rocky is a killer. Don't yall ****ing forget it.

BKM-2010
10-15-2011, 02:51 PM
The difference is that a true top fighter in the historical context has a resume to back it up. Maybe you can name some quality wins by Arreola, Solis, Gomez, Adamek, or Peter in the heavyweight division. Vitali's best win is over a fighter that lost to Chad Dawson. That speaks for itself.

You can check their records out for yourself. I expect you to brush off any other names since whoever seems to be on their resume isn't a good fighter to you.
Other good wins by Vitali was Sanders was a dangerous fighter, Larry Donald although past it was stopped for the first and only time against Vitali. Hide was alright. Adamek is not his best win.


There have been multiple titles and claimants since the 1910's, but there is a certain lineage which determines who the true champion. Im not sure if Wlad has met all the requirements to be called a lineal champion yet, but he holds the majority of titles, has the better wins and is seen by experts as the more talented fighter. Seems Im not the only one riding that train of thought.

And if you can't see how a champion and his most threatening challenger not fighting weakens a division than I don't know what to tell you. I understand it under these circumstances, but it blurs the line on who is actually champion for some less knowledgeable fans.

Oh, and beating top fighters doesn't mean you're beating good fighters.

Yes there have been multiple titles for a long time but not sifnificant enough untill the last 2 or 3 decades or so. A guy had to unify or do something as significant to be the "true heavyweight champion". I remember a period where Ruiz, Bird and Rahman etc were all holding titles and it wasn't clear who the top guy was. Point is, Wladimir is not considered to be the only heavyweight champion, otherwise I'd like to see some proof of that claim.

And really a champion not fighting a #1 contender doesn't weaken this devision. It will do nothing for the devision if Vitali and Wlad fought eachother except produce mega fights. They could start defeating eachother but this does not do ANYTHING for everybody else in the devision. They will all get picked apart by either Klitschko. A fight between the KLitschkos does nothing for them.

joseph5620
10-15-2011, 03:04 PM
You can check their records out for yourself. I expect you to brush off any other names since whoever seems to be on their resume isn't a good fighter to you.
Other good wins by Vitali was Sanders was a dangerous fighter, Larry Donald although past it was stopped for the first and only time against Vitali. Hide was alright. Adamek is not his best win.



Yes there have been multiple titles for a long time but not sifnificant enough untill the last 2 or 3 decades or so. A guy had to unify or do something as significant to be the "true heavyweight champion". I remember a period where Ruiz, Bird and Rahman etc were all holding titles and it wasn't clear who the top guy was. Point is, Wladimir is not considered to be the only heavyweight champion, otherwise I'd like to see some proof of that claim.

And really a champion not fighting a #1 contender doesn't weaken this devision. It will do nothing for the devision if Vitali and Wlad fought eachother except produce mega fights. They could start defeating eachother but this does not do ANYTHING for everybody else in the devision. They will all get picked apart by either Klitschko. A fight between the KLitschkos does nothing for them.






I don't have to check it. I already know they all have weak heavyweight resumes. You're the one who listed them as impressive opponents. So it's up to you to provide anything that supports that.


Sanders has one win over a top 10 heavyweight in his entire career. If Adamek was not Vitali's best win, what was? You're making the statements. Why not back them up?



If I'm just "brushing off these fighters" prove me wrong. What did they do and who did they beat in the heavyweight division that matters?

catskills23
10-15-2011, 04:00 PM
The heavyweight divsion is a comedy . I mean I found it hard enough explaining to my friend that there could be five heavyweight champions, as they were five heavyweight titles . But when I told him the other day that now you could have two heavyweight champions holding the same belt at the same time . He said in all seriousness " well does that mean if Povetkin loses his belt that Wlad loses it aswell" . I nearly fell of the chair I laughed so hard. I mean how can you expect anyone to watch boxing when you have this sort of nonsense . I mean could you imagine having a world cup where you would have five winners of the world cup, all calling themselves the best soccer team in the world . I mean the soccer fans wouldnt put up with it, so why do boxing fans put up with it?.

The_Demon
10-15-2011, 04:31 PM
The fact that David Haye is still the biggest draw in the division says a lot in my opinion,there simply isnt the buzz about the heavies that their used too be,and its easy too see why

JAB5239
10-15-2011, 04:37 PM
You can check their records out for yourself. I expect you to brush off any other names since whoever seems to be on their resume isn't a good fighter to you.
Other good wins by Vitali was Sanders was a dangerous fighter, Larry Donald although past it was stopped for the first and only time against Vitali. Hide was alright. Adamek is not his best win.



Yes there have been multiple titles for a long time but not sifnificant enough untill the last 2 or 3 decades or so. A guy had to unify or do something as significant to be the "true heavyweight champion". I remember a period where Ruiz, Bird and Rahman etc were all holding titles and it wasn't clear who the top guy was. Point is, Wladimir is not considered to be the only heavyweight champion, otherwise I'd like to see some proof of that claim.

And really a champion not fighting a #1 contender doesn't weaken this devision. It will do nothing for the devision if Vitali and Wlad fought eachother except produce mega fights. They could start defeating eachother but this does not do ANYTHING for everybody else in the devision. They will all get picked apart by either Klitschko. A fight between the KLitschkos does nothing for them.

Ridiculous! A fight between the two best fighters in any clears the air between who is the best fighter. Like i said, this isn't tag team wrestling, there can only be one world champion and it seems everyone here agree about that except you. The division stinks and its only looking to get worse.

BKM-2010
10-15-2011, 05:25 PM
I don't have to check it. I already know they all have weak heavyweight resumes. You're the one who listed them as impressive opponents. So it's up to you to provide anything that supports that.


Sanders has one win over a top 10 heavyweight in his entire career. If Adamek was not Vitali's best win, what was? You're making the statements. Why not back them up?



If I'm just "brushing off these fighters" prove me wrong. What did they do and who did they beat in the heavyweight division that matters?

Wait, so you already know all of their records and you think they're weak, yet you still want me to go and do all that work and post everything for you, even though you already flat out admitted that you think they're all weak? I won't even waste my time then since you've made it clear that you refuse to acknowledge anything.

BKM-2010
10-15-2011, 05:32 PM
Ridiculous! A fight between the two best fighters in any clears the air between who is the best fighter. Like i said, this isn't tag team wrestling, there can only be one world champion and it seems everyone here agree about that except you. The division stinks and its only looking to get worse.

Excuse me, you said it weakens the devision. You still fail to explain how if the Klitschkos were to fight eachother, it would make the devision stronger.

If they fought eachother the other heavyweights aren't magically going to get better. The devision indeed sucks but no big fight between the brothers would do anything to change that except "clear the air". Plus both guys have very diffirent styles and attributes, I wouldn't neccecarily say the winner of this matchup is clearly the better guy because like you said Wladimir has the better resume but imo he'd lose to his older brother.

joseph5620
10-15-2011, 06:30 PM
Wait, so you already know all of their records and you think they're weak, yet you still want me to go and do all that work and post everything for you, even though you already flat out admitted that you think they're all weak? I won't even waste my time then since you've made it clear that you refuse to acknowledge anything.

No, I simply asked you to explain why you believe they were impressive opponents on Vitali's resume. I already know they are not. It doesn't require "work" and it's very simple to figure out. If you don't have an answer for your claims, say so. Instead of blowing it up into something it's not like you always do when you have no answers.

JAB5239
10-15-2011, 10:17 PM
Excuse me, you said it weakens the devision. You still fail to explain how if the Klitschkos were to fight eachother, it would make the devision stronger.

If they fought eachother the other heavyweights aren't magically going to get better. The devision indeed sucks but no big fight between the brothers would do anything to change that except "clear the air". Plus both guys have very diffirent styles and attributes, I wouldn't neccecarily say the winner of this matchup is clearly the better guy because like you said Wladimir has the better resume but imo he'd lose to his older brother.

It does weaken the division just as it did every other time the two top fighters fail to get in the ring together. A winner establishes who is the more dominant of the two best fighters. And resume determines all time ranking, not who's better h2h. If the two best fighters are available to fight, they should fight. Obviously this is a more complex situation, but it still stands that it is better for boxing when this happens. One champion, a unified champion, is more recognizable to the general public and THAT is better for boxing. If you'd like I will put a poll up. I won't even put it here, I'll put it in NSB and I can promise that even the morons and nuthuggers will see things the same way I do. I'll bet you your 12 million points against my 100 million. Deal?

BKM-2010
10-16-2011, 08:57 AM
It does weaken the division just as it did every other time the two top fighters fail to get in the ring together. A winner establishes who is the more dominant of the two best fighters. And resume determines all time ranking, not who's better h2h. If the two best fighters are available to fight, they should fight. Obviously this is a more complex situation, but it still stands that it is better for boxing when this happens. One champion, a unified champion, is more recognizable to the general public and THAT is better for boxing. If you'd like I will put a poll up. I won't even put it here, I'll put it in NSB and I can promise that even the morons and nuthuggers will see things the same way I do. I'll bet you your 12 million points against my 100 million. Deal?

This is not the same as "every other time" in fact these 2 are both champions, neither is a #1 contender. Check the facts. Again, when I say rest of the devision, I mean all the other heavyweights besides the Klitschkos. How are they gonna get better if the klitschkos fight eachother like you claimed? Lets say they do fight and Vitali wins. Wladimir is still going to dominate every other boxer not named Vitali. Vitali is still going to dominate everybody. The devision sucks(I actually agree with this just not the worst ever overall) and no big fight between the 2 brothers is going to change that. It would just create a huge buzz for the sport, but it won't change the fact that nobody even comes close to either of the 2.

And I disagree in this case. In most cases yes it would be the best thing to have 1 champion. but to have 2 brothers dominating is just as lucrative for the sport imo. I don't think it would be a diffirence if one Klitschko was the only HW champion and he got there by beating up his own flesh and blood. Like I said this is a very rare and special time for combat sports to have 2 brothers dominating.
As for your bet offer, I don't care enough about our personal disagreement so no. There's some MMA and boxing matches i'd like to bet on soon.

BKM-2010
10-16-2011, 09:01 AM
No, I simply asked you to explain why you believe they were impressive opponents on Vitali's resume. I already know they are not. It doesn't require "work" and it's very simple to figure out. If you don't have an answer for your claims, say so. Instead of blowing it up into something it's not like you always do when you have no answers.

I already told you, I think they were good fighters based on their abilities and their rankings. That's just my opinion, and yours differs. You say you know all of his opponents and you already think they all suck, and that's where it ends for me, yet you still want me to make arguments as to why they're good, even though we both know that you will not agree to anything.

Why the HELL would I be wasting my time. It's pretty funny to me.

joseph5620
10-16-2011, 12:17 PM
I already told you, I think they were good fighters based on their abilities and their rankings. That's just my opinion, and yours differs. You say you know all of his opponents and you already think they all suck, and that's where it ends for me, yet you still want me to make arguments as to why they're good, even though we both know that you will not agree to anything.

Why the HELL would I be wasting my time. It's pretty funny to me.


You wont because you don't have an answer. You flatly told me Adamek was not Vitali's best win. I asked who was Vitali's best win and you still haven't answered it. Just as you haven't answered what those fighters have done to make Vitali's quality of opposition impressive. Until you answer those questions, the joke is on you. Those fighters will never be remembered as quality heavyweight challengers and they dont enhance Vitali's legacy whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

New England
10-16-2011, 12:39 PM
You wont because you don't have an answer. You flatly told me Adamek was not Vitali's best win. I asked who was Vitali's best win and you still haven't answered it. Just as you haven't answered what those fighters have done to make Vitali's quality of opposition impressive. Until you answer those questions, the joke is on you. Those fighters will never be remembered as quality heavyweight challengers and they dont enhance Vitali's legacy whether you like it or not. Deal with it.




slick boxing kirk johnson

taco truck financier chris arreola (who was literally about 35 lbs overweight for the biggest fight of his life)

danny williams (the guy beat friggin mike tyson!)

renegade pga golfer corrie sanders



in all seriousness vitali is a h2h hw and not one who has a strong resume.
going on resume alone it's very hard to even rank the guy. he does not belong on any historic tier in that sense. he's had a dominant but larely meaningless run. he lost his two biggest fights
but with his chin and his style/size he's a rough go at HW


i do think he'd lose a decision to most historic great HW



he does hold some pretty remarkable distinctions, though, that can make nice talking/discussion points
he rarely loses rounds. very rarely.
he's never been down or seriously hurt. he has had his face destroyed, though.

and my favorite and certainly the most irrelevant//fun:
his great win is a knockout over wladimir that will never get a chance to happen because they are brothers

i'd pick him to stop wladimir without much fuss
i dont even think it would be competitive.

irrelevant, obviously, but a fun little point none the less.

JAB5239
10-16-2011, 01:22 PM
This is not the same as "every other time" in fact these 2 are both champions, neither is a #1 contender. Check the facts. Again, when I say rest of the devision, I mean all the other heavyweights besides the Klitschkos. How are they gonna get better if the klitschkos fight eachother like you claimed? Lets say they do fight and Vitali wins. Wladimir is still going to dominate every other boxer not named Vitali. Vitali is still going to dominate everybody. The devision sucks(I actually agree with this just not the worst ever overall) and no big fight between the 2 brothers is going to change that. It would just create a huge buzz for the sport, but it won't change the fact that nobody even comes close to either of the 2.

And I disagree in this case. In most cases yes it would be the best thing to have 1 champion. but to have 2 brothers dominating is just as lucrative for the sport imo. I don't think it would be a diffirence if one Klitschko was the only HW champion and he got there by beating up his own flesh and blood. Like I said this is a very rare and special time for combat sports to have 2 brothers dominating.
As for your bet offer, I don't care enough about our personal disagreement so no. There's some MMA and boxing matches i'd like to bet on soon.

Thats what I figured. You want to make outrageous claims but are afraid to gamble with imaginary e-points. Two brothers being the best is great. The two best fighters in the division not fighting sucks, especially when everybody else in the division blows.

New England
10-16-2011, 01:34 PM
Thats what I figured. You want to make outrageous claims but are afraid to gamble with imaginary e-points. Two brothers being the best is great. The two best fighters in the division not fighting sucks, especially when everybody else in the division blows.



the more i try and seperate myself the more remarkable i find this aspect

in 50 years youngsters learning about boxing are going to be checking through the HW from the turn of the century and they'll find two brothers who unified the title and dominated a divsion together.

I think thats their legacy. that's a remarkable feet.

they're also pretty great men from what i gather. wladimir is the best spoken fighter in boxing and english is his fourth or fifth language.
hbo completely bailed on covering them (and showtime couldn't afford it) because of the styles, and thus they never had a chance to become stars over here.

i get a lot of guff over it but i'm glad to call myself a fan of both guys.

joseph5620
10-16-2011, 01:44 PM
slick boxing kirk johnson

taco truck financier chris arreola (who was literally about 35 lbs overweight for the biggest fight of his life)

danny williams (the guy beat friggin mike tyson!)

renegade pga golfer corrie sanders



in all seriousness vitali is a h2h hw and not one who has a strong resume.
going on resume alone it's very hard to even rank the guy. he does not belong on any historic tier in that sense. he's had a dominant but larely meaningless run. he lost his two biggest fights
but with his chin and his style/size he's a rough go at HW


i do think he'd lose a decision to most historic great HW



he does hold some pretty remarkable distinctions, though, that can make nice talking/discussion points
he rarely loses rounds. very rarely.
he's never been down or seriously hurt. he has had his face destroyed, though.

and my favorite and certainly the most irrelevant//fun:
his great win is a knockout over wladimir that will never get a chance to happen because they are brothers

i'd pick him to stop wladimir without much fuss
i dont even think it would be competitive.

irrelevant, obviously, but a fun little point none the less.

I agree with you. Vitali can fight and he does have skills. But it's funny to me when people try to use his resume to rank him as an ATG.

BKM-2010
10-16-2011, 01:59 PM
You wont because you don't have an answer. You flatly told me Adamek was not Vitali's best win. I asked who was Vitali's best win and you still haven't answered it. Just as you haven't answered what those fighters have done to make Vitali's quality of opposition impressive. Until you answer those questions, the joke is on you. Those fighters will never be remembered as quality heavyweight challengers and they dont enhance Vitali's legacy whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

Wrong. Check out the last page I already told you. Sam Peter and Corrie Sanders are his best wins. If you don't even know Vitali Klitschko's best win was against Sam Peter who held the WBC title and had never been stopped before, and this was after YEARS of inactivity for Vitali, and he just dominated him and made him quit, then you obviously don't know much about him or all the current fighters like you claim you do. What has Adamek done at HW besides beating Arreola? A couple wins against ancient guys like Grant and Golota. Or McBride. He was a good win because he's a good fighter, but not the best victory of Vitali's career. Deal with that.

Thats what I figured. You want to make outrageous claims but are afraid to gamble with imaginary e-points. Two brothers being the best is great. The two best fighters in the division not fighting sucks, especially when everybody else in the division blows.

What outrageous claim? The only outrageous claim to me is you saying a fight between the Klitschkos magically makes the whole HW devision better. Haha what are the other heavyweights gonna become more skilled just by watching the two brothers go at it? haha. The only thing that would fix the whole devision is if the whole sport itself starts to clean itself up.

BKM-2010
10-16-2011, 02:04 PM
the more i try and seperate myself the more remarkable i find this aspect

in 50 years youngsters learning about boxing are going to be checking through the HW from the turn of the century and they'll find two brothers who unified the title and dominated a divsion together.

I think thats their legacy. that's a remarkable feet.

they're also pretty great men from what i gather. wladimir is the best spoken fighter in boxing and english is his fourth or fifth language.
hbo completely bailed on covering them (and showtime couldn't afford it) because of the styles, and thus they never had a chance to become stars over here.

i get a lot of guff over it but i'm glad to call myself a fan of both guys.

Well that's rare to see a historian who can actually give them some credit. I appriciate that. Just don't start mentioning their names with fighters back in the day around here though as a lot of people's blood level will rise up for no good reason.

joseph5620
10-16-2011, 02:09 PM
Wrong. Check out the last page I already told you. Sam Peter and Corrie Sanders are his best wins. If you don't even know Vitali Klitschko's best win was against Sam Peter who held the WBC title and had never been stopped before, and this was after YEARS of inactivity for Vitali, and he just dominated him and made him quit, then you obviously don't know much about him or all the current fighters like you claim you do. What has Adamek done at HW besides beating Arreola? A couple wins against ancient guys like Grant and Golota. Or McBride. He was a good win because he's a good fighter, but not the best victory of Vitali's career. Deal with that.



What outrageous claim? The only outrageous claim to me is you saying a fight between the Klitschkos magically makes the whole HW devision better. Haha what are the other heavyweights gonna become more skilled just by watching the two brothers go at it? haha. The only thing that would fix the whole devision is if the whole sport itself starts to clean itself up.

Sam Peter sucks and the fact that you're using his paper title to elevate him to elite status speaks for itself. Vitali supporters like you will drool over his "punching power". But you will never come up with a quality opponent that Peter ever knocked out. I wont even ask you because I know you wont answer that question. And Corrie Sanders beat one top 10 opponent in his entire career and was also stopped by both Hasim Rahman and Nate Tubbs. Yet you want to make him an impressive opponent for Vitali. That's a joke.


Career wise, Ademak will be remembered as a better fighter than Sanders or Peter. Whether you want to accept it or not.

BKM-2010
10-16-2011, 04:32 PM
Sam Peter sucks and the fact that you're using his paper title to elevate him to elite status speaks for itself. Vitali supporters like you will drool over his "punching power". But you will never come up with a quality opponent that Peter ever knocked out. I wont even ask you because I know you wont answer that question. And Corrie Sanders beat one top 10 opponent in his entire career and was also stopped by both Hasim Rahman and Nate Tubbs. Yet you want to make him an impressive opponent for Vitali. That's a joke.


Career wise, Ademak will be remembered as a better fighter than Sanders or Peter. Whether you want to accept it or not.

LOL just as I thought. 'he sucks. this guy sucks. they all suck'. I don't know why I even bother with you with a biased attitude like that. Quality opponent that Peter ever KO'd? How about Maskaev who has held several titles in his career I believe. Oh let me guess, He sucks too? hahaha. And what kind of question is that anyway? Why not ask which quality opponents Peter BEAT. Yet for him it would only count if he knocked the opponent out?

Peter had never been stopped before, he had the WBC belt, he has given Wladimir the toughest fight since he lost to Sanders which is a fact. It truly is Vitali's best win because at that time Peter was still good. Nowadays he's finished. Not once did you explain why you think former LHW Adamek is Vitali's best win. So how about explaining that one for me. Is it his win over fossils like Golota and Mcbride? aside from his win over Arreola he has done nothing in the HW devision. You are just using this to discredit Klitschko.

joseph5620
10-16-2011, 05:20 PM
LOL just as I thought. 'he sucks. this guy sucks. they all suck'. I don't know why I even bother with you with a biased attitude like that. Quality opponent that Peter ever KO'd? How about Maskaev who has held several titles in his career I believe. Oh let me guess, He sucks too? hahaha. And what kind of question is that anyway? Why not ask which quality opponents Peter BEAT. Yet for him it would only count if he knocked the opponent out?

Peter had never been stopped before, he had the WBC belt, he has given Wladimir the toughest fight since he lost to Sanders which is a fact. It truly is Vitali's best win because at that time Peter was still good. Nowadays he's finished. Not once did you explain why you think former LHW Adamek is Vitali's best win. So how about explaining that one for me. Is it his win over fossils like Golota and Mcbride? aside from his win over Arreola he has done nothing in the HW devision. You are just using this to discredit Klitschko.

Maskaev was a fringe contender at best. Paper titles mean nothing to me. And considering he was 39 years old with five KO losses on his record, I'm not going to get excited about Peter beating him. Peter was badly hurt by Maskaev in that fight too. Peter's biggest win is over a 38 year old fat former middleweight. And he needed a gift decision over Toney in the first fight. Peter was never that good. But you want to conveniently say he was only "good" when he fought the Klitschko's. And I already said that Ademak was not an impressive heavyweight challenger. So thanks for further proving my point. With that said he is still a better fighter than either Peter or Sanders.


Vitali's resume is weak when you discuss it in a historical context. You better get comfortable with that fact because nothing you say will change it. I don't need to discredit Vitali's resume. It does that all by itself.

JAB5239
10-16-2011, 06:21 PM
Wrong. Check out the last page I already told you. Sam Peter and Corrie Sanders are his best wins. If you don't even know Vitali Klitschko's best win was against Sam Peter who held the WBC title and had never been stopped before, and this was after YEARS of inactivity for Vitali, and he just dominated him and made him quit, then you obviously don't know much about him or all the current fighters like you claim you do. What has Adamek done at HW besides beating Arreola? A couple wins against ancient guys like Grant and Golota. Or McBride. He was a good win because he's a good fighter, but not the best victory of Vitali's career. Deal with that.



What outrageous claim? The only outrageous claim to me is you saying a fight between the Klitschkos magically makes the whole HW devision better. Haha what are the other heavyweights gonna become more skilled just by watching the two brothers go at it? haha. The only thing that would fix the whole devision is if the whole sport itself starts to clean itself up.

I said it weakens the division when the two best fighters dont fight, not that it magically makes the rest of the division better, so quit making crap up. This is the second time you've made lies up involving me, is this going to become a habbit?

BKM-2010
10-16-2011, 07:08 PM
I said it weakens the division when the two best fighters dont fight, not that it magically makes the rest of the division better, so quit making crap up. This is the second time you've made lies up involving me, is this going to become a habbit?

Haha Don't get emotional now. That's how I understood your logic. If they don't fight, the devision weakens. If they do fight, the devision becomes better, right? You still haven't made it clear what you think it does for the devision if the Klitschko brothers fight. Instead of getting mad you could just explain yourself better.

[B][I]Maskaev was a fringe contender at best. Paper titles mean nothing to me.

Maskeav held the WBC belt and before losing to Peter had wins over Samil and Rahman twice so he was not a fringe contender when Peter knocked him out, that's a fact. Paper title? That's the same belt that Ali, Frazier, Tyson had. Haha we should contact the The World Boxing Council to remove this title because they mean nothing to Joseph.

And considering he was 39 years old with five KO losses on his record, I'm not going to get excited about Peter beating him. Peter was badly hurt by Maskaev in that fight too. Peter's biggest win is over a 38 year old fat former middleweight. And he needed a gift decision over Toney in the first fight. Peter was never that good. But you want to conveniently say he was only "good" when he fought the Klitschko's. And I already said that Ademak was not an impressive heavyweight challenger. So thanks for further proving my point. With that said he is still a better fighter than either Peter or Sanders.

Nice job discrediting Peter's career. You can do that to any fighter. You ignore his wins over Toney, him giving Wlad his toughest fight since Sanders. No you're very objective alright.

So I'm still left with no answer on your claim about Adamek so I'll ask you for the third time. What makes Adamek his best win? Why do you think he's so good? Is it his win over McBrice which was right before his title shot? His loss to LHW Chad Dawson?

joseph5620
10-16-2011, 09:22 PM
Haha Don't get emotional now. That's how I understood your logic. If they don't fight, the devision weakens. If they do fight, the devision becomes better, right? You still haven't made it clear what you think it does for the devision if the Klitschko brothers fight. Instead of getting mad you could just explain yourself better.



Maskeav held the WBC belt and before losing to Peter had wins over Samil and Rahman twice so he was not a fringe contender when Peter knocked him out, that's a fact. Paper title? That's the same belt that Ali, Frazier, Tyson had. Haha we should contact the The World Boxing Council to remove this title because they mean nothing to Joseph.



Nice job discrediting Peter's career. You can do that to any fighter. You ignore his wins over Toney, him giving Wlad his toughest fight since Sanders. No you're very objective alright.

So I'm still left with no answer on your claim about Adamek so I'll ask you for the third time. What makes Adamek his best win? Why do you think he's so good? Is it his win over McBrice which was right before his title shot? His loss to LHW Chad Dawson?





Wins over Sam and Rahman. Wow, impressive lol. Ali, Tyson, and Frazier all became undisputed champions. The WBC belt didn't define their careers. Obviously you don't know the difference. And they all did it beating better fighters than Sinan Samil Sam and Rahman. It's unfortunate that you don't understand the history of the WBC. Holding only a WBC belt means very little. Even Eric Morales has a meaningless WBC title as well as Julio Cesar Chavez jr. And neither are even close to being the best in their division. But by your logic since Ali and Frazier held the WBC belt, it legitimizes it. That says a lot about your view on this.


As for Peter, everything I said about him is factual.Tell me what I said that wasn't true. "You're just discrediting him" is not a legitimate counter point. Why is Ademak better than Peter? One, he actually shows up for his fights in shape and he can box. He's not getting knocked cold by prospects and Ademak has had success in three different weight classes. Peter has very limited boxing skills and had a very limited amateur background. All he had was clubbing power. He's a limited fighter and it shows.


Peter didn't win more than 3 rounds against Wladimir in the first fight. And that's being generous.

JAB5239
10-16-2011, 09:36 PM
Haha Don't get emotional now. That's how I understood your logic. If they don't fight, the devision weakens. If they do fight, the devision becomes better, right? You still haven't made it clear what you think it does for the devision if the Klitschko brothers fight. Instead of getting mad you could just explain yourself better.



Maskeav held the WBC belt and before losing to Peter had wins over Samil and Rahman twice so he was not a fringe contender when Peter knocked him out, that's a fact. Paper title? That's the same belt that Ali, Frazier, Tyson had. Haha we should contact the The World Boxing Council to remove this title because they mean nothing to Joseph.



Nice job discrediting Peter's career. You can do that to any fighter. You ignore his wins over Toney, him giving Wlad his toughest fight since Sanders. No you're very objective alright.

So I'm still left with no answer on your claim about Adamek so I'll ask you for the third time. What makes Adamek his best win? Why do you think he's so good? Is it his win over McBrice which was right before his title shot? His loss to LHW Chad Dawson?

You're the only one who cant understand. Its always better for boxing when the two best fighters fight. Its always better for boxing when there is one unified champion. Man up and take the wager and i will prove how the overwhelming majority see things the same as i do. Lol, its only e-points! And i dont get emotional son, i just point out the facts. And the fact is this is the second time you've been caught lying.

New England
10-17-2011, 11:29 AM
What scares me the most about the division is how bleak its future looks.


it's basically void of top level talent.

DeepSleep
10-17-2011, 01:45 PM
What scares me the most about the division is how bleak its future looks.


it's basically void of top level talent.

I'm going to gamble that not many people will agree with this but.

In my opinion all the elite american athlete's that are big enough to be heavyweights play football or basketball. The lower weight division guys are too small to make it in the major team sports so boxing still gets most of the talent their.

Now I'm not saying that Lebron James or Brian Orakpo would be awesome boxers because I have no clue. But I sure as hell bet that given the caliber of athlete in the NFL and NBA we would be able to find quite a few who had more talent to work with then Chris Arreola or Eddie Chambers or whoever is the top ranked american heavyweight currently.

JAB5239
10-17-2011, 05:39 PM
Wins over Sam and Rahman. Wow, impressive lol. Ali, Tyson, and Frazier all became undisputed champions. The WBC belt didn't define their careers. Obviously you don't know the difference. And they all did it beating better fighters than Sinan Samil Sam and Rahman. It's unfortunate that you don't understand the history of the WBC. Holding only a WBC belt means very little. Even Eric Morales has a meaningless WBC title as well as Julio Cesar Chavez jr. And neither are even close to being the best in their division. But by your logic since Ali and Frazier held the WBC belt, it legitimizes it. That says a lot about your view on this.


As for Peter, everything I said about him is factual.Tell me what I said that wasn't true. "You're just discrediting him" is not a legitimate counter point. Why is Ademak better than Peter? One, he actually shows up for his fights in shape and he can box. He's not getting knocked cold by prospects and Ademak has had success in three different weight classes. Peter has very limited boxing skills and had a very limited amateur background. All he had was clubbing power. He's a limited fighter and it shows.


Peter didn't win more than 3 rounds against Wladimir in the first fight. And that's being generous.

Very good post, right on the money!

bojangles1987
10-17-2011, 06:29 PM
All I know is that I am not looking forward to the Klitschkos retiring. They are the only fighters worth any attention in that division. At least Wlad probably has some years left, though Vitali will likely be gone soon.

JAB5239
10-17-2011, 06:56 PM
And don't start getting personal calling me a liar. Didn't you pm me several times to be more classy? And lol @ your bet. if it's only e-point why do you care so much to get them from me?

You are a liar, and now you're dismissed. Try back again in a month and we'll see if you can behave then. Post in here before then and you're gone for good. Got any questions...PM me.

Mugwump
10-17-2011, 09:33 PM
Whether this is truly the worst heavyweight division in history is difficult to answer. But I don't think anyone can dispute that it is unquestionably a bad one.

I must say that with people arguing Witherspoon was a mediocre fighter and others championing Vitali's resume this thread has assumed a Daliesque level of surreality. At this rate it won't be long before my house will sprout legs.