Originally Posted by kenso
I get what you are saying . I'm only pointing out the "hypocrisy" (for lack of a better word ATM) in the "analysis" that is constantly being put forth on these fantasy match ups. If someone wants to break down a fight, then we should list specific reasons why - like you have previously in the thread. That is what makes good discussion. What does NOT make good discussion is saying that a fighter would have lost to another for *arbitrary reason* when this *arbitrary reason* applies to almost every great heavyweight in history.
Some of the most common ones are:
1. Said fighter lost to a bum
2. Said fighter has the tools to win
3. Said fighter has never faced someone on the level of other fighter
Aside from that, there is also blatant idiocy/hate or "nuthuggery" of fighters. People often post under the guise of an unbias fan, but usually offer no more analysis than "Tyson was the greatest of ALL TIME" or "Klitschko fights in the weakest era ever, he's a joke". The problem is, that most of the time, there is no legitimate analysis going on. We just have a bunch of people throwing the same three reasons(or similar ones) that I listed above back and forth at each other in favor and against both fighters.
My personal thoughts on the original question:
The idea that Klitschko is no more than a 70s HW bum in a "poor era" is quickly fading. He is approaching a historic run of title defenses, represents himself and the sport very well, and comes in as good shape as any HW in history has. There is a reason he is in discussions like these. If you are one of the few that still feel Klitschko isn't the real deal, then don't even bother adding to the thread, because you are likely blind, or stupid.
I know Tyson tends to get over rated at times. Wlad tends to get under rated at times.(a lot actually)
I personally feel that Wlad is already an top 10 ATG HW and will finish as top 7.
BUT I also must point out something people don't talk about.
Wladimir was given more chances than other fighters who have failed because during those stretches there was no true young heavyweight super star.
When Wlad was knocked out by Purrity, his stock fell and the focus went to Tua/Ike. Ike went to jail and Tua never recovered from the Lennox fight.
Wlad's promotion train went right back on track. After the Sanders K,O this is when if he was to be in the early 90's he would never have gotten back on track. But because in 2003 onwards, the heavyweight division was dying rapidly, Wladimir was once again given the full focus and allowed to rebuild up to the Brewster KO. He was given yet another chance because by 2005 there was nobody left other than him and Peters.
If Wlad was to lose 3 times in the early 90's, the focus would never have gone back to him. It would have been on Tyson,Bowe,HOlyfield,Lewis,Morrison. He would not have regained the spot light.
That's just the way boxing politics worked. So when people say Wlad is lucky he's in this era, it don't always mean that they think he won't have been able to beat the 90's heavyweights, it just means that during the 90's star packed era of HW'S, Wlad's 3 losses basically means marketing death.
I guess I wanted to say Wladimir is a bit lucky he fought in a heavyweight era where there were no other young stars to market when he suffered a string of defeat. The only semi star was Peters.
And let's face it, an overweight Nigerian was never gonna take the HW marketing scene by storm.
As for the people saying the 70's guys would have beaten Wlad. That is stretching it big time.
Ali and 70's Foreman had the style to trouble Wlad, but every single other 60's 70's fighter would have been a under dog.