Will both Klitschkos get in the HOF?

An interesting piece I've found today http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/7743/vitali-klitschko-retires-where-would-rank/

My point is that if you were referring to one person who did all that - dominated and beat a division full of challengers (weak or strong), then I'd say yes. You can point to Lennox Lewis and say he dominated a weak division but how much worse would it be if he split the opponents with someone else? You can't pretend the Klitschko's are one person. That's what I was quoting. But he did, he only held all the titles for a short period of time, when he didn't he was not fighting everyone because some of those guys were fighting for some of the easier belts (like Haye is doing now for example), that happens all the time in every division. This is what I said. Where did I say Lennox fought weak challengers? You, just making shit up again and trolling :owned:

Isn't the ABOVE what you said, in response to my comment that "You can argue that Lennox Lewis dominated a weak division.."? Yeah, that's YOUR name on top. Clown. I said that Lennox Lewis shared his titles too for most of the time, since he only held them all for a short period of time, as anyone who goes through the posts can check, but nice try, troll. Clown.

Unless you count Junior Witter, the guy who chased a fight with Hatton for several years... So the difference was network hype? You seem to change your stance with each post. Apparently, if an American is more popular than a European, then it's because of nationality. But if a European is more popular than an American, then it's because of skills and resume. But if the American is more skilled, then it's because of the European being very popular in Europe. But wait...don't the K brothers get millions of people watching them in Germany? Right, so it comes down to excitement, not nationality. Thanks for finally accepting that, albeit it 10 pages too late. It would depend upon his career progression. But if he fought on HBO and knocked out guys like Miranda and Jermain Taylor then I think he'd be as popular, yes. Despite his career faltering in the last 18 months, Pavlik earned his popularity and reputation by taking tough fights, knocking people out in exciting fashion, and getting up off of the floor to win. He wasn't a boring fighter who got mass attention before he'd even beat anyone of note. Pavlik did get overrated by some, but he fought his way to the top by beating contenders and taking fights that he wasn't expected to win. I'm not sure why you think I keep changing my stance? I think I clearly stated 2 posts ago, if everything else was equal aka network hype, skills, resume. Then the foreign fighter wouldn't be as popular. In my previous post I reaffirmed what I said earlier. That the network hype is what helped him get more popular than Dawson. Not the fact that he was foreign. Which does not contradict ANYTHING I said. So you think a fighter from a country that the US is at war with. Has terrorist stereotypes against is gonna be as popular as a white boy from Ohio!?

I think you have this the wrong way round. Hatton didn't become popular because he had those fights, he got those fights because he was popular. After beating Castillo-who was further past his prime than either Tarver or Johnson are IMO-Hatton was more popular than Chad Dawson is right now. You could just as easily argue that Hatton's claim to fame was beating a past it Tszyu, with the difference being that Jones was better skilled, more successful and more popular than Tszyu. That is true. But the reason he was so popular was #1 he was England's biggest fighter. There was literally a country behind him because at or around welterweight there were almost no seriously contending English welters. No one had heard of him (practically) before the Tzsyu fight. The Tzsyu fight made him in America. I remember that fight being a really big event. Tszyu having just come back 1 fight earlier and totally destroyed Mitchell. The networks hyped that fight. And then after that all you heard from the English fans was how he could beat Mayweather. And despite all that he was never respected by the American audience. Everyone was always talking about how a shitty fighter he was. Having a hometown ref who gave him the fight vs Tszyu. While Dawson, even after winning a very close fight to Johnson (one which he looked shakey in), is hailed unanimously as the future of the LHW div. Dawson fought a better fighter yes. But was there any build up? The networks didnt hype that fight at all! The only big thing Tarver did before the Dawson fight was lose horribly to Hopkins. The problem with the argument is that Froch isn't even popular in his own country. His fight with Dirrell was shown in the UK by a company responsible for PPV porn channels who had never been involved in boxing or any other sport before. His fight against Taylor was only available to watch live in the UK on an internet stream. Why don't we compare Pavlik with another foreign boxer: Edison Miranda. From what I recall, going into Pavlik-Miranda, a large number of people expected Miranda to win, and he was the more popular boxer. This despite the fact that Pavlik is American and Miranda is Colombian. And Edison became as big as he was because of his one punch KO power. You could be the ugliest human being in the world but there some things that make up for it. People are just naturally awed by the ability of a lights out KO. Which Pavlik doesn't have. There are people like that, (Tyson) who could come from anywhere and still make it big in the US. It certainly is not impossible, but it is harder. Think about it. Tyson was being covered in the media from a very early age. There was a buzz about him before he turned pro! Because he was fighting in the US. If you were to take an average fighter. Someone like Pavlik. And now just imagine that he was from Iraq. Tell me that he would be just as popular as Pavlik is.

There are about 2-4 other fighters who have sold as much as Tyson and Pac. So no. But compared to the level we were discussing, Gatti is rightfully considered a superstar. Ok so there are different levels of superstars now with gatti maybe being a minor superstar

Did he sell more ppvs than the likes of tyson and pac? There are about 2-4 other fighters who have sold as much as Tyson and Pac. So no. But compared to the level we were discussing, Gatti is rightfully considered a superstar.

Using that logic, Arturo Gatti should've never been a superstar. If you measure stars by the number of losses they have, then it doesn't matter. Arturo Gatti was a TV star in the late nineties who suffered a string of losses, then fell off the map. Then was resurrected and became an even BIGGER star. Let me put it this way: Gatti's sole PPV against Floyd Mayweather (who couldn't draw flies to sh*t at the time and was not even a star prior to), sold more PPV's then any fight Bernard Hopkins has participated in. Probably even against Tito. Not to mention, Gatti sold out Atlantic City Boardwalk Hall every time out and has had more HBO appearances than anyone in the history of the sport. Did he sell more ppvs than the likes of tyson and pac?

LOL most if not all superstars have what i listed, damn i would have thought this was easy is gatti really on the level of other "superstars" who have it, answer honestly now or was gatti even actually a superstar at all, or just a very good entertaining fighter but not quite a superstar, a star no doubt but if gatti is a superstar then what are the likes of tyson, pac etc? If you measure stars by the number of losses they have, then it doesn't matter. Arturo Gatti was a TV star in the late nineties who suffered a string of losses, then fell off the map. Then was resurrected and became an even BIGGER star. Let me put it this way: Gatti's sole PPV against Floyd Mayweather (who couldn't draw flies to sh*t at the time and was not even a star prior to), sold more PPV's then any fight Bernard Hopkins has participated in. Probably even against Tito. Not to mention, Gatti sold out Atlantic City Boardwalk Hall every time out and has had more HBO appearances than anyone in the history of the sport.

Using that logic, Arturo Gatti should've never been a superstar. LOL most if not all superstars have what i listed, damn i would have thought this was easy is gatti really on the level of other "superstars" who have it, answer honestly now or was gatti even actually a superstar at all, or just a very good entertaining fighter but not quite a superstar, a star no doubt but if gatti is a superstar then what are the likes of tyson, pac etc?

Hes lost too many fights to be a superstar, since 2000 he has very few tko's, he doesnt have a winning streak and thus hes not a superstar get it? Atruro Gatti????????

Hes lost too many fights to be a superstar, since 2000 he has very few tko's, he doesnt have a winning streak and thus hes not a superstar get it? Using that logic, Arturo Gatti should've never been a superstar.

That is correct. But your comparison is completely unequal. You have on one side Hatton, who has been in the ring on PPV infront of American audiences in two out of the 5 biggest PPV fights in boxing history. And in the other corner, Chad, who is wallowing in the shadows fighting opponents who's claim to fame is beating a past it Roy Jones. My "hypothesis" in this situation is that foreign fighters are not as respected and less popular in America than American raised fighters. To test this scientifically (or factually, or using logic) you have to get rid of all the other factors, make everything equal (skills, resume, etc.) and then just test how that one factor influences the popularity. That is why I brought up Froch/Pavlik. They have similar resumes, skills. But one is European and one is American. Which one has a bigger fan base in America? Is it because he is American? My, how the mighty have fallen: You're trying to make ur point comparing Kelly pavliks star power pacquaiou how ****ing stupid is that? Who deserves more star power based on resume and skills? Pacman.

Well go on, make your point. Hes lost too many fights to be a superstar, since 2000 he has very few tko's, he doesnt have a winning streak and thus hes not a superstar get it?

And yet Dawson is far less popular now then Hatton was, no? That is correct. But your comparison is completely unequal. You have on one side Hatton, who has been in the ring on PPV infront of American audiences in two out of the 5 biggest PPV fights in boxing history. And in the other corner, Chad, who is wallowing in the shadows fighting opponents who's claim to fame is beating a past it Roy Jones. My "hypothesis" in this situation (everything being equal) is that foreign fighters are not as respected and less popular in America than American raised fighters. To test this scientifically (or factually, or using logic) you have to get rid of all the other factors, make everything equal (skills, resume, etc.) and then just test how that one factor influences the popularity. That is why I brought up Froch/Pavlik. They have similar resumes, skills. But one is European and one is American. Which one has a bigger fan base in America? Is it because he is American? (Edit: Apparently my point was unclear to a certain moron. I will bold my point.)

Hah need Clegg to try win your arguments for you. I'm still waiting for him to reply. You are the EPITOME of why NBS is what it is today. Stupid ass people that don't argue intelligently. Just throw insults and bait people. Game over.

You're just dumb. As proven by Clegg, who is now about to son you for your "he should be a bigger star based on resume" comment. As if that's what determines all that. Hah need Clegg to try win your arguments for you. I'm still waiting for him to reply. You are the EPITOME of why NBS is what it is today. Stupid ass people that don't argue intelligently. Just throw insults and bait people.

eh no, i think there is more to it than that, dont you :banghead: Well go on, make your point.

Man, I don't think you get it. Look, John Ruiz is an American born and raised in Massachusetts. Will fight anyone. However, his boxing style sucks and thus, he's not a superstar. Ok? eh no, i think there is more to it than that, dont you :banghead:

I have addressed ever single point you have brought up. You have yet to tackle mine. There's 0 point in arguing with you. At this point you are just trolling. You're just dumb. As proven by Clegg, who is now about to son you for your "he should be a bigger star based on resume" comment. As if that's what determines all that.