The Klitshckos and Today's Heavyweight Division

Because no one seems to understand what you're talking about... do you even know what you're talking about? You may think one thing but unable to formulate your thoughts that it's clear to all.. Not only that, you seem to be mislead by other posts that you read, unable to capture the meaning.. I think I know what the problem is... There is a disconnect between the chair and the keyboard. As for my thread.. once again, the point was that today's HW's are not any worse than they were 10-15 years ago... people say that the division sucks, but I think it's because the Klitschkos are just so superior, they make everyone else look like garbage. And you're start talking about the depth of the division, quality of fights, etc.. WTF are you talking about? Re-read the posts Mate it seems like your the one struggling to follow. Don't patronise me cos your confused. I understand the point you've made My point, which I seem to have repeated several times without your comprehension, is that the heavyweight division of the 1990's was more competitive than the heavyweight division of the past decade. To stay at the top of his division Holyfield had to fight 3 fights against Bowe, 2 against Tyson and 2 against Lewis. Those 7 fights alone are harder than any fights fought by Wlad, by quite a distance. Therefore Wlad's current dominance is not simply down to the fact that he makes his opponents look like garbage, it is at least partly down to the fact that he's faced inferior opposition than the top fighters in the previous generation had to face. I never once commented on the quality of the fights from the 90's, as you seem to have gotten from somewhere, I just said the fights were harder than the one's faced by Wlad in the 2000's. I also never once said Wlad wouldn't be up to the challenges of the 1990's, just that they would be harder than the challenges of the 2000's. Do you understand WTF I'm going on about now?

Yep I know, you seem to believe Wladimir's fights in the past decade were harder than those faced by the champions of the 1990's. I'm saying you are wrong. I have argued why I believe it was harder in the 1990's, no one has put forward a valid arguement for why I might by mis-informed. Because no one seems to understand what you're talking about... do you even know what you're talking about? You may think one thing but unable to formulate your thoughts that it's clear to all.. Not only that, you seem to be mislead by other posts that you read, unable to capture the meaning.. I think I know what the problem is... There is a disconnect between the chair and the keyboard. As for my thread.. once again, the point was that today's HW's are not any worse than they were 10-15 years ago... people say that the division sucks, but I think it's because the Klitschkos are just so superior, they make everyone else look like garbage. And you're start talking about the depth of the division, quality of fights, etc.. WTF are you talking about? Re-read the posts

I never concurred on the fact that the 90's contenders are so much better than of our era. What I said was that the fights were more exciting Yep I know, you seem to believe Wladimir's fights in the past decade were harder than those faced by the champions of the 1990's. I'm saying you are wrong. I have argued why I believe it was harder in the 1990's, no one has put forward a valid arguement for why I might by mis-informed.

I never concurred on the fact that the 90's contenders are so much better than of our era. What I said was that the fights were more exciting

Wasn't the point of this thread that the 90's boxers were no better than the 2000's boxer? Wasn't the implication that Wlad would have dominated the 1990's like he's dominating currently? The fact that there were more elite fighters in that decade, immediately suggests those contentions are wrong. To get to the top in the 1990's Evander Holyfield had to fight those 7 elite level fights I earlier talked about. It doesn't really matter whether Lamon Brewster is better than Michael Moorer, or if David Haye is better than Ray Mercer, if Adamek is better than Golota, or Peter is better than Tua. I'm sure Wlad beats most of the fighters of the 1990's as easily as he beat the guys in his own era. But to be the dominate force in the 1990's he would have had to fights against Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe and Tyson, and even if you believe he beats all those guys (I don't) he doesn't beat them as easily as he beats the guys already on his resume. Therefore it is blindingly obvious that the 1990's heavyweight division was better than the 2000's, and Wlad would not dominate that generation like he does today. Very good post, Jon!!

No one is comparing the quality of fights.... of course those fights were more entertaining and will always be a classic... I'm talking about the quality of boxers. Today's, as you call them, "Elite" fighters fights smarter and minimize the risk of getting KOed. (after all, this is what boxing is... hit and don't get hit) HOWEVER, YES! This is NOT as pleasing to us the fans... But does this mean that if two guys won't stand in the middle of a ring and try to knock each other's heads off automatically mean they SUCK? NO! Just more strategic. Comparing Haye running his mouth to Ali (before the Foreman fight) Foreman tried to knock Ali's head off... and Ali was there to fight... what did we see this weekend? Haye's talk talk talk and when the time fight came, it was a chess game. Wasn't the point of this thread that the 90's boxers were no better than the 2000's boxer? Wasn't the implication that Wlad would have dominated the 1990's like he's dominating currently? The fact that there were more elite fighters in that decade, immediately suggests those contentions are wrong. To get to the top in the 1990's Evander Holyfield had to fight those 7 elite level fights I earlier talked about. It doesn't really matter whether Lamon Brewster is better than Michael Moorer, or if David Haye is better than Ray Mercer, if Adamek is better than Golota, or Peter is better than Tua. I'm sure Wlad beats most of the fighters of the 1990's as easily as he beat the guys in his own era. But to be the dominate force in the 1990's he would have had to fights against Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe and Tyson, and even if you believe he beats all those guys (I don't) he doesn't beat them as easily as he beats the guys already on his resume. Therefore it is blindingly obvious that the 1990's heavyweight division was better than the 2000's, and Wlad would not dominate that generation like he does today.

this era is filled with fat slop....... larry holmes takes both of the klit bums apart........ how can you put the klit brothers as top 10 heavyweights when fighters such as larry holmes are far above them????? the klits FEAST on SLOP. (this is what a REAL heavyweight looks like) What are you showing here, an all time great is fighting a BUMB with a padded record who beat up a bunch of nobodies or smaller guys AND lost ALL of his major fights? This is target practice for Holmes, landing at will, lands everything he throws... and yet he couldn't put him out in 15 rounds. Do you honestly think Randall Cobb would last even 6 rounds with either Klitschko? Don't Hate.

The 2000's had 2 elite fighters. Neither will fight each other, with good reason. The 1990's era had 4 elite fighters, Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe and Tyson, who fought each other on several occasions. Holyfield fought all 3 elite contenders, having 7 fights against them Lewis fought Holyfield twice and Tyson once. Tyson fought Holyfield twice and Lewis once. Bowe fought Holyfield 3 times. So the 1990's had a trilogy of fights between Holyfield and Bowe, 2 between Tyson and Holyfield and 2 between Holyfield and Lewis That's 7 fights between the division's elite. The 2000's had Lewis vs Tyson and Lewis vs Vitali. So that's 2 fights between the divisions elite. And neither of those were between that generations true elite fighters. So there were far more elite fights in the 1990's It's not the Klits fault that their only real contender was blood related. But that's the reality. You can't say Wlad had tougher challenges than he would have done in the 1990's, cos if he wanted to dominate in the 90's he would have had to fight several fights against elite opposition. He has dominated the past decade with 0 fights against elite opposition. So please explain to me how this is tougher? No one is comparing the quality of fights.... of course those fights were more entertaining and will always be a classic... I'm talking about the quality of boxers. Today's, as you call them, "Elite" fighters fights smarter and minimize the risk of getting KOed. (after all, this is what boxing is... hit and don't get hit) HOWEVER, YES! This is NOT as pleasing to us the fans... But does this mean that if two guys won't stand in the middle of a ring and try to knock each other's heads off automatically mean they SUCK? NO! Just more strategic. Comparing Haye running his mouth to Ali (before the Foreman fight) Foreman tried to knock Ali's head off... and Ali was there to fight... what did we see this weekend? Haye's talk talk talk and when the time fight came, it was a chess game.

Not exactly Bojangles Bill R. Everything is RELATIVE. Todays heavyweights are generally good, and would have good fights amongst themselves. But the Klitschkos stand well above them. Were Micky Ward and Arturo Gatti amongst the best?? Not by a long shot, they were both very ordinary in every department except intestinal fortitude. So they matched up well together and had a terriffic fight. The second and third were not so good because gatti changed his style to boxing, so as to win. Thats why the MATCHMAKER is the most important-but most underrated- man on a promoter's team. They would have competitive fights. They would not be good fights. There is a difference.

Its ridiculous. When they can no longer speak with logic they make up the absurd. :dunno: That sounds like a Sherlock Holmes axiom.

Great post. the racist blacks and self hating white liberal americans just hate the K bros

There is not a single guy on wlad's or vitali's resume that would beat Bruno or moorer, Lewis aside. The 90's was deeper and better. Vitali and wlad clearly belong in the same breath as holy, bowe and Lewis, but please do not try and build up their resumes. Wlads is solid, vital's is good because of Lewis fight. Klitschko can lay claim to being good even on a single fight, and that is his fight against WBC Champion Samuel Peter. He made Peter quit in his corner. We forget that Klitschko had come back after 4 years out of the ring due to a career ending injury, and fought Peter with NO TUNE UP fight. Who else can or ever did, this??? Even the "so-called" great, Mayweather needs one or more tune=ups after being out of the ring a mere year or so.

I didn't know that Klitschko fought at least 90% of same guys as Ruiz... hmmm there is something I learn every day. :rolleyes: I get the "sarcasm". But in fact Ruiz was one of the most difficult fighters to beat. Lewis avoided him. His tactics of 1 hit and 2 clutches, (wait until broken up by ref) was perfectly legal, which was why he was never cautioned or had points taken away. So he would beat guys who were technically far more advanced than he was showing. I say "than he was showing": because when he was younger, before he became champion, he was a really good, well rounded fighter with all the weapons, and was exciting to boot. I think this all changed when he was KO'd in the 1st 20 seconds by David Tua.

Yes, all those fighters are worse than Tommy Morrison, Razor Ruddock, Andrew Golota, Ray Mercer, Chris Byrd, Frank Bruno, and the other fringe contenders that Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, and Lewis beat. Hell 90% of the fighters the Klitschkos beat couldn't even beat John Ruiz at his best. If you are actually watching Klitschko fights and thinking that what you are seeing compares to even the level of skill shown in fights in the late 80s or 90s, then you are a nuthugger. Not exactly Bojangles Bill R. Everything is RELATIVE. Todays heavyweights are generally good, and would have good fights amongst themselves. But the Klitschkos stand well above them. Were Micky Ward and Arturo Gatti amongst the best?? Not by a long shot, they were both very ordinary in every department except intestinal fortitude. So they matched up well together and had a terriffic fight. The second and third were not so good because gatti changed his style to boxing, so as to win. Thats why the MATCHMAKER is the most important-but most underrated- man on a promoter's team.

People are b-i-t-c-h-i-n-g that the HW division sucks! Does it, or are the Klitschko's just so superior to make everyone else look like bums? What would the division be like without the Klitschkos? I do see some exciting fights. Think about this.. is it that much different than it was 10-15 years ago? Arreola, Peter, Brewster, Chambers, Chagaev, Povetkin, same JC Gomez, now Haye, up and coming Boytsov & Helenius. Are these guys any worse than Rahman, Francois Botha, Michael Grant, Golota, Shannon Briggs, Chris Byrd, Tommy Morrison, Ray Mercer, etc? Probably NOT! The thing is that the Klitschkos are just too superior that make any of the opposition look like crap... They (mostly Wlad) have really cleaned up anyone on their way... much like Lewis did during his time... the only difference is that Wlad lacks that excitement that most American spectators complain about... Is it his fault that they are so superior that there is no real danger and his fights are usually a one-sided beating? Wlad would have cleaned up the division 10 years ago, much like he did today... only great matchup would be him against Lewis! P.S. Those who say Tyson and Holyfield both knock him out, get real, Tyson is 5'10! and certainly was not the same Tyson he was in the 80's. Holyfield - aside from a washed up Tyson, did he even KO anyone in the 90's? Yes, they are so superior that they make all the other fighters look less than ordinary. You could also say that V Klitschko could do the same as his brother, make good opposition look ordinary. People forget (or don't know since most are newcomers) that he came back at an advanced age, from a career ending injury, and half killed the reigning WBC champ whose only loss had been to WK. With NO warm-up fights beforehand. Who else could ever do that......?? People don't know that Joe Louis, one of the most recognised, and often said to be the top heavyweight ever, hardly ever beat a fighter who had had less than 10 losses. Many of his fights were won against well known and thought of guys who often had more than 30 LOSSES. In his famous fight against Tony Galento (nicknamed Two Ton, because he actually was very fat) Galento nearly KO'd him, until KO'd himself in the 4th. Galento had had about 25 losses then, and would have been long washed up with over 100 fights) if fighting today. I remember the fight as a toddler, and used to see pictures of Galento with a cigar in his mouth, an apron on, and carrying a barrel of beer on his shoulder. He owned a saloon and acted as his own bouncer as well. They said he used to train on beer and cigars. Lots of PR. But he had a wicked left hook and fought and beat some very well regarded fighters who had title fights to their records.

How is Holyfield an all-time great? :nonono: It's probably not worth wasting energy debating such questions! Its ridiculous. When they can no longer speak with logic they make up the absurd. :dunno:

These are the same points I made yesterday only to have Pirao ask how Holyfield could be an all time great when he lost to (Moorer) a former light heavyweight. That is the type of logic we're dealing with here. How is Holyfield an all-time great? :nonono: It's probably not worth wasting energy debating such questions!

No, I pointed out that you were stalking the poster Freedom. then you sent me red k and then had a hissy fit, as you seem to do often on this forum. Anyway, I posted my opinion, people will read it and move on to the next post, so I'll leave your racist self to do whatever racists do. :wave: This is exactly what I am talking about. 1. I bet you can't show a single post where I have been racist, so you can cut that crap right out. 2. That was the FIRST time I ever responded to Freedom first in ANY thread, so how could I be stalking? 3. It seems you would rather troll than address the points I made. That seems to be a common thing amongst nuthuggers with no answers. If not you would cut the bogus accusations out and talk boxing.

The 2000's had 2 elite fighters. Neither will fight each other, with good reason. The 1990's era had 4 elite fighters, Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe and Tyson, who fought each other on several occasions. Holyfield fought all 3 elite contenders, having 7 fights against them Lewis fought Holyfield twice and Tyson once. Tyson fought Holyfield twice and Lewis once. Bowe fought Holyfield 3 times. So the 1990's had a trilogy of fights between Holyfield and Bowe, 2 between Tyson and Holyfield and 2 between Holyfield and Lewis That's 7 fights between the division's elite. The 2000's had Lewis vs Tyson and Lewis vs Vitali. So that's 2 fights between the divisions elite. And neither of those were between that generations true elite fighters. So there were far more elite fights in the 1990's It's not the Klits fault that their only real contender was blood related. But that's the reality. You can't say Wlad had tougher challenges than he would have done in the 1990's, cos if he wanted to dominate in the 90's he would have had to fight several fights against elite opposition. He has dominated the past decade with 0 fights against elite opposition. So please explain to me how this is tougher? These are the same points I made yesterday only to have Pirao ask how Holyfield could be an all time great when he lost to (Moorer) a former light heavyweight. That is the type of logic we're dealing with here.

Nope, I read that thread and you clearly got schooled by him. You did an awful lot of mental gymnastics, twisting and turning just to hang with him in the debate which you eventually lost as he had the stronger points, but you were eventually exposed at the end of the thread by a few posters as being racist. JAT :] Yeah, you're a credible source. Aren't you the same guy who was bitter about the red k and started stalking me? Tell me this,how can I be schooled if he refuses to answer questions and ignores direct points? Thanks for your time!