Will both Klitschkos get in the HOF?

[frankenfrank]

I was recently reading though some all threads after the Peter fight, and people said that Vitali getting in the HOF depended on what he did after winning the title, so now that he has defended it for a few times (every time against top HWs, no easy fights), what do you think?

they should and they would.
wladimir the dominant heavy for a long period , vitali more dominant but for a shorter period. vitali was never humiliated the way wladimir did.
vitali stopped 2 of the men whom stopped his little sister and was never KO'd or came close to it in the pros himself.
being introduced to the HOF is not an important index , because many of the early inductees should have never been there.

[Clegg]

Curious, I just realized the same about you. I also realized you just came in here trying to stir the pot, it was obvious from your 1st post but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, obviously I was wrong. BTW why should Vitali not be in the HOF when Ingemar Johansson is?

I've always considered this a poor argument.

3 boxers get into the HOF each year, and they get in because they're better qualified than the other boxers who are nominated.

It's not a case of 'are these guys more worthy than the worst boxer in the HOF?'. What matters is if they're more worthy than the other guys who are put up that year.

Think about it this way: which currently active or recently retired boxers are more qualified than Vitali? Off the top of my head I'd say Mosley, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins, Toney, Calzaghe, DLH, Trinidad, JMM, Holyfield, Roy Jones, Tapia, Barrera, Morales, Cotto, Castillo are all more worthy of a place. Even someone like Chad Dawson (who probably has his best years ahead of him) has three wins (Adamek, Johnson and Tarver) who are better than anyone Vitali has beaten.

With that in mind, I can't him him deserving to get in more than the other boxers who are put up for nomination in whatever year he becomes eligible.

Look at someone like Chris John. He's dominated his division more than Vitali has, and he's done it for a longer period of time. Would you put him in the HOF? Because I get the feeling that most people on here wouldn't.

Vitali is a good fighter, but I'm not even sure who his best win is. Whoever it is, it isn't anyone notable or overly impressive.

[Konstantin]

Ohh...so now it's not about being American, it's about being from an English speaking country.

No its about him being from a former soviet republic. That's what it's always been.

That's why your comparisons, like Lewis, don't work.

[IMDAZED]

No its about him being from a former soviet republic. That's what it's always been.

That's why your comparisons, like Lewis, don't work.

So the ethnic bias is only against those from a former soviet republic?

[Clyde Barrow]

No. They just don't have the opponents to get them that status.

[Konstantin]

So the ethnic bias is only against those from a former soviet republic?

Did I say it was only against those from the former soviet republic? No, you're just putting **** in my mouth.

Name me some American boxing superstars who aren't from the Eastern world besides Pacman.

[MUNG]

What does attendance have to do with viewership in the US?

Yes, I do. I look good, can I help it?

The Klit brothers have a large fan base who appreciate their fights, is it so hard to imagine the fan base would not be there if they were american?

What about the likes of hopkins? You can hardly call him exciting yet his fan base has always been very large, if hopkins was from the uk do you think anyone would give a damn about him in the states?

I wasnt refering to how you look

[IMDAZED]

I've always considered this a poor argument.

3 boxers get into the HOF each year, and they get in because they're better qualified than the other boxers who are nominated.

It's not a case of 'are these guys more worthy than the worst boxer in the HOF?'. What matters is if they're more worthy than the other guys who are put up that year.

Think about it this way: which currently active or recently retired boxers are more qualified than Vitali? Off the top of my head I'd say Mosley, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins, Toney, Calzaghe, DLH, Trinidad, JMM, Holyfield, Roy Jones, Tapia, Barrera, Morales, Cotto, Castillo are all more worthy of a place. Even someone like Chad Dawson (who probably has his best years ahead of him) has three wins (Adamek, Johnson and Tarver) who are better than anyone Vitali has beaten.

With that in mind, I can't him him deserving to get in more than the other boxers who are put up for nomination in whatever year he becomes eligible.

Look at someone like Chris John. He's dominated his division more than Vitali has, and he's done it for a longer period of time. Would you put him in the HOF? Because I get the feeling that most people on here wouldn't.

Vitali is a good fighter, but I'm not even sure who his best win is. Whoever it is, it isn't anyone notable or overly impressive.

It's ridiculous. And then they'll respond with a blanket statement like, "oh, they've dominated the division."

Who?

Wladimir? Or Vitali? Pick one.

"Vitali dominated after Lewis retired."

Yeah, for two weeks. Then he ducked Hasim Rahman four times and retired.

[Jim Jeffries]

You would have to go back in time and find out who was in the HOF when THEY were inducted.

Jess Willard was inducted in 2003.

[IMDAZED]

The Klit brothers have a large fan base who appreciate their fights, is it so hard to imagine the fan base would not be there if they were american?

What about the likes of hopkins? You can hardly call him exciting yet his fan base has always been very large, if hopkins was from the uk do you think anyone would give a damn about him in the states?

I wasnt refering to how you look

Hopkins has a large fan base? Compared to who? I think you need to relax with these kind of statements.