Comments Thread For: Peter Fury: Tyson, Hughie Could Be The Next Klitschkos

[The Big Dunn]

Americans can't accept that HW boxing belongs to Europe/ Russia ... The European boxers are not exciting like Ali or Tyson, but they have a strong pedigree, solid amateur backgrounds, and thus they have come to excel in today's boxing landscape.

No, Americans know when the division is good and when its crap. Much of the same things said now about this era were the same things said post ali/frazier/foreman. Its just that some non american posters can't refute fair criticisms and have to make it about racism or jingoism

[Weltschmerz]

I've been enjoying the heavyweight division.

People shouldn't be narrow-minded bigots and believe that all the best fighters need to come from their home country.

There are good HWs from many countries now:


USA: Jennings, Wilder
UA: the Klitschkos, Glazkov
UK: Fury, Price, Haye
Romania: Dinu
Russia: Povetkin, Abdusalamov
Bulgaria: Pulev
Finland: Helenius
Cuba: Ortiz, Perez
Poland: Adamek, Szpilka

The heavyweight division is more interesting now than it ever was because of the diversity.

Good point.

[The Big Dunn]

I've been enjoying the heavyweight division.

People shouldn't be narrow-minded bigots and believe that all the best fighters need to come from their home country.

There are good HWs from many countries now:


USA: Jennings, Wilder
UA: the Klitschkos, Glazkov
UK: Fury, Price, Haye
Romania: Dinu
Russia: Povetkin, Abdusalamov
Bulgaria: Pulev
Finland: Helenius
Cuba: Ortiz, Perez
Poland: Adamek, Szpilka

The heavyweight division is more interesting now than it ever was because of the diversity.

wouldn't quality be a better determination of how good a division is rather than diversity?

[Weltschmerz]

No, Americans know when the division is good and when its crap. Much of the same things said now about this era were the same things said post ali/frazier/foreman. Its just that some non american posters can't refute fair criticisms and have to make it about racism or jingoism

'Good' and 'crap' is subjective, if Americans say today's HW division is crap, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a fact.

[The Hammer]

wouldn't quality be a better determination of how good a division is rather than diversity?

Let's be honest here: if the Klitschkos and the others in the top ten were of the same nationality and race as you are, you'd say the heavyweight division is good.

I wish you could rise above that and be fair and objective, but I know you never will.

[The Big Dunn]

'Good' and 'crap' is subjective, if Americans say today's HW division is crap, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a fact.

agreed. the point is americns said the same thing about the division when Larry Holmes was champ. SO to make it unique to just the Klits is IMO a defense mechanism because its easier to blame it on other factors rather than have to dissect their resumes, which, noi matter how much you love the Klits, is not very great.

[The Big Dunn]

Let's be honest here: if the Klitschkos and the others in the top ten were of the same nationality and race as you are, you'd say the heavyweight division is good.

I wish you could rise above that and be fair and objective, but I know you never will.

Ridiculous. Of course its so much easier to accuse me of racism than having to actually defend the resumes of either klit. Maybe their race and nationality is the only reason you like them.

thats just your defense mechanism becuase as long as you can make it about sociological factors, you don't have to discuss boxing because as soon you do the debate is over because In your heart, you know that niether Klit has beaten a heavyweight that even registers on the greatness scale.

[Weltschmerz]

agreed. the point is americns said the same thing about the division when Larry Holmes was champ. SO to make it unique to just the Klits is IMO a defense mechanism because its easier to blame it on other factors rather than have to dissect their resumes, which, noi matter how much you love the Klits, is not very great.

Same old discussion about 'resumes' .. The Klitschko's dominate and often destroy who's put in front of them, and has been doing it consistently with great longevity (especially Wlad). That's what put them up there, plus they are always dedicated, in shape, and they are great fighters who imo would give any ATG a run for their money in ANY era.

[The Big Dunn]

Same old discussion about 'resumes' .. The Klitschko's dominate and often destroy who's put in front of them, and has been doing it consistently with great longevity (especially Wlad). That's what put them up there, plus they are always dedicated, in shape, and they are great fighters who imo would give any ATG a run for their money in ANY era.

fine, if you believe they would be competititve in any era. and yes they have beaten whoever is in front of them. But the list of people in front of them does not have on it one HWT that you or I would place in the top 100 (or 150) of greatest HWT's ever.

The fact that WLad has fought several men twice is indicative of the fact that there is little quality in the division. as long as we have a boxing discussion thats cool. Just don't be like tunney and just say if the were black and americans they'd be considered great.

Larry Holmes was both and he got the same criticisms the klits do because he beat everyone in front of him (without the KO losses wlad had nor the putrid resume of vitali).

[The Hammer]

The fact that WLad has fought several men twice is indicative of the fact that there is little quality in the division.

No, he fought Thompson twice because the IBF inexplicably made him mandatory a second time. The IBF has a bad habit of recycling the same boxers in their eliminators.

Thompson was the ONLY fighter Wlad fought twice between 2006 and 2013.