Are The Klitschkos Some of The Worst Heavyweight Champions Of All Time?

[KBRO]

No, this is just your excuse because people find tjem difficult to watch. Fact is i rate both very highly h2h, but the other FACT they dont use a complete arsenal and have benefited from weak comp is the reason they cannot be considered higher. If i were a hater they wouldnt rank at all.

You can hate & still claim otherwise. Not ranking them at all.. you'd be a fool.. All kinds of bias my friend...I put you in the envious & jealous part of the equation. You realize they are as dominant as anyone ever has been but come up with every excuse in the book to downgrade there accomplishments & simply using weak comp & lack of body punching as your main principles... you are Not utilizing good boxing IQ.

The Klitschko's not just have won like Mayweather.. they have utterly destroyed everyone winning all the rds & getting stoppages... you usually only see one or the other.. great boxing or great slugging.. both brothers have excelled at both & we simply have never seen this type of dominance from our champions & because we're not accustomed to this type of boxing excellence.. we create a catch.. despite the fact there's full evidence that the brothers are the most skilled superheavies ever.... they know how to jab with the best ever & they know how to get the best out of there right hand.. they are winning for a reason & it has nothing to do with there opposition & has everything to do with what they bring to the table.. size..strength & skill that we've never seen in 6ft6 boxers & taller.

[JAB5239]

You can hate & still claim otherwise. Not ranking them at all.. you'd be a fool.. All kinds of bias my friend...I put you in the envious & jealous part of the equation. You realize they are as dominant as anyone ever has been but come up with every excuse in the book to downgrade there accomplishments & simply using weak comp & lack of body punching as your main principles... you are Not utilizing good boxing IQ.

The Klitschko's not just have won like Mayweather.. they have utterly destroyed everyone winning all the rds & getting stoppages... you usually only see one or the other.. great boxing or great slugging.. both brothers have excelled at both & we simply have never seen this type of dominance from our champions & because we're not accustomed to this type of boxing excellence.. we create a catch.. despite the fact there's full evidence that the brothers are the most skilled superheavies ever.... they know how to jab with the best ever & they know how to get the best out of there right hand.. they are winning for a reason & it has nothing to do with there opposition & has everything to do with what they bring to the table.. size..strength & skill that we've never seen in 6ft6 boxers & taller.

Lol, how can you come to these conclusions when there comp has been less than stellar? This is an easy thing to prove using video of fighters with well rounded skills and experience against more top 10 and battle hardened fighters than the Klits have fought. And when that at times (and it inevitably will) we look at the dominance over a solidified top 10 and not one broken up by four or more major titles. Its really not a difficult thing to grasp if you DO have a boxing iq. You my friend seem to be more a cheerleader than a fan of the sport.

[KBRO]

If we took a poll asking who was more exciting Frazier or Vits, who do you think would win? How about if we took a poll asking which fight was more exciting Vits-Lewis or Bowe-Holyfield 1? Do you see the vommon denominator here? Body punching. And thats not even discussing the impotance of it. You have your opinion, thats fine, just dont call it hate when others have theres and back it up with legitimate reasons why.

Bowe/Holyfield was exciting for the last couple of rds... Vitali/Lewis was two alltime great superheavies throwing caution to the wind & winging there heaviest shots at each other for 18 minutes straight.. it had more action in a half a fight than most bouts going all 12 rds.

You say Joe was more exciting & that's fine.. he was involved in more bouts where the result was in doubt.. oh except for when he was being lifted off the ground by an even more exciting fighter than him.

I'll take the heavyweight who throws more punches than anyone else & gets the most stoppages.. thank you very much.. if that's boring I don't want to be exciting!

[JAB5239]

Bowe/Holyfield was exciting for the last couple of rds... Vitali/Lewis was two alltime great superheavies throwing caution to the wind & winging there heaviest shots at each other for 18 minutes straight.. it had more action in a half a fight than most bouts going all 12 rds.

You say Joe was more exciting & that's fine.. he was involved in more bouts where the result was in doubt.. oh except for when he was being lifted off the ground by an even more exciting fighter than him.

I'll take the heavyweight who throws more punches than anyone else & gets the most stoppages.. thank you very much.. if that's boring I don't want to be exciting!

So lamar Clark must be you all time favorite fighter since you take nothing else into considetation, right?

[KBRO]

Lol, how can you come to these conclusions when there comp has been less than stellar? This is an easy thing to prove using video of fighters with well rounded skills and experience against more top 10 and battle hardened fighters than the Klits have fought. And when that at times (and it inevitably will) we look at the dominance over a solidified top 10 and not one broken up by four or more major titles. Its really not a difficult thing to grasp if you DO have a boxing iq. You my friend seem to be more a cheerleader than a fan of the sport.

I went for the head cheerleader in high school if that's what you mean (ok she shot me down)... I am what you call in the trade trying to keep it real.. you on the other hand are trying to keep it tainted for your own personal reasons.. They've faced plenty of top 10 comp in the past decade... you just think todays top 10 is somehow vastly inferior to yesteryears top 10 when there's no such proof to validate it... it just is an opinion.. yes there are some fighters better than others as that's clear to see.. we could compare all the names of all the contenders/pretenders & or journeymen of the past one by one & I guarantee you they are all in the same ballpark in terms of what they accomplished & how they fought..


Because most of the weak comp you are talking about obviously didn't accomplish shet because they were beaten by the great champions...every other era.. same said type of fighters didn't accomplish nothing either because they were also beaten by that era's great champions... so how are you elevating the majority of the previous era's comp when they didn't accomplish or have better resumes than this era's contenders.. it just makes you feel better to say past greats faced better skilled fighters when in reality those fighters didn't accomplish anything more than what Klitschko opposition has..




Give or take a Tua or a fat Foreman... nothing has changed as to how many great fighters there are in an era Two or 3.. how many almost great two or 3... & how many contenders & pretenders that journeyman status is there calling.. 90's did have a few more good names to go along with the holyfields Tyson & lewis .



70's were way overrated all fighters who put up a fight against ALI.. somehow escaped pretender status.. everyone got elevated including smoking Joe... they all used Ali's name to there benefit..Foreman/Frazier/ali all struggled with mediocre fighters that somehow got star status... Ken Norton an alltime great is all you need to know about that era's inflated status.

[KBRO]

So lamar Clark must be you all time favorite fighter since you take nothing else into considetation, right?

Let's see I take about two dozen successful title defenses into the equation. Then I take into account no has come close to beating a Klitschko in a full decade cycle.. what did Mr. Clark accomplish besides being almost mistaken for Clark Kent on a day that person wasn't wearing glasses?

[rambov]

They're not bad at all. They would not last a week in the 80s with those glasses they have for jaws but Manny Steward taught them well and they really use great smarts in the ring.

Not my cup of tea but pretty good I would say.

[JAB5239]

I went for the head cheerleader in high school if that's what you mean (ok she shot me down)... I am what you call in the trade trying to keep it real.. you on the other hand are trying to keep it tainted for your own personal reasons.

.

No, you're not keeping it real at all. But I'm curious, what are my so called "personal reasons"?

They've faced plenty of top 10 comp in the past decade... you just think todays top 10 is somehow vastly inferior to yesteryears top 10 when there's no such proof to validate it... it just is an opinion..

No, its a fact that when you have 4 or more so called top 10's the talent pool becomes diluted. Its the same with expansion teams in all major sports. When you take the best players and spread them out and allow inferior players in because their is more money to be made you water whatever particular sport you want down.

yes there are some fighters better than others as that's clear to see.. we could compare all the names of all the contenders/pretenders & or journeymen of the past one by one & I guarantee you they are all in the same ballpark in terms of what they accomplished & how they fought..

Ok, break it down for me than. I guarantee you can't because as I've already pointed out more titles weakens the top 10. I'll make it easy for you though, why not just use the Ring top 10 and see if you can back your claim up? Thats an even playing field for both of us, right? If not than please explain why.

Because most of the weak comp you are talking about obviously didn't accomplish shet because they were beaten by the great champions...every other era.. same said type of fighters didn't accomplish nothing either because they were also beaten by that era's great champions... so how are you elevating the majority of the previous era's comp when they didn't accomplish or have better resumes than this era's contenders..

Has nothing to do with it. Great comp has always been beaten by the best champions. The difference is they came back to persevere against other contenders, were willing to fight other contenders to try and get another shot. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but beating paper contenders is not the same as beating the best of the best contenders...watered down era.

it just makes you feel better to say past greats faced better skilled fighters when in reality those fighters didn't accomplish anything more than what Klitschko opposition has.

Lets just use Jerry Quarry. I believe he fought 12 or more top 10 opponents ranked solely by the Ring. Whats Vitaly have as this eras best contender, 6 or 7?

Give or take a Tua or a fat Foreman... nothing has changed as to how many great fighters there are in an era Two or 3.. how many almost great two or 3... & how many contenders & pretenders that journeyman status is there calling.. 90's did have a few more good names to go along with the holyfields Tyson & lewis .

But things have changed in overall heavyweight skills, willingness to fight one another and the ability to avoid the big fights that lead to a true world championship because of so many corrupt orgs. These things make the era lousy.


70's were way overrated all fighters who put up a fight against ALI.. somehow escaped pretender status.. everyone got elevated including smoking Joe... they all used Ali's name to there benefit..Foreman/Frazier/ali all struggled with mediocre fighters that somehow got star status... Ken Norton an alltime great is all you need to know about that era's inflated status.

Lol, he only beat a prime Ali and had 10 or 12 fights against Ring tated top 10 comp. How many has Vits had again?

[JAB5239]

Let's see I take about two dozen successful title defenses into the equation. Then I take into account no has come close to beating a Klitschko in a full decade cycle.. what did Mr. Clark accomplish besides being almost mistaken for Clark Kent on a day that person wasn't wearing glasses?

43-3 (42ko's) Thats a 91.3% of KO's. Doesn't matter who he beat according to you.

According to you watered down comp is as good as unified top 10 comp, so we need not even get into who Clark fought. The guy was obviously awesome and would be a legend today. Hell, Brian Neilsen must be an ATG in your book, he's got 9 world title wins and was 64-3 (43) and was 1-1 against HOFers and ATG's!

[SN!PER]

A fighter who beats up fatties for a living gets about as much respect as a man who sleeps around with fattie girls. It would be a disservice to congratulate him when he can do so much better.