Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
Let's forget for a minute this Tyson vs Wlad nonsense... although I've gone on record saying that prime Tyson would KTFO prime Wlad in short rounds.

Tyson put BUTTS IN SEATS. Worldwide! Is Wlad popular? Yeah. But what choice do we have? We have nothing else. Wlad is an anomaly compared to the rest of the HW riff-raff. He keeps himself in shape, thereby separating himself from a good portion of the division right there. He's white... and before any racist accusations come flying... it must be admitted that many boxing fans are tickled pink about having a dominant white man in the HW division. Wlad is also very intelligent and well-educated. Again... an anomaly.

But his popularity is nowhere near Tyson's at his peak. Tyson was revered the world over. In Japan, where alas he lost for the first time to Douglas, Tyson was nearly a demigod. It only lasted a relatively short time, but the HW division during Tyson's time was as popular or more than any other division. Even casual fans flocked to see Tyson fights, if only out of morbid curiousity. They wanted to see the inevitable KTFO.

Wlad is boring with a capital "B". Yes, he's got the career numbers... yes, he'll eventually be in the boxing HOF... yes, he's dominated the (shitty) division like few others... blah, blah, blah. But Wlad has always fought and will always fight "safety first." Jabbing from afar, without venturing in lest he get caught on his glass chin. I guess the vivid memory of the Sanders and Brewster knockouts are very much alive in his brain. In contrast, did Lennox retreat into a shell after getting knocked out by McCall and Rahman? Hell no. He continued to fight aggresively, at least most of the time.

When Wlad is gone, people will remember him as a great HW, but they'll likely welcome the return of exciting HW boxing. I know I will.
I agree with you on Tyson's grip on the mainstream and he truly was transcendent of the sport. However in regards to Lennox being aggressive. I vividly remember many comments made about his style being cerebral rather than aggressive. He was not very well liked at all by americans. If you doubt me, just simply google his name and with a date stamp of the last decade. You'll not see much enthusiasm about him. Which is fine considering there were many news paper articles even saying that Ali was boring with his jab jab jab and circling and holding.

Suffice to say that most technical champs are not liked by the public. Be it Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Charlie Burley, Sweet Pea, Bernard Hopkins, well you see where I'm going with this? Because of their technique they ensure that there's no high drama in their fights. They make sure there's not too many exchanges in which they receive blows. That of course takes away part of the thrill of a close fight between two men. As such it is deemed boring, defense, or worse: Passive

Of Course I am going off topic, as to the original comment. Yes Tyson made boxing relevant again in his time and though Mayweather and Pacquiao try, they don't quite have the same effect.