Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
This is a "no-win" argument. One side loves the Klitschkos, and will go to great lengths to talk up the division. All of a sudden, fighters like Byrd, Austin, Solis, Thompson.... are world-beaters. And there's little anyone can do but either agree or disagree with the argument. Too subjective.

The other side hates the Klitschkos for being boring, and blame the Klitschkos themselves for the state of the heavyweight division, like it's their fault. The fact that most opponents enter the ring against Wlad shitting their pants is somehow Wlad's fault.

I am neither. I think of myself as completely objective on the matter. Not a Klitschko hater..... but realistic enough to not be blinded by their dominance and recognize some hardcore facts. Facts such as:

1. Obviously arguing about the quality of Wlad's opponents is fruitless. Wlad fans will contend they are as good as any other era (cough)...... whereas Wlad haters will say the opponents are garbage. I'm not a Wlad hater, but I side with the haters on this particular point. However........

2. One thing that CANNOT be argued is that the quality of fights themselves has totally dropped in the Klitschko era. Again Wlad fans will differ, but they are kidding themselves. What brings fans to heavyweight fights? Quality of fights. Give and take. Punching and counter-punching. Epic battles. How many of these battles has Wlad been in? Answer: ZILCH. End of discussion. Is this Wlad's fault? Hell no. If he can take the "W" and go home unscathed, by pawing at an opponent cowering in fear (see: David Haye)..... then why should he risk bodily injury? Fair enough. Is it exciting for boxing fans? Not this boxing fan.

3. Put down the opponents in Holmes' era. I don't care. Like I said, I am a Larry Holmes hater. Can't stand the guy. But he was in some epic battles which brought people to boxing. But will any blind Klitschko fan concede this point? Of course not!! They'll point to some far-fetched reason as to why this is untrue. But you know what? I'm gonna make a poll out of it. Yeah... that's what I'll do.

4. Is talking down the quality of Wlad's opponents or his fights, denying Wlad's greatness or place in boxing history? Of course the hell not!! Again, I'm capable of separating one thing from the other. Are you? Wlad fans? Probably not. Yes, Wlad is great. Yes, Wlad will be in the HOF. Etc, etc, etc. Has this era been good for boxing or has it brought new U.S. fans to the HW division? NO.
1. Wlad can only fight who is in his era and a 58 (51 KO)-3 record is nothing to sneeze at. Wlad wins, he wins by KO...what more do you want? He doesn't fight like Tyson because he's not Mike Tyson and people need to let that shit go and appreciate what we have now, they didn't appreciate Lennox Lewis either and now they're looking past the Klitschko's waiting for another Tyson.

2. "What brings fans to heavyweight fights?" 30,000 fans in Switzerland saw Wlad live and in person whup Tony Thompson again and 50,000+ watched him vs Eddie Chambers and Ruslan Chagaev....are you fucking serious "What brings fans to heavyweight fights?"...when was the last time 50,000 Americans went to a heavyweight boxing match? I don't know I have no idea, but just because heavyweight boxing IN AMERICA is hurting doesn't mean that worldwide it's hurting, because it obviously isn't. It's not like people are forced to buy tickets to see Wlad and Vitali fight.

3. Epic battles are fine but you don't have to have epic battles to be a great fighter. Mickey Ward had epic battles, he's not a great fighter. Willie Pep hardly ever had a "battle" and he's a great fighter. Question, how many "Epic battles" was Tyson in? Liston? Lennox Lewis?

4. Wlad made me follow boxing closer, in fact I probably never would have started boxing at all had I not seen Wlad fight. I like many others had gone my entire life and rarely if ever seen an "educated boxer" and even rarer still, seen one that fought like Wlad did. alas, I'm one of the very few, but hey I'm one.