Boxing eras (6) Is heavyweight boxing dead or dying?

DO WE LIVE IN THE WORST heavyweight boxing era?

When has there ever been a worse heavyweight boxing era than now?

These are question asked by hundreds of fans daily so here is the final answer:

Here are the top 10 reasons

  • why the boring Klitschko brothers killed boxing…
  • why this era is the worst era of boxing…
  • why the heavyweight division died or is nearly dead
  • why Muhammad Ali's era was better than Klitschko's era
  • why Muhammad Ali is the greatest and the Klitschkos suck

 

Please note: This article is part of my multi-part heavyweight boxing eras comparison:

 

Reason #1 why this heavyweight era is so poor: You compare B-level fights to highlight fights of past eras

Too stupid to mention, but if you watch some random YouTube clip of nowadays' "John Doe vs John Doe" and compare them to YouTube clips of previous eras, then previous eras look better because usually only highlight fights of previous eras are uploaded. And many fights of previous champs weren't even recorded to begin with.

Compare today's John Does to yesteryear's John Does, not todays's John Doe to a "fight of the century".

 

Reason #2 why this heavyweight era sucks: You believe someone who earns money with previous eras

If someone is part of the 1970s Hero Hype Machine (e.g. if he is a former associate of Muhammad Ali) he EARNS MONEY by keeping the Ali myth alive. Every word he says (like "Ali was the best boxer of all time") ends up miraculously in his pocket by increasing DVD sales, securing TV interviews or selling Muhammad Ali memorabilia (autographs, boxing gloves etc).

Thus this person has a direct interest in preaching how fabulous Muhammad Ali was. And how the boxers of his era were faster, stronger and more durable than anything any other era has ever produced. And how nowadays boxers would all be KO'ed by the greats of the past.

Americans/Britons complaining about the Klitschko era
is like the Republican Party complaining about the Democratic Party and vice versa.
Useless trashtalk.

 

Read here about an example of how Angelo Dundee and Larry Holmes and Earnie Shavers try to brainwash the casual boxing fan: Height and weight are irrelevant at heavyweight boxing -OR- Joe Louis vs Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer

 

Reason #3 why the Golden Era of Heavyweight boxing was the best: You believe a former winning boxer

If someone fought against the ancient greats (Muhammad Ali aka Cassius Clay, Ken Norton etc) and he won against them then it makes perfect sense to state they were the greatest boxers ever, because it heightens his win.

And it makes perfect sense to state that all eras thereafter are far worse, for the same reason.

This applies to boxers and trainers.

 

Reason #4 why boxers of the past were superior: You believe a former losing boxer

If someone loses against a boxer then it makes sense to LESSEN this loss by claiming that it's no shame to lose against such a perfect specimen.

What did ·Larry Holmes say after being TKO'ed the first and only time in a career spanning 75 fights?

Reporter:
"How does the punch of Mike Tyson compare to Earnie Shavers and Ken Norton and others etc?"

Larry Holmes:
"The others punch MUCH HARDER THAN TYSON"

It's ridiculous. It's denial. Don't trust statements about the strength of opponents (except if the assessment is supported by facts = records).

It's simply a way of saying "Nah, Tyson punches not so hard. I merely had a bad day".

After ·Samuel Peter was violently schooled by Wlad (his first and only canvas-KO) he still said that Vitali (who couldn't floor Sam Peter) is the better boxer. That's also another way of saying "Wlad floored me, but that was just a fluke, while Vitali, the better boxer, couldn't floor me".

And Ali himself is no different:

"When I quit boxing the game died… Tyson came along… He's good but he's no Muhammad Ali"
(original Muhammad Ali)

Since Ali lost to Larry Holmes he neglects the whole era of Holmes (by not mentioning him) and the whole era of Tyson (whom he mentions but derogatorily).

There is another reason why praising the one you have lost to makes sense: If for example George Foreman (who lost to Ali) would claim "Wladimir Klitschko is greater than Ali", then he claims that Wladimir Klitschko is greater than himself, too.

In other words: Admitting that a Klitschko is better than the best of one's own era, denounces one's own wins.

 

But let me share you another theory why a boxer's assessment of the power of his opponent might be wrong (aside of the denial and the no-face-loss strategy):

The theory says that you don't feel extreme hard punches as a safety reaction of the brain.

Thus you can say that punches were really hard only if they haven't been too hard. As soon as punches get too hard the brain suppresses the overwhelming pain, as hinted by Wladimir Klitschko vs Mariusz Wach after 12 rounds of extreme powerful punches:

Wladimir Klitschko: "That was unbelievable. It's a mystery why Wach didn't go down."

Mariusz Wach: "I didn't feel the punches anymore."

 

Anyway, whatever theory you believe: Do not believe a losing boxer when he claims his opponent wasn't good.

 

Reason #5 why current heavyweight boxers are so bad: You believe in trashtalk #1

Trashtalk is part of boxing.

By trash talking you

  • produce headlines
  • attract attention
  • make it a battle of fists AND emotions (= body and soul)
  • create more fans (I have never seen boxing fans who would have stopped to be boxing fans merely because of trashtalk)
  • built-up fight emotions in yourself to fight more violently
  • keep fans discussing
  • sell more tickets

Trashtalking IS VALUABLE for combat sports.

However, too stupid to mention, but trashtalking is talking TRASH. The reason for trashtalking is not "spreading the truth" but "hyping the hype".

When the trainer of Floyd Mayweather Jr says:

"Pacquiao really don’t got no boxing skills period! What I see Pacquiao do is pretty much like a wild amateur fighter!"

it's worthless for assessing Pacquiao or Mayweather. It's just pre-fight up-hype.

So when former greats or former trainers of greats talk about about how they would have beaten the Klitschkos it is of course part of the hype (or part of the mythology).

 

Reason #6 why today's boxers are so much worse: You believe in trashtalk #2

There is another reason for trashtalk other than hyping up the opponent: Hyping down the opponent to not fight him.

This happened for example when ·Riddick Bowe (the then WBC belt holder) in front of the cameras took his belt and tossed it into the garbage bin (literal _TRASH_ talk) to not be the mandatory challenger of Lennox Lewis. Bowe downtalked the belt and there are a lot of examples where boxers downtalk possible opponents as "unworthy".

If you are gullible then you might think that the WBC (or Lennox Lewis) are no good.

 

Reason #7 why past time boxers performed better: You believe in flattery

It happens often that opponents are actually friends. Lamon Brewster and Kali Meehan are friends, as are Larry Holmes and Earnie Shavers. Whatever Holmes says about Shavers ("He hit me and I was face down on the canvas hearing saxophonist Jimmy Tillis") has to be seen in light of their friendship.

Another example is what the Klitschko brothers saying about each other:

Wladimir Klitschko: "Vitali was born as a fighter. Something is in him inside – the fire of a fighter. I became a fighter later on.. So I think Vitali is the better of the two of us"

Vitali Klitschko: "I have just one belt, my brother has three of them. He's much younger, he's the best, he has the skills. He's a great boxer and a great champion. The only fighter who can beat me is my brother. In my personal opinion, he's better than me"

So Wlad praises Vitali who praises Wlad who praises Vitali. One is a "natural born fighter", the other "has the skills".

With or without this circular praise: YOU CAN NOT trust what friends say about each other. Do not take flattery as a proof.

 

Reason # 8 why the heavyweight division is a joke: You don't recognize the opponent's name

Especially American fans love FAME NAMES.

A boxer is a good boxer if he has FAMOUS names on his record.

I encountered it already SEVERAL times that American boxing fans do not even care whether one has actually BEATEN the famous opponents. Just the fact that "Sonny Liston fought Muhammad Ali" is already a proof of Sonny's greatness.

I don't know if it's a cultural thing ("Advertising > Own eyes") or being proud of your country men but Americans LOVE names.

A typical American question would be "Whom has he beaten?" But as I pointed out at Typical reproaches whatever you say Americans will answer either "Who the heck is that?" or "That guy is a bum!"

 

Reason #9 why the current heavyweight division is a joke: You are a patriot or belong to a minority

If you belong to a minority then you will naturally hype up the boxers of your socio-cultural context. As an American you possibly prefer American boxers. As a Muslim you possibly prefer Muslim boxers. And as a black you possibly prefer blacks instead of Eastern-Europeans. Additionally a lot of people are both Americans and black Muslims thus for them a boxer like Clay/Ali or Mike Tyson is THE HERO.

 

Reason #10 why the current boxing scene is in a dire state: You believe US-American sports commentators

If someone works for an US TV sports channel he earns money by featuring American boxers. Right now all good American boxers have been beaten to pulp by ex-Soviets thus OF COURSE there is no fun to praise ex-Soviets for beating up your own US boxers.

Hence there is only one solution: To claim that the current champs are abysmal and that the current American boxers are even "abysmaler". However this leads to only one solution: Not showing boxing at all because "why would anyone watch the terrible US American boxers?"

Thus if you believe US American sports commentators you instantly think the following is true

  • The current non-American champions are bad
  • The current American boxers are even worse, obviously, since they can't beat the bad champions
  • Thus current era is the worst in heavyweight boxing history
  • That's why boxing is dead
  • That's why no one wants to watch boxing anymore
  • That's why US TV channels won't show any boxing anymore

This broken record ("This heavyweight boxing era sucks") got repeated so often that US fans started to believe it's true. When asked for proofs they CANNOT UP WITH ANYTHING except worthless drivel like "You know it yourself" or "If you don't see it then you are blind" or "Everybody knows it".

I wouldn't go as far as to say that "HBO is the Fox news of boxing" but it's nevertheless a blatant lie that the heavyweight division is dead. Boxing (outside the US) is as alive as never before. The current reigning champions (the Klitschko brothers) get broadcast live (to 100+ countries) like no other boxer before them. They fill stadiums regularly like no one else before them. Just compare these attendance numbers:

FightAttendance
Mike Tyson vs Lennox Lewis15'000 (4000 empty seats)
Wladimir Klitschko vs Ruslan Chagaev61'000
Mike Tyson vs Evan Fields rematch (ear bite)16'000
Mike Tyson vs Buster Douglas (Mike gets knocked out)16'000
Joe Frazier vs Muhammad Ali (1st)
"Fight of the century"
19'500
Nikolai Valuev vs Evan Fields12'000+

Fistic Statistic [#2299.1]

The Klitschkos fill stadiums even against unknown opponents ("Klitschko vs John Doe"). The Klitschkos are bigger draws than Tyson or Muhammad Ali. They pull in 3x more than such household names like Lennox Lewis or Evan Fields. Never before has boxing been more famous than in the Klitschko era.

 

Reason #11 why the current boxing champions are unworthy: You are a fan of another boxer than the current top boxer

A typical constellation is to be a fan of Muhammad Ali and to hate the Klitschkos.

Another typical constellation is David Haye fan –> Klitschko hater.

Less often you find Mike Tyson fan –> Klitschko hater (Mike Tyson has lost too often to have a fully presentable record)

Even less often you find Lennox fan –> Klitschko hater.

I have always the feeling that Klitschko Hate stems from a fear that the Klitschkos might have beaten one's own hero.

 

Reason #12 why nobody is as great as Muhammad Ali: You have a different definition of "Who is the greatest heavyweight boxer ever"?

A typical confusion surrounds the question "Who is the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time?"

For this question to be answered you have to define "great", "est", "heavyweight", "boxer" and "of all time".

This is FAR FROM TRIVIAL.

The definition of "heavyweight" changed several times. Once 180 lbs vs 165 lbsBob Fitzsimmons vs ·Peter Maher) was called "world heavyweight title", or even 172 lbs vs 163 lbsTommy Burns vs ·Philadelphia Jack O'Brien). Of the 300+ heavyweight world title fights 111 have not been 200×2 lbs fights.

The definition of "boxer" changed. It included once bare-knuckle boxers and even Rocky Marciano had thinner gloves that wouldn't be allowed today (hence his high KO'ratio).

The definition of "all time" makes it unclear whether you exclude modern boxers whose career still isn't over and (maybe equally important) whose opponents' careers aren't over yet (thus we cannot assess the opponents' quality).

The definition of "est" (= the ranking rules) can result in different outcomes EVEN with the same set of boxers and the same properties considered (number of KOs, number of title wins, …) just by changing the VALUE of single properties ("How much is a KO worth?"). Small changes in the way HOW to rank can lead to massive differences.

But most importantly the definition of "great" is defined differently by Americans and by non-Americans.

Americans consider out-of-the-ring performances while non-Americans don't, as I wrote at Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (1) pound for pound, head to head, record for record and Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (3) TOP 10 by boxing experts -OR- Grandpa's champions.

For Americans you might be a great boxer because you didn't want to go to war in Vietnam (like Cassius Clay). For non-Americans, who may not even have heard about any Vietnam war, this is utterly irrelevant.

For Americans it makes you great when you win a Supreme Court decision (like Cassius Clay). For non-Americans this is as ridiculous as proclaiming Sam Peter the greatest heavyweight of all time because he won a court decision in Nigeria.

For Americans you might be great for subjective reasons ("ringmanship") while for non-Americans only tangible assets count ("number of world championship wins") etc etc…

Additionally if you say "great" you may mean "head to head" (= who would beat whom in the same ring), "skill for skill" (p4p) (= who delivers the most impressive performance) or "record for record" (= who has won the most titles etc). These different approaches result in UTTERLY different toplists as I pointed out at Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (1) pound for pound, head to head, record for record.

In other words: You might think that this era is bad because you define "great" and "bad" by different standards.

 

Reason #13 why nobody cares about heavyweight boxing anymore: You have been indoctrinated and lied to

Let me assure you that I personally watched enough fights of the so called "golden age of heavyweight boxing" (= the 1960s and 1970s) to be UTTERLY UNIMPRESSED.

Those men (or rather "boys") were NOTHING SPECIAL (except ·George Foreman).

The greatness of heavyweights of the 1960s and 1970s is an ILLUSION FABRICATED by

  • the Iconization Industry = Fame Factory = Mythology Mill of the USA in the 1960s and 1970s
  • the lack of global competition (the Soviet bloc was FORBIDDEN to box professionally)

The heavyweight boxing of the "golden age" was mainly a local contest comparable to the European heavyweight title (EBU) nowadays. All the achievements in those times are either pretty worthless or at least highly doubtful.

The golden boys had far less power than modern American boxers, they were much slower, they were less muscular and athletic than modern boxers.

There is NOTHING remotely impressive about these "golden boys". It's 90% hype and 10% truth.

In fact you could take nearly all of the myths of the good-old-time fetishists and expose them for what they are: Ridiculous exaggerations. Whether it's Sonny Liston's  supposedly "phenomenal jab" or "Muhammad Ali's reflexes" or whatever… it's all lies or blatant exaggerations.

Sonny Liston's jab was one of the slowest you'd ever see (his left hook was good though). Ali's reflexes are non-existent (he gets hit even by the slowest punches). It's all mythology.

Half of Klitschkos opponents would have ruled the 1970s. Sam Peter would be undisputed world champ. Chris Arreola, too. Tony Thompson would an be awe inducing giant. Eddie Chambers and David Haye would be the fastest boxers the world has ever seen. Just to name a few random boxers off the top of my head.

 

Reason #14 why the heavyweight division is in a bad shape: You have been confused by the misnomer "heavyweight"

The ONLY REASON why boxing fans compare Muhammad Ali and others to the Klitschkos is the term "heavyweight".

But in Ali's era heavyweight was defined as 175+ lbs (lower than nowadays FEMALE heavyweight division) and now it's defined as 200+ lbs ("superheavyweight") but de facto it is 215+ lbs ("ultraheavyweight" or whatever term you want to use) with Klitschko's average opponent being approximately 225 lbs.

Thus in reality you are comparing previous "heavyweight eras" to the current "ultraheavyweight era".

How illegitimate such a comparison is can be seen by the fact that prime George Foreman (whom they called Big George Foreman) would be the BOTTOM-3 lightest opponent Vitali Klitschko ever faced and yet this Foreman outweighed his opponents in 81% of his fights back then.

big george foreman
George Foreman
who was called Big George Foreman
was one of the tallest fighters
of the 1970s

Something like the current boxers did not exist back then. Current heavies would steamroll over the golden boys.

And maybe Foreman today he wouldn't be called Big George but Boy George (haha).

In other words: Claiming that the current era is worse than a previous era is comparing apples to oranges ("the current heavyweight era is worse than the middleweight era of the 1960s").

 

Reason #15 why heavyweight division is boring: You are an American/Briton who dislikes the style of Wladimir Klitschko

This is a whole topic at Heavyweight boxing died since boring Wladimir Klitschko killed the division -OR- American and British Complainers
and at
Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he KOs his opponents

 

Reason #16 why heavyweight boxing is dying: You are a typical boxing fan: Ungrateful, too demanding and too blind to appreciate talent and success

Since when is boxing dying actually? Since the Klitschkos? Since Lennox? Since Tyson? Since Ali?

Well, let's check. Obviously boxing has been dying for a looong time now.

"We gotta get back to the old days to the old ways and good trainers. They ain't no good trainers out there; believe it or not Freddie Roach is the only one out there right now."
Larry Holmes, 2010

 

"There is a huge choir of cynics out there, particularly in the boxing written press, who will never be impressed with anything Lennox Lewis does. Their take is that Lennox Lewis he rose to the top of the division at a moment when there wasn't any real competition there to face him."
Jim Lampley, 2000

 

"Most of his opponents could only aspire to be tomato cans"
Larry Merchant, about Shannon Briggs, 1996

 

"A lot of the people who say Mike Tyson shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame because he never won a big super match with a big fighter of his era. The truth of the matter is there wasn’t too much around in his era at the time when Mike Tyson was in his prime"
Emanuel Steward about the 1980s-1990s

 

"Boxing right now is dying with its superstar Muhammad Ali fighting competitors not worthy to try for his crown."
Black Belt Magazine, 1976

 

"Legitimate professional wrestling has died. Boxing is dying. Swimming, tennis, golf, modern dance, and gymnastics are growing."
James A Baley, 1974

 

Question: "Is boxing dying?"
Archie Moore (multiple title champion and ATG):
"Yes, it must be. They told me it was dying when I got into it as a professional in 1936. I think it started dying at about the dawn of history. So I guess it is still dying."
Archie Moore, 1972

 

"His belly billowing over his trunks, an overlump Ali weighed almost 230 pounds as he waited to spar in his 5th street gym 4 weeks ago."
LIFE Magazine, 1971

 

"And when the black man starts to excel in a particular sport the question starts floating around: "Is boxing dying?"
Eldridge Cleaver, 1969

 

To Muhammad Ali: "You were troubled by a less than mediocre southpaw Karl Mildenberger in Germany. You showed me nothing against Chuvalo relying upon the fact that he gave you water on the knees with low blows"
Howard Cosell, 1968

 

"With the gradual dying of boxing as a national sport, judo seems the perfect replacement"
Black Belt Magazine, 1964

 

"The experts have been saying for years that boxing is dying because kids no longer are hungry, because boxing no longer is the way for a poor kid to get rich quick."
LA Times, 1963

 

"Boxing is not dying", said Jack Dempsey sadly, "it's dead". Even as the old champ spoke last week the corpse of a one lively sport was just barely twitching… Jack Dempsey was not the only old champ to grieve. Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney were equally mournful… "It's gone, boxing. Today you show any style and they put you on TV. They'll take anyone." Neither Tunney nor Walker knew quite what to do with the corpse."
Life Magazine, 1961

 

"Radio is not "causing the demise of big-time boxing", John Ford, WTCN-Blue newscaster, told his audience in rebuttal to an attack on radio and boxing, published by Dick Cullum, sports editor of the Minneapolis Daily Times, 10 days ago.
Cullum had charged that because sponsors want their full time on the air in which to get in their commercials, fight broadcasts go without knockouts these days and become uninteresting dancing exhibitions."

The Billboard, 1944

 

"The game of boxing is dying today because the boys do not know how to box. There is no one to teach them how and they won't work anyway".
LA Times, 1940

 

"Professional boxing is dying a natural death"
LA Times, 1913

 

"As it is, the school of boxing is rapidly dying out, and when the professors of the present day have passed away it will be hard to say where the new ones are to come from."
Professor Ned Donelly, The art of boxing, 1879

 

Obviously boxing fans are the worst, most negative fans of the world.
And boxing experts are the worst experts of the world.

As a general rule:

Far worse than nowadays boxers
are the "experts", "journalists" and "fans" who complain about them.

One post on a boxing forum sums up the whole situation:

"They've been saying that "today's heavyweights" suck since the beginning of the 20th century.

In the 1990s they b*tched that you had a 45 year old heavyweight champion and a near champion in Larry Holmes (who nearly beat McCall).

In the 1980s they b*tched that Holmes didn't have anyone to fight and the post-Holmes pre-Tyson era was one of the worst in history- according to the writers of that era.

People call the 1970s the "Golden Era" today, well -they didn't call it that then. They b*tched that an old, shot, Ali was champion and the Joe Louis would have wiped the floor up with the bums fighting in that era. People complained about Ali and Frazier making so much money (2.5 million) for their first fight.

The 1960s– hell, a 40 year old sonny Liston was arguably the best fighter in the world after Ali was suspended- no one, including Frazier's management wanted to fight him. Floyd Patterson was also a top contender late in that decade.

The 1950s? Gene Tunney once stated in a Look Magazine article that Jack Dempsey would KO Marciano, Charles, Walcott, and Rex Lane on the SAME night.

The 1940s? Read the the old Ring Magazine articles about how bad the heavies were back then. Jack Johnson said that not only were the contenders lousy but Joe Louis wasn't any good neither. He said that not only would he beat Louis but Jeffries, Corbet, Fitzsimmons, Tom Sharkey, Joe Choynski, and a bunch of other contenders of his era would easily beat Louis.

The 1930s? Do I need to go on? So find me a time in history when the public thought that the heavyweights of that era were any good"

(original quote on a boxing forum)

 and

[I hear] every, every year "Boxing is dying". Every year "Boxing's dying". I've been hearing this for so many years, it's a joke. At the end of the day there's more televised shows than ever.

Frank Warren (boxing promoter), 2012

 

But perhaps the best quote was delivered by Larry Merchant:

"Nothing will kill boxing.
And nothing can save it."

Larry Merchant

 

Summary

So there you have it: Criticism of heavyweight boxing is far from being objective.

There are many reasons for a boxer, a trainer or an expert to state "The current heavyweight scene is terrible" without it being so.

Appreciate boxers while they last. Don't outsource your eyes. Don't listen to so called experts when they cannot backup their claims by facts.

Let me assure you that the current Klitschko era is one of the best, stylistically most diversified, most athletic and impressive eras EVER. Just alone the fact that it's a WORLDWIDE era (since the Soviet bloc is finally allowed to compete) makes it the first of its kind. Performance-wise this era is very entertaining and top notch.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.4/5 (19 votes cast)
Boxing eras (6) Is heavyweight boxing dead or dying?, 4.4 out of 5 based on 19 ratings
Did you find this information useful? Then please donate...

Comments (33)

  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jylo Geli]
    #385 Honza (2011-06-06th)

    I do not think that boxing is dead but heavyweight division is little bit boring.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  • Santana Bond says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Vidu Zagy]
    #486 Santana Bond (2011-07-03rd)

    Mohamed Ali aka Cassias Clay; I haven't even heard that particular phrase used in more than 30 year. Why did you say that?…to clear up the situation in case maybe someone didn't know Ali's name was Cassias Clay before he changed it. I'm sorry, red flag there buddy; there's just no way around it. —Now, putting that 'telling misstep aside', I notice this column is at least partially titled, "Objective View…". Do you understand that is an impossibility. You cannot comment on something, anything where you give your opinion…even a well educated opinion and have it be objective. It's still just an opinion.

    I'm not even going to get into the part of 'who's the greatest heavyweight of all time. That 'argument' was settled decades ago. Everything else is just conclusions of the 'unaware.'

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.1/5 (7 votes cast)
    • Galactus says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Vyno Peli]
      #3865 Galactus (2012-04-09th)

      Facts aren't opinion, they are facts.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #3866 Admin (2012-04-09th)
      Mohamed Ali aka Cassias Clay; I haven't even heard that particular phrase used in more than 30 year. Why did you say that?…

      That's explained at [post=341] –> Miscellaneous Definitions –> "Clay/Ali"

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  • Anonymous says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Rydo Mezi]
    #729 (2011-08-15th)

    aboxing era looks boring if all the boxers are almost perfectly matched and keep beating each ohappenther repeatedly or if one or two of them are way way better and almost no chance of an upset can happen

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.5/5 (4 votes cast)
  • flag
    [ip2username: Rydo Mezi]
    #730 richard yakoweshen (2011-08-15th)

    aheavyweight era looks exciting when there are a lot of good boxers but a few that are quite a bit better and fans are wondering who will cause an upset.an era looks boring when there are a lot of good boxers but they are al very evenly matched and always beat each otherand none are a real underdog.anothertime an era looks boring is when there are a lot of good fighters but one ore two that are way,way better.the others arent an exiting challege and there is very little hope of an upset. so all eras can have good boxers but only some with certain circumstances are exting

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  • flag
    [ip2username: Rydo Mezi]
    #731 richard yakoweshen (2011-08-15th)

    the last of the four comments was mine

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  • Z says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Nisu Dajy]
    #845 Z (2011-08-30th)

    Quit trying to justify the current heavyweight's era failure. Fans are not blind or stupid to see for themselves the millions older boxing videos on youtube for themselves, that proves older era is far superior & entertaining. There is no myth, there is no fabrication of greatness. All there is are morons like you who are too dumb to see the writing on the wall that today's heavyweight boxers are boring, stale, & not worth paying attention to. At least the WW division is doing good still.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #854 Admin (2011-08-31st)
      see for themselves the millions older boxing videos on youtube

      The problem is: On YouTube you find mainly HIGHLIGHT matches of 10 decades. It's obvious that the best heavyweight fights of several decades are better than some random boxing match nowadays.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
  • Aswin Kini says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Kitu Vavy]
    #1030 Aswin Kini (2011-09-18th)

    "The problem is: On YouTube you find mainly HIGHLIGHT matches of 10 decades. It's obvious that the best heavyweight fights of several decades are btter than some random boxing match nowadays."

    I am afraid I don't think so. It really boils down to the fact to what you think is random.

    Let's leave the videos of past heavyweight champions apart.
    Let's compare the second best fighters of the era?????
    Eddie Chambers, Arreola, Puritty, Johnson, Byrd, Peters (All recent or fading contenders of the present) vs Ron Lyle, Shavers, Norton, Chuvalo, Quarry, Ellis, Terrell, Patterson)

    Ignore the weight part as it is the quality of boxing I am speaking about.

    Call 100 knowledgeable boxing fans and ask them to watch 20 random videos of past fighters and compare them with the present.

    Ask them to judge which ones were better in Quality??
    Would a Ron Lyle vs Quarry or a Ron Lyle vs Shavers be more interesting than watching a recent Contender match like Haye vs Audley Harrison, Adamek vs Grant?????? (Just to remind you that Haye and Adamek at 210-218 pounds were the challengers to the Klitschkos recently).

    That means either Klitscho had an advantage of 1) 5 inches in height 2) 20+ pounds in weight and 3) Atleast 5 inches in reach. :evil:

    I wonder when was the last time I knew of a reigning 3 titled champion like Wladimir Klitschko fighting a faded, punch-drunk, 42 year old, lesser known, Mormeck as his next heavyweight fight??
    Considering that Mormeck was/is a 5 "11" former cruiserweight with just 3 good fights over the years.

    Hey, didn't someone in this fight call Joe Frazier a one-eyed dwarf. Well, the reply is that a talented, gutsy, one-eye dwarf, who had the guts to rematch a 220 pound, 6 foot 4 punching machine in George Foreman, is better than a champion, who picks a punch-drunk 42 year old (Not to mention very lighter in weight) Mormeck as a challenger. :lol:
    Shame on Wladimir. Look at the excuse that he gave. (We have no other contenders. This after saying he will not fight Adamek because Vitali beat him) Pray tell me how the hell is the heavyweight division out of contenders, when we have a 6 foot 7 Helenius and 6 foot 9 Tyson Fury still fighting amongst the ranks. What about Shannon Briggs (Granted he took a beating, but never got knocked down and still possess more power than a 42 year old Mormeck). Why not rematch Chambers? what about the other heavyweight contenders? WTF is a 6 foot 7 Michael Grant not granted a title shot.

    And you call Wladimir an alltime great????? Any excuses this time buddy??

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #1159 Admin (2011-09-24th)
      Ignore the weight part as it is the quality of boxing I am speaking about.

      Ahem, you are on HEAVYWEIGHTblog.com. You can't ignore the weight. Otherwise you should throw Manny Pacquiao into the mix and compare his footwork to Foreman's.

      I wonder when was the last time I knew of a reigning 3 titled champion like Wladimir Klitschko fighting a faded, punch-drunk, 42 year old, lesser known, Mormeck as his next heavyweight fight?? Considering that Mormeck was/is a 5 "11" former cruiserweight with just 3 good fights over the years.

      1) Mormeck would be 39 years, not 42. Don't invent things.
      2) Mormeck is ripped and in top shape.
      3) It's pure speculation Wladimir will fight Mormeck next. No contracts have been signed whatsoever.
      4) It would be a stay-busy fight.
      5) Mormeck is currently Top10 ranked by the WBA, IBO, WBO (Wladimir holds the belts of these organizations). He is the *highest ranked *available opponent *not previously beaten by Wladimir.
      6) I don't criticize Muhammad Ali for FIGHTING Frazier. Wlad fought also a lot of bums and B-level opponents. I criticize Ali for going life'n'death against Frazier, as I would criticize Wlad for going life'n'death against Mormeck.

      Shame on Wladimir. Look at the excuse that he gave. (We have no other contenders. This after saying he will not fight Adamek because Vitali beat him) Pray tell me how the hell is the heavyweight division out of contenders, when we have a 6 foot 7 Helenius and 6 foot 9 Tyson Fury still fighting amongst the ranks. What about Shannon Briggs (Granted he took a beating, but never got knocked down and still possess more power than a 42 year old Mormeck). Why not rematch Chambers? what about the other heavyweight contenders? WTF is a 6 foot 7 Michael Grant not granted a title shot.

      It's unbelievable how you try to downgrade Wladimir Klitschko by obviously leaving out important facts:

      Adamek – Just got beaten by Vitali Klitschko and won't fight until next year.
      Helenius – Recently gave an interview and said he needs 2-3 more fights before facing a Klitschko.
      Tyson Fury – Recently gave an interview and said that he's not ready to fight Wladimir, and that Wladimir would KO him.
      Briggs – Got beaten last year (multiple face fractures) by a Klitschko and retired. Moreover he is even older than Mormeck, about whose age you complained.
      Chambers – Already beaten by Wladimir. Has an upcoming fight against Tony Thompson and the winner is to challenge Wladimir.
      Michael Grant – Lost to Adamek (who got KOed by Vitali Klitschko) and to McCline (who got KOed by Wladimir Klitschko).

      And before you mention the following guys:

      Arreola – Recently gave an interview and said he can fight Wladimir 2012 earliest.
      Dimitrenko – Has a fight scheduled this week.

      That last paragraph utterly demasked you as a Klitschko hater.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 4.0/5 (8 votes cast)
      • Tommo says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5650 Tommo (2013-03-25th)

        Besides not ignoring the weight anyway, a lot of those old fights are not just bad but REALLY pathetic. They are really like schoolyard brawls. Todays fights are much better. Moreover compare a cruiser fight from back then to a cruiser fight now and again, todays are MUCH better. And if Mormeck was fighting Frazier or Leon Spinks, who would you bet on? I mean really? You would have to put it on Mormeck or you would wind up broke! Aswin lol stop it lol

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • Tommo says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5851 Tommo (2013-04-01st)

          Except punch drunk 42yr old former cruiser with f*ck all HW exp vs Wlad = mis-match. Aswin can you tell me how he even made this fight? Wladimir could find much better opponent. Not a very credible move for his legacy agreed.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Aswin says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jany Wove]
    #1223 Aswin (2011-09-27th)

    "That last paragraph utterly demasked you as a Klitschko hater.",
    Just because I state the facts does not make me a Klit hater!
    THe fact is that it is pathetic to see a unified champion fighting former lightweights and cruiserweights as his challengers and claim them to be the best contenders available.

    Mormeck has been beaten by Haye in the cruiserweights, we all know that when a 6 foot 2 Haye (Not 6 foot 3 as he claims) cannot beat a Klit, I wonder how can a smaller and lighter fighter, who has had just 4 heavyweight fights over the years fight a unified champion.

    You called this a stay-busy fight????? What a lousy reason? Lewis was a unified champion too and whom did he fight to stay busy before fighting a washed up Tyson. The then-dangerous Michael Grant, who stood at an imposig 6 foot 7 and weighed 250+ pounds with an 86 inch reach.

    The matter of fact is that you always overrate the Klitschkos. I mentioned that Grant would be a better candidate than Mormeck for a stay-busy fight. Why? BEcause Grant has always a puncher's chance against Wladmir while MOrmeck can';t stay alive for 3 rounds, let alone fight.

    You always proved that you are a Klithugger in disguise!!! Why label me a Klit hater? Just because I tell the truth. Great champions find good challengers. Wladmir being the holder of multiple title belts should have considered better candidates. Calling Mormeck as the best rated contender available is an insult to boxing.

    I would be surprised if Wladmir's fight with Mormeck does not go above 6 rounds!!! SO much for the glory era of boxing. A 6 foot 7 champ fighting a 5 foot 11 washed up fighter.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Honza says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Xisu Napy]
      #5493 Honza (2013-01-29th)

      Wlad is 6 foot 6 at most but other than that you are completely right. You are the only person that admin almost never answer because you are right most of the time.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • Tommo says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5651 Tommo (2013-03-25th)

        What, this guy is one of the WORST critics he has basically nothing to counter with. He would obviously fight anybody game enough to want to try. If that is a former cruiser then so be it. It's not like he dodges natural heavies, he's dodged no one at all. Mormeck or Haye would also defeat old boxers, some of them like Frazier they would easily defeat.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • Tommo says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5852 Tommo (2013-04-01st)

          Please disregard this bashing statement Aswin, it was made when I first came to this site when I was rushing through the articles/comments emotionally charged before I properly analysed things and realised most of your arguments are quite valid. Very sorry.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
          • Tommo says:
            flag
            [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
            #5853 Tommo (2013-04-01st)

            And as I did not see Mormeck fight or knew of him before blindly rushing to Wladimirs defense it turns out I was GROSSLY mistaken on this issue and soon as I did I reached same conclusion. Wladimir should have made Povetkin match or even called out Fury or Price.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • FightFan says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Ruma Xybo]
    #1378 FightFan (2011-10-03rd)

    If you define the so called "greatness" of today's heavyweight division by saying that Klitschko's would beat Ali and anyone in Ali's era, you would be correct. If you define greatness like most others when talking about the 60's and 70's heavyweight division, then you define it as competitive, which today it is not. When is the last time the Klitschko's have been in an exciting fight. When is the last time they had wars, a fued with another boxer of equal stature. When is the last time they were challenged. Vitali vs Lewis? thats it. The heavyweight division has not produced any exciting, young, dynamic fighters in quite some time. All we have is the domination of the Klitschko's. There is no comparison between this generation and the golden era of boxing, which have seen some of the best fights in the history of the sport. It's not biased, it's not racist, its just a fact. deal with it.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.5/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5655 Tommo (2013-03-25th)

      Look mate I'm GLAD you said that because with all of the proponents of the "golden age" there must be some difference of definition. Like myself, the author defines the greatness by whether the fighters of one era would be able to defeat the fighters of another. And common sense alone as well as the stats say what you have just agreed- THAT the fighters of the current era would defeat (to put it lightly) the fighters of 4 decades ago! If you want to claim an era is great for a different reason like you do, that the fighters are all evenly competitive, then you must state that like you have. Some of the nostalgic writers on this blog though DO try to push the notion that those old timers would beat up the modern heavies which is crazy.

      I also don't agree with your assessment wholly either. The Klitschko's are dominant that's true. But their competition IS good. They just are both very talented, well trained and physically gifted, that's not their fault they are a cut above the rest, doesn't mean there era is sh*t. Besides, Wladimir has been KO'd a few times right? So there is always the chance of an upset, history tells us there likely will be eventually. Also one of his more recent fights, the one with Haye was pretty action packed and fairly competitive if you asked me. A lot more so than a big George smacking around a little blind porky dwarf for a couple of rounds or a piss weak big mouth running away for 15 rounds and leaning around on ropes I assure you. :)

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • cbass says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xode Pinu]
    #4078 cbass (2012-07-21st)

    All the reasons you give are opinionated… Why do you state your opinions in such a factual manner like they're written in stone. They're layed out in 10 commandment fashion. Is it fair to say you layed out your opinions in #fashion to indoctrinate anyone who reads this article? I respect your opinion but, and you can deny it all you want; i believe you're all over the Klitchko's dick a little bit…
    I can say you would prefer this era of boxing
    #1. because of the better cameras and visuals.. etc;

    Reasons such as "you're an american/Briton" "you're ungrateful, too demanding" etc… IMO are offensive to me and others as a lover and fan of the sport. Why do you limit yourself to only saying america and Briton? Are you racist? What about Asia? The middle East? Africa? Australia? I'm sure they all have die-hard boxing fans that are just as opinionated as you are..

    I myself prefer the mid 60's to the mid 80's era of boxing because i can give my honest opinion that the fights were more exciting where you had a more vast array of styles and top contenders where someone ALWAYS had someone to fight.. Call them overgrown cruiser weights or bloated light heavies but that was the "Heavyweight" division in those times.. So you're just stating the obvious..

    Either way i respect your opinion but as far as this article goes, i felt it was very one-sided, extremely opinionated with the exception of the quotes of people giving their opinion and doing their job trying to raise controversy. As for the former fighters giving their take, i feel that's just how fighters are in general; there are also fighters who praise one another and acknowledge each others accomplishments. Muhammad Ali said that about mike tyson ut a few years later on the Arsenio Hall show when Mike Tyson came out that the man is great and he would win. I'm quite sure that today's athletes will bash and praise future ones by saying they would've done such and such to them and saying that they weren't as great; Do fighters now ever tell their competition they are better than them? If they do than i think it's sad honestly.. :-?

    In conclusion i felt this review was sub-par, mediocre and extremely one sided, set up to favor your personal feeling on the subject. Nonetheless i will repeat, i still respect your opinion…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #4095 Admin (2012-07-24th)
      I myself prefer the mid 60's to the mid 80's era of boxing because i can give my honest opinion that the fights were more exciting where you had a more vast array of styles and top contenders where someone ALWAYS had someone to fight.

      There are 2 issues here. One is how competitive and entertaining the fights were. The other is whether these ancient fighters had any chance against modern heavies.

      The entertainment aspect is very subjective and completely unrelated to the chance aspect.
      Can lower weight divisions have entertaining fights? Of course!
      Can lower weight divisions have more entertaining fights than higher weight divisions? Of course!
      Do flyweights have a chance against heavyweight? Not really.
      Can someone consider Foreman vs Ali entertaining? Of course!
      Does Ali have a chance against Wladimir Klitschko? Not really.

      Another point is how you interpret competitiveness.
      I consider competitiveness a bad feature of an era. When the top guy cannot handle properly his challengers this either means he is bad or a lucky winner (or both). I prefer dominance.

      However the main point of this article is the frequent statement that boxing is dead or dying. No it's not. It's doing far better than in many eras before.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.3/5 (3 votes cast)
      • cbass says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Pisu Vavy]
        #4112 cbass (2012-07-30th)

        I agree that boxing is not dead and hopefully the next wave of fighters will be greater than ever before because i'm a fan of boxing first… But i say that it's not dead but it's not at it's best. You say it's doing far better, i disagree…

        You prefer dominance? That's completely fine but why is it that the Klitchkos "dominate" i guess you can say; their competition? The heavyweight division IS dead and the Klitchkos deserve better opponents because modern heavyweights are sad; SADDD.. You can never convince me otherwise.

        Until they divide the heavyweight division into heavyweight and super heavyweight and until a new wave of skillful fighters get in the ring, me and many others would say it's dead…

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • Tommo says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5656 Tommo (2013-03-25th)

        I feel an evenly competitive era and one where there is a dominant champion can be equally entertaining. You could have an era where there a lot of guys who are really good but even and both views would be satisfied. And the most exciting era of HW boxing to date also featured a dominant champion for a time and nobody complained about that era! lol

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • Tommo says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5878 Tommo (2013-04-02nd)

          The Tyson ascension reign I mean :)

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • cbass says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xode Pinu]
    #4080 cbass (2012-07-21st)

    I guess you're also doing your job y trying to raise controversy as a "writer" shall i say, where in that case i would say you did a great job in writing this article..

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  • hernanday says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Tove Niku]
    #4439 hernanday (2012-09-17th)

    This is a joke. Vlad Klitscho got KO to random no name journeymen boxers who are not even considered serious contenders for titles like Ross Purity, then he gets knocked out by Corrie Sanders, and knocked out by Lamont Brewster. When you see the ease at which they beat him with 5th and 2nd round knock outs, you realize he is not a great, because Ross Puritty, or Corrie Sanders are not exactly going to make the hall of fame. These are boxers who guys fight to prove they are ready for contender status.

    What seperates Vlad from real champs, is guys like Ali, Tyson, Foreman(undefeated 40-0 when he fought Ali) , Holmes (who went 48-0), Spinks (undefeated at time they fought), Frazier (undefeated when they fought ali). Likewise stats for Tyson. Vlad will likely not have fought another top boxer for his entire career. Vitali will only have 1 loss to lennox lewis to show.

    And there in lies the problem, at least when Tyson fought nobodies, he was able to KO them quickly, and when he fought undefeated 34-0Tony Tucker he won. His only losses are 2 fights at the end of his career when he was washed upand quit the fights, 1 to Lewis, 1 to Holyfield and that's it. And even the holyfield is controversial because he headbutted the whole match.

    Put Klitscho infront of guys who move their heads, hell put klitscho infront of deontay wilder and I will show you a dead klitscho.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #4442 Admin (2012-09-17th)

      Don't lie. Corrie Sanders (42-4) is a world titlist, not a journeyman. Lamon Brewster won 4 world championships and Ross Puritty is analyzed at
      http://www.heavyweightblog.com/2490/george-foreman-vs-wladimir-klitschko-who-is-the-harder-puncher
      …where I also compare the KO speed of Tyson and Wladimir (that you mention, too).

      It's characteristic how you try to diminish Wladimir Klitschko's loss opponents to "journey men" while at the same time spinning Tyson's losses to some kind of "after career exhibition fight mishap". Tyson was 23 when he lost to Douglas and 30 when he lost to Holyfield, who was even older than Tyson. Additionally 30 isn't old for heavyweights:
      * Wladimir Klitschko was 30 when he fought Ray Austin
      * Vitali Klitschko was 30 when he fought Vaughn Bean
      * Lewis was 30 when he fought Ray Mercer
      * Larry Holmes was 30 when he fought Muhammad Ali
      * Muhammad Ali had 6(!) fights when he was 30.

      Your spin is totally exposed. 30 is not the end of the career but rather the beginning of the height for heavyweights.

      See also:
      http://www.heavyweightblog.com/478/wladimir-klitschko-gets-koed-china-chinned-stamina-pressure

      What seperates Vlad from real champs, is guys like Ali, Tyson, Foreman(undefeated 40-0 when he fought Ali) , Holmes (who went 48-0), Spinks (undefeated at time they fought), Frazier (undefeated when they fought ali).

      But these records include fights against cruiser or even cruiser bums. Yes, Foreman was 40-0 when he fought Ali, but most of these 40 guys were indeed journey men that Wlad wouldn't even be allowed to fight, e.g. Dullair (8-8, 185lbs) or Russell (12-18, 188, lbs).

      Once you exclude cruisers from Foreman's record he was 23-0 when he fought Ali, with 17(!) of these 23 opponents being former cruisers. Careerwise Foreman was approximately on the level of the current Alexander Povetkin, and Foreman he was far less "heavyweight tested" than Povetkin is.

      The same applies to the other boxers you mention. Holmes went 48-0, but only because he, too, could pad his record with guys like Kevin Isaac (14-8, 188 lbs) or Charley Green (13-15, 182 lbs). Holmes real undefeated heavyweight record (200×2) is not 48-0, but 39-0 (which is worse than Valuev's but still pretty good).

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
      • Tommo says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5652 Tommo (2013-03-25th)

        About the only thing you can say bad about this era compared to previous is that Tyson era was much more exciting because of his vicious KOs. The competitiveness is no issue. By that logic the 90s were the best era because it was even MORE competitive than the 70s and featured much KO action as well.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • Tommo says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5657 Tommo (2013-03-25th)

          Also Tysons early opponent, pretty much right up til his first title fight, were all ABSOLUTE bums lol in NO WAY comparable to Klitschko's opponents who would otherwise be contenders if he wasn't around. I love watching them get knocked too, I know lol but they were terrible and some were only cruisers (188 lbs sometimes).

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
          • Tommo says:
            flag
            [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
            #5879 Tommo (2013-04-02nd)

            Tyson lost to Douglas who was "Journeyman" at time comparable to Puritty, Lennox lost to McCall and Rahman who were comparable to Brewster and Sanders (they were not on same tier), Evander lost to some fighters he was on the whole better quality than, Bowe almost lost to Golotta twice.

            And when you go further back it gets even more ridiculous. Holmes lost to Spinks! Clay lost to Frazier, Norton, Leon! Foreman lost to Clay, Young. THAT'S shocking!

            So definitely can't take anything away from Wladimir for his defeats. Former champs had comparable upsets and early ones had FAR worse upsets.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • ian says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xeni Suda]
    #6222 ian (2013-05-21st)

    great article, f*cking stupid yanks and their propaganda, makes me sick.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  • RAK says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Reni Ruxa]
    #7840 RAK (2015-02-28th)

    The problem with the heavyweight division isn't the Klitschkos, who are by far the best the division has to offer right now. It's the fact that Tyson Fury, who is effectively an overblown blowhard of Irish Traveller descent, isn't just a mandatory contender for Klitschko's title, but has gone undefeated in his career. I'll reserve my ultimate thoughts on the state of the division until Klitschko takes on Fury – but if Fury wins the fight, the heavyweight division is truly dead and gone.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

  • Write a comment

    :wink: :twisted: :roll: :oops: :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :evil: :cry: :arrow: :?: :-| :-x :-o :-P :-D :-? :-) :( :!: 8-O 8-)
    Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Cookies