The Klitschkos Don't Have To Acquiesce To Networks Or Promoters |
|
|
|
| Written by Frank Lotierzo | |||
| Sunday, 06 March 2011 14:24 | |||
|
It's no secret to anyone who follows professional boxing, especially the heavyweight division, that Wladimir 55-3 (49) and Vitali Klitschko 41-2 (38) have dominated the heavyweight division since former champ Lennox Lewis announced his retirement one year after he defeated Vitali in his last fight. And if you're honest and shed your bias, Wladimir hasn't been close to losing since he lost to Lamon Brewster back in April of 2004 (except for a brief scare versus Samuel Peter in their first fight), and Vitali has virtually won every round he's fought since he lost to Lewis in 2003. the Roast says: Very well said Mortcola. Radam G says: Wow! In this new version of TSSU, TSS archmasterweaving scribes has been spittin' out copy that will make you riff [boxin' Hip-Hop slanguage meaning to expound on a subject]. Let me get straight metaphoric FROM THE JUMP! Because the K-Bros/Docs' fanfaronades are going to come right for my grinning, shinny GRILL. [Da suckas ain't dentists, but dey be tryin' to get on their drill straight-up my darn grill. Hehehehehe! But it's all good! I'm havin' a soft skills thrill, BABBBBEEEEE!] mortcola says: Radam....you're talking about persona and poetry. And part of those subjective things is competition. But, having read a lot of your Pinoy beat poetry these last few years, I think maybe too much extra-sharp durian smoothy is making you maybe a little too fuzzy-sweet about the past, and maybe sweet on untapped potential. Tim fraggin-WITHERSPOON????????????? Sorry to yell. Yes, there is an element of epic rivalry missing, a round robin of complementary greats and goods and underdogs back in the seventies; at least the 80s had personalities, as well as guys with good jabs and big-boy-boobies who would regularly lose to one another in stinkfests, while bad-mouthing Larry Holmes. But you're preferring the poetic and mythic over the factual. Your ranking of the Klitschkos beneath their forebears is all supposition. They don't get you groovin'. They make you feel emotionally deprived. But I say, with arguably as much boxing know-how, history, and experience as you (maybe more....I don't know you well enough), to say, with equal conviction, that, putting epic poetry aside, Drs. W and V would have been dominant or near-dominant in any era of history. Don't ever stop the poetry. But don't mistake it for the single source of truth. That lady deceives as much as she pleases. mortcola says: by untapped potential, I'm referring to the buzz about a new guy who hasn't had the chance to disappoint yet, like Ismayl. I distinctly remember the buzz about iron-giants ready to break all challengers, these 6 foot 13 inch cruel giants with skill and lethal power. Then they didn't give you the buzz, so you riff on history, tossing magic Dempsey-dust over the flawed greats and almosts of the the past, concocting clever but confused criticisms to justify the lack of Ecstasy-love you get from the Brothers K. Sure, maybe something's missing. But it ain't their ability to dominate the heavyweight division for years and years. the Roast says: There you have it folks. The King of heavyweight boxing has spoken! Looks like you are doing very well for yourself away from the keyboard as well Mort! mortcola says: Yeah. My skill with Photoshop. Radam G says: I understand your luv for your boys. But heavyweight was once just over 175lbs. The K-bros/docs dominate fatties and bad-balance giants -- not the great, legit-sized, superbad, great balance heavies such as in the eras of the John L Sullivans, Jack Johnsons, Jack Dempseys, Joe Louises, Rocky Marcianos, Sonny Listons, Joe Fraziers, Muhammad Alis, George Foremans, Larry Holmeses, Mike Tysons and Lennox Lewises or the prime and slightly-past-his-prime Evander Holyfields. No way could the K-bros/docs last in the ring with the adroitly, sneaky 185lbs to 215lbs heavies of yesteryears. I cannot possible see how either brother even beat very good heavyweight contenders like Gerry Cooney and even Tyrell Biggs. C'mon, mortcola, I know that you can see how the game has changed. [Even in amateur boxing, a heavyweight above 6-foot-5 and 230lbs couldn't even win a gold medal in the Olympics. And the reason that they can now is because of that stupid computer scoring, where Doc Wlad was able to win by running.] In the whole, big ole world, the mostly deadly men are between 100lbs to 225lbs and 5-foot-3 and 6-foot-4. Every single country of the world special forces and astronauts are this size. mortcola says: I just think you underestimate their skills, Radam. And what it has taken them to stay at the top of their game for so long. We'll never know about the historical match-ups, no time machine. And over-glamorize the days when boxing was fresh for you. My father used to criticize Ali, but laud Benny Leonard, Barney Ross, SRR, and Joe Louis. And then got excited again when Marvin Hagler and then Roy Jones came along, like they woke up something in him. Yes, I agree that the division is weak. But it has had many weak eras, and the best of their time were great in part because of the consistency and variety in the way they handled all comers. Holmes' struggles against Carl the Truth, Renaldo Snipes and Tim Witherspoon proved that even in a weak era there were flawed but dangerous fighters, that it wasn't just a cakewalk. But no one - NO ONE - has dominated their particular version of the division so one-sidedly in decades. The what-if comes down to imagination. I see them being near the top in any era, though maybe among peers rather than inferiors in the 70s. Do I think any short, 202 pound heavys of the past would have gotten past their defense, versatility, and power? Not really. Would Wlad's chin have held up if 185 lb Dempsey hit him? No basis for comparison. Imagination, friend. I weigh the facts differently than you. That's all. And, yes, I miss the old days too. Maybe boxing just isn't fresh anymore once you push 50. mortcola says: Oh....remember what quick Tillis and Tony Tucker were able to do to prime Tyson? Bothered him silly; what the Riddick Bowe who proved the heart of Evander did to The Real Deal; good balance Evander could be very, very predictable. Would Sonny Liston, all 6'2" of him, been so dominant against guys he would struggle to touch, who were stronger than him and hit at least as hard? See, as great as those guys were, they were flawed, but they have also been made into legends. The facts tell something else. The game HAS changed, but so has our ability to love it, or its ability to get us excited. Your argument still depends on ignoring the skills and intangibles of the K-bros, suggesting that they aren't real because of their era...and that "because" is where it falls apart. I see the fullness of their game, and I say, what a damn shame we can't see them against better fighters BECAUSE the skills are great, the size and intelligence formidable. Everybody has a weakness, and someone can exploit it; Ali never matched up well with Norton, or anyone who could come up and under, make him overly rely on the back foot. Tyson could be jabbed silly and nailed with the uppercut - Tucker and Bruno did it, and eventually (Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis, after the loss of discipline and method) that became his most easily exploited weakness. We won't see the K's properly tested. But in the absence of any better science, we fall back on our beliefs. I believe that I see great heavies who deserve a better era. You believe they are frauds. We both know boxing, I think. Condor says: The Klitschkos are the most dominant fighters in all of boxing, and have been for years. How many rounds have they lost over the last 5 years? The distance between the Klitschkos and their competition is greater than that of anyone else. That's the definition of P4P, and both of these guys belong at the top. I've been watching and following heavyweight boxing since the 70's, and every era, without exception, is maligned by fans and pundits during that era. It happened in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and the 2000's. This is nothing new. If the K's were as awful as they're depicted, they wouldn't have ruled the division the way they have. They aren't one hit wonders; no, their respective sample size is more than adequate, and they just keep winning -by landslides. If they were that bad, wouldn't SOMEONE be slightly motivated to become the heavyweight champion of the world? After all, being the heavyweight champion ain't bad for a resume and bank account. I just don't get the K venom. What did Shannon Briggs say after Vitali literally broke his face? He said that VK was the best he's ever faced. brownsugar says: WTF!!!!...wow everybody's waxing so eloquently today... and WTF is "The Rabbit Hole",.. I'm watching "Big Mama 3".....am I gonna have to get degree in literature and the ARTs and Sciences just to leave post on this site??... Ill tell you why the K bothers don't have to acquiesce to the networks... as Dave Chappelle would say... IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE RIYACH BIYATCH!!!. I envited a few friends to watch Vlad online, I paid $15 for the fight... think it was Tony Thompson... after 2 rounds everybody literally got up and left...I had to watch the fight by myself... never had that happen before. Been watching the K brothers in the closet ever since(I don't even tell my friends that I watch their fights). I appreciate the K brothers... but like everybody else I'm looking for a change... somebody... anybody... I guarantee that Solis will be the first boxer to give Vitali a good fight in a very long time... can't call a winner yet.. but this will be a heavyweight fight that even the K haters will want to watch... Also there's some great talent just under the radar... like David Price of britton 6'8"... bronze medalist... still in his professional embryotic stage... currently sparring with Solis... and several others that I'll mention later...But thank God new talent is finally on the horizon... the Kbrothers strangle hold on the heavyweight division is going to end sooner than we know... But at least they did the world of favor by getting rid of the Rahman's, Johnson's, Thompson's, Peters and a whole slew of bums who were cluttering up the division anyway.. now watch as the cream begins to rise. the Roast says: Wooooo! That is some good stuff up there! Like back in the pld TSS. Now we aare getting somewhere. I cant wax it like that, so I will know my role and stick with the jokes. @B-Sug, The rabbit hole refers to Alice in Wonderland. Alice fell down a rabbit hole and into a crazy world. The world has changed. The heavyweights have changed. Back in the '90s, when I was telling everyone how great Evarder Holyfield was, I was told that tthe '90s was the weakest era in history. Alot of this kind of thinking depends on when we grew up. When we were most impressionable. People have the same arguement about music. I was reading the lates Ring Magazine, does anyone still read that? I know they read us, Ring is always taking shots at us "keyboard tappers", anyway there is a photo from the Holmes-Truth Williams fight. Young Truth looked very small. I hope Solis or Haye can provide a test to the Klit bros. Maybe rise from a knockdown or fight through a cut. Any test will do. Now back to jokes about Tim Bradley's head. So Tim Bradley walks into a bar. BOOM! splits open the bar's eyebrow! brownsugar says: Yeah Roast,... a some excellent and well balanced contributions on the K debate.. especially from Mort... and thanks for explaination of the Rabbit Hole... I like your definition better but I think Fe'Roz was using the critically aclaimed movie "The Rabbit Hole" which features a lot of subtle nuances character portrayals and sublime pacing as an analogy for what's good,.. vs.. what people really want. I was just taking a cheap satirical swipe at Fe'Roz since I didn't have anything better to say. But I will say this... Vitali was in a life and death war with an overweight Lewis 6 years ago when he was still in his prime... but today at nearly 40 year old Vitali literally walks thru opponents as if they're just zombies waiting to get their heads chopped off... to me that's not an indictment against the K brothers,.. it's an indictment against current generation of abysmal heavyweights... it's scary to think that Lewis was the last heavyweight on the planet capable of giving either brother a decent fight. But carry on with the discussion... I want to hear more the Roast says: Oh, Ok. I figured you must know about Alice, or at least seen the porn version. It that one Alice falls in to a slightly different hole and, well this is a family site. HEY, I just noticed that Maria eating that banana kind of looks like.... brownsugar says: you're ever the voice of wisdom Roast. Condor says: "No offense ... but Shannon Briggs never even fought a good neverthless great heavyweight" the Roast says:
Sug, if I the voice of wisdom we are all in big trouble. There is a good article in the latest Ring Magazine about this topic written by our own Eric Raskin.
|











Brilliant and balanced, Frank. There's a lot of interesting social psychology stuff in there. One reason people think the K's are boring is this twisted reasoning: They are not shown, nor promoted, in the US, so they must not be interesting - in this hype-hungry side of the world. Another is that, since they are not "one of us", we can't IDENTIFY with their dominance. They become the enemy, someone we refuse to appreciate because us-vs-them trumps all other ways of thinking. This is made worse by the fact that "our guy" keeps getting made to look incompetent - so, we can be resentful that we have no one to cheer for - pretty depressing - while having the additional ammunition against the Klitschkos that "they've fought nobodys", when in fact they have fought everybody and either completely dominated them, or been beaten but then come back and avenged the loss violently. That last point could make them American-friendly, because we just loooooooove to put losers back on their pedestals once they come back and do OK - or better than OK. Then, add to that the other reasons why they are not one of us - they are educated, they run their own show promotionally without being at a financial, intellectual, or business-acumen disadvantage; they are also associated with commie-land (even though Ukraine has a whole separate history) and Ivan Drago - big white genetic-technological experiments-by-association, who make our poor white, black, and Latin homegrowns look malnourished and feeble. All this in spite of - or compounded by - the fact that they are usually nice, soft-spoken fighters who speak more fluently in their FOURTH language than many of us do in our ONLY language. They don't engage in blood and guts Gatti-style warfare, the kind we supposedly love, but they still have between them an extraordinary KO percentage. They fight cool, but beat the other guy to a pulp. And now Wlad has a pretty blonde TV girlfriend, and Vitali's is gorgeous and well decked out. Gotta hate 'em. If they make you feel inferior, that is. But gotta get past the bias. They rule the ring, they come back after losses and dominate, and if we're lucky, they do something boring so we can demonize them some more. Sometimes it sucks when the facts get in the way of passionate stupidity. Passionate stupidity is more fun.