We need the Americans to get interested in the HW division again

Historically the HW division has been dominated by Americans. Some fantastic champions through the years. However the Eastern Europeans are dominating and have done for some time. During that time, credible challengers have all but disappeared.

Now, this is a sweeping generalisation but it's broadly true: Americans are only really interested on a large scale, by sports they dominate. Now there's plenty of American champions in other weight divisions, but if we look at other sports for a second.

Golf...Americans seriously went off the Ryder Cup when the Europeans started to dominate. Much of the chat in the golfing press suggested the Americans needed to win again to keep the competition going as dwindling TV and ad money spelled doom. It's been pulled back though following a US win

NFL/ NBA/ Major League etc. Primarily American sports. Loved by the nation. Totally dominated by the Americans.

Soccer...something kids do in school then forget about. But it's still the biggest sport in the world, yet Americans have no interest as they don't dominate it.

Boxing...we need the americans to fall in love with HW boxing. I don't know where potential US boxers are ending up, probably the NFL, but for the long term good of the division, we need the Americans to get behind someone.


(Rant prompted by poor Klitshcko fight)

The US women have been the top ranked FIFA Soccer team since 2007.

footbLOL

We really can't blame the K-Bros. It's actually a shame that their legacy will be doubted because of the poor standard of the division at the time of their dominance

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:We really can't blame the K-Bros. It's actually a shame that their legacy will be doubted because of the poor standard of the division at the time of their dominance

You mean like the AMERICAN Larry Holmes whose legacy suffers from following Ali, preceding Tyson and being stuck in the middle of a bunch of cokeheads and wasters during his tenure as HW Champion?

The Americans dominated the HW scene in the 80's yet huge chunks of that era are viewed as dreadful. The Americans were interested in Boxing back then but it doesn't make that era any better. The Americans don't need to get interested in the HW division and WON'T until the fighter to ignite the division happens to be American. If the next great HW to dominate the division has the skill and charisma of Ali coupled with the raw fury of Tyson but comes from Peru, the Americans won't care.

What needs to happen is for certain promotors and heads of boxing bodies to back their bags and disappear into the sunset thus loosening their stranglehold on the sport and allowing a few fresh ideas to be circulated.

Much like Blatter needs to disappear from football, there are certain elemenst of boxing that need washing away and it doesn't matter if they are replaced by Americans just as long as they are replaced.

So America are only singing (and paying) when they're winning then?

Unfortunately true. For the HW division to getthe kick up the rear end it needs, it needs an American champion to an extent. But what I believe the HW division needs more is an exciting champ and competitive fights. K2 are head and shoulders above the rest. It seems that when one has beaten a fighter, it gives the impression that he has lost to both.

Nore Staat wrote:The US women have been the top ranked FIFA Soccer team since 2007.

Nobody cares, it's women's football, not football.

If anything that statistic is symptomatic of the problem American men can't make an impact, let alone dominate the sport, so 'soccer' gets pushed aside as a 'girls' sport with the result being their women got really rather good at it.

I dont agree, the problem with the heavyweights at the minute is the standard is rubbish bar the klitschko brothers. If the k brothers were american the division would still be the same. There just isnt any challenging exicting fights out there.

I'm quite looking forward to the klitschkos retiring so we might finally have a 50/50 heavyweight title fight and the belts might get passed around abit more. although in todays boxing the promoters will just avoid the other challengers and we will still get boring one sided beat downs like last night.

compelling and rich wrote:I dont agree, the problem with the heavyweights at the minute is the standard is rubbish bar the klitschko brothers. If the k brothers were american the division would still be the same. There just isnt any challenging exicting fights out there.

I'm quite looking forward to the klitschkos retiring so we might finally have a 50/50 heavyweight title fight and the belts might get passed around abit more. although in todays boxing the promoters will just avoid the other challengers and we will still get boring one sided beat downs like last night.

50/50 fights between 2 crap fighters is not something I look forward to. Also playing pass the parcel with the belt doesn't make for an exciting division. What is needed are competitive fights and fighters with charisma, not bent diplomats masquerading as boxers.

yeah i agree with ya!

boxing needs amercian fighters, sad but true

azania wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:I dont agree, the problem with the heavyweights at the minute is the standard is rubbish bar the klitschko brothers. If the k brothers were american the division would still be the same. There just isnt any challenging exicting fights out there.

I'm quite looking forward to the klitschkos retiring so we might finally have a 50/50 heavyweight title fight and the belts might get passed around abit more. although in todays boxing the promoters will just avoid the other challengers and we will still get boring one sided beat downs like last night.

50/50 fights between 2 crap fighters is not something I look forward to. Also playing pass the parcel with the belt doesn't make for an exciting division. What is needed are competitive fights and fighters with charisma, not bent diplomats masquerading as boxers.

Each to your own, but I thought matt skelton v dallas was miles better fight than wlad v mormeck, and the under dog got the victory. Two crap fighters is better than one good v one crap as at least it will be more even and better action

compelling and rich wrote:

azania wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:I dont agree, the problem with the heavyweights at the minute is the standard is rubbish bar the klitschko brothers. If the k brothers were american the division would still be the same. There just isnt any challenging exicting fights out there.

I'm quite looking forward to the klitschkos retiring so we might finally have a 50/50 heavyweight title fight and the belts might get passed around abit more. although in todays boxing the promoters will just avoid the other challengers and we will still get boring one sided beat downs like last night.

50/50 fights between 2 crap fighters is not something I look forward to. Also playing pass the parcel with the belt doesn't make for an exciting division. What is needed are competitive fights and fighters with charisma, not bent diplomats masquerading as boxers.

Each to your own, but I thought matt skelton v dallas was miles better fight than wlad v mormeck, and the under dog got the victory. Two crap fighters is better than one good v one crap as at least it will be more even and better action

Quality over quantity is always preferable. Didn't your missus (or Mr ) tell you that?

azania wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

azania wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:I dont agree, the problem with the heavyweights at the minute is the standard is rubbish bar the klitschko brothers. If the k brothers were american the division would still be the same. There just isnt any challenging exicting fights out there.

I'm quite looking forward to the klitschkos retiring so we might finally have a 50/50 heavyweight title fight and the belts might get passed around abit more. although in todays boxing the promoters will just avoid the other challengers and we will still get boring one sided beat downs like last night.

50/50 fights between 2 crap fighters is not something I look forward to. Also playing pass the parcel with the belt doesn't make for an exciting division. What is needed are competitive fights and fighters with charisma, not bent diplomats masquerading as boxers.

Each to your own, but I thought matt skelton v dallas was miles better fight than wlad v mormeck, and the under dog got the victory. Two crap fighters is better than one good v one crap as at least it will be more even and better action

Quality over quantity is always preferable. Didn't your missus (or Mr ) tell you that?

thought that was just for premature ejaculaters?? the problem being is the klitschkos may be quality but are not in any quality fights

That's because their style doesn't lend itself to excisint fights and they are better than the rest by miles (Wlad is and Haye will beat VK).

I don't believe it has anything to do with the requirement that the champion be American. When Ingemar Johansson toppled Patterson in 1959 he triggered one of the most exciting and eagerly anticipated trilogies in boxing history. Primo Carnera generated huge business, so much so that many believe the mob had Jack Sharkey lay down and hand Carnera the title.

The problem, in my opinion, is that boxing no longer has the US as an HQ. or anywhere else as a credible alternative. Like it or not, if you want to make it as a film actor you are, sooner or later, going to need to play ball with Hollywood. Country singers will need to be on terms with the suits in Nashville, etc., etc.

The Germans don't work that way. They want the ball and they want to take it home. Heck, even their fighters aren't really German. Nonetheless, they want to slice off a large portion of boxing and mark it their own, jealously protecting it so that part time Germans rule the roost and are helped along the way by judges, referees, and whatever else is necessary. We know that the Klitschkos have ventured into the US rings on occasion but, despite that, there is still the overall feeling that the Germans are having a party and neither the Americans or anybody else are particularly welcome to attend.

Love them or loath them, the Americans have the experience, the infrastructure and the style to sell boxing like nobody else and, while it's perfectly fine for title fights to happen in other lands - as it always has been - the Germans aren't happy with that.

They want to hijack it, wholesale, and if they can't do that they want a bit of it that nobody else can be involved in.

Part of the problem is that America needs to see competitive fights. More often than not the Klitschko fights, particularly Wladimir's, are snooze fests that stink the place out.

It's just the poorest era of all time for HW's and the Klitschko's while being dominant won't be highly rated by history because they have had such a very poor level of opponent.


Larry Holmes while fighting in a supposidly poor era still has some good names on his record. The Klitschko's have nobody of any rank or credibility.

Got such a good point about the interest related to American domination. Never thought of that before but it makes so much sense.

One of many reasons why the heavyweight division needs an American to spice things up. Broadly speaking they're more exciting than the Eastern Europeans.

Strongback wrote:Part of the problem is that America needs to see competitive fights. More often than not the Klitschko fights, particularly Wladimir's, are snooze fests that stink the place out.

It's just the poorest era of all time for HW's and the Klitschko's while being dominant won't be highly rated by history because they have had such a very poor level of opponent.


Larry Holmes while fighting in a supposidly poor era still has some good names on his record. The Klitschko's have nobody of any rank or credibility.

The whole world (bar the germans) want to see competitive fights and correct scoring. They'd pull 50k people if they were fighting a corpse. But the problem is not the K2 brothers. Its the rest who simply are not good enough to challenge Wlad in particular.

If a certain 1950s so called Hw can be rated highly 50 years after he last fought for fighting stiffs and bums, I dont see why history wouldn't be even more generous on K2. They are after all superb boxers. Lets not go down the route of basing them on how they are marketted. Superb athletes and boxers.

I think the eastern europeans will become more exciting as time goes on - the've been stuck in the amatuer games for years so fight in that very particular style - points points. Once the powerhouses start coming out I imagine they will produce more exciting fighters.

Windy's made the point about the greed of the germans - Things is no one is prepared to go over there and wrest it from them. A knockout is a knockout - no judge can interfere with that. I think its been made evident by boente quite recently unwilling to let vitali fight haye because he looks to be slowing down considerably. I imagine he wants to make someone else the champion and have his groomed to greatness.

ShahenshahG wrote:I think the eastern europeans will become more exciting as time goes on - the've been stuck in the amatuer games for years so fight in that very particular style - points points. Once the powerhouses start coming out I imagine they will produce more exciting fighters.

Windy's made the point about the greed of the germans - Things is no one is prepared to go over there and wrest it from them. A knockout is a knockout - no judge can interfere with that. I think its been made evident by boente quite recently unwilling to let vitali fight haye because he looks to be slowing down considerably. I imagine he wants to make someone else the champion and have his groomed to greatness.

Someone else like who? I'd imagine the contract will have a match with Wlad as the next fight and a rematch with VK or WK after that. Either way I cant see anyone getting past Wlad, so Boente will have a major say in the HW title.

I thought WBC and WBO had some sort of dispute or problem with differences in law so you cant keep both?

ShahenshahG wrote:I thought WBC and WBO had some sort of dispute or problem with differences in law so you cant keep both?

You will be amazed how quickly minor details like the law can be ignored when big money is involved. All of a sudden some long lost "good for boxing" morals will be found........until the belts are seperated again.

azania wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:I thought WBC and WBO had some sort of dispute or problem with differences in law so you cant keep both?

You will be amazed how quickly minor details like the law can be ignored when big money is involved. All of a sudden some long lost "good for boxing" morals will be found........until the belts are seperated again.

Silly me

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:Part of the problem is that America needs to see competitive fights. More often than not the Klitschko fights, particularly Wladimir's, are snooze fests that stink the place out.

It's just the poorest era of all time for HW's and the Klitschko's while being dominant won't be highly rated by history because they have had such a very poor level of opponent.


Larry Holmes while fighting in a supposidly poor era still has some good names on his record. The Klitschko's have nobody of any rank or credibility.

The whole world (bar the germans) want to see competitive fights and correct scoring. They'd pull 50k people if they were fighting a corpse. But the problem is not the K2 brothers. Its the rest who simply are not good enough to challenge Wlad in particular.

If a certain 1950s so called Hw can be rated highly 50 years after he last fought for fighting stiffs and bums, I dont see why history wouldn't be even more generous on K2. They are after all superb boxers. Lets not go down the route of basing them on how they are marketted. Superb athletes and boxers.

Joe Louis, if that is who you are referring to, would murder either of the Klitchko's. He battered Primo who has beaten better fighters than either Klitschko have.


I don't call a pawing jab, followed by a stiff punch then grabbing an opponent and leaning on them great boxing.

Watch a Louis fight and see him catching jabs, counter punching, infighting, great combos and triple left hooks in the blink of an eye and the like That is great boxing.

The K's are superb athletes.

Louis was a great fighter. I'll never say otherwise regardless of his bum of the month contest. I was more referring to a certain plodding, short armed, crude brawler who actually beat an old and washed up Louis. He retired undefeated. He didn't have a jab to speak of.

Wlad's jab has some snap to it. VK's jab is an outstretched arm.

azania wrote:Louis was a great fighter. I'll never say otherwise regardless of his bum of the month contest. I was more referring to a certain plodding, short armed, crude brawler who actually beat an old and washed up Louis. He retired undefeated. He didn't have a jab to speak of.

Wlad's jab has some snap to it. VK's jab is an outstretched arm.

You're an idiot. One track minded, biased, capable of ignoring the evidence of your eyes to fit in with your inflexible worldview.

Of course, if you think that Peter (1), Haye, Ibragimov and Chambers are better than that 1950s opposition - you're entitled to your opinion - and I'm entitled to believe that your complete knowledge of the HW division could be written on the back of my big toe.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Louis was a great fighter. I'll never say otherwise regardless of his bum of the month contest. I was more referring to a certain plodding, short armed, crude brawler who actually beat an old and washed up Louis. He retired undefeated. He didn't have a jab to speak of.

Wlad's jab has some snap to it. VK's jab is an outstretched arm.

You're an idiot. One track minded, biased, capable of ignoring the evidence of your eyes to fit in with your inflexible worldview.

Of course, if you think that Peter (1), Haye, Ibragimov and Chambers are better than that 1950s opposition - you're entitled to your opinion - and I'm entitled to believe that your complete knowledge of the HW division could be written on the back of my big toe.

Nice to see name calling of this nature is permitted here. Ho hum

Fact is that during his reign, he was not rated highly. Decades later he was. My point is also that now Wlad will not get the recognition his talents deserve. Decades later it will.

Wlad, Vit, Hate and even Chisora would have reigned supreme given the level of opposition they would have encountered.

That's not your point az, you're using yet another unrelated topic to crowbar Marciano unwillingly into discussion. Most don't agree with you. Nothing has changed.

Yes - Wlad may get some recognition in years to come.

Are you suggesting that Chisora - Tyson fury victim - is better than Marciano's opposition?

I thought you'd jumped today's shark with the piece on boxers winning with loaded gloves.

oxring wrote:That's not your point az, you're using yet another unrelated topic to crowbar Marciano unwillingly into discussion. Most don't agree with you. Nothing has changed.

Yes - Wlad may get some recognition in years to come.

Are you suggesting that Chisora - Tyson fury victim - is better than Marciano's opposition?

I thought you'd jumped today's shark with the piece on boxers winning with loaded gloves.

That was my point. Please dont try telling me what my point was when you are reaching. As you know I dont beat about the bush. So yes by a long way Haye, Chisora are better than all Rocky's opponents. They were live with a pulse rate and healthy, fighting at their correct weight. Didn;t Moore lose to a welterweight?

Chisora would beat that Charles, that Louis, that Walcott, that LaStarza, that Moore...

I'm asking because I can hardly believe it. In terms of ridiculous statements - that takes cake and biscuits.

I can't ask you to justify it - because Chisora's current career ranking is based on losing every round to a 39 year old Vitali in a 12 round beating.

Doubtless Kevin Johnson would beat Charles, Walcott and Louis as well then? After all - he went 12 rounds as well...

I have no idea why you are trying to deflect this thread into another rocky debate. I used a useless HW in an ever poorer era to show that during their respective times they were not universally respected and that in years to come, Wlad will be.

Carry on with your rants.

And yes Chisora would have beaten all those old fighters. Massive difference in size. If Rocky could, so could anyone else.

My blood pressure's fine - you're not going to trigger an aneurysm yet. Chisora better than Ezzy Charles/Walcott. Heard it all.

Yes - Wlad will probably get more appreciation in years to come.

Fleischer didn't put Ali in his top 10 either - remember? Twas you who dragged Rocky in by maligning him once more.

Azania, please don't pontificate on subjects about which you know nothing.

Who wasn't rated during his reign?

Both Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano were revered as great fighters during their reigns. Louis actually went down in Fleischer's opinion after he had retired, from second best heavyweight of all time - Fleischer's opinion in 1948 or so - to sixth best when he published his rankings in 1958. Marciano, only two years retired, made tenth spot on Fleischer's list.

We don't need Fleischer and his lists, anyway. If you spent a little more time reading the newspapers of the day instead of spouting like a broken tap you'd realise what utter tripe and ill informed codswallop it is to say that either 'wasn't rated highly during his reign.'

oxring wrote:My blood pressure's fine - you're not going to trigger an aneurysm yet. Chisora better than Ezzy Charles/Walcott. Heard it all.

Yes - Wlad will probably get more appreciation in years to come.

Fleischer didn't put Ali in his top 10 either - remember? Twas you who dragged Rocky in by maligning him once more.

Calm down old chap. The Walcott/Charles etc I'm referring to were way past their best. Chisora would simply be too big and strong for them and wear them out. In this case, sheer strength and size beats skill.

HumanWindmill wrote:Azania, please don't pontificate on subjects about which you know nothing.

Who wasn't rated during his reign?

Both Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano were revered as great fighters during their reigns. Louis actually went down in Fleischer's opinion after he had retired, from second best heavyweight of all time - Fleischer's opinion in 1948 or so - to sixth best when he published his rankings in 1958. Marciano, only two years retired, made tenth spot on Fleischer's list.

We don't need Fleischer and his lists, anyway. If you spent a little more time reading the newspapers of the day instead of spouting like a broken tap you'd realise what utter tripe and ill informed codswallop it is to say that either 'wasn't rated highly during his reign.'

Louis was. But Rocky wasn't. I recall manos showing evidence of how he was rated then. Not very highly if I remember correctly.

Strange that the sheer strength and size of Valdes wasn't enough to beat Moore but I presume Chisora is a better heavyweight?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Strange that the sheer strength and size of Valdes wasn't enough to beat Moore but I presume Chisora is a better heavyweight?

Bigger HW. Chisora comes in at 17st. He is comfortable at that weight. What did Valdes come in at?

210lbs there or there abouts but of course with your knowledge of the era you didn't need me to tell you that did you?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:210lbs there or there abouts but of course with your knowledge of the era you didn't need me to tell you that did you?

Archie couldn't give up 70lbs and still be competitive. Chisora is no large plant like Valuev. Moore may be the better boxer, but Del is the better HW.

Complete garbage as always.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Complete garbage as always.

Point well made and pleasantly debated as always ghosty.

Sadly az - we can't really debate Chisora vs Charles/Moore or Valdes - because Chisora has delivered and offered literally SOD all at HW thus far.

He has gone the distance with a 39 year old Vitali, beaten a Helenius - who it now seems was seriously injured when they fought - and lost to Tyson Fury.

That is not a resume. That's a serious of loosely connected events.

Felix Savon or Teofilio Stevenson COULD have been the best HWs of all time. I don't debate whether they would have beaten Ali because they never had a professional record of significance. Same thing with Chisora.

oxring wrote:Sadly az - we can't really debate Chisora vs Charles/Moore or Valdes - because Chisora has delivered and offered literally SOD all at HW thus far.

He has gone the distance with a 39 year old Vitali, beaten a Helenius - who it now seems was seriously injured when they fought - and lost to Tyson Fury.

That is not a resume. That's a serious of loosely connected events.

Felix Savon or Teofilio Stevenson COULD have been the best HWs of all time. I don't debate whether they would have beaten Ali because they never had a professional record of significance. Same thing with Chisora.

I'd back any decent to good HW (in this dire era) to beat any boxer weighing 185lbs).

Why is VK's age an issue and Moore's age not an issue?

Shall we get back on topic instead of you trying to ruin yet another thread with your inane drivel?

And a good morning to you also ghosty.

Azania is the only person I've ever encountered who thinks Marciano would lose against someone like Chisora.

This is Derek Chisora we're talking about...do you actually understand the implications of your claim? Do you realise you're saying DEREK CHISORA would have beaten JOE LOUIS?

Sorry for the caps, but I'm having a hard time understanding.

You think that Chisora would stop Walcott in one round?

Can I have some of what you're smoking please....

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Azania is the only person I've ever encountered who thinks Marciano would lose against someone like Chisora.

This is Derek Chisora we're talking about...do you actually understand the implications of your claim? Do you realise you're saying DEREK CHISORA would have beaten JOE LOUIS?

Sorry for the caps, but I'm having a hard time understanding.

You think that Chisora would stop Walcott in one round?

Can I have some of what you're smoking please....

When I thought I was out you pull me back in.

I understand the implications perfectly. But more importantly do you understand what you read?

The Louis Rock fought was fighting to pay off tax bills. Not the same guy who went thru the HW division as a younger man. Chis would have beaten that version.

As for Walcott, his record was patchy at beat. Winning 50% of fights up to the Rocky fight. But nevermind. Dont deflect the thread please.

Rocky was an over-rated plodder who wouldn't even be a CW champion in this era.

For a so called boxing fan your lack of knowledge and blatent racism is embarrassing.

azania wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Azania is the only person I've ever encountered who thinks Marciano would lose against someone like Chisora.

This is Derek Chisora we're talking about...do you actually understand the implications of your claim? Do you realise you're saying DEREK CHISORA would have beaten JOE LOUIS?

Sorry for the caps, but I'm having a hard time understanding.

You think that Chisora would stop Walcott in one round?

Can I have some of what you're smoking please....

When I thought I was out you pull me back in.

I understand the implications perfectly. But more importantly do you understand what you read?

The Louis Rock fought was fighting to pay off tax bills. Not the same guy who went thru the HW division as a younger man. Chis would have beaten that version.

As for Walcott, his record was patchy at beat. Winning 50% of fights up to the Rocky fight. But nevermind. Dont deflect the thread please.

Rocky was an over-rated plodder who wouldn't even be a CW champion in this era.

I would take a 185 lb Rocky to beat a 195 lb Enzo Mac (thus becoming CW world champ) any day of the week.