Why the Klits should be marked down !!

One main reason.They've never had to win ugly!!

You look at the rest of the greats..Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holy, Tyson, Jeffries, Fitz, Charles etc etc....

They've had to pull fights out of the bag..reconsider their tactics etc... they've had to win ugly!!!

The measure of a man is not when the cards are stacked for him but facing up to adversity and prevailing....

Sure rate the Klits boys but mark them down too......

They've never won ugly!!!

Wlad Klitschko's win over Sam Peter in 2005 was pretty ugly. Came off the floor 3 times, Lewis never managed anything like that..

Agreed but Peter was garbage.......I'm talking more about someone who wasn't a member of the cast of "The Return of the living dead"

Sanders...Brewster.......Two reasonable fighters he couldn't turn round..

Interesting stuff, Truss, though I don't necessarily agree.

Not sure how much, if at all, a fighter can ever be marked down for winning with ease, particularly when the fighter (s) in question is doing so against the best their division has to offer. Should Mayweather be marked down too in that case?

Let's not forget that Wladimir hasn't always had it all his own way. Had to show some considerable heart to get through those crisis moments against Peter first time out, for instance, and has had to show the mental strength you allude to in your article to avenge the defeat against Brewster, for example.

No but it dispels character flaws a guy might have.......

Leonard-Hearns really took Leonard to the next step didn't it!!

He didn't win easy against Sanders did he!!

Why because he didn't show anything he hasn't had before.....

Greats find something..these guys for me have to win with plan A..

But hey your post is welcome....Like I said peter was garbage though..

I can see the argument but as Chris as alluded to with Floyd you do have to ask how often Jones had to win ugly or pulled one out of the fire, but nobody really criticises him for being good enough to not need to or for his plan A being enough 99 times out of 100.

Also for me this is all part of the trend that seems to be developing to hold the Sanders and Brewster losses over Wlad for the rest of his life, am not excusing those losses as they are poor, but does read sometimes like Wlad is the only guy to have picked up a couple of losses early in his career which obviously is not the case. Personally am a glass full kind of chap, personally would prefer to focus on his ability to rebuild, develop his style to the point where he no longer finds himself in the danger Brewster etc put him in.

Yes but the fact Jones beat some great fighters kind of makes up for it...to a certain extent...

True enough Truss and why personally I would always have Jones above the brothers both all time and in their respective divisions but by the same token I can't really bring myself to criticise the brothers for the division being rubbish, because apart from the ridiculous idea they should fight each other on the rare occasions someone emerges who is perceived as a threat they deal with them, normally in pretty emphatic style I should add.

Not directed as you Truss but do genuinely feel for some folk the brothers will never get any credit, plenty on here said Haye would beat Wlad, he didn't, he lost by some margin, was any credit or reappraisal of his merits forthcoming for Wlad, not a bit. Similarly given how crud the division is currently were either brother to do what you say and pull a losing cause round by getting off the canvas or similar suspect they would only get slated for getting put their off rubbish in the first place.

In a simple case of baiting, this must mean that Don Curry cannot be considered a true great.

bhb001 wrote:In a simple case of baiting, this must mean that Don Curry cannot be considered a true great.

You shouldn't have pointed out you were baiting, am not sure anyone would have noticed.

rowley wrote:

bhb001 wrote:In a simple case of baiting, this must mean that Don Curry cannot be considered a true great.

You shouldn't have pointed out you were baiting, am not sure anyone would have noticed.

I do have the tendancy to be as subtle as a brick!!!

Not sure if the article is all that fair to the K bros really. Lennox Lewis was not one for necessarily winning ugly as I remember. Most of the time he was head and shoulders above everyone to the point he would either soundly outbox them (like against Tua) or blast them out of there like against Golota or Ruddock but Lewis was pretty much usually in charge. Didn't actually turn it around against McCall and Rahman the first times around either. And was lucky more than anything against Mercer in winning ugly that is.

Back on to the K's I think as someone mentioned WK had to do so against Peter. It's all very well calling Peter garbage but here is a guy that went on to be champion and the article doesn't state you have to win ugly against good fighters.

Also I thought VK did a good job of turning it around against Sanders. He took a bit of a pasting in the first round before finding his range and drilling out his usual brand of turgid one-two beat downs.

So yeah not sure the K's can be "marked down" for not winning ugly.

you only have to 'win ugly' if you're not good enough to win easily in the first place.

OasisBFC wrote:you only have to 'win ugly' if you're not good enough to win easily in the first place.

or you face very good oppostion, something sadly the klits have never done bar vitali v lewis

compelling and rich wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:you only have to 'win ugly' if you're not good enough to win easily in the first place.

or you face very good oppostion, something sadly the klits have never done bar vitali v lewis

Errrr they have beat every number 1 contender for the past god knows how many years. You can not blame the brothers for that.

d260005p wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:you only have to 'win ugly' if you're not good enough to win easily in the first place.

or you face very good oppostion, something sadly the klits have never done bar vitali v lewis

Errrr they have beat every number 1 contender for the past god knows how many years. You can not blame the brothers for that.

What's that got to do with anything? All the number 1 contenders have been rubbish. The fact they were number 1 is largely irrelevant.

d260005p wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:you only have to 'win ugly' if you're not good enough to win easily in the first place.

or you face very good oppostion, something sadly the klits have never done bar vitali v lewis

Errrr they have beat every number 1 contender for the past god knows how many years. You can not blame the brothers for that.

im not blaming them at all their stand out fighters in a terrible era. certainly the worst era of heavyweights that i have known, thats why im in slight agreement with truss in that we really havnt seen them tested. and the rare occasion they have had a tough fight they have been beat like vit v lewis

Who is/was Don Curry?

Not sure why Don Curry has been brought in.....

I'm just suggesting they rarely if at all have needed to change tactics...consider their options or show a championship heart...

You've not sparred with him Jabmachine..?????

haha no, I've not. Just looked him up on Wikipedia - why the fuss?

Why the fuss?

You weren't around so you wouldn't know....

Watch what he did to Mcrory - dont rate him as truss does but I can see why he would. Some flashes of genius there

Number one contenders can not be rubbish to be fair. They have to have a little bit of class.

I always say you can't blame the Kbros for the opposition or in this era lack of opposition, but would love to have seen them fight a seriously dangerous fighter that would test them, and thats why I would alway's mark them down.

Alfredo Layne, Seung soon Lee, Jack Callaghan, Jimmy Navarro, Gary Lockett...

Guess they can........

Don't think you mark them down but your point with Leonard beating Hearns was a brilliant one, were he to have that on easily he probably would have got less credit than he did. Looking on the verge of defeat and pulling it out the bag by changing tact is a plus point but not doing so isn't a negative, when you are facing garbage it's better to beat them easily than struggle.

Just had a look at Don Curry - n ot bad, nothing spectacular. Boy he had a dig on him that fella.

Well you'd know after all you've sparred with the best!!

compelling and rich wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:you only have to 'win ugly' if you're not good enough to win easily in the first place.

or you face very good oppostion, something sadly the klits have never done bar vitali v lewis

Which seems to be the entire point of this thread i.e. it's actually less about 'winning ugly' and more 'having had to have won ugly because you were fighting good opposition'

Both K-Bros have had ugly wins on occasion, but these don't get counted as a plus point because of their poor opposition. That's really the reason why they should be marked down: sub standard opponents and lack of challenge.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Well you'd know after all you've sparred with the best!!

Mate try not to be ignorant.....

What does nothing special mean?????????? Any muppet can write that...that's the language of a waingro character!!!

Is he not special because..Mills Lane, Starling, Mccallum, Breland, Mckenzie all said he was the most technically gifted fighter they ever fought, refereed or saw???

Is he not special because he was no 1 p4per in an age of Hagler, Hearns, Holmes, Chavez, Camacho and the like????

Is he not special because he was a great counterpuncher with an inside game to drool over!!!!!

"Nothing special" - great analysis Mate!!!!!

Excellent stuff Truss mate.

I've got to agree with you. They have never been up against it and won with the exception of Wlad against Peters and Peters was rotten.

They have never been forced to prove they have a fighters heart against top level opposition. I don't blame them they are around in an era where no one can match them. But you can't give someone credit for something they have never done.

morning truss, i like the way you've risen above the don curry baiting

For the record, jab machine, curry was a genuine class act, who's career tailed off a little after he was butchered by the all time great Lloyd Honeyghan

You missed spooned by Mccallum... Milky..

Slowing down in your old age!!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mate try not to be ignorant.....

What does nothing special mean?????????? Any muppet can write that...that's the language of a waingro character!!!

Is he not special because..Mills Lane, Starling, Mccallum, Breland, Mckenzie all said he was the most technically gifted fighter they ever fought, refereed or saw???

Is he not special because he was no 1 p4per in an age of Hagler, Hearns, Holmes, Chavez, Camacho and the like????

Is he not special because he was a great counterpuncher with an inside game to drool over!!!!!

"Nothing special" - great analysis Mate!!!!!

You took the bait.

I've rated Curry for a long time mate, doesn't get the recognition he deserves. His body shots were epic, the speed he threw that left hook to the body etc.

I took the bait because after your gut wrenching "sparring with Kell brook thread" I wasn't sure if you were serious or not...

I'll apologise for my lapse...

spooned? Poor Don, I think he just forgot to duck against the bodysnatcher - he must have seen the punch, it was sent by pigeon post.

And i'm definitely slowing down... hard work grooming the milkyboy kid for future stardom

Send him to the beefster.....

Turn him into a 100% red blooded, charismatic, musclebound tyrannasaurus!!!

i appreciate that this sort of thing happens on the internet, but is a boxing forum really the place to be soliciting other people's children truss?

Just offering to provide him with the tools to become..

The essence of Man...

X and y Chromosomes?

Have never considered Curry to be a special fighter, he was very good who at one point seemed to have the potential to be great but it didn't turn out that way.

Well maybe now you've written that....All the world champions and experts I've noted above will change their minds about him..

Disagree with ghosty but world champions and experts picked jeff lacy to reign supreme at super mw and some picked Audley to be the flag bearer for the flagship division..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Well maybe now you've written that....All the world champions and experts I've noted above will change their minds about him..

I don't think that wins McCrory and Starling are enough combined with losses to Honeyghan, McCallum and Jacquot to be considered great, he had the ability for one reason or another didn't deliver enough.

Colin Jones.....Starling (twice) ...unbeaten Mcrory......Three and a half years total domination....Number 1 p4p....plus a wbc jr midd strap...

Nothing special you're right....I mean all sorts of fighters have careers like that!!!

As for Jacquot well that was prime Don wasn't it..

Yeah very good....

There really is no point debating Curry with you Truss because it's your way or no way, as a Welterweight his record is no better than Palomino or Cuevas but we don't rave about them being special fighters.

We don't rave about them as being Undisputed either!!!!

They are around the same level though Truss, Curry could and should have been special but ultimately he wasn't, I reserve tagging someone as special to the very very best not just the very good.