Why the Klitschko's can't be considered historically great.

[HomicideHenry]

It's easy to look dominant when you brother is doing the heavy lifting for you.

They avenged each other's losses.

Sad and pathetic.

I see no real difference, really, between the Klitschko brothers and other families in the business. Remember Max and Buddy Baer? The two men had a few opponents in common (most famously Tony Galento). Remember Micheal and Leon Spinks? Same deal, by and large. The Klitschko's are only magnified in this regard because of them being apart of the Internet and social media generation, where people can really throw their opinions in on the matter and criticize. It's like being under a microscope. Everything is analyzed and dissected. The irony? In the Baer brothers time, it was considered a compliment that Buddy was not only able to beat Galento, but to do it faster than Max did.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Wlad's long unbeaten streak against top 5,albeit it embarrassingly weak opposition, deserves some historical mention. I wouldn't have him in my top 25 all time, but he earned a place.

Vuitali's only historical significance is having one of the worst bloody faces we've seen.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It still doesn't have any indication of the quality of a boxer. Cuts is about the most unsatisfactory way to determine the result of any fight.

It definitely shows who got beat up that night.

[PredatorHayds]

This will be the standard heavyweight post career.

At time of career a large amount of people will dismiss credentials and rubbish them as top 20 material.

In 5 years time people would agree they were better than first fought and would beat the current champions.

In ten years time we will get a true reflection. Which will prob see Vitali scraping top 20 and Wlad scraping Top 10.

Everyone loves Lennon now and everyone had him top 10 minimum.
This poll on Lennon 10 years ago would of been similar to this thread.