Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
He's not a real slick fighter on his feet, certainly not like Spinks or a young Holmes. The young Holmes that was really slick was really no bigger than the HW Spinks though.
Anyway he has not bashed really good fighters no and for whatever reason he has lost to topper guys. But in those fights he has also proven that he is at top level. It would be silly to think of him as a fringe contender, he's a contender.
Looking through the list of Arreola's opponents I see virtually the whole second half of them are decent opponents for a good HW. Spinks fought LHW's almost exclusively, LHW opponents are not worth as much as a HW opponent. A lot of Arreola's KO wins were against big opponents, some with decent records too.
Most of Holme's opponents were not much removed from what Arreola faced imo. There are a lot of recognisable names on Arreola's record, I'm not going to list half of them for you, you can dissect them if you like but could do the same for the opponents of Holmes too.
Arreola is not a slick fighter, he is an aggressive swarmer and banger but he does have some footwork and he does have some real skills too, he is not an oaf, he's a real boxer.
Look at Foreman and Frazier, no skills at all but you'd rate them wouldn't you? Why is Arreola treated different? Because he is modern and he is a bit round around the tummy. Well Frazier was chubby and unathletic too and Foreman had a bad gas tank.
Atleast Arreola can make it through the rounds punching strong.
Tyson was not exactly a fleet footed fighter either was he but look how effective he was.
So much shit.....
Frazier no skills?
Tyson not fleet footed?
Foreman had a bad gas tank?
Arreolas wins came against good fighters with decent records? The only real undefeated fighter he faced was Chaz Witherspoon;D
So being undefeated is mandatory for Arreola is it but for Holmes and Spinks those fighters are acceptable? So long as they are not SERIAL losers that can be accepted, it's boxing, someone has to win don't they.
And all I meant was that Tyson was not highly renowned for his footwork yet nobody would argue against his effectiveness. Obviously Arreola hasn't got the body movement of Tyson either I know that etc but it just goes to show there is life in boxing without the very slickest footwork.
And I see no appreciable skills in Frazier over Arreola. He came forward and swang, a bit like a bonsai version of Peter, Chisora or Brewster except without the chin and power.
Frazier won a gold medal at the olympics, beat great fighters in the pros, won THE world title. He had skills.
What are Arreolas acheivments?
Arreola has beaten the more effective HW fighters than Frazier except for Muhammad Ali which you know my take on, Ali could not handle a pressure fighter like Frazier or Arreola imo.
Without the Ali win Frazier has nothing on Arreola. Sure that frame and skillset was sufficient for Frazier back then, what about now.
Insert Joe into Arreola's career and how does he go? Yeah, not too good I'd imagine. Frazier might have greater achievements but that is only "relatively" speaking. It's not Chris's fault he was born into the modern HW division. What could Joe do that would trouble Chris? e hasn't the power to really hurt him or discourage him, he hasn't the chin to withstand him. He hasn't the skills to avoid him, he was not a slick fighter!
As for the quip about Foreman above, you exposed yourself as a fool! Foreman may have hit harder but his KO opponents are ALL CW's, Arreola's are HW's, plus even if he did punch significantly harder his shot quality isn't as good at all. You cannot bring up Chris as an example of bad opponents and THEN bring up Foreman who had very bad ones.
Moorer and Norton and Frazier, all considered "punchers" against CW's and LHW's but against real HW's their punch power seems to miraculously vanish. And whenever they met REAL hard punchers their chins did not pass the test. These are Foreman's standout achievements in terms of KO. Other fights like Lyle for instance were evenly matched.
Yeah, beating an undefeated Muhammad Ali is only slightly better than beating Chaz Witherspoon;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
I cannot believe that you don't think Arreola is a big HW.
He is one of the FEW HW's that doesn't even lift weights! Or take juice!
Without drugs and weights, Cunningham would not be a HW at all. The natural size of Arreola compared with Cunningham is so striking it should not even be an issue at all!
Fuck me, just look at them!
The guy lost heaps of fat and got into shape and this is the disrespect he gets!
Look at Mitchell, ripped, body builder muscles, did that help him against "TINY ARREOLA"?
Chris Arreola, without the fat, is the same size as prime George Foreman... FOREMAN!
Except Chris CAN box.
When?
Did I miss this?
Show us a picture of this in shape Arreola;D
I posted a pic of fat cunt fury in the Joshua thread , and you claimed its better to have some fat on your stomach , what is difference with Arreola and Cunningham ?
Why is Cunningham being RIPPED as you say a good thing , but Joshua being in great shape not ? and how is Arreola being fat not good , but fury being fat a good thing ?
Er, no!
Your confused. Go back there and get a quote from me saying that you dunce!
I said Joshua is lacking "mass" around his trunk. I know someone else mentioned its good to have fat.
You said Joshua lacked mass , doesn't Cunningham ?
Or do the rest of us just consider it being in shape.
Isnt Fury fat ? like Arreola ?
No come on! You didnt say that I said mass. You said that I said its good to have fat on the stomach. You are now back tracking because you realise youve fucked up.
Cunningham does have a (relative to his body), thicker trunk than Joshua.
So you agree Joshua is in fine shape , fury is a fat cunt.
By the way that's the line I said you stated Joshua lacked mass.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
He's not a real slick fighter on his feet, certainly not like Spinks or a young Holmes. The young Holmes that was really slick was really no bigger than the HW Spinks though.
Anyway he has not bashed really good fighters no and for whatever reason he has lost to topper guys. But in those fights he has also proven that he is at top level. It would be silly to think of him as a fringe contender, he's a contender.
Looking through the list of Arreola's opponents I see virtually the whole second half of them are decent opponents for a good HW. Spinks fought LHW's almost exclusively, LHW opponents are not worth as much as a HW opponent. A lot of Arreola's KO wins were against big opponents, some with decent records too.
Most of Holme's opponents were not much removed from what Arreola faced imo. There are a lot of recognisable names on Arreola's record, I'm not going to list half of them for you, you can dissect them if you like but could do the same for the opponents of Holmes too.
Arreola is not a slick fighter, he is an aggressive swarmer and banger but he does have some footwork and he does have some real skills too, he is not an oaf, he's a real boxer.
Look at Foreman and Frazier, no skills at all but you'd rate them wouldn't you? Why is Arreola treated different? Because he is modern and he is a bit round around the tummy. Well Frazier was chubby and unathletic too and Foreman had a bad gas tank.
Atleast Arreola can make it through the rounds punching strong.
Tyson was not exactly a fleet footed fighter either was he but look how effective he was.
So much shit.....
Frazier no skills?
Tyson not fleet footed?
Foreman had a bad gas tank?
Arreolas wins came against good fighters with decent records? The only real undefeated fighter he faced was Chaz Witherspoon;D
So being undefeated is mandatory for Arreola is it but for Holmes and Spinks those fighters are acceptable? So long as they are not SERIAL losers that can be accepted, it's boxing, someone has to win don't they.
And all I meant was that Tyson was not highly renowned for his footwork yet nobody would argue against his effectiveness. Obviously Arreola hasn't got the body movement of Tyson either I know that etc but it just goes to show there is life in boxing without the very slickest footwork.
And I see no appreciable skills in Frazier over Arreola. He came forward and swang, a bit like a bonsai version of Peter, Chisora or Brewster except without the chin and power.
Frazier won a gold medal at the olympics, beat great fighters in the pros, won THE world title. He had skills.
What are Arreolas acheivments?
Arreola has beaten the more effective HW fighters than Frazier except for Muhammad Ali which you know my take on, Ali could not handle a pressure fighter like Frazier or Arreola imo.
Without the Ali win Frazier has nothing on Arreola. Sure that frame and skillset was sufficient for Frazier back then, what about now.
Insert Joe into Arreola's career and how does he go? Yeah, not too good I'd imagine. Frazier might have greater achievements but that is only "relatively" speaking. It's not Chris's fault he was born into the modern HW division. What could Joe do that would trouble Chris? e hasn't the power to really hurt him or discourage him, he hasn't the chin to withstand him. He hasn't the skills to avoid him, he was not a slick fighter!
As for the quip about Foreman above, you exposed yourself as a fool! Foreman may have hit harder but his KO opponents are ALL CW's, Arreola's are HW's, plus even if he did punch significantly harder his shot quality isn't as good at all. You cannot bring up Chris as an example of bad opponents and THEN bring up Foreman who had very bad ones.
Moorer and Norton and Frazier, all considered "punchers" against CW's and LHW's but against real HW's their punch power seems to miraculously vanish. And whenever they met REAL hard punchers their chins did not pass the test. These are Foreman's standout achievements in terms of KO. Other fights like Lyle for instance were evenly matched.
Yeah, beating an undefeated Muhammad Ali is only slightly better than beating Chaz Witherspoon;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
I cannot believe that you don't think Arreola is a big HW.
He is one of the FEW HW's that doesn't even lift weights! Or take juice!
Without drugs and weights, Cunningham would not be a HW at all. The natural size of Arreola compared with Cunningham is so striking it should not even be an issue at all!
Fuck me, just look at them!
The guy lost heaps of fat and got into shape and this is the disrespect he gets!
Look at Mitchell, ripped, body builder muscles, did that help him against "TINY ARREOLA"?
Chris Arreola, without the fat, is the same size as prime George Foreman... FOREMAN!
Except Chris CAN box.
When?
Did I miss this?
Show us a picture of this in shape Arreola;D
I posted a pic of fat cunt fury in the Joshua thread , and you claimed its better to have some fat on your stomach , what is difference with Arreola and Cunningham ?
Why is Cunningham being RIPPED as you say a good thing , but Joshua being in great shape not ? and how is Arreola being fat not good , but fury being fat a good thing ?
Er, no!
Your confused. Go back there and get a quote from me saying that you dunce!
I said Joshua is lacking "mass" around his trunk. I know someone else mentioned its good to have fat.
You said Joshua lacked mass , doesn't Cunningham ?
Or do the rest of us just consider it being in shape.
Isnt Fury fat ? like Arreola ?
No come on! You didnt say that I said mass. You said that I said its good to have fat on the stomach. You are now back tracking because you realise youve fucked up.
Cunningham does have a (relative to his body), thicker trunk than Joshua.
So you agree Joshua is in fine shape , fury is a fat cunt.
WAS a fat cunt;)
Bottom line is Fury is more skilled than you want to give him credit for but even if he was ripped he'd still be huge as he is not carrying the kind of blubber that Arreola is. If Arreola lost his blubber, he'd be hovering around 200lb.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
So you agree Joshua is in fine shape , fury is a fat cunt.
By the way that's the line I said you stated Joshua lacked mass.
This is what you said before ai prompted you with the word Mass...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
I posted a pic of fat cunt fury in the Joshua thread , and you claimed its better to have some fat on your stomach , what is difference with Arreola and Cunningham ?
Why is Cunningham being RIPPED as you say a good thing , but Joshua being in great shape not ? and how is Arreola being fat not good , but fury being fat a good thing ?
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
He's not a real slick fighter on his feet, certainly not like Spinks or a young Holmes. The young Holmes that was really slick was really no bigger than the HW Spinks though.
Anyway he has not bashed really good fighters no and for whatever reason he has lost to topper guys. But in those fights he has also proven that he is at top level. It would be silly to think of him as a fringe contender, he's a contender.
Looking through the list of Arreola's opponents I see virtually the whole second half of them are decent opponents for a good HW. Spinks fought LHW's almost exclusively, LHW opponents are not worth as much as a HW opponent. A lot of Arreola's KO wins were against big opponents, some with decent records too.
Most of Holme's opponents were not much removed from what Arreola faced imo. There are a lot of recognisable names on Arreola's record, I'm not going to list half of them for you, you can dissect them if you like but could do the same for the opponents of Holmes too.
Arreola is not a slick fighter, he is an aggressive swarmer and banger but he does have some footwork and he does have some real skills too, he is not an oaf, he's a real boxer.
Look at Foreman and Frazier, no skills at all but you'd rate them wouldn't you? Why is Arreola treated different? Because he is modern and he is a bit round around the tummy. Well Frazier was chubby and unathletic too and Foreman had a bad gas tank.
Atleast Arreola can make it through the rounds punching strong.
Tyson was not exactly a fleet footed fighter either was he but look how effective he was.
So much shit.....
Frazier no skills?
Tyson not fleet footed?
Foreman had a bad gas tank?
Arreolas wins came against good fighters with decent records? The only real undefeated fighter he faced was Chaz Witherspoon;D
So being undefeated is mandatory for Arreola is it but for Holmes and Spinks those fighters are acceptable? So long as they are not SERIAL losers that can be accepted, it's boxing, someone has to win don't they.
And all I meant was that Tyson was not highly renowned for his footwork yet nobody would argue against his effectiveness. Obviously Arreola hasn't got the body movement of Tyson either I know that etc but it just goes to show there is life in boxing without the very slickest footwork.
And I see no appreciable skills in Frazier over Arreola. He came forward and swang, a bit like a bonsai version of Peter, Chisora or Brewster except without the chin and power.
Frazier won a gold medal at the olympics, beat great fighters in the pros, won THE world title. He had skills.
What are Arreolas acheivments?
Arreola has beaten the more effective HW fighters than Frazier except for Muhammad Ali which you know my take on, Ali could not handle a pressure fighter like Frazier or Arreola imo.
Without the Ali win Frazier has nothing on Arreola. Sure that frame and skillset was sufficient for Frazier back then, what about now.
Insert Joe into Arreola's career and how does he go? Yeah, not too good I'd imagine. Frazier might have greater achievements but that is only "relatively" speaking. It's not Chris's fault he was born into the modern HW division. What could Joe do that would trouble Chris? e hasn't the power to really hurt him or discourage him, he hasn't the chin to withstand him. He hasn't the skills to avoid him, he was not a slick fighter!
As for the quip about Foreman above, you exposed yourself as a fool! Foreman may have hit harder but his KO opponents are ALL CW's, Arreola's are HW's, plus even if he did punch significantly harder his shot quality isn't as good at all. You cannot bring up Chris as an example of bad opponents and THEN bring up Foreman who had very bad ones.
Moorer and Norton and Frazier, all considered "punchers" against CW's and LHW's but against real HW's their punch power seems to miraculously vanish. And whenever they met REAL hard punchers their chins did not pass the test. These are Foreman's standout achievements in terms of KO. Other fights like Lyle for instance were evenly matched.
Yeah, beating an undefeated Muhammad Ali is only slightly better than beating Chaz Witherspoon;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
I cannot believe that you don't think Arreola is a big HW.
He is one of the FEW HW's that doesn't even lift weights! Or take juice!
Without drugs and weights, Cunningham would not be a HW at all. The natural size of Arreola compared with Cunningham is so striking it should not even be an issue at all!
Fuck me, just look at them!
The guy lost heaps of fat and got into shape and this is the disrespect he gets!
Look at Mitchell, ripped, body builder muscles, did that help him against "TINY ARREOLA"?
Chris Arreola, without the fat, is the same size as prime George Foreman... FOREMAN!
Except Chris CAN box.
When?
Did I miss this?
Show us a picture of this in shape Arreola;D
I posted a pic of fat cunt fury in the Joshua thread , and you claimed its better to have some fat on your stomach , what is difference with Arreola and Cunningham ?
Why is Cunningham being RIPPED as you say a good thing , but Joshua being in great shape not ? and how is Arreola being fat not good , but fury being fat a good thing ?
Er, no!
Your confused. Go back there and get a quote from me saying that you dunce!
I said Joshua is lacking "mass" around his trunk. I know someone else mentioned its good to have fat.
You said Joshua lacked mass , doesn't Cunningham ?
Or do the rest of us just consider it being in shape.
Isnt Fury fat ? like Arreola ?
No come on! You didnt say that I said mass. You said that I said its good to have fat on the stomach. You are now back tracking because you realise youve fucked up.
Cunningham does have a (relative to his body), thicker trunk than Joshua.
So you agree Joshua is in fine shape , fury is a fat cunt.
WAS a fat cunt;)
Bottom line is Fury is more skilled than you want to give him credit for but even if he was ripped he'd still be huge as he is not carrying the kind of blubber that Arreola is.
If Arreola lost his blubber, he'd be hovering around 200lb.
#
Id still pick a 200lbs Arreola to ko the glass jawed fury.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Bottom line on that issue is there is nothing wrong with having some fat at HW.
Fat at HW MIGHT be an ADVANTAGE sometimes.
IT increases the weight, therefore the resistance, crude power and chin.
It DOES NOT carry the benefits of extra strength.
It DOES carry the benefits over the equivalent of muscle in the sense that it's distributed so that it doesn't affect the speed as much. And it does not require anywhere near as much oxygen to carry as muscle.
I'm not talking about a fat untrained guy, I'm talking about a chubby professional boxer who is highly trained!
So no, there's nothing wrong with fat as a HW. If being fat was such a detriment then there would not BE chubby boxers!
The shapes we see in that division are a result of what is left at the top after the sieve of competition has filtered out what was NOT effective.
That's what some of you don't understand! The mere fact Arreola exists and many like him near the top is actually some evidence that it is effective!
Obviously at limited weight ranges where everything is required it is preferable to come in as ripped as possible. At HW there is no such constraint. It's what's effective!
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Yes you would and thats what makes you special.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Bottom line on that issue is there is nothing wrong with having some fat at HW.
Fat at HW MIGHT be an ADVANTAGE sometimes.
IT increases the weight, therefore the resistance, crude power and chin.
It DOES NOT carry the benefits of extra strength.
It DOES carry the benefits over the equivalent of muscle in the sense that it's distributed so that it doesn't affect the speed as much. And it does not require anywhere near as much oxygen to carry as muscle.
I'm not talking about a fat untrained guy, I'm talking about a chubby professional boxer who is highly trained!
So no, there's nothing wrong with fat as a HW. If being fat was such a detriment then there would not BE chubby boxers!
The shapes we see in that division are a result of what is left at the top after the sieve of competition has filtered out what was NOT effective.
That's what some of you don't understand! The mere fact Arreola exists and many like him near the top is actually some evidence that it is effective!
Obviously at limited weight ranges where everything is required it is preferable to come in as ripped as possible. At HW there is no such constraint. It's what's effective!
Arreola only has wins over mediocre fighters.
He is burning masses more energy carrying all that fat than he would if he got in shape.
If he ever does fight Fury, I agree he does have a decent chin and it would be Furys work rate that will do him in. There is no way you can fight a fast pace and be at your most effective carrying that weight.
Like I said. Arreola has been a pro 11 years and had his 5 minutes and if he loses to Stiverne again may just get a bout with Fury or Pulev while they keep busy and you will see what he ends up looking like.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Bottom line on that issue is there is nothing wrong with having some fat at HW.
Fat at HW MIGHT be an ADVANTAGE sometimes.
IT increases the weight, therefore the resistance, crude power and chin.
It DOES NOT carry the benefits of extra strength.
It DOES carry the benefits over the equivalent of muscle in the sense that it's distributed so that it doesn't affect the speed as much. And it does not require anywhere near as much oxygen to carry as muscle.
I'm not talking about a fat untrained guy, I'm talking about a chubby professional boxer who is highly trained!
So no, there's nothing wrong with fat as a HW. If being fat was such a detriment then there would not BE chubby boxers!
The shapes we see in that division are a result of what is left at the top after the sieve of competition has filtered out what was NOT effective.
That's what some of you don't understand! The mere fact Arreola exists and many like him near the top is actually some evidence that it is effective!
Obviously at limited weight ranges where everything is required it is preferable to come in as ripped as possible. At HW there is no such constraint. It's what's effective!
You'll be the death of this forum Max, most people don't even bother to the shit your spouting these days.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Well I think what you guys are saying about Arreola is ludicrous.
- I would call his opponents just decent
- If you think a lean Arreola would weigh 200lbs that makes him 30lbs smaller than me which is ridiculous! You do realise that if Arreola is as out of shape as you say, the exercise would also add lean mass as well as burn fat right?!
- Thinking Fury has a higher workrate than Arreola is unbelievable.
- The points I made above regarding fat at HW are observationally proven facts.
- Sure, Arreola's fat consumes more energy than if he lost it all, obviously, but would he be as effective were he so much lighter without it? NO I HIGHLY DOUBT IT and evidence would suggest he wouldn't be.
So if Arreola beats Stiverne, would you consider that a great win? I'll back Chris and see how we go.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
If he wins the fight then Chris is not a waste of space if he losing again don't even want hear the guys name again really when talking about the greats. If he loses again then he pretty much lost to ever fighter worth a shit he has ever fought and i will start calling him the Mexican Butter bean.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Chris Arreola... Is not at this stage considered a "great" fighter even by me. Let's be sure about that. But that doesn't mean he couldn't compete with them or is a bad fighter, he isn't and he could.
If he loses, well I wouldn't consider him useless based on that. That's the problem today. Guys like Carl Williams and Joe Walcott were considered great fighters yet had not just bad records.. They had BUM records.
But today if a guy loses a few fights at top level mind you, he's considered done or "exposed". Funny nobody got "exposed" back in the day. Sometimes a guy only has to lose just 1 fight and he's a bum! HA! I can only imagine what'll be said of Wilder when he loses his first fight!
But anyway, I think Arreola is going to win. And I don't understand why because not only is he American, but he is definitely the most exciting prospect going around, he has great character, humour and entertainment value and produces violent old school smack fests..
Isn't that what you want in the HW division? I thought Arreola embodies everything that you want the HW division to be. Rough, tough and powerful and courageous! Not boring, technical boxing skills.
You can't have it both ways unless there's another Lennox Lewis around the corner or something.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max Power
Chris Arreola... Is not at this stage considered a "great" fighter even by me. Let's be sure about that. But that doesn't mean he couldn't compete with them or is a bad fighter, he isn't and he could.
If he loses, well I wouldn't consider him useless based on that. That's the problem today. Guys like Carl Williams and Joe Walcott were considered great fighters yet had not just bad records.. They had BUM records.
But today if a guy loses a few fights at top level mind you, he's considered done or "exposed". Funny nobody got "exposed" back in the day. Sometimes a guy only has to lose just 1 fight and he's a bum! HA! I can only imagine what'll be said of Wilder when he loses his first fight!
But anyway, I think Arreola is going to win. And I don't understand why because not only is he American, but he is definitely the most exciting prospect going around, he has great character, humour and entertainment value and produces violent old school smack fests..
Isn't that what you want in the HW division? I thought Arreola embodies everything that you want the HW division to be. Rough, tough and powerful and courageous! Not boring, technical boxing skills.
You can't have it both ways unless there's another Lennox Lewis around the corner or something.
Dont know who considers Williams a great fighter?:-X
Wlacott was THE heavyweight champion! Something Arreola never will be.
This is a very elaborate wind up
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
Tell me what fighter Chris has beat that has done that is great or even good really. His most notable name is a guy is McCline who lost like 10 times already before hand. He has ok wins over prospects who are doing nothing what so ever he has ten opponents who have losing records. I am just surprised you are even backing the man because he seems like a guy you would like to bash on. He is 33 years of age been boxing for 11 years and hasn't really got his shit together yet. You bring up one lost Spinks had against a guy who was a beast and was a champ in prime. Yet Chris loses to Adamek not really even a Hw who is ok fighter really not great and then to a guy who no one knows really about before he beat him. Spinks wins over Holmes are better wins and his titles defenses after are about as good as the guys Chris has faced and beat. I mean a guy like you who shits on the old timers and how they were sloppy and brawlers yet you defend this guy why. I mean he fought bums and lost to Lhw and he is not a giant does not seem your cup of tea really. We will see how he does in his next fight and if he does win i give him some credit and maybe he is worth a shit.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
No wind up mate.
And you failed to address my questions as to why you would not want a guy like Arreola to be champ?
I think Chris has decent chances to become a HW champion. Who's better?
Wilder is taller but skinnier. Bigger punch but no chin or stamina and less skills.
Jennings is more skilled but smaller, low power and suspect chin.
Fury is suspect chinned and less power and skills. He is taller and heavier that's all.
And then there's Stiverne, we'll see...
etc etc.
Re: Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record
The fact that those are my option might just keep the brothers i guess at least they give a shit. The young brother can be bore at times but after his loses he would be dumb not to be. His brother was great fighter just missed his chance for torch passing and the quitting when he was way ahead but eh.
