sad state of boxing

Vit and WLad are better than everyone fighting now' they are not ATG fighters and lose to most ATG fighters.

They don't win just because they are big Dimentriko, Valuev and Tyson Fury are all big and I don't see any of them having the same success as the Klits they win because they are better than everyone fighting at the moment.

But the fact that this is a weak division is beyond doubt! Haye although he lost clearly won three rounds against Wlad and was able to hurt him in the last round. Haye is a good cruiserweight and average heavyweight in all time terms he's 6'3 and fast with a poor chin, Replace him with Ali, foreman or other greats and see what happens 9 times out of ten they stop Wlad whois the better brother.

Piye quick question how do you place Tyson then because he was in a weak division when he was king and never beat a atg heavyweight in prime. I mean how think he do in atg match ups because his reign was not as long as brothers and he lost almost every time he step in ring with a great. So does that mean he loses to most atg then just like the bothers did or does he some how get a pass. I mean Wald has a bad chin but Vitali can box well use distance well and has one of the best chins to ever be in heavyweight division.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Piye quick question how do you place Tyson then because he was in a weak division when he was king and never beat a atg heavyweight in prime. I mean how think he do in atg match ups because his reign was not as long as brothers and he lost almost every time he step in ring with a great. So does that mean he loses to most atg then just like the bothers did or does he some how get a pass. I mean Wald has a bad chin but Vitali can box well use distance well and has one of the best chins to ever be in heavyweight division.

---

Good question the Larry Holmes on Tyson's resume is better than anybody on either Klit's resume actually I'd still pick that Larry Holmes over the Klits the fact that after this fight he took a prime Holyfield 12 and beat a prime Ray Mercer shows he was a good fighter So He beat a good ATG in Larry Holmes he also beat good fighters like Bruno, Tubbs, Tucker, Ruddock, Berbick and Golota to be honest his resume far exceeds that of the brothers even when combined.

The brothers best wins are Haye, Mercer and Sam Peter which really highlights just how poor their competition is even compared to Tysons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

---

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

The Klitschko brothers aren't just good because they are big, they are good because they are big AND good. Those two traits are not mutually exclusive. The other big guys around now are simply not good. There may be smaller guys around now who are pretty good, but all other things even, the good bigger man beats the good smaller man.

Now a lot of people like to hate on Mike Tyson because he lost certain fights, but I think it is important to remember that Mike Tyson was 5'11". That is small! Yes, he lost to Holyfield who, although formerly a cruiser weight, seemed to carry the extra weight into the HW division well. You can see that Holyfield makes Tyson look short! :)

I am just saying that for his size, Tyson was a good small man who eventually lost to bigger men.
Now Tyson Fury, Demintriko, and Helenius are big... but they are not that good... yet.
But it should be noted that the mere fact they are big already gives them the advantage against some of their smaller fighters who may have equal skill.

I assume all this should be obvious but sometimes it seems that some people over look the size advantage. I mean hell, we all know Adamek is a good, tough little fighter, but look at what his lack of size did to him against big men who were actually not good. Sure he won, but the big guy was always in the fight while poor Adamek had to give 100% just to tackle guys so much bigger.

It goes without saying that Vitali would be too much for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

---

---

---

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

---

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

---

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

---

---

---

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

---

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

---

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

---

---

---

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

---

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

---

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

---

Well said.

---

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

Despite the sad state of boxing, there is more boxing on my TV for free this Saturday than I've seen for years. Plus a decent PPV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

---

---

---

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

---

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

---

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

---

Well said.

---

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

---

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

---

---

---

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

---

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

---

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

---

Well said.

---

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

---

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

---

You sir raise some good points of how tough the old time fighters were. Even more modern guys like Archie Moore, Jake Lamotta, Ray Robinson, were animals who often fought top opponents 3 times in a month.

But, the bare knuckle fighters and guys like Jack Johnson went tons of rounds, but have you watched the way they fought ? It was all clinching and throwing about 5 punches a round. It was terribly boring. And they did not have great technique on their punches.

A guy like Chris Arreola would rip most of their heads off. He may not be quite as tough, but he is a hell of a lot bigger and throws a hell of a lot more punches.

Pyie i hate to bring it up but because i hate doing it but Larry was coming off losses and had not fought in a while when he got to Tyson. I am not sure he would of won but he was pretty rusty compared to the version that Holyfeild and Mercer fought. As for the others you named i Think Byrd, Chambers, Chag, and Haye i on there level i do not fell that the division is much weaker the then the late 1980's. I while give you that Larry Holmes was still the best win out of the bunch but he was kinda not preped really to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

---

---

---

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

---

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

---

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

---

Well said.

---

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

---

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

---

You sir raise some good points of how tough the old time fighters were. Even more modern guys like Archie Moore, Jake Lamotta, Ray Robinson, were animals who often fought top opponents 3 times in a month.

But, the bare knuckle fighters and guys like Jack Johnson went tons of rounds, but have you watched the way they fought ? It was all clinching and throwing about 5 punches a round. It was terribly boring. And they did not have great technique on their punches.

A guy like Chris Arreola would rip most of their heads off. He may not be quite as tough, but he is a hell of a lot bigger and throws a hell of a lot more punches.

---

Sure each era has had its own way and there were mavericks in between too.

You know another point on your side of the thinking is our shoes have more grip nowdays than the leather flat boxing shoes that you had to dip your feet into a powder tray. So you are right more grip and also better techniques would add to the modern fighter.

I agree though some modern men would of done ok back in the golden era of the heavies too. I just dont think many of them could adjust with their lazy lack of movement. Specially if they are distance controllers trying to adjust to having their arms smashed out of the way and smothered into a brawling corner by an old stylist.
I mean theres none these days that can move like Ali did in his prime and he only just got by; having to get them emotionally involved to get them off their game or question themselves. Then again you could think the reverse again and thnk of Tyson in his hey day facing Ali and Ali saying youre are nothing you are just this and that, Tyson would have just growled at him like a dog and said your a fucking dead man and meant it too! So who knows how that'd go.;D

Well andre to add to fighters not being as tough. I would have to say Evander Holyfeild is about the toughest most mental and determined man i have ever seen there was no fear in that man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Well andre to add to fighters not being as tough. I would have to say Evander Holyfeild is about the toughest most mental and determined man i have ever seen there was no fear in that man.

---

Yes, and I think Tomasz Adamek would have been called "tough" in any era. I'll bet he could have hung with (and perhaps dominated) a lot of the "tough" old timers.

I am really enjoying the way this discussion has gone. Sure beats the average post that today's heavyweights "are shite" LOL. It's a lot more complex than that, that's for sure.

Also, if you look at the Lewis=Klitschko fight, Vitali showed more than a little bit of heart still wanting to fight with his face split open.

Another thing. Today's boxers are smarter. The most obvious example: Take a look at Jess Willard and Max Schmelling getting up again and again when they could have taken a 9 count. Stupid. You wouldn't see that today even without the mandatory 8 count.

I hate to see today's boxers maligned. Or boxers of any era for that matter. How many of us have ever had to get up off the floor and fight on? Or fight on breathing through our mouth because our nose was broken, swallowing blood with every breath? It's a tough sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Well andre to add to fighters not being as tough. I would have to say Evander Holyfeild is about the toughest most mental and determined man i have ever seen there was no fear in that man.

---

Yeah legend, he has spanned two eras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Another thing. Today's boxers are smarter. The most obvious example: Take a look at Jess Willard and Max Schmelling getting up again and again when they could have taken a 9 count. Stupid. You wouldn't see that today even without the mandatory 8 count.

I hate to see today's boxers maligned. Or boxers of any era for that matter. How many of us have ever had to get up off the floor and fight on? Or fight on breathing through our mouth because our nose was broken, swallowing blood with every breath? It's a tough sport.

---

Thats true too, better nourishment, smarter under pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Hughey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

---

---

---

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

---

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

---

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

---

Well said.

---

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

---

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

---

You sir raise some good points of how tough the old time fighters were. Even more modern guys like Archie Moore, Jake Lamotta, Ray Robinson, were animals who often fought top opponents 3 times in a month.

But, the bare knuckle fighters and guys like Jack Johnson went tons of rounds, but have you watched the way they fought ? It was all clinching and throwing about 5 punches a round. It was terribly boring. And they did not have great technique on their punches.

A guy like Chris Arreola would rip most of their heads off. He may not be quite as tough, but he is a hell of a lot bigger and throws a hell of a lot more punches.

---

Sure each era has had its own way and there were mavericks in between too.

You know another point on your side of the thinking is our shoes have more grip nowdays than the leather flat boxing shoes that you had to dip your feet into a powder tray. So you are right more grip and also better techniques would add to the modern fighter.

I agree though some modern men would of done ok back in the golden era of the heavies too. I just dont think many of them could adjust with their lazy lack of movement. Specially if they are distance controllers trying to adjust to having their arms smashed out of the way and smothered into a brawling corner by an old stylist.
I mean theres none these days that can move like Ali did in his prime and he only just got by; having to get them emotionally involved to get them off their game or question themselves. Then again you could think the reverse again and thnk of Tyson in his hey day facing Ali and Ali saying youre are nothing you are just this and that, Tyson would have just growled at him like a dog and said your a fucking dead man and meant it too! So who knows how that'd go.;D

---

Haha I love your breakdown of Ali vs. Tyson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Pyie i hate to bring it up but because i hate doing it but Larry was coming off losses and had not fought in a while when he got to Tyson. I am not sure he would of won but he was pretty rusty compared to the version that Holyfeild and Mercer fought. As for the others you named i Think Byrd, Chambers, Chag, and Haye i on there level i do not fell that the division is much weaker the then the late 1980's. I while give you that Larry Holmes was still the best win out of the bunch but he was kinda not preped really to me.

---

I understand what your saying but it is influenced slightly by your agenda The Holmes that Tyson fought and the Lewis that Vitali fought were similar in that both were past their best clearly but both were still elite fighters and could beat the very best.

IN his test against a legend from the previous era Tyson won and Vitali did not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

last night after watching vitale stumble around the ring and listen to jim lamply and emanual stewart blow smoke up everyones ass about vitales greatness, i cant help but think how desperate hbo is . My wife who knows nothing about boxing was watching with me and asked who are these guys I said hes the heavy weight champion of the world, she thought i was kidding. maybe we are all kidding ourselves.

---

I know your problem. You're sentimentalist and imaging Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano and Floyed Patterson were much better fighters than Klitschko brothers. The truth is that 10 cm (4") and 20-30 pounds bigger brothers are much, much better than most of the "good old times" champions. They are technically, physically, tactically better, bigger than those you are worshipping.

That's very human. We don't like champions of our time but when they have retired we start to miss them much. We all are falling in love with our past time fantasies. But if you take a look several times those old videos of Ali, Foreman, Frazier etc.. you'll easily find some new - not so bright - perspective of past time heroes.

We tend to overrate old champions. That's the fact. Then there is one thing - people especially in USA can't stand the truth that white european could be real worldchampion of heavyweight. And that white european champion can be very, very great boxer indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Welcome. You're an idiot.

You don't like their style but they keep on winning don't they.;)

---

Theory:

Black american (or british) champion - media hype them
Easteuropean champion - media underrate them as much they can. So people start to talk about "sad state of boxing".

So the problem is not boxing but self-importance of so called anglosaxon culture. We have seen this phenomenon before in other sports too. Nothing new under the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matias64

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmike

last night after watching vitale stumble around the ring and listen to jim lamply and emanual stewart blow smoke up everyones ass about vitales greatness, i cant help but think how desperate hbo is . My wife who knows nothing about boxing was watching with me and asked who are these guys I said hes the heavy weight champion of the world, she thought i was kidding. maybe we are all kidding ourselves.

---

I know your problem. You're sentimentalist and imaging Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano and Floyed Patterson were much better fighters than Klitschko brothers. The truth is that 10 cm (4") and 20-30 pounds bigger brothers are much, much better than most of the "good old times" champions. They are technically, physically, tactically better, bigger than those you are worshipping.

That's very human. We don't like champions of our time but when they have retired we start to miss them much. We all are falling in love with our past time fantasies. But if you take a look several times those old videos of Ali, Foreman, Frazier etc.. you'll easily find some new - not so bright - perspective of past time heroes.

We tend to overrate old champions. That's the fact. Then there is one thing - people especially in USA can't stand the truth that white european could be real worldchampion of heavyweight. And that white european champion can be very, very great boxer indeed.

---

I don't think race has anything to do with it. Nationality might, but even that is minor. I think the criticism of the Klitschko's comes down to two things: they're style and the excitement level (or lack thereof) in their fights, and their level of competition.

Actually it wasn't question about race but culture. I remember the era when especially europeans had no chance to win the tittle. During 1970's it looks like any european (white) boxer will never win the heavyweight champion of the world. But after collapse of USSR and eastern socialist countries times have changed totally. If we take a look at professional boxing nowadays there are more and more especially eastern european high class boxers in ranking list of several divisions.

People in west hardly remember that boxing was well appreciated sport taught to pupils in soviet schools. So there are still great knowledge of boxing in countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belo Russia, Armenia, Poland, Romania etc...

No need to wonder why even the team behind Robert Helenius (Finland) is mostly "ossie". And guy named Adnan Ćatić - he's better known as a highclass technical boxer Felix Sturm.