Printable View
Also Holyfeild in his prime was not really a punching bag he was a great boxer and counter puncher also. His prime was over after he beat Big daddy mostly because of his hart. He also got hep b as well not sure how Holyfeild fought as long as he did and was aloud to.
You will be doing a lot of listening then. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Inbox me what to do, when and how often and I'm in then you smug bastard! :) Everytime you best me THEN I'll listen to your cheap shots mate!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco
I think you also have to take into account fan response and knowledge, casual fans that is. Have you asked a friend if they know who the HW champ is today. Ninety percent of people I have asked have no idea. I know it was a different era but Louis made front page news daily. Ali and Foreman and the likes were always top news. To think you have a HW champ who they don't even consider ppv for says a lot.
Once again, I know boxing in general has fallen off the radar but it still holds the highest paid athletes in the world. I don't see any HW who can bring passion back to the division anytime soon. I like Wilder to an extent and I like Mike Perez but they will not be bringing HW to its prime. Perhaps we are a few years away to something happening but I do agree this may be the worst Heavyweight era.
Alright look now your getting into the realm of opinions. I'm of the opinion that Lennox would have always beaten Holyfield and Tyson. Your opinion is also very valid too as I admit there is great chances he couldn't. I don't think he deserved a draw in his rematch with Lewis though, I feel he won pretty easily and convincingly each time. I never understood that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
As for Holyfield's "prime", sure of course he was a great boxer and not really a punch bag, that was an exaggeration of course.
But looking at his 200+ HW record run up to Riddick Bowe, those were not exactly stellar fighters. The old versions of Foreman and Holmes being shining examples, the fact he could not easily KO them is imo a factor bringing Holyfield down to Earth a bit for Haye. Further by saying Holyfield was prime at HW for only a small 7 fight window where he was conveniently unbeaten excuses all of his subsequent losses similar to what ppl do for prime Tyson and imo is a bit of a cop out.
He struggled with much lesser fighters than Haye, and was beaten by them also. Sure he had his ailments as did every boxer, his heart condition mended as did his hep b which were only factors in 2 fights and considering they were the clinical effects of massive steroid abuse I think we can accept that. Without it he wouldn't have been a HW. Then again, neither would have Haye!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
If competitiveness at the top level is a criteria for deciding which eras are worse than others, then yes....... by all means this is the worst era in HW boxing history.
I'd pay the price alone just to see Haye attempt to stay in close and swap combinations with Holyfiled in a hypothetical ;D. Holyfield was a better boxer than giving credit for though stubborn as a mule. I'd take him 7 days of the week to track Haye down, when the legs get wide and Haye is sucking wind a bit and touch him like he has never come close to being touched with combination punching. Haye also brought his ballyhooed power in with a guy said to have a weak chin and lack of fire in Wlad and did very little to nothing with it except look for singles and wait around. He really blew it. Holy would match his speed and power as it went and just be the much bigger storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerI think Haye and Holyfield would have been a terrific match up as well. And yeah if Moorer can beat him, why not Haye who could bust Moorers ass into next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Bloody look at Haye man, he is an excellent boxer. He's just injury prone, inactive and wants the fast road only. Shame on him there but.'
Holy has the chin but Haye has the punch. Haye is faster and longer and far slicker than Holyfield. Haye barely gets hit. Holyfield is a bit of a punch bag.
It's Holyfield's toughness and determination that makes him a difficult opponent for Haye, not his skills. I rate Holyfield higher obviously though because he did more.
I don't know how anyone can say this era is good after Thompson-Solis.
From the start I'm not insisting Haye beats Holyfield. I am just saying they are rather evenly matched. Holyfield struggled with opponents much lesser than Haye.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliI'd pay the price alone just to see Haye attempt to stay in close and swap combinations with Holyfiled in a hypothetical ;D. Holyfield was a better boxer than giving credit for though stubborn as a mule. I'd take him 7 days of the week to track Haye down, when the legs get wide and Haye is sucking wind a bit and touch him like he has never come close to being touched with combination punching. Haye also brought his ballyhooed power in with a guy said to have a weak chin and lack of fire in Wlad and did very little to nothing with it except look for singles and wait around. He really blew it. Holy would match his speed and power as it went and just be the much bigger storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerI think Haye and Holyfield would have been a terrific match up as well. And yeah if Moorer can beat him, why not Haye who could bust Moorers ass into next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Bloody look at Haye man, he is an excellent boxer. He's just injury prone, inactive and wants the fast road only. Shame on him there but.'
Holy has the chin but Haye has the punch. Haye is faster and longer and far slicker than Holyfield. Haye barely gets hit. Holyfield is a bit of a punch bag.
It's Holyfield's toughness and determination that makes him a difficult opponent for Haye, not his skills. I rate Holyfield higher obviously though because he did more.
That's just the thing, Haye does NOT stay in close and swap combinations, that isn't his style, Haye is not an idiot. I didn't see Holyfield ever beat down anybody like that who was close to David Haye in slickness.
Yeah on the other hand Holyfield wasted Mike Tyson and that can't be dismissed either, but there is still controversy over whether or not Holyfield could have done that to prime Mike Tyson isn't there (you know, the guy with the impenetrable defence).
The problem with your Wladimir Klitschko analogy is that this is Wladimir friggin Klitschko, possibly the best HW of all time, or if not top 3 who barely gets hit, barely loses a round, could have KO'd Haye with 1 clean punch and had a massive range advantage over Haye and by the way has a chin not anywhere NEAR as weak as guys try to pretend he does.
Furthermore Holyfield is something of a HW featherfist (he was not a hard puncher compared to the general competition) whereas Haye has definite power at HW. Holy's HW KO's are via accumulation and fatigue mainly.
Also Holyfield was never anywhere near as fast or as slick as Haye at any respective stage of their careers, that statement was completely baseless. In fact Haye is among the fastest HW boxers and probably CW's... Of all time!
Haye efforted 6 fights in a total of 6 yrs at heavyweight. Not exactly comparitive to Holyfields 'struggles' when on top or twice as many fights in equal time. I have no doubt that a decent version of Cooper could have rocked a Haye, a Moorer would have snapped his head with a southpaw jab, or a granddaddy Holmes cut him with an elbow and be rather frustrating. Etc etc. What I have to go on is being snuck by Monte Barret, a majority win over Valuev, the same escaped circus oddity a 1001 yr old Holyfield arguably deserved the nod over just prior and a no show with Wlad after talking himself up in Broner fashion when the chips were down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerFrom the start I'm not insisting Haye beats Holyfield. I am just saying they are rather evenly matched. Holyfield struggled with opponents much lesser than Haye.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliI'd pay the price alone just to see Haye attempt to stay in close and swap combinations with Holyfiled in a hypothetical ;D. Holyfield was a better boxer than giving credit for though stubborn as a mule. I'd take him 7 days of the week to track Haye down, when the legs get wide and Haye is sucking wind a bit and touch him like he has never come close to being touched with combination punching. Haye also brought his ballyhooed power in with a guy said to have a weak chin and lack of fire in Wlad and did very little to nothing with it except look for singles and wait around. He really blew it. Holy would match his speed and power as it went and just be the much bigger storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerI think Haye and Holyfield would have been a terrific match up as well. And yeah if Moorer can beat him, why not Haye who could bust Moorers ass into next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Bloody look at Haye man, he is an excellent boxer. He's just injury prone, inactive and wants the fast road only. Shame on him there but.'
Holy has the chin but Haye has the punch. Haye is faster and longer and far slicker than Holyfield. Haye barely gets hit. Holyfield is a bit of a punch bag.
It's Holyfield's toughness and determination that makes him a difficult opponent for Haye, not his skills. I rate Holyfield higher obviously though because he did more.
That's just the thing, Haye does NOT stay in close and swap combinations, that isn't his style, Haye is not an idiot. I didn't see Holyfield ever beat down anybody like that who was close to David Haye in slickness.
Yeah on the other hand Holyfield wasted Mike Tyson and that can't be dismissed either, but there is still controversy over whether or not Holyfield could have done that to prime Mike Tyson isn't there (you know, the guy with the impenetrable defence).
The problem with your Wladimir Klitschko analogy is that this is Wladimir friggin Klitschko, possibly the best HW of all time, or if not top 3 who barely gets hit, barely loses a round, could have KO'd Haye with 1 clean punch and had a massive range advantage over Haye and by the way has a chin not anywhere NEAR as weak as guys try to pretend he does.
Furthermore Holyfield is something of a HW featherfist (he was not a hard puncher compared to the general competition) whereas Haye has definite power at HW. Holy's HW KO's are via accumulation and fatigue mainly.
Also Holyfield was never anywhere near as fast or as slick as Haye at any respective stage of their careers, that statement was completely baseless. In fact Haye is among the fastest HW boxers and probably CW's... Of all time!
Staying in close would not be left as an option, thats the key to tracking down movers looking for showy shots. Being slick and being a combination puncher with speed of hand are two different animals. Haye concentrates as much on getting out as he does getting off and has never come close to the volume or power Holyfiled puts on him. Haye would have been sucked in.
Yep, Holyfield wasted Mike Tyson. Took the best version available when people said he was literally "a walking dead man" and beat him like a drum. 90, 91 of course are speculative as with any fight after a player pulls out. Would Haye have beat Fury like a drum..who knows. Maybe he'll get his shot at that glory yet.
I actually like Wlad. He has improved. But Hayes tunnel vision and lack of game plan was pretty predictable. When you start making T shirts and again making a "glass jaw" the lone focus because of your 'Hayemaker' you know there is no plan B. Haye was tamed in that fight and he settled.
Holyfield was not a feathefist. Come on. Again...Where and when was Hayes 'definite' power at heavyweight? This is being overblown currently with a Wilder and again, who? Power is only as good as who you are putting in on. Holyfields left hook hurt nearly all the major players he faced and was a tremendous combination puncher. You have to take accumulation and breaking a guy down over leaving it in your pocket when it matters the most, surely.
Holyfield was just as fast of hand as Haye. True story. Maybe not as 'slick' or shifty, even herky jerky as I never actually said that but had quality speed on that left and straight right.
Haye -is- entertaining and frankly I used 'shot in the divisions arm' a few years ago, it needed turned on its head and Haye arrived at the party but all he has done is hang out in the kitchen and talk. Politics, injury, drama, whatever...less talk, more walk. Its passing him by at a rapid pace.
Holyfeild was the real deal at hw his lose to Bowe in the in there last fight and moorer were when he was having some really bad health problems. Lewis may have beaten Holyfeild but if a 37 year ould Holyfeild can give him a run for his money i am sure the 90's version that beat bowe could of. Holyfeild was pretty war worn by the time he got to Lewis and most his loses came when he 40 and Hayes best win Hw you could say a 48 year Holyfeild did just as good of job as he did i am just saying Holyfeild was the real deal for a reason my friend.
I think my point was in America Haye is not given enough credit. I'm not saying he's the 2nd coming of Joe Louis. Just saying he gets no respect. I point to the chisora fight. Vitali didn't KO him. Fury didn't KO him. Haye kicked his ass. Mainly because of his speed and power. I was pointing to the night Michael Moorer beat Evander that Haye on that night would have beat him worst. That's all I'm saying. The man gets no respect. Getting back to the topic. We can't judge any era based on one or two fighters. I'm saying from top to bottom this era is very weak. Way is that? The gyms in the inter-city are gone. Every city had them. They are tons of gyms but no boxing rings. They take up too much space. It was a way out for many poor kids. Now there's the NBA,MLB,NFL where young kids can make quick money without getting there ass kicked. Plus there's no laws to protect fighters from promoters from stealing there money. Pro sports have unions who protects them. Mike Tyson said Don King would charge him 8,000 dollars for towels. If he did that in other sports he would be in prison. Wlad and Vitali and other fighters came from the USSR that had a outstanding boxing program.
Haye decided that he was not good enough to do it the Holyfield way which was work his way to the top. Instead he created noise to get attention, made strategic choice of oppositions which paid off and cashed out. Holyfield worked his way to a shot, Haye with all his talent did not. The fact that the division is so weak illustrates that if Haye came back he could get another shot at the title within one fight.
I have already stated Holyfield rates higher than Haye, Haye's short innings at HW versus Holyfields extensive career there is obvious.
Holyfields HW record though is 26-10, double digit losses!!
Haye was undefeated except for the loss to Wladimir Klitschko, that's as excusable as Holyfields loss to Lennox Lewis.
In reality, David Haye vs Wladimir Klitschko was a fight about as evenly contested as Evander Holyfield vs Lennox Lewis. Haye could have won a couple extra rounds than is given credit for and made Wladimir miss all night (25% connect for Wlad, the lowest of any fight for him, a guy reknowned for his punch accuracy!) Wlad won the fight on workrate! Because Haye did not take enough risks necessary to win but yet also guarded him from being KO'd himself. Look at the tremendous height, weight and HW experience advantage Wladimir had over Haye.
As for Haye's expected performance against Holyfield's opponents though I find that abslutely laughable. Bert Cooper? LOL Haye would destroy Cooper, and KO old Larry Holmes and UD Foreman without barely getting hit. If your trying to say that Haye loses to the majority of the 90's fighters you are being naive beyond belief.
You do realise even though he has not amassed a sizable HW record, he was a champion CW fighter, among the greatest, in fact funny enough, 2nd only to Evander Holyfield himself!! Although not the same as real HW experience in power and resistance or range, it is still the same sport!
Haye's own opponents? Haye smashed the living shit out of Barrett who was just as good as Bert Cooper and didn't Cooper drop Holy and almost KO him?? Haye did manage to defeat a 7 foot tall 320lb giant, that Holy could have done it too when he was prime I'm not disputing but that's not proof, only 1 other guy ever managed to do it, Ruslan Chagaev, another champion boxer.
Bert Cooper and Dereck Chisora were also fairly comparable do you agree yes or no? What happened when Haye fought Chisora? To take on a guy with chin like that and whack them out as if they were nothing, that's power. Holy wasn't even whacking guys around like that in the Cruisers!!
Just some perspective.
Your perspective is as usual rubbish. Haye would not stop Holmes, foreman may have wasted Haye with a jab.
Every shot was on target with power. I don't think Chisora even landed a punch in that round. Keep in mind Chisora has a damn good chin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0HnxtrM4uo
Haye Lost to fucking Thompson when he was cw which kinda sad consider he was 40. Haye best win you could say Holyfeild beat at 48 and most of Holyfields loses are after he was 40.I don't think Haye won a round against Wald and Wald not even close to a Lennox Lewis. Haye best win are pretty much lacking and he lost to the guys who one was a good champ and lost ever round the other a old vet who knocked him out so i don't understand your logic on how great he is and why he is mentioned with Holyfeild.
Yes, a young primer Holmes was 2ce removed by Michael friggin Spinks, a guy an inch or 2 shorter and 15 lbs lighter than Haye with all the power of a leaf blower and still not the slickness, struggled and gifted against heaps of his contempories. LAter a fatter and older but more experienced and smarter version manages to out land a plodder in Ray Mercer. Suddenly he can withstand David Haye!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
George Foreman was 2ce beaten by 2 of the biggest featherfists to ever participate in HW boxing, Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young when prime but the old slow version would KO Haye with a jab?
Wanna see what would happen there, see Foreman vs Morrison!
Nice one mate, so now your scratching you bring up Haye's only loss entire career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Except the correct perspective there should read.. "10 fight GREEN David Haye loses by punchers chance to ageing but EXPERIENCED VETERAN Thompson, never to be defeated or seriously challeneged again until Wladimir Klitschko.
Who is to say Haye's opponents are shit. What makes big Audley Harrison a shitter opponent than say Vaugn Bean who push Holyfield? Audley isn't even that bad and Haye murdered him.
Lewis and Wlad are imo also fairly comparable. A fool would disagree there!
@maxpower -- You are so stupid and so wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerNice one mate, so now your scratching you bring up Haye's only loss entire career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Except the correct perspective there should read.. "10 fight GREEN David Haye loses by punchers chance to ageing but EXPERIENCED VETERAN Thompson, never to be defeated or seriously challeneged again until Wladimir Klitschko.
Who is to say Haye's opponents are shit. What makes big Audley Harrison a shitter opponent than say Vaugn Bean who push Holyfield? Audley isn't even that bad and Haye murdered him.
Lewis and Wlad are imo also fairly comparable. A fool would disagree there!
You couldn't even figure out how to join the prediction contest.
All should pay attention to the commentary...Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
"Blurring speed"
"Tremendous hook"
"Excellent finisher"
"One of the best chins in the business"
!!!
It might take me longer than some but I do get there lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco@maxpower -- You are so stupid and so wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerNice one mate, so now your scratching you bring up Haye's only loss entire career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Except the correct perspective there should read.. "10 fight GREEN David Haye loses by punchers chance to ageing but EXPERIENCED VETERAN Thompson, never to be defeated or seriously challeneged again until Wladimir Klitschko.
Who is to say Haye's opponents are shit. What makes big Audley Harrison a shitter opponent than say Vaugn Bean who push Holyfield? Audley isn't even that bad and Haye murdered him.
Lewis and Wlad are imo also fairly comparable. A fool would disagree there!
You couldn't even figure out how to join the prediction contest.
You get where?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerIt might take me longer than some but I do get there lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco@maxpower -- You are so stupid and so wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerNice one mate, so now your scratching you bring up Haye's only loss entire career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Except the correct perspective there should read.. "10 fight GREEN David Haye loses by punchers chance to ageing but EXPERIENCED VETERAN Thompson, never to be defeated or seriously challeneged again until Wladimir Klitschko.
Who is to say Haye's opponents are shit. What makes big Audley Harrison a shitter opponent than say Vaugn Bean who push Holyfield? Audley isn't even that bad and Haye murdered him.
Lewis and Wlad are imo also fairly comparable. A fool would disagree there!
You couldn't even figure out how to join the prediction contest.
I think the HW division of the last 10 years is severely underrated.
But I think we're really heading into a horrible era... when the Klitschkos are gone, who the fuck is going to carry the torch?
Wilder, the Fury's, Anthony Joshua, Mike Perez, Andy Ruiz jr, The New Zealand fighter Joseph Parker all look like they'll be good prospects and hopefully one or two will emerge from the amateurs too. With Wladimir going I hope it will make sure top 20 fighters actually fight each other rather than all lining up for a payday waiting for their title shot. Whether or not any fighter can get to the level that the Klitschko's have reached though is another matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Mention him max because one of the best people he ever fought which is sad. I mean a 48 year old Holyfeild should of got a nod against the gaint which is Haye best win. Haye lost damn near ever fucking round to Wlad and it is not like Haye is old. Holyfeild put a way better fight against Lewis at 37 and Lewis is a better version of Wald. Holyfeild still has hart problems and did have hep b in the Moorer and Bowie fights as well which kinda a big deal. Also you say Haye was green yet when you bring up Holyfeild loses most of them he was 40 and up in the age department Holyfeild on a different level that is all.
i learned from experience that you cant argue with maxpower because he doesnt trust opinions of fighters, historians, or experts (im not joking, he has said it straight forward). he assumes that everybody who has been in the sport or has studied the sport for years dont know what they are talking about but he does because he is smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
for example, fighter A says that their competition was more difficult than today. maxpower doesnt believe it because they are bias. another example, a boxing historian who has seen tons of fights over their decades of life has been able to analyze fighters from all of the eras that they have watched and claim that fighters from the previous eras were better. maxpower says that they are bias. then maxpower says that modern fighters are better and that david haye would beat ali and KO joe louis in 1 round. then says that if you dont believe that then you are ignorant.
so unless thats the kind of person you want to argue with, i would just let it go. just some advice:D
im surprised a number of you say Wlad is one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time. On paper I would say that is true but in style I would disagree. Having said that I will defer to you guys as I haven't really followed his career. I really can't stand watching him fight. I have only watched a couple of his fights so I am not position to say anyone to say those who feel he is top three material is wrong. Still, having a Heavyweight champ many of us can't stand watching speaks volumes to me.
Holmes should have gotten both decisions against Spinks who probably would have beaten Haye anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYes, a young primer Holmes was 2ce removed by Michael friggin Spinks, a guy an inch or 2 shorter and 15 lbs lighter than Haye with all the power of a leaf blower and still not the slickness, struggled and gifted against heaps of his contempories. LAter a fatter and older but more experienced and smarter version manages to out land a plodder in Ray Mercer. Suddenly he can withstand David Haye!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
George Foreman was 2ce beaten by 2 of the biggest featherfists to ever participate in HW boxing, Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young when prime but the old slow version would KO Haye with a jab?
Wanna see what would happen there, see Foreman vs Morrison!
Haye fighting like Tommy Morrison to win a decision, could happen but probably not either.
he isnt. some people just get tricked because he started dominating after all of the decent fighters retired.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
@powerpuncher
And that's all there is to it ey, boxing died, all of the decent HW's retired and all of Wlad's opponents are garbage ey? A whole decade of opponents now in a globalised sport?
Not likely bud!
And your summary of my positions whilst containing accuracy leaves many specifics unturned. OF course many so called "experts" are biased or untruthful, that goes for all sports. Hell, trainers and experts are misleading from fight to fight currently let alone when commenting far in the past.
What about fighters like Ruslan Chagaev, Hasim Rahman, Sultan Ibragimov, David Haye, Tony Thompson, Samuel Peter, Alexander Povetkin. They are real push-overs there those opponents!!
If guys like your precious Muhammad Ali had the same run of opponents like that then he'd be in double digit losses in no time!! Fact!
I never said David Haye would slug it out right in front of Foreman did I? Obviously not. It would be a successful hit and run job. An EASY hit and run job. Hell Morrison was a swarmer/slugger type fighter with good all round boxing skills as well, hit and run was not even his style and he pulled it off. The faster more practiced at it Haye could do it blindfolded I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterHolmes should have gotten both decisions against Spinks who probably would have beaten Haye anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYes, a young primer Holmes was 2ce removed by Michael friggin Spinks, a guy an inch or 2 shorter and 15 lbs lighter than Haye with all the power of a leaf blower and still not the slickness, struggled and gifted against heaps of his contempories. LAter a fatter and older but more experienced and smarter version manages to out land a plodder in Ray Mercer. Suddenly he can withstand David Haye!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
George Foreman was 2ce beaten by 2 of the biggest featherfists to ever participate in HW boxing, Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young when prime but the old slow version would KO Haye with a jab?
Wanna see what would happen there, see Foreman vs Morrison!
Haye fighting like Tommy Morrison to win a decision, could happen but probably not either.
As for Spinks, maybe your right about those decisions but they were close to draws in my book anyway, disgraceful for a guy like Holmes who had been potentially gifted many times previous anyway. But as for Spinks vs Haye I think Spinks stands as much chance there as against Tyson!! F/A!
like i always say, the klits didnt start dominating until after lewis retired along with the other HWs that lewis was fighting during his career. the klits did fight a few of those guys those WAY after their primes which doesnt really mean much. lets put it this way, arreola, who is a top HW now, is in no way better than ruiz, byrd, rahman (prime), tua, holyfield (even older holyfield), briggs, golota, mccall, and many others who all fought at the same time. and that group of HWs really isnt even that great. they are just alright. same as fighters like chagaev and ibramigov who you think are actually good. or even povetkin. povetkin is terrible. he is super slow and doesnt have much of a punch or hardly any skills and yet, wlad had to hold and push him the whole fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
and you cant say fact about ali having double digit losses if he fought now because its an opinion. and again, like i always tell you, pretty much any boxer, trainer, expert, etc would 100% disagree with you but you would just say that it is bias which you think makes you win the argument.
I am a big fan of those 90's boxers man but the prime version of Wladimir is a force to be reckoned with against any of them and Chris Arreola is NO WORSE than most all of those fighters you mentioned either, same for Ibragimov and the rest you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherlike i always say, the klits didnt start dominating until after lewis retired along with the other HWs that lewis was fighting during his career. the klits did fight a few of those guys those WAY after their primes which doesnt really mean much. lets put it this way, arreola, who is a top HW now, is in no way better than ruiz, byrd, rahman (prime), tua, holyfield (even older holyfield), briggs, golota, mccall, and many others who all fought at the same time. and that group of HWs really isnt even that great. they are just alright. same as fighters like chagaev and ibramigov who you think are actually good. or even povetkin. povetkin is terrible. he is super slow and doesnt have much of a punch or hardly any skills and yet, wlad had to hold and push him the whole fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
and you cant say fact about ali having double digit losses if he fought now because its an opinion. and again, like i always tell you, pretty much any boxer, trainer, expert, etc would 100% disagree with you but you would just say that it is bias which you think makes you win the argument.
I think Alexander Povetkin is much better than your describing him. The fact he didn't have the biggest punch means he must have had good skills to be where he is. He still has good power, he had good skills and other etc, he is a good all-round boxer, great ant not 1 thing but good at lots. And he has good chin!
But you can go with what you think, I don't care.
On the Muhammad Ali thing I think there's a surprising and ever growing number that see it the other way round mate!! Show me a Russian expert who thinks Muhammad Ali could beat Sultan Ibragimov, just one??
Review Sultan vs Whitaker and imagine Muhammad against that monster and consider do you think he could pull that off?
The man bashed Holyfield and Briggs too ffs. And yeah yeah they weren't prime sure but it was still Holyfield and Briggs and all their past experience!
Ali could beat damn near anyone not saying he would not lose but he had a hell of a chin and boxing ability was pretty up there. Wald is a great heavy and all but he got really good when a lot of the talent was gone really. Haye is good but has not fought comp really and that's his fault because he fights once and a while Bryde is a his best win and i can respect that. Foreman was in his 40's when Morrison fought him and he fought scared most of the time during that fight. Sultan didn't have many fights had hard time with Austin best win is Holyfeild in his late 40's. Problem with Wald is he lost to a Journeyman and was Iced by Sanders and never avenged it which kinda dent on his career. He may be better now but when the divsion had some life in it he has some loses he didn't make up and that always going to be a question mark over him for it still in the top 15 though maybe even top 10.
So max what is that you have to say Haye so great but has no fucking wins worth a shit his best one a 46 year old Holyfeild beat. Lost to the only good fighters he was with Thompson and Wald. Sultan beat a yet again Holyfeild in he mid 40's and had a draw with Austin and lost ever round to Wald. As for Wlad he got beat bad by some of the contenders of the 90's Brewster and Sanders then early in his career lost to Journeyman. He got better but i don't even fell besides Bryde that anyone he beat was better then Sanders was really and he was just another guy back in the 90's era. Ali same height as Brewster and Purtty or what ever his name is his reach is the same as Wlad almost i think he could win it on cuts and just dart in and out he had a lot of speed on Wlad he may not win but his chances are pretty good.
In a nutshell...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
46 yr old Holyfield is still Holyfield, and Holyfield lost that fight. Losing 2 fights in an entire career to good opponents is a good record, the rest of Haye's opponents were also good opponents. Sultan had a very good if short career, he still BEAT Holyfield, didn't lose to Austin and did alright against Wlad, it's Wlad friggin Klitschko, he doesn't lose rounds to anyone!! Brewster loss was a sham, Wlad was sick, Judd letter is conclusive, rematch showed us the real ending. Sanders was a shock KO loss same as happened to Lewis against McCall, Sanders was aggressive, fast, long southpaw with great power, peculiar circumstances for Wlad who didn't adapt to fast enough, didn't prepare for properly and got caught earrly. Also featured a massive sandwich headbutt to strt the sequence. Sanders ducked rematch afterwards and Wlad pursured belts. Puritty similar story to Thompson vs Haye, old veteral drowned young thletic kid, survived because he had iron chin, hefty weight and experience and had power to finish against gassed out Wlad. Wlad never really ever has been outboxed entire career.
Brewster would have KO'd Ali definitely, Purritty was shit boxer, I think Ali might have UD'd him but even still, Ali never fought an oppoent as heavy+experienced+hard chinned as Ross!! Ali's effective speed (his ability to land and get out) isn't anywhere near as good as Wlad's. Wlad's massive range advantage (his heght and reach combined and long style) and own speed ensures Wlad would win out in nearly every exchange over any version of Ali. Furthermore Wlad could just walk through Ali without getting hurt from one of the most featherfisted HW's of all time KOratio 33%!
Perhaps best way to show is that Ali almost always had both a height advantage + a weight advntage over all opponents whom he beat convincngly. Against Wladimir he is the one who is outsized in both departments. I could go on!!
I think the worst thing about this era is that non of the contendors ever get round to fighting each other unless it is for the mandatory shot and even then its not guarenteed that it's going to be two good guys fighting... so guys rarely build up an impressive record before they have to fight the klitschko and after they are defeated they fade away S: shame... I think there are quite a few talented guys out there just now
In a nutshell...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
46 yr old Holyfield is still Holyfield, and Holyfield lost that fight. Losing 2 fights in an entire career to good opponents is a good record, the rest of Haye's opponents were also good opponents. Sultan had a very good if short career, he still BEAT Holyfield, didn't lose to Austin and did alright against Wlad, it's Wlad friggin Klitschko, he doesn't lose rounds to anyone!! Brewster loss was a sham, Wlad was sick, Judd letter is conclusive, rematch showed us the real ending. Sanders was a shock KO loss same as happened to Lewis against McCall, Sanders was aggressive, fast, long southpaw with great power, peculiar circumstances for Wlad who didn't adapt to fast enough, didn't prepare for properly and got caught earrly. Also featured a massive sandwich headbutt to strt the sequence. Sanders ducked rematch afterwards and Wlad pursured belts. Puritty similar story to Thompson vs Haye, old veteral drowned young thletic kid, survived because he had iron chin, hefty weight and experience and had power to finish against gassed out Wlad. Wlad never really ever has been outboxed entire career.
Brewster would have KO'd Ali definitely, Purritty was shit boxer, I think Ali might have UD'd him but even still, Ali never fought an oppoent as heavy+experienced+hard chinned as Ross!! Ali's effective speed (his ability to land and get out) isn't anywhere near as good as Wlad's. Wlad's massive range advantage (his heght and reach combined and long style) and own speed ensures Wlad would win out in nearly every exchange over any version of Ali. Furthermore Wlad could just walk through Ali without getting hurt from one of the most featherfisted HW's of all time KOratio 33%!
Perhaps best way to show is that Ali almost always had both a height advantage + a weight advntage over all opponents whom he beat convincngly. Against Wladimir he is the one who is outsized in both departments. I could go on!!
On the Ali topic still Mr140...
Take Jean Marc Mormeck as an example.
This opponent has been ridiculed by Wladimir's critics as being the worst example of trash that Wladimir has ever fought.
Yet he is a 6 time CW champion which in Ali's day translates to a 6 time HW champion!
His weight against Wladimir was among the larger opponents that Ali ever fought, heftier than Spinks, Holmes, Berbick, Norton and Frazier and Liston and only 1lb lighter than George Foreman and even solider than George since he is shorter and in more ripped condition than any of them.
His record and the quality of Mormecks opposition is so much greater than that of Ali's opponents, that should Mormeck have been an opponent of Muhammad Ali back in the 60's or 70's.. And he won, Mormeck could well have been the best opponent that Muhammad Ali ever faced! And would be used as proof of the superiority of the golden era and how good Ali was to have bested such an opponent.
Yet to Wladimir Klitschko this was a complete joke and a mismatch. I hope you understand what I am getting at here!!
Yesterdays heroes... Are todays tomato cans!!