sQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
Are you saying Sanders and Wlad were at the level of Louis's big opponents?
Because if that's what your reducing yourself to upholding then you might as well admit you are beaten.
Printable View
sQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
Are you saying Sanders and Wlad were at the level of Louis's big opponents?
Because if that's what your reducing yourself to upholding then you might as well admit you are beaten.
Well Since Ali was never even knocked out you really have nothing Max just a opinion which really is not that great because there is no facts to it. So what Ali was dropped a few times but never was iced and he was the size of Holyfeild another man that was never iced. Ali was about as tall as Sanders and weighed in between 215 and 225 which is not far off the people today. Wald been dropped more then any Heavyweight champion in history I believe. He lost to good top 10 contender in Sanders, a Journeyman Purrity and Brewster who was out boxed by guys Ali's size with shit records before knocking Wald the fuck out. I just think your nut hugging dude not even saying Ali would not lose fights but he has great chance with anyone yet again Mercer fucking out boxed Lewis i thing Ali can do the same.
Look man, Ali was an inch taller than Holyfield and an inch shorter than Sanders. But he had neither the chin of Holyfield or the punch of Sanders (or the chin either).
Ali was at premium 212lbs. Anything you try to rate Ali above that rate much is a blown up version (i.e. he was fat and unathletic). Holyfield by comparison was in FACT 215-220lbs of solid muscle not a scrap of fart and supremely conditioned.
Incredible, you are trying to pass off one of the laziest trained boxers at those weights you extrapolate for him, even his own trainer made statements about the slovenliness of Ali, as the same size as Holyfield or natural HW's!
Now I know Holyfield is artificially pumped up to that weight. Were we discussing ethics here, sure I would agree with you, Holy should be a cruiser. But by todays standards, so should Ali!
You are wrong, Toney stopped Holyfield, Bowe knocked Holyfield out, testament to the power of one of the technical giants of the modern era.
And Ali was stopped by Holmes, a much superior boxer than Ali anyway!
Sure it was end of career. And you can say he was never KO'd any other and that makes him the best chin.
So I suppose by that logic then Floyd Mayweather has the hardest chin of all time too then right? Cause he was never KO'd.
Or for HW's I guess Marciano would also survive modern HW because he was never even beaten let alone KO'd?
You would like that!
But wait, then you also have to admit Vitali Klitschko and Nikolay Valuev to that magical un-KOable list too then because neither were they!
You see where we're headed? Obviously the POWER of punches across the era in question is a very important factor in remaining un-KOed.
Your logic is silly. Ali was old when he was stopped by Larry. Floyd's career is not over. Valuev was not stopped but no one said he had a great chin. What are you on about?
Ali was already having signs of Parkinson before fighting Holmes at almost the age of 39 what a pointless thing to point out his corner throw in the towel also i believe. Holyfeild Had hep b and Hart problems during the Bowe fight wasn't really iced was he. Bringing up fights when he was well in his 40's doesn't mean shit really your prime is gone at 40 not everyone is Hopkins. I won't bring up Wlads loses when he is in his 40's because it is point less he got knocked the fuck out when he was in prime body wise. He has not been knocked since but to be honest i don't think he fought a guy as good as Sanders since then. Chambers should be Cw, Eddie should be a CW, Peters fat blob in which he never should of had a hard time with, then he fought few ok contenders. Bryde is his best win yet again could very well been a CW. And has yet to fight Vitali which i know is his brother but hurts him because he was not the man for a lot of his reign because of his brother being champ how can you be a champ if dont fight the best. Not saying he should fight his brother but he doesn't even need to fight all the contenders because of his brother.
I also think 2014 has been the shittiest boxing year thus far in the past 10 years..
David Haye was definitely his best opponent, Samuel Peter was a far more dangerous opponent than Joe Frazier! And so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Byrd was his best opponent, what drugs are you on. Byrd has not the firepower to trouble Wladimir or the style. Has had no chance of ever beating Wladimir under any circumstances ever just like Muihammad Ali!
The way you rate fighters man is all back to front! The weaker the boxer, the better they are in your eyes.
Another stupid statement "Sam Peter a fat blob" sure he got fat alright, but against Klit you could see his muscles ripping through. As opposed to pot bellied Frazier who you credit Ali with beating. Let me tell you, if you can see a 6-pack, the boxer is not fat!
I think I declared those reasons for Ali getting stopped already, the point I was trying to make was you can't claim Ali had an iron chin or a better chin than Wlad when he didn't have to fight anywhere near the number of hard punching bxers that Wlad did.
As for Wlad's opponents, we all know what would happen if we lined up Ali's opponents and gave that career list to Thompson, Peter, Haye, Povetkin, Rahman, Chagaev, Ibragimov etc. They would knock almost every single one of them out! Masters of escapology Chambers and Byrd would UD almost all of them and score appreciable KO rates too.
Jean Marc Mormeck would have been considered a 6-time HW champion back in Ali's day and was bigger and leaner than Ali, one of the heftiest non-bum opponentns Ali would have faced and only 1lb lighter than "big" George Foreman!
What for Wladimir was considered a complete mismatch would for Ali have been considered the greatest opponent he'd ever faced.
You also mentioned Chambers and Byrd were blown up cruisers, that's true, so was David Haye! I never said there was anything wrong with that but...
Chambers and Byrd relied on their elusiveness to "steal fights", the opposite of Ali's tactic of taking punches. Insisting on the 60's Ali that wasn't so easy to hit, that guy's style was reliant on his height and range advantage to land which at 6'3" tall is today mediocre and weight advntage to command respect which today would be reversed. Byrd and Chambers were elusive rrespective of size.
As for Haye, tht's interesting because they were the same size. Except Haye is mega-ripped at that weight ad Ali is not (still fit but). Haye is faster and has better reflexes than Ali ever did and his upper body movement allows him to evade piunches from "bigger" opponents unlike Ali who relied only on "running away" from his opponents to win. And of course Hye had a cracker punch where as Ali could not punch through the surface tension of water. I can't see Ali surviving many rounds at all against Haye.
"Because he is yet to fight his brother"
Sure that situation hurt boxing a bit but you claim that he didn't fight all the opponents because his brother took half of them.
That statement was silly because if Wlaidmir fought ALL the opponents, let's take the last 15 of Vitali's then that would put Wlad at 80 fights!
At 230+ HW you cannot have as many fights as you could in the days of 175+ or even 200+ because the punches get hrder and harder and damage accumulates quicker. Already Wladimir has the most fights, the largest record of 200+ real HW fights of all time!
Lennox Lewis did not fight all the opponents either.
Everything I claim for Wladimir I can claim similar for for Vitali as well. In fact his case is even easier to prove his superiority just numerically.
Every single one of Vitali's opponents from Lewis on was virtually either...
- A champion, former champion, future champion
- A giant super HW average 240+ lbs! (The largest non-bum opponent Ali ever fought was 225lb Alvin Lewis)
- An unbeaten contender or nearly unbeaten.
or a combination of the above.
Sam Peter was more dangerous than Frazier? I don't even know where to begin with that. I just question your mental capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerDavid Haye was definitely his best opponent, Samuel Peter was a far more dangerous opponent than Joe Frazier! And so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Byrd was his best opponent, what drugs are you on. Byrd has not the firepower to trouble Wladimir or the style. Has had no chance of ever beating Wladimir under any circumstances ever just like Muihammad Ali!
The way you rate fighters man is all back to front! The weaker the boxer, the better they are in your eyes.
Another stupid statement "Sam Peter a fat blob" sure he got fat alright, but against Klit you could see his muscles ripping through. As opposed to pot bellied Frazier who you credit Ali with beating. Let me tell you, if you can see a 6-pack, the boxer is not fat!
I think I declared those reasons for Ali getting stopped already, the point I was trying to make was you can't claim Ali had an iron chin or a better chin than Wlad when he didn't have to fight anywhere near the number of hard punching bxers that Wlad did.
As for Wlad's opponents, we all know what would happen if we lined up Ali's opponents and gave that career list to Thompson, Peter, Haye, Povetkin, Rahman, Chagaev, Ibragimov etc. They would knock almost every single one of them out! Masters of escapology Chambers and Byrd would UD almost all of them and score appreciable KO rates too.
Jean Marc Mormeck would have been considered a 6-time HW champion back in Ali's day and was bigger and leaner than Ali, one of the heftiest non-bum opponentns Ali would have faced and only 1lb lighter than "big" George Foreman!
What for Wladimir was considered a complete mismatch would for Ali have been considered the greatest opponent he'd ever faced.
You also mentioned Chambers and Byrd were blown up cruisers, that's true, so was David Haye! I never said there was anything wrong with that but...
Chambers and Byrd relied on their elusiveness to "steal fights", the opposite of Ali's tactic of taking punches. Insisting on the 60's Ali that wasn't so easy to hit, that guy's style was reliant on his height and range advantage to land which at 6'3" tall is today mediocre and weight advntage to command respect which today would be reversed. Byrd and Chambers were elusive rrespective of size.
As for Haye, tht's interesting because they were the same size. Except Haye is mega-ripped at that weight ad Ali is not (still fit but). Haye is faster and has better reflexes than Ali ever did and his upper body movement allows him to evade piunches from "bigger" opponents unlike Ali who relied only on "running away" from his opponents to win. And of course Hye had a cracker punch where as Ali could not punch through the surface tension of water. I can't see Ali surviving many rounds at all against Haye.
Joe Frazier's career at a glance..Quote:
Sam Peter was more dangerous than Frazier? I don't even know where to begin with that. I just question your mental capacity.
Frazier was blind on left eye his entire professional career (after a training accident 1964). He would pass medical exams by covering his left eye and then switch his arm to cover his left eye AGAIN. Such a handicap as Frazier wouldn't be allowed to box nowadays.
Height: 5'11'.5" (BOTTOM-2 of Wladimir Klitschko's opponents)
Started as a cruiser 197 lbs. Median weight 204 lbs. Peter NOT ONCE fought anyone as light as that.
Median weight of Frazier's KO'victim: 197 lbs (cruiser)
Career record (all fights): 32-4 (not too impressive)
Career record real heavyweight fights 200×2 lbs: 13-4 (bum)
Frazier never fought an opponent a hefty as Wlad's AVERAGE opponent.
That would be Frazier's real experience compared to Samuel Peter. Every opponent Samuel Peter faced with such little experience he KO'd within early rounds.
Frazier ducked/never fought some of the better+hard punching boxers of his time like Sonny Liston, Mac Foster, Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton, Cleveland Williams. Peter fought both Klitschko's and other of the most hard punching division of all time.
The only time Frazier met a guy of comparable quality to a modern boxer he got brutally annihilated 2ce.
Yeah I think I can safely say that Samuel Peter is just a little bit more dangerous than Frazier.
A seemingly harsh but highly accurate desciption of Frazier would be an out of shape, chinny, featherfisted, handicapped punch bag bum dwarf with a very limited style.
The ONLY reason that Frazier is pumped up to be anything other today is because the OTNB community KNOWS that if it admits Frazier is no match for a modern boxer, then it is virtually conceding that Ali and the rest of the Golden Age is of lesser calibre as well. That's why the fantasy of Frazier must be upheld because he is a pillar for the whole charade because he beat the greatest!
You crazy. Pass whatever your smoking to me, its a friday night in England and Im here reading this drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Guys, Joe Frazier was a non stop punching machine. Sam peter was a fat pig. In fact I thought James Toney a lazy big fat MW beat him the first fight.
Yeah sure, Joe Frazier had a much higher punch output than Peter.
Just saying the Frazier that Ali fought was soft bellied whereas the Peter that Wlad fought was 6-packed!
As for the punch output, a hundred of those punches could not do as much damage as just 1 big punch from Sam Peter!
Of course Frazier is gonna have a higher output than Peter, Peter outweighs Frazier by 40 fucking lbs!!
Frazier was not what we would today describe as a HW!!!
Another way to look at it is that Peter is an example of a "Super-Frazier".
Take Frazier, put him n steroids for a few years and beef him up to 240, give him a big punch and a hard chin...
There's Samuel Peter!!
http://image.trucktrend.com/f/featur...hammad-ali.jpg
You can see in the image above that Joe and Muhammad are not HW's by modern standards. They are chubbed up CW's. Today when we have CW's step up to HW they are usually "muscled up" and "highly athletic" at the new weight as opposed to just naturally increasing to that weight like Joe and Muhammad by virtue of getting older and fatter. If you make Joe and Muhammad train hard enough and lean up enough to make weight like current CW's do, they fit well into the 200lb limit.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_s2KIJbhUZ2...weigh+in+4.jpg
I could not find one of Wladimir standing next to Peter but you all know that Wlad is even more ripped than Vitali. It is clear from viewing these 2 guys that both Vitali AND Peter are of a far higher calibre than Joe or Muhammad, about 2 or 3 weight ranges above!!
And leaner! Both Klits and Samuel are sporting the outline of what appears to be not just a 6-pack, but one with very large, strong abdominal muscles.
Yes I can certainly see what your talking about. Peter looks morbidly obese in this image! LOL
Your failing gentlemen!
The fact is that today, the champions are muscled up, lean and 6-packed and SOME of their opponents are fat.
In the "Golden Era"... The CHAMPIONS themselves were fat!
The only six pack Sam Peter has is his beer belly. Look, I'll say it again you can not compare one era vs another. As I said before a high school kid today can beat Jesse Owens time with ease. Does that mean Jesse Owens was not great? Joe Frazier in his prime was about 205. With todays diet and training Joe would be about 230. The question is could Sam Peter beat a 230 pound Joe Frazier? If James Toney could make Sam Peter look foolish at times. What does that say about Sam Peter? Ali fought in a very tough era in which there were skilled fighters. Ok, Joe Frazier beat Ali in there first fight. People forget Ali hasn't fought in 3 and a half years. True he did has 2 tune up fights. The time he fought Quarry to the Frazier fight was 5 months. Just not enough time to get back in the swing of things. I lived in both eras. Believe me the talent level has dropped way off. To me, in my life time this is the worst era for HW boxing I've ever seen. I'm not saying all of boxing just the HWs.
But you just did compare one era versus another with this thread. The title of the thread was is this the worst HW era of all time. And the answer is that it is among the best in terms of skill level, effectiveness and overall talent of the fighters.
It's 2014 now and the eras your prmoting were 40-50 years ago and beyond. How could it be otherwise??
But I have seen those old fights and you can see clearly that they were smaller. You can see clearly that they were not as athletic as todays fighters. You can see clearly that they were not skilled fighters.
Fuck me, George Foreman did not even know how to box! Muhammad Ali barely knew how to box properly either and Joe Frazier marched straight forward with only 1 punch in his arsenal!
These are the 3 BEST boxers of that era and they could barely BOX!
Where are the technical boxer-punchers of the 70's, the analogs of Lewis and Klits?
Where are the defensive masters like Byrd and Chambers?
Where are the all in one fighters like Haye and Holyfield and Tyson?
They are none. Because the sport was not evolved enough for them yet.
Further those old fighters did not hit each other as viciously as they do today. Today a HW can be knocked out with a well placed single hard shot.
In the 70's even the biggest/hardest puncher (Foreman) took 6 KD's to put down one of the smallest/chinniest fighters (Frazier) who still finished the fight on his feet.
As for your scaling up of Frazier to the size of a modern HW, think about it. If you packed Frazier with muscle like Peter he would swing more slowly, move more slowly and have a much lower workrate due to being 240 lbs! He would have a higher punch resistance and more power by virtue of crude mass too and body strength.
He would perform in my estimation EXACTLY AS SAM PETER PERFORMED!
But Frazier was not that guy. Frazier was as I described him, and the fact that a guy like that could be an Olympic champion and a HW champion is another testament to how bad the Golden era really was.
As for today, Not only is the modern HW era more proficient than the Golden Era, it's so far apart it isn't even CLOSE!
Samuel Peter would be a multiple time HW champion in the 70's with a major threat coming only from Foreman himself arguably and would dominate the 60's with no equal.
In that 20 year time span I would never have bet against Samuel Peter in any fight and would have bet almost all times on Peter to win by KO.
James Toney was a fat ass against PEter sure but so was Peter by that time, they were both unathletic at that stage so the comparison is tainted but let me say that Toney's style as a slick counter puncher and defensive fighter is not reliant on either size so much, or athleticism. As with Kirk Johnson, Chris Byrd, Eddie Chambers etc, they were never in great shape. And Peter was never a difficult to hit opponent, same as Frazier, their head bob technique afforded them a little protection from limited boxers but not from good pros, Frazier was sucessful because he faced no hard punchers and Peter was becaue he had great chin and power.
So this type of opponent was great for Toney. And of course his layers of blubber provided massive punch protection too.
And no MrBig I'm not saying they weren't great, they were the best of their age and that is as great as you could get!
But that doesn't afford them superhuman status. You said it yourself, you can only judge them against the criteria of their own era. That criteria is different now.
And I've no doubt there was reasons behind Ali's struggles (although struggling against Fraizer and Norton 3 times each is hard to justify) but 2 things are obvious..
He was not a DOMINANT champion like Tyson, LEwis and the Klitschko's were. He was more like a Holyfield. A great boxer who would always be at the top but who could never hold on to a title for long.
And if you excuse Ali's struggles and losses then you have to be prepared to do the same for Klitschko too. The GASSING against Puritty, the HEADBUTT against Sanders, the HYPERGLYCAEMIA against Brewster (whatever the cause). Just as we know the issues with Holyfield too.
Who did Peters ever knock out that was worth a shit or top ten Max i not going look up the shit but i pretty sure none i feel his power is overrated he lost to fat mw in his prime as well with not much power. Admek could not make it in Lhw division lacks power at hw is top ten, Chambers no punch cw was a top ten. Bryde has the best wins of any opponent Wald ever fought and was established champ also a cw blown up really right. Only good guys that are 240 plus really were Lewis, Wald, Vitali, Bowe and Old George Foreman. Most the best fighters aren't giants right now besides the brothers i think any one from 70's up do fine in this era including Ali. I am not even fan of his Holyfeild is my favorite fighter but i am sure Ali could outbox a lot people of today how much footage have seen of him anyhow may i ask.
The voice of reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Max does not understand reason.
Max deals in absolutes, therefore he it's either a sith lord or a member of the old darkside clan ;D
What you mean is that the names on Peter's record are unfamiliar to you. Maskaev was a HW champ and if I am not mistaken, beating another champ is a pretty bloody great achievement. Especially since Maskaev was a multiple champ and beat Rahman 2ce who beat Lewis. But Let's compare Peters complete list of opponents to FraziersQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
A long list of the names on Fraziers record are obscure also. And a lot of the known names were not as good as say a humdrum opponent of Peters like Charles Shufford.
On close inspection you will find that half the opponents of Frazier are not even real HW's today. Frazier and Peter have similar fight experience in the 30+ fight range but all of Peters opponents are real HW's where as Frazier's real 200+ experience is only 14-4.
Today, we would call that a bum record and say he should go back to Cruiser. What's more those opponents of Frazier are actually worse because even amongst the real 200+ HWs he fought, their own records also consisted largely of what is today called CW, and so any opponent of Samuel's conversely, their records consist mainly of 200+ HW's as well (unless the opponents opponent stepped up from CW of course but the incidences are still much less), so the HW fight experience of Peter's opponents, let alone Peters himself is far greater than Frazier's.
So before you rubbish the opponents of Samuel Peter whom you admittedly rubbished without even analysing, strong conclusions can already be drawn about him from his record, even if you don't recognise famous names. And remember just because you know who a boxer was on Frazier's record that would not help him to survive! And look now to the KO streak and % of Peter. And also notice that the several losses Peter accumulated were end of career too post Klitschko when he started to get lazy and fat (apart from Klitschko losses themselves).
Frazier in fact seems to be afraid of hefty fighters because his experience above the weight of 215 lbs is only 1-2, 2 destoyings from Foreman and one victory against Busther MAthis, a very fat, unconditioned fighter who gassed out in the late rounds which he'd never been in before. Peter weighed 230+ lbs always! And Peter did NOT lose to a fat middleweight, he won both fights!
Tomasz Adamek is a featherfist at HW, he is also a very tough little boxer with great all round boxing skills. He has had some success because of his quality as a fighter and also struggles to compete at top level though because of his physical limitations, as would Ali, who is of similar proportions and quality. Adamek is strength trained to become a HW just like Holyfield.
Your quip about Adamek is complete BS. He was a light-weight champion, only losing 1 fight to Chad Dawson another top boxer. Then he was a CW champion. Then he was a HW contender as he muscled up. Overall Adamek was a 7 time world champion across 2 divisions but failed to capture one at HW because of his restrictions! That tells me he is a superb boxer but also underlines the power of the HW division! And remember what happened against Klitschko, he was like a school boy getting batted around.
Chambers and Byrd were both successful because they were escapologists but both also had difficulties against the better+larger opponents too. Byrd does have a great record too of names that you obviously recognise but the ease with which Wladimir found him and batted him around again testifies to the limits that Byrd could achieve. And remember the only opponent Byrd managed to conincingly KO of real toughness was Jimmy Thunder, a simple slugger.
So throw Haye and Holyfield in there too and you have basically exhausted the list of former CW's that have been successful at HW not just at this one time but over the course of the last decade and a half! That small list! Compared to the 50 odd that were so in the 60's and 70's at top level! Obviously it got harder and harder for them to compete which is why they invented CW in the first place. Only the very brave and determined ones step up to mix it with the big boys now!
Those 5 are the only good big guys are they. Those 5 are right at the top, I give you that but there are plenty of 240+ big guys who were still good. They were either HW champs or top contenders. By that standard the list encompasses a lengthy list.
Look at Vitali Klitschko's opponent list. Post Lewis and inclusive- they were virtually ALL 240+ lbs with the exception of Adamek who was still as hefty as ther bigger HW's of the 70's, and were unbeaten (or nearly unbeaten), past, present or future champs.
As for right now, Tyson Fury, Kubrat Pulev are over 240 definite and the rest of the top 10 in every belt are approaching. No fighter at all is below 220lbs atm, not even the smallest, Tomasz Adamek.
I've seen all Ali's important fights over the many years and sadly will never get that time back. I grew up with Mike Tyson mate. I never seen anything spectacular about Ali at all. Holmes was a much better version imo.
I seen him run away like a turkey avoiding conflict from anybody approaching his own size in the 60's and stealing fights from the outside with piss weak shots, the only time I seen him really bash anybody was when the opponent was smaller than him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
And then in the 70's I seen him get fucking smashed to bits and gifted left right and centre.
I would say that Ali was the luckiest boxer in history! Not the grestest.
Hey Max, STFU. People here think I'm you and that pisses me off :mad: your the worst type of boxing fan, you don't know shit and you are disrespectful to former fighters. I doubt you have ever stepped in the ring, you throw the word bum around and it makes me think you are all talk. Your arguments are pointless, it's all relative. Planes today are better, so are cars etc. But without a starting point and development through the years we don't get to where we are ;)
Put Wlad back in the old days born around the 40's and the guy probably doesn't live past his teens. Everything is relative so give it a rest son :mad:
hats off to max power, you might not agree with his posts but he certainly comes prepared to post.. Good to have different opinions on forums.. good work !
Bum is a relative term man, if you'd prefer me to say "a professional fighter but one with record with a large proportion of losses" then imagine that's what I wrote instead of that 3 letter word.Quote:
Originally Posted by La Cucaracha
I was never a pro boxer no but I was an ammy. To say that I know nothing of boxing though I would just claim I know enough to speak with confidence about it.
This is a forum, it IS all talk!
The arguments I present here are all very relevant to the thread and the arguments presented to me!
As for the rest of your story, I am not, and never have been in dispute! I'm not rubbishing on any former great. If you rubbish a modern fighter, I'll expose their predecessor. My position is..
Joe Louis was a great boxer.
Muhammad Ali was a great boxer
All the guys in between were great boxers too.
My only dispute is when it's put forward that they could rock up to the modern HW division and begin whacking guys around. That's CRAZY!
How are you been confused with me? Have you wrote something intelligent too? LOL
Yeah, nobody has to agree. It's just an opinion same as anyone elses!!Quote:
Originally Posted by palmerq
Oleg was champ because a Trinket was up for grabs and Rahman had not beaten a good opponent since Lewis which was a fucking long time ago. Not mention Losing Ruiz and Holyfeild then got a draw with fucking fat Tony. Oleg has been koed a lot after and before Peter actual Oleg every fucking lose has been from a ok so that doesn't tell much about peters power. Also beside Oleg Peter never beat anyone else that was rated top heavy when he fought them. I am just saying that's a guy who should not have caused Wlad the problems he did and i don't thing the 250 to 260 weight did him much good just makes him slow. Most of this eras fighters i mean the 00's at least were people who could not make it in the 90's era and are not better the 80's really. The late 70's guys could most likely hang and few of them did pretty well when they were old as shit. Wlad chin is shit is what i am saying i guess doesn't get hit anymore which is good improvement. The divsion right now is like the 80's with out Tyson and maybe not as Boring as with the 1980's with Holmes. The opponents are ok and then there a few maybe great fighters but overall division far from great.
Well I will maintain my position that Peter is a very hard puncher, I don't think too many would disagree with that.
Now we're onto Wlad's chin by the looks of it.
I noticed even that Classic fool from Boxing News 24 VG_Addict made a thread here regarding Wlad's chin.
Let's take a look at it. Wladimir for a start has now 65? fights all of them 200+ and within the most power-trained and heftiest era in history. That's the most numerous and combined heaviest real HW record of any boxer of all time. And in that time he only 3 times, just THREE was stopped.
One of those was not really a legitimate loss, he would have fallen over anyway a few moments later, he finished the fight on his feet anyway (was not canvas KO'd) even despite the illness.
Of the 2 remaining losses, one of them was a gas out, that is not a chin issue. Otherwise you'd be claiming Foreman had a glass jaw as well!
The remaining loss was against a 6'4" 226lb very fast and aggressive southpaw with a cracker punch. Wlad did not prepare properly as he underestimated him and was taken by surprise and hurt before he could work out the awkward opponent. This marks the only occasion where Wlad was in fact dropped by raw punching power.
But wait there's more to the story! Not only was Sanders no featherfist, unlike some other boxers who have been KO'd be lesser punchers, not only did Wladimir get up several times and still finished the fight on his feet but the whole thing was in fact kicked off by the first hook that was sandwiched by a massive headbutt. That would have badly hurt anybody!
And then there's Peter, a very hard puncher, just look at him! And Wlad got up several times, showing both heart AND chin, to win the fight!
He's only been down a handful of other times in his entire career, the biggest and hardest hitting career of all time!
So Wladimir has always finished a fight on his feet and has never really been stopped by what amounts to a clearly weak chin, not even by Sanders and has on several occasions demonstrated he can take a good punch. He survived Peter, he took a full blooded, unprotected punch from Ruslan Chagaev too and did not wince. He even looks like he could take a decent punch.
Now I'm not saying Wladimir has an iron chin, he doesn't. But I am saying he has a pretty decent chin and that his is widely and severely underrated.
It's not his fault he is so good that he does not get hit often. And if he is capable of avoiding punishment, why the fuck would he want to get hit! Especially in this division! Using his defence as a negative against him is ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous is really thinking the most dominant HW champion of the world of all time for a decade has a weak chin! Were that the case, he'd not be where he is now!
"Oleg was a champ because a trinket was up for grabs"...
Yeah, the same reason why Frazier and Norton were champs too right?
:cool:
Tell me what exactly did Rahamn do to deserve the belt He beat no one worth a shit for years has a draw with Tony and he is champ come on. Fact that Oleg even got a belt shows me that today it is even more of a joke to have belt then was back then no reason they should of even had a strap. Frazier and Norton beat some body that was at least top at the time i mean Rahamn was not even close to being top dog and Oleg got a trinket that is about it and there are so many flying around kinda takes the meaning of it away don't you think.
Monte Barrett was better than any opponent for Rahman than any that Frazier or Norton fought for their titles!!
That's what I think!
All these titles, really I think we should go back to 3 titles. So we can still have eliminators etc. Sure I'll give you that the larger number of titles makes winning a single one not as "special" as it was previously the less titles their were. That to me is just a nominal thing though. Still even if we consider 6 major titles, winning any one of those is a pretty significant statement about the quality of the boxer within the criteria of the era.
On the other side, when it comes to the dominant champions like Wladimir, winning, unifying and keeping several different titles is a greater feat nominally than doing so for a single title (they are collectively harder to acquire and hold on to!)
But yeah 3 titles I think would be good. Something like the 80's situation with the WBC, WBA and the IBF.
Again, can you really imagine what would happen if you put Frazier or Norton in with Rahman? Gosh there'd be glass shards flying across the other side of the stadium. Rahman could really fuckin bang man! Just look at him!
Well i think Spinks, Foreman, Young and Ron even could give Rahman run if not beat him. I am pretty sure Foreman could smash him because his chin was tad better. Rahman can bang but he lost to a lot of guys he could not knock out ok Joe and Ken had bad chins but they gave Ali as much problems as guys that do better today. I mean old Ken gave Holmes a run for his money and look what he ended up doing Rahamn has a bangers shot but can be out boxed and fucked up him self guy lost to Ruiz for god sake and old Holyfeild. Say what you want about some old fighters getting better with age but Holyfeild depended on his speed and out put and that is the first thing to go still fucking made Rahman look bad dude had a punch thats about it ok boxer. I mean he had some good wins with Sanders and Lewis But the man was like one hit wonder because then look at the boxers he lost to right after word just saying.
Yeah Ken did good against Holmes, that was good I'll give you that and sure Holyfield was better than Rahman but really that fight was no thrashing or a real KO it was simply stopped because of that horrific haematoma on the Rocks head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
You know I rate Holmes quite highly really but he was in fact challenged at times by much lesser competition and even gifted somewhat. You might expect by now that I kinda consider Ray Mercer probably his best win or if not top 3 lol
The HW division has always had great American fighters. This era there is none. They called the Joe Louis era the bum of the month club. This era is even worse than that. Who is the best American fighter in the last ten years? It's because we see fighters retiring with no money and having to fight in there 40's. James Toney is still fighting. You can count on one hand how many fighters retire with all there marbles and money in there pockets. In the HW division I can name two. Holmes and Foreman because they both made money outside the ring. What kid in there right mind wants to be a fighter? How about none.Lebron James has size speed and power. He could be a fighter in my mind. He knows the money he makes in the NBA is his. In boxing the promoter and manager can do what they want when they want. Boxing is the only sport in which there is no laws to protect them. You would be a fool to want to be a fighter today. Some will say money Mayweather has money. Why is this, Because his father and Uncle were both fighters and knows the pit falls young fighters can fall into.
I don't buy any of that. A guy who really loves boxing is going to want to be a fighter. Furthermore we're talking top level boxing here, not fighting for a dollar. In Louis' day they fought month in month out because they were paid such FA the had to.
Today a fighter at that level is paid handsomely, affording them proper recuperation and training before their next fight! and a comfortable lifestyle.
Every professional boxer I see has great clothes, and the finest equipment and don't look like their eating a can of baked beans. Holyfield did not fight on because he ha to. He wanted to!
If a lot of boxers are not good at managing their finances for later life that's something else, I guess taking head shots impairs judgement somewhat.
Anyway why do you single out "great American" fighters??? Your saying this era is bad because Americans are not dominant? As if you are the centre of the world.
I can't believe you said that! Wilder, Jennings, Arreola are American, the only reason they are not considered "great" by your standards is because suddenly they must compete with a whole world full of talented fighters and struggle to keep up.
In the old days boxing was mainly an American and British sport with some foreign involvement. Today it is a global sport, esp with the opening up of the Eastern bloc nations and the competition has gotten that much stiffer.
Furthermore, Americans have gotten fat and lazy! They come up soft. In places like Eastern Europe, conditions are tougher and they naturally produce better fighters. If the yanks spent more time training and not listening to rap music they might enjoy more success.
All that happened to America is that you got beaten. The home ground flag of HW boxing for a hundred and fifty years was suddenly uprooted by a couple of Slavs, whisked away to the opposite side of the globe and replanted in Ukrainian soil, leaving America bitter and ashamed, full of hate, full of excuses, and shying away from the cause and the solution.
Well cry me a river. They won because they come from a far more discipined society and they train harder. Want to be great again, try harder! Yu have a population of several hundred million ppl!
Well will say this america has not been hunger inn ages we are lazy in general. Hell we have ufc now which is the new click which is ok but when a guy with ten wins beats one best of all time kinda of joke. I wish we had the Tyson and Holyfeilds again we have a champ but hunger ain't there no more.