All your last post in nonsense. It was obvious Lennox was not in prime condition and that was clear to see. Being heavier was therefore a disadvantage for him.
Printable View
All your last post in nonsense. It was obvious Lennox was not in prime condition and that was clear to see. Being heavier was therefore a disadvantage for him.
Oh yeah, how so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Lennox was leaning all over Vitali, (sapping his strength)
LEnnox was fighting more furiously than he had ever fought whole career.
5lbs.. FIVE above Rahman 2 weight.
43 fights worth of experience (41 at 200+ HW) going in.
Objectively was as quick as he was previous, not noticeably slower at all.
By Lennox's OWN admission, he was well prepared. He had already been in camp training for Johnson. It's just a natural occurrence that boxers gain weight as they age.
But "He was puffing hard doe!"
Vitali was also gassed. That happens when 2 gigantic boxers fight at a pace more befitting a middleweight for several rounds, no matter what kind of condition they are in.
You can claim it was because it was because he was out of shape and I can do no more to prove otherwise, but I can make my claim and you can do no better likewise!
But if an in shape Lennox could have beaten Vitali properly, then why did he retire?
Nothing left to prove? I would say that after that fight, he certainly had one more thing to prove.
I know this wont be popular but I think Wlad is the best heavyweight of all time. I cant see a fighter I would make favorite to beat him. I dont think Ali is big and strong enough to handle him. I cannot see how a 5'10 Marciano or Tyson could get anywhere near him. The guys Id give the best chance of beating him are Vitali and Lennox.
you need to research better before making posts :S... lewis was 10 pounds heavier than the rahman 2 fight.. Although I do think lewis retired because he didn't want anything to do with vitali in a rematch, which is fair enough he had done it all and was rich he earned the right to retire whenever he felt like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerOh yeah, how so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Lennox was leaning all over Vitali, (sapping his strength)
LEnnox was fighting more furiously than he had ever fought whole career.
5lbs.. FIVE above Rahman 2 weight.
43 fights worth of experience (41 at 200+ HW) going in.
Objectively was as quick as he was previous, not noticeably slower at all.
By Lennox's OWN admission, he was well prepared. He had already been in camp training for Johnson. It's just a natural occurrence that boxers gain weight as they age.
But "He was puffing hard doe!"
Vitali was also gassed. That happens when 2 gigantic boxers fight at a pace more befitting a middleweight for several rounds, no matter what kind of condition they are in.
You can claim it was because it was because he was out of shape and I can do no more to prove otherwise, but I can make my claim and you can do no better likewise!
But if an in shape Lennox could have beaten Vitali properly, then why did he retire?
Nothing left to prove? I would say that after that fight, he certainly had one more thing to prove.
Haven't we all already had a go on this roundabout?
Muhammad Ali had fast hands and was the greatest HW of all time, I don't see what more can be said about him.
He beat Vitali and there was nothing else to prove. Should he have waited until Vitali's eye got better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerOh yeah, how so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Lennox was leaning all over Vitali, (sapping his strength)
LEnnox was fighting more furiously than he had ever fought whole career.
5lbs.. FIVE above Rahman 2 weight.
43 fights worth of experience (41 at 200+ HW) going in.
Objectively was as quick as he was previous, not noticeably slower at all.
By Lennox's OWN admission, he was well prepared. He had already been in camp training for Johnson. It's just a natural occurrence that boxers gain weight as they age.
But "He was puffing hard doe!"
Vitali was also gassed. That happens when 2 gigantic boxers fight at a pace more befitting a middleweight for several rounds, no matter what kind of condition they are in.
You can claim it was because it was because he was out of shape and I can do no more to prove otherwise, but I can make my claim and you can do no better likewise!
But if an in shape Lennox could have beaten Vitali properly, then why did he retire?
Nothing left to prove? I would say that after that fight, he certainly had one more thing to prove.
Tell that to your boyfriend Max Power who discredits him at every turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Commentary before the Johnson fight.. Interviewed by Lampley...Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Lennox Lewis "I don't want to get in the ring with Vitali again until I can be certain about his eye"
Vitali Klitschko "The doctors cleared my eye weeks ago, Lewis is ducking me now"
I see and ready everything you mean. But in the end it comes across as opinion which you seem to think are facts. Hold a poll here on some of your said facts and I will acknowledge it, until then its been cool..overall to debate you & others on which era had the best HW's...BTW I still say 90's ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerOF course the Klitschko's have fought bums, as does every boxer. The thing with Klitschko is that no other boxer has fought more quality opponents than Wladimir Klitschko at real HW! In fact even considering against previous eras (including sub200 opponents, Wladimir fares among the best in this case.)Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
Boxers fighting more quality opponents than the Klitschko is your opinion, if not hold a poll here and I will bow to the winner- Most here believe they are fighting in the weakest era- so if most think this way.. then it becomes a consensus which beats out one's personal opinion.
I know many ppl CALL them bums, but they are really past present and future champs, unbeaten contenders, ultra slick athletes or giant towering boxers, all with great records and very hard punches.
Your quip regarding Wladimir getting knocked around left right and centre prior to the system Steward taught him is totally false! He had only been down a few times in his career and lost 2ce by stoppage. Only 1 of those times being relevant for Stewards system to HOLD when in trouble. Previous to that he knocked out nearly every single opponent except the one he gassed against which he beat the shit out of anyway!
So if my claim that Steward brought his game up, tightened his defense is false- then who knocked Klitcho down...after Manny took over? Was he knocked down & knocked out after Steward came in more than before he took over?
Of course Wladimir could dominate all the 80's boxers, knock practically every one of them out and win nearly every round. LOOK at him! Mike Tyson is the only serious question mark here. And these days that's a less than even chance for old Mike. And this is what you called facts? Sounds like an opinion, once again hold a poll here and I will acknowledge the consensus, not an individual's opinion.
Your comment regarding injuries today is very relevant and I agree totally. If you notice I have always championed the idea that fat is not detrimental to HW boxing which is why there ARE successful fat boxers in the first place. I fail to see how more injuries in any way worsens boxers chances though, if it was bad they wouldn't do it!
injuries prevent athletes from competing, this is why yesteryears fighters could wage 100 fights minimum- most didnt get brain damage like Ali. Be it Archie Moore, Suicidal Hank to Walker Smith to JCC who fought over 100 times also and when he came to the Boxing Hall of fame in 2012, his speech seemed fine. Now I dont speak spanish, but I know slurred speech, so theese guys bare me witness.
Fighting every month like past times was FAR more deleterious to health and ability than bloody camps are! I neither agrree nor disagree, but wouldnt mine you naming some fighter to prove this point like I just named to prove mines, cool?
Then you make comment analogous that past boxers were "mentally tougher", absolute rot that every old codger concocts. Absolute rot? remember those words when you get old and start talking to the 2020 generation about how great Witali and Wlad was. Reap what you so. Guys today like Victor Ortiz, quit. Older Klitschko quit against Byrd- those who fight through pain today are more rare than yesteryear. Tough guys are in all era, just not as deep as the past- be it the punk kid in the streets who uses a gun over fists or the athletes who get sidelined by an injury that in the past, most had to play-fight through. You probably have no clue of this because you haven't seen enough eras go by to make the legit claim. I dont call your opininions rot like you call mines...but maybe that is what your era does :-\
Boxers are boxers, they ALL have that heart and warrior spirit else they wouldn't be pro boxers. Boxers today are SMARTER if that's what you mean! Sure you can mention VK quitting vs Byrd but you THEN have to look on his performance with half his face off vs Lennox too!
We will have to agree to disagree. Boxers today IMO fight more for the purse, the PPV, the fame. the amount of fights not made today is way more than in the past. Ali haggled money with whom? Marciano, Larry Holmes? Today we dont see the best fight the best because we are in an era of PPV, fighters becoming their own promoters. 8 to 11 divisions up to how many today? How many belts exist? So today one can be a champ simply with a made up alphabet belt and have no need to unify. Fighters today win one belt, then move up without unification. Few do that like today's JMM. He damn near unified the whole LW division chasing Pac up to WW, but that doesnt represent the era, IMI it represents JMM as an individual- tough as nails! And as far as VK getting busted up against Lewis: agreed. But again...IMO, you are using one individual fight to speak for the whole era?
Please indicate to me boxers like Byrd etc who, undersized fight high quality giant boxers regularly? Only Joe Louis ever beat mention worthy giants in the past!
Okay check this out:
Billy Conn LHW moving up to fight HW Joe Louis and it wasnt called catchweight fights like today's champs do like Floyd & Pacquiao catchweighting fights all the way to the Hall of fame.
Hank Armstrong held the FW, LW & WW title at the same time, so now let me give it back to you; name a fighter today that fights FW's & WW's? Today when a FW loses, so many of us are quick to point out...oh well he was fighting outside his best weight. But back in the day, a loss was a loss. Not a loss requires a caveat: He was too small. He wasnt a real WW, he was a blown up WW.
Please indicate to me a boxer with the heart of Lamon Brewster for example who came forward in 2 fights to receive some of the most brutal thrashings (even in the fight he won) against WKlitshcko, ever dished out in a HW boxing match all time?
You're kidding right? There is a reason when fighters who go through fire are called [Throw back fighters], Jack Dempsy was considered too small to fight 6'6 Jess Willard odds I quote:
"In The 12 Greatest Rounds of Boxing pages 17-18, “The Fight Doctor”, Ferdie Pacheco, writes, “The damage was indeed severe. In the first round Willard’s zygomatic arch (cheekbone) was shattered in 12 places. In the same round the champion sustained a broken nose, a jaw that was broken in 13 places, and 8 avulsed teeth. In addition to facial fractures he suffered 2 fractured ribs.”
Likewise Dan Daniel wrote, Aug 1979 Ring Magazine, "Blood was flowing from Willard's mouth. Two front teeth had found their way to the canvas. His right eye had begun to close and the right side of his face was swelling abnormally. He looked as if he had been struck with a blackjack."
Besides, no amount of heart could allow most of those boxers to survive. It would simply get them knocked out even quicker. Once again I have no problem with this stated as an opinion, but if it is fact, shouldn't there be more here or abound who support this view? IMO this is exactly: an opinion.
It's evident today in how much boxing has changed at HW. Sure it is, but IMO I hold on to my first thread: I think the 1990's produced the best HW's plural. Now does that mean they all could beat VK & WK? I dunno. But two guys dont make this era the best. Its two :confused:...2..:-\
Past fights were a back and forth slugfest in which bravado was key. True for the majority of fighters but IMO not all Example: Benny Leonard was once considered to be such a consumate boxer that he was said to have won a round without throwing a punch.
Ray Robinson's speed and finesse earned him the nickname 'sugar'.
Overall I agree that yesteryear's fighters were like the same for any sport. They all develop over time. But that doesnt mean the previous eras should be discounted as neanderthalls.
I implore you: Watch Niccolino Loche who boxed from 1964-1976, he shoulder rolled, dipped feinted did shit that Pernell & Floyd does in terms of defense- pure finesse, showboating & shoeshining. Watch some old Roberto Duran, he was a bull, but also a consumate boxer at LW.
Today we see tentative and carefully executed gameplay instead. There's a reason for that. In the past the punches were bareable. Even George Foreman took multiple shots aand KD's to put away over matched opponents. Now days everybody knows it only takes a single punch for a cold canvas KO.
I agree.
To see what I mean watch the cautious styles here...
Slim there's a real lot there to digest in 1 post but basically, holding a poll does nothing.
If 99 ppl out of 100 call red blue, even though it's clearly red on a detector, then that means that 99 ppl are colour blind, not that 99 ppl are right! Politics doesn't determine truth, facts determine proof.
Most of my opinions are supported by facts. Where not I state usually it's my opinion.
For instance, I KNOW WK has faced the most quality real HW's of any boxer. Because he has faced the most 200+ opponents for a start.
Of these, he has faced more non-bummy opponents (those that have not lost a significant ratio of their fights, they have BETTER records than the opponents of any other boxer in total.
And these opponents achieved their records by competing with heavier and higher quality boxers in turn. In other words the WORTHINESS of the wins of these opponents (the opponents opponents of Wladimir) was better as well!
Your posts started off strong but got progressively worse as they continued.
One of the last decent laughs was about modern guys fighting for the purse these days and without heart. LEt me tell you that nobody becomes a professional boxer by necessity today, they really WANT to be there! This is a BLOOD SPORT! A pro boxer is an elite fighting machine, nothing less and they are there to WIN!
Past times boxers were expected to be "entertainers" as well, winning was LESS important to them (IN MY OPINION, which makes intuitive sense). Because it was THOSE guys fighting more for the purse than any other because they needed the cash to bloody EAT!
When you mentioned bum Billy Conn vs Joe Louis as some sort of proof, it became unreadable.
Well... I just learned that because he had no reflexes he wanted to get hit to wear down his opponents. Who knew? Maybe that where Mayorga got his inspiration for his fight with mosley?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
:) There's no question about it...Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyWell... I just learned that because he had no reflexes he wanted to get hit to wear down his opponents. Who knew? Maybe that where Mayorga got his inspiration for his fight with mosley?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Even his daughter claimed so about her own father "He would let his opponents beat on him in order for them to wear themselves out"
And a trainer during sparring "Ali, why you keep getting hit?" Ali.. "I want to get accustomed to the blows".
It was exactly this strategy he employed vs Foreman and others.
I will submit a comprehensive list if you like stretching back throughout career and you can inform me where my analysis has gone haywire.
The manufactured career of Clay/Ali is such that Deontay Wilder's doesn't look all that bad by comparison, considering how he dealt with such doubtful opposition.
Now I know you are trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
You are a waste of time.
I mentioned Billy Conn because you mentioned Joe Louis as one of the few to fight monsters, so I proved that Billy the bum...beat Joe so bad that Joe Louis son described the fight as a beating his pop took.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Joe Louis himself said to Conn..when Conn said you could've let me win and I'd given you a rematch.
To which Joe Louis responded, why? You had the belt for 13 rounds.
So yes it is laughable that you give credit to Joe Louis a few posts before, then when I talk of a fighter who boxed him well until the KO...you down that fighter as a bum and said my post became undreadable, well no problem I like most here feel similar about your posts :cool:
You need guidance on how to do an analysis. But, before you can attempt to break something down into individual parts, you need to understand how the system works and what is the intent. What you do is seperate things, take them out of context, then make assumptions that is convoluted with inappropriate applications that completely loose focus of the systems intent. Some people call this being delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power:) There's no question about it...Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyWell... I just learned that because he had no reflexes he wanted to get hit to wear down his opponents. Who knew? Maybe that where Mayorga got his inspiration for his fight with mosley?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Even his daughter claimed so about her own father "He would let his opponents beat on him in order for them to wear themselves out"
And a trainer during sparring "Ali, why you keep getting hit?" Ali.. "I want to get accustomed to the blows".
It was exactly this strategy he employed vs Foreman and others.
I will submit a comprehensive list if you like stretching back throughout career and you can inform me where my analysis has gone haywire.
Let me elaborate.. OF all the HW champs pre 80's, ONLY Joe Louis beat mention-worthy giants! Like Primo Carnera who had a good record. All the big fighters that say MArciano etc beat were ALL BUMS.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
And you respond by mentioning Billy Conn vs Joe Louis, 2 Cruisers in cruiser fights as a proof of giant beating? Not sold! LOL
And I didn't argue with mere weight (although that is a large part of it) but also the overall quality at 3 different levels (boxer in question, their opponents and their opponents opponents).
Now listen up you 2 above...
You are fond of saying certain previous eras were better than present (The Louis era, the Ali era etc.)
But how do you assess that?
OF all the opponents that Louis or Ali fought for example, how do you know that these opponents were any good? Did you watch all of their fights leading up to there meeting with Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis?
Because if you are claiming that you did, then you are basically claiming that you have watched something like 2000 fights or so!
That's why you HAVE to go by the records of the opponents opponents as a guide to their overall quality (irrespective of weight to start) and THEN go by the weight of their opponents opponents as the next filter to get an overall picture of the HW worthiness of these opponents (a welterweight opponent, even if high quality, is NOT a good gague for HW).
And THEN we can start to assess video performances of these fighters!
I have found the above formula instrumental and highly predictive of the quality of past time boxers (and even current ones) before I've even WATCHED them fight.
If you seriously claim you guys are making an objective analysis based on watching all 2000 fights involving the champ in question and all there opponents fights as well, then I call BS immediately!
Tyson and Lewis would wipe the 2000 heavyweights.
(overall) 90's HW's would wipe the floor with 2000 HW's :rolleyes:
I can't speak for Master or anyone else, but if I could, I think we are all arguing our hearts out with this in mind: IMO.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
I think Lewis would be a dominant champ of the 2000s too, I also think he would be KOed a couple times here and there too as he was in his own era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I think Tyson could whip most opposition but I do think Tyson would struggle to beat and sometimes be beaten by some of the better 2000's HW's, as occurred during his own era too.
Bascially I see them being about as dominant as they already were because I think the quality of the eras is somewhat comparable. As are the weights of the boxers.
Name me someone that could beat them at their best?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerI think Lewis would be a dominant champ of the 2000s too, I also think he would be KOed a couple times here and there too as he was in his own era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I think Tyson could whip most opposition but I do think Tyson would struggle to beat and sometimes be beaten by some of the better 2000's HW's, as occurred during his own era too.
Bascially I see them being about as dominant as they already were because I think the quality of the eras is somewhat comparable. As are the weights of the boxers.
I don't think any of them could beat Lewis at his BEST.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterName me someone that could beat them at their best?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerI think Lewis would be a dominant champ of the 2000s too, I also think he would be KOed a couple times here and there too as he was in his own era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I think Tyson could whip most opposition but I do think Tyson would struggle to beat and sometimes be beaten by some of the better 2000's HW's, as occurred during his own era too.
Bascially I see them being about as dominant as they already were because I think the quality of the eras is somewhat comparable. As are the weights of the boxers.
As for Tyson, MANY of them could potentially beat them at his best. I do not want to say, this one could and this one couldn't because that sparks serious debate about something I don't really know. But it's hard to define what was even the best version of Tyson!
The version you automatically select as the PRIME Tyson (most likely 88 or so) never fought opponents as difficult as he would have to face today, and already he failed to knock several of them out that would be pasted today. That is telling!
Sparking debate about something you do not know? ;D what change a habit of a lifetime. :)
So you mean to tell me I've been arguing this whole time with somebody who is merely claiming the 90's were a superior division? That's all?Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeI can't speak for Master or anyone else, but if I could, I think we are all arguing our hearts out with this in mind: IMO.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Well then, in that case.. IN MY OPINION I simply believe they (the 90's, 00's and now 10's) are pretty much comparable. I base this on what I observe and on the statistics.
But given your points above, it's clear I was not even addressing this to you at all! The ABOVE post of mine was issued to guys like @Master @fan johnny and the rest of the OTNB (Old Time Nut Bag) community who DO claim that such eras as the Ali or Louis era featured superior quality boxers. In other words they support fighters the background of which they are largely unaware and have not bothered to CHECK the ACTUAL performance of these boxers.
If you think the 90's was a superior division, I can find that a respectable opinion. They were all impressive, strong boxers with excellent records and championed by one of the best fighters of all time!
Have you seen title fights that Wlad has been in? The challengers have been truly awful.
LOL! It's all good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerSo you mean to tell me I've been arguing this whole time with somebody who is merely claiming the 90's were a superior division? That's all?Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeI can't speak for Master or anyone else, but if I could, I think we are all arguing our hearts out with this in mind: IMO.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Well then, in that case.. IN MY OPINION I simply believe they (the 90's, 00's and now 10's) are pretty much comparable. I base this on what I observe and on the statistics.
But given your points above, it's clear I was not even addressing this to you at all! The ABOVE post of mine was issued to guys like @Master @fan johnny and the rest of the OTNB (Old Time Nut Bag) community who DO claim that such eras as the Ali or Louis era featured superior quality boxers. In other words they support fighters the background of which they are largely unaware and have not bothered to CHECK the ACTUAL performance of these boxers.
If you think the 90's was a superior division, I can find that a respectable opinion. They were all impressive, strong boxers with excellent records and championed by one of the best fighters of all time!
Er.. I have seen all of Wladimirs title fights and the opponents are not awful because I've seen their OTHER fights as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
When you put it all together you come to realise that it is only because Wladimir is so unbelievably good and formidable that he makes them look easy to beat.
Wlad is good although anyone remotely dangerous he normally goes into a shell but the challengers are awful, truly pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerEr.. I have seen all of Wladimirs title fights and the opponents are not awful because I've seen their OTHER fights as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
When you put it all together you come to realise that it is only because Wladimir is so unbelievably good and formidable that he makes them look easy to beat.
As much as I respect Wlad, I am a bit compromised to name the fights worthy of looking back on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterWlad is good although anyone remotely dangerous he normally goes into a shell but the challengers are awful, truly pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerEr.. I have seen all of Wladimirs title fights and the opponents are not awful because I've seen their OTHER fights as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
When you put it all together you come to realise that it is only because Wladimir is so unbelievably good and formidable that he makes them look easy to beat.
On one hand he cleaned the entire division out weak or not.
But I'm not sure who the best name is on his resume.
I think Peter would've been touted as a Nigerian Nightmare without K2 to fight, but WK did the job.
Calvin Brock had decent power, but I questione his desire, when he lost to Fat Eddie Chamber, I mean Fast Eddie..;D
I'm hard pressed to say that Tarver @ HW would've defeated every name on his resume. The James Toney that beat Ruiz also would've beatan every name.
David Haye is a question mark. Solid power, I kinda credit WK for punking him, but then again Carl Thompson stopped him, Mormeck dropped him. And everybody whooped Enzo Macrinelli & Monte Barrett so what is Haye's defining fight? Audley Harrison & Chisora? ;D
An old past it Mercer & bufalo-but Botha also to add to WK's resume, but not WK's fault.
I'd say Chris Byrd, Sam Peter & David Haye are WK's signature wins.
LOL Although I have acknowledged your support of another GREAT era, I find your postings at times MORE deleterious than the OTNB at times. This is an example. Bummifying the Klitschko era to pump up the 90's, a modern argument with far greater OPINION based analysis involved than merely nostalgist smashing requires.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeAs much as I respect Wlad, I am a bit compromised to name the fights worthy of looking back on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterWlad is good although anyone remotely dangerous he normally goes into a shell but the challengers are awful, truly pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerEr.. I have seen all of Wladimirs title fights and the opponents are not awful because I've seen their OTHER fights as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
When you put it all together you come to realise that it is only because Wladimir is so unbelievably good and formidable that he makes them look easy to beat.
On one hand he cleaned the entire division out weak or not.
But I'm not sure who the best name is on his resume.
I think Peter would've been touted as a Nigerian Nightmare without K2 to fight, but WK did the job.
Calvin Brock had decent power, but I questione his desire, when he lost to Fat Eddie Chamber, I mean Fast Eddie..;D
I'm hard pressed to say that Tarver @ HW would've defeated every name on his resume. The James Toney that beat Ruiz also would've beatan every name.
David Haye is a question mark. Solid power, I kinda credit WK for punking him, but then again Carl Thompson stopped him, Mormeck dropped him. And everybody whooped Enzo Macrinelli & Monte Barrett so what is Haye's defining fight? Audley Harrison & Chisora? ;D
An old past it Mercer & bufalo-but Botha also to add to WK's resume, but not WK's fault.
I'd say Chris Byrd, Sam Peter & David Haye are WK's signature wins.
Wlad's toplist can be assembled from 1 to 2 in many ways depending on feeling. But atleast these following opponents..
Samuel Peter, Tony Thompson, Kubrat Pulev, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Sultan Ibragimov, Ruslan Chagaev, Chris Byrd, Eddie Chambers deserve special attention. These were superb boxers who would have fared just as well in the 90's.
There are other opponents like iron chinned tall+hefty Wach, unbeaten strong man Pianeta, Brock, basically all of the big strong and unbeaten or nearly unbeaten fighters that Wladimir has dispatched are obviously not going to be cannon fodder for 90's HW's, just bloody look at them, even a picture analysis is enough to see that they would be formidable for any 90's HW to defeat. Only LEnnox Lewis at his best beats all comers from the Klitschko era and he was certainly not always, as any boxer is, at his best either so it's just as plausible if Rahman and McCall can KO him, Mavrovic can survive him, even Frank bloody Bruno can have him in trouble, then I am 100% positive that these guys can maintain a competitive fight with him too.
Think of this...
Haye destroys Grant
Thompson beats up Tyson that Lennox and Holyfield fought
Chagaev outboxes Golota
Chambers outboxes Tua every day a week
Ibragimov has already beaten Briggs and Holyfield (not in their athletic primes but in their most experienced and roided.
I could go on!
Losing to Chambers is no shame for Brock. Chambers is a defensive master and one of the fastest heavies of all time. It is no consequence if he is fat or ripped. This is boxing, performance is all that matters.
James Toney was simply a factor at HW but was never a HW elite.
Tarver is not a factor at all and that is a stinking insult to the modern HW division.
David Haye aside from the HW champ, only ever lost at a much earlier in career and inexperienced time (hardly any rounds fought at pro) at Cruiserweight vs a VETERAN good boxer in Thompson, which as I always say is more important than anything else in match ups. And getting caught and knocked down by Mormeck is no shame either, who is a comparable opponent to Moorer! You cannot criticise Haye on fighting great opponents at HW, knocking most of them out, then fighting a selection of giant boxers and knocking most them out as well by drawing conclusions off of 1 KO loss to decent opponent and a KD vs one as well, get real!
I can weigh in with pros and cons of the 90's, 00's and 10's boxers equally, pick one and we'll try it together if you like!
I'm @Max Power .
My mom told me I was very smart as a child and I believed her.
I have a magical brain and a magical keyboard and every thought it think and every word I type is magically true, no matter how little based in reality they are.
Everyone on the forum may think I'm wrong, but I know(and my mom agrees) that I'm right and it's all of you that are wrong.
I'm @Max Power, and I'm right!
I don't care much for majority opinion on the forum. Other places are biased the other way round and does that make them right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco
It's simply my opinion which I happen to argue where possible with available evidence.
I don't care much for majority opinion on the forum. Other places are biased the other way round and does that make them right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco
It's simply my opinion which I happen to argue where possible with available evidence.
If you don't agree with it, you are free to argue with your own statistics if you can!
Max I just do not know what to say to you.
Haye destroys Grant :)
Thompson beats up Tyson that Lennox and Holyfield fought ;D
Chagaev outboxes Golota :o
Chambers outboxes Tua every day a week :-\
Ibragimov has already beaten Holyfield ! Evander was old.
You make bill Paxton look sensible.
Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas to you too..Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Those are plausible outcomes for that sample of fights.
Holyfield was old? I did say he was not in his ATHLETIC prime but he was more experienced and roided to the hilt. Ibragimov was an excellent boxer, as was Holyfield.
I would say povetkin should be in the top two, he had a great amateur career at super heavyweight, olympic and world amateur gold medalist.. He also beat byrd(it was last byrds last fight at heavyweight but he stopped him well) and has accumulated some nice wins over some good contenders.. Although the way wladimir won takes away from it a bit I think..Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
I would say wladimirs 3 best wins would be haye or povetkin at number 1 or 2, like you said it's hard to know how good david haye really is due to his lack of activity and then sam peter just because wladimir was going through a tough time at that stage of his career and peter was on a roll , although peter is sort of made for wladimir to defeat..
Chagaev is also a good boxer he defeated valuev and ruiz like haye did(although haye destroyed ruiz) but chagaev had already suffered a really bad ligament or tendon injury, I forget what it was but he was out for a long time) and his illness before he fought wladimir.