Is this the worst era in HW boxing history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

i respect vitali, but those long telephone pole arms are what got him out of the way of shots. that is no talent of his own, that is just long arms, longer than anybody can penetrate thru. that is not a real all time great. you can go find a 7 foot 7 inch basketballer who can flail his arms and backpeddle and never get hit, and the other guy will die trying to hit him, then he can cautiously slowly pick him apart after the guy is ehxhausted,

that is ALL the klits are. ITS ALL ABOUT THEIR SIZE. PERIOD. AND THAT IS NOT TALENT. THAT IS JUST SIZE.

---

Seems like a fair argument and has merits... The Klits DO out-range most of their opponents both of them.

However just a moments thought on this reveals that the Klitschko's are not alone at all here. Lennox Lewis, faced I think only 2 ppl taller than himself!!! Larry Holmes was an outranger and was seriously challenged and some would say gifted when he was not outranging, Muhammad Ali faced only a couple of non-bummy opponents who were taller than himself also Foreman being the most famous and dangerous). So if you use that argument then you must use it against them also.

Further, the records show that very tall boxers historicall did not perform so well, only recently have they come to the fore. So there must be some other reason why the Klitschko's have been so successful apart from their height given the fact only few were before... Quality! Lennox had it too. And the Klits are only 6'6 and 6'7, only 1 and 2 inches taller than Lewis!!

The boxer and boxer-puncher style is usually heavily dependent on height. Vitali is also an exceptional counterpuncher and an expert judge of distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by #1FightFan

look at the HW champs last big fights, haye and ibragimov or whatever. simply pathetic!!!
sorry, but wlad sucks ass!!! chris arreola? garbage!! so yes, this era is terrible.

---

This is probably my most important reply to this whole thread but tell me something.

Prior to the 90's, and excluding Mike Tyson, who from the past do you think could beat..

David Haye?

Sultan Ibragimov?

Chris Arreola?

The first choices that come to mind are LArry Holmes, George Foreman and Muhammad Ali as best possible candidates.

Haye- I think he could have some danger against Georges power given the weak chin BUT Haye moves so well and so fast and hits so sharp that I think he would box rings around George. I think Haye takes George the distance or young George might gas out and get KO'd late most likely for me. I think he would outbox/outpunch Holmes and KO Ali who did not have the punch to trouble him.

Sultan Ibragimov- Again I see Foreman being the most dangerous of the 3 but that's via punchers chance. Sultan is not slick like Haye but is much tougher, this guy stood up to and punched the shit out of giant Lance Whitaker as if he were a piece of shit! Never have the 3 faced a southpaw as cunning and tough as Ibragimov. I would tip Ibragimov.

And Arreola- I think he KO's all 3, regarding the older (smarter) Foreman I think he would cruise to a UD. A guy the height of Foreman, with a 10lb (fair) advantage, but instead of unco slogs left and right, fast and relentless combinations also with crushing power and the stamina to go 12 like young George never had. Yeah that guy is nothing! lol

You get the picture, what's your take?

Want to put them in the 90's, fine. All 3 are equal to or better than most of the opponents of Lennox Lewis!!

To put in perspective.

Foreman lost to Ali and Young, light side HW's by todays standards with no punch and no chin tested against superHW punchers. Why? Trouble with movement, he couldn't box. Haye, Ibragimov both move too well, Arreola like Lyle on steroids for George.

Ali lost to Frazier and Norton, easy KO's in the modern era for any of the 3, no way in any universe would any of them lose to cruiser bum Spinks.

Holmes lost to fucking Michael Spinks! 2ce! Enough said!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Well max you say the 70's and 80's are so weak but Foreman and Holmes both did quite well on the come back in there 40's in the best era. Sanders was not shit in the 90's got knocked the fuck out by Rahaman look what happen with him and Wald. Vitali did ok but still lost to a fucking 38 year old Lewis a fat one at that just saying this era not the worst but think to somehow it is great is total different thing. The borthers are top 20 somewhere right now Wald keeps winning maybe higher i really don't know if he will hit the top 10.

---

Foreman and Holmes coming back to be competitive in the 90's is not that stunning really. Boxing is a sport where experience and ring intelligence can play a greater role than athleticism when an athlete ages. Few sports are like boxing in that regard. Also they were far heftier in their comeback than they were in there younger days.

Young Holmes and young Foreman would have been no better than the others of the 90's, they would have been light and inexperienced, but faster and more output of course to compensate.

Just a quick glance at their opponents in the 90's, Foreman lost to all good contenders, even Axel Schulz. He was extremely lucky against Moorer who had dodge chin and no fucking brains. The most stunning "victory" imo was against Shannon Briggs who he was robbed against. I did not see him fight a Riddick Bowe or a Lennox Lewis or a Mike Tyson. Holmes lost to all good contenders except his stunning upset against Ray Mercer, good HW and win but reaality, Ray was a tanker, he hit hard and could take a lot of punches. He was devoid of skill and was outboxed by Morrison and Damiani as well as others until he scored good punchers chance. The shrewd experienced Holmes at 235lbs was not gonna be so silly. I did not see him fight a Riddick Bowe or a Lennox Lewis and when I seen him fight Mike Tyson it was like "a bull in an antique shop" ;D

Sanders vs Rahman, even fight. Sanders had upper hand early on, gassed a bit, Rahman turned tides and scored a stoppage. I see this an even contest that could go either way anytime. Rahman was a tough opponent too (fuck he KO'd Lewis!) Sanders had a particular combination of features that surprised Wlad who wasn't prepared, I don't think he'd be able to replicate that. Vitali punched Sanders up in a wild shootout right?

Vitali vs Lewis is probably the most hotly controversial HW fight in all history, how that's proof of a bad era idk.

Perharps you should review the next fight Vitali vs Johnson, another top HW prospect and potential "Lewis beater" of the time. I particularly like the final thoughts of Larry Merchant...

"What must Lennox think if he is watching this? Does he see this as an opportunity for a mega fight.. Or does he see it as an opportunity, to "SAIL AWAY INTO THE SUNSET" and call it a day.

The Lennox Lewis of that fight was 250lbs, was training to fight another top HW so was fight ready. He had equal training for the specific opponent as Vitali did, chub isn't necessarily a disadvantGE at HW. Had the full experience of his entire career behind him and at 38, was not exactly ancient for a modern era HW boxer of his height and size especially.

The MAIN thing I see damaging to Lewis' performance here on paper is his years worth of ring rust. I think that was a non issue shortly after the opening of the fight. Lewis pre-fight interview was saying how good he felt and mocked Vitali at how easily he would dispatch him.

00's was not a "shit" era man. Not by a long shot.

You know people in this country don't give David Haye enough credit. He would have done very well in any era. He would have easily beat Foreman. His speed and power would have been hard to over come. Ali would have been the only one who could have beaten him. If Michael Moorer could beat Holyfield then Haye would have found it much easier. Vitali didn't even come close to hurting Chisora. Haye made it look easy. In the film I saw in training for the Fury fight Haye was taking Wilder to school. I only wish he would fight more often. When you made a ton of money like he has, it hard to have love for the sport anymore.

I have little faith in Haye beating the best in different eras when he won't even compete in his own. Seriously...Haye would have found beating Holyfield much easier??? Come on man. Really.

Max i didn't say the 00s was a shit era i said that it was not as great as you were saying. Holmes should of had the belt against McCall he won that fight and was robbed. Foreman gave Holyfeild a good fight and Briggs he should of got the nod have you seen the fight. When you are in 40's you are not at the top of your game and Larry was out for some time when he got in the ring with Tyson. Rahman was tough guy but i mean a old Holyfeild beat him up after his win with Lewis. Lennox was not shot but at 38 was on the slide and 250 i think was kinda heavy for him looked kinda fat in that fight but i watch it again. Anyhow i just saying that 00's arent bad but i don't think they shit on every era i feel there like the 80's only better because of the brothers pretty much thats about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

I have little faith in Haye beating the best in different eras when he won't even compete in his own. Seriously...Haye would have found beating Holyfield much easier??? Come on man. Really.

---

I 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

The current heavyweight division is a joke!

If you believe otherwise you're probably a stupid fucking moron from Australia who thinks he knows about boxing but not enough to involve himself in the current prediction contest.

---

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!!

---

@maxpower here's the link: http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...h-28-june.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Max i didn't say the 00s was a shit era i said that it was not as great as you were saying. Holmes should of had the belt against McCall he won that fight and was robbed. Foreman gave Holyfeild a good fight and Briggs he should of got the nod have you seen the fight. When you are in 40's you are not at the top of your game and Larry was out for some time when he got in the ring with Tyson. Rahman was tough guy but i mean a old Holyfeild beat him up after his win with Lewis. Lennox was not shot but at 38 was on the slide and 250 i think was kinda heavy for him looked kinda fat in that fight but i watch it again. Anyhow i just saying that 00's arent bad but i don't think they shit on every era i feel there like the 80's only better because of the brothers pretty much thats about it.

---

Alright maybe I overstate the case just a little bit. You seem to be reasonable about it. Sure we can view any era in both positive and negative light. I just get so sick of the "worst HW era ever" thing getting thrown around all the time, as if all the professional HW boxers don't even know how to box or don't train anymore, modern professional combat athletes.

I guess you are right I may have exaggerated my own claims a bit to counter the thread sorry. The overall principles of what I am saying do play factors though.

Your triangulation of fights does not really add up to evidence. You can triangulate to make Holmes look bad too etc.

I ain't taking anything away from George and Larry. They are great boxers no doubt and would be a factor in any era. Beaters of Lennox Lewis though they are not (unless they are lucky). Yeah I seen the Briggs Fo9reman fight and agree it was a robbery. Well done on that one, that should have been one of his best wins.

Ok good enough i am not one to say this era is that bad i agree both the brothers are great fighters. As for Haye vs Holyfeild kinda got to go with Holyfeild all day chin to good and workrate is way to high for Haye. Haye gets weak in later rounds and his chin not glass but not strong enough to take Holyfeild all day. Shit Holyfield i felt deserved a draw in the rematch with Lewis wish he was not 37 and kinda having hart problems for ever by the time they finally fought. Lennox was great but he got Tyson and Holyfeild at the right time.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

The current heavyweight division is a joke!

If you believe otherwise you're probably a stupid fucking moron from Australia who thinks he knows about boxing but not enough to involve himself in the current prediction contest.

---

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!!

---

You will be doing a lot of listening then. :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Ok good enough i am not one to say this era is that bad i agree both the brothers are great fighters. As for Haye vs Holyfeild kinda got to go with Holyfeild all day chin to good and workrate is way to high for Haye. Haye gets weak in later rounds and his chin not glass but not strong enough to take Holyfeild all day. Shit Holyfield i felt deserved a draw in the rematch with Lewis wish he was not 37 and kinda having hart problems for ever by the time they finally fought. Lennox was great but he got Tyson and Holyfeild at the right time.

---

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.

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

Look at the fighters in the last five years. Is any of them worth a damn. I'll be 59 Saturday. I was in the Ali era. I remember when he beat Liston the first time. That was a very good era. Lennox Lewis also fought in a good era. Fighters like Bowe Holyfield Tyson mercer and others made it a tough era. After Lewis retired there hasn't been one guy you can say was great or even very good. The K brothers has never been tested against other good fighters. If I'm wrong please tell me why.

---

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.