Wladimir plans to box for 10 more years to break Joe louis' record

[Dark Lord Al]

He's not a real slick fighter on his feet, certainly not like Spinks or a young Holmes. The young Holmes that was really slick was really no bigger than the HW Spinks though.

Anyway he has not bashed really good fighters no and for whatever reason he has lost to topper guys. But in those fights he has also proven that he is at top level. It would be silly to think of him as a fringe contender, he's a contender.

Looking through the list of Arreola's opponents I see virtually the whole second half of them are decent opponents for a good HW. Spinks fought LHW's almost exclusively, LHW opponents are not worth as much as a HW opponent. A lot of Arreola's KO wins were against big opponents, some with decent records too.

Most of Holme's opponents were not much removed from what Arreola faced imo. There are a lot of recognisable names on Arreola's record, I'm not going to list half of them for you, you can dissect them if you like but could do the same for the opponents of Holmes too.

Arreola is not a slick fighter, he is an aggressive swarmer and banger but he does have some footwork and he does have some real skills too, he is not an oaf, he's a real boxer.

Look at Foreman and Frazier, no skills at all but you'd rate them wouldn't you? Why is Arreola treated different? Because he is modern and he is a bit round around the tummy. Well Frazier was chubby and unathletic too and Foreman had a bad gas tank.

Atleast Arreola can make it through the rounds punching strong.

Tyson was not exactly a fleet footed fighter either was he but look how effective he was.

So much shit.....

Frazier no skills?

Tyson not fleet footed?

Foreman had a bad gas tank?

Arreolas wins came against good fighters with decent records? The only real undefeated fighter he faced was Chaz Witherspoon

So being undefeated is mandatory for Arreola is it but for Holmes and Spinks those fighters are acceptable? So long as they are not SERIAL losers that can be accepted, it's boxing, someone has to win don't they.

And all I meant was that Tyson was not highly renowned for his footwork yet nobody would argue against his effectiveness. Obviously Arreola hasn't got the body movement of Tyson either I know that etc but it just goes to show there is life in boxing without the very slickest footwork.

And I see no appreciable skills in Frazier over Arreola. He came forward and swang, a bit like a bonsai version of Peter, Chisora or Brewster except without the chin and power.

Frazier won a gold medal at the olympics, beat great fighters in the pros, won THE world title. He had skills.

What are Arreolas acheivments?

Arreola has beaten the more effective HW fighters than Frazier except for Muhammad Ali which you know my take on, Ali could not handle a pressure fighter like Frazier or Arreola imo.

Without the Ali win Frazier has nothing on Arreola. Sure that frame and skillset was sufficient for Frazier back then, what about now.

Insert Joe into Arreola's career and how does he go? Yeah, not too good I'd imagine. Frazier might have greater achievements but that is only "relatively" speaking. It's not Chris's fault he was born into the modern HW division. What could Joe do that would trouble Chris? e hasn't the power to really hurt him or discourage him, he hasn't the chin to withstand him. He hasn't the skills to avoid him, he was not a slick fighter!

As for the quip about Foreman above, you exposed yourself as a fool! Foreman may have hit harder but his KO opponents are ALL CW's, Arreola's are HW's, plus even if he did punch significantly harder his shot quality isn't as good at all. You cannot bring up Chris as an example of bad opponents and THEN bring up Foreman who had very bad ones.

Moorer and Norton and Frazier, all considered "punchers" against CW's and LHW's but against real HW's their punch power seems to miraculously vanish. And whenever they met REAL hard punchers their chins did not pass the test. These are Foreman's standout achievements in terms of KO. Other fights like Lyle for instance were evenly matched.

Yeah, beating an undefeated Muhammad Ali is only slightly better than beating Chaz Witherspoon

I cannot believe that you don't think Arreola is a big HW.

He is one of the FEW HW's that doesn't even lift weights! Or take juice!

Without drugs and weights, Cunningham would not be a HW at all. The natural size of Arreola compared with Cunningham is so striking it should not even be an issue at all!

Fuck me, just look at them!

The guy lost heaps of fat and got into shape and this is the disrespect he gets!

Look at Mitchell, ripped, body builder muscles, did that help him against "TINY ARREOLA"?

Chris Arreola, without the fat, is the same size as prime George Foreman... FOREMAN!

Except Chris CAN box.

When?

Did I miss this?

Show us a picture of this in shape Arreola

I posted a pic of fat cunt fury in the Joshua thread , and you claimed its better to have some fat on your stomach , what is difference with Arreola and Cunningham ?
Why is Cunningham being RIPPED as you say a good thing , but Joshua being in great shape not ? and how is Arreola being fat not good , but fury being fat a good thing ?

Er, no!

Your confused. Go back there and get a quote from me saying that you dunce!

I said Joshua is lacking "mass" around his trunk. I know someone else mentioned its good to have fat.

You said Joshua lacked mass , doesn't Cunningham ?
Or do the rest of us just consider it being in shape.
Isnt Fury fat ? like Arreola ?

No come on! You didnt say that I said mass. You said that I said its good to have fat on the stomach. You are now back tracking because you realise youve fucked up.

Cunningham does have a (relative to his body), thicker trunk than Joshua.

So you agree Joshua is in fine shape , fury is a fat cunt.
By the way that's the line I said you stated Joshua lacked mass.