sad state of boxing

[Nameless]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

[Dave Hughey]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

[Dave Hughey]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

[0james0]

Despite the sad state of boxing, there is more boxing on my TV for free this Saturday than I've seen for years. Plus a decent PPV.

[Andre]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

[Hulk]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

You sir raise some good points of how tough the old time fighters were. Even more modern guys like Archie Moore, Jake Lamotta, Ray Robinson, were animals who often fought top opponents 3 times in a month.

But, the bare knuckle fighters and guys like Jack Johnson went tons of rounds, but have you watched the way they fought ? It was all clinching and throwing about 5 punches a round. It was terribly boring. And they did not have great technique on their punches.

A guy like Chris Arreola would rip most of their heads off. He may not be quite as tough, but he is a hell of a lot bigger and throws a hell of a lot more punches.

[Mr140]

Pyie i hate to bring it up but because i hate doing it but Larry was coming off losses and had not fought in a while when he got to Tyson. I am not sure he would of won but he was pretty rusty compared to the version that Holyfeild and Mercer fought. As for the others you named i Think Byrd, Chambers, Chag, and Haye i on there level i do not fell that the division is much weaker the then the late 1980's. I while give you that Larry Holmes was still the best win out of the bunch but he was kinda not preped really to me.

[Andre]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

You sir raise some good points of how tough the old time fighters were. Even more modern guys like Archie Moore, Jake Lamotta, Ray Robinson, were animals who often fought top opponents 3 times in a month.

But, the bare knuckle fighters and guys like Jack Johnson went tons of rounds, but have you watched the way they fought ? It was all clinching and throwing about 5 punches a round. It was terribly boring. And they did not have great technique on their punches.

A guy like Chris Arreola would rip most of their heads off. He may not be quite as tough, but he is a hell of a lot bigger and throws a hell of a lot more punches.

Sure each era has had its own way and there were mavericks in between too.

You know another point on your side of the thinking is our shoes have more grip nowdays than the leather flat boxing shoes that you had to dip your feet into a powder tray. So you are right more grip and also better techniques would add to the modern fighter.

I agree though some modern men would of done ok back in the golden era of the heavies too. I just dont think many of them could adjust with their lazy lack of movement. Specially if they are distance controllers trying to adjust to having their arms smashed out of the way and smothered into a brawling corner by an old stylist.
I mean theres none these days that can move like Ali did in his prime and he only just got by; having to get them emotionally involved to get them off their game or question themselves. Then again you could think the reverse again and thnk of Tyson in his hey day facing Ali and Ali saying youre are nothing you are just this and that, Tyson would have just growled at him like a dog and said your a fucking dead man and meant it too! So who knows how that'd go.

[Mr140]

Well andre to add to fighters not being as tough. I would have to say Evander Holyfeild is about the toughest most mental and determined man i have ever seen there was no fear in that man.

[Dave Hughey]

Well andre to add to fighters not being as tough. I would have to say Evander Holyfeild is about the toughest most mental and determined man i have ever seen there was no fear in that man.

Yes, and I think Tomasz Adamek would have been called "tough" in any era. I'll bet he could have hung with (and perhaps dominated) a lot of the "tough" old timers.

I am really enjoying the way this discussion has gone. Sure beats the average post that today's heavyweights "are shite" LOL. It's a lot more complex than that, that's for sure.

Also, if you look at the Lewis=Klitschko fight, Vitali showed more than a little bit of heart still wanting to fight with his face split open.

[Dave Hughey]

Another thing. Today's boxers are smarter. The most obvious example: Take a look at Jess Willard and Max Schmelling getting up again and again when they could have taken a 9 count. Stupid. You wouldn't see that today even without the mandatory 8 count.

I hate to see today's boxers maligned. Or boxers of any era for that matter. How many of us have ever had to get up off the floor and fight on? Or fight on breathing through our mouth because our nose was broken, swallowing blood with every breath? It's a tough sport.

[Andre]

Well andre to add to fighters not being as tough. I would have to say Evander Holyfeild is about the toughest most mental and determined man i have ever seen there was no fear in that man.

Yeah legend, he has spanned two eras.

[Andre]

Another thing. Today's boxers are smarter. The most obvious example: Take a look at Jess Willard and Max Schmelling getting up again and again when they could have taken a 9 count. Stupid. You wouldn't see that today even without the mandatory 8 count.

I hate to see today's boxers maligned. Or boxers of any era for that matter. How many of us have ever had to get up off the floor and fight on? Or fight on breathing through our mouth because our nose was broken, swallowing blood with every breath? It's a tough sport.

Thats true too, better nourishment, smarter under pressure.

[Hulk]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

You sir raise some good points of how tough the old time fighters were. Even more modern guys like Archie Moore, Jake Lamotta, Ray Robinson, were animals who often fought top opponents 3 times in a month.

But, the bare knuckle fighters and guys like Jack Johnson went tons of rounds, but have you watched the way they fought ? It was all clinching and throwing about 5 punches a round. It was terribly boring. And they did not have great technique on their punches.

A guy like Chris Arreola would rip most of their heads off. He may not be quite as tough, but he is a hell of a lot bigger and throws a hell of a lot more punches.

Sure each era has had its own way and there were mavericks in between too.

You know another point on your side of the thinking is our shoes have more grip nowdays than the leather flat boxing shoes that you had to dip your feet into a powder tray. So you are right more grip and also better techniques would add to the modern fighter.

I agree though some modern men would of done ok back in the golden era of the heavies too. I just dont think many of them could adjust with their lazy lack of movement. Specially if they are distance controllers trying to adjust to having their arms smashed out of the way and smothered into a brawling corner by an old stylist.
I mean theres none these days that can move like Ali did in his prime and he only just got by; having to get them emotionally involved to get them off their game or question themselves. Then again you could think the reverse again and thnk of Tyson in his hey day facing Ali and Ali saying youre are nothing you are just this and that, Tyson would have just growled at him like a dog and said your a fucking dead man and meant it too! So who knows how that'd go.

Haha I love your breakdown of Ali vs. Tyson.

[piye]

Pyie i hate to bring it up but because i hate doing it but Larry was coming off losses and had not fought in a while when he got to Tyson. I am not sure he would of won but he was pretty rusty compared to the version that Holyfeild and Mercer fought. As for the others you named i Think Byrd, Chambers, Chag, and Haye i on there level i do not fell that the division is much weaker the then the late 1980's. I while give you that Larry Holmes was still the best win out of the bunch but he was kinda not preped really to me.

I understand what your saying but it is influenced slightly by your agenda The Holmes that Tyson fought and the Lewis that Vitali fought were similar in that both were past their best clearly but both were still elite fighters and could beat the very best.

IN his test against a legend from the previous era Tyson won and Vitali did not