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

[Max Power]

Eddie mounted nothing in the way of an effective offence against Wladimir, your nuts.

Chris Arreola is a fucking tank! WTF! He'd be a fit 230! He is 6'4"! With a head like granite too.

Cunningham is a manufactured HW, he is pumped up to that weight but has all the punching power of a rubber mallet. And don't give me that dropping Fury garbage, we all seen it for what it was.

I've never said former CW's can't muscle up and compete at HW, look at Holyfield!

The point is, there's not too many that are, Haye, Adamek, Chambers, Byrd, and now Cunningham, that's it!

And the only one to have scored themselves a belt is Haye.

Same in the 90's.. You had Holyfield and Moorer, and briefly Jones, who else was really relevant from below 200?

In general, they fare less well now.

You are exaggerating things to suit your agenda now! lol

I can really see Arreola cutting down to fucking Cunninghams size, just take a look at him!

[ross]

Arreola has absolutely no muscle tone what so ever.

Id bet his arms are the same size if not smaller than Cunninghams right now. Strip all that blubber off him and theres nothing left.

Cunnngham would have been a heavy sweating down to cruiser. Look at the difference in punch resistance between the cruiser and heavy version of Cunningham v Adamek.

Also, as for punch power. Cunningham knocked out Huck. Povetkin couldnt

[p4pking]

If you think Adamek didn't beat Arreola more clearly than Spinks did Holmes, that would suggest you are in fact a lunchbox. Tell me again who Arreola has beaten, or what fight seperates him from basically any fringe contender from decades ago. It's strange the way you often use him as a benchmark to support your view of the present HW's, given he hasn't done a damn thing. The guy doesn't even have any functional size advantage on so many past fighters you dismiss as being to small for todays division. He is what, 6'2, and weighs about 230 when he is still a tub of goo. If he dropped a couple of bra sizes and lost that spare tire he'd likely be a cruiserweight himself

You kidding?

Chris Arreola is 6'4" tall and weighs about 240lbs, he is 230 if he is in shape!

He is basically the same size as a prime George Foreman except with a thicker bone structure and yeah a bit of fat. He's not looking so bad these days though, you are not looking at a fat out of shape bloke there, you are looking at a conditioned one. What's wrong with a bit of chub anyway, it's the HW division not the dieters division. If he was obese and it was a sign of a lack of training then sure I'd agree but that's obviously not the case now. You can be very fit and still be fat through over eating. I've never seen Arreola gas so he carries it alright and the fat still contributes to punching power and doesn't slow you down as much as muscles can. He should weigh 230 when properly trained.

Arreola's opponents are not too bad at all. The only difference is that they are not famous opponents.

I use him as a bench mark because I like his style and fights and he is a more comparable boxer than say the Klitschko's who are WAY beyond most past boxers.

Anyway I'm not arguing over that shit here, this was about Holmes, Spinks, Adamek and Arreola on a level playing field. I don't think I once used era at all in our discussion of them.

Yeah, Adamek convincingly beat Arreola, I didn't see Holmes do much of anything effective against Spinks who beat him to the punch everytime. I think I seen Holmes land one really hard shot on Spinks the whole 15 round fight. Arreola landed heaps of bombs on Adamek. Adamek ran away with it the last few rounds, Arreola had a bad hand. What was Holmes' excuse again?

What you want me to say? Spinks beat the great Holmes so he's a force to be reckoned with at HW? Well I'm sorry but I still don't think he'd be a serious factor despite that.

But hey, I've not MUCH problem with your opinion on this one anyway, it's not outrageous to me like SOME of the claims are, he did beat a great fighter in Holmes. I just think that certain versions of Holmes could have beaten him (younger one) and it shows some of Holmes' limitations (was not good at pinning down and finishing swift fighters, did not have really hard punching power to put away fighters cold.)

I never meant to bolster Spinks up as some great HW, he was very good and beat an aging Holmes who probably underperformed. I do think he may have stood a chance against the criminally underrated victims of Arreola, with modern training of course. You've got to realize he made the cardinal sin of showing up to fight without breasts. In the olden days fighters didn't realize you could over eat while you train, one can only imagine how this would have served these bean poles. Just imagine a prime Foreman with some flab for extra power, I shudder to think.

[Max Power]

LOL p4pking, that was really really funny, gotta give you that!!

Look I don't want to claim that being fat is great for boxing, but at HW being chubby CAN be an advantage. The weight DOES add power, it is still weight to put on opponents and it does afford extra punch resistance.

Obviously it has drawbacks, it's still there to be carried isn't it, BUT I know one thing about fat vs muscle..

At the same weight and same conditioning, the chubby bloke has better stamina than the muscular one because muscles consume more oxygen than adipose tissue, many ppl know this. Also the weights done to achieve the muscles can stiffen you up more, take away your snap, and whilst add power due to their weight also reduce it somewhat due to the slowness. Also big arms are more difficult to move and slow you down. Where as fat does not significantly slow handspeed compared to muscles.

How often do you see chubby boxers gas compared to muscular ones?
How often do you see chubby boxers KO'd compared with muscular ones?
Some of the fastest HW boxers (Ali, Byrd, Chambers, Sanders, Holmes etc) were chubby!

All of these claims are considering highly conditioned yet chubby boxers, not fat boxers who are fat because they are undertrained.

Arreola DID fall into that category (please note, even then he did have good stamina and speed) now he does not!

Also you or someone mentioned Chris's lack of muscle tone. It might surprise you that Arreola does not do weights at all really, he doesn't NEED to do weights. The only ppl that really benefit from weights are those that want to increase their weight. That time and energy is better spent boxing training otherwise! Arreola isn't lacking in that dept.

As for Cunningham having bigger arms than Arreola, first I'd say I doubt it and second I'd say read above anyway and it's a misnomer to think that bigger arms are better, it's the weight that counts and fast arms are better. If you think that Cunningham can bang as hard as Arreola then your an idiot.

[Mr140]

Look max i gone over a lot of Chris fights and to be honest what do you think his best win is really. I mean even the men he was beating at the time were not rated to high in the ring mag even. His ko's against any top guys really is not there so i don't think his punching power is as great as you think it is. Look at the record of the guys he was knocking out some of them were just plain bad. No different then the challengers that Spinks knocked out and his weight is list at 215 for his other fights after Holmes by the way he put some pounds on. I just don't see whats so good about Chris ok hands power and bad foot work which is going to be exploited by guys like Spinks and Holmes. I need to see him beat a legit contender one that is ranked anyway and then i give him more props the last lose hurts him to.

[ross]

Arreola is in awful shape compared to a real world class boxer.

[Max Power]

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.

[ross]

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

[Max Power]

RE: the picture..

Arreola does not look prohibitively fat to me there...

This is the HEAVWEIGHT division, he is not required to look like a model, we've been through this.

What's important is his performance. And we KNOW he has the gas and we know he has the power and speed. So why is his image important?

Honestly there is fit/chubby and then there is fat and I would not call Chris obese.

Jennings is not as proven as Chris, he hasn't fought as good opponents overall (Liakovich was good though but past it), he does not have the chin or the punch power that Chris has and probably comparable gas tank.

Jennings can only take pride in the fact that he is better looking!

[ross]

RE: the picture..

Arreola does not look prohibitively fat to me there...

This is the HEAVWEIGHT division, he is not required to look like a model, we've been through this.

What's important is his performance. And we KNOW he has the gas and we know he has the power and speed. So why is his image important?

Honestly there is fit/chubby and then there is fat and I would not call Chris obese.

Jennings is not as proven as Chris, he hasn't fought as good opponents overall (Liakovich was good though but past it), he does not have the chin or the punch power that Chris has and probably comparable gas tank.

Jennings can only take pride in the fact that he is better looking!

Jennings last opponent has a better record than anyone Arreolas beaten.

[Mr140]

His power is no where near Foremans power to make up for his lack of skill most of his opponents are worst then so called cw Foreman fucked up really. He has not one win that stands out so i can't really give him much of chance. At least Foreman, Spinks and Holmes beat a few good fighters and won titles.

[Max Power]

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.

[ross]

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?

[Master]

Did you hear Arreleo in interview with ESPN saying that he did not train properly and never took the sport seriously? Shows you the mentality of the heavyweights now. The only hunger he has is food.

[Dark Lord Al]

RE: the picture..

Arreola does not look prohibitively fat to me there...

This is the HEAVWEIGHT division, he is not required to look like a model, we've been through this.

What's important is his performance. And we KNOW he has the gas and we know he has the power and speed. So why is his image important?

Honestly there is fit/chubby and then there is fat and I would not call Chris obese.

Jennings is not as proven as Chris, he hasn't fought as good opponents overall (Liakovich was good though but past it), he does not have the chin or the punch power that Chris has and probably comparable gas tank.

Jennings can only take pride in the fact that he is better looking!

Jennings last opponent has a better record than anyone Arreolas beaten.

Cunningham looks more toned than Arreola I agree , but that means nothing as the pickey is a fat cunt compared to Cunningham and he beat him . So exactly what is your point ?
Fury will fail soon by ko and I cant wait. We will discuss it when he does.
Also you stated Joshua had to low body fat , fury was better to take body shots because he has some fat on him , double standards , mmmmmmm I think so.
Im tired of all the fury talk , lets wait till he actually does something.