May 1973 ~ 'Heavyweight Rankings'

[Master]

Dunn was not good at all at the world level.

[Bill Paxtom]

Dunn was not good at all at the world level.

Richard Dunn

A 'scrappy' southpaw.

'King Richard' had pretty decent hand-speed and was always in shape.
His awkwardness was a benefit, as he threw punches from every angle.

Far from a good puncher, but he could get your attention at times.

Weakness, was obvious the lack-of-a-chin, and his defense was porous
at times.

He did have about '10' quality wins during his career.

[Max Power]

@Bill Paxtom

How about we make another comparison like it's NEVER been made before (by OTNB or "nostalgic" posters to put it nicely)...

Take a look at this snapshot of rankings from 1973..

And then compare it to any snapshot of the Lewis or the Klitschko eras or the current era at ANY time...

The champ was less than 220lbs and a plodding slugger,

A defenceless punchbag Ali was ranked 4th with zero punch of his own.

A 1D poor mans version of Chisora was ranked.

A chinny superheavyweight featherfist bum buster+cruiser-cruncher was ranked,

And a host of other doubtful opponents...

I wonder how that'd fare against todays top rankings

[Master]

There you go again degrading Foreman as a plodder and Ali as just a punch bag.

You think today's fighters are superior because of their weight.

You are wrong.

[Max Power]

There you go again degrading Foreman as a plodder and Ali as just a punch bag.

You think today's fighters are superior because of their weight.

You are wrong.

No I don't, I consider Foreman inferior to todays plodder sluggers, because he was a far lighter, less powerful, slower and less skilled and less defended version of them and he proved himself against far smaller and worse opponents.

I consider Ali inferior to todays skilful opponents because Ali had no punch by comparison and could not defend himself against a punch either, where as today's skilled oppoennts can bend around shots and not get hit often and can counter far quicker.

I consider both inferior to the champ, because of BOTH reasons combined.

They were both smaller, less athletic and less skilled than the average Klitschko opponents overall, let alone Klitschko himself!

I do not mean that they were all 3 of these at once. Foreman might be stronger than some opponents and Ali might be faster or more skilled than some opponents. But the TOTAL PACKAGE of Foreman and Ali was generally LESS than the TOTAL PACKAGE of the average Klitschko opponent (let alone Klitchko himself, again).

[Max Power]

My position was quickly summed up by this...

If we took Mormeck from the Klitschko fight, HW Mormeck. Multiple champ, 217lbs, ripped and athletic and strong, 6'1". Good record against modern opponents (which would have been considered HW in Ali's/Foreman's times)--- And Ali and Foreman fought him... And they WON! Then Jean MArc Mormeck, would have been considered the BEST opponent they had ever faced! And he would be held in TESTAMENT to the greatness of the golden era and a proof of the superiority of times past and people would use him as an example of the quality of Ali/Foreman's opponents and laugh how the current era does not produce such fine specimens as Mormeck anymore.

He was more athletic, probably stronger, powerful, faster, more skilled, than basically any opponent either of the 2 (in the 70's) ever faced! And had a better title performance than any of the 2 ever did beat!

But against Wladimir, he was the worst mismatched opponent in recent memory! Despite being the same weight and ripped nearly as prime George Foreman, and bigger than Ali, Frazier and Norton except more skilled and athletic than any, Mormeck was considered grossly undersized and unable to compete.

You can compare the greatness of Ali and Foreman if you like but you cannot compare such shocking boxers (as they would be described these days) to modern professional HW boxers in a direct sense. It's comparing apples to oranges, they don't add up.

[Bill Paxtom]

Jose 'King' Roman

In 1973, was proclaimed to have the 'fastest hands' in the Heavyweight Division.

Al Braveram said so...............

[Master]

There you go again degrading Foreman as a plodder and Ali as just a punch bag.

You think today's fighters are superior because of their weight.

You are wrong.

No I don't, I consider Foreman inferior to todays plodder sluggers, because he was a far lighter, less powerful, slower and less skilled and less defended version of them and he proved himself against far smaller and worse opponents.

I consider Ali inferior to todays skilful opponents because Ali had no punch by comparison and could not defend himself against a punch either, where as today's skilled oppoennts can bend around shots and not get hit often and can counter far quicker.

I consider both inferior to the champ, because of BOTH reasons combined.

They were both smaller, less athletic and less skilled than the average Klitschko opponents overall, let alone Klitschko himself!

I do not mean that they were all 3 of these at once. Foreman might be stronger than some opponents and Ali might be faster or more skilled than some opponents. But the TOTAL PACKAGE of Foreman and Ali was generally LESS than the TOTAL PACKAGE of the average Klitschko opponent (let alone Klitchko himself, again).

Today's heavyweights are not more athletic, just because they weigh more. In fact a lot of them have poor technical skills that they should take up another profession.

[Max Power]

There you go again degrading Foreman as a plodder and Ali as just a punch bag.

You think today's fighters are superior because of their weight.

You are wrong.

No I don't, I consider Foreman inferior to todays plodder sluggers, because he was a far lighter, less powerful, slower and less skilled and less defended version of them and he proved himself against far smaller and worse opponents.

I consider Ali inferior to todays skilful opponents because Ali had no punch by comparison and could not defend himself against a punch either, where as today's skilled oppoennts can bend around shots and not get hit often and can counter far quicker.

I consider both inferior to the champ, because of BOTH reasons combined.

They were both smaller, less athletic and less skilled than the average Klitschko opponents overall, let alone Klitschko himself!

I do not mean that they were all 3 of these at once. Foreman might be stronger than some opponents and Ali might be faster or more skilled than some opponents. But the TOTAL PACKAGE of Foreman and Ali was generally LESS than the TOTAL PACKAGE of the average Klitschko opponent (let alone Klitchko himself, again).

Today's heavyweights are not more athletic, just because they weigh more. In fact a lot of them have poor technical skills that they should take up another profession.

This is where exact clarity is needed and exactly where nostalgic fans overlook it..

There are sluggers with less skills, and skilled fighters of lower calibre in all eras. The champs of all eras have generally combined both features accounting for their success.

At HW you can be a chubby or an athletic boxer, both types can be successful at HW and always have been! It's boxing, not running!

The ATLETIC boxers today are more athletic than the ATHLETIC boxers of yesterday.

There are skilled boxers in every era and less skilled ones which make up for lack of skills with other qualities in every era, today and yesterday.

The SKILLED boxers today are more skilled than the SKILLED boxers of yesterday!

The problem with you is you like to make inappropriate comparisons like prime athletic Muhammad Ali to Chris Arreola in terms of athleticiem, where the correct comparison would be David Haye. (who is more athletic by far).

You also would try to compare the skills of Kenny Norton to those of say Lucas Browne, where the correct comparison would be to someone like say, Bryant Jennings.

If you want to make a comparison in size, you should compare someone like Frazier to Povetkin or Stiverne (who are also better skilled)

Of course the simplest comparison is champ to champ. Klitschko is bigger (by far), more athletic (by far) and more skilled (by so far it's beyond a joke).

I look at the total quality, the big picture. You seem only be able to focus on a single attribute at a time.

[ykdadamaja]

Thanks for this, Bill. You made me go search for old fights. Found this one with Foreman SAVAGING Jose Roman in one round. SAVAGE! lolol....