There has never been a weak era at heavyweight in the 20th century

[janitor]

This is what I believe.

[BoxingFanNo1]

Glad you shared.

[SuzieQ49]

I very much agree. Of course Chris ****** will pipe in any time soon and claim how weak the 40s and early 50s were with journeyman walcott, crude clubfighter marciano, slow robotic louis, and chinny middleweight charles....floyd patterson would have knocked all these men out....modern advancement in heavyweight boxing didn't start until April 27th 1956

[mcvey]

This is what I believe.
Well I think we have two very good fighters in the Brothers Grimm, outside of them, I think the division stinks myself.Otherwise how come ,40 year olds like Maskaev are still in contention ? Retreads like Rahman ? the list is full of over the hill moderates like McLine,or unproven Eastern Europeans.When a man in his mid 40s , who has been shot for 8 years can go close with a version of the Champ [Valuev] we are in dire straits imo. I hope Haye can ressurect the division by putting some interest back in it.

[SuzieQ49]

Wait did I misread....did you say you think 2000-2009 there wasnt a weak era? I think during this time the division was at its weakest in history...and alot of big fights were not getting made.

[ChrisPontius]

The period of 1920 - 1930 was pretty weak in terms of heavyweights, in fact so weak that half of the heavyweight contenders were lightheavyweights.

[janitor]

The period of 1920 - 1930 was pretty weak in terms of heavyweights, in fact so weak that half of the heavyweight contenders were lightheavyweights.

In trms of the number of active fighters this was the deepest era in boxings history.

Obviously the colour bar screwed these eras up but that dosnt detract from the level of talent that was potentialy available.

[janitor]

Well I think we have two very good fighters in the Brothers Grimm, outside of them, I think the division stinks myself.

Exactly.

There are two verry good heavyweights who could potentialy face off to make a megafight but they wont because they happen to be brothers.

[la-califa]

I just looked at the current Heavyweight rankings-outside of the Klitschko's= Attrocious!

[lefthook31]

After 1996 it was weak. With excpetion of Lewis, and possibly Ike Ibeabuchi who was all speculation there was no great fighters. The title would have changed hands after each title fight if it hadnt been for Lennox Lewis.

[mrbassie]

Wait did I misread....did you say you think 2000-2009 there wasnt a weak era? I think during this time the division was at its weakest in history...and alot of big fights were not getting made.

He said twentieth century. I'd hardly call the year 2000 an "era"

[Dempsey1238]

Think god the fights of the 1990's happen in the 2000's.

Tyson Lewis ete lol.

[mcvey]

Exactly.

There are two verry good heavyweights who could potentialy face off to make a megafight but they wont because they happen to be brothers.

Two very good ,but not great heavyweights does not constitute a division imo.

[teeto]

Yeah i think the century overall was very strong for heavyweights

[Boilermaker]

The period of 1920 - 1930 was pretty weak in terms of heavyweights, in fact so weak that half of the heavyweight contenders were lightheavyweights.

Is that really all that different from what we have today? The only reason that half the contenders today are not under the heavy limit is because those fighting at heavy in recent years are either to old or too lazy to weigh under the limit.

If their age or training habits had been slightly different, we could have seen the following fighters ranked at heavy:

James Toney - Light Heavy (beat top contenders when old and overweight), Roy Jones Jr - Light Heavy (beat top contender at heavy but then was given much harder fights by light heavy fighters. Where does this leave those fighters in the ranking system), Cruiserweight - Evander Holyfield - Eventually weightlifted into a small heavy but he also was one of if not the best of his generation. Chris Byrd- light heavy/cruiser. Admittedly he bulked into a small heavyweight, but he could have easily been that little bit lighter and simillarly successful. Interesting to note that he lost the first time that he fought a light heavyweight. Michael Moorer - Light heavy the former light heavy reached the top of the tree, without the additional weight, there is no doubt that he would have still been a force. David Haye - The current standout no 1 contender is a former Cruiserweight world champion.

[Mendoza]

The heavyweight divison was rather weak after Tunney retired, and before Louis beat Braddock. The WW II years were lean too.

[MAG1965]

This is what I believe.I see it more like the heavyweights are the weakest division in boxing after Ali left the scene. Out of weight guys who do not have much discipline. The good thing about the Klitchkos are that we do not have to watch guys like Tubbs and Tucker and Pinklon Thomas box . They cleaned out the division of fighters like that.

[janitor]

The heavyweight divison was rather weak after Tunney retired, and before Louis beat Braddock. The WW II years were lean too.

Were they though?

there is a lot more to an era than the four best fighters around at the time.

If you look at these eras there were a lot of world class heavyweights around. If you wanted a high quality sparring partner you could pick from half a dozen fighters who were better than some of the guys who fought for the title in the 70s.

[flamengo]

The heavyweight divison was rather weak after Tunney retired, and before Louis beat Braddock. The WW II years were lean too.

Interesting point Mendoza.. "after Tunney retired".

Had Tunney not retired, this era may have shown just how weak the previous decade had been, regarding fantastic match-ups.

No doubt, after Tunney retired, the title changes were less than classic, until the welcoming of Louis' title shot. I do wonder however, just how you think Tunney might fare against Max Schmeling, as his next possible defence (yes, Max was still in Germany when Tunney retired, yet Tunney was not one defend frequently), or Johnny Risko in a title bout, or Jack Sharkey??

I guess there is no right or wrong, as all eras have positives and negatives when talking in individual decades.

[McGrain]

Ruslan Chagaev is a really good fighter. He's had a horrific time with injuries, but he is a mobile two-handed southpaw with really good generalship. I think he may be done, but still, he was good.

But this is a genuinely horrific era, I agree. I haven't felt like that for a long time - i felt there was always a contrary argument and that we should be optomistic, but I don't feel that way now. The HW's are shit, shocking. A top two that won't fight one another. A #3 that has been tortured with injuries. That big giant man. Terrible, shocking.

WAR HAYE.

[Boilermaker]

Ruslan Chagaev is a really good fighter. He's had a horrific time with injuries, but he is a mobile two-handed southpaw with really good generalship. I think he may be done, but still, he was good.

But this is a genuinely horrific era, I agree. I haven't felt like that for a long time - i felt there was always a contrary argument and that we should be optomistic, but I don't feel that way now. The HW's are shit, shocking. A top two that won't fight one another. A #3 that has been tortured with injuries. That big giant man. Terrible, shocking.

WAR HAYE.

I really think that one of the biggest problems with the current era is that the contenders wont fight each other and wont fight regularly. The champion has always fought less and picked and choosed who he fights. But now, because the contenders simply dont fight each other there never is or can be a standout challenger. If the their was just one world champion and the the top 10 (outside the champion) fought each other every month or so, the current era would seem a lot better than it is. I also think that it would force contenders to fight and be in shape all the time which means weights would drop dramatically and punch outputs would increase massively. I still think it would be a weak era, but nowhere near as bad as it currently is.

[MrMarvel]

I think the heavyweight division prior to the mid-1950s was weak compared to other divisions and the heavyweight division after the mid-1950s. Especially weak compared to the other divisions were the 1940s. This was a dismal period, in fact. Other divisions were affected, as well.

[Bummy Davis]

It balances itself out pretty good, we are now in the 21st century but there have been spells of a few years but the decades balance out. I have been around boxing for quite sometime and I do not really see an era that would not be competitive with another, including today...the era of the Large and Long amatuer resume and some have long careers in kick boxing as well...These fighters would cause trouble in any era like JJWalcott would also....they are looking to kill the sport of boxing...but whatever sport than boxing can show you what is inside a man

[mr. magoo]

I think what we need to clearify when we use the term "weak", is that it doesn't necessarily mean weak in general. What it refers to is the fact that a given period in the sport was probably less talent filled than a large number of others. Rather than use the term weak

oops someone's at the door, have to continue later...

[ChrisPontius]

Is that really all that different from what we have today? The only reason that half the contenders today are not under the heavy limit is because those fighting at heavy in recent years are either to old or too lazy to weigh under the limit.

If their age or training habits had been slightly different, we could have seen the following fighters ranked at heavy:

James Toney - Light Heavy (beat top contenders when old and overweight), Roy Jones Jr - Light Heavy (beat top contender at heavy but then was given much harder fights by light heavy fighters. Where does this leave those fighters in the ranking system), Cruiserweight - Evander Holyfield - Eventually weightlifted into a small heavy but he also was one of if not the best of his generation. Chris Byrd- light heavy/cruiser. Admittedly he bulked into a small heavyweight, but he could have easily been that little bit lighter and simillarly successful. Interesting to note that he lost the first time that he fought a light heavyweight. Michael Moorer - Light heavy the former light heavy reached the top of the tree, without the additional weight, there is no doubt that he would have still been a force. David Haye - The current standout no 1 contender is a former Cruiserweight world champion.


Since when is period 2000-20009 part of the 20th century ?

As for comparing some of those. :lol: David Haye is and was a ripped 6'3 215lbs, tell me how that compares to some of the skinny 20's "heavyweights". Byrd is 6'1 207lbs with barely any fat on it. Roy Jones weighs 190lbs for all his lightheavyweight bouts, which is more than the average 20's heavyweight, dito for Toney. Toney's record against HW contenders is 1-1-1-1, with the only win coming against a 42 year old Holyfield with a shoulder injury... if that's the epitome of a naturally smaller fighter having success at heavyweight, then fuck me. As for Holyfield, he had succesfully bulked up at 212lbs and was 6'2" to start with, and weighed 200lbs or more since his early 20's.

Now tell me, during this period, does the white champion duck behind the "color" line, even under protest of a racist crowd, to avoid the half of the challengers out there?







In trms of the number of active fighters this was the deepest era in boxings history.


Obviously the colour bar screwed these eras up but that dosnt detract from the level of talent that was potentialy available.[/quote]

Pure speculation, and even if there was more talent, half of the talent was destroyed by the white boxers hiding behind the color line. The heavyweight talent was piss poor. Brennan, Miske, Fulton, are you kidding me? The only good heavies were Dempsey and Wills, half of which was eliminated by the color line.


Two very good ,but not great heavyweights does not constitute a division imo.

Exactly.

[Mordechai]

till 1990 the eastern european fighter weren't allowed to become pro, and the cubans till today too, so there is a big what would have been if...
imagine some eastern european fighters would have beaten the great american fighters in the 60,70,80... and all americans would have said that where all weak heavyweights periods...

[MRBILL]

This is what I believe.

Hmmmmmm..... I'm not sold on the 10s and 50s............ Jack Johnson and Rocco Marciano fought some questionable or aging dudes during those times......

Again, I love and admire Ol' Johnson, but he did beat up some dudes like "Jeffries, Ketchel & Jim Flynn" who were either old, small or crude as all hell........

Rocco Marciano fought some great names, but those names were all near or over age 40 when they were beaten by Rocco.......

Jack Dempsey JACKED OFF the title belt pretty hard from 1919 to 1926... Hammering "Gibbons & Carpentier" is no big surprise.....

We did have some weak links / moments in heavyweight boxing in the 20th century........

MR.BILL

[Mendoza]

Interesting point Mendoza.. "after Tunney retired".

Had Tunney not retired, this era may have shown just how weak the previous decade had been, regarding fantastic match-ups.

No doubt, after Tunney retired, the title changes were less than classic, until the welcoming of Louis' title shot. I do wonder however, just how you think Tunney might fare against Max Schmeling, as his next possible defence (yes, Max was still in Germany when Tunney retired, yet Tunney was not one defend frequently), or Johnny Risko in a title bout, or Jack Sharkey??

I guess there is no right or wrong, as all eras have positives and negatives when talking in individual decades.

After Tunney retired, there were no title shots for two years. I think Tunney would have defeated Sharkey and Schmeling. He cost himself a greater legacy, but got out of the game with his marbles.

The early 30's were a weak time in boxing full of champions who could not make 1 title defense, and marred with DQ's and gambling.

[MRBILL]

After Tunney retired, there were no title shots for two years. I think Tunney would have defeated Sharkey and Schmeling. He cost himself a greater legacy, but got out of the game with his marbles.

The early 30's were a weak time in boxing full of champions who could not make 1 title defense, and marred with DQ's and gambling.

'Twas bad for history and the books in regards to the early 1930s boys like "Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer & Braddock" winning and losing the title left & right over a 7 year period from 1930 to 1937..... That was bad...

Then we had the WBA Chumps from 1982 to 1987 like "Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Tubbs, Spoon & Smith" all taking turns holding the title for a year or less...... WEAK!! Plus, we might as well add other title holding Chumps like "Thomas, Berbick & Tony Tucker" into that fiasco of a mess...... GEEZ!

I'm sorry, but you'll never be regarded as a great champion by winning and blowing a title........
:-(:deal:rasta:admin

MR.BILL:scaredas:

[Boilermaker]

Since when is period 2000-20009 part of the 20th century ?

:lol: Got me there!



As for comparing some of those. :lol: David Haye is and was a ripped 6'3 215lbs, tell me how that compares to some of the skinny 20's "heavyweights".


Because for most of his fights he has weighed under 200lbs. To be honest, while i dont give him much chance, the lighter his body weight, the better chance he has of taking Vlad the distance and scoring the upset, imo. If Haye trained for endurance rather than power, he would be well under 200lbs. He could easily weigh in the 180s like those skinny heavyweights you talk about, and like he has previously done early in his career.


Byrd is 6'1 207lbs with barely any fat on it.

And he got stopped by the first decent light heavyweight he faced. Lucky he wasnt around in the 20s when there were dozens of light heavys willing to step up against the bigger guys.



Roy Jones weighs 190lbs for all his lightheavyweight bouts, which is more than the average 20's heavyweight, dito for Toney. Toney's record against HW contenders is 1-1-1-1, with the only win coming against a 42 year old Holyfield with a shoulder injury... if that's the epitome of a naturally smaller fighter having success at heavyweight, then fuck me.


He wasnt just small, he was old, out of shape and obesley overweight! I find it hard to believe that he goes 1-1-1-1 with the best light heavys of this era. Hopkins, among others would outland him 3 to one and cruise to an easy UD. Roy Jones certainly was better as an old heavy than an old light heavy, although in fairness, at least he was an in shape old heavy. Imagine what the competive Toney would have done if he actually stayed in shape, or even better fought at heavy at a younger age (and weight) if he can be competitive like he is now.


As for Holyfield, he had succesfully bulked up at 212lbs and was 6'2" to start with, and weighed 200lbs or more since his early 20's.

So did most o fthe skinny heavys of the 20s. It is just that training methods differed (not necessarilly for the better either). An inshape holy should weigh less than 200. I highly doubt that this version of holly slows down and gases like he did against Bowe and Lewis (or even moorer).


Now tell me, during this period, does the white champion duck behind the "color" line, even under protest of a racist crowd, to avoid the half of the challengers out there?


Maybe not a colour line, but fighters certainly draws the line through half (or more acurately a two thirds) of the challengers. Vlad point blank refuses to fight his brother the clear no 1 contender. It is near impossible for him to fight the other world champion Russian Chageav (another clear contender). Instead, he fights manufactured fights against built up inexperienced fighters like Austin or whoever. Each organisation only ranks certain fighters while certain promoters seem to virtually limit challengers to those that sign the right options dealls. Add this to the fact that no colour line is need because most of the clear contenders refuse point blank to fight each other. In fact, they will only take a fight if the challenger is a name, vulnerable fighter. Saying that, the older fighters now are currently dominating/or at least competive with the young brigade at a time when they really have no right to be. Holyfield cant be stopped by the superheavys. I would actually give him a chance against both klitchskos. No one can knock out the ancient McCall, who really wasnt that great to start with. The ancient Golota seems to win every time he fights contenders and only the very best of the generation seem to be able to beat him, even though he is nothing like he was in speed and skills and in any case Tyson and Lewis both showed he was never a world beater to start with. It all adds up to show that the current era really does struggle to compete, as i said before, i am fairly sure that the problem is that contenders will no longer fight each other. They want the easy ride that comes with few losses. I honestly think that if they fought each other, not only would the era improve from it (from a skills point of view) but it would also make for a far more exciting era. Obviously a unified champion would help massively too.








Obviously the colour bar screwed these eras up but that dosnt detract from the level of talent that was potentialy available.[/quote]

Pure speculation, and even if there was more talent, half of the talent was destroyed by the white boxers hiding behind the color line. The heavyweight talent was piss poor. Brennan, Miske, Fulton, are you kidding me? The only good heavies were Dempsey and Wills, half of which was eliminated by the color line.




Exactly.[/quote]

[SuzieQ49]

Toney did clearly beat Sam Peter the first time around. huge robbery. Sam Peter ate counter right hands all night long.

[flamengo]

MR. Bill. "..never be regarded a great champion by winning and blowing away a champion"?????

So, is it better to defend against ...
'old folks'...

'win the title in great fashion, defend against LH/Ws and M/Ws, whilst romancing with Hollywood'...

'bums of the month'..

'tour the world and defeat champs from each country, before losing to the coloured giant'...

'retire early, avoiding the coloured giant, and return to face him with disgraceful circumstance'....

'retire early and avoid all future heavy men'...

'claim to title and defend against no-one on the vaudevillean stage'....

'Take the title from a beast, be stripped by MORONS, regain from another monster, defend, defend, defend until damaged goods'...

'Win the crown as a youngster, get ripped off, ill-judged, ripped off again and permanently stuffed'....


So, what makes a great champ, in a great era??????

[djanders]

This is what I believe.

I agree with you! :good

[ChrisPontius]

Because for most of his fights he has weighed under 200lbs. To be honest, while i dont give him much chance, the lighter his body weight, the better chance he has of taking Vlad the distance and scoring the upset, imo. If Haye trained for endurance rather than power, he would be well under 200lbs. He could easily weigh in the 180s like those skinny heavyweights you talk about, and like he has previously done early in his career.


Haye was barely 20 years of age when he fought below 200lbs. At 28 now, he matured into his frame and has been around 210lbs for several years and this is his natural weight.

I think it's kind of funny though, that you don't give Haye much of a chance, while i give Haye a good chance and in fact pick him by upset TKO win over Wlad!

I also think it's remarkable that you state ".. the better his chance to take Wlad the distance and scoring the upset". I think the most likely way for Haye to win is by stoppage; with Wlad's jab, if it goes to the scorecards, it's almost certainly a victory for him, unless he suffers multiple knockdowns, but even then it's no guarantee as we saw against Peter.



And he got stopped by the first decent light heavyweight he faced. Lucky he wasnt around in the 20s when there were dozens of light heavys willing to step up against the bigger guys.


Yeah, that was when he killed himself to make 175 after he had gone past the age of 35. And it wasn't even against a decent lightheavyweight. The combination of weight drained, age, and ring mileage was just way too much. Similar to Roy Jones, lost a lot of his durability when he went too far and too fast down in weight when past 35 years of age. How you can hold this against Byrd is beyond me.




He wasnt just small, he was old, out of shape and obesley overweight! I find it hard to believe that he goes 1-1-1-1 with the best light heavys of this era. Hopkins, among others would outland him 3 to one and cruise to an easy UD. Roy Jones certainly was better as an old heavy than an old light heavy, although in fairness, at least he was an in shape old heavy. Imagine what the competive Toney would have done if he actually stayed in shape, or even better fought at heavy at a younger age (and weight) if he can be competitive like he is now.


I'm still waiting for any Toney supporter to make a statement that doesn't involve "if he was in shape", "if he ....", all if if if, but at the end of the day, he didn't deliver and did not prove it, and lost to or should have lost to a lot of mediocre fighters, heavyweight, lightheavyweight or even middleweight.



So did most o fthe skinny heavys of the 20s. It is just that training methods differed (not necessarilly for the better either). An inshape holy should weigh less than 200. I highly doubt that this version of holly slows down and gases like he did against Bowe and Lewis (or even moorer).


Here is what i want you to do:

1. Watch the fast, stamina-filled 205lbs Holyfield get bulled around the ring by Bowe like nothing and nearly stopped.

2. Then watch him at 213lbs in the rematch where he held his own and beat Riddick. Sure, Bowe was in worse shape, but the Holyfield was better equipped at a higher rate.


Extrapolate that and you'll see that Holyfield below 200lbs would get killed by Bowe. Make a poll about it if you want, and see what others think. Yes, he was faster and threw more punches, but he was a lot easier to move around, hit less hard and couldn't keep big heavies off him. He'd run out of gas even earlier because of the large weight difference.


By the way, you say that an "in shape" Holyfield weighs less than 200lbs, as if you're the authority on when Holyfield is in shape and when not. I think he can make that decision a little better than you can, and clearly he he has more confidence in his abilities at 212lbs than at 205lbs or even lower.

But yeah, maybe you are right and EVERY SINGLE heavyweight over the last 15 years have made a monumental mistake by being out of shape.

Look at Holyfield being out of shape here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



In case you didn't know, heavyweights no longer fight over 30 rounds and they also throw combinations today and know a thing or two about the jab and defence. You're applying "in shape" standards asif we're living in 1909, not 2009. You don't have to be a skinny marathon runner to be an in shape boxer.



Maybe not a colour line, but fighters certainly draws the line through half (or more acurately a two thirds) of the challengers. Vlad point blank refuses to fight his brother the clear no 1 contender. It is near impossible for him to fight the other world champion Russian Chageav (another clear contender). Instead, he fights manufactured fights against built up inexperienced fighters like Austin or whoever. Each organisation only ranks certain fighters while certain promoters seem to virtually limit challengers to those that sign the right options dealls. Add this to the fact that no colour line is need because most of the clear contenders refuse point blank to fight each other. In fact, they will only take a fight if the challenger is a name, vulnerable fighter.


This is a problem indeed, but far from as big as ducking behind the color line. Chagaev will likely finally finish the Valuev-Ruiz-Don King WBA roundabout may 30th, and it's very possible that a fight between him and either Klitschko or Haye comes off in the future, whereas Wills was fucked because he didn't have Michael Jackson's disease. On top of that, Wlad unified against Ibragimov, Vitali fought Peter, Wlad fights Haye june 20th, and (if he wins) will defend against Povetkin before the end of this year. So, it's not like top contenders are not fighting each other.



Saying that, the older fighters now are currently dominating/or at least competive with the young brigade at a time when they really have no right to be. Holyfield cant be stopped by the superheavys. I would actually give him a chance against both klitchskos.


Holyfield lost every single round against Ibragimov, who in turn lost every single round against Wlad. Yes, he showed a great effort against Valuev, who is way too immobile to deal with a mover over 12 rounds, but you gotta be kidding yourself in your love for the small guys (as far as a 6'2" 212lbs guy is small) if you think he could beat either Klitschko. Even prime for prime i wouldn't like his chances, but that's an other discussion.



No one can knock out the ancient McCall, who really wasnt that great to start with. The ancient Golota seems to win every time he fights contenders and only the very best of the generation seem to be able to beat him, even though he is nothing like he was in speed and skills and in any case Tyson and Lewis both showed he was never a world beater to start with.


This is non sense. Golota absolutely destroyed Bowe in a way that no one else did (including Holyfield), twice. There is no doubt that he is a top fighter, just that he is a fucking headcase that always finds a way to lose. Against a light hitter (Byrd, Ruiz), he will always shine; against Bowe, i think his combination of speed, skills and stamina are amonst the best superheavies ever. I don't really know what recent success you're pointing at, either. All he's beaten were fringe contenders and he just lost in one (admittedly, by injury, but that doesn't prove you're the better man) to Ray Austin.

As for McCall being unstoppable, what does that show? None of the powerful heavies of the 70's could stop a fading or even shot Ali either, does that mean they all suck?

[lefthook31]

MR. Bill. "..never be regarded a great champion by winning and blowing away a champion"?????

So, is it better to defend against ...
'old folks'...

'win the title in great fashion, defend against LH/Ws and M/Ws, whilst romancing with Hollywood'...

'bums of the month'..

'tour the world and defeat champs from each country, before losing to the coloured giant'...

'retire early, avoiding the coloured giant, and return to face him with disgraceful circumstance'....

'retire early and avoid all future heavy men'...

'claim to title and defend against no-one on the vaudevillean stage'....

'Take the title from a beast, be stripped by MORONS, regain from another monster, defend, defend, defend until damaged goods'...

'Win the crown as a youngster, get ripped off, ill-judged, ripped off again and permanently stuffed'....


So, what makes a great champ, in a great era??????

In my mind a great champion either has another all time great or greats to compete against, or is completely dominant over an above average group of contenders.
A not so great champ would be someone inconsistent against mediocre to average opponents, and dominant over a group of total garbage. No need to mention any names, but his initials are WK.:yep

[lefthook31]

Haye was barely 20 years of age when he fought below 200lbs. At 28 now, he matured into his frame and has been around 210lbs for several years and this is his natural weight.

I think it's kind of funny though, that you don't give Haye much of a chance, while i give Haye a good chance and in fact pick him by upset TKO win over Wlad!

I also think it's remarkable that you state ".. the better his chance to take Wlad the distance and scoring the upset". I think the most likely way for Haye to win is by stoppage; with Wlad's jab, if it goes to the scorecards, it's almost certainly a victory for him, unless he suffers multiple knockdowns, but even then it's no guarantee as we saw against Peter.




Yeah, that was when he killed himself to make 175 after he had gone past the age of 35. And it wasn't even against a decent lightheavyweight. The combination of weight drained, age, and ring mileage was just way too much. Similar to Roy Jones, lost a lot of his durability when he went too far and too fast down in weight when past 35 years of age. How you can hold this against Byrd is beyond me.





I'm still waiting for any Toney supporter to make a statement that doesn't involve "if he was in shape", "if he ....", all if if if, but at the end of the day, he didn't deliver and did not prove it, and lost to or should have lost to a lot of mediocre fighters, heavyweight, lightheavyweight or even middleweight.




Here is what i want you to do:

1. Watch the fast, stamina-filled 205lbs Holyfield get bulled around the ring by Bowe like nothing and nearly stopped.

2. Then watch him at 213lbs in the rematch where he held his own and beat Riddick. Sure, Bowe was in worse shape, but the Holyfield was better equipped at a higher rate.


Extrapolate that and you'll see that Holyfield below 200lbs would get killed by Bowe. Make a poll about it if you want, and see what others think. Yes, he was faster and threw more punches, but he was a lot easier to move around, hit less hard and couldn't keep big heavies off him. He'd run out of gas even earlier because of the large weight difference.


By the way, you say that an "in shape" Holyfield weighs less than 200lbs, as if you're the authority on when Holyfield is in shape and when not. I think he can make that decision a little better than you can, and clearly he he has more confidence in his abilities at 212lbs than at 205lbs or even lower.

But yeah, maybe you are right and EVERY SINGLE heavyweight over the last 15 years have made a monumental mistake by being out of shape.

Look at Holyfield being out of shape here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



In case you didn't know, heavyweights no longer fight over 30 rounds and they also throw combinations today and know a thing or two about the jab and defence. You're applying "in shape" standards asif we're living in 1909, not 2009. You don't have to be a skinny marathon runner to be an in shape boxer.




This is a problem indeed, but far from as big as ducking behind the color line. Chagaev will likely finally finish the Valuev-Ruiz-Don King WBA roundabout may 30th, and it's very possible that a fight between him and either Klitschko or Haye comes off in the future, whereas Wills was fucked because he didn't have Michael Jackson's disease. On top of that, Wlad unified against Ibragimov, Vitali fought Peter, Wlad fights Haye june 20th, and (if he wins) will defend against Povetkin before the end of this year. So, it's not like top contenders are not fighting each other.




Holyfield lost every single round against Ibragimov, who in turn lost every single round against Wlad. Yes, he showed a great effort against Valuev, who is way too immobile to deal with a mover over 12 rounds, but you gotta be kidding yourself in your love for the small guys (as far as a 6'2" 212lbs guy is small) if you think he could beat either Klitschko. Even prime for prime i wouldn't like his chances, but that's an other discussion.




This is non sense. Golota absolutely destroyed Bowe in a way that no one else did (including Holyfield), twice. There is no doubt that he is a top fighter, just that he is a fucking headcase that always finds a way to lose. Against a light hitter (Byrd, Ruiz), he will always shine; against Bowe, i think his combination of speed, skills and stamina are amonst the best superheavies ever. I don't really know what recent success you're pointing at, either. All he's beaten were fringe contenders and he just lost in one (admittedly, by injury, but that doesn't prove you're the better man) to Ray Austin.

As for McCall being unstoppable, what does that show? None of the powerful heavies of the 70's could stop a fading or even shot Ali either, does that mean they all suck?
Golota is a top fighter because he destroyed Bowe?:huh He lost every meaningful fight he was in, including both Bowe fights. Golota was a sideshow, chosen as an opponent because he was nuts. He was the Ricardo Mayorga of the heavyweight division, only he wasnt pretending, he was really nuts.

[flamengo]

In my mind a great champion either has another all time great or greats to compete against, or is completely dominant over an above average group of contenders.
A not so great champ would be someone inconsistent against mediocre to average opponents, and dominant over a group of total garbage. No need to mention any names, but his initials are WK.:yep

Ha ha ha. Nice work Lefty. I believe the man in the first sentence would be , M.A aca C.C.

:hey

[MRBILL]

Christ Almighty... The people who I ragged on earlier were either legit title holders or paper chumps..... But some of their title defenses were not up to par.........

All in all, I do consider Jack Johnson an all-time great fighter and champion..... He worked his way up the ladder the hard way...... BUT! He still won the title from Thomas Burns and made a defense against Stanley Ketchel..... Both were great fighters, yet totally over-matched against Jack Johnson... Fireman Jim Flynn was a crude brawler who was tuff and dirty, but was not a greatly skilled pro fighter......

Again... I like Jack Dempsey and his story, but his title reign often jacked off and J.D. beat some little dudes like "Gibbons & Carpentier," along with kayoing a giant stiff named Luis Firpo...... Again, Dempsey was a great fighter but his reign was not all that great....

Rocco Marciano was hard and tuff and also carefully handled / managed early..... Aside from his '49 KO of Carmine Vingo, Marciano beat up a lot of aging dudes who were slipping........ Dudes like "Louis, Walcott, Charles & Moore." Still, Rocco Marciano was great..........

I'll even give legit champs like "Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer & Braddock" a pass... They were great fighters in their own right, but not great champs.....

To hell with the majority of the 80s WBA, WBC & IBF chumps..... Not worth going into... Aside from "Holmes, Tyson & Spinks," the rest of the lot were bogus belt holders who were still decent fighters........

Great fighters / champions include: "Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holy, Lewis & The K bros."

Riddick Bowe had all the talent in the world, but he was too lazy and too well paid to really get serious....... Too bad.. Bowe was an incarnation of left over parts donated by Greg Page, Buster Douglas & Tony Tubbs....... Good fighters and former chumps who were lazy as all hell......

MR.BILL

[flamengo]

Christ Almighty... The people who I ragged on earlier were either legit title holders or paper chumps..... But some of their title defenses were not up to par.........

All in all, I do consider Jack Johnson an all-time great fighter and champion..... He worked his way up the ladder the hard way...... BUT! He still won the title from Thomas Burns and made a defense against Stanley Ketchel..... Both were great fighters, yet totally over-matched against Jack Johnson... Fireman Jim Flynn was a crude brawler who was tuff and dirty, but was not a greatly skilled pro fighter......

Again... I like Jack Dempsey and his story, but his title reign often jacked off and J.D. beat some little dudes like "Gibbons & Carpentier," along with kayoing a giant stiff named Luis Firpo...... Again, Dempsey was a great fighter but his reign was not all that great....

Rocco Marciano was hard and tuff and also carefully handled / managed early..... Aside from his '49 KO of Carmine Vingo, Marciano beat up a lot of aging dudes who were slipping........ Dudes like "Louis, Walcott, Charles & Moore." Still, Rocco Marciano was great..........

I'll even give legit champs like "Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer & Braddock" a pass... They were great fighters in their own right, but not great champs.....

To hell with the majority of the 80s WBA, WBC & IBF chumps..... Not worth going into... Aside from "Holmes, Tyson & Spinks," the rest of the lot were bogus belt holders who were still decent fighters........

Great fighters / champions include: "Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holy, Lewis & The K bros."

Riddick Bowe had all the talent in the world, but he was too lazy and too well paid to really get serious....... Too bad.. Bowe was an incarnation of left over parts donated by Greg Page, Buster Douglas & Tony Tubbs....... Good fighters and former chumps who were lazy as all hell......

MR.BILL


MR.BILL, for a dumb arse such as myself, your words are perfectly placed.

In a sense, nostalgia (regardless of acttivity from the era) gives all Champs an even place on the podium. The Podium of Champions... and those names cannot be removed. All of those listed names can be questioned, dismissed, villified, victumised, praised, recounted, dwelled upon, sanctified and, for the sake of all future enthusiasts, be spoken of in the same vein.

[djanders]

MR.BILL, for a dumb arse such as myself, your words are perfectly placed.

In a sense, nostalgia (regardless of acttivity from the era) gives all Champs an even place on the podium. The Podium of Champions... and those names cannot be removed. All of those listed names can be questioned, dismissed, villified, victumised, praised, recounted, dwelled upon, sanctified and, for the sake of all future enthusiasts, be spoken of in the same vein.

"The Podium of Champions" has a nice ring to it. I like it! :good

[flamengo]

"The Podium of Champions" has a nice ring to it. I like it! :good

A nice title for a book perhaps.