The HeavyWeight Myth..

To be fair it was a farce and criticized even then. It did inspire Stallone to make the Rocky movies though so I guess it wasn't all that bad... I do get the point. It was just one of Ali's numerous title defenses that year however because after he regained the title from Foreman at the end of 1974, Ali defended his title against Wepner, Lyle, Bugner and Frazier in a span of 7 months. Today you'd be lucky to see two or three title defenses a year, which is a shame. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of Ali critics among "historians" that don't think the 70's were a great era of heavyweights at all. So while it is generally thought to be one of the (if not the) greatest era's of heavyweight boxing, it also gets its share of criticism from some. Don't you think though that with the 4 titles that we now have (instead of just one as it was back then) that the likes of Lyle, Shavers, Norton could be champions? Lets face it, even Valuev, Chagaev, Maskaev, Peter and Ibragimov have all recently held titles and they cannot be that much better than the top contenders of the 70's. Bugner was quite talented in my opinion although he wasted a lot of his potential with retirements and by simply not showing up to important fights. I do know that he was pretty much hated in Britain. Absolutely they could and probably would hold a strap at some point.. but you could also say the reverse of today.. have Only ONE belt.. and rank your top 10 heavyweights take the top 10 from Box rec as simple guideline 1-Vitali 2 -Wald 3-Chagaev 4-Haye 5-Valuev 6-Peter 7-Povetkin 8-Ruiz? 9-Dimitrenko 10-Gomez guys like Peter and Valuev would never have belts either.. compare to the '76 list and they are very similar You have your Dominant champ..You have some tough but fading vets...Some perennial contenders, some future champs and some guys that just hang around because there is no one better to rank there No difference

Man The Heavyweight Division is at an all time low.. Bunch of fat Nobodies with no talent.. Now in the 70's.. that where the Real golden Era was right?? I mean you had guys Like Chuck Wepner in the top 10 for over 3 years.. Wepner is most famous for Knocking down Ali with one of the 7 punches he landed over 15 rounds.. (I am not kidding BTW.. he landed about 7 punches over 15 rounds) Chuck Wepner was 30-9-2 when he fought Ali and he had a Top 10 ranking.. he landed 7 punches in a championship fight.. When he fought Ali.. he had already been KO'd by Sonny Liston, George Foreman,Joe Bunger and to an 11-1-1 Jerry Judge.. This Man was TOP 10 ranked for years... I present to you the top 10 Ring magazine rankings for 1973 1973 Champ- George Foreman 1. Muhammad Ali 2. Joe Frazier 3. Ken Norton 4. Jerry Quarry 5. Ron Lyle 6. Earnie Shavers 7. Oscar Bonavena 8. Joe Bugner 9. Jimmy Ellis 10.Chuck Wepner The top 5 certainly looks impressive enough Who are these ATG from 6-10??? How about 1976?? 1976 Champ- Muhammad Ali 1. George Foreman 2. Ken Norton 3. Jimmy Young 4. Duane Bobick 5. Ron Lyle 6. Larry Holmes 7. Howard Smith 8. Johnny Boudreaux 9. Stan Ward 10.Joe Bugner WOW !! Again look at those names??? The same guys in the top 5 despite All of them having losses and even KO losses Again the 6-10 positions are filled with nobodies Now Tell me A Klitschko couldn't compete.. Tell me Lamon Brewster couldn't compete.. Save for the same 3-5 guys ruling the division for half the decade.. The Talent level REALLY drops... Sound Familiar??? here is a link for Y'all if you want to see what ATG's the 70's produced.. http://www.geocities.com/sadmspats/hello.htm The 80's were worse.. the 90's was actually the golden era.. and YET it was not much better after the top 3-5 guys are removed from the picture.. Today it's Business as usual... 3-5 guys who are head and shoulders above the rest and a Bunch of stiffs with varying degrees of talent.. Some things to consider.. During the 70's and even the 80's Boxing was a mainstream sport on page one of the newspaper and free on national TV.. The stars of this ERA have transcended Boxing due it's immense coverage.. They were truly household names.. and It inflates their legend .. extremely.. Americans hate ANYONE being better at something than they are.. (not individually necessarily, but as a national psyche) and will abandon such things en mass .. Check the Olympic TV ratings of ANY sport if no American is involved.. I hope this helps put a few things in perspective .. especially some of you fans who are newer to the sport and seem to go on hearsay instead of just doing a little homework.. The past is always made to look bigger by those who lived it.. they are not crying for a lost sport.. but for their own lost youth.. Thank you for listening ......Excellent post!!!! A bunch of asshats saying the heavyweight division sucks does not make it so.

Why not post videos of some of Boytsov's, Haye's and Povetkin's fights instead? http://rutube.ru/tracks/660466.html Everyone knows the three WBA heavyweights suck. Well, the thing is that Boytsov aint close to being top ten yet, Haye basically has done nothing worthwhile to make it in the top ten other than what he did at Cruiserweight, and Povetkin is mostly only a new addition to the top fighters list. for a long time, the division has been awful. and right now, its not too good either. but hopefully it will get better. the thread used the RING Magazine rankings in the first place, so I thought it would be appropriate to use the RING magazine rankings for todays division as well. Povetkin is one of my favorite heavyweights around now. its refreshing to see a HW who throws a lot of punches and understands infighting. Which is EXACTLY what they were in their ERA.. guys who could beat most except for the "actually few good guys" at the top.. making them "contenders" and nothing more.. same as any era.. They wouldn't have beaten Tyson or Lewis either.. the point is that those contenders>todays contenders, and by a lot. a HW division is not made up of only two guys. Wladimir and Vitali may be good, but they dont alone make the HW division good just by themselves...especially since they wont fight one another.

Bugner was quite talented in my opinion although he wasted a lot of his potential with retirements and by simply not showing up to important fights. I do know that he was pretty much hated in Britain. He was hated first and foremost because he was a cnut of the highest order. Second precisely because he threw his talent away. I wouldn't go so far as to say he had great potential, but he certainly had more than most. And he pissed it away like a punk. His championship fights were a joke. He was worse than Bonecrusher against Tyson in his timidity.

Oh the excitement of one man flailing while another dominates him.. I have never seen this before in a boxing ring.. To be fair it was a farce and criticized even then. The fight did inspire Stallone to make the Rocky movies though so I guess it wasn't all that bad... I do get the point. It was just one of Ali's numerous title defenses that year however because after he regained the title from Foreman at the end of 1974, Ali defended his title against Wepner, Lyle, Bugner and Frazier in a span of 7 months. Today you'd be lucky to see two or three title defenses a year, which is a shame. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of Ali critics among "historians" that don't think the 70's were a great era of heavyweights at all. So while it is generally thought to be one of the (if not the) greatest era's of heavyweight boxing, it also gets its share of criticism from some. No I am not saying they are Nobodies... I am saying their status as somebodies is based on giving the champs a decent fight.. Not the stuff of legends at all.. They were contenders.. and contenders are just that.. guys who didn't make it all the way.. and they are same regardless of era.. guys with varying degrees of skill levels.. who are not quite champ material.. Don't you think though that with the 4 titles that we now have (instead of just one as it was back then) that the likes of Lyle, Shavers, Norton could be champions? Lets face it, even Valuev, Chagaev, Maskaev, Peter and Ibragimov have all recently held titles and they cannot be that much better than the top contenders of the 70's. Bugner WAS a nobody. Bugner was quite talented in my opinion although he wasted a lot of his potential with retirements and by simply not showing up to important fights. I do know that he was pretty much hated in Britain.

Joe Bugner KO1 Wladimir Klitschko I'd put my house and family on that NOT happening. In reality you'd see Bugner circle around Wlad and clinch for twelve rounds throwing a total of fifteen punches. He would then claim victory.

contenders are not all the same. Bonavena, Ellis, Bugner and Shavers would have beaten almost every top guy of the past few years, save for certain actually good guys(like the Klitschko brothers) and some few guys who would be bad style matchups for certain guys. Which is EXACTLY what they were in their ERA.. guys who could beat most except for the "actually few good guys" at the top.. making them "contenders" and nothing more.. same as any era.. They wouldn't have beaten Tyson or Lewis either..

No I am not saying they are Nobodies... I am saying their status as somebodies is based on giving the champs a decent fight.. Not the stuff of legends at all.. They were contenders.. and contenders are just that.. guys who didn't make it all the way.. and they are same regardless of era.. guys with varying degrees of skill levels.. who are not quite champ material.. contenders are not all the same. Bonavena, Ellis, Bugner and Shavers would have beaten almost every top guy of the past few years, save for certain actually good guys(like the Klitschko brothers) and some few guys who would be bad style matchups for certain guys.

Oh the excitement of one man flailing while another dominates him.. I have never seen this before in a boxing ring..

haha, so are you trying to call Oscar Bonavena, Shavers, Ellis and Bugner nobodies? you might want to watch some footage of them. just maybe. Bonavena would have beaten everyone other than the Klitschko brothers, easily. Wepner wasnt all that great, but he would still be top ten today. the HW division started to go downhill after a certain point, when all the old greats were falling apart. No I am not saying they are Nobodies... I am saying their status as somebodies is based on giving the champs a decent fight.. Not the stuff of legends at all.. They were contenders.. and contenders are just that.. guys who didn't make it all the way.. and they are same regardless of era.. guys with varying degrees of skill levels.. who are not quite champ material..

You sound like an old man: "back in MY day..." :lol1: haha, no way, Im only 19. Trust me, I respect the Klitschkos, but most the rest of the division is getting better. Just as a reminder yall, this is the #3 Heavyweight in the world... This is the #5 And this is the 6 and 7 I mean, DAMN. theyre awful. thankfully, the division looks like its getting better. I think guys like Povetkin, Dimitrenko and Boytsov have the potential to grow into pretty good fighters. well just have to wait and see. but for now, gosh the HW division is awful.

While you have a point in the sense that the division was NEVER packed from 1 to 10. What you fail to meniton is that the Klitschko's mainly get shit for taking those 6-10 guys out with relatively boring fights.

haha, so are you trying to call Oscar Bonavena, Shavers, Ellis and Bugner nobodies? Bugner WAS a nobody.

Did the OP really call Holmes a nobody? No I called Chuck wepner a nobody... Larry Holmes was the future.. and a lucky man to have face all that awesome talent in the 80's.. :lol1: Reminds me so much of the situation poor Wlad is in..

You can download their fights from the internet. The best place is here (if you go through the pages you'll find LOTS of their fights): http://allboxing.ru/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=srvf3ngsrg7cl2k1ndntc24au6&topic=4257.4640 There's also lots of fights here, although it takes forever to download them: http://pump.giala.ee/ cool thanks, I admit I know almost nothing of European boxers I want to educate myself a bit

How about 1976?? 1973 Champ- George Foreman 1. Muhammad Ali 2. Joe Frazier 3. Ken Norton 4. Jerry Quarry 5. Ron Lyle 6. Earnie Shavers 7. Oscar Bonavena 8. Joe Bugner 9. Jimmy Ellis 10.Chuck Wepner The top 5 certainly looks impressive enough Who are these ATG from 6-10??? How about 1976?? 1976 Champ- Muhammad Ali 1. George Foreman 2. Ken Norton 3. Jimmy Young 4. Duane Bobick 5. Ron Lyle 6. Larry Holmes 7. Howard Smith 8. Johnny Boudreaux 9. Stan Ward 10.Joe Bugner Now Tell me A Klitschko couldn't compete.. Tell me Lamon Brewster couldn't compete.. A Klitschko couldn't compete, a Lamon Brewster couldn't compete. At best they'd be fighting it out with the 5-10. Also Larry Holmes isn't a nobody. I can't see how there are any current heavyweights that are anywhere near Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes or even Shavers to an extent.

I like the idea of the thread. The difference I see today is that you don't have the Ali-Frazier thriller type fights, or even the 90's Bowe-Holyfield affairs or even something like Tua-Ibeabuchi. I don't know if it's just that the Klitschko's are that much better than everyone else. Sure as hell seems like guys don't try to or can't go to war with them. What is missing is the rivalry equally matched fights that created a buzz. Klitschko-Gomez or Klitschko-Rahman hardly causes anybody to stir whereas two equally matched guys provide excitement and thrilling fights. There's always been bad fights, but at least before we had some great match ups. Today it seems like we are devoid of them. Exactly, I hate to bash the K-giants but it seems like people give up in the ring or don't really want to fight them. No action in the championship bouts is killing the heavyweight division!! Green K for you my friend!!

Man The Heavyweight Division is at an all time low.. Bunch of fat Nobodies with no talent.. Now in the 70's.. that where the Real golden Era was right?? I mean you had guys Like Chuck Wepner in the top 10 for over 3 years.. Wepner is most famous for Knocking down Ali with one of the 7 punches he landed over 15 rounds.. (I am not kidding BTW.. he landed about 7 punches over 15 rounds) Chuck Wepner was 30-9-2 when he fought Ali and he had a Top 10 ranking.. he landed 7 punches in a championship fight.. When he fought Ali.. he had already been KO'd by Sonny Liston, George Foreman,Joe Bunger and to an 11-1-1 Jerry Judge.. This Man was TOP 10 ranked for years... I present to you the top 10 Ring magazine rankings for 1973 1973 Champ- George Foreman 1. Muhammad Ali 2. Joe Frazier 3. Ken Norton 4. Jerry Quarry 5. Ron Lyle 6. Earnie Shavers 7. Oscar Bonavena 8. Joe Bugner 9. Jimmy Ellis 10.Chuck Wepner The top 5 certainly looks impressive enough Who are these ATG from 6-10??? How about 1976?? 1976 Champ- Muhammad Ali 1. George Foreman 2. Ken Norton 3. Jimmy Young 4. Duane Bobick 5. Ron Lyle 6. Larry Holmes 7. Howard Smith 8. Johnny Boudreaux 9. Stan Ward 10.Joe Bugner haha, so are you trying to call Oscar Bonavena, Shavers, Ellis and Bugner nobodies? you might want to watch some footage of them. just maybe. Bonavena would have beaten everyone other than the Klitschko brothers, easily. Wepner wasnt all that great, but he would still be top ten today. the HW division started to go downhill after a certain point, when all the old greats were falling apart.

That's because you don't know very much about the heavyweight division. There's about 20 good heavyweights coming up in Europe, people like Dimitrenko, Povetkin, Boytsov, Kretschmann, Pala, Wawrzyk, etc. The heavyweight divisions has LOTS of talent in Europe. But, the reality is there are only ONE or TWO decent heavyweights under age 30 in the US - in fact, perhaps the only one is Arreola. And you know about these guys and a lot of Americans don't. We don't really have access to European fights when obviously you do. Maybe you could point us in the right direction to gain insight to these guys.

Even if the later 70s didn't have as good as contenders for the lower rank, you can argue the lower welters of today aren't as good as the top, but that's just how a division can be sometimes. Still the top contenders for most of the 70s especially unitl 76 were top notch. Compare 71-76 to 04-09 and I'll take the 70s ANYDAY. There was just that much better talent in general.