Some people are coming up with ridiculous ways to discredit past greats like Ali, Frazier, Foreman and other American heavyweights of their time. They do this by saying the only reason why they were dominating were because the Soviet boxers weren't allowed to box in the pros.
So I decided to look into this myth, which I find quite interesting.
First off, let's go to the amateur system of the day:
http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/05/705-004-2C8A6F60.jpg
This is Joe Frazier in the Olympics '64 finals against Hans Huber of Germany.
As you can see - small gloves + no head guard.
Amateur boxing pre 1984 was very similar to professional boxing. Of course, the number of rounds were fewer and they gave standing counts, but they weren't as soft with the counts as they are in today's amateur boxing.
This meant a lot of guys in the amateurs were laid out.
Anyway, the point of this is that we can measure the highest ranked Soviet/eastern European fighters of their day by comparing them to the highest ranked American fighter of their day - in this case I'll be using the three musketeers of the 'golden era' Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and George Foreman.
So, let's have a look at Muhammad Ali - though only a light heavyweight in his amateur days as a mere 18 years old.
He fought the highest ranked light heavyweight of the Soviet Union - Gennadiy Shatkov and didn't lose a round. In fact, he was hardly touched in the fight - and Shatkov was a 3 time gold medalist.
In the final he faced respectable Polish amateur Zbigniew Pietrzykowski, who he also beat for every single round.
Now, these were only light heavyweights though, so the next example will have a lot more relevance to today's boxing and especially boxing then.
Joe Frazier vs Vadim Yemelyanov
So the argument from one side is that Joe Frazier was too small to deal with a modern heavyweight - of course on top of the other argument that if the Soviet fighters were pro they would have dominated.
Yemelynov was 6'4 & 230 lbs. He was the number 1 ranked Soviet fighter. here's what happened:
Safe to assume more rounds wouldn't have done wonders for Yemelynov who was getting tagged by Frazier's left hook and ultimately laid out.
This brings us to George Foreman, who was relatively untested by the time he came to the Olympics with roughly 20 amateur fights.
He defeated Polish #1 Lucjan Trela 4:1.
Foreman then proceeded to stop the tough #1 Soviet heavyweight, 6'3, 220 lbs Ionas Chepulis in the finals - giving him a Vitali-esque face in the process.
Here you go:
Anyway, I don't see how anyone can make a sound argument that these Soviet fighters would have dominated the 60s and 70s when they lost quite badly against very green versions of the three fighters.
What are your thoughts?
It stills boils down to speculation/ fantasy fight stuff.
Not really. They did fight in the amateurs and the results were in resounding favour of the americans.
But this is obviously true overall (refer to my list), for all weight classes over all Olympics since 1960 (your golden era), the Eastern Bloc DID outclass the Americans..
The only speculation boils down to the specific examples you highlighted where the Americans DID beat the Soviets...
It stands to reason, if the Russians did so well without even having pro boxing and the associated developed boxing industry to rear their fighters, that had that been in place and growing since the banning od professional sport in Russia, it is VERY likely that your heroes who did win, would never have existed either.
It's really not difficult to understand.
Pretty much, for you, the Soviets would have had to win every medal at every Olympics and never once let Americans ever beat them the whole time for you to declare they were good, a ridiculous standard to hold. And THEN you would still claim they were playing basketball anyway!
Your pathetic mate!
It's unbelievable what Russia achieved over the US with only a rudimentary boxing industry, and you try to take that away with such a flimsy argument as this? GTFOOH!
How long did it take Russia to undermine you guys once restrictions were lifted? Half a century of development was superceded in about 10 years!
So much for your theory.
Dude you are clueless.
I'm not American and I've never used that theory with basketball for anything other than that guy in this thread who mentioned hockey.
You are so far entangled with race and blindness that you're still trying divert the thread topic.
One great? :lol1:
And yes that is the point because you amongst others have said that those boxers would have dominated had they been allowed to turn pro. Which is obviously utter nonsense.
.
But this is obviously true overall (refer to my list), for all weight classes over all Olympics since 1960 (your golden era), the Eastern Bloc DID outclass the Americans..
The only speculation boils down to the specific examples you highlighted where the Americans DID beat the Soviets...
It stands to reason, if the Russians did so well without even having pro boxing and the associated developed boxing industry to rear their fighters, that had that been in place and growing since the banning od professional sport in Russia, it is VERY likely that your heroes who did win, would never have existed either.
It's really not difficult to understand.
Pretty much, for you, the Soviets would have had to win every medal at every Olympics and never once let Americans ever beat them the whole time for you to declare they were good, a ridiculous standard to hold. And THEN you would still claim they were playing basketball anyway!
Your pathetic mate!
It's unbelievable what Russia achieved over the US with only a rudimentary boxing industry, and you try to take that away with such a flimsy argument as this? GTFOOH!
How long did it take Russia to undermine you guys once restrictions were lifted? Half a century of development was superceded in about 10 years!
So much for your theory.
The great American heavyweights of the 60's-70's were greater than their eastern bloc counterparts that much is clear.
Also it was the Cubans that would have rewritten professional boxing history more so than the Soviets.
Great thread.
American HW's were in shape back then.
Right now I think only Deontay Wilder and Seth Mitchell are in great shape.
The 90s batch of American HWs were the last one's to consistently be in shape.
Bryant Jennings is also in great shape.
Great thread.
American HW's were in shape back then.
Right now I think only Deontay Wilder and Seth Mitchell are in great shape.
The 90s batch of American HWs were the last one's to consistently be in shape.
Once again, how many black fighters do you like?
Hmmm.. I would have say that I like two black fighters. Andre Ward and Keith Thurman.
I also like David Haye too.
As i say ive reported Lacedup for his blatant hatred towards a certain demographic, but what i really learned is how excellent debating this Elroy dude is. Welcome to NSB, you really have dismantled Lacedup preposterous "argument"
Once again, how many black fighters do you like?
Can you not understand where I'm coming from?
Your whole assessment is if these guys turned pro having only AT THAT MOMENT been allowed to! What a biased BS assessment. See my above reply for the quoted answer to your whole thread! :lol1:
And what trainers?
ONE great Soviet champ (Klitschko) was PARTLY trained by ONE great American trainer (Steward)...
The same one you guys complain about all the time for teaching Wlad to hold! There are some who even believe Sduneck was a better coach than Steward anyway. I think Steward did what he obviously did, ensured Wladimir victory at the expense of his excitement, he did little else noticeably better from a technical standpoint.
In my opinion, Euro trainers are evidently BETTER today. In my country alone, the national coach is a ****ing Euro ffs!
One great? :lol1:
Let's look at GGG - Abel Sanchez.
Klitschko - Manny Steward.
Kovalev - John David Jackson
Andrew Golota (eastern still)- Al Certo
Vitali - Sdunek (German - not eastern).
I wasn't even trying to say there isn't any great Russian trainers, I meant back in those days they would have had to go to America to get training.
And yes that is the point because you amongst others have said that those boxers would have dominated had they been allowed to turn pro. Which is obviously utter nonsense.
Oh I think we have summarised enough points now to consider your thread pretty much exposed mate...
Thanks for coming chump!
Good research still and nice baiting qualities... You'll try anything to bait me out of ignoring you :lol1:
If you guided that intelligence more toward analysis than you do history glorification you'd be worthy to take off ignore! Think about it!
What have you exposed? The first thing you did was to take this thread discussion into 21st century boxing :lol1:
This has nothing to do with the Klitschkos.
WTF? I live a 15 minute drive away from Mexico and the only sports I see Mexicans play on my side of the border is soccer, hand ball and of course, boxing.
We also play baseball, tennis, track and field, whatever sports are available to us which are many. It's usually the real Mexicans from Mexico that are playing soccer though lmao, I think 99% of our school soccer team was from mx.
99% of my school and city's football/bball team was MX American, including my 6'4 230lb brother who was that size when he was 11 years old. He chose football over boxing.
Mexican Americans are big, but not THAT big, more LHW size than anything, not so much HW size, either way we are much bigger than the natives, much larger frames, taller.
Klit tards getting shytted on lmao.
Only unfortunate events such injuries, or $$$ problems force guys like Wilder into boxing, they'd rather play basketball or football. They are a dime a dozen everywhere in America.
America even has a largely untapped source of boxers in Mexican Europeans.
We've got 50 Million+ Mexicans living in America, most are mixed with Spanish/German. We are much bigger than the natives of MX. Benavidez Jr. is an example, guys like him are a dime a dozen, even Saul Alvarez or DLH. We are all around 5'8+, allowing us to fight in much bigger divisions.
The majority of Mexicans are short, because their ancestors were natives.
Most of us Mexican Americans play bball, or football, such as myself, those sports rule this country. I have a few friends right now that are going to turn pro soon, one of them is 18 years old, ripped at 160lbs, 5'10. He's destroying guys in the amateurs with ease, it's ridiculous his strength/speed/power and boxing ability. There are actually a couple of Euro-Mexican Americans that will turn pro soon in my city, all around 5'10+, they will make noise in boxing.
WTF? I live a 15 minute drive away from Mexico and the only sports I see Mexicans play on my side of the border is soccer, hand ball and of course, boxing.
Klit tards getting shytted on lmao.
Only unfortunate events such injuries, or $$$ problems force guys like Wilder into boxing, they'd rather play basketball or football. They are a dime a dozen everywhere in America.
America even has a largely untapped source of boxers in Mexican Europeans.
We've got 50 Million+ Mexicans living in America, most are mixed with Spanish/German. We are much bigger than the natives of MX. Benavidez Jr. is an example, guys like him are a dime a dozen, even Saul Alvarez or DLH. We are all around 5'8+, allowing us to fight in much bigger divisions.
The majority of Mexicans are short, because their ancestors were natives.
Most of us Mexican Americans play bball, or football, such as myself, those sports rule this country. I have a few friends right now that are going to turn pro soon, one of them is 18 years old, ripped at 160lbs, 5'10. He's destroying guys in the amateurs with ease, it's ridiculous his strength/speed/power and boxing ability. There are actually a couple of Euro-Mexican Americans that will turn pro soon in my city, all around 5'10+, they will make noise in boxing.
As i say ive reported Lacedup for his blatant hatred towards a certain demographic, but what i really learned is how excellent debating this Elroy dude is. Welcome to NSB, you really have dismantled Lacedup preposterous "argument"
Well I have only just joined this thread.. So that's pretty quick..
And if you analyse every single post I have ever made here, you will not find a single one that doesn't detract from this exact position (try it), and on any occasion when I have been proven to be wrong, I have straight out admitted it and gave credit.
If that's too much for you to swallow, keep chewing!
The only agenda here is the one I outlined that dot point post above. (a page or 2 ago now)
Oh, I see.
I don't believe you. You have an agenda because if your point was to simply state something as simple and direct as "If the Soviets are better than the Americans at boxing, they are better, if they aren't, they aren't.." you could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just straight up said it a long time ago.
Well I have only just joined this thread.. So that's pretty quick..
And if you analyse every single post I have ever made here, you will not find a single one that doesn't detract from this exact position (try it), and on any occasion when I have been proven to be wrong, I have straight out admitted it and gave credit.
If that's too much for you to swallow, keep chewing!
The only agenda here is the one I outlined that dot point post above. (a page or 2 ago now)
To be fair all African Americans know that every single player in the NBA including the crap ones on the bench (minus the white guys) would be world heavyweight champion boxers.
:lol1:
:lol1:
Yes.. I'm sure they do :)
Sarcasm noted!
Basketball isn't even a contact sport!
Isn't even remotely in the same skillset.
And tall fighters like basketballers, require the longest pedigrees to train (more challenging balance)
I am not praising the Soviet position in boxing because I LIKE them better.
My position is this...
If the Soviets are better than the Canadians at Hockey, they are better, if they aren't, they aren't..
If the Soviets are better than the Americans at boxing, they are better, if they aren't, they aren't..
It so happens that the Soviets are better than the Americans at boxing both now, and analysing the only place they could have met US boxers in the distant past (Olympics), they have always been better overall!
I don't believe you. You have an agenda because if your point was to simply state something as simple and direct as "If the Soviets are better than the Americans at boxing, they are better, if they aren't, they aren't.." you could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just straight up said it a long time ago.
Can you not understand where I'm coming from?
Your whole assessment is if these guys turned pro having only AT THAT MOMENT been allowed to! What a biased BS assessment. See my above reply for the quoted answer to your whole thread! :lol1:
And what trainers?
ONE great Soviet champ (Klitschko) was PARTLY trained by ONE great American trainer (Steward)...
The same one you guys complain about all the time for teaching Wlad to hold! There are some who even believe Sduneck was a better coach than Steward anyway. I think Steward did what he obviously did, ensured Wladimir victory at the expense of his excitement, he did little else noticeably better from a technical standpoint.
In my opinion, Euro trainers are evidently BETTER today. In my country alone, the national coach is a ****ing Euro ffs!
For once I can agree with you on a few things.
The thread is obviously biased in the regard of what would have happened if fighters from the ex Soviet Union were allowed to fight professionally.
They could have trained wherever they liked, I said in the US because that was (is) were most great trainers worked, regardless of their nationality.
For instance GGG is trained by a Mexican, but trains in the US.
As for Europeans trainers getting better than their counterpart in the US, I don't know, many European fighters are still taught to fight in a certain style, working behind a jab and not mixing it up a lot, but it is not out of the question.
I still disagree with you regarding how past HW champions would have fared against the fat super HW's of this time, but on that we can agree to disagree.