Regarding the Lennox Lewis comparison; I don't agree with it. Lennox Lewis could compose himself when he was under pressure, he showed it in various fights, but Klitschko doesn't appear to be able to fight in the trenches. Lewis became complacent and was caught with two shots, it wasn't the same thing at all. There seems to be extreme arrogance from a lot of people where Klitschko is concerned. He has NOT shown he's gotten over his problems from the Sanders fight, because he hasn't fought Sanders again, or another fighters like Sanders. Since his last loss, he hasn't beaten a good name except for Chris Bryd; a guy he'd already beaten and who he was made for. Some would say Samuel Peter was a decent win, but at that time, Peter was not a proven top heavyweight, and to some degree he's still not.
At this moment in time, Klitschko is undoubtably the best of a bad bunch, but until he has shown he can overcome the faults he has shown in the past, I don't think anyone can legitimately claim he's on the sort of level Lennox Lewis was for much of his career, or that he's not always ''Walking a tightrope.'' I agree that Briggs is certainly not one of the greatest ''Champions'' ever, to put it mildly, but I think for some people to claim he's not a potentially dangerous opponent for Klitschko, given his size, power and hand-speed, shows a lot of arrogance, and may well come back to haunt those same people.
Excuses and assumptions do not make the career of anyone, it has to be there in black and white. Lewis did it, but up until this point, Klitschko hasn't, and may never. A good fighter, but with flaws which have not been tested recently to a great extent.
Well I'm not sure wheather there's too many heavyweights out there who would have a good chance, but certainly I think there's people with a legitimate chance. Anyone who has punch resistance problems like Klitschko is going to have problems at some point, regardless of their ability. Briggs and Maskaev are punchers, and because of that, they have to be taken seriously, I think Briggs poses more threat out of the two. I think Valuev because of his sheer physical presence, will be a handful for anyone, but he just isn't that good at anything it seems. I think Klitschko would outbox him to a UD.
Samuel Peter isn't someone who I think will change the division, but he did have some success in his fight with Klitschko and if he improves he may well have a chance if a second fight comes around.
Chagaev isn't someone I've seen in all honesty, but he did beat Ruiz, which a lot of decent fighters have found difficult, but at a listing of around 6'1'', I doubt he would really have the range, unless he has an exceptional jab.
Tony Thompson is a guy who's won a few decent fights, but he's another guy I've seen little of. He seems to be a spolier type, he certainly has some range, but with no real indication that there's a huge amount of power there; maybe he's just another Ray Austin, who knows.
David Tua looks a shadow of his former self, Lamon Brewster looks as though his days are numbered, Audley Harrison didn't even get to European level, never mind world level; Roman Greenberg looks reasonable, but nothing special and the rest are either has-beens or guys who are unproven as of yet.
The Cuban fellow Gomez is someone with talent, but as yet he is in no position to really challenge. All in all Klitschko is beatable, but the division is full of mediocrity.
It will be interesting to see if Briggs loses any of his bulk. He'd be a much better overall fighter if he lost about 20lbs of that. I still maintain that he's the main danger man for Klitschko.
Sultan Ibragimov will punch both of them into retirement. Well, if he happens to be in the mood that is. :cop:
He'll need to be in better form than he was against Ray Austin, or he'll not be punching anyone out but himself.
Some people are saying size isn't really an issue, but that simply isn't true; it's like the old saying goes, ''A good big guy will always beat a good little guy.'' Much smaller men need to make up for their size deficit by having exceptional qualities, and I just don't see great smaller men out there. I think if anyone will give Klitschko problems it will be a big guy.
He had at least a small portion of humble pie in his second fight with Peter, so I don't think taking a beating would really make him a better person. Klitschko would gain absolutely nothing from the victory anyway.
Ray Austin certainly has some range, but I don't think he has enough power to really pose much of a threat. Both men look to be in good shape and look how heavyweights should look. I just don't see that many people being able to beat Klitschko unless they knock him out. I haven't really seen much of Austin, but it would appear he's a spoiler type, and if he plays his cards right, he may well make it interesting.
He did change his style after the first Ward fight, in fairness. But overall he's taken an insane amount of punishment, and I don't think anyone would disagree if he decided to call it a day.
I'd like to see Austin give a good account of himself. The heavyweight division needs good fights to help improve it's image, but I'm not sure if this will be one of those fights. I think the only thing to save the heavyweight is an undisputed champion. There's too many meaningless fights.
I'm not sure how much Barrera has left, but it should still be a great fight. I prefer watching the higher weight classes, but some of these smaller guys put the bigger guys to shame at times.
There may well be a rose-tinted philosophy regarding old-time boxers, and even sports stars in general. I certainly don't think there's any denying the toughness and heart the old-time fighters possessed, but theoretically everything always evolves. Some of the great fighters from the past may have invented certain techniques and regimes which have stood the test of time, but even with their raw toughness and ability, without the natural size, nutrition and benefit of an accumulation of information, I just don't see how some of these guys could beat some of the modern day guys. Like Marciano vs Lewis for example.
''Knowledge is power'', and with every generation there is more knowledge.
A fine physical specimen, with a lot of skills and power, no question about that. I think some of the praising goes over the top though. Unfortunate or not, he has a weak side to him, one which will probably never go away. He has three losses on his record, none of which have been avenged. He has work to do to before truly big things can be said about him; I don't think he'll ever be mentioned up there with the best though.
I think some people just underestimate Hatton's ability. I think some people just see him as a dirty brawler, but to get where he's got to you need more than that. He's a crafty operator, not just a hot head. I do think there was perhaps a bit too much holding in his last fight, but he did look good early on. There's more to him than Gatti, but he needs a few more big fights to really prove himself, one of which is coming up.
Yeah, but steroids can help with confidence. Amazing what drugs can do.
Lets take the "Men" that are not on steroids for example:
A study showed that the "Elite", meaning the guys that are the "Freaks of nature" when it comes to measured testosterone levels, usually 1000ng+, are more daring, more aggressive, more willing to take risks.
Yes, steroids main purpose I am sure in the begining was to help muscle recovery and come back from injury, but add steroids to build your body, feel that high amount of testosterone in your body, and you start to feel like a "God"
.
Well, maybe to an extent, but no amount of drugs give you the skill, ability to take a shot, or the phenomenal amount of heart and drive that Holyfield has. The fundamental qualities Holyfield has, are natural, there's just no question about that IMO.
I'm going to play devils advocate and say there may be a certain element of people using this as an excuse to bash Holyfield over vented up frustration built up over the years, mostly due to him beating up their beloved Mike Tyson. I'm by no means saying everyone, but I'm willing to take a wild guess there's some.
Like I said, steroids do enhance confidence and ability.
.
It enhances endurance and strength, but not fundamental ability and overwhelming qualities that Holyfield has, like taking a great shot, and incredible drive and heart like we seen in the first Bowe fight, and his drive to keep going in the face of adversity. There's nothing wrong with highlighting the guy's flaws, of course he has flaws, personal and professional, but to completely discredit a man like Holyfield, who has shown almost superhuman qualities at times, is just very biased and hateful.
If someone had a drug that gave someone the qualities of Evander Holyfield, they'd be very very rich. Some qualities cannot be bought.
I've always liked Luan, I think he's among the better heavyweights out there, but he's just never had a lot of fights against decent opposition, and when he did get a shot, he was caught late into the fight when ahead on the cards. It's now or never for him.
Evander has evidence brought out against him - so he not only denies his own guilt, but brings up another fighter to distract attention away.
What a bitch.
Yeah a bitch like Tyson was for biting his ear.
There's a couple of reasons I don't like Evander Holyfield's name linked to these allegations on his own. Firstly, even if he did take them, there's many many others who did and have too. And secondly, no amount of drugs replace a heart like Holyfield's.
Holyfield seemed to get quite a bit bigger sometime around the early to mid 90's, I'm not sure of the exact dates, but Evander Holyfield was and remains one of the most dedicated athletes on the planet; a true workaholic. Considering he is a workaholic, I don't think it's unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. The bottom line is he's a legend and warrior. Drugs haven't made him what he was/is.
The fact of the matter is we don't know who took what, but he do know what they showed in the ring, and I've never heard of a drug that gives you the balls Holyfield has, or the determination. If he did take them, then yes, his legacy would be somewhat tainted, but even then, he's still be a legend in my book, and would be in huge company with a lot of other people who have taken drugs IMO. That's not to say that drugs should be acceptable, but it seems to be a huge part of sport.
I find it hard to believe that a boxer who has been pro for so many years wouldn't have been caught at some point. Lets just wait on evidence before we make any real judgements here.