Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Dillian Whyte Stops Alexander Povetkin in Fourth To Get Revenge

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • billeau2
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

    So what is you actual judgement of the win? A good world class win? A very good world class win? A great win? An ATG win? Or did it mean nothing?

    Myself, i'd go with a good win. But i couldn't go beyond that.

    As for Usyk...

    Moving to Heavy isn't exactly going to be natural for him. He did so for the money and the much bigger fights, not because he couldn't make weight any more. Of course it's going to slow him down and change him. But until he's really in there with a big threat, we won't know how he'll react to it.

    Bellew did the right thing in making Usyk fight on the front foot. He's fluent when someone presses him, but becomes a much lesser fighter when it's the other way round. But you get that with most fighters who prefer to fight on the back foot and using the ring. Funny enough, Ali was one of them.
    The win itself was imo very good, the series, primarily because of the first fight was excellent... I am undecided on whether I consider Joe an ATG. He was fantastic but not on a proverbial "short list" of the ten greatest heavy weights.

    I like Bellew. I agree how he handled Usyk. Yes, fighting off the back leg is a skill, it gives the fighter more time to react to the punch because it has to travel farther to reach him. I thought the Chisora fight was a big indicator. I always like to look at the big picture and history repeats itself in boxing. A talented cruiser/light heavy will, at some point go for "the money" as you put it. When they do if the division is weak they can make head way. for example Tunney beating Dempsey. If Usyk can beat a decent marque heavy weight the division is probably still a ways off from being strong, if not, the talent is there... think Ruiz being handled by Jones, in contrast to bob foster, a wicked puncher, losing to Frazier.

    With that said, I like Usyk being around and am anticipating watching him against a guy like Joyce, or Ruiz, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid-Knee
    replied
    Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

    One has two competing ideas here: On the one hand it is easy to explain away almost any victory. People often will say things like "Well Jones beat Toney up, but Toney really had not trained, and if he has things would have been different"... you get the idea. In point of fact it is probably a relative rare circumstance where two great fighters, both had great camps, are at the apogee of their greatness, the judges are excellent and impartial, the ring, gloves, etc favors neither fighter. Usually one guy has some advantages in virtually every fight. This situation is one reason it was great when guys fought more... They would inevitably fight fellow greats more, so we could get a sort of average for who bested who... think LaMotta Robinson for example... these guys fought like 6 times.

    With that said? Frazier fought in a style that has a relatively early expiration date, much like Dempsey, Tyson and Marciano. These guys depended on keeping the head moving...the legs being very strongable to assume a perpetual crouch, a lot of activity vis a vis constant pressure, etc. I had a thought recently regarding this situation regarding Usyk. I had said his head movement was limited, and he fought in back/fourth lines... I watched him younger, at cruiser. I see a guy with great head movement, angles, making adaptations in the ring, hitting to all parts of the body... what gives? I think Usyk has lost a step. as a cruiser watching him he looks like one of the greatest, and is not the same guy I saw against bellew and Chisora by any stretch. Could it be that "expiration?" I don't know, it could also be Usyk needs a certain degree of physical control to do all the things he can/could do... But no9t the same fighter IMO.

    So, was Frazier beat up for the rematch(s)? I don't know, could be he lost a step. He was older and fought in a style that is predisposed to early expiration. Foreman certainly did a number on him. I personally do not rate the Frazier Ali trilogy as "special" regarding Ali. Fighters like Young, Lyle and Shavers, not to mention Norton, were all imo as capable as smoking joe. The thing that stands out for me is how competative the whole era was during that time. A guy like Zora Folley, a decent fighter who was from the era before, would have been pasted fighting in the 70's lol. You see the mark left... a lot of superb technical fighters in the Holmes era, but unable to perform, compete at a top physical level like the 70's guys.
    So what is you actual judgement of the win? A good world class win? A very good world class win? A great win? An ATG win? Or did it mean nothing?

    Myself, i'd go with a good win. But i couldn't go beyond that.

    As for Usyk...

    Moving to Heavy isn't exactly going to be natural for him. He did so for the money and the much bigger fights, not because he couldn't make weight any more. Of course it's going to slow him down and change him. But until he's really in there with a big threat, we won't know how he'll react to it.

    Bellew did the right thing in making Usyk fight on the front foot. He's fluent when someone presses him, but becomes a much lesser fighter when it's the other way round. But you get that with most fighters who prefer to fight on the back foot and using the ring. Funny enough, Ali was one of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • billeau2
    replied
    Originally posted by juggernaut666 View Post
    Povetkin lost as I expected but he got the best payday outside a title fight . He wanted the rematch and was bonded to a contract . Why posters didn’t understand that is just normal around here .
    Lol. exactly. Your going to take the fight... it was obvious Povetkin was not doing well.

    Leave a comment:


  • billeau2
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

    OK, so we agree it didn't mean anything.

    What about Frazier in the Ali rematch? How good a win do you think this was? Frazier had been destroyed by Foreman not that long ago, and didn't actually go on to do anything worthwhile after that loss. Do you rate it? If so, how much do you rate it?
    One has two competing ideas here: On the one hand it is easy to explain away almost any victory. People often will say things like "Well Jones beat Toney up, but Toney really had not trained, and if he has things would have been different"... you get the idea. In point of fact it is probably a relative rare circumstance where two great fighters, both had great camps, are at the apogee of their greatness, the judges are excellent and impartial, the ring, gloves, etc favors neither fighter. Usually one guy has some advantages in virtually every fight. This situation is one reason it was great when guys fought more... They would inevitably fight fellow greats more, so we could get a sort of average for who bested who... think LaMotta Robinson for example... these guys fought like 6 times.

    With that said? Frazier fought in a style that has a relatively early expiration date, much like Dempsey, Tyson and Marciano. These guys depended on keeping the head moving...the legs being very strongable to assume a perpetual crouch, a lot of activity vis a vis constant pressure, etc. I had a thought recently regarding this situation regarding Usyk. I had said his head movement was limited, and he fought in back/fourth lines... I watched him younger, at cruiser. I see a guy with great head movement, angles, making adaptations in the ring, hitting to all parts of the body... what gives? I think Usyk has lost a step. as a cruiser watching him he looks like one of the greatest, and is not the same guy I saw against bellew and Chisora by any stretch. Could it be that "expiration?" I don't know, it could also be Usyk needs a certain degree of physical control to do all the things he can/could do... But no9t the same fighter IMO.

    So, was Frazier beat up for the rematch(s)? I don't know, could be he lost a step. He was older and fought in a style that is predisposed to early expiration. Foreman certainly did a number on him. I personally do not rate the Frazier Ali trilogy as "special" regarding Ali. Fighters like Young, Lyle and Shavers, not to mention Norton, were all imo as capable as smoking joe. The thing that stands out for me is how competative the whole era was during that time. A guy like Zora Folley, a decent fighter who was from the era before, would have been pasted fighting in the 70's lol. You see the mark left... a lot of superb technical fighters in the Holmes era, but unable to perform, compete at a top physical level like the 70's guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • juggernaut666
    replied
    Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

    People should really put themselves in Povetkin's place... Your a tough, able mensch... and you have a family to support... Who will put Borscht on the table? I had a Sensei who has since left us who used to make it absolute that before doing any disarm to put yourself in as the weapon holder... You could throw out 95% of the crap that went for legit technique lol. I doubt anyone here would not have taken this fight lol.
    Povetkin lost as I expected but he got the best payday outside a title fight . He wanted the rematch and was bonded to a contract . Why posters didn’t understand that is just normal around here .

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid-Knee
    replied
    Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

    Ali was way more capable than Patterson at that time, primarily because Patterson was past it. Most boxing people do not think these fights with Patterson meant much. Actually, Patterson wanted to fight Liston... People around him were trying to prevent the fight... even president Kennedy weighed in asking him not to take on Liston lol. "World class" is relative. Patterson came to his reign at a time when the division was weak. Like I said, there are many times the division was lacking. At his best Patterson had some of the fastest hands at heavyweight but did not have the size, or strength. He was courageous though, much to his detriment. there was no way he was going to beat Liston and everyone,but him knew that.
    OK, so we agree it didn't mean anything.

    What about Frazier in the Ali rematch? How good a win do you think this was? Frazier had been destroyed by Foreman not that long ago, and didn't actually go on to do anything worthwhile after that loss. Do you rate it? If so, how much do you rate it?

    Leave a comment:


  • billeau2
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

    Many people make comments in North America about how bad this era or another is without actually knowing how bad the eras of the past actually are. When you know what you're looking at, you see just how dead they really were.

    I don't even consider Patterson to be a good fighter. Yeah, he had skills, But skills aren't where you prove yourself. Beating other world level fighters is. But not only that, he was yet another who came from a much lower weight. Clearly showing how bad the era was at Heavyweight. He fought what i suppose was a decent fighter in Johansson, but he most certainly wasn't world level. And yet, he lost to him. This was while ducking Liston because he and Cus didn't believe for a second he could win. They were right. Because when he did finally pluck up the courage to get in there with Liston, he was taken out in 1 round. Then again in the first round in the rematch. At no point did he fight and win against anyone remotely world class. When he did, he lost.

    But when it came to fighting Ali, not only had he not proven himself world level regardless of once having the title, but he was well past it. Do you agree the win for Ali over Patterson twice meant nothing? Or do you think it was a world level win, and therefore a good win? You don't make it clear?
    Ali was way more capable than Patterson at that time, primarily because Patterson was past it. Most boxing people do not think these fights with Patterson meant much. Actually, Patterson wanted to fight Liston... People around him were trying to prevent the fight... even president Kennedy weighed in asking him not to take on Liston lol. "World class" is relative. Patterson came to his reign at a time when the division was weak. Like I said, there are many times the division was lacking. At his best Patterson had some of the fastest hands at heavyweight but did not have the size, or strength. He was courageous though, much to his detriment. there was no way he was going to beat Liston and everyone,but him knew that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid-Knee
    replied
    Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

    Keep something in mind, as this applies regarding Patterson and most heavyweight Champs. Many times a great fighter does not have a fellow great, while in prime to compete with. It has to do with averages concerning the weight of most human beings. In a nutshell, because there are more people in the middle weight classes range of weight, there will be many more talented Fighters in those divisions. For example, in Thailand the heavyweight champion for Thai boxing it's not even considered relevant. The champ is the middleweight title holder.

    so you will see many great Fighters in the heavyweight division who never faced the fellow greats. Now specifically regarding Patterson, I think Patterson had a lot of gifts but I think his chin and his size ultimately could be exploited virtually at any time by another great fighter. I say great, but not atG great...Patterson had Lightning Fast combos, he was tough, and a pretty good chin.

    Patterson was past it, pretty much with Liston,, who regardless never would beat... by the time we are talking Ali...lol. I call Patterson great because he was the youngest champ for a while in the heavyweights. He also did have some great technical abilities. But most historians do not consider Patterson an atg. I certainly don't.
    Many people make comments in North America about how bad this era or another is without actually knowing how bad the eras of the past actually are. When you know what you're looking at, you see just how dead they really were.

    I don't even consider Patterson to be a good fighter. Yeah, he had skills, But skills aren't where you prove yourself. Beating other world level fighters is. But not only that, he was yet another who came from a much lower weight. Clearly showing how bad the era was at Heavyweight. He fought what i suppose was a decent fighter in Johansson, but he most certainly wasn't world level. And yet, he lost to him. This was while ducking Liston because he and Cus didn't believe for a second he could win. They were right. Because when he did finally pluck up the courage to get in there with Liston, he was taken out in 1 round. Then again in the first round in the rematch. At no point did he fight and win against anyone remotely world class. When he did, he lost.

    But when it came to fighting Ali, not only had he not proven himself world level regardless of once having the title, but he was well past it. Do you agree the win for Ali over Patterson twice meant nothing? Or do you think it was a world level win, and therefore a good win? You don't make it clear?

    Leave a comment:


  • REDEEMER
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

    When the subject is "Who won what fights and such" then yes, you're supposed to score the rounds and come to a conclusion. We then discuss to see if our scoring make sense or not by delving into the facts and what not. I don't look at how pretty Lewis Hamilton's car is and how fast it goes to determine whether he won a race or not. That would be backwards in any sane person's book and would have people laugh at me. Especially when you're disagreeing on who actually won between Norton and Ali.

    Where do i claim Frazier and Foreman are bums? Please point this out to me?

    You're really all over the place here. At first you claimed Ellis was great and disagreed with me on how good he was, then you agreed with me by claiming he was just a decent fighter after all. You're coming up with analogies that really don't make any sense what so ever. You're claiming i'm saying things when i'm not. You're saying things that i'm pointing out to you, only for you to then claim you didn't say it. That's why i asked "Are you even reading what i'm writing, because it looks to me you're not". Sorry, but this is a strange discussion if i'm being honest. If you were a troll just trying to mess with my head, then it would make sense. But if you're actually being serious, then i'm sorry but i'm going to have to point it out. It's like you telling me that a movie i watched is wrong with my description of scenes that took place in said film. I then ask what you think is wrong, only for you come up with scenes that didn't even happen is said movie. In fact, you're talking about a different movie and genre altogether. You then claim you didn't actually watch the movie i'm talking about, but rubbed some pineapples on yourself and had it revealed what happened in said movie without even watching the damn thing. So yes, that's crazy with the subject matter we're discussing here.

    Look, lets keep it simple. OK?

    Lets leave Norton alone. We agree on Young, so it's cool.

    Who did you have winning in the Shavers/Ali fight? I had Shavers by 2 points. Agree? Disagree?
    “You're claiming i'm saying things when i'm not. You're saying things that i'm pointing out to you, only for you to then claim you didn't say it”


    Silly Billy got you to ? That’s that posters signature move , just don’t make a ban bet with him the forum won’t comply when he loses .

    Leave a comment:


  • billeau2
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid-Knee View Post

    OK, so you had Shavers taking it? I thought it was a very easy fight to score due to not that many punches being thrown and nothing much going on with the inside work with them both just throwing non stop punches at each other and making it harder to score.

    Patterson?? I never saw him beat a single good world class fighter when he was in his prime, but by the time he fought Ali, he was done. What says you?
    Keep something in mind, as this applies regarding Patterson and most heavyweight Champs. Many times a great fighter does not have a fellow great, while in prime to compete with. It has to do with averages concerning the weight of most human beings. In a nutshell, because there are more people in the middle weight classes range of weight, there will be many more talented Fighters in those divisions. For example, in Thailand the heavyweight champion for Thai boxing it's not even considered relevant. The champ is the middleweight title holder.

    so you will see many great Fighters in the heavyweight division who never faced the fellow greats. Now specifically regarding Patterson, I think Patterson had a lot of gifts but I think his chin and his size ultimately could be exploited virtually at any time by another great fighter. I say great, but not atG great...Patterson had Lightning Fast combos, he was tough, and a pretty good chin.

    Patterson was past it, pretty much with Liston,, who regardless never would beat... by the time we are talking Ali...lol. I call Patterson great because he was the youngest champ for a while in the heavyweights. He also did have some great technical abilities. But most historians do not consider Patterson an atg. I certainly don't.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X
TOP