Comments Thread For: David Can Be Great if He Drops The Haymakers

[Spray_resistant]

With the possible exception of Chambers, what Heavyweight in the last 5 years (other than the Klitschkos) has consistently performed well by the standards of the past???? Not one.

There was lots of lousy HWs in every era and only a couple of very good fighters in most eras other than in that 70's which was the best era.

Its not really much different from the norm but it seems many have a preconceived prejudice against the K-bros so find ways to justify their domination of this era.

This era right now is better than when Tyson began his domination.

[Rickety Cricket]

The article is ****ty. Diva Hay is already became a b***h for her 2 runaways from Klichko brothers and her female talking all the time.Talking,talking,talking,as real woman. She prefer talking than doing.

you said it perfectly

[Dave Rado]

There was lots of lousy HWs in every era and only a couple of very good fighters in most eras other than in that 70's which was the best era.

Its not really much different from the norm but it seems many have a preconceived prejudice against the K-bros so find ways to justify their domination of this era.

This era right now is better than when Tyson began his domination.

You're right that people keep referring to the early 70s and contrasting them with now as if that were a typical era, whereas it was anything but typical. Most of the Holmes' era wasn't significantly better than the current era. The Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield/Bowe era was far better than the current era, and so were the early 70s, but I agree that most other eras only had a couple of world class and in-shape Heavyweights and a lot of also-rans. I think part of it is that people are spoilt because the Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield/Bowe era was so recent; and even the early 70s era is still quite fresh in a lot of people's memories. I don't think you can put it down entirely to prejudice. This is a very weak era, which follows a very strong one, and the fact it follows a strong one has more to do with people's perceptions of it than mere prejudice, IMO. If it were just prejudice, you wouldn't get virtually every respected boxing historian agreeing about it. Another factor is that it's so long since there was any really good young Heavyweights other than the Klitschkos - this is certainly one of the longest weak eras in boxing history, IMO, even if it isn't the weakest right now. Also, there are two world class Heavyweights, but they will never fight each other, so it's no better than if there were only one. In fact it's worse, because there's no universal agreement about which one is better.

[Kayoer]

tourlou82-Sucking **** is your job b***h,How ****** you are at 28 years,but it's ok for b***hes like you if you do a BJ right.And don't try to be a sexy teacher and spell check,I does not F care your b***h opinion. So get the F out of here b***h teacher. And by the way I'm not a Ukranian, you are ****** b***h, I told you already,you better make a good BJs to your clients and lick Diva's Hay c**t.

[Tiozzo]

Ellis was far from being a great Heavyweight and wouldn't have a hope in hell against the current version of either Klitschko. Quarry was game and exciting but not much better than Arreola (albeit more in shape). Young was no better than Chambers. Bugner wouldn't be in today's top 5. Chuvalo and Bonavena were good but very inconsistent and wouldn't have a chance against the current version of either Klitschko. Shavers had a huge punch but was very limited, and wasn't much better than Sanders. And the Holmes era was marked by a similar weak Heavyweight division to today's - most of the top fighters didn't train properly during his reign, and frequently turned up badly overweight for fights.

The early 70s was one of the best eras in boxing history, but there have been many weak eras, including the late 70s - today's is far from being the first or the worst. And several of the fighters you named don't help your case.

You missed my point, obviously. All the fighters I named were not great. My point was that there were a lot of great fighters fighting each other in that era (Frazier, Ali, Norton, Foreman) and some good fighters were in the mix too (Ellis, Bugner, Young, etc). It was a good era because there were a lot of good and competitive fights to be made.

I hope the comment about Quarry not being a better fighter than Arreola was a joke (even though it was obviously not). Quarry was a very skilled fighter. Foreman named him the best counterpuncher of his era and the only man he intentionnaly ducked during his reign (see Youtube). He could have been great had his skin not been so soft (because of cuts, and I'm basically quoting Frazier here).

The Holmes era wasn't that bad. He fought many good fighters, some of which were on the way out, but it was still a decent era (still much better than now). Holmes has had some unbelievable fights (Norton is one of them).

There have been lows before, of course. But you can't honestly deny that the HW division is at its lowest EVER, because there are just not enough good and great fighters.

[Tiozzo]

You're right that people keep referring to the early 70s and contrasting them with now as if that were a typical era, whereas it was anything but typical. Most of the Holmes' era wasn't significantly better than the current era. The Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield/Bowe era was far better than the current era, and so were the early 70s, but I agree that most other eras only had a couple of world class and in-shape Heavyweights and a lot of also-rans. I think part of it is that people are spoilt because the Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield/Bowe era was so recent; and even the early 70s era is still quite fresh in a lot of people's memories. I don't think you can put it down entirely to prejudice. This is a very weak era, which follows a very strong one, and the fact it follows a strong one has more to do with people's perceptions of it than mere prejudice, IMO. If it were just prejudice, you wouldn't get virtually every respected boxing historian agreeing about it. Another factor is that it's so long since there was any really good young Heavyweights other than the Klitschkos - this is certainly one of the longest weak eras in boxing history, IMO, even if it isn't the weakest right now. Also, there are two world class Heavyweights, but they will never fight each other, so it's no better than if there were only one. In fact it's worse, because there's no universal agreement about which one is better.

good post

[Dave Rado]

You missed my point, obviously. All the fighters I named were not great. My point was that there were a lot of great fighters fighting each other in that era (Frazier, Ali, Norton, Foreman) and some good fighters were in the mix too (Ellis, Bugner, Young, etc). It was a good era because there were a lot of good and competitive fights to be made.

The early 70s was certainly a much better one than the current one, but you seem to agree with my other post in which I said it was far from typical, and that it's therefore not fair to keep comparing the current one with that one.

I hope the comment about Quarry not being a better fighter than Arreola was a joke (even though it was obviously not). Quarry was a very skilled fighter. Foreman named him the best counterpuncher of his era and the only man he intentionally ducked during his reign (see Youtube). He could have been great had his skin not been so soft (because of cuts, and I'm basically quoting Frazier here).

He was skilled but it wasn't just cuts. In their second fight, Ali beat him very easily indeed and Quarry was never in the fight even for a moment. The first was more competitive, but that was Ali's first fight after a nearly four year lay-off He was a very small heavyweight by today's standards and I don't think he had the style to compensate for his lack of reach against really big men, despite what Foreman said. I'm not sanguine that he'd be have been able to beat Arreola - I'd have that as a pick 'em fight.

The Holmes era wasn't that bad. He fought many good fighters, some of which were on the way out, but it was still a decent era (still much better than now). Holmes has had some unbelievable fights (Norton is one of them).

The Norton fight was great but was at the very start of his reign. His other great fights (Shavers, Witherspoon, Cooney) were against fighters who I doubt would have done better today than they did then.

There have been lows before, of course. But you can't honestly deny that the HW division is at its lowest EVER, because there are just not enough good and great fighters.

Well based on your other post, we seem to be agreed that it's probably the longest weak era, anyway.