After Arreola-Adamek I have noticed a new trend has started

[TheGreatA]

That Charles was HW champion is a testament to the division being worse than it is now, I doubta LHW will ever make it up to HW and defeat the HW champion (keep in mind I'm refering to defeating THE champion, not picking a belt). Byrd was a HW for most of his career. Was Ezzard Charles a HW for most of his career?

Yes he was. Charles was a heavyweight from 1947 to 1959 which is 12 years. I don't think it's necessarily a testament to the division being worse, Charles was an all-time great with great skills. Fighters like Toney, Byrd and Jones have hung around in the current heavyweight division so I don't see why Charles couldn't, especially with today's advantages in building weight.

He lost to Ross Purity when he was still coming up and far from the finished product, not when he was in his prime, you said Walcott was in his prime when he fought Joe Louis. Vitali is known for losing to Lewis, yes, but being known is different than getting credit for it, in fact Vitali gets a lot of flak for it, and he didn't get KOed, the doctor stopped the fight.

Puritty beating Wladimir shows that even a journeyman can be a dangerous opponent if he can punch. Sheppard was just like that, he beat a couple of good fighters because he could hit. I'm not saying that Walcott was great because he beat Sheppard but he was one of the many contenders that he defeated.

Vitali gets some criticism, but admits himself that it was his most notable fight. The fight made him in a lot of people's eyes as he showed heart that a lot of people thought he didn't have, and he did it against a great if not a prime opponent.

Where can I watch said fight? Schmeling didn't beat 10 Chagaev level opponents, those opponents were much worse than Chagaev. I could as easily argue that Schmeling's win against Louis is proof that Louis wasn't that good, and not that Schmeling was good, just like people do with Sanders and Purity.

There's some parts of it on youtube. Maybe the whole fight will eventually end up there. It's out there.

I'd say that Sharkey was better than Chagaev, Uzcudun and Stribling were about in the same class. Schmeling was better than Sanders and Puritty and to Louis's credit he avenged the loss in devastating fashion, although it still doesn't erase Schmeling's accomplishment. I don't count Vitali beating them as Wladimir avenging his losses.

[Pirao]

Yes he was. Charles was a heavyweight from 1947 to 1959 which is 12 years. I don't think it's necessarily a testament to the division being worse, Charles was an all-time great with great skills. Fighters like Toney, Byrd and Jones have hung around in the current heavyweight division so I don't see why Charles couldn't, especially with today's advantages in building weight.

Toney and Jones never became THE HW champion. I'm not sure if Byrd was the man at HW at some point after Lennox retired. Byrd has almost always been a HW during his pro career, albeit a small one. I don't see todays advantages in building weight, maybe in the lower weight classes, certainly not at HW, when was the last time someone moved up from LHW to HW and beat the man?

Puritty beating Wladimir shows that even a journeyman can be a dangerous opponent if he can punch. Sheppard was just like that, he beat a couple of good fighters because he could hit. I'm not saying that Walcott was great because he beat Sheppard but he was one of the many contenders that he defeated.

I wasn't syaing that either, I'm saying that if a journeyman was considered a top contender in that era, then the competition must no have been very good. Purritty beating Wladimir shows that Wladimir was young and inexperienced, and didn't fight with his current style. It has as much significance as Pacquiao's loss to Rustico Torrecampo.

Vitali gets some criticism, but admits himself that it was his most notable fight. The fight made him in a lot of people's eyes as he showed heart that a lot of people thought he didn't have, and he did it against a great if not a prime opponent.

Again, a fight being notable is different from you getting credit for it. Most well known fight of Vitali's resume, sure. Does he get credit for it? Not really.

There's some parts of it on youtube. Maybe the whole fight will eventually end up there. It's out there.

I'd say that Sharkey was better than Chagaev, Uzcudun and Stribling were about in the same class. Schmeling was better than Sanders and Puritty and to Louis's credit he avenged the loss in devastating fashion, although it still doesn't erase Schmeling's accomplishment. I don't count Vitali beating them as Wladimir avenging his losses.

Uzcudun and Stribling were not in Chagaev's class. Chagaev has won a piece of the HW title and has a better record and better amateur pedigree than them, not to mention he has not lost to the Valuev of his time, while those guys did lose to Primo Carnera. A thing that bugs me greatly is how current fighters get ripped on for loses while the old guys get a free pass for their losses. Yes, Joe Louis avenged his loss, that's why Joe Louis is ranked ahead of Wlad (among other things), however if Wlad gets **** for getting beat by Sanders and Puritty why shouldn't Louis get **** too for being beaten by a mediocre fighter like Schmelling, while he was in his prime (Wlad's losses were not in his prime). The things is, Schmeling beating Louis is looked on as an accomplishment for Schmeling and not a shame for Louis, while Purity and Sanders betaing Wlad are looked on as shame on Wlad and not an accomplishment for them, another example that old timers get a free pass for their losses.

[TheGreatA]

Toney and Jones never became THE HW champion. I'm not sure if Byrd was the man at HW at some point after Lennox retired. Byrd has almost always been a HW during his pro career, albeit a small one. I don't see todays advantages in building weight, maybe in the lower weight classes, certainly not at HW, when was the last time someone moved up from LHW to HW and beat the man?

Michael Moorer did it although that was back in the 90's, but still it doesn't mean the era was weak. Holyfield used to fight at 178-190 and was a great heavyweight for a long time. Adamek has recently moved up from 175 up to heavyweight. Adding muscle is much easier with today's nutrition and conditioning, I don't think anyone can deny that. Dawson is thinking of moving up to the heavyweight division at some point, we'll see how that goes.

I wasn't syaing that either, I'm saying that if a journeyman was considered a top contender in that era, then the competition must no have been very good. Purritty beating Wladimir shows that Wladimir was young and inexperienced, and didn't fight with his current style. It has as much significance as Pacquiao's loss to Rustico Torrecampo.

Sheppard wasn't a top 5 contender, he was a fringe contender who was ranked in the top 10. Pacquiao was 17 years old with little experience while Wladimir was 22 years old, an Olympic gold medalist with the experience of hundreds of amateur fights and unbeaten 24 professional fights. Joe Louis at the time he faced Schmeling was also 22 years old and unbeaten in 24 professional fights.

Again, a fight being notable is different from you getting credit for it. Most well known fight of Vitali's resume, sure. Does he get credit for it? Not really.

I disagree that he doesn't get credit, it's his biggest claim to fame. Wins over Sanders, Peter and Hide are decent, but they don't make him a great fighter. Vitali's reputation largely comes from the fact that he was able to force the fight against Lewis for 6 rounds and absorbed some big punches. This is why people believe he would be a handful for any heavyweight.

Uzcudun and Stribling were not in Chagaev's class. Chagaev has won a piece of the HW title and has a better record and better amateur pedigree than them, not to mention he has not lost to the Valuev of his time, while those guys did lose to Primo Carnera. A thing that bugs me greatly is how current fighters get ripped on for loses while the old guys get a free pass for their losses. Yes, Joe Louis avenged his loss, that's why Joe Louis is ranked ahead of Wlad (among other things), however if Wlad gets **** for getting beat by Sanders and Puritty why shouldn't Louis get **** too for being beaten by a mediocre fighter like Schmelling, while he was in his prime (Wlad's losses were not in his prime). The things is, Schmeling beating Louis is looked on as an accomplishment for Schmeling and not a shame for Louis, while Purity and Sanders betaing Wlad are looked on as shame on Wlad and not an accomplishment for them, another example that old timers get a free pass for their losses.

There was only 1 title back then so it was impossible to get a "piece" of the heavyweight title. I'd say that being a top 3 contender back then is roughly the equivalent of being a title holder today. Chagaev with all due respect to him only has decision wins over Valuev and Ruiz. Uzcudun beat arguably top 20 all-time heavyweight Harry Wills and hard-hitting Max Baer. Stribling won 255 fights and was thought to be one of the best pound for pound fighters of his time.

Schmeling was far from mediocre, he was a heavyweight champion who beat fighters like Joe Louis and Jack Sharkey. Puritty with all due respect is a journeyman and nothing more than that. Sanders was a dangerous fighter, but never proved himself a top fighter outside of his win over Wladimir Klitschko. There is nothing else to his record.

[Pirao]

Michael Moorer did it although that was back in the 90's, but still it doesn't mean the era was weak. Holyfield used to fight at 178-190 and was a great heavyweight for a long time. Adamek has recently moved up from 175 up to heavyweight. Adding muscle is much easier with today's nutrition and conditioning, I don't think anyone can deny that. Dawson is thinking of moving up to the heavyweight division at some point, we'll see how that goes.

Holyfield was a CW, let's not start calling having a few fights when he was younger fighting at 175. Adamek has not even won a belt yet, much less beat the man. I doubt very much that Dawson is going to move up to HW in the near future.

Sheppard wasn't a top 5 contender, he was a fringe contender who was ranked in the top 10. Pacquiao was 17 years old with little experience while Wladimir was 22 years old, an Olympic gold medalist with the experience of hundreds of amateur fights and unbeaten 24 professional fights. Joe Louis at the time he faced Schmeling was also 22 years old and unbeaten in 24 professional fights.

That Sheppard was in the top 10 shows a bad division, a guy with 22 losses would never be ranked in the top 10 of the current division. Pacquiao lost the fight early, Wlad was winning all fight until he punched himself out, which is quite different, as I said both losses have similar significance: none. Joe Louis doesn't get anywhere near the hate Wlad gets for his loss to Purity, in fact he gets none at all. As I said, old timers apparently have free passes for their losses.

I disagree that he doesn't get credit, it's his biggest claim to fame. Wins over Sanders, Peter and Hide are decent, but they don't make him a great fighter. Vitali's reputation largely comes from the fact that he was able to force the fight against Lewis for 6 rounds and absorbed some big punches. This is why people believe he would be a handful for any heavyweight.

I repeat again: being a claim to fame and getting credit for it are different. Vitali gets flak for his loss to Lewis, not credit.

There was only 1 title back then so it was impossible to get a "piece" of the heavyweight title. I'd say that being a top 3 contender back then is roughly the equivalent of being a title holder today. Chagaev with all due respect to him only has decision wins over Valuev and Ruiz. Uzcudun beat arguably top 20 all-time heavyweight Harry Wills and hard-hitting Max Baer. Stribling won 255 fights and was thought to be one of the best pound for pound fighters of his time.

Schmeling was far from mediocre, he was a heavyweight champion who beat fighters like Joe Louis and Jack Sharkey. Puritty with all due respect is a journeyman and nothing more than that. Sanders was a dangerous fighter, but never proved himself a top fighter outside of his win over Wladimir Klitschko. There is nothing else to his record.

I doubt Uzcudun and Stribling were ever top 3 for any period of time and if they were, that was a weak ass era, they both lost to Primo Carnera, Chagaev never lost to Valuev. Harry Wills was 38 when Uzcudun fought him, lol are you telling me that Byrd and Ibragimov get credit for beating Evander Holyfield who is a top 10 all time HW? We have already gone over Max Baer: who has he beaten?

Schmeling was mediocre, if he wasn't he wouldn't have as much losses as he has and he would have defeated better opposition, which he hasn't. That Schmeling was also considerer to be past his prime when he fought Louis also speaks to the magnitude of the loss for Louis. Better than Purrity and Sanders, sure, but he was still mediocre. Schmeling, Uzcudun, Stribling and the like were not outstanding opponents, unless you consider Byrd and Ibragimov outstanding too.

If you want to continue this discussion, open another thread and we can continue there, because this was not the original intent of this one.

[TheGreatA]

Holyfield was a CW, let's not start calling having a few fights when he was younger fighting at 175. Adamek has not even won a belt yet, much less beat the man. I doubt very much that Dawson is going to move up to HW in the near future.

Back when cruiserweight was 190 lbs. He was still not a big heavyweight but he did fine. Adamek hasn't won a belt, but he just defeated a top contender who fought Vitali for the title. I wouldn't be surprised if he was able to win a title from Haye. The point is, light heavyweights can build up weight and become heavyweights these days with better understanding of nutrition and conditioning.

That Sheppard was in the top 10 shows a bad division, a guy with 22 losses would never be ranked in the top 10 of the current division. Pacquiao lost the fight early, Wlad was winning all fight until he punched himself out, which is quite different, as I said both losses have similar significance: none. Joe Louis doesn't get anywhere near the hate Wlad gets for his loss to Purity, in fact he gets none at all. As I said, old timers apparently have free passes for their losses.

Lionel Butler had 16 losses, he was briefly ranked in the top 10 in the 1990's.

Pacquiao was a starved teenager with no world class training, I wouldn't bring up that loss. We're comparing the Klitschko brothers and Joe Louis here. Louis is given criticism for the loss but he is also forgiven somewhat for avenging the loss. Schmeling was also a very good fighter, not mediocre by any means. In fact the Klitschko brothers name him as their all-time favorite fighter.

The same can't be said for Puritty. However I don't really judge Wladimir based on that loss, although the Sanders loss is quite bad as Wladimir was 40-1 and 27 years old.

I repeat again: being a claim to fame and getting credit for it are different. Vitali gets flak for his loss to Lewis, not credit.

He doesn't get credit for it as a win but let's just say that he wouldn't be as highly regarded without having fought Lewis.

I doubt Uzcudun and Stribling were ever top 3 for any period of time and if they were, that was a weak ass era, they both lost to Primo Carnera, Chagaev never lost to Valuev. Harry Wills was 38 when Uzcudun fought him, lol are you telling me that Byrd and Ibragimov get credit for beating Evander Holyfield who is a top 10 all time HW? We have already gone over Max Baer: who has he beaten?

Byrd does get credit for the Holyfield win, after all that was his title winning performance. But it was not like KO'ing Wills in 3 rounds. Holyfield was 38 when he fought Lewis, does Lewis not get credit?

We have already gone over Baer indeed and I've shown who he has beaten. Numerous top 10 contenders in devastating fashion.

Schmeling was mediocre, if he wasn't he wouldn't have as much losses as he has and he would have defeated better opposition, which he hasn't. That Schmeling was also considerer to be past his prime when he fought Louis also speaks to the magnitude of the loss for Louis. Better than Purrity and Sanders, sure, but he was still mediocre.

During Schmeling's prime from 1929 to 1939, he lost to four men, three of whom he also beat. He did beat good opposition, even if you don't recognize the names. Schmeling was considered to be past his prime but he surprised everyone and put up the best performance of his whole career and was still a good fighter when he went to the Second World War, as shown by his first round KO over German champ Adolf Heuser.

[CiganoBoxer]

fcuk off pirao. you dont know what the fcuk your talking about. just a bad nuthugger.

very true and green k to you

[TheGreatA]

Anyway, I think we've both made our points. Can't see the discussion going much further from here. Good discussion as always.

[Pirao]

Anyway, I think we've both made our points. Can't see the discussion going much further from here. Good discussion as always.

Yep, I learned a lot with this discussion, thanks.

[Chuckguy]

Yes, so we should just get rid of all the fighters that are too good for their competition because the fights aren't competitive, right?

the klit yags need to fight each other to see who the real champ is
plain and simple

[Pirao]

the klit yags need to fight each other to see who the real champ is
plain and simple

Nope, anyone who wants to be champion has to beat them both, plain and simple.