Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would the klitchko's last in the 70s?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by -The Game- View Post
    That shows a lack of heart though.....
    Or brains: To stop before the injury might become career ending.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by cupocity303 View Post

      I knew you were not very objective, this is horrible.

      So they can't win with a nitwit like you, one way or the other.

      They dominate fighters for years, no credit.

      They lose a fight, No Credit.

      Crawl back to your cave now, mutant.
      Name a good fighter a Klit bro beat and I could find 5 better on any other ATG resume.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by -The Game- View Post
        That shows a lack of heart though.....if Mayweather had pulled that same move..everyone would be laughing at him and calling him a coward (they still do, mind).....IIRC Mayweather also had a serious injury in one of his fights and had to take a knee he was in that much pain...but like A TRUE CHAMP...he continued.......same couldnt be said about Vitaly......
        vit has proven himself waaaay more than floyd ever has since. get out of here.

        vit learned his lesson and his heart is nowhere near in question

        Comment


        • Originally posted by cupocity303 View Post
          I disagree with your premise.

          The reason you say all this, is because you're working under the basis that because The Klitscho's dominate fighters, it must mean that they're not that good. It couldn't just be that The Klitscho's are just that great.

          On the other hand, when Ali struggles against some fighter, you don't say that the opponent sucks, you elevate him to Greatness status.

          It's a common mental block that people can't even comprehend about themselves, when they're so Historically biased.
          This is the problem I have with 70's era fans and critics of the K-bros, fighters lose the Wlad or VK so that automatically makes them bad.

          Who is to say someone like Chambers wouldn't do ok in the 70's against fighters closer to his size? To deny that he is a good fighter is unfair I think.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by hweightblogger View Post
            Nobody knows. AND EVEN IF. The Clay is a featherfist INCLUDING all of these KOs. You see, I didn't even EXCLUDE these contested KOs from The Clay's record and Ali is at the bottom of all heavyweight champs.


            Ability is > size. But we are not talking about "a heavy bum vs 70's elite" but we are talking about "a heavy elite fighter (Klitschko) vs 70's far lighter elite".

            Clay's parameters (height, reach, experience, featherfistedness) ARE NOTHING SPECIAL for the Klitschkos. But vice versa Clay has not seen anything as experienced and powerful as Wladimir in his entire career.


            Bums are nearly always easier to KO than non-bums. But HEAVY bums are harder to KO than light bums. Some very light non-bummy opponents are also easier to KO than bummy heavy opponents. Is that clear now?


            I said "golden = p*ss". But even Holmes in the 1970s didn't shine. Holmes' time was in the 80ies. Foreman is the best fighter of the 1970s. He is the only exception that would be competitive nowadays. Ali would not.


            Holmes or Foreman > The Clay.

            In other words: Klitschko vs Holmes or Klitschko vs Foreman WOULD BE FAR MORE COMPETITIVE than Klitschko vs Clay. There is absolutely nothing in Clay's arsenal to be effective against either Klitschko.
            you are a broken record with your ******ed numbers that dont even matter.

            even you just said that ability>size. and yet you turn around and still spout the same 'real HW' BS, which means absolutely nothing since Ive proven that being bigger!=having more KO power nor makes you have a better chin.

            at least you grudgingly are admitting that Holmes and Foreman would do well in this era, that means Ive gotten somewhere. but you dont think any other fighters would? so Holmes would do well, yet Norton, who was large and an outstanding athlete as well and gave Holmes absolute hell, would not? and you dont think Ali would do well either, despite the fact he beat Foreman(by KO no less).

            not even prime Holyfield could put away a 43 or something year old Foreman....I mean, did you see the bombs Foreman ate in that fight? I mean come on. Ali surely cant be so featherfisted, even if Foreman was tired he still got dropped by punches.

            now its your own belief that the Klitschko brothers would beat so and so...I personally do think that Wladimir would have given Ali hell...but you need to at least notice that this was a very good era full of very good HWs, and that a good deal of them would be more than 'competitive' in todays era.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by cupocity303 View Post
              I disagree with your premise.

              The reason you say all this, is because you're working under the basis that because The Klitscho's dominate fighters, it must mean that they're not that good. It couldn't just be that The Klitscho's are just that great.

              On the other hand, when Ali struggles against some fighter, you don't say that the opponent sucks, you elevate him to Greatness status.
              cupocity303 says it EXACTLY how it is.

              The Klitschkos "BUMMIFY" their opponents while Ali struggles, barely survives, fails to KO his opponents for 15 rounds, thus is involved in "wars" and hence "QUALITYFIES" his opponents.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by cupocity303 View Post
                I disagree with your premise.

                The reason you say all this, is because you're working under the basis that because The Klitscho's dominate fighters, it must mean that they're not that good. It couldn't just be that The Klitscho's are just that great.

                On the other hand, when Ali struggles against some fighter, you don't say that the opponent sucks, you elevate him to Greatness status. I.E. having a competitive fight vs Ali = It must mean the opponent was just that great OR Ali was not at his best/past his prime.

                It's a common mental block that people can't even comprehend about themselves, when they're so Historically biased.
                The reason is that Ali had great fighters to fight in his era....that boxing writers and journalist claim them to be great.....

                If you look at todays heavyweights.....what boxing writer/journalist says that any top ranked heavyweight outside the Klits is a very good fighter

                just look at haye...he aintt done sh.it in the division..yet everyone is talking about him....in most other eras...Haye would just be a normal guy moving into the heavyweight division

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RubenSonny View Post
                  I never said Byrd was winning but he gave him problems and making him hit air, he wasn't dominating at all, and Vitali quit which surely counts against him and says a lot about his mentality.
                  He did make him miss alot true, its what Byrd specializes in making bigger slower guys hit air.

                  What does it say about his mentality though that after that fight against Lewis he wanted to continue? He must have been in some serious pain to quit in a fight he was clearly winning then but not with that terrible cut above his eye in a fight he may not have won had it gone all 12 so IDK if that say anything at all really.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by cupocity303 View Post
                    I disagree with your premise.

                    The reason you say all this, is because you're working under the basis that because The Klitscho's dominate fighters, it must mean that they're not that good. It couldn't just be that The Klitscho's are just that great.

                    On the other hand, when Ali struggles against some fighter, you don't say that the opponent sucks, you elevate him to Greatness status. I.E. having a competitive fight vs Ali = It must mean the opponent was just that great OR Ali was not at his best/past his prime.

                    It's a common mental block that people can't even comprehend about themselves, when they're so Historically biased.
                    I was talking about Vitali, I didn't say anything about Wlad in this thread other than him being a good champion, they are two different fighters. Tell me which opponents of Vitalis were good other than Byrd and past prime fat Lennox? The heavyweight division today is at its worse, the fighters have no idea how to fight inside and don't bother to attempt to get on the inside against the brothers, that speaks volumes about the quality of todays fighters.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Spray_resistant View Post
                      This is the problem I have with 70's era fans and critics of the K-bros, fighters lose the Wlad or VK so that automatically makes them bad.

                      Who is to say someone like Chambers wouldn't do ok in the 70's against fighters closer to his size? To deny that he is a good fighter is unfair I think.
                      Wlad's own trainer said that this is the worse HW division he has ever seen. You'd think he would try and build it up because his man is champ, but no because it's an absolute *****e division.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP