Originally posted by cklmaced
View Post
I know that for a hater like you "being chubby is a proof of a bad opponent" because that's a hater's dear idea that he clings to, but I have watched too many superheavyweight fights to fall for such nonsense.
If the fighter is well conditioned and chubby (e.g. fat Arreola) he is definitely more dangerous than an athletic conditioned boxer (e.g. Herbie Hide) (unless the skill sets are too far apart). Fat Arreola has more chances against power punchers (like the Klitschkos) than athletic Arreola. Fat Arreola has a superhigh output and one of the best KOratios, and was barely shaken by Vitali, yet you are too blind to see the obvious. Vitali had less problems with superathletic Haye or Sosnowski than with chubby Kevin Johnson or chubby (even less skilled) Timo Hoffmann.
One of the best examples of how athleticism is far less worth than chubbyness is Ken Norton (who is the ideal that good-old-time nostalgists aspire to) who was viciously schooled by the first punchers he met: Shavers, Cooney, Foreman: KO1, KO1, KO2. Had he been chubby he would have survived much longer.
Athleticism at superheavyweight is a luxury you can only afford if your skill set is extremely high or you are tall or your opponent is a featherfist, other than that chubbies (always under the condition that they are conditioned) are the more dangerous and durable opponents.
Comment