Who has the better skills?

[Poet682006]

that's as logical as me saying that Helenius would destroy Liston or Louis since them and Peter are roughly the same height.

Bugner was a better fighter than "Lurch" Helenius.

Poet

[Walt Liquor]

just a cursory observation without watching the videos but I've seen both fight and i think witherspoon has a more diverse offensive arsenal and better head movement and defense, he's just more slippery.

[JAB5239]

Okay now you're showing your agenda and bias.

No agenda, no bias, thats me kidding around. Gonzalez had no chin. I do believe he'd be a contender today and has better skills than Helenius.

that's as logical as me saying that Helenius would destroy Liston or Louis since them and Peter are roughly the same height.

Difference is that Bugner was as good a fighter, probably better.

I agree with this.

Could you explain why?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Robert Helenius has no skill

[The_Demon]

Easily Witherspoon,you just need too watch footage of both too see this is clearly the case

[Barry Halls]

witherspoons potential is probably underrated.

[JAB5239]

witherspoons potential is probably underrated.

Tim's talent and potential were wasted by King. At this point in their respective careers he was much more skilled than Helenius though. I think it's funny that none of those voting Helenius will explain what exactly makes him more skilled in their opinions.

[#1Assassin]

David Haye IMO is more skilled than Wladimir yet we saw what happened.

wladimir is more skilled than haye in every single aspect of boxing. footwork, timing, precision, rhytm, balance, technique etc.. the only thing haye does better than wlad is move his head, in every other category its wlad by a landslide. if you cant see that you dont know **** about boxing.

What I ment was for a big guy like Helenius he is very skilled thats why I voted for him.

No need to be offended. Helenius would dominate the 60's and 70's pretty easily IMO

no he isnt, and no he wouldnt. he isnt skilled at all even for his size and he would get absolutely smashed in the 60's and 70's. he wouldnt even get a chance to turn pro imo much less reach the top.

George Foreman was IMO with all respect a one dimensional slugger. And he did very well in that era. He was considered big and strong. So Helenius would be a giant in that era with the same skills as Foreman

stop trolling, please. this is a serious boxing thread not your typical NSB thread so dont ruin it.

foreman was no technician but he had far more skills than helenius, one of the best jabs in the history of HW boxing to start with. helenius isnt anywhere near as skilled as foreman, nor does he hit as hard or is even as fast. he cant fight tbh, he falls into the same category as tye fields or deyontay wilder except he isnt even an athlete. like a smaller slightly less ugly valuev.

[Tiozzo]

I wouldn't put 15-0 Helenius in there with Larry Holmes, and we all know how controversial Holmes vs 15-0 Whiterspoon was. Therefore, Whiterspoon was better than Helenius at the same point in their careers.