Perspective on Klit, and the HW division

[bluebeam]

The Wladimir Klitschko from Samuel Peter fight, right through to today, superscribed on the 90's, would have dominated the entire era completely, suffering probably zero losses and no more than a couple of upset KO's at most. Basically exactly the same as he does in this era.

90's, 00's, 10's, are ALL comparable eras in terms of boxer quality and size.

Wladimir Klitschko has now fought more decent opponents than what Lennox had and would be a slight favourite over Lenny In reckon, Wlad just being a slightly longer and stronger, more athletic version who is sharper and more disciplined.

I've said it before but...

Thompson beats up Tyson,
Chagaev outboxes Golota,
Haye destroys Grant,
Chambers wins every round against Tua,
Ibragimov has bashed Briggs and Holyfield

and so on...

the 80's, 90's, 00's and 10's are the ONLY eras worth considering when we speak of era strength, anything prior to this was what I call a "pre-professional" era.

This could be the strongest era, or atleast very close to it anyway.

An era consists of thousands of fights and hundreds of boxers. There's no way anybody could POSSIBLY watch all several thousand fights, remember and analysed all of them and declare that THIS set of boxers is better than THAT set of boxers...

But there IS a way to tell very simply...

EVERY ERA, IS BETTER THAN THE ERA THAT PRECEDED IT, BECAUSE BOXERS GET BETTER AND BETTER IN GENERAL FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.

There can be stagnation (things might not have improved much since the 90's) and you can have special exceptions in times of disasters (the reason why war and post-war eras like the Marciano era were so weak). But things always evolve.

Wladimir's victory over Povetkin, Pulev and Haye in particular in this decade would have been considered proof of Lennox's superiority. These are SUPERB boxers.

TS =

boy you smoking. holyfield from 92 would kill every dude you just named.

Thompson wouldn't make it out of round one against a 19 year old mike Tyson

hell 45 year old George foreman would have beat the **** out of ibragimov and chagaev.

there are no hall of fame fighters in this era except the klitchko brothers. you determine how strong or weak an era is by how many great fighters were in that era. this era only has two and they are brothers

chambers,thompson,chageav,ibragimov,brock,pulev,po vetkin

these dudes are all nobodies, who never beat anybody.

I have no problem with you considering wlad a great heavyweight. but every dude he fought is forgettable. and that's undeniable

[Elroy1]

[QUOTE=bluebeam;15319269]

boy you smoking. holyfield from 92 would kill every dude you just named.

Holyfield from 92 lost to Bowe and had not won against anything particularly special.

Holyfield from 92 weighed 205lbs, smaller than any of those boxers.

Thompson wouldn't make it out of round one against a 19 year old mike Tyson

Lennox never fought a 19 year old Mike Tyson and a 19 year old Mike Tyson never once stepped into a ring with an opponent as good as Thompson!

hell 45 year old George foreman would have beat the **** out of ibragimov and chagaev.

Ibragimov and Chagaev would have soundly UD'd George.

there are no hall of fame fighters in this era except the klitchko brothers. you determine how strong or weak an era is by how many great fighters were in that era. this era only has two and they are brothers

You have just exposed yourself as a nutbag with this right here. From now on everything you say is completely worthless.

In an era where there is many HOF'ers to fight, there was nobody really good because if there was, they would not allow other potential ATG's to shine. In a weaker era, many of the boxers being discussed would have excelled.

In any case many of those boxers will likely be inducted into the HOF anyway. The HOF is meaningless, it's a construct with no relevance to real analysis. HOF'ers would be totally clowned and KOed by any modern HW.

chambers,thompson,chageav,ibragimov,brock,pulev,po vetkin

these dudes are all nobodies, who never beat anybody.

I have no problem with you considering wlad a great heavyweight. but every dude he fought is forgettable. and that's undeniable

They all are excellent boxers with teriffic records who all beat high quality opposition. You don't know who or what you are talking about.

[bluebeam]

[QUOTE=Elroy1;15320436]

Holyfield from 92 lost to Bowe and had not won against anything particularly special.

Holyfield from 92 weighed 205lbs, smaller than any of those boxers.



Lennox never fought a 19 year old Mike Tyson and a 19 year old Mike Tyson never once stepped into a ring with an opponent as good as Thompson!



Ibragimov and Chagaev would have soundly UD'd George.



You have just exposed yourself as a nutbag with this right here. From now on everything you say is completely worthless.

In an era where there is many HOF'ers to fight, there was nobody really good because if there was, they would not allow other potential ATG's to shine. In a weaker era, many of the boxers being discussed would have excelled.

In any case many of those boxers will likely be inducted into the HOF anyway. The HOF is meaningless, it's a construct with no relevance to real analysis. HOF'ers would be totally clowned and KOed by any modern HW.



They all are excellent boxers with teriffic records who all beat high quality opposition. You don't know who or what you are talking about.

you cant find one person in all of boxing who would agree with you that ibragimov,thompson,chambers,pulev,povetkin are excellent boxers who beat quality opposition. please name that high quality opposition. I have heard it all now. sultan ibragimov is an excellent boxer. you lost all credibility with that statement.


old and faded larry holmes was better than tony Thompson on his best day. just too touch on your Tyson point.

not one of those fighters you named will make the hall of fame and we are in a era where everybody gets in. can you name the fighters that wlad fought that will make the hall? the answer is zero and a possible. david haye is the only guy who has a shot too get in. and that's because of his cruiserweight tenure. he is the one possible. half the dudes you named never even became a world champion, yet you have them making the hall of fame.

and you just said that in a era where they are many hall of famers too fight, nobody was really good because they wouldn't have allowed other potential all time great fighters too shine.

that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard anybody say.

according too you. hearns,duran,hagler,and leonard are not really good because they allowed each other too shine. that is the dumbest logic I ever heard.

great fighters are measured by what other great fighters they fought.

every guy that's considered all time fought somebody who was also considered all time.


wlad cant say that. and no tony Thompson doesn't count

[Elroy1]

you cant find one person in all of boxing who would agree with you that ibragimov,thompson,chambers,pulev,povetkin are excellent boxers who beat quality opposition. please name that high quality opposition. I have heard it all now. sultan ibragimov is an excellent boxer. you lost all credibility with that statement.

There would be no point in naming all the quality boxers they've beaten for you- I'd basically be transcribing half there boxrec listings and then you would say you didn't know them, which is the problem.

Many people concur on the quality of all those boxers, your just not looking hard enough. Sultan Ibragimov has been praised over and often in many articles. You are a fool to smash good boxers and THEN go on to promote bummy boxers of your own.

old and faded larry holmes was better than tony Thompson on his best day. just too touch on your Tyson point.

Old and faded Holmes MIGHT have been better competition against Thompson than the so-called prime, cruiser and inexperienced Holmes would have been.

not one of those fighters you named will make the hall of fame and we are in a era where everybody gets in. david haye is the only guy who has a shot too get in. and that's because of his cruiserweight tenure.

Plenty have chances, because if they don't then the HOF will become a defunct organisation. Things are always going to stay the same now, the US will never be dominant again, so basically, your either going to have to admit other boxers or else HOF is finished

you just said that in a era where they are many hall of famers too fight, nobody was really good because they wouldn't have allowed other potential all time great fighters too shine.

That is a very real possibility.

that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard anybody say.

It is the blatantly obvious truth and everybody knows it.

according too you. hearns,duran,hagler,and leonard are not really good because they allowed each other too shine. that is the dumbest logic I ever heard.

No I don't believe so. I suppose you can have a situation where they're all great and competitive too, especially moreso at lower divisions where you cannot outsize your opponents as much and everybody is about the same. But overall at HW, the eras where there are more ATG's are demonstratably the weaker eras (like the Ali era- pathetically weak).

greatness is measured by what other great fighters you fought.

Then since Wladimir Klitschko has fought the most good opponents (as per there win/loss records) at real HW (200+) of all time, then he must be the GOAT

every guy that's considered all time fought somebody who was also considered all time.

Unless you are so unbelievably good that you've beat everybody up who would otherwise be considered great too.

An example. Floyd Patterson is an ATG who would never enter the ring against a single Klitschko opponent today and none of them would even be allowed to knock him out. Yet by your logic, Sonny Liston, by KOing this Patterson, is greater than Wladimir Klitschko, despite the fact that Sonny Liston never won ever against a decent 200+ HW even once who was not coming off multiple losses.

wlad cant say that. and no tony Thompson doesn't count

IF Tony Thompson was a Lennox opponent, he would be considered one of Lennox's best opponents.

If Tony Thompson fought in the golden era, he would have been a dominant champion.

[thebigkabosh]

Ring rankings from 1991,1995, 2009 and 2015 (current rankings). In short, the division has not only gotten considerably weaker since the 90's, but it's also a lot weaker than it was in 2009.

1991:

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Mike Tyson
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Razor Ruddock
5. Ray Mercer
6. George Foreman
7. Tim Witherspoon
8. Tony Tucker
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Michael Moorer

1995:

1. Riddick Bowe
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Michael Moorer
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Bruce Seldon
7. Frank Bruno
8. George Foreman
9. Alexander Zolkin
10. Henry Akinwande

2009
Wladimir Klitschko, Champion

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Alexander Povetkin
3. Eddie Chambers
4. Ruslan Chagaev
5. David Haye
6. Chris Arreola
7. Denis Boytsov
8. Nikolay Valuev
9. Alexander Dimitrenko
10. Tony Thompson

2015 (present)
Wladimir Klitschko, Champion

1. Alexander Povetkin
2. Deontay Wilder
3. Tyson Fury
4. Kubrat Pulev
5. Bryant Jennings
6. Bermane Stiverne
7. Vyacheslav Glazkov
8. Mike Perez
9. Chris Arreola
10. Ruslan Chagaev (shot)

quite sad isn't it?

[thebigkabosh]

There would be no point in naming all the quality boxers they've beaten for you- I'd basically be transcribing half there boxrec listings and then you would say you didn't know them, which is the problem.

Many people concur on the quality of all those boxers, your just not looking hard enough. Sultan Ibragimov has been praised over and often in many articles. You are a fool to smash good boxers and THEN go on to promote bummy boxers of your own.



Old and faded Holmes MIGHT have been better competition against Thompson than the so-called prime, cruiser and inexperienced Holmes would have been.



Plenty have chances, because if they don't then the HOF will become a defunct organisation. Things are always going to stay the same now, the US will never be dominant again, so basically, your either going to have to admit other boxers or else HOF is finished



That is a very real possibility.



It is the blatantly obvious truth and everybody knows it.



No I don't believe so. I suppose you can have a situation where they're all great and competitive too, especially moreso at lower divisions where you cannot outsize your opponents as much and everybody is about the same. But overall at HW, the eras where there are more ATG's are demonstratably the weaker eras (like the Ali era- pathetically weak).



Then since Wladimir Klitschko has fought the most good opponents (as per there win/loss records) at real HW (200+) of all time, then he must be the GOAT



Unless you are so unbelievably good that you've beat everybody up who would otherwise be considered great too.

An example. Floyd Patterson is an ATG who would never enter the ring against a single Klitschko opponent today and none of them would even be allowed to knock him out. Yet by your logic, Sonny Liston, by KOing this Patterson, is greater than Wladimir Klitschko, despite the fact that Sonny Liston never won ever against a decent 200+ HW even once who was not coming off multiple losses.



IF Tony Thompson was a Lennox opponent, he would be considered one of Lennox's best opponents.

If Tony Thompson fought in the golden era, he would have been a dominant champion.

So let's get this straight an obese Austrailian truck driver Alex Leapai KOs Muhammad Ali?

Jean Marc Mormeck is better than George Foreman?

This era is the best because it's the "superheavyweight era" even though some of the best contenders and champions were former MWs,LHWs and CWs?

Old and faded Holmes MIGHT have been better competition against Thompson than the so-called prime, cruiser and inexperienced Holmes would have been.

So an old fat 40somethings Holmes would be better than the young trim prime Holmes?

Why? Because it blows away your fanatical heavyweightblog empowered myth when an old 70s fighter well past his prime schools a young SHW contender so you have to invent such an inane concept?

Tony Thompson would be one of Lennox's best opponents and a champ of the golden era?
Based on what? Dominant wins over Chazz(not Tim) Witherspoon, Wannabe Tyson Cliff Couser and Maurice Harris?

Then since Wladimir Klitschko has fought the most good opponents (as per there win/loss records)

So cancer survivor Francesco Pianeta(28-0) whose only notable opponents are ancient 50somethings Botha and McCall, was good?

Slow clumsy oaf Mariusz Wach(27-0) whose best wins are Tye Fields and Kevin McBride, was good?

Back to the blog

[Stuntman Mike]

The Wladimir Klitschko from Samuel Peter fight, right through to today, superscribed on the 90's, would have dominated the entire era completely, suffering probably zero losses and no more than a couple of upset KO's at most. Basically exactly the same as he does in this era.

90's, 00's, 10's, are ALL comparable eras in terms of boxer quality and size.

Wladimir Klitschko has now fought more decent opponents than what Lennox had and would be a slight favourite over Lenny In reckon, Wlad just being a slightly longer and stronger, more athletic version who is sharper and more disciplined.

I've said it before but...

Thompson beats up Tyson,
Chagaev outboxes Golota,
Haye destroys Grant,
Chambers wins every round against Tua,
Ibragimov has bashed Briggs and Holyfield

and so on...

the 80's, 90's, 00's and 10's are the ONLY eras worth considering when we speak of era strength, anything prior to this was what I call a "pre-professional" era.

This could be the strongest era, or atleast very close to it anyway.

An era consists of thousands of fights and hundreds of boxers. There's no way anybody could POSSIBLY watch all several thousand fights, remember and analysed all of them and declare that THIS set of boxers is better than THAT set of boxers...

But there IS a way to tell very simply...

EVERY ERA, IS BETTER THAN THE ERA THAT PRECEDED IT, BECAUSE BOXERS GET BETTER AND BETTER IN GENERAL FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT.

There can be stagnation (things might not have improved much since the 90's) and you can have special exceptions in times of disasters (the reason why war and post-war eras like the Marciano era were so weak). But things always evolve.

Wladimir's victory over Povetkin, Pulev and Haye in particular in this decade would have been considered proof of Lennox's superiority. These are SUPERB boxers.

TS =

You contradicted yourself there.. so If Wlad gets Ko'd it still means he's dominating the division yet when Muhammed Ali gets knocked down and not even stopped thats unforgivable and means he has a glass jaw...Right?

[Elroy1]

You contradicted yourself there.. so If Wlad gets Ko'd it still means he's dominating the division yet when Muhammed Ali gets knocked down and not even stopped thats unforgivable and means he has a glass jaw...Right?

What the upset KO's allowed for?

No contradiction. Muhammad Ali fought in an era where the median opponent weight was about 200lbs and they did not have the same power training as today either. His chin was never tested against the same kind of power as Wladimir Klitschko, average opponent weight 235-240lbs has faced.

Muhammad Ali never once fought opponents as big and dangerously powered as Puritty, Sanders and Brewster.

I know, Geroge Foreman- who weighed 218lbs for the Ali fight was a hard puncher, but he failed to land any meaningful punches on Ali's head because he was too dumb and slow.

The only one of the 3 who could be considered to have tested Wladimir's chin was Sanders, who'se delivery skills were far better.

Ali did get knocked down but from guys whom would never be able to knock Wlad down in a hundred years.

It is unimaginable what Sanders could do to Ali when already Henry Cooper nearly knocked him out.

Wladimir's chin > Muhammad Ali's chin, OBVIOUSLY! Just bloody look at them!

[Elroy1]

So let's get this straight an obese Austrailian truck driver Alex Leapai KOs Muhammad Ali?

I would not call Alex obese exactly and whatever else he does he was a professional boxer. From the knowledge of how Ali performed against a similar styled opponent but which was far less dangerous, I think it's a safe bet. He struggled with FAR worse opponents than Leapai who has a good record.

Jean Marc Mormeck is better than George Foreman?

Unknown. Foreman is longer and more powerful and stronger. Mormeck is far better skilled, more athletic and with more strength, power etc also than most all of his beaten opponents.

Safely, If Foreman DID win against Mormeck it might possibly be the best opponent he ever won against in the 70's.

This era is the best because it's the "superheavyweight era" even though some of the best contenders and champions were former MWs,LHWs and CWs?

I think this era is among the best because it featured the more skilled, athletic and heftier boxers.

Where boxers fought at lower divisions is of no consequence to there HW record. When they fought at HW they weighed in at excess of 200lbs. Previous HW's very often weighed in less.

The number of boxers who were competitive at the lower end of 175lbs towards the 80's declined so far to the point where they raised the limit. Today, again, the number of boxers who are competitive toward the middle 2010's at the lower end of the 200lb limit is becoming fewer and fewer as the average opponent weight rises (obviously).

The biggest boxers relied always on strength and the smallest boxers relied always on skills more (duh) and the champions were normally the ones who had a combination of both. Unfrotunately that combination is today found at about 240-250lbs, not at 200 or 215.

So an old fat 40somethings Holmes would be better than the young trim prime Holmes?

Sounds odd doesn't it? But boxing, especially HW, is a sport where experience (and weight) can sometimes trump youth and athleticism. And sometimes not. In the case of Holmes vs Mercer for example, it did. I judge Ray Mercer possibly Ray's best win.

And a look to the so-called "prime" Holmes at basially cruiserweight and inexperienced against the 90's one at 230+lbs and vastly more experienced than any other in the division, reveals the reasons why it can be so.

Prime Holmes struggled to beat some pretty average fighters. Silverback Holmes did markedly better.

Why? Because it blows away your fanatical heavyweightblog empowered myth when an old 70s fighter well past his prime schools a young SHW contender so you have to invent such an inane concept?

I explained the obvious cause and effect which anybody who's sparred regularly at a boxing gym knows is true. Very often the old veterans can school the newbie lions. Especially when they are also hefty.

Tony Thompson would be one of Lennox's best opponents and a champ of the golden era?
Based on what? Dominant wins over Chazz(not Tim) Witherspoon, Wannabe Tyson Cliff Couser and Maurice Harris?

Yeah and Solis and Price and the rest as well. And how well he performed against some of his loss opponents too (Wlad, Pulev).

Show me a golden era opponent with a 39-5, 200+ record? Let alone one which matches Thompson's in quality.

So cancer survivor Francesco Pianeta(28-0) whose only notable opponents are ancient 50somethings Botha and McCall, was good?

Francesco Pianeta was a stay busy fight taken because no other topper opponents were available or were blatantly ducking him at the time.

Pianeta was unbeated still in 28 fights and was big and strong.

If that is what you constitute one of Wlad's worst opponents, then that is undeniable proof of the superior quality of WK's resume.

Slow clumsy oaf Mariusz Wach(27-0) whose best wins are Tye Fields and Kevin McBride, was good?

You think that Marius Wach 27-0 who outtalled and outweighed Wlad who was on steroids and has one of the hardest chins on Earth who bashed OTHER notable giants like above, was a "weak opponent" Delusional!

Wach was never going to win a finesse medal but he is not nearly so clumsy or slow as you are making out, disproved immediately by watching some of those and other fights of his.

Back to the blog

And you should have stayed at GaySpeak

As you can see, none of your points are relevant at all.

And you have exposed yourself as a complete fool as you have always done here previously, and on ESB (and your other "favourite" site as well).

What you write is so moronic at times it's utterly unbelievable!

[Elroy1]

quite sad isn't it?

All lists are fairly comparable.

In fact the earliest 90's one was the weakest imo if any.