Comments Thread For: Mansour: Povetkin is Capable of Beating Any Heavyweight

[No punch power]

All serious boxers were on gear from the 50's onwards. That was the golden age of steroids after all.

Oh for sure I totally agree (perhaps not specifically on steroids). Athletes have always been enhancing themselves, one way or another. As technology has advanced with every passing year and decade, so has the artificial enhancements of athletes.

The main difference is the effects of the enhancements. The athletes who consumed chemicals to artificially / chemically enhance themselves prior to the 1980's, were unable to enhance themselves as much as the modern athletes who are consuming even better and more advanced performance enhancing drugs that improves athletic performance by a greater margin. Think of it as how when car technology improves over time, so do the features and the performance of cars.

[Arthur Daley]

Oh for sure I totally agree (perhaps not specifically on steroids). Athletes have always been enhancing themselves, one way or another. As technology has advanced with every passing year and decade, so has the artificial enhancements of athletes.

The main difference is the effects of the enhancements. The athletes who consumed chemicals to artificially / chemically enhance themselves prior to the 1980's, were unable to enhance themselves as much as the modern athletes who are consuming even better and more advanced performance enhancing drugs that improves athletic performance by a greater margin. Think of it as how when car technology improves over time, so do the features and the performance of cars.

Indeed. Insulin and HGH have only really became prominent in the recent decades and even today are incredibly hard to catch in tests. Assuming the testers and promoters have any desire to stop the users in the first place. lol. But as we all know it's just a dog and pony show.

[sportbuddha]

You call me a 'troll', but my position is backed up by facts. So if what I did makes me a 'troll', then you potentially rejecting / denying facts makes you deluded and I'd rather be what you call me to be than be deluded.....

LOL...okay wow that was some response, you might need a lay down.

I'll be more brief, I don't have an issue with shorter boxers, Tyson is one of my all time favourites and he'd probably have beaten AJ in his prime.

The current era of HW boxing is dominated by the big guys. Fury, Wilder and AJ are oversized HWs that box. They tend to all box off the back foot, which means they can take advantage of the long long reach and height advantage. Take a look at Mitch Green vs Tyson in his prime. Tyson was massively frustrated because Green could tangle Tyson up with those arms and stand tall taking a lot of hooks on the shoulders. So, against a 6'1" boxer AJ/Wilder begin with an advantage, that Povetkin must overcome, he will have faced it a lot in his career, but both are pretty good boxers and AJ is a very good boxer.

However, I am a bit of a Povetkin fan. He is a superb boxer, and he has power. But, I think (of course we don't know until they meet) when he does fight AJ and to a lesser extent Wilder that the natural advantage of size will be the difference. Hopefully that is a more balanced perspective that removes concerns that I have some motive to discredit the smaller boxer.

The thing about past fight comparisons is that is very subjective and lacks heaps of context around the specific bout. You say Wlad was shot, I think he was in better shape than against Fury. How do we know AJ intended to KO Takam, that it was his intention? We don't know what the game plan was, we couldn't possibly. I recall in the build up AJ actually said they knew he had a tough head and wanted to protect his hands. Thats a very valid reason not to put full power on the guy, a broken hand costs millions in lost fights during recovery.

Was the same Takam in against AJ as Povetkin faced? I would argue Takam has moved up and been growing in recent bouts, maybe he's better than the version that fought Povetkin. Theres a heap of consideration here, its not a simple one for one comparison.

Finally, you applied more balance and poise to your response than your initial post, so I have responded likewise. If you state a huge HW hits like a 10yr old girl, it detracts from your valid points, but I hear you on Joshua he has been massively hyped. However, on the flip side, he doesn't hype himself much, so its really the media and promoters behind the stories, he actually comes across as pretty humble and eager to try and prove more. I don't know if he's the real deal yet, I'm more convinced about him than Wilder or Parker though at this stage.

[No punch power]

LOL...okay wow that was some response, you might need a lay down.

I'll be more brief, I don't have an issue with shorter boxers, Tyson is one of my all time favourites and he'd probably have beaten AJ in his prime.

The current era of HW boxing is dominated by the big guys. Fury, Wilder and AJ are oversized HWs that box. They tend to all box off the back foot, which means they can take advantage of the long long reach and height advantage. Take a look at Mitch Green vs Tyson in his prime. Tyson was massively frustrated because Green could tangle Tyson up with those arms and stand tall taking a lot of hooks on the shoulders. So, against a 6'1" boxer AJ/Wilder begin with an advantage, that Povetkin must overcome, he will have faced it a lot in his career, but both are pretty good boxers and AJ is a very good boxer.

However, I am a bit of a Povetkin fan. He is a superb boxer, and he has power. But, I think (of course we don't know until they meet) when he does fight AJ and to a lesser extent Wilder that the natural advantage of size will be the difference. Hopefully that is a more balanced perspective that removes concerns that I have some motive to discredit the smaller boxer.

The thing about past fight comparisons is that is very subjective and lacks heaps of context around the specific bout. You say Wlad was shot, I think he was in better shape than against Fury. How do we know AJ intended to KO Takam, that it was his intention? We don't know what the game plan was, we couldn't possibly. I recall in the build up AJ actually said they knew he had a tough head and wanted to protect his hands. Thats a very valid reason not to put full power on the guy, a broken hand costs millions in lost fights during recovery.

Was the same Takam in against AJ as Povetkin faced? I would argue Takam has moved up and been growing in recent bouts, maybe he's better than the version that fought Povetkin. Theres a heap of consideration here, its not a simple one for one comparison.

Finally, you applied more balance and poise to your response than your initial post, so I have responded likewise. If you state a huge HW hits like a 10yr old girl, it detracts from your valid points, but I hear you on Joshua he has been massively hyped. However, on the flip side, he doesn't hype himself much, so its really the media and promoters behind the stories, he actually comes across as pretty humble and eager to try and prove more. I don't know if he's the real deal yet, I'm more convinced about him than Wilder or Parker though at this stage.

Again, the major flaw in your argument is that it assumes height and reach are somehow default advantages. And that being a skilled tall boxer automatically by default, trumps a skilled shorter boxer with a shorter reach. Which is obviously false! Otherwise, height and reach divisions would exist and not just weight divisions. Weight is the most significant factor in combat sports as they are default advantages which one doesn't require much 'skills' in order to make use of. Whilst height and reach (whether short or tall / long) requires skills from a boxer to make use of.

There is very little evidence that Anthony Joshua, Deontay Wilder or Tyson Fury are necessarily more 'skilled' boxers than Alexander Povetkin at his best, only because they are taller. It's more down to the fact that they come from Western countries and are therefore more protected than Alexander Povetkin. And it's also down to the fact that they didn't need to face a Wladimir Klitschko in his prime to reach the top (which Alexander Povetkin had to). Both Fury and Joshua had the luxury of facing Wladimir Klitschko whilst he was around the age of 40. Outside Wladimir Klitschko, Alexander Povetkin has proven he is pretty much superior to every other boxer of the last half a decade, with the best resume and heavyweight record. Irrespective of how tall or short those boxers are in comparison.

Outside of facing an Wladimir Klitschko around the age of 40. Fury, nor Joshua have proven they are necessarily better at using their taller / longer height and reach than Povetkin is at using his shorter height and reach. Nor has Wilder. You're making it seem like because they have a longer / taller height and reach, that therefore, they are at a significant advantage due to having significantly greater strength, power, punch resistance and etc. Which obviously isn't the case since Povetkin proved his punching power rivals or even exceeds any of those boxers. His punch resistance also exceeds those boxers because he has never been stopped in his amateur or pro career combined, spanning hundreds of bouts whilst Joshua and Wilder have been stopped previously. Proving size isn't providing some extra benefits to those taller boxers than it is to the shorter Povetkin.

So my point is, Joshua, nor Wilder, nor Fury have proven they are at a significant advantage compared to Alexander Povetkin, only because they are taller and have a longer reach. It's a total myth!

You say Wlad was shot, I think he was in better shape than against Fury.

Based on what? Here are the facts about Wladimir Klitschko against Anthony Joshua:

1) He was 41 years of age - Reflexes, quickness and mental sharpness declines in an athlete by their late 30's.

2) He was inactive for 2 years - Inactivity in and of itself is a disadvantage before facing elite opponents in boxing. Combined that with being a 41 year old man, it doubles the problem.

3) He was coming off a defeat - An athlete coming off a defeat is no longer at their absolute best as they are when they are still in an undefeated run / streak.

How do we know AJ intended to KO Takam, that it was his intention? We don't know what the game plan was, we couldn't possibly. I recall in the build up AJ actually said they knew he had a tough head and wanted to protect his hands. Thats a very valid reason not to put full power on the guy, a broken hand costs millions in lost fights during recovery.

Right! Likewise, I could ask the question: how do we know Povetkin intended to KO Takam? That it was his intention? We don't know what the game plan was, we couldn't possibly.

And perhaps even without intending to KO Takam, Povetkin still managed to KO Takam unintentionally. Proving that Povetkin is still better with his smaller size than Joshua is with his bigger size. Since he managed to unintentionally KO Takam whilst Joshua failed to unintentionally KO Takam.

Was the same Takam in against AJ as Povetkin faced? I would argue Takam has moved up and been growing in recent bouts, maybe he's better than the version that fought Povetkin. Theres a heap of consideration here, its not a simple one for one comparison.

When a boxer gets knocked out once, especially the way Takam did against Povetkin where he was almost unconscious. That boxer is more vulnerable to getting knocked out in the future. Their punch resistance diminishes even more. This is not only just common sense (a boxer loses toughness in the future after getting damaged previously), but has scientific validity too.

I'm holding Joshua to the standards you've set him to. If Joshua's size was such a significant advantage, then why couldn't he using his 20+ pounds body, his 7 inch longer reach and his 4 inch height advantage compared to the smaller Povetkin do a better job on a more declined, more damaged and an older Takam? Or perhaps Joshua's bigger size doesn't really provide him that much advantages over Povetkin as you're claiming? Ever consider that possibility?

The version of Takam was undoubtedly better against Povetkin than against Joshua. At the time against Povetkin, he was previously UN-KO'ed. Ergo, he was less damaged when he faced Povetkin. Ergo, Povetkin's performance and knock out against Takam was more impressive. Takam was also younger when he faced Povetkin and therefore not at a major decline. Whilst Joshua faced a declining and close to a retiring Takam. All of these points makes it clear that Povetkin faced a better version of Takam.

Brutally knocking out a younger and a previously UN-KO'ed opponent > beating an already KO'ed opponent at an older age. Worst of all, Joshua couldn't even KO Takam and needed a premature 'typical British / UK stoppage' to maintain his misleading 100% knock out record.

but I hear you on Joshua he has been massively hyped. However, on the flip side, he doesn't hype himself much, so its really the media and promoters behind the stories, he actually comes across as pretty humble and eager to try and prove more. I don't know if he's the real deal yet, I'm more convinced about him than Wilder or Parker though at this stage.

I'm not disagreeing. My point is that neither of those guys have proven that because they are bigger in size, that they are therefore significantly better or at a significant advantage. The main difference is that Povetkin didn't have the luxury as the current top heavyweights like Joshua have. Since they weren't competing during Wladimir Klitschko's reign like Povetkin was.

[sportbuddha]

Again, the major flaw in your argument is that it assumes height and reach are somehow default advantages. And that being a skilled tall boxer automatically by default.....

Your main beef seems to be about size and reach not being notable advantages for Fury or Joshua. So, I'll put it another way, I don't think Joshua, Wilder or Fury would be as good if they were 6'1" with a reach that was in ratio, simple as that.

[No punch power]

Your main beef seems to be about size and reach not being notable advantages for Fury or Joshua. So, I'll put it another way, I don't think Joshua, Wilder or Fury would be as good if they were 6'1" with a reach that was in ratio, simple as that.

Likewise, Alexander Povetkin wouldn't be as effective a boxer based on the style he uses if he were to be the same height as Anthony Joshua or Fury, whilst possessing the same reach.

[No punch power]

Indeed. Insulin and HGH have only really became prominent in the recent decades and even today are incredibly hard to catch in tests. Assuming the testers and promoters have any desire to stop the users in the first place. lol. But as we all know it's just a dog and pony show.

Which is what makes 'drug testing' and their agencies non-credible and unreliable.