asdfjkl wrote:
Yes I do, you have to be so extremely good skilled to beat someone with a 14 inch reach advantage, it's nearly impossible.
Even Mayweather got an advantage in reach above Tyson.
Many of Tyson opponents had a significant reach advantage! Nearly impossible? Bruno had a 11 inch advantage in reach !
Can't believe I'm going to give this huge tactical boxing secret away, I'm sure trainers the world over will read this and it'll forever change their way of thinking . Never mind, here goes. If a fighter has a significantly longer reach... don't box on the outside.
asdfjkl wrote:I think it's fair to say that the heavyweights of nowadays are far superior compared to the ones of 25 and more years ago.
Muhammad Ali wouldn't even have been a heavyweight all the time and barely any of his opponends were either. The ones that were clearly showed to be more competative.
The sport simply develops over time. Mike tyson is 3 inches shorter as Povetkin, who's already considered quite short for nowadays top level heavyweights standards.
So likes of John Ruin, who had WBA title for 3-4 in early 2000s is "far superior" to likes of Foreman who was in his prime around '73.
If true how come a 45 year old Foreman won WBA and IBF titles in early 90s.
Povetkin is 6ft 2. Same as Holyfield who beat Bowe, and more than hung with giants like Lewis and Valuev.
I'm not a big Tyson fan, but are we saying he wouldn't beat Wad.... or <gulps> Fury
Oh, come on, Ruiz only had 7 opponends that were actually known by wikipedia in his first 40 matches and lost most of them. You can't really consider that as a top contender. Even David Haye, with his paper wins won against him. WBA winners just usually look for a lot of bums to fight, so they can keep their belt. They aren't actually good. Ruiz is just another example of that.
He might have had a chance against the previous generation, but not in modern.
Exactly. Evidence of how poor this generation of HWs are. Ruiz was champion . Doesnt that show how poor the era was compared to others?
Who are you rating from this generation that beats a '88 Tyson or '74 Foreman?
asdfjkl wrote:
Tyson is smaller as any top 100 boxrec heavyweight boxer of nowadays, Ali is similar muscled, similar speed, less range and less height. Tyson is basically the modern and UK version of Ali, just like Ali, Fury isn't even that popular at this moment of his carreer.
Briggs is similar to Foreman in some way, old, but good chin and Powerful. There's a reason most higher, but experienced boxers are scared of him.
Not making any sense of this. Are you saying Mike Tyson would have been too small to beat Fury?
Yes I do, you have to be so extremely good skilled to beat someone with a 14 inch reach advantage, it's nearly impossible.
Even Mayweather got an advantage in reach above Tyson.
asdfjkl wrote:
Yes I do, you have to be so extremely good skilled to beat someone with a 14 inch reach advantage, it's nearly impossible.
Even Mayweather got an advantage in reach above Tyson.
Many of Tyson opponents had a significant reach advantage! Nearly impossible? Bruno had a 11 inch advantage in reach !
Can't believe I'm going to give this huge tactical boxing secret away, I'm sure trainers the world over will read this and it'll forever change their way of thinking . Never mind, here goes. If a fighter has a significantly longer reach... don't box on the outside.
You believe Fury beats Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman?
Don't waste your time, just add to ignore list, it will make your life so much better.
asdfjkl wrote:I think it's fair to say that the heavyweights of nowadays are far superior compared to the ones of 25 and more years ago.
Muhammad Ali wouldn't even have been a heavyweight all the time and barely any of his opponends were either. The ones that were clearly showed to be more competative.
The sport simply develops over time. Mike tyson is 3 inches shorter as Povetkin, who's already considered quite short for nowadays top level heavyweights standards.
So likes of John Ruin, who had WBA title for 3-4 in early 2000s is "far superior" to likes of Foreman who was in his prime around '73.
If true how come a 45 year old Foreman won WBA and IBF titles in early 90s.
Povetkin is 6ft 2. Same as Holyfield who beat Bowe, and more than hung with giants like Lewis and Valuev.
I'm not a big Tyson fan, but are we saying he wouldn't beat Wad.... or <gulps> Fury
Even Tyson doubts he could beat Wlad. As for Ruiz, he was never at the top, you could find a boxer of any era worse than any of the ones at the top.
asdfjkl wrote:
Yes I do, you have to be so extremely good skilled to beat someone with a 14 inch reach advantage, it's nearly impossible.
Even Mayweather got an advantage in reach above Tyson.
Many of Tyson opponents had a significant reach advantage! Nearly impossible? Bruno had a 11 inch advantage in reach !
Can't believe I'm going to give this huge tactical boxing secret away, I'm sure trainers the world over will read this and it'll forever change their way of thinking . Never mind, here goes. If a fighter has a significantly longer reach... don't box on the outside.
Wales wrote:
So likes of John Ruin, who had WBA title for 3-4 in early 2000s is "far superior" to likes of Foreman who was in his prime around '73.
If true how come a 45 year old Foreman won WBA and IBF titles in early 90s.
Povetkin is 6ft 2. Same as Holyfield who beat Bowe, and more than hung with giants like Lewis and Valuev.
I'm not a big Tyson fan, but are we saying he wouldn't beat Wad.... or <gulps> Fury
Oh, come on, Ruiz only had 7 opponends that were actually known by wikipedia in his first 40 matches and lost most of them. You can't really consider that as a top contender. Even David Haye, with his paper wins won against him. WBA winners just usually look for a lot of bums to fight, so they can keep their belt. They aren't actually good. Ruiz is just another example of that.
He might have had a chance against the previous generation, but not in modern.
Exactly. Evidence of how poor this generation of HWs are. Ruiz was champion . Doesnt that show how poor the era was compared to others?
Who are you rating from this generation that beats a '88 Tyson or '74 Foreman?
asdfjkl wrote:I think it's fair to say that the heavyweights of nowadays are far superior compared to the ones of 25 and more years ago.
Muhammad Ali wouldn't even have been a heavyweight all the time and barely any of his opponends were either. The ones that were clearly showed to be more competative.
The sport simply develops over time. Mike tyson is 3 inches shorter as Povetkin, who's already considered quite short for nowadays top level heavyweights standards.
So likes of John Ruin, who had WBA title for 3-4 in early 2000s is "far superior" to likes of Foreman who was in his prime around '73.
If true how come a 45 year old Foreman won WBA and IBF titles in early 90s.
Povetkin is 6ft 2. Same as Holyfield who beat Bowe, and more than hung with giants like Lewis and Valuev.
I'm not a big Tyson fan, but are we saying he wouldn't beat Wad.... or <gulps> Fury
Even Tyson doubts he could beat Wlad. As for Ruiz, he was never at the top, you could find a boxer of any era worse than any of the ones at the top.
The Tyson of '88ish wouldn't doubt he'd beat a guy flattened by likes of Sanders and Brewster.
Ruiz was never at the top? You say '00-10 is a better era than, for example 70s. Name top ten of 2000-2010
asdfjkl wrote:
Oh, come on, Ruiz only had 7 opponends that were actually known by wikipedia in his first 40 matches and lost most of them. You can't really consider that as a top contender. Even David Haye, with his paper wins won against him. WBA winners just usually look for a lot of bums to fight, so they can keep their belt. They aren't actually good. Ruiz is just another example of that.
He might have had a chance against the previous generation, but not in modern.
Exactly. Evidence of how poor this generation of HWs are. Ruiz was champion . Doesnt that show how poor the era was compared to others?
Who are you rating from this generation that beats a '88 Tyson or '74 Foreman?
No it's just a product of lots of fake titles.
Wilder is a champion as well, even Stiverne had the title, just like the guy AJ recently took one from, as well as that Austrailian where it got taken away from again, because he was drugged or something.
Do you also consider the current top weak? Ortiz currently also has some type of belt. Which is not considered as a world title, but ok.
The trouble is other than Wlad who probably won't have many more fights, the top fighters are mostly pretty unknown. It'll take time to find out just how good Fury, Wilder, Joshua, Ortiz are. Then there are the up and comers like Parker, H.Fury and Granat at various stages that could become decent contenders. Match ups between eras are hard enough even once someone's career is over.
