Am I Getting Old Or....

[BitPlayer]

They're not great. I think the overall skill level is poor, but sheer size of some of them makes them effective.

[Impractical Poster]

On the contrary, I actually feel like the hws within the past couple years are the best we've had since prime Holy, Lewis, Tyson era. The last 15 years has been horrendous. We are finally getting a slew of solid, fit heavies who can go a strong 12 rounds.

[Thomastearns]

Today's heavyweights are as good as they need to be, and that's the way it's always been, and always will be.

Occasionally we see an exceptional heavyweight who stands out and dominates for a while. Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Vitali Klitschko etc all stood out.

It's interesting that both Parker and Povetkin look like throwbacks in size and build to previous eras of Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis. They both did ok last night against larger but slower men. Is it too much to suggest a peak Jack Dempsey could give AJ a lot of trouble?

The only place where we can directly compare is athletics via records. But even there vast differences in track and shoe technology blur comparisons. Then there's the issue of PED use which has blighted athletics for decades. Take that away and you lose a lot of records. In fact some suggest you should scrap all records and start afresh.

My guess is that you can only get as good as the boxers mentioned earlier, there is no reason why you should be any better. What edge you may get in modern training methods will almost always be blunted by the drive and hunger from previous times.

It's far to easy to assume that modern fighters are better. There is no obvious reason why they should be better or worse. Certainly not size - after about 6'2/6'3 the advantages start to diminish. Remember Louis was 6'2 and Dempsey was 6'1.

[Kalan]

How about Chris Byrd or Michael Dokes in their primes? I don't know if Joshua or Wilder could beat them.

They'd be a spot on the canvas if they tried.... Dokes was a crackhead and Byrd got ripped non-stop by Wladimir Klitschko... Klitschko is on record saying AJ is the strongest Heavyweight he fought and the best -- and the future of Boxing... Joshua can still get a lot better... Wladimir certainly did between 28 and 35.

Ummmm.... Wladimir beat a prime Byrd so badly it wasn't even funny...

[Badhusker]

Kalan thinking AJ is the greatest of all time shows you how retarded fans can be.

Imo, there are great heavyweights in every generation. It is pointless to compare them. same goes for all weights.

[Heretic]

is it possible today's best Heavyweights aren't that good?

The 1970s, its been said, was one of the best HW eras but I distinctly remember old guys then claiming they weren't as good as Marciano, Louis or Dempsey.

After watching Wilder and Joshua's recent performances, I find myself wondering could either of these belt holders have beaten a prime, and I emphasize prime, Mike Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, or either Klitschko? I'm not sure either Wilder or Joshua could.

Wilder and Joshua don't seem to throw in combinations like the best HWs of yesteryear. So let's forget about patriotism and partisanship. Am I right here? Are they not as good?

It is a different game than before.

Parker was looking small next to Joshua. And hes 6'4''.

Remember when big George was towering over the other HW's? Well he was 6′ 3½″...

Guys as big as Joshua do not look that good moving around or throwing combinations. They are however very effective.

I don't think that small guys like Frazier or Tyson would find much success in today's division.

[SenorPipino]

is it possible today's best Heavyweights aren't that good?

The 1970s, its been said, was one of the best HW eras but I distinctly remember old guys then claiming they weren't as good as Marciano, Louis or Dempsey.

After watching Wilder and Joshua's recent performances, I find myself wondering could either of these belt holders have beaten a prime, and I emphasize prime, Mike Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, or either Klitschko? I'm not sure either Wilder or Joshua could.

Wilder and Joshua don't seem to throw in combinations like the best HWs of yesteryear. So let's forget about patriotism and partisanship. Am I right here? Are they not as good?

It is a different game than before.

Parker was looking small next to Joshua. And hes 6'4''.

Remember when big George was towering over the other HW's? Well he was 6′ 3½″...

Guys as big as Joshua do not look that good moving around or throwing combinations. They are however very effective.

I don't think that small guys like Frazier or Tyson would find much success in today's division.

Talent will win out.

If size was the determining factor, then Julius Long would have been heavyweight champion of the world.

Great fighters can overcome the physical advantages of lesser men.

It's not like Frazier or Tyson towered over most of their opponents. And they didn't do too badly.

Parker lost, not because he was a whopping 2 inches shorter than Joshua. He lost because Joshua was more talented.

[Heretic]

is it possible today's best Heavyweights aren't that good?

The 1970s, its been said, was one of the best HW eras but I distinctly remember old guys then claiming they weren't as good as Marciano, Louis or Dempsey.

After watching Wilder and Joshua's recent performances, I find myself wondering could either of these belt holders have beaten a prime, and I emphasize prime, Mike Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, or either Klitschko? I'm not sure either Wilder or Joshua could.

Wilder and Joshua don't seem to throw in combinations like the best HWs of yesteryear. So let's forget about patriotism and partisanship. Am I right here? Are they not as good?

It is a different game than before.

Parker was looking small next to Joshua. And hes 6'4''.

Remember when big George was towering over the other HW's? Well he was 6′ 3½″...

Guys as big as Joshua do not look that good moving around or throwing combinations. They are however very effective.

I don't think that small guys like Frazier or Tyson would find much success in today's division.

Talent will win out.

If size was the determining factor, then Julius Long would have been heavyweight champion of the world.

Great fighters can overcome the physical advantages of lesser men.

It's not like Frazier or Tyson towered over most of their opponents. And they didn't do too badly.

Parker lost, not because he was a whopping 2 inches shorter than Joshua. He lost because Joshua was more talented.

Yes... Skills pay the bills.

What you call talent is important. And proper training to get all of that talent used is important too.

Joshua won against Parker because he is the better boxer. But size is also part of that.

If two very skilled and well trained boxers. Talented ones as you might put that... Would be other vice equal but the other is 30 pounds heavier who would you pick to win?

It is hard for great small boxers to compete against great big boxers.

[RScarf1]

How about Chris Byrd or Michael Dokes in their primes? I don't know if Joshua or Wilder could beat them.

They'd be a spot on the canvas if they tried.... Dokes was a crackhead and Byrd got ripped non-stop by Wladimir Klitschko... Klitschko is on record saying AJ is the strongest Heavyweight he fought and the best -- and the future of Boxing... Joshua can still get a lot better... Wladimir certainly did between 28 and 35.

Ummmm.... Wladimir beat a prime Byrd so badly it wasn't even funny...

Dokes gave Holyfield a tough time and that was when he was past his prime. I think right now, Joshua or Wilder don't have a resume on the level of Byrd or Dokes yet. I know that comparing them in their primes is a different topic, but I don't think Joshua or Wilder can get much better than they already are because of their age and the lack of good competition to improve against. Holyfield won the heavyweight title in his late 20s, but he had previous experience as a cruiserweight champion and before he received his title shot against Buster Douglas, he had to beat a few contenders at heavyweight. I don't think it is typical for even a heavyweight to get better at boxing in their 30s than they were in their 20s like Wladimir Klitschko did. They may have more opportunities to fight better opponents and then by winning, that makes them appear to be better. Larry Holmes was probably at his best in his late 20s when he won the heavyweight title and defeated Ken Norton.

[Lackeos]

Am I getting old, or is the post-Klitschko era of 2016-2018 decidedly only one-fifth as long as any other 10-year window of time?

[jamamb]

^

lol i now rght...wlad only retired last year. and pretty much most good guys now and already champs or contenders were around when wlad was actve.

On the contrary, I actually feel like the hws within the past couple years are the best we've had since prime Holy, Lewis, Tyson era. The last 15 years has been horrendous. We are finally getting a slew of solid, fit heavies who can go a strong 12 rounds.

a slew?

such as? maybe a few guys?

[brokenbiscuits]

It's not really fair to say Joshua doesn't compare to these fighters in their primes when even he himself readily admits he's still very much a work in progress.

Lewis hit his prime around 33. You'd probably say the same of Holyfield and Klitschkos. Tyson is another story - due to his personal issues, he's so difficult to compare against other greats as he missed what would potentially have been his prime.

Much better surely to compare where these fighters were at the same age.

Lewis was at a very similar stage at 28, 25-0 and world champion beating some very good but maybe not great opponents (though not far away from being ko'd by McCall).

Vladimir Klitschko had already been ko'd 3 times and pretty much done nothing. Vitali was unbeaten as WBO champ but Herbie Hide, who probably wouldn't even be top 5 UK heavy if he was fighting today, was the best he'd faced.

Holyfield had just become heavyweight champ having dominated a very weak cruiserweight division.

Bowe was being retired by Golota.

And Tyson wasn't doing much at all at 28, but had a similar trajectory at a younger age.

So is it fair to say that Joshua compares pretty well with the modern greats at 28? I think so. Does that mean he'll be one himself? Only time will tell. It's a bit silly to try and work out where he sits in the GOAT debate when we probably haven't seen his best yet.

[brokenbiscuits]

I don't think it is typical for even a heavyweight to get better at boxing in their 30s than they were in their 20s like Wladimir Klitschko did.

Or like Vitali did. Or like Lennox did. Or as you admit like Larry Holmes did.

Byrd didn't even fight at world level until he was 28, and he got destroyed by Ibeabuchi. Then he also got better in his 30s.

What evidence points to them not getting any better? Especially Joshua, who started fighting at a relatively late age, surely experience can only be a good thing?

[Impractical Poster]

^

lol i now rght...wlad only retired last year. and pretty much most good guys now and already champs or contenders were around when wlad was actve.

On the contrary, I actually feel like the hws within the past couple years are the best we've had since prime Holy, Lewis, Tyson era. The last 15 years has been horrendous. We are finally getting a slew of solid, fit heavies who can go a strong 12 rounds.

a slew?

such as? maybe a few guys?

A guess a slew is an exaggeration. But we have guys like Parker, AJ, Wilder, Takam, Ortiz, White who are all game, in shape fighters who have no problem going a hard 12 rounds.

A lot better than we had several years ago when everything was dominated by Wlad and the next big things were guys like Helenus, Chisora, Arreola, Thompson, etc...

[jpspice]

The old timers had to go 15 rounds. And the real old timers fought until a man could no longer stand which sometimes became an insanely long fight. Along with that the refs were way less forgiving and it wasn't out of the ordinary for a guy to hit the canvas(multiple times), jump back up and resume fighting within seconds. The ref in this fight seemed worried that somebody was gonna get hurt and yes, completely derailed Parkers only plausible strategy. From a physical standpoint I would say Jack Johnson was as daunting a physical specimen as AJ and withstood the test of time. I have virtually lost interest in the HWs and hoped that this fight would bring something to the table, not so. But is it a lack of ability or a lack of heart?

[RScarf1]

I don't think it is typical for even a heavyweight to get better at boxing in their 30s than they were in their 20s like Wladimir Klitschko did.

Or like Vitali did. Or like Lennox did. Or as you admit like Larry Holmes did.

Byrd didn't even fight at world level until he was 28, and he got destroyed by Ibeabuchi. Then he also got better in his 30s.

What evidence points to them not getting any better? Especially Joshua, who started fighting at a relatively late age, surely experience can only be a good thing?

I don't think Holmes was better in his 30s or Lennox. I guess Vitali. I agree with you there. So basically the Klitschko brothers were better in their 30s. Any others?

[jamamb]

povektin peaked in mid 30s, although the reasons for that, i dunno

[Kalan]

Kalan thinking AJ is the greatest of all time shows you how retarded fans can be.

Imo, there are great heavyweights in every generation. It is pointless to compare them. same goes for all weights.

You can't stop people from comparing fighters of different generations -- because of nostalgia....

People always remember the great times of their youth -- and they tend to forget about the hard times... Things were always better and easier in their generation...."Dempsey would have murdered this bum."

Or substitute Louis, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis or any other fistic hero who was beaten and knocked out in their day but now loom larger than life..... It will certainly be the same bias 100's of years from now when 2410's fighters are compared to 2370's fighters .... It's not going to stop.

[Wales]

I don't think it is typical for even a heavyweight to get better at boxing in their 30s than they were in their 20s like Wladimir Klitschko did.

Or like Vitali did. Or like Lennox did. Or as you admit like Larry Holmes did.

Byrd didn't even fight at world level until he was 28, and he got destroyed by Ibeabuchi. Then he also got better in his 30s.

What evidence points to them not getting any better? Especially Joshua, who started fighting at a relatively late age, surely experience can only be a good thing?

I don't think Holmes was better in his 30s or Lennox. I guess Vitali. I agree with you there. So basically the Klitschko brothers were better in their 30s. Any others?

Lewis turned 30 in 1995. I’d certainly say he was better after the age of 30.
He

[RScarf1]

Lewis turned 30 in 1995. I’d certainly say he was better after the age of 30.
He

Lewis almost lost to Ray Mercer in 1996, but won by majority decision. Lewis arguably should have lost.

[Wales]

[quote=Wales post_id=4889011 time=<a href="tel:1522636913">1522636913</a> user_id=2916]Lewis turned 30 in 1995. I’d certainly say he was better after the age of 30.
He


Lewis almost lost to Ray Mercer in 1996, but won by majority decision. Lewis arguably should have lost.

And? How does that prove a 30 and below Lewis was better than a post 30 Lewis

A pre 3o year old Lewis lost to Oliver McCall in 1994

Pre 30 Lewis best wins are prObabky frank Bruno and Tony Tucker

After turning 30 he beat Morrison, Holyfield , Golotta, Tyson, Briggs, Klitschko, Tua, Botha , Rahman, Moorer and avenged his defeat to Mcall

[gilgamesh]

How about Chris Byrd or Michael Dokes in their primes? I don't know if Joshua or Wilder could beat them.

Yeah they definitely could.

[gilgamesh]

Kalan thinking AJ is the greatest of all time shows you how retarded fans can be.

Imo, there are great heavyweights in every generation. It is pointless to compare them. same goes for all weights.

You can't stop people from comparing fighters of different generations -- because of nostalgia....

People always remember the great times of their youth -- and they tend to forget about the hard times... Things were always better and easier in their generation...."Dempsey would have murdered this bum."

Or substitute Louis, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis or any other fistic hero who was beaten and knocked out in their day but now loom larger than life..... It will certainly be the same bias 100's of years from now when 2410's fighters are compared to 2370's fighters .... It's not going to stop.

I just hope there are still fighters in 2410 and the world hasn't become a bunch of nancy boys....more so

[SenorPipino]

The world's gone pansy.

I don't know if professional boxing will be legal by the end of this century.

Luckily, I won't be around to endure a world without boxing.

[ValMar]

The world's gone pansy.

I don't know if professional boxing will be legal by the end of this century.

Luckily, I won't be around to endure a world without boxing.

Yes !