SONNY LISTON VS ANTHONY JOSHUA

[Kalan]

Right... Wladimir might have an edge in that case... But he really had his head into the Joshua fight 100%...

I've never seen him give that much... He let it all hang out like he knew it was going to be his finale.

Joshua has every chance to get better in the next 5 to 8 years.

[oogiebe]

Right... Wladimir might have an edge in that case... But he really had his head into the Joshua fight 100%...

I've never seen him give that much... He let it all hang out like he knew it was going to be his finale.

Joshua has every chance to get better in the next 5 to 8 years.

The future is difficult to predict, we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure you can think up several fighters who started out great and then plateaued. Anything can happen. My biggest worry for AJ is too much too fast.

[Kalan]

I'm sure you can think up several fighters who started out great and then plateaued.

Patterson... Ali.... Foreman.... Frazier.... Tyson.... Bowe.... Norton.... Chambers... Haye... Povetkin... Ortiz...

Wilder might be next.... 40 straight wins, 39 by KO -- but looks to be plateauing and ready to get knocked stiff.

[MrGuy]

I'm sure you can think up several fighters who started out great and then plateaued.

Patterson... Ali.... Foreman.... Frazier.... Tyson.... Bowe.... Norton.... Chambers... Haye... Povetkin... Ortiz...

Wilder might be next.... 40 straight wins, 39 by KO -- but looks to be plateauing and ready to get knocked stiff.

How much better was Ali supposed to get?

[oogiebe]

I'm sure you can think up several fighters who started out great and then plateaued.

Patterson... Ali.... Foreman.... Frazier.... Tyson.... Bowe.... Norton.... Chambers... Haye... Povetkin... Ortiz...

Wilder might be next.... 40 straight wins, 39 by KO -- but looks to be plateauing and ready to get knocked stiff.

How much better was Ali supposed to get?

How much better than "The Greatest!" indeed!

[Kalan]

I'm sure you can think up several fighters who started out great and then plateaued.

Patterson... Ali.... Foreman.... Frazier.... Tyson.... Bowe.... Norton.... Chambers... Haye... Povetkin... Ortiz...

Wilder might be next.... 40 straight wins, 39 by KO -- but looks to be plateauing and ready to get knocked stiff.

How much better was Ali supposed to get?

Good enough to stop getting smashed with left hooks... knocked on his ass... and getting his jaw shattered.

Good enough to develop a body attack and inside game and stop grabbing and holding all the time.

Good enough so that he didn't have to lay on the ropes getting the living shitt beaten out of him.... That's for starters.

How good could Lomachenko get? .... He's still working at it.. That's how you get better.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think Wladimir's dominance from 2006 to 2015 is indicative of a decline in the division. The first thing to note is that he subsequently beat guys who by all appearances are better fighters than the guys he lost to. Povetkin for example certainly seems to be well above Purrity and Brewster. His losses are to better opponents and he generally beat superior opposition. David Haye and Kubrat Pulev would also rate ahead of Brewster and Purrity.

There is also the fact that the division was not terribly strong in many of the years Wladimir was struggling
The ratings by ring magazine for 2003, 2004, 2005 are as follows. I don't see a big edge for these years relative to later years like 2010 or 2012. Remember by this time the 90s top guys had largely faded from contention.
2003 2004
1.Lennox Lewis 1.Vitali Klitschko
2.Vitali Klitschko 2.Chris Byrd
3.Chris Byrd 3.John Ruiz
4.Corrie Sanders 4.Hasim Rahman
5.Roy Jones Jr. 5.James Toney
6.James Toney 6.Monte Barrett
7.David Tua 7.Andrew Golota
8.John Ruiz 8.Fres Oquendo
9.Wladimir Klitschko 9.Jameel McCline
10.Fres Oquendo 10.Corrie Sanders

2005
1.Chris Byrd
2.Hasim Rahman
3.James Toney
4.Lamon Brewster
5.John Ruiz
6.Monte Barrett
7.Calvin Brock
8.Wladimir Klitschko
9.Samuel Peter
10.Nikolai Vauev

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think Wladimir's dominance from 2006 to 2015 is indicative of a decline in the division. The first thing to note is that he subsequently beat guys who by all appearances are better fighters than the guys he lost to. Povetkin for example certainly seems to be well above Purrity and Brewster. His losses are to better opponents and he generally beat superior opposition. David Haye and Kubrat Pulev would also rate ahead of Brewster and Purrity.

There is also the fact that the division was not terribly strong in many of the years Wladimir was struggling
The ratings by ring magazine for 2003, 2004, 2005 are as follows. I don't see a big edge for these years relative to later years like 2010 or 2012. Remember by this time the 90s top guys had largely faded from contention.
2003 2004
1.Lennox Lewis 1.Vitali Klitschko
2.Vitali Klitschko 2.Chris Byrd
3.Chris Byrd 3.John Ruiz
4.Corrie Sanders 4.Hasim Rahman
5.Roy Jones Jr. 5.James Toney
6.James Toney 6.Monte Barrett
7.David Tua 7.Andrew Golota
8.John Ruiz 8.Fres Oquendo
9.Wladimir Klitschko 9.Jameel McCline
10.Fres Oquendo 10.Corrie Sanders

2005
1.Chris Byrd
2.Hasim Rahman
3.James Toney
4.Lamon Brewster
5.John Ruiz
6.Monte Barrett
7.Calvin Brock
8.Wladimir Klitschko
9.Samuel Peter
10.Nikolai Vauev

The division was already in decline before 2006. Terrible when compared to most eras before it.
But yes it an obvious indication. He got crushed multiple times by far from great fighters. Then his the best fighter for years even when he was getting older and older. Use some common sense.
Had there been quality competition he would not have been the best fight fighter for any length of time, let alone 8 years when he was in his late 30s.
This isn't rocket science.

[Cojimar 1946]

That argument doesn't make sense, for example Lewis lost to Rahman and McCall but many people think he was the best heavy of the 1990s despite the fact that there were fighters around better than the guys who beat him. If Wladimir's losses took him out of contention the same would be true for Lewis but most people feel Lewis's losses were due to complacency and don't rule him out against a prime Holyfield or prime Tyson.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course it does. There are many differences with the Lewis and Klitschko situation.


First, McCall and Rahman were better than Purritty, Sanders, and Brewster. Second, the McCall fight was very controversial. Lewis only had one bad loss while Klitschko had three beatdowns.

Third, Lewis avenged both his losses. Klitschko only avenged one of the three.

Fourth, Lewis was not universally regarded as the best during this time. A lot of people think Holyfield was the better fighter of the era. Some think Tyson was better. They were each in his league.

Only one of Lewis' losses was when he was in his 20. And that one was controversial. Klitschko had three by that point.

Look at how it went down. Lewis didn't get ripped apart three times. Then later was almost clearly regarded as the best heavyweight for several years, even when he was clearly declining.

If Lewis got crushed three times in the early 90s, then later dominated for almost a decade, then of course people would question the era that he was dominating. That should be a red flag.

This is commonsense.

[Kalan]

Of course it does. There are many differences with the Lewis and Klitschko situation.

First, McCall and Rahman were better than Purritty, Sanders, and Brewster. Second, the McCall fight was very controversial. Lewis only had one bad loss while Klitschko had three beatdowns.

Third, Lewis avenged both his losses. Klitschko only avenged one of the three.

Fourth, Lewis was not universally regarded as the best during this time. A lot of people think Holyfield was the better fighter of the era. Some think Tyson was better. They were each in his league.

Only one of Lewis' losses was when he was in his 20. And that one was controversial. Klitschko had three by that point.

Look at how it went down. Lewis didn't get ripped apart three times. Then later was almost clearly regarded as the best heavyweight for several years, even when he was clearly declining.

If Lewis got crushed three times in the early 90s, then later dominated for almost a decade, then of course people would question the era that he was dominating. That should be a red flag.

This is commonsense.

Boxer-punchers are generally better in their mid 30's than their 20's.... They have 20 years of experience and mastery to draw on and their physical prowess hasn't declined any... This was true of both Lewis and Wladimir.

Klitschko very easily beat Brewster in the rematch and would have done the same to Puritty and Sanders... Wlad had the flu prior to Puritty and was badly underweight at 224... He never weighed within 10 pounds of being that light in a future fight.. He easily won every round from Puritty to the 10th... He only lost because he was weak and ran out of gas.

Klitschko dominated Brewster in their 1st fight through 4 rounds... Both Emanuel Steward and Wlad claim he was drugged... He showed classic symptoms of sudden weakening before he got hit with a hard punch... Millions of dollars of late betting came in on underdog Brewster and moved the odds in unprecedented fashion.

Sanders exploited a major hole in Wladimir's defense... Emanuel Steward closed the holes up tight... That fight was in Wladimir's mid-20's... Wladimir reached his peak in his mid-30's, just as Lewis did... After Lewis knocked out Michael Grant at 34 Lewis said "I'm like fine wine, I get better with age." Wlad fought an ATG Heavyweight Championship Fight vs Joshua at 41.. He was in decline by his 40's but still had 90% of what he had age 33 through 38...

Ali, Louis, Tyson, and others were shells by their mid-30's... Alp pretends that everyone peaks at the same age.

Klitschko fought everybody who would meet him.... Lewis ducked every southpaw out there while Wlad fought more southpaws than any other Heavyweight Champion in History.

Klitschko dominated fighters such as Povetkin, Haye, Byrd, and Chambers in his mid-30's.. They were better than his opponents in his early losses... After Wladimir was with Emmanuel Steward for 3 years his whole game was 10 X better.

V Klitschko was winning the Lewis Fight on ALL cards... If fouls cause cuts you go to the scorecards... Vitali should have been awarded a Unanimous Technical Decision https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtdOteT5G0Q ... This vid shows 5 graphic fouls... 1. Classic thumb strike cuts eyelid... 2.. Illegal head grab... 3.. Head and hair rubbing into cut... 4.. Holding-n-Hitting... 5.. Hitting with edge and palm of glove to slash open eyelid cut... Watch to end to see all 5 fouls.

Only a few biased Americans think Holyfield was better than Lewis.. Bowe ducked Lewis, but knocked a prime Holyfield down 3 X winning their trilogy... Lewis easily beat Holyfield twice... Everyone knows the 1st fight was a robbery.

[MrGuy]

Patterson... Ali.... Foreman.... Frazier.... Tyson.... Bowe.... Norton.... Chambers... Haye... Povetkin... Ortiz...

Wilder might be next.... 40 straight wins, 39 by KO -- but looks to be plateauing and ready to get knocked stiff.

How much better was Ali supposed to get?

Good enough to stop getting smashed with left hooks... knocked on his ass... and getting his jaw shattered.

Good enough to develop a body attack and inside game and stop grabbing and holding all the time.

Good enough so that he didn't have to lay on the ropes getting the living shitt beaten out of him.... That's for starters.

How good could Lomachenko get? .... He's still working at it.. That's how you get better.

No fighter is perfect. He was the greatest. Wlad wasn't and Lomanchenko wont be. You do realize the grabbing, laying on the ropes broken jaw guy was out his prime don't you? Put the 90s top guys in Wlads era and they dominate forever like he did. Even if you exclude his gaping eye would Vitali was,well on his way to running out of gas against a fat old version of Lewis.

[Kalan]

How much better was Ali supposed to get?

Good enough to stop getting smashed with left hooks... knocked on his ass... and getting his jaw shattered.

Good enough to develop a body attack and inside game and stop grabbing and holding all the time.

Good enough so that he didn't have to lay on the ropes getting the living shitt beaten out of him.... That's for starters.

How good could Lomachenko get? .... He's still working at it.. That's how you get better.

No fighter is perfect. He was the greatest. Wlad wasn't and Lomanchenko wont be. You do realize the grabbing, laying on the ropes broken jaw guy was out his prime don't you? Put the 90s top guys in Wlads era and they dominate forever like he did. Even if you exclude his gaping eye would Vitali was,well on his way to running out of gas against a fat old version of Lewis.

No fighter is perfect, but FEW World Champions got battered as badly as Ali did or were as easy to hit... The K Bros and Joshua can defend themselves better than Ali could in an era where Boxing has greater global competition and there are many more Heavyweights... A huge slice of the world didn't even have Professional Boxing in the 60's/70's.

Ali was not the greatest and he got hit all the time... Lomachenko takes WAY fewer punches and lands a bigger differential than anyone in Boxing history.. Vitali had plenty of gas.. He was out landing Lewis by a big margin and leading on all scorecards -- despite being fouled and fouled and fouled some more with a corrupt referee helping him.

[Kalan]

Ali post 1970 had no right to be .... champion of the world. His speed, mobility, and reflexes had long since deserted him.

No they didn't... Ali was as fast and sharp as ever when he faced Quarry at age 28 - for his 1st comeback fight... There were no excuses for Ali to get the living shitt beaten out of him by Frazier, Norton, Spinks etc... Ali couldn't cut it.

Vitali Klitschko was inactive for a longer period than Ali was... Vitali was out 4 years and came back at age 37... His speed, mobility, and reflexes were diminished more by those extra 9 years than anything Ali suffered... However Vitali replaced those assets with the wisdom, insights, skills, knowledge, and experience that only age can give you...

The first thing Vitali did was smash Sam Peter and win back his Heavyweight Championship... Then the elderly Vitali won 9 more World Title Fights in a row finessing each of his younger challengers... Before retiring at age 41 with his brains still intact because he could defend himself a lot better than Ali, Louis, Tyson, and many other aging Champions.

Vitali became the Mayor of Kiev -- which has a population of 3 million people and is the biggest city in Ukraine... There aren't too many boxers with the mental prowess to transition an important leadership position of that scale.

[Cojimar 1946]

You can certainly make a reasonable case for Rahman and McCall being better than Sanders and Brewster but if they are better it's certainly not to a great degree. With Rahman you have a guy who lost twice to Oleg Maskaev in his prime. Maskaev was knocked out by Kirk Johnson and Lance Whittaker yet he beat Rahman twice and by decisive brutal kayo. Rahman also lost to Ruiz in his prime. Losing to guy who couldn't beat Ruiz let alone Oleg Maskaev is certainly a major mark against Lewis.

Wladimir's loss to Purrity occurred before he had reached his peak and before he had even emerged as a top contender. It would be analogous to Lewis losing to somebody in 1990. I don't think it's relevant when assessing his career. Most people don't count Tyson's losses to Williams and McBride for instance.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as avenging losses goes I don't think the Purrity fight needed to be avenged given where Wladimir was in his career at that stage. He should have avenged his loss to Sanders but by the time Wladimir had moved back to top form Corrie Sanders had fallen out of contention and was well past his prime. An immediate rematch might have been possible but I don't think such a move would have been wise. It was smarter for Wladimir to spend some time figuring out what went wrong and how he could alter the way he fought so he was less vulnerable.

[Kalan]

With Rahman you have a guy who lost twice to Oleg Maskaev in his prime. Maskaev was knocked out by Kirk Johnson and Lance Whittaker yet he beat Rahman twice and by decisive brutal kayo. Rahman also lost to Ruiz in his prime. Losing to guy who couldn't beat Ruiz let alone Oleg Maskaev is certainly a major mark against Lewis.

Right... China-chinned Rahman flattened Lewis .... and Lewis lost badly to Rahman when Lewis was a finished product...

We wouldn't have Wladimir Klitschko the ATG Heavyweight Champion who reigned for 10 years straight and with 18 straight Title Defenses without Emmanuel Steward.... Just like we wouldn't have Joe Louis without Jack Blackburn.... Trying to say Wladimir was at his best before he teamed up with Emmanuel Steward is dismissing Steward as an ATG coach -- and dismissing Waldimir Klitschko's record breaking reign as Heavyweight Champion.

[Boxing Writer]

As far as avenging losses goes I don't think the Purrity fight needed to be avenged given where Wladimir was in his career at that stage. He should have avenged his loss to Sanders but by the time Wladimir had moved back to top form Corrie Sanders had fallen out of contention and was well past his prime. An immediate rematch might have been possible but I don't think such a move would have been wise. It was smarter for Wladimir to spend some time figuring out what went wrong and how he could alter the way he fought so he was less vulnerable.

I think Wladimir should have avenged his loss to Puritty (and I'm sure he would beat him easily in the rematch). But Sanders would have KO'ed him again. With blistering handspeed and unorthodox punches he was all wrong for that version of Wlad. Hell, even 13-month older and 10 lbs heavier Sanders gave prime Vitali all he could handle for the first three rounds of their fight and hurt him more than anyone else did in boxing.

[Cojimar 1946]

I also find this revisionism regarding the 90s to be rather bizarre. Back during the 90s my impression is that boxing fans frequently complained about the state of the division and said the fighters didn't measure up to heavyweights of earlier eras. At the time it does not seem to have been generally viewed as a golden age at the time.

I think it may be linked with Tyson hype from the 80s. Had Tyson never come back after prison, Holyfield would not have made a name for himself by beating Tyson and Lewis would have gotten less credit for beating Holyfield and of course no credit for beating Tyson.

[Kalan]

As far as avenging losses goes I don't think the Purrity fight needed to be avenged given where Wladimir was in his career at that stage. He should have avenged his loss to Sanders but by the time Wladimir had moved back to top form Corrie Sanders had fallen out of contention and was well past his prime. An immediate rematch might have been possible but I don't think such a move would have been wise. It was smarter for Wladimir to spend some time figuring out what went wrong and how he could alter the way he fought so he was less vulnerable.

I think Wladimir should have avenged his loss to Puritty (and I'm sure he would beat him easily in the rematch). But Sanders would have KO'ed him again. With blistering handspeed and unorthodox punches he was all wrong for that version of Wlad. Hell, even 13-month older and 10 lbs heavier Sanders gave prime Vitali all he could handle for the first three rounds of their fight and hurt him more than anyone else did in boxing.

It wasn't blistering hand speed.. It's like Ali getting nailed with left hooks... Wladimir had a gaping hole in his defense at that time.. Few could find it, but Sanders was the perfect height and angle.. His power left whistled right through it.

Sanders didn't hurt Vitali at all... That fight could go the distance so he doesn't want to get outscored. A guy can tag you with a shot that looks great to the spectators and your corner chastises you about getting hit with -- but you didn't feel it in the slightest. It wasn’t a nothing punch because it scored. It doesn’t have to be effective to look good.

Even punches that rock you or jar you and you know you were hit solidly, but didn’t hurt you at all... It’s like a blind side hit in football... You feel the hit and it’s over. Every other play you’re running into somebody full blast. Like you can clap your hands real hard and make a loud explosive sound, but it doesn’t hurt your hands one bit. Most punches are like that. They look better than they are. You're corner yells "he's hurt" and you're thinking "shut your face, I'll know when he's hurt."

Then there’s the shot that hits you in a real good spot. It has tremendous leverage and power behind it and buzzes you.. If you see somebody’s legs buckle or stagger you know he’s hurt, but he doesn’t have to feel it in his legs. His eyes will have a certain confused or dazed look and you can get him out. There’s 2 guys I’ve never seen hurt.. One is Vitali and the other is Oliver McCall.. Some guys are almost bullet proof, but there's always someone who can beat you.

[Ambling Alp II]

I also find this revisionism regarding the 90s to be rather bizarre. Back during the 90s my impression is that boxing fans frequently complained about the state of the division and said the fighters didn't measure up to heavyweights of earlier eras. At the time it does not seem to have been generally viewed as a golden age at the time.

I think it may be linked with Tyson hype from the 80s. Had Tyson never come back after prison, Holyfield would not have made a name for himself by beating Tyson and Lewis would have gotten less credit for beating Holyfield and of course no credit for beating Tyson.

I finds most of your conclusions to be rather bizarre.
Some of the highlights:

-Like when you said the 1970s was not that good because one fighter (Floyd Patterson) whom you kept deeming a "1950s fighter" beat one fighter (Oscar Bonavena) whom you deemed a 1970s fighter.

-Then there is your rating Oliver McCall higher than Riddick Bowe.

-Then actually referred to a period of time as the the "Povetkin era". At least that one was funny.

Anyway, usually an era is not considered great while it is in progress.
I don't think anyone is saying that the 1990s was perfect; just that it was a good era in the heavyweight division.

[Cojimar 1946]

An immediate rematch might have been a bad idea but I think the later Steward-trained Wlad would have had a good chance of reversing his loss to Sanders. He seemed to fight much more cautiously and would probably respond better if he was hurt.

[Kalan]

Corrie Sanders was the most poorly managed and trained Heavyweight who ever won a Heavyweight Title...

He didn't suffer any punishment against Wladimir... He could have defended the WBO Title with a couple quick voluntary defenses in South Africa and made a few million ... and then went for a big money fight... He was in good condition for the Wladimir Klitschko fight, but could have used another month of training because they got him off the golf course.

I would have lined him up with somebody big, awkward, and slow right away.. Like Michael Grant, Jameel McCline, Andrew Golota or Lou Saverese... The only requirements being they have a decent name and be somebody you can beat.

His team screwed around until he was stripped by the WBO... He fought Vitali next and nobody thought he had a chance in Hell to win, it had been over a year since he fought... World Champions are in demand and people want to fight them.. You take immediate advantage of that if you have a well recognized World Title... Sanders won the WBU Heavyweight Championship earlier and nobody gave a crap.... It was a joke Title nobody wanted.

[Cojimar 1946]

With regards to Lewis, many people feel he was better in his 30s than in his 20s. However, he was prone to erratic performances and even later in his career had fights where he looked unimpressive.

As I pointed out though just looking at the year by year rankings and watching fights of the fighters in question goes a long way to disproving the idea that the division was weaker from 2006 onwards than it was in 2003, 2004, and 2005. By the 2010s you had guys like Povetkin, Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder, Anthony Joshua, etc. The division certainly seemed to be fairly strong by that point.

[Kalan]

The Heavyweight Division is better shape now than it's ever been, due to powerful worldwide competition.... America is 4% of the world's population -- and we dominated Heavyweight Boxing for over 100 years up til the mid 1990's.

Boxing has spread to the rest of the world... Which is a good thing... TOP 40 HEAVYWEIGHTS:

1. Anthony Joshua... 2. Deontay Wilder... 3. Joseph Parker... 4. Alexander Povetkin... 5. Jarrell Miller... 6. Luis Ortiz... 7. Dominic Breazeale... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Carlos Takam... 10. Dillian Whyte 11. Hughie Fury... 12. Kubrat Pulev… 13. Gerald Washington... 14. Bryant Jennings... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Oscar Rivas... 17. David Haye... 18. Charles Martin... 19. Christian Hammer... 20. Tom Schwarz... 21. Izuagbe Ugonoh... 22. Jun Long Zhang... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Ruslan Chagaev... 25. Otto Wallin... 26. Artur Szpilka... 27. Amir Mansour… 28. Bermane Stiverne... 29. Czar Glazkov... 30. Robert Helenius... 31. Eric Molina... 32. Tony Bellew… 33. Malik Scott... 34. Erkan Tepper... 35. Alexander Ustinov... 36. Adam Kownacki... 37. Lucas Browne... 38. Francesco Pianeta... 39. Carlos Negron... 40. Andriy Rudenko