Evaluation of Alexander Povetkin's career

[Onetimeonly]

Pov had some good wins:

Chris Byrd
Larry Donald was a pretty fair fighter
Takam
Whyte
Chagaev

A list of guys just under those guys and of course going 12 with Wlad.

I don't think his ko of Shavers rates that high. And as I said earlier Lyle was still inexperienced. I think he was fighting like from 1964 in prison fights but was only released from jail 4 years before facing Quarry. I'd bet had they fought a year or two later Lyle would've stopped Quarry.

Chambers win was also decent for Povetkin, as well as knockouts over Perez and Duhaupas.

Good points on Lyle too.

I think Byrd and chambers was his prime

[DrDuke]

I think Byrd and chambers was his prime

He looked better at that period than in next several years of switching trainers, but still I see his best shape during the KO win course over Charr, Takam, Perez, Wach and Duhaupas.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Povetkin's era H2H is badly underrated. The era had poor matchmaking but talent wise I think it would best many prior eras.

A lot of the 60s/70s guys seem to be overrated simply on the basis of sharing an era with Ali. Had they come around in a different time I doubt they would be thought of so highly. If Earnie Shavers were fighting in Povetkin's era he would probably not be rated as highly by people and be thought of the way people perceive guys like Dmitry Kudryashov, Junior Makabu or Tomasz Adamek.

[Ambling Alp II]

Pov had some good wins:

Chris Byrd
Larry Donald was a pretty fair fighter
Takam
Whyte
Chagaev

A list of guys just under those guys and of course going 12 with Wlad.

I don't think his ko of Shavers rates that high. And as I said earlier Lyle was still inexperienced. I think he was fighting like from 1964 in prison fights but was only released from jail 4 years before facing Quarry. I'd bet had they fought a year or two later Lyle would've stopped Quarry.

Byrd and Donald were way past it by then. Byrd was 37 and Donald was 40. The other three were professional fighters, I will give you that.

Lyle was not some inexperienced kid. He was already in his early 3os and had scored a couple of nice kos already. He was the number 4 contender already. He was a helluva lot closer to his prime than Byrd and Donald were to theirs when Povetkin fought them.

He beat Lyle fair and square. He beat Shavers, He beat Patterson. Beat some other decent fighters. Gave Ellis a close fight. Povetkin's career doesn't compare to Quarry's.
btw- You said earlier you weren't going to say anymore about this.

[oogiebe]

Pov had some good wins:

Chris Byrd
Larry Donald was a pretty fair fighter
Takam
Whyte
Chagaev

A list of guys just under those guys and of course going 12 with Wlad.

I don't think his ko of Shavers rates that high. And as I said earlier Lyle was still inexperienced. I think he was fighting like from 1964 in prison fights but was only released from jail 4 years before facing Quarry. I'd bet had they fought a year or two later Lyle would've stopped Quarry.

Byrd and Donald were way past it by then. Byrd was 37 and Donald was 40. The other three were professional fighters, I will give you that.

Lyle was not some inexperienced kid. He was already in his early 3os and had scored a couple of nice kos already. He was the number 4 contender already. He was a helluva lot closer to his prime than Byrd and Donald were to theirs when Povetkin fought them.

He beat Lyle fair and square. He beat Shavers, He beat Patterson. Beat some other decent fighters. Gave Ellis a close fight. Povetkin's career doesn't compare to Quarry's.
btw- You said earlier you weren't going to say anymore about this.

Your silliness is unavoidable.

[DrDuke]

He's like kalan, he can type the same nonsense in paragraphs all over again. Actually, it'll be no surprise, if it's the same guy.

[Ambling Alp II]

Go back and look. I almost always completely disagreed with Kalan.

[Ambling Alp II]

Pov had some good wins:

Chris Byrd
Larry Donald was a pretty fair fighter
Takam
Whyte
Chagaev

A list of guys just under those guys and of course going 12 with Wlad.

I don't think his ko of Shavers rates that high. And as I said earlier Lyle was still inexperienced. I think he was fighting like from 1964 in prison fights but was only released from jail 4 years before facing Quarry. I'd bet had they fought a year or two later Lyle would've stopped Quarry.

Byrd and Donald were way past it by then. Byrd was 37 and Donald was 40. The other three were professional fighters, I will give you that.

Lyle was not some inexperienced kid. He was already in his early 3os and had scored a couple of nice kos already. He was the number 4 contender already. He was a helluva lot closer to his prime than Byrd and Donald were to theirs when Povetkin fought them.

He beat Lyle fair and square. He beat Shavers, He beat Patterson. Beat some other decent fighters. Gave Ellis a close fight. Povetkin's career doesn't compare to Quarry's.
btw- You said earlier you weren't going to say anymore about this.

Your silliness is unavoidable.

Silliness> What did I say that was silly?
I have never heard anyone ever say that Lyle was too inexperienced going into the Quarry fight. Ever. I have pointed out why he wasn't.

Then you bring up Povetkin's big wins over Byrd and Donald. Both of those guys were several years past their prime by then. Way past it.
Takam, Whyte, Chagaev? Are we really comparing them to beating Lyle, Shavers, and Patterson? Come on.

btw- I don't think Quarry was as good as many people do. If you back over the years, you will see there were a lot of people that though more highly of him than me.

Just about everyone concedes that Povetkin's era was bad.
Just about everyone concedes that Quarry's was very strong.
So why is it crazy to think that the 5th or 6th best of a strong era would be a lot better than the 5th or 6th best guy of a weak era? How on earth is this silly?

[oogiebe]

Byrd and Donald were way past it by then. Byrd was 37 and Donald was 40. The other three were professional fighters, I will give you that.

Lyle was not some inexperienced kid. He was already in his early 3os and had scored a couple of nice kos already. He was the number 4 contender already. He was a helluva lot closer to his prime than Byrd and Donald were to theirs when Povetkin fought them.

He beat Lyle fair and square. He beat Shavers, He beat Patterson. Beat some other decent fighters. Gave Ellis a close fight. Povetkin's career doesn't compare to Quarry's.
btw- You said earlier you weren't going to say anymore about this.

Your silliness is unavoidable.

Silliness> What did I say that was silly?
I have never heard anyone ever say that Lyle was too inexperienced going into the Quarry fight. Ever. I have pointed out why he wasn't.

Then you bring up Povetkin's big wins over Byrd and Donald. Both of those guys were several years past their prime by then. Way past it.
Takam, Whyte, Chagaev? Are we really comparing them to beating Lyle, Shavers, and Patterson? Come on.

btw- I don't think Quarry was as good as many people do. If you back over the years, you will see there were a lot of people that though more highly of him than me.

Just about everyone concedes that Povetkin's era was bad.
Just about everyone concedes that Quarry's was very strong.
So why is it crazy to think that the 5th or 6th best of a strong era would be a lot better than the 5th or 6th best guy of a weak era? How on earth is this silly?

No one denies Quarry's era was arguably the greatest. Quarry had nothing to do with it.
Lyle was released from prison in 1969; Turned pro in 1971; fought Quarry in 1973. Boxed in prison, PRISON from 1964.
I never mentioned any of Pov's big wins. I mentioned his wins.
KO'ing Shavers wasn't as impressive as you put it.
Beating an aging undersized Patterson doesn't make Quarry better than Pov.
I'd take Pov over Quarry in a head to head.
You seem to make every HW of that era better than they were merely because of the era.
To reiterate. That era was Frazier; Foreman; Ali; and Norton. The rest filled in the blanks.

[margaret thatcher]

for alp's silliness, absolutely nothing tops the corker of 'usyk's resume doesnt have the depth of 10 round fighters like jason robinson, courtney butler, terry mcgroom, michael rush' .he's for sure a knowledable guy, but the lengths he'll go to in order to argue older > newer is obscene

not even his praise for slick sweet pea cleveland williams compares to his assessment that usyk's resume lacks in quality because he didnt beat the likes of courtney butler and other guys barely in the top 100 of their time. im guessing he had no clue what he was talking about and just threw that out to see if it would stick

for the record, i agree that pov beats quarry

[Ambling Alp II]

Your silliness is unavoidable.

Silliness> What did I say that was silly?
I have never heard anyone ever say that Lyle was too inexperienced going into the Quarry fight. Ever. I have pointed out why he wasn't.

Then you bring up Povetkin's big wins over Byrd and Donald. Both of those guys were several years past their prime by then. Way past it.
Takam, Whyte, Chagaev? Are we really comparing them to beating Lyle, Shavers, and Patterson? Come on.

btw- I don't think Quarry was as good as many people do. If you back over the years, you will see there were a lot of people that though more highly of him than me.

Just about everyone concedes that Povetkin's era was bad.
Just about everyone concedes that Quarry's was very strong.
So why is it crazy to think that the 5th or 6th best of a strong era would be a lot better than the 5th or 6th best guy of a weak era? How on earth is this silly?

No one denies Quarry's era was arguably the greatest. Quarry had nothing to do with it.
Lyle was released from prison in 1969; Turned pro in 1971; fought Quarry in 1973. Boxed in prison, PRISON from 1964.
I never mentioned any of Pov's big wins. I mentioned his wins.
KO'ing Shavers wasn't as impressive as you put it.
Beating an aging undersized Patterson doesn't make Quarry better than Pov.
I'd take Pov over Quarry in a head to head.
You seem to make every HW of that era better than they were merely because of the era.
To reiterate. That era was Frazier; Foreman; Ali; and Norton. The rest filled in the blanks.

So you mentioned some of Povetkins wins, but not his big wins? huh?

Quarry had nothing to do with the era? Really ?
The win over Lyle was always been considered a big deal. S owas the win over Shavers. He got to the finals of the WBA tournament where he lsot a tough fight to Ellis.
In a long career against some good competition, nobody else ever ko'd Shavers in the first round.
Patterson was aging? Well, he was 32, the same age as Lyle when Quarry beat him. He still had a lot left; beat Bonavena four years after this.

Not saying Lyle, Shavers, and Patterson didn't have their weaknesses. However, they were all very good fighters. All were better than anyone Povetkin ever beat.

Agree that Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton were great fighters.
But the other guys that were a lot more than filling in the blanks. Can't believe you would say something like that.

There were several good fights not including the big four, and others sometimes gave them tough fights or even beat them.

Lyle gave Ali a lot of trouble and came within a hair of stopping Foreman.
Jimmy Young beat Foreman and was close against Norton and Ali.
Shavers hurt Ali and Holmes, beat Ellis, Norton, and Bugner.
As mentioned, Quarry and others had his moments as well.

[oogiebe]

Silliness> What did I say that was silly?
I have never heard anyone ever say that Lyle was too inexperienced going into the Quarry fight. Ever. I have pointed out why he wasn't.

Then you bring up Povetkin's big wins over Byrd and Donald. Both of those guys were several years past their prime by then. Way past it.
Takam, Whyte, Chagaev? Are we really comparing them to beating Lyle, Shavers, and Patterson? Come on.

btw- I don't think Quarry was as good as many people do. If you back over the years, you will see there were a lot of people that though more highly of him than me.

Just about everyone concedes that Povetkin's era was bad.
Just about everyone concedes that Quarry's was very strong.
So why is it crazy to think that the 5th or 6th best of a strong era would be a lot better than the 5th or 6th best guy of a weak era? How on earth is this silly?

No one denies Quarry's era was arguably the greatest. Quarry had nothing to do with it.
Lyle was released from prison in 1969; Turned pro in 1971; fought Quarry in 1973. Boxed in prison, PRISON from 1964.
I never mentioned any of Pov's big wins. I mentioned his wins.
KO'ing Shavers wasn't as impressive as you put it.
Beating an aging undersized Patterson doesn't make Quarry better than Pov.
I'd take Pov over Quarry in a head to head.
You seem to make every HW of that era better than they were merely because of the era.
To reiterate. That era was Frazier; Foreman; Ali; and Norton. The rest filled in the blanks.

So you mentioned some of Povetkins wins, but not his big wins? huh? No, just said I didn't say they were big wins. nor did I say Pov had any really big wins.

Quarry had nothing to do with the era? Really ?
The win over Lyle was always been considered a big deal. Yeah, by you

S owas the win over Shavers. He got to the finals of the WBA tournament where he lsot a tough fight to Ellis.
In a long career against some good competition, nobody else ever ko'd Shavers in the first round.
Patterson was aging? Well, he was 32, the same age as Lyle when Quarry beat him. He still had a lot left; beat Bonavena four years after this.

Not saying Lyle, Shavers, and Patterson didn't have their weaknesses. However, they were all very good fighters. All were better than anyone Povetkin ever beat.

Agree that Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton were great fighters.
But the other guys that were a lot more than filling in the blanks. Can't believe you would say something like that.

There were several good fights not including the big four, and others sometimes gave them tough fights or even beat them.

Lyle gave Ali a lot of trouble and came within a hair of stopping Foreman.
Jimmy Young beat Foreman and was close against Norton and Ali.
Shavers hurt Ali and Holmes, beat Ellis, Norton, and Bugner.
As mentioned, Quarry and others had his moments as well.

Loved Lyle. But in '73 he was still developing.

Shavers lost to Ali and Holmes. Others knocked down Holmes, and Shavers didn't KD Ali, but Cooper did! LOL
Shavers win over Norton was far from Norton's best. Same for Bugner. Same for Ellis, although I'd take Shavers over Ellis.
I'm guessing you think Cooney is an all time great for beating both Norton and Lyle?

I'll stand by my post. Ali-Frazier-Foreman-Norton then the rest.

And once again, I think Pov and Quarry is a good comp.

[DrDuke]

Shavers hurt Ali and Holmes, beat Ellis, Norton, and Bugner.

Here comes an apogee of the idiocy. Now let's count Shavers' one punch super-success against Holmes, putting apart the remaining dozens of lost rounds.

You know what, Chuck Wepner is better than Povetkin too. He not only competed in the Ali era, he knocked him down!

And also there was Duane Bobick, who KOed the great Wepner and defeated Holmes in amateurs! What does Povetkin's Olympic Gold stand for after that?

Now you see how many greater fighters we have!

[oogiebe]

Shavers hurt Ali and Holmes, beat Ellis, Norton, and Bugner.

Here comes an apogee of the idiocy. Now let's count Shavers' one punch super-success against Holmes, putting apart the remaining dozens of lost rounds.

You know what, Chuck Wepner is better than Povetkin too. He not only competed in the Ali era, he knocked him down!

And also there was Duane Bobick, who KOed the great Wepner and defeated Holmes in amateurs! What does Povetkin's Olympic Gold stand for after that?

Now you see how many greater fighters we have!

Quite maddening isn't it?

[margaret thatcher]

henry cooper with dat great ali knockdown too

[oogiebe]

henry cooper with dat great ali knockdown too

Almost mentioned that one, but it was in the 60's not the 70's. Alp knows that much I'm sure.

[margaret thatcher]

2 ton galento putting joe louis on his ass

[oogiebe]

Tami Maurielo knocking Louis across the ring.

[oogiebe]

Jose Luis Garcia taking out Norton.

[margaret thatcher]

[DrDuke]

Jose Luis Garcia taking out Norton.

Oh, that's was the pure boxing gawd, the monster and the great legend. Not only Povetkin sucks in comparison to him, but all of them, Klitschko, Fury, Joshua.

[Ambling Alp II]

Just so I have this straight:

Shavers wins over Ellis, Norton and Bugner don't count.
Ellis (though still ranked 3rd going into the fight) was shot. Norton was what shot at 9 months after the Holmes fight?
Shavers win over Bugner doesn't count because at the age of 32, Bugner was shot, though he beat Page 5 years later. Oh, and Shavers himself was 36 when he beat Bugner.
Shavers gets no more credit for beating Norton than Cooney. Got it.

Apparently every fight of Ron Lyles career doesn't count because he was either shot or still developing. Got it.

Hurting guys with great chins like Ali and Holmes don't count, because he didn't beat them (Obviously Povetkin would have ) and Henry Cooper once scored a 3 second knockdown against Ali.
Oh and as Dr. Duke points out, Wepner stepping on Ali's foot is important to note. Ok got it.

Quarry's win over Lyle doesn't count because Lyle was still developing. For almost 50 years this was a big win. Now Lyle was still developing and it's meaningless. Got it.

Shavers, Lyle, Quarry, Young, Bugner and everyone else were just "fill in the blank" guys.

Saying that the 10 or 12 guys from a era were very good out of over 1000 guys is saying that everyone in the era was great. Got it.

Even though I have said several times that not every fighter in Quarry's era was great, let's keep saying that I said they were. Makes total sense.
Saying that the 5th/6th best guy of a great era is better than the 5th/6th best guy of a horrible era is just crazy talk. Got it.


This has been so illuminating.

[DrDuke]

Sticks to the ranking of "his" fighters, don't gives a sh!t about the ranking of other ones.

Speculates with numbers in the context of primes, as if it is dependant only on age.

"Exposes" the nature of Wepner's success in the Ali fight, but not giving a sh!t about the fact of Ali being near shot against Shavers (which was the reason for him to pick such opponents at that point of his career) and provides tons of credit to his man Earnie.

What's left to say? Typical dumby alpy's biases.

This clown keeps rocking.

[margaret thatcher]

i have seen him mention fury getting dropped by cunningham like a dozen times, but now actually getting KO'd by someone like bernardo mercado or dropped and losing to bob stallings means f@ck all lolol

[Ambling Alp II]

It all counts. The pluses and the minutes. For everybody. That is what I have been saying. Losing to Stallings hurts Shavers case. So do other things. On the other hand, he has some things that helps his case. I weigh the good against the bad. Shavers was not great, but he was very good. So was Quarry, Lyle and others.

I talk about the rankings when talking about the best era, because it is relevant. If you are rated highly in the best era, it means something. If you beat someone who was rated highly in the best era, it means something.

If a fighter is rated highly in a weak era, he might not be that good. If a fighter beats a fighter who is rated high in a weak era, it might not mean much.

Of course age is not the only thing that matters as far as primes go. But if a guy is old, he is past his prime. What % of fighters are in their prime when they are old? 0001% ?)He could be past his prime for other reason 9.ie. taking a lot of punishment from a lot of fights, injuries etc. ) Age is the most common one.
Obviously there are middle areas where a guy is past his prime but still has a lot left.


Not saying that every fighter in Quarry's era was great. Not saying the 50th best fighter is his era was better than the best heavyweight of Povetkins.
Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton were great. There sere several other guys (including Quarry) who were very good.
Just pointing that is simple common sense that the 5th or 6th best of the best era is better than the 5th or 6th of a crappy era.

None of what I am saying is exactly controversial statement. What is it exactly that is so crazy?