Evaluation of Alexander Povetkin's career

[Cojimar 1946]

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.

Povetkin absolutely could beat the Ali that beat Shaves who was far past it and lost to Leon Spinks in his next fight.
Shavers and Lyle seem to owe their reputations almost entirely due to sharing an era with Ali. Renaldo Snipes was arguably closer to stopping Holmes than Shavers anyway and nobody goes on about how great he is.

In the 1970s especially following the Foreman win Ali's performances became pretty erratic and he was frequently out of shape. I wouldn't put that much stock in fighters performances against him after 1974 especially when he was badly out of shape and not taking fights seriously.

[margaret thatcher]

ah yes, the great leon spinks

[oogiebe]

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.

Not "Counting or not counting." Merely putting into context. Sorry you don't get it. You're last line says it all really.

[DrDuke]

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

Of course, your own delirium isn't contoversial for ya. But that repetition is mind-blowing. Your oldie bias is crazy. Every oldie success, be it a really big one or a not so big one because of a certain circumstances, will be great for ya, while you won't count success of modern fighters by any means.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to you that you are biased towards fighters from when you started to follow boxing to now?

As I have said what a million times now, not every fighter during Quarry's era was great.
There great, good, average, terrible fighters in the "olden" days.
There were mediocre and bad eras in the heavyweight division before Quarry's time.
Unlike some people, I am actually interested in boxing history. I don't have the arrogant belief that everything before my time sucked. I am actually interested in boxing history.
That is why I have liked going on the Boxing History Forum for several years.

[Ezzard]

Enjoyed Povetkin's career. He was a terrific fighter and a top contender in any era. He's a handful for anyone and should be considered a great scalp for those who beat him.

[oogiebe]

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to you that you are biased towards fighters from when you started to follow boxing to now?

As I have said what a million times now, not every fighter during Quarry's era was great.
There great, good, average, terrible fighters in the "olden" days.
There were mediocre and bad eras in the heavyweight division before Quarry's time.
Unlike some people, I am actually interested in boxing history. I don't have the arrogant belief that everything before my time sucked. I am actually interested in boxing history.
That is why I have liked going on the Boxing History Forum for several years.

No one said Quarry sucked. Most of us are very interested in history. Some of us are less biased and more pragmatic. That golden era is one I grew up in. Quarry wasn't a reason why that era was great. Quarry and Pov are a great comp.

[Onetimeonly]

Quarry is a reason why that era is great, same as Morrison is in the 90s. You're trying too hard to not be an old school hater.

[oogiebe]

Quarry is a reason why that era is great, same as Morrison is in the 90s. You're trying too hard to not be an old school hater.

It was my favorite era. Little to do with Jerry. And the main point here is that Pov and Jerry are a good comp. The disagreement began with a poster making Quarry out to be levels better. I disagreed.

[Onetimeonly]

Quarry is a reason why that era is great, same as Morrison is in the 90s. You're trying too hard to not be an old school hater.

It was my favorite era. Little to do with Jerry. And the main point here is that Pov and Jerry are a good comp. The disagreement began with a poster making Quarry out to be levels better. I disagreed.

OK honey bunny.

[oogiebe]

Quarry is a reason why that era is great, same as Morrison is in the 90s. You're trying too hard to not be an old school hater.

It was my favorite era. Little to do with Jerry. And the main point here is that Pov and Jerry are a good comp. The disagreement began with a poster making Quarry out to be levels better. I disagreed.

OK honey bunny.

Still a pointless dick. Thanks for the contribution.

[Onetimeonly]

It was my favorite era. Little to do with Jerry. And the main point here is that Pov and Jerry are a good comp. The disagreement began with a poster making Quarry out to be levels better. I disagreed.

OK honey bunny.

Still a pointless dick. Thanks for the contribution.

You're quite welcome.

[margaret thatcher]

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to you that you are biased towards fighters from when you started to follow boxing to now?

As I have said what a million times now, not every fighter during Quarry's era was great.
There great, good, average, terrible fighters in the "olden" days.
There were mediocre and bad eras in the heavyweight division before Quarry's time.
Unlike some people, I am actually interested in boxing history. I don't have the arrogant belief that everything before my time sucked. I am actually interested in boxing history.
That is why I have liked going on the Boxing History Forum for several years.

you should also try keeping up more with the recent fighters too though if you are going to make historical comparisons, your talk about usyk comparing unfavourable to other cruisers for lacking opposition like jason robinson, courtney burton, terry mcgroom etc shows you have no idea what you are talking about there

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think Morrison would even crack the top 30 of 90s heavyweights. It seems like an odd example. How would the 1990s suffer by the loss of a guy at that level exactly?

A lot of the 1970s love seems to be based on things aside from raw talent like Ali's showmanship and good matchmaking. How would the 1970s be viewed if the top guys refused to face each other?

I've observed that among boxing fans who lived through the 1970s the era is primarily viewed as a golden age by fans born in the 1940s and 1950s but seen far less positively by older fans born in the 1910s, 20s, 30s. If it was objectively a golden age it seems a tad odd that there is such a generational divide among fans who lived through the era.

[oogiebe]

I don't think Morrison would even crack the top 30 of 90s heavyweights. It seems like an odd example. How would the 1990s suffer by the loss of a guy at that level exactly?

A lot of the 1970s love seems to be based on things aside from raw talent like Ali's showmanship and good matchmaking. How would the 1970s be viewed if the top guys refused to face each other?

I've observed that among boxing fans who lived through the 1970s the era is primarily viewed as a golden age by fans born in the 1940s and 1950s but seen far less positively by older fans born in the 1910s, 20s, 30s. If it was objectively a golden age it seems a tad odd that there is such a generational divide among fans who lived through the era.

Um, Morrison was a top 10 contender for most if not all the 90's as well as had a piece of the title.
You bring up a good point though. My dad complained about the guys in the 70's as not holding a candle to the Louis era. Although that faded by the latter half of the decade when he realized the truth. He's gone now, but I'll guess he changed his mind when he saw the full body of work by four guys who made it great.

[DrDuke]

I don't think Morrison would even crack the top 30 of 90s heavyweights. It seems like an odd example. How would the 1990s suffer by the loss of a guy at that level exactly?

A lot of the 1970s love seems to be based on things aside from raw talent like Ali's showmanship and good matchmaking. How would the 1970s be viewed if the top guys refused to face each other?

I've observed that among boxing fans who lived through the 1970s the era is primarily viewed as a golden age by fans born in the 1940s and 1950s but seen far less positively by older fans born in the 1910s, 20s, 30s. If it was objectively a golden age it seems a tad odd that there is such a generational divide among fans who lived through the era.

Morrison had his times in the top 10. Overall, I'd say, he was the solid at least top 20 fighter of the all 90s.

And the matchmaking nowadays indeed works against the sports often.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think Morrison would even crack the top 30 of 90s heavyweights. It seems like an odd example. How would the 1990s suffer by the loss of a guy at that level exactly?

A lot of the 1970s love seems to be based on things aside from raw talent like Ali's showmanship and good matchmaking. How would the 1970s be viewed if the top guys refused to face each other?

I've observed that among boxing fans who lived through the 1970s the era is primarily viewed as a golden age by fans born in the 1940s and 1950s but seen far less positively by older fans born in the 1910s, 20s, 30s. If it was objectively a golden age it seems a tad odd that there is such a generational divide among fans who lived through the era.

I think some people like the guys who were on top when they started to follow the sport. They dismiss whoever came before them. Some people that first followed the sport in the 1950s didn't care about what happened in the 1920s.

I always loved history and realized that there were great (and certainly not so great) before my time. I didn't care if a guy fought in the 1920s or in my time. If he was great, he was great. If sucked it didn't matter if he fought in the 1920s or now. He sucked.
Jerry Quarry was a little before my time. However after later seeing so many really good fights and fighters in the heavyweight division from this time, it was impossible to overlook it.
Take Ali out of the equation, it was still great. Take Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton out, and it was still good. There were many good fights in the heavyweight division that didn't include them. Or included just one of them.

The heavyweight division was still great a little after his time which I saw. I never thought the late 1970s was especially good in most of other weight classes. Some eras are great in the heavyweight division but mediocre in other weight classes. And vice versa.

A lot of people think of the sport as modern (i.e. when they first started to follow it) and Old Timers. To some people in their 20s or 30s, when talking about Sonny Liston's era, , you might as well be talking about Jack Johnson's era. Everything before them is simply old, and they don't care about it.

But if you think about, the sport has been around for more than 130 years. One era is snapshot in time. Not all the greats are going to be in your era. It's real easy to fall into the trap of rating who you are most familiar with too high. Guys who are now the 5th/6th best are going to be largely forgotton in 30-40 years.

[Caractacus]

What fights of his career were scheduled but cancelled for one reason or another and how do you think he would have done if they did fight ?

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think Morrison would even crack the top 30 of 90s heavyweights. It seems like an odd example. How would the 1990s suffer by the loss of a guy at that level exactly?

A lot of the 1970s love seems to be based on things aside from raw talent like Ali's showmanship and good matchmaking. How would the 1970s be viewed if the top guys refused to face each other?

I've observed that among boxing fans who lived through the 1970s the era is primarily viewed as a golden age by fans born in the 1940s and 1950s but seen far less positively by older fans born in the 1910s, 20s, 30s. If it was objectively a golden age it seems a tad odd that there is such a generational divide among fans who lived through the era.

I think some people like the guys who were on top when they started to follow the sport. They dismiss whoever came before them. Some people that first followed the sport in the 1950s didn't care about what happened in the 1920s.

I always loved history and realized that there were great (and certainly not so great) before my time. I didn't care if a guy fought in the 1920s or in my time. If he was great, he was great. If sucked it didn't matter if he fought in the 1920s or now. He sucked.
Jerry Quarry was a little before my time. However after later seeing so many really good fights and fighters in the heavyweight division from this time, it was impossible to overlook it.
Take Ali out of the equation, it was still great. Take Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton out, and it was still good. There were many good fights in the heavyweight division that didn't include them. Or included just one of them.

The heavyweight division was still great a little after his time which I saw. I never thought the late 1970s was especially good in most of other weight classes. Some eras are great in the heavyweight division but mediocre in other weight classes. And vice versa.

A lot of people think of the sport as modern (i.e. when they first started to follow it) and Old Timers. To some people in their 20s or 30s, when talking about Sonny Liston's era, , you might as well be talking about Jack Johnson's era. Everything before them is simply old, and they don't care about it.

But if you think about, the sport has been around for more than 130 years. One era is snapshot in time. Not all the greats are going to be in your era. It's real easy to fall into the trap of rating who you are most familiar with too high. Guys who are now the 5th/6th best are going to be largely forgotton in 30-40 years.

Some good points made but some of them don't necessarily have bearing on talent per se.

In the 1970s the matchmaking was far better than during Povetkin's era. I think it's obvious the era would be viewed far more negatively if the top fighters simply refused to fight each other. If Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton refused to fight each other that's going to have a massive impact on how the division is perceived by fans and it would mean many of the eras most epic fights never happen.

In addition to horrendous matchmaking, many fans found Wladimir's dominance boring. His opponents were perceived as having little chance of beating him and this seems to have caused a lack of interest in the part of fans due to the perceived predetermined outcome of his fights as well as Wladimir's safety-first style. There seems to be this idea that if a guy is dominating and beating everyone that is proof the era is weak but if no one fighter is dominating that means the era is competitive which seems like circular reasoning. I think a lot of it has to do with a fighter always bringing his A-game and keeping the proper mindset and not getting complacent.

[DrDuke]

What fights of his career were scheduled but cancelled for one reason or another and how do you think he would have done if they did fight ?

He could fight Klitschko in 2008, but pulled out because of an injury, which. in my opinion, wasn't true and his team just didn't feel him to be ready. Indeed, it would look like their actual fight of 2013.

He sould have fought Wilder in 2016, that fight was cancelled in about a week prior to it. Back then Povetkin was at his best, Wilder would be iced.

Later in 2016 the Stiverne fight was cancelled. Povetkin would brutalize Stiverne then.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think Morrison would even crack the top 30 of 90s heavyweights. It seems like an odd example. How would the 1990s suffer by the loss of a guy at that level exactly?

A lot of the 1970s love seems to be based on things aside from raw talent like Ali's showmanship and good matchmaking. How would the 1970s be viewed if the top guys refused to face each other?

I've observed that among boxing fans who lived through the 1970s the era is primarily viewed as a golden age by fans born in the 1940s and 1950s but seen far less positively by older fans born in the 1910s, 20s, 30s. If it was objectively a golden age it seems a tad odd that there is such a generational divide among fans who lived through the era.

I think some people like the guys who were on top when they started to follow the sport. They dismiss whoever came before them. Some people that first followed the sport in the 1950s didn't care about what happened in the 1920s.

I always loved history and realized that there were great (and certainly not so great) before my time. I didn't care if a guy fought in the 1920s or in my time. If he was great, he was great. If sucked it didn't matter if he fought in the 1920s or now. He sucked.
Jerry Quarry was a little before my time. However after later seeing so many really good fights and fighters in the heavyweight division from this time, it was impossible to overlook it.
Take Ali out of the equation, it was still great. Take Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton out, and it was still good. There were many good fights in the heavyweight division that didn't include them. Or included just one of them.

The heavyweight division was still great a little after his time which I saw. I never thought the late 1970s was especially good in most of other weight classes. Some eras are great in the heavyweight division but mediocre in other weight classes. And vice versa.

A lot of people think of the sport as modern (i.e. when they first started to follow it) and Old Timers. To some people in their 20s or 30s, when talking about Sonny Liston's era, , you might as well be talking about Jack Johnson's era. Everything before them is simply old, and they don't care about it.

But if you think about, the sport has been around for more than 130 years. One era is snapshot in time. Not all the greats are going to be in your era. It's real easy to fall into the trap of rating who you are most familiar with too high. Guys who are now the 5th/6th best are going to be largely forgotton in 30-40 years.

Some good points made but some of them don't necessarily have bearing on talent per se.

In the 1970s the matchmaking was far better than during Povetkin's era. I think it's obvious the era would be viewed far more negatively if the top fighters simply refused to fight each other. If Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton refused to fight each other that's going to have a massive impact on how the division is perceived by fans and it would mean many of the eras most epic fights never happen.

In addition to horrendous matchmaking, many fans found Wladimir's dominance boring. His opponents were perceived as having little chance of beating him and this seems to have caused a lack of interest in the part of fans due to the perceived predetermined outcome of his fights as well as Wladimir's safety-first style. There seems to be this idea that if a guy is dominating and beating everyone that is proof the era is weak but if no one fighter is dominating that means the era is competitive which seems like circular reasoning. I think a lot of it has to do with a fighter always bringing his A-game and keeping the proper mindset and not getting complacent.

I agree that when the top guys duck each other (like they often do now) it does hurt the sport. No question about it.
But really, in the last several years (almost 20) how many big heavyweight fights could there have been? Right now you have three guys even worth talking about. One of them won't fight the other two. There simply has been very little depth.

In a deep era, not every top fighter has to fight each other to make it a good era. (Frazier never fought Norton for example.)
It will still be great if a lot of them do fight each other.

Also, fighters get better by taking on better opponents.
Typically, a prospect spends his first 3-4 years fighting complete stiffs who have no chance of beating him. He would have improved more if he fought some tough veterans and other prospects on his way up. Then the guy beats a WBS title holder who did pretty much the same thing on his way up.
As a result, fighters do not reach their potential because they are not tested.

As for Wladimir's era being weak; He had obvious weaknesses, yet for several years he easily beat one guy after another, including Povetkin. That is an obvious sign of a weak era. He would not have gotton away with that for so long in most other eras.

An era can be weak (or at least not that strong) if there are several fighters roughly even and no dominates. Look at the period between Dempsey/Tunney and when Louis won the title. There several guys (Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, Risko, Schaaf, Uzcudun etc.) roughly equal. None were legends, nobody dominated. Nobody calls it a great era.

[margaret thatcher]

and some people think because a d+level american usba title challenger fought in the late 90s/early 2000s, they are betteer than world champs and world class contenders today

[Cojimar 1946]

In addition to Fury, Joshua, and Wilder I would say that Huni, Jalolov, Makhmudov, Joyce, and possibly Dychko have potential. Maybe also Jared Anderson.

I think if the division is as weak as some critics think there would be more light heavies and cruiserweights moving up to take over the division. It will be interesting to see if Joshua can beat Usyk. The super heavyweights at this Olympics are not exactly blowing me away and seem like a step down from the last 2 olympics.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

The biggest knock on povetkins resume is that gift over huck. Huck did well for himself but he wasnt a supremely talented individual. Povetkin should have handled him

[2128778]

So, several days ago Povetkin has announced retirement from boxing. He is a one of those fighters, who brought me into boxing, he is a one of few boxers, whose career I've been following entirely, which, however, was quite easy for me, as I'm Russian. Actually, I've never been an obligatory fan of my countrymen boxers, but Povetkin obviously impressed me enough to root for him since the Olympics. Thus, it's interesting for me to evaluate his career.

First of all, I think, it's important to estimate Povetkin as a boxer. He truly was a skillful competitor. Probably, it's fair to say, that he adopted the notorious Eastern European style, which means being one-dimensional and robotic, but Povetkin was very good at his dimension. His offensive skills were high, his technique was polished. He was really good in going forward, working hard and breaking down his opponents, what was aided by huge power. He had almost every big scalp with his methodical game, workrate and roughness. Byrd, Chambers, Chagaev, Huck, Charr, Takam, Hammer, Hunter (although it's a draw) - he stuck to his game through his entire career and it was beneficial for him, because he was able to deliver his power that way.

Talking about disadvantages of Povetkin's style, it's important to name a lack of creativity, fluidness, ability to overcome adversity. A pretty common set for the Eastern European hard-working methodical fellows. In the Huck bout, which he arguably lost, he wasn't able to deal with the opponents toughness and dirty tricks. He was forced to bend down all night long, because he found no better escape plan in bad situations. However, you can argue, that he underestimated Huck, wasn't prepared properly and tired fast. Yet in the Klitschko bout he wasn't able to do anything at all against the jab-and-grab tactics of Wlad. Also, Povetkin went clueless, when he was hurt. He wasn't hurt often thankfully to his chin, but in the Joshua bout this disadvantage finally turned crucial, as Povetkin wasn't able to do anything, but going backwards after being rocked.

To conclude the evaluation of the style it's also important to note, that Povetkin should have relied more on his jab. Occasionally his offence went one-dimensional, as sometimes he sank in primitive power-punching attempts. Pretty much all his success in his career was scored with power combinations. Yet against Klitschko Povetkin's break-him-down-with-power tactics didn't work at all. Sometimes he kinda wanted to be like Mike Tyson, but Tyson was on levels better in cutting the distance. Povetkin had great left hook, right hand, downstairs-upstairs switching, but he mostly went directly to this stuff, only with some primitive faints, without any more ingenious setups.

The main problem of Povetkin's career, in my opinion, was his early promotion and coaching. And his team new that. Look at Povetkin's track to the top. He was in the elimination tourney for Klitschko's IBF strap and he won it by defeating Chris Byrd and Eddie Chambers. After that the Klitschko fight was nearly made, but Povetkin pulled out due to an injury, as it had been officially claimed. Soon after his original coach Valeriy Belov was changed to Teddy Atlas. It my opinion, it simply was a move to save Povetkin from possible hard loss to Wlad, to give him more time to prepare. Actually, even the Chambers bout showed some holes in Sasha's game, his team definitely saw it that way.

Atlas was a total mistake. His approach wasn't fitting to Povetkin at all. You can even see this during the Chagaev bout, when Teddy was saying Povetkin all his pretentious Rocky-movie styled nonsense instead of tactical suggestions. The fight itself was tactical and didn't have any drama, even in rare moments, when Chagaev looked better. Atlas looked like a clown. No surprise, that he didn't last long in Povetkin's team.

After Atlas the team Povetkin tried Russian legends, Alexander Zimin and Kostya Tszyu. Well, Tszyu was a strange choice, as he wasn't known as a great coach and he didn't become a one, that's why his time in the Povetkin's camp was brief. Zimin was an accomplished coach, in the pros he was known mostly for being a trainer of Yuri Arbachakov, but his methods obviously didn't work well with Povetkin. However, there was a belief in Zimin from the side of the Povetkin's team. With him Sasha was finally tracked to Klitschko, but we all know, how it ended up.

So, Povetkin had a very arguable track to the top. On the one hand, he was being put away from Klitschko for pretty long. On the other hand, he wasn't matched a lot against truly challenging opponents. He faced Chagaev after Ruslan had lost to Wlad, he was matched against Huck probably because this bout had been seen easy for him. He was facing the likes of Boswell, shot Rahman and Wawrzyk instead of other top guys. It was a typical "preserve 0" track to the championship bout.

After Povetkin lost to Klitschko his career finally went how it should had gone. Probably the main problem was in being managed by Sauerland. After Povetkin teamed up with Ryabinsky and coach Ivan Kirpa, he improved as a boxer and his career went upwards. The bout against Carlos Takam was exactly that kind of fight, which Povetkin had needed much earlier. It was a challenging affair, which made Sasha learn and progress.

Soon Povetkin was tracked to the other title shot, against Wilder, but we all know what happened. In my opinion, Povetkin just became a victim of the sports politics and general World politics of that time. Eventually, Povetkin was even justified in both his drug cases, isn't it thought-provoking? Talking about Povetkin's chances against Wilder, it's pretty fair to see a big possibility of Sasha KOing Wilder back then.

I'd say, 2014-2016 is a period of Povetkin's prime. It featured a KO winning streak over Charr, Takam, Perez, Wach, Duhaupas. He should have faced Wilder in 2016. In my opinion, Povetkin was simply robbed of a title shot. In 2017 years slowly started to show up for Sasha. He decisioned Rudenko and Hammer, whom he could have stopped at least a year earlier. He crushed Price, but not without getting rocked. Still he was able to give a fight to Joshua.

The final part of Povetkin's career was also fine. Obviously, Povetkin was already declined, but still he was able to have a draw with young and fresh Michael Hunter and to KTFO Whyte. It would be perfect, if Povetkin retired after the Whyte win, instantly after getting covid. Sasha had a tough course of corona and clearly he wasn't even at the level of the 1st Whyte bout, when he entered to the 2nd one. Anyway, it's good that Povetkin retired after the Whyte dilogy. Already not perfect, but still in time.

Talking about Povetkin's legacy, it's fair to call him absolutely best Russian heavyweight ever. He wasn't a champion in contrast to Maskaev, Ibragimov and Valuev, but he obviously was a better boxer than all of them, with a better resume. However, with devaluing of belts in the current century a lot of so-called champions can be easily exposed. Povetkin was a top fighter of the division for more than 15 years and he faced a lot of good names.

I'd call Povetkin Russian #3 p4p all time, following Tszyu and Kovalev. In my opinion, Povetkin did more through his career than Arbachakov, Lebedev and Gassiev, despite not grabbing any belts. Although Gassiev has a chance to overcome Povetkin, but I don't believe he will.

To sum it up, that's how I see Povetkin's career. He was far from being a perfect boxer, but he was very good at what he was doing. He was better than many formal heavyweight champions through all boxing history. He had some tracking problems early on, but eventually he appeared to be a long-term top fighter of the heavyweight division. He had a lot of memorable fights, win or lose. It would have been great to see him against the likes of Haye, Wilder, maybe Chisora and someone else, but still he had a very good resume with a lot of exciting fights.

So, what's your opinion about Povetkin's career? Could he be better promoted? Could he achieve more? Was his career satysfying enough?

I was able dig out this conversation a little bit too late (5 years late, to be exact ). But I enjoyed your breakdown, as well as the whole convo thread.

To some of your questions... Perhaps, my opinion is somewhat unpopular. But I think Hryunov and Sauerlands were right in trying to steer Povetkin as far away from Klitschko bout as possible.

And if they could've - they probably should've delayed it beyond 2013, as Wlad started deteriorating due to age and with Banks in his corner.

All that said, I think that Wlad is just overall a bad style for Pov. And he probably would've lost to any version of Klitschko.

Now, as far as missed career opportunities for Povetkin...

1) to this day, the one that stands out to me is Charles Martin in early 2016.

In hindsight - instead of chasing that WBC title and winning the purse bid for Wilder bout, Ryabinsky probably should've instead put his financial efforts into trying to bate Martin to Russia. There was a short window after Glazkov fight, when Martin had a right for an optional title defense.

And we heard likes of Haye, Chisora expressing their desire to fight for Martin title.

Eventually, though, Eddie Hearn and Joshua offered the fattest check and lured Martin to the UK. Back then, Ryabinsky was arguably one of those who had financial resources to outbid Hearn.

I don't remember whether Pov was ranked by the IBF at the time. But hey, we know how boxing business works. Pov team probably should've just made an offer and then they would've gotten into rankings.

2) another one is Joseph Parker in early 2018.

Povetkin won the WBO International belt against Rudenko (July 2017) and then fought Hammer in a WBO eliminator (Dec 2017).

In theory, there was probably a chance to lure Parker to Russia with a nice sum and get Pov a title shot (at the end of the day, Parker travelled to UK for Hughie Fury bout) in early 2018. Parker ain't Martin. But still could've been a winnable fight for Pov.

However, both Parker and Povetkin probably were more interested in getting the AJ money fight at that point. Parker took the unification bout against Joshua in March 2018, with Povetkin appearing in the co-feature against Price.

3) take Pov the WBA or WBO route (instead of IBF) in the early stages of his career.

This way, Pov could've probably faced likes of Chagaev, Valuev, Ruiz or Haye in a title bout circa 2007-2010. Would've had a better chance to win a major (rather than "regular") belt. However, he would've likely ran into Klitschko regardless... Sooner or later.

4) after the first cancellation of the Wlad fight in late 2008, take Povetkin the WBC route in 2009 and try to get into Vitali sweepstakes in 2010-2011.

Povetkin likely would've failed against elder Klitschko, too. But he could've had a better shot against Vit, as Vitali started showing age in some of late career fights.

So, what are your thoughts on these (purely hypothetical) options?

P.S. Bonus question from me - how do you think Povetkin of 2014-2016 would've fared against Usyk? I think, stylistically it could've been an interesting fight.