Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

[Ambling Alp II]

Seriously? You do realize that many of these fights did not go the distance?


The Barrett went 6 rounds. The Shufford fights went 7. Even then, according to the stats Klitschko threw more punches than the Fury fight which went 12 rounds.

Look at the Byrd fight in 2006. It was stopped in the 7th round. Again according to the official stats, Klitschko had already thrown more punches than the entire Fury fight.

He wasn't throwing nearly as many punches by the time he fought Fury. His hand speed was slower, so he he connected less. He was slower on his feet and his reflexes had slowed. So Fury should have been able to land easily.

Fury-Klitschko was terrible fight any yardstick. Just watch the Byrd fight in 2006. Then watch the Fury fight. It is no contest. He was (big surprise) much better when he was 30 than when he was 39. Can't believe we even have to argue this.

[Controversial]

Seriously? You do realize that many of these fights did not go the distance?



Look at the Byrd fight in 2006. It was stopped in the 7th round. Again according to the official stats, Klitschko had already thrown more punches than the entire Fury fight.

.

It's not that difficult to see why, Fury didn't let him because he moved a lot and tied him up. I'm sure if Fury stood and traded Klitschko would've thrown more, as would have Fury. It was a boring fight though, Fury done what he needed to win.

[Ambling Alp II]

No, he simply didn't suck quite as much as Klitschko.

[HomicideHenry]

You're not taking into account that when he got with Stewart he adopted more of a safety first, cautious approach utilizing the jab more than anything else--- when he was younger he let the punches fly a lot more often.

Because of this stylistic change, the punch rate went down a bit. But not as much as you are making out to be. A decease by no more than 25% at the most. Regardless the championship reign punch stats are all similar.

I've also pointed out that the punch rate went higher against lesser opposition than better opposition. Those who were pretty stationary and mediocre ate a lot of punches. Wach probably received more punches than anyone else he ever fought.

The second Byrd fight was interesting. Largely because Byrd completely changed his style to try and fight close with Klitschko. He knew trying to outbox Klitschko wouldn't work because he already did that 6 years earlier.

Because he was fighting up close and personal he received a lot more punishment than he would have. So of course the punch rate from Klitschko was going to be higher than had it been a tactical boxing match.

It was a horrible decision by Byrd to try and fight Klitschko that way. So your comment:

"Fury-Klitschko was terrible fight any yardstick. Just watch the Byrd fight in 2006. Then watch the Fury fight. It is no contest. He was (big surprise) much better when he was 30 than when he was 39."

Needs to be broken down a bit:

#1- Byrd made a huge error in trying to fight like a brawler with Klitschko. Is it so much that Klitschko was better at 30 than when he was older, or is it because his opponent made a dumb decision and got splattered all over the ring? Fury didn't give Klitschko any opportunities, Byrd was wide open to be stopped.

#2- 545 punches thrown against Bryant Jennings which was seven months prior to the Fury fight. Fury more than cut Klitschko's punch rate in half. That 545 total is comparable to when Klitschko was younger, or at the very least it is comparable to any performance Klitschko had as champion. Where is the drop-off?

#3- I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that Klitschko at 39 was a superior physical specimen to his 30 year old self--- but I do think that the 39 year old Klitschko beats his younger, greener, more raw self. Why? Because the older version was much better than the younger version. Better boxing skills, more patience, better defense, and had already been through enough hard times to overcome 20 something challengers as champion. It's not an outrageous statement to make.

#4- Fury/Klitschko being "boring" is subjective. What you find to be exciting I may not. What you find to be boring I may not. There was a lot of tension and drama that night in Germany. Fury did wobble Klitschko a few times. Personally I love watching masterclass tactical battles from time to time, and quite frankly Klitschko was constantly having to reset himself because Fury never allowed him to be in position to strike. Was it a great contest in terms of entertainment? No. But I know I was on the edge of my seat watching it because there always was the apprehension that Klitschko might go for broke and ruin Fury's night. He tried in the final round but by then it was too late.

Anyways, this post has gone on for too long. I think you ought to be able to concede at least one thing, and that is the fact that Klitschko didn't face anybody who was in his league until he faced off against Fury and Joshua--- guys who actually were big enough and strong enough and skilled enough and young enough, with amateur pedigrees, to make him struggle.

If you are going to compare Klitschko losing to Fury to matches in boxing history I would suggest watching Holmes-Spinks. Larry Holmes was still dangerous to anybody in the heavyweight division. He just couldn't outbox the faster and younger man.

[Controversial]

Anyways, this post has gone on for too long. I think you ought to be able to concede at least one thing, and that is the fact that Klitschko didn't face anybody who was in his league until he faced off against Fury and Joshua--- guys who actually were big enough and strong enough and skilled enough and young enough, with amateur pedigrees, to make him struggle.

If you are going to compare Klitschko losing to Fury to matches in boxing history I would suggest watching Holmes-Spinks. Larry Holmes was still dangerous to anybody in the heavyweight division. He just couldn't outbox the faster and younger man.

Good post. At the end of the day we can all make anyones career look good or bad, depending on our motives. To be world champion for many years takes dedication, hard work and ability. Klitschko wasn't everyones cup of tea but he was effective. I can't say I was a fan but I can recognise his achievements. No one is unbeatable.

[margaret thatcher]

klitschko was sure no cleveland williams

[Ambling Alp II]

You're not taking into account that when he got with Stewart he adopted more of a safety first, cautious approach utilizing the jab more than anything else--- when he was younger he let the punches fly a lot more often.

Because of this stylistic change, the punch rate went down a bit. But not as much as you are making out to be. A decease by no more than 25% at the most. Regardless the championship reign punch stats are all similar.

I've also pointed out that the punch rate went higher against lesser opposition than better opposition. Those who were pretty stationary and mediocre ate a lot of punches. Wach probably received more punches than anyone else he ever fought.

The second Byrd fight was interesting. Largely because Byrd completely changed his style to try and fight close with Klitschko. He knew trying to outbox Klitschko wouldn't work because he already did that 6 years earlier.

Because he was fighting up close and personal he received a lot more punishment than he would have. So of course the punch rate from Klitschko was going to be higher than had it been a tactical boxing match.

It was a horrible decision by Byrd to try and fight Klitschko that way. So your comment:

"Fury-Klitschko was terrible fight any yardstick. Just watch the Byrd fight in 2006. Then watch the Fury fight. It is no contest. He was (big surprise) much better when he was 30 than when he was 39."

Needs to be broken down a bit:

#1- Byrd made a huge error in trying to fight like a brawler with Klitschko. Is it so much that Klitschko was better at 30 than when he was older, or is it because his opponent made a dumb decision and got splattered all over the ring? Fury didn't give Klitschko any opportunities, Byrd was wide open to be stopped.

#2- 545 punches thrown against Bryant Jennings which was seven months prior to the Fury fight. Fury more than cut Klitschko's punch rate in half. That 545 total is comparable to when Klitschko was younger, or at the very least it is comparable to any performance Klitschko had as champion. Where is the drop-off?

#3- I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that Klitschko at 39 was a superior physical specimen to his 30 year old self--- but I do think that the 39 year old Klitschko beats his younger, greener, more raw self. Why? Because the older version was much better than the younger version. Better boxing skills, more patience, better defense, and had already been through enough hard times to overcome 20 something challengers as champion. It's not an outrageous statement to make.

#4- Fury/Klitschko being "boring" is subjective. What you find to be exciting I may not. What you find to be boring I may not. There was a lot of tension and drama that night in Germany. Fury did wobble Klitschko a few times. Personally I love watching masterclass tactical battles from time to time, and quite frankly Klitschko was constantly having to reset himself because Fury never allowed him to be in position to strike. Was it a great contest in terms of entertainment? No. But I know I was on the edge of my seat watching it because there always was the apprehension that Klitschko might go for broke and ruin Fury's night. He tried in the final round but by then it was too late.

Anyways, this post has gone on for too long. I think you ought to be able to concede at least one thing, and that is the fact that Klitschko didn't face anybody who was in his league until he faced off against Fury and Joshua--- guys who actually were big enough and strong enough and skilled enough and young enough, with amateur pedigrees, to make him struggle.

If you are going to compare Klitschko losing to Fury to matches in boxing history I would suggest watching Holmes-Spinks. Larry Holmes was still dangerous to anybody in the heavyweight division. He just couldn't outbox the faster and younger man.

1. Byrd was not brawling with Klitschko. That simply wasn't was happening. Klitschko was fighting pretty much how he fought in his early 30s. Throwing jabs, looking for the occasionally big punch. Not taking too many chances.

2. Yes you cherry picked the Bryant Jennings fight. However, there is a clear trend that he was slowing down as he got older. Which is to be expected. Ali was more active against Shavers than he did Leon Spinks. So what?

3. would not have beaten a 30 year old Klitschko. He knew everything he was going to know by this point. Emmanual Steward was already training him for more than two years by this point. He had slower hand speed, moved slower, and was easier to hit by the time he was 39. Clearly not as good as he had once been.

4. Klitschko-Fury was boring because almost nothing happened. Fury was lucky he was not fighting a live opponent. It was not On the edge of your seat? Please. Tactical masterpiece? It was tow guys not doing anything.

You suggest I watch Holmes-Spinks? I saw it before you were born. It is an interesting comparison. Holmes was past it his best. Nobody disputes this. He still had something left and it took a very good fighter to beat him. Holmes and Spinks were a lot more skillful. Much better quality of a fight.

[HomicideHenry]

#1- Yes, Byrd was trying to fight Klitschko. He put his head into his chest practically throughout the contest trying to brawl.

#2- I didn't cherry pick nothing. It was the fight before Fury. Simple as that.

#3- Agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure most people would argue that they could whip the younger version of themselves because of experience, patience, etc.

#4- Nothing happened because Fury never allowed Klitschko to ever get set in position to throw anything. Period.

#5- Better quality fight, sure. Can't really argue that. What is arguable is whether Klitschko at 39 was better than Holmes at 36. I think Klitschko takes Holmes head-to-head in such a situation as that.

[Ambling Alp II]

1. BS
2. BS
3. BS
4.BS
5. Double BS that version of Larry Holmes was much better, much better than Klitschko.

[HomicideHenry]

#1- Byrd bulked up in weight. It was widely discussed that the strategy was to take it straight to Klitschko. So no, it wasn't bullshit. Thank Jesus Christ Almighty God for film to shut down the tantrums.



#2- You CANNOT call a man "passed his prime" when he was doing numbers comparable to any other time in his career as champion, and even when he was much younger. You can't have it both ways--- men who are passed their prime do not perform to that kind of level. If Klitschko was slipping it had to be marginal.

#3- The 30 year old Klitschko was chinny as hell, had no real endurance, and could be too sloppy. Which is why he had to change a lot of things. He became more tactical, his conditioning got better, he seldom ever got hit, and seldom ever lost a round throughout his championship reign. I think it's a safe bet that the Klitschko who fought Fury and Joshua and Jennings and Pulev--- beats the Klitschko who fought Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster.

#4- Then you're either blind or don't know the first thing about boxing. If a man is constantly pivoting, using lateral movement, it forces you to constantly reset yourself to try to be in a position to unload punches--- that is boxing 101. You're the only man on this thread arguing that Fury didn't do that to Klitschko.

#5- Call it double BS all you want to but no way in hell does Wladimir Klitschko lose to a man who was naturally 175 pounds like Larry Holmes did. I'd like to know what kind of dope you're smoking or ingesting so I can try my damnedest to ensure it's inaccessible to anyone ever again.

[Ambling Alp II]

1. Yes, we can watch it. And we see is that Klitschko who fought Byrd was a lot better than the one who fought Fury. You would have to be out of your mind to think Klitschko looked better in the Fury fight than he did in the Byrd fight. Absurd that anyone would even try to argue it.

2. Obviously punch stat numbers aren't the end all be all. Still overall, it's clear he was throwing a lot more punches per round in his 30s than his late 1930s. Which happens to just about everyone. Of course there are aberrations. For example, Ali looked better in the Shavers fight than the Evangelista. But is was obviously that he was not as good when he fought Shavers as he was in his prime.

3. Yes the 30 year old Klitschko was chinny. He was chinny before that. He was chinny after that. He started doing his grab and hold thing to minimize the chances of him getting nailed. He could get away with that against the weak competition that he was fighting throughout his 30s.

4. Fury wasn't forcing Klitschko to not throw punches. Come on. You don't Ali, or Holmes or several other fighters wouldn't have throw and hit Fury with a lot more punches?

5. Get this through your head. Holmes was better than Klitschko. A lot better. Holmes was closer to his prime than Klitschko was to his; therefore the gap was even more.

There is an old boxing saying : At a certain point, experience is just old age". At a certain point, a fighter knows all that he going to know. Klitschko knew that by the time he fought Byrd in 2006 when he was 30. However, over the course like just about every other fighter whoever lived, he declined by the he was 39. Some times there isn't much difference between a guy going form 30 to 32. But by the time he is 35, Klitschko like just about everyone was not as good as he once was. By 39, he wasn't as good as he was in his mid-30s.
Compare him at 30 to 39, and it's not even remotely close.

[HomicideHenry]

#1- Looking better and having comparable numbers are two different things. Klitschko may have looked better when he was younger, but was still doing comparable numbers in his later years.

#2- I already did numerous punch rate totals for Ali in the Marciano Punch Stat thread. The drop-off was obviously there, at least in terms of consistency. However, what's interesting is that Ali regardless of it being the 60s or 70s version was basically averaging 50 punches per round. I initially thought going into it that Ali had to of had ridiculously high totals, but he didn't. That being said, what I will give you is this--- if Klitschko was dropping off in totals, it had to of been somewhere between 10%-20% and a large part of that could've been because of him having adopted the safety first approach.

#3- Yes, part of his success is the era to which he belonged to. There simply was nobody out there to really challenge him. Too big, too strong, too skilled. Like I said before, up until he fought Fury and Joshua he hadn't faced anyone in a long time who could really give him a fight. However, just because the man was chinny does not mean he did not improve and get better, because he certainly did.

#4- Ali and Holmes probably would have thrown more punches, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would have been effective or would have landed either. They had the character make up to try to force fights when they had to, Klitschko not so much. Even when they were failing they kept pressing action.

#5- You're talking to a man who generally rates Larry Holmes as the greatest heavyweight of all time. But the 36-year-old Larry Holmes who lost to Michael Spinks was an old 36-year-old who barely laid a glove on the man. Klitschko looked and performed better from 36-40 than Larry Holmes looked against Michael Spinks. Now mind you in the rematch Larry was robbed. He managed to turn back the hands of time a bit, but then again it's somebody he should have never lost to to begin with. You can maybe make that argument for Klitschko, that he should have never lost to Fury to begin with but that's another kettle of fish.

[Controversial]

There's a big difference in not being the same fighter and being shot. The sliding scale can vary widely. Some fighters burn out faster than others, depends a lot on their lifestyle outside the ring, their style of fighting, genetics, injuries, motivation, desire, how many hard fights they've had etc... Sometimes not being the same fighter works if the style you change to makes you more effective. Nigel Benn was an all guns blazing fighter when he started, as he got older he boxed more intelligently behind the jab. You can argue version one of Benn was more dangerous and exciting but version two was the better boxer. Your opponent can dictate how you fight. Sometimes fighters just have an off night , or be carrying an injury, and their opponent performs better than normal. Sometimes the ref can dictate the type of fight. So many nuances.

[oogiebe]

This thread has lost its way.

[Onetimeonly]

Spinks would have beaten wlad more often than not the fury version decisively.

[HomicideHenry]

Spinks would have beaten wlad more often than not the fury version decisively.

[Ambling Alp II]

That someone would put up the after that statement kind of shows where we are anymore.

[HomicideHenry]

That someone would put up the after that statement kind of shows where we are anymore.

You honestly want people to believe that a man much smaller than Oleksandr Usyk--- whose heavyweight resume was wins over inactive Cooney, unheralded Tangstad, and faded Holmes--- is going to hand any version of Wladimir Klitschko a loss?

Klitschko is not only taller and heavier than Cooney, but had far more tools in his arsenal than a looping left hook--- and was certainly in far better shape and condition than Cooney ever was. Even the 39 year old Klitschko is better than virtually every version of Cooney.

[Ambling Alp II]

And once again the first argument that bigger size makes a huge difference is... wait for it........one guy was bigger than the other. Which again is not an argument.

Spinks easily beat Cooney. But since "Klitschko is not only taller and heavier than Cooney, but had far more tools in his arsenal than a looping left hook, Spinks would lose to any version of Klitschko." Yeah, that makes total sense.

Obviously Klitschko's iron jaw would be immune to anything Spinks threw. And with Spink's primitive skills, it would be impossible to imagine him finding a way to outpoint Klitschko and his clinching.

And lets not forget that the 39 year old Klitschko is better than virtually every version of Cooney. Thanks for that information.

[HomicideHenry]

I find it amazing how Michael Spinks since the 1980s has suddenly been elevated to an all-time great heavyweight and how he would have easily defeated Klitschko, when it was quite obvious that Spinks was cherry-picking his heavyweight opponents rather than defend the title against Tony Tucker like he was supposed to.

Spinks "prime" as a heavyweight was very short. His knees were going bad. He didn't quite have the frame to take punishment at heavyweight. And while the win against Holmes was quite an achievement considering virtually nobody gave him a chance, it is almost universally accepted that he lost the rematch--- and then he ducked Tucker, chose instead to defend the title against the low ranking Tangstad, was stripped of the title, defends the lineal title against inactive Cooney who was a full blown coke addict, and while it looked impressive the reality is that Cooney was picked because he was the least threatening name out there.

Look at the Ring Magazine annual ratings from the time. Cooney was #10 in the March 1985 ratings, and isn't in the top ten for 1986 or 1987 or 1988. Tangstad wasn't in the Ring Magazine top ten through those years either, as his rating was only in the IBF.

Yet you're going to tell me and everybody else that Michael Spinks could beat Klitschko, when the only victory he had that matters was against an older, slower, uninspired, complacent, champion who kicked his butt the second time around?

The same Michael Spinks who weighed 212 at his highest against Mike Tyson, and weighed 199 against Larry Holmes the first time? The same Michael Spinks who fought in short bursts, and spent the rest of the time running away?

Chris Byrd was even bigger than Spinks, and arguably did better against large heavyweights than Spinks did against men weighing less than 230 pounds--- and we seen how ineffective he was against Klitschko.

I get it. We all get it. You absolutely hate the heavyweight division and everybody who has been in it for basically the last 30 years. But this is pretty ridiculous. This is almost as ridiculous as saying Ezzard Charles could beat Tyson Fury.

Spinks was one of the top five light heavyweights of all time. No doubt. But his time spent at heavyweight was strategic. Otherwise he would have fought men like Pinklon Thomas (#1 Ring Magazine 1985) or Tim Witherspoon (#3 Ring Magazine 1985) or Tony Tubbs (#4 Ring Magazine 1985) or Greg Page (#5 Ring Magazine 1985), etc.

I'm not sure I could rate him overall as a heavyweight higher than many of the alphabet title holders who came and went since the 1980s because he chose the safest route. I just don't see it working out for him--- Klitschko was better than Cooney in virtually every category, and Spinks didn't fight the best version of Cooney either.

If Klitschko was just some big lump with a glass jaw like Billy Wells or Fred Fulton, you would have an argument but you don't. Klitschko's chin was better than people give him credit for, and he was pretty quick for a man his size and he knew how to box.

And I say that as a fan of Michael Spinks. He would probably get poleaxed by jabs, and sent sprawling with the first right hand that landed. It's not to knock him in any way shape or form but he was simply too small.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Klitschko's prime probably ended in 2014 with the Pulev fight and by the time he fought Fury he was slightly slipping.
But there seem to be more recent examples of fighters fighting at a high level at that age. Juan Manuel Marquez, Bernard Hopkins, Vitali Klitschko, Guillermo Jones were all fighting at a high level at age 38-39. Antonio Tarver and Glencoffe Johnson are other examples.

Spinks has an incredibly thin resume at heavyweight, hard to gauge him at the weight but the Tyson blowout and his selective matchmaking, and losing the Holmes rematch in most people's view certainly doesn't inspire much confidence. In Holmes prior fight many thought he lost to Carl Williams.

[Ambling Alp II]

Selective match making? Seriously?

His first two fights at heavyweight were against Larry Holmes. He fought Cooney who was tall which automatically makes him good. he destroyed him. And of course he fought Tyson. And if of you think Klitschko would not have crushed by Tyson you are dreaming.

True, Spinks only had five fights at heavyweight, but look at who they were against.
Klitschko never beat anyone as good as Holmes. It's he who has the thin resume.

[Ambling Alp II]

I find it amazing how Michael Spinks since the 1980s has suddenly been elevated to an all-time great heavyweight and how he would have easily defeated Klitschko, when it was quite obvious that Spinks was cherry-picking his heavyweight opponents rather than defend the title against Tony Tucker like he was supposed to.

Spinks "prime" as a heavyweight was very short. His knees were going bad. He didn't quite have the frame to take punishment at heavyweight. And while the win against Holmes was quite an achievement considering virtually nobody gave him a chance, it is almost universally accepted that he lost the rematch--- and then he ducked Tucker, chose instead to defend the title against the low ranking Tangstad, was stripped of the title, defends the lineal title against inactive Cooney who was a full blown coke addict, and while it looked impressive the reality is that Cooney was picked because he was the least threatening name out there.

Look at the Ring Magazine annual ratings from the time. Cooney was #10 in the March 1985 ratings, and isn't in the top ten for 1986 or 1987 or 1988. Tangstad wasn't in the Ring Magazine top ten through those years either, as his rating was only in the IBF.

Yet you're going to tell me and everybody else that Michael Spinks could beat Klitschko, when the only victory he had that matters was against an older, slower, uninspired, complacent, champion who kicked his butt the second time around?

The same Michael Spinks who weighed 212 at his highest against Mike Tyson, and weighed 199 against Larry Holmes the first time? The same Michael Spinks who fought in short bursts, and spent the rest of the time running away?

Chris Byrd was even bigger than Spinks, and arguably did better against large heavyweights than Spinks did against men weighing less than 230 pounds--- and we seen how ineffective he was against Klitschko.

I get it. We all get it. You absolutely hate the heavyweight division and everybody who has been in it for basically the last 30 years. But this is pretty ridiculous. This is almost as ridiculous as saying Ezzard Charles could beat Tyson Fury.

Spinks was one of the top five light heavyweights of all time. No doubt. But his time spent at heavyweight was strategic. Otherwise he would have fought men like Pinklon Thomas (#1 Ring Magazine 1985) or Tim Witherspoon (#3 Ring Magazine 1985) or Tony Tubbs (#4 Ring Magazine 1985) or Greg Page (#5 Ring Magazine 1985), etc.

I'm not sure I could rate him overall as a heavyweight higher than many of the alphabet title holders who came and went since the 1980s because he chose the safest route. I just don't see it working out for him--- Klitschko was better than Cooney in virtually every category, and Spinks didn't fight the best version of Cooney either.

If Klitschko was just some big lump with a glass jaw like Billy Wells or Fred Fulton, you would have an argument but you don't. Klitschko's chin was better than people give him credit for, and he was pretty quick for a man his size and he knew how to box.

And I say that as a fan of Michael Spinks. He would probably get poleaxed by jabs, and sent sprawling with the first right hand that landed. It's not to knock him in any way shape or form but he was simply too small.

And yet again the argument that bigger size makes a huge difference is... wait for it........one guy was bigger than the other. Which again is not an argument. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

Klitscho was better than Cooney in every category? Except for minor things like chin, stamina, movement, and of course the left hook. And no Klitschko's chin was not better than people say. It was weak.

[HomicideHenry]

And yet again the argument that bigger size makes a huge difference is... wait for it........one guy was bigger than the other. Which again is not an argument. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

Klitscho was better than Cooney in every category? Except for minor things like chin, stamina, movement, and of course the left hook. And no Klitschko's chin was not better than people say. It was weak.

Klitschko as a younger man had some stamina issues but not as he matured and got better overall as a boxer--- the man went 10 rounds and 12 rounds more than a dozen times in his career.

Now, he gassed out against Ross Purrity, but he made the rookie mistake of trying to knock the man out in a time when it was basically impossible to stop Ross Purrity. From that point on he never tired himself out.

Cooney didn't have a good chin. After all he was stopped by a former light heavyweight. When was the last time you saw somebody that small knockout a major heavyweight?

Klitschko's chin is interesting. When he was bombed out by Sanders and Brewster, everybody figured all it took was to hit him on the chin. But, he rose off the canvas three times to win a decision over Samuel Peter. From that point on he was basically untouchable, and when he faced Joshua he got off the canvas to drop Joshua too--- his chin wasn't as weak as it's made out to be. No it's not made out of titanium or cast iron, but it's not made of porcelain and paper mache either.

I'm reminded a bit of Tommy Morrison being labeled a glass jaw when he was knocked out by Ray Mercer, but he fought through a broken jaw to knock out Joe Hipp, and got off the canvas to knock out Razor Ruddock.

Movement? Klitschko had far better footwork and upper body movement than Cooney ever did, unless you consider somebody going straight at somebody fast like Cooney did to be better movement.

As for the left hook, you might give the edge to Cooney but virtually every fighter I have ever interviewed who sparred or fought Wladimir Klitschko said that he was the hardest hitting man they ever fought. That his jabs felt like your head was being slammed into a wall. I would say Klitschko had comparable punching power to Cooney, especially when you figure that Cooney's best wins were against men well past their prime.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes Klitschko went the distance several times later in his career. That is because he fought at slower pace. Which got slower and slower. In the Fury fight he did virtually nothing but stare.

You can get better overall as a boxer to a certain point. He didn't know anything at 39 that he didn't know at 35. But he kept getting slower and had to fight at a slower pace. Which is normal. Which is one of my points. Which is yet another reason why Fury's win over him at 39 is not a big win. At all.

Klitschko had a weak chin. That and his poor stamina is why he had start clinching and fighting at a slow pace, to minimize the risks. As I have mentioned to you about 5 times now.

Morrison had a weak chin too. He later got knocked by the legendary Michael Bentt. Love how getting knocked down by Ruddock is an achievement but blowing out Cooney doesn't mean anything.

I saved the best for last:
"Cooney didn't have a good chin. After all he was stopped by a former light heavyweight. When was the last time you saw somebody that small knockout a major heavyweight?"

Absolute classic. I point out that Spinks whipped Cooney. You counter with "Cooney got knocked out by a former light heavyweight"; that fighter being Spinks!!! Priceless.