Delete

[Cojimar 1946]

So a prospect can lose as many times coming up as he likes and it doesn't mean anything? I mean, Wlad was an Olympic champion in his 25th professional fight and got battered by a guy with thirteen losses.

If he's a prospect years away from a ranking or beating anyone relevant than yeah I wouldn't think the fight means much. Logically if non-prime fights count than you would have to count McBride and Williams for Tyson because Tyson did in fact lose to both men.

But surely the boxer's punch resistance decreases over time and at the end of their career, there ability to take a punch is much worse than in their days as a prospect? Unless they have a cast iron chin, the punches take their toll.

They gain skills and experience. I'd confidently pick the faded Wlad that lost to Fury and Joshua over the 1998 prospect due to the vast advantage in experience and more refined skills. Also in 1998 Wlad had never been past 8 rounds prior to facing Purrity and would have less experience pacing himself.

[keithmoonhangover]

If he's a prospect years away from a ranking or beating anyone relevant than yeah I wouldn't think the fight means much. Logically if non-prime fights count than you would have to count McBride and Williams for Tyson because Tyson did in fact lose to both men.

But surely the boxer's punch resistance decreases over time and at the end of their career, there ability to take a punch is much worse than in their days as a prospect? Unless they have a cast iron chin, the punches take their toll.

They gain skills and experience. I'd confidently pick the faded Wlad that lost to Fury and Joshua over the 1998 prospect due to the vast advantage in experience and more refined skills. Also in 1998 Wlad had never been past 8 rounds prior to facing Purrity and would have less experience pacing himself.

Or maybe he was never that good and never beat the top guy in the division. Do you know how many hall of famers Wlad beat? None, not a single one. Even if you ignore the Purrity loss, which is just plain dumb, Wlad had two brutal stoppage defeats while he was in his prime. Those losses were against average contenders. Corrie Sanders, who didn't have a single win over a contender before he fought Wlad and got sparked by Tony Tubbs' little brother. Lamon Brewster also didn't have a victory over a contender and had already lost to Charles Shufford and Clifford Etienne.

Next you're going to tell me Wlad wasn't in his prime when he lost to Saunders, even though he has been a pro for over five years and was fought 41 times. Is that what you think?

[Cojimar 1946]

Agreed. Absurd that people would try to pretend that this fight should not count against klitschko. A guy in his 25th pro fight has to win that fight.

Love the comparisons between Klitschkos other losses and Leiws' loeeses.

Yes Lewis lost to McCall and Rahman. Yes those fights should count against him. However they aren't nearly as bad as Klitscjkos losses to Sanders and Bewster.

McCall and Rahman were at least top 10 contenders in a good era. They each had their ups and downs, they had some losses and some good wins. They were decent fighters.
Sanders was not in the Top 10 when he embarrassed Klitschko. He never beat anyone worth mentioning before or after that fight.
Brewster was almost a complete unknown when he stopped Klitschko. He had no big wins and had lost to C level fighters like Eitenne and Shufford.

In a nutshell, Lewis had two losses that were bad for an ATG.

Klitschko had three really, really embarrassing losses.
Not even close.

I'm not sure McCall beat anyone in the top 10 aside from Lewis himself. Maybe you could make a case for Akinwande but that's certainly arguable. And he lost to Joey Christjohn and Michael Hunter who were unranked at the time he lost to them. Sanders not scoring big wins is at least partially due to not getting big fights. If he had as many opportunities as Rahman and McCall he'd almost certainly have more big wins. Before his big win over Lewis McCall already had opportunities against Norris, Douglas, and Tucker all of which he lost. He eventually scored a big win but thats largely due to having so many chances after striking out the first 3 times. Tyson even at 38 and past prime should have been expected to easily beat McBride and Williams so those seem like bad losses even given the context. Plenty of shot 38 year olds still easily win those fights.

Lewis era being better than subsequent eras doesn't really fit with the following
Moorer becoming champ
Foreman becoming champ
Bowe getting battered by Golota when widely viewed as the best in the division
Holmes at 45 being competitive with McCall
Mercer losing to old Holmes, Ferguson, drawing with Marion Wilson and somehow being competitive with Lewis and Holyfield.
Axel Schukz beating Foreman in most observers eyes which would have made him perhaps the worst lineal champ in the last 60 years.

It's hard to ignore all those things cumulatively

[Ambling Alp II]

McCall was no legend. But he beat some decent fighters. Damiani, Seldon, Akinwande. Lost close fights to Tucker and Bruno. He wasn't great, but he was good.
Sanders would have won some big fights - come on. Thats the best you can come up with for him?

Always love it when you cherry pick to favor your case. There are tons of other fights during Lewis career, Some great ones and a lot of good ones. Yes there were some upsets.

Lost how you somehow want to count Tyson's fights when he was shot but want to dismiss Klitschos loss to Ross Purrity when he had 25 fights. Classic.

Lewis and Tyson were not perfect. But hey each had a lot of pluses that far out weight their minuses.

[margaret thatcher]

incidentally, i notice wlad was just 2 years into his pro career in his 25th fight, reached almost 70 total. old school activity level for a top hw. just like his idol and stylistic twin jack johnson. in fact jack was ko'd in his 2nd pro year by an opponent he dominated early but who wore him down, just like purrity did to wlad.

brothas from otha mothas

[Controversial]

It’s easy to read too much into losses, especially at HW where unlike the lighter divisions it’s less about speed, skill and fitness. It only takes one shot so when you have giant lumps throwing punches sometimes they land. Lewis in my opinion beats any HW in history on his best day, to me his losses are irrelevant. The fighters who cause the upsets generally aren't consistent but can boast of having a great win in their entire career often without achieving anything else. Of course ideally Lewis wouldn’t have had two stoppage defeats but they don't make him a bad fighter. Bad days at the office, his overall record speaks for itself. The greatest fighters in history all lost or when they didn’t had controversial wins. Boxing is the only sport where losses are examined and dissected in such detail, the best in any other sport lose all the time and no one bats an eyelid and of course if you go back enough years boxers regularly lost and it wasn’t a big deal.

[keithmoonhangover]

But surely the boxer's punch resistance decreases over time and at the end of their career, there ability to take a punch is much worse than in their days as a prospect? Unless they have a cast iron chin, the punches take their toll.

They gain skills and experience. I'd confidently pick the faded Wlad that lost to Fury and Joshua over the 1998 prospect due to the vast advantage in experience and more refined skills. Also in 1998 Wlad had never been past 8 rounds prior to facing Purrity and would have less experience pacing himself.

Or maybe he was never that good and never beat the top guy in the division. Do you know how many hall of famers Wlad beat? None, not a single one. Even if you ignore the Purrity loss, which is just plain dumb, Wlad had two brutal stoppage defeats while he was in his prime. Those losses were against average contenders. Corrie Sanders, who didn't have a single win over a contender before he fought Wlad and got sparked by Tony Tubbs' little brother. Lamon Brewster also didn't have a victory over a contender and had already lost to Charles Shufford and Clifford Etienne.

Next you're going to tell me Wlad wasn't in his prime when he lost to Saunders, even though he has been a pro for over five years and was fought 41 times. Is that what you think?

Cojimar 1946, what do you think. Was Wlad in his prime when he lost to Sanders and Brewster?

[Cojimar 1946]

McCall was no legend. But he beat some decent fighters. Damiani, Seldon, Akinwande. Lost close fights to Tucker and Bruno. He wasn't great, but he was good.
Sanders would have won some big fights - come on. Thats the best you can come up with for him?

Always love it when you cherry pick to favor your case. There are tons of other fights during Lewis career, Some great ones and a lot of good ones. Yes there were some upsets.

Lost how you somehow want to count Tyson's fights when he was shot but want to dismiss Klitschos loss to Ross Purrity when he had 25 fights. Classic.

Lewis and Tyson were not perfect. But hey each had a lot of pluses that far out weight their minuses.

I'd logically think that upsets at the championship level reflect poorly on the era as a whole. There are plenty of fighters today I'd pick over comeback Foreman who have not been able to win the title. Heck I'd favor some cruiserweights and light heavyweights over comeback Foreman and Moorer.

If Derek Chisora kayoed Fury and because champ you can beat people would cite it as proof the Usyk era sucked.

[keithmoonhangover]

McCall was no legend. But he beat some decent fighters. Damiani, Seldon, Akinwande. Lost close fights to Tucker and Bruno. He wasn't great, but he was good.
Sanders would have won some big fights - come on. Thats the best you can come up with for him?

Always love it when you cherry pick to favor your case. There are tons of other fights during Lewis career, Some great ones and a lot of good ones. Yes there were some upsets.

Lost how you somehow want to count Tyson's fights when he was shot but want to dismiss Klitschos loss to Ross Purrity when he had 25 fights. Classic.

Lewis and Tyson were not perfect. But hey each had a lot of pluses that far out weight their minuses.

I'd logically think that upsets at the championship level reflect poorly on the era as a whole. There are plenty of fighters today I'd pick over comeback Foreman who have not been able to win the title. Heck I'd favor some cruiserweights and light heavyweights over comeback Foreman and Moorer.

If Derek Chisora kayoed Fury and because champ you can beat people would cite it as proof the Usyk era sucked.

Yeah, but.... Was Wlad in his prime when he lost to Sanders and Brewster?

[Cojimar 1946]

McCall was no legend. But he beat some decent fighters. Damiani, Seldon, Akinwande. Lost close fights to Tucker and Bruno. He wasn't great, but he was good.
Sanders would have won some big fights - come on. Thats the best you can come up with for him?

Always love it when you cherry pick to favor your case. There are tons of other fights during Lewis career, Some great ones and a lot of good ones. Yes there were some upsets.

Lost how you somehow want to count Tyson's fights when he was shot but want to dismiss Klitschos loss to Ross Purrity when he had 25 fights. Classic.

Lewis and Tyson were not perfect. But hey each had a lot of pluses that far out weight their minuses.

I'd logically think that upsets at the championship level reflect poorly on the era as a whole. There are plenty of fighters today I'd pick over comeback Foreman who have not been able to win the title. Heck I'd favor some cruiserweights and light heavyweights over comeback Foreman and Moorer.

If Derek Chisora kayoed Fury and because champ you can beat people would cite it as proof the Usyk era sucked.

Yeah, but.... Was Wlad in his prime when he lost to Sanders and Brewster?

I'd say no but since he was ranked in the top 10 they have some relevance. He had so many bad performances from 2003 through 2005 that its hard to believe he didn't improve.
From 2003 through 2005 he was stopped twice and dropped in two other fights whereas from 2006 through 2014 he won every fight without getting dropped or seriously hurt even once despite fighting better opponents.

[Controversial]

He improved when Emmanuel Steward starting training him and he got used to using his height and more cautious style

[elmersalsa]

Why this thread's name was changed to "Delete"? I don't get it why.

[Controversial]

Why this thread's name was changed to "Delete"? I don't get it why.

The person who created the thread edited the title and deleted their initial post, obviously didn't want to be associated with the nonsense they posted

[Ambling Alp II]

McCall was no legend. But he beat some decent fighters. Damiani, Seldon, Akinwande. Lost close fights to Tucker and Bruno. He wasn't great, but he was good.
Sanders would have won some big fights - come on. Thats the best you can come up with for him?

Always love it when you cherry pick to favor your case. There are tons of other fights during Lewis career, Some great ones and a lot of good ones. Yes there were some upsets.

Lost how you somehow want to count Tyson's fights when he was shot but want to dismiss Klitschos loss to Ross Purrity when he had 25 fights. Classic.

Lewis and Tyson were not perfect. But hey each had a lot of pluses that far out weight their minuses.

I'd logically think that upsets at the championship level reflect poorly on the era as a whole. There are plenty of fighters today I'd pick over comeback Foreman who have not been able to win the title. Heck I'd favor some cruiserweights and light heavyweights over comeback Foreman and Moorer.

If Derek Chisora kayoed Fury and because champ you can beat people would cite it as proof the Usyk era sucked.

We really don't need any more proof that the Usyk era has sucked. The hw division has sucked for more than 20 years.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'd logically think that upsets at the championship level reflect poorly on the era as a whole. There are plenty of fighters today I'd pick over comeback Foreman who have not been able to win the title. Heck I'd favor some cruiserweights and light heavyweights over comeback Foreman and Moorer.

If Derek Chisora kayoed Fury and because champ you can beat people would cite it as proof the Usyk era sucked.

Yeah, but.... Was Wlad in his prime when he lost to Sanders and Brewster?

I'd say no but since he was ranked in the top 10 they have some relevance. He had so many bad performances from 2003 through 2005 that its hard to believe he didn't improve.
From 2003 through 2005 he was stopped twice and dropped in two other fights whereas from 2006 through 2014 he won every fight without getting dropped or seriously hurt even once despite fighting better opponents.

So now not only was Klitschko not in his prime when he lost to Purrity, but also when he lost to Sanders and Brewster? How frikkin lame can you get?
He had experience and wasn't old. He was in his absolute prime.

Yes, he went on a winning streak. Against a lot of guys that were very good. some had pretty win/loss records because they also beat guys that sucked. he did not magically get better in his 30s.

You go out of your way to find something bad about a guy before your time. Than you have crybaby excuses for your heroes.

At a certain point, you actually have to watch the fights. Watch Tyson and Bowe when thy ere close to their primes. They weren't perfect. There were a handful of others in boxing history who were better. However, they were obviously better than the Klitschkos or anyone else in the past 20 years.

[Cojimar 1946]

McCall was no legend. But he beat some decent fighters. Damiani, Seldon, Akinwande. Lost close fights to Tucker and Bruno. He wasn't great, but he was good.
Sanders would have won some big fights - come on. Thats the best you can come up with for him?

Always love it when you cherry pick to favor your case. There are tons of other fights during Lewis career, Some great ones and a lot of good ones. Yes there were some upsets.

Lost how you somehow want to count Tyson's fights when he was shot but want to dismiss Klitschos loss to Ross Purrity when he had 25 fights. Classic.

Lewis and Tyson were not perfect. But hey each had a lot of pluses that far out weight their minuses.

I'd logically think that upsets at the championship level reflect poorly on the era as a whole. There are plenty of fighters today I'd pick over comeback Foreman who have not been able to win the title. Heck I'd favor some cruiserweights and light heavyweights over comeback Foreman and Moorer.

If Derek Chisora kayoed Fury and because champ you can beat people would cite it as proof the Usyk era sucked.

We really don't need any more proof that the Usyk era has sucked. The hw division has sucked for more than 20 years.

I'd say having Fury and Usyk as champs is an improvement over Moorer and old Foreman let alone Axel Schulz. It would help if critics could point to where fighters are lacking relative to their predecessors.

How is Usyk at a disadvantage in terms of skill to someone like Lewis or Tyson? Certainly better defensively better footwork, better work rate on the part of Usyk. Aside from lacking in power he seems to have a good skillset.

Also Fury and Usyk don't have any prime losses while Tyson and Lewis have prime losses to massive underdogs which I would think would be an issue since bad losses are apparently such a big deal for Wladimir

[margaret thatcher]

its clear that alp doesnt follow the current scene enough to be a good judge of it

james toney a greater cruiser legacy than usyk, what the actual f@ck

[Ambling Alp II]

I'd logically think that upsets at the championship level reflect poorly on the era as a whole. There are plenty of fighters today I'd pick over comeback Foreman who have not been able to win the title. Heck I'd favor some cruiserweights and light heavyweights over comeback Foreman and Moorer.

If Derek Chisora kayoed Fury and because champ you can beat people would cite it as proof the Usyk era sucked.

We really don't need any more proof that the Usyk era has sucked. The hw division has sucked for more than 20 years.

I'd say having Fury and Usyk as champs is an improvement over Moorer and old Foreman let alone Axel Schulz. It would help if critics could point to where fighters are lacking relative to their predecessors.

How is Usyk at a disadvantage in terms of skill to someone like Lewis or Tyson? Certainly better defensively better footwork, better work rate on the part of Usyk. Aside from lacking in power he seems to have a good skillset.

Also Fury and Usyk don't have any prime losses while Tyson and Lewis have prime losses to massive underdogs which I would think would be an issue since bad losses are apparently such a big deal for Wladimir

You want to argue that Usyk, and Fury were better than Moorer and ancient Foreman? Fine. All of these guys are far from perfect. Foreman still had some power, a good chin, but was very slow. Moorer had some skill, some power, but a glass jaw like Klitschko. Usyk has some good skills, but no power. Fury is just a clown.

Tyson and Lewis fought much stronger competition than Usyk and Fury. Not remotely close.

Tyson and Lewis were far better than either. Tyson a higher work rate than Usyk, actually had good skills, a lot of power, fantastic speed. Lewis had good skills and lot of power. You have look at their whole careers and not cherry pick. It's not even close.

The sort did not get magically better the day you became a fan.

[Cojimar 1946]

Even if Tyson and Lewis competition was better which frankly I doubt this hardly would prove they are better than Fury and Usyk given neither lost to their competition while Tyson and Lewis both have multiple losses.

Having poor competition would it be a much stronger argument had Fury and Usyk lost to the supposedly inferior opponents but that didn't happen.

[keithmoonhangover]

Even if Tyson and Lewis competition was better which frankly I doubt this hardly would prove they are better than Fury and Usyk given neither lost to their competition while Tyson and Lewis both have multiple losses.

Having poor competition would it be a much stronger argument had Fury and Usyk lost to the supposedly inferior opponents but that didn't happen.

Fury lost to John McDermott.

[Cojimar 1946]

Even if Tyson and Lewis competition was better which frankly I doubt this hardly would prove they are better than Fury and Usyk given neither lost to their competition while Tyson and Lewis both have multiple losses.

Having poor competition would it be a much stronger argument had Fury and Usyk lost to the supposedly inferior opponents but that didn't happen.

Fury lost to John McDermott.

Not officially and so far removed from his prime to be as irrelevant as Tyson McBride

[keithmoonhangover]

Even if Tyson and Lewis competition was better which frankly I doubt this hardly would prove they are better than Fury and Usyk given neither lost to their competition while Tyson and Lewis both have multiple losses.

Having poor competition would it be a much stronger argument had Fury and Usyk lost to the supposedly inferior opponents but that didn't happen.

Fury lost to John McDermott.

Not officially and so far removed from his prime to be as irrelevant as Tyson McBride

Complete tosh. Tyson's punch resistance had gone, his reflexes had gone, his mental game was gone. Fury's was still intact.

[Controversial]

Yep Tyson was a shadow of his former self and only carrying on for the money

[Cojimar 1946]

Fury lost to John McDermott.

Not officially and so far removed from his prime to be as irrelevant as Tyson McBride

Complete tosh. Tyson's punch resistance had gone, his reflexes had gone, his mental game was gone. Fury's was still intact.

Furys presumably improved dramatically given what he went on to accomplish including decisively beating McDermott in a rematch.
Also Fury beat McDermott officially and the result isn't going to change regardless of what people think. Claiming the fight carries the same relevance as Tyson Douglas or Tyson Holyfield is bonkers.

Holyfield was able to beat Rahman at 39 and arguably beat Valuev at 46 despite loss of reflexes and loss of punch resistance so maybe Tyson should still have won despite those problems. He'd just bombed out Etienne in one round so he had a bit left. Plenty of faded 38 year olds should still have been able to win those fights.

[keithmoonhangover]

Not officially and so far removed from his prime to be as irrelevant as Tyson McBride

Complete tosh. Tyson's punch resistance had gone, his reflexes had gone, his mental game was gone. Fury's was still intact.

Furys presumably improved dramatically

But his punch resistance didn't.

Are you seriously saying that Mike Tyson's punch resistance against McBride was as good as it was when he was a novice pro?