BoxRec

Miguel Cotto, Corrales, and Oscar DeLaHoya are also pretty good wins I would think though Oscar had probably slipped a bit by that stage.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Yes, this is an era in which top fighters often don't fight the other top level fighters at heavyweight but many of the guys Wladimir has beaten are clearly top 10 heavyweights. How many heavyweights in the world were better than Pulev, Chagaev, Povetkin, etc?

But that's my point . . yes they were top 10. And being top 10 in this era means little. It's not about the best; it's essentially the least sucky.

Okay, but I'm curious what makes people so certain that this is a bad era? I mean, in the 1990s we had Buster Douglas and Michael Moorer become heavyweight champion. Riddick Bowe was also champion despite the fact that he was dominated twice by Andrew Golota. Are Golota, Moorer, Douglas, and Bowe better than any heavyweights in this era?

You're wasting your time with Cojimar, Dempsey. This is a man who will tell you Mayweather is greater than Leonard, and when you challenge him to name Mayweather's answer to Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler, all he can give you is Juan Manuel Marquez . . . a 37 year old man, making his welterweight debut, and who was weight handicapped by Floyd. And then, as an afterthought, he names three fighters even he can only call 'pretty good' - one of whom is a 35 year old de la Hoya. These are Floyd's Four Kings, apparently.

Are Buster Douglas, Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe better than Kubrat Pulev and Alex Povetkin? Is that even a serious question? Every time someone punches holes in his silly naive arguments he responds by simply asking more questions, and more questions. It's stupidity or mischief, whatever it is he's a waste of time.

Phooey with your opinions.

Tuan_Jim wrote:So why can't Wladimir survive the sort of fast pace that was common in a Tyson fight of the 80s and all eras beforehand?

"Athletes and fighters have gotten faster, more conditioned, healthier, etc. over time than they were in earlier generations." The language is always so vague. Healthier? More conditioned? Most of Wladimir's opponents have appalling physiques. Ruslan Chagaev! Sam Peter! Kubrat Pulev! Eddie Chambers! Are you seriously suggesting the men in these pairings are better conditioned than, say, Holyfield/Bowe 92? Tyson/Tucker 87? Holmes/Norton 78? Frazier/Ali 71?

The thing is.... could Dempsey (as he was in his prime, without the aid of modern training, etc) be able to deal with the giant men of today who are clearly more athletic, agile and skilled than the likes of Willard, Fulton, Firpo, etc.

I'll admit, men in earlier eras actually showed up in great condition. If they walked around at 190 pounds, they trimmed down to 168-175 pounds, because they fought better at that weight. Men today, however, are averaging 6'5" in height and fighting at 245 pounds or so, and walk around at 265+. It's not the same dynamic, nor is it completely fair to base one's body image on men who were nearly a foot shorter, and naturally fifty pounds lighter, etc. than their more modern counterparts.

The big men of then, were considered enormous. But the big men of today, are bigger than they were. The big men of Dempsey's day, etc. are considered the more leaner, smaller, etc. men of today. In reality--- someone like Louis, Ali, Frazier, hell even Foreman would be considered (in their primes) either Cruiserweights or Light Heavyweights. So it is almost ridiculous to put them in the same category of fighting. Not to say those men couldn't compete with men today--- but they would need all the things that make modern men larger, faster, stronger, etc. and probably as a consequence guys like Dempsey, Marciano, etc. wouldnt be able to fight as well as they did because of the additional bulk.

People can only fight the best opponents in their eras. Mayweather has fought many of the best opponents of his own era. As far as Marquez goes, he was able to beat Pacquaio at welterweight, Pacquiao was probably past his best by this stage but still, we can agree one of the best welterweights in the world. The fights with Pacquiao suggests he was still formidable at this weight.

Likewise Cotto, Castillo, and Corrales are good wins. They may not be legends but they were all top contenders. The problem I have with the Leonard argument is that it puts that era on a pedestal. One can choose to believe those fighters are better than the best fighters of other eras but there is no way to test this hypothesis.

Essentially the gist of the Leonard argument seems to be that Hearns, Duran, Leonard, Benitez, etc. were exceptional fighters and that other eras do not offer the same level of competition. Does this logic mean that no fighter from this era can be compared to Leonard regardless of accomplishments simply because the era is not as good? Are Hopkins, Roy Jones, Pacquiao, etc great fighters in your eyes?

HomicideHenry wrote:...giant men of today who are clearly more athletic, agile and skilled than the likes of Willard, Fulton, Firpo, etc.

No, they are not.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:So why can't Wladimir survive the sort of fast pace that was common in a Tyson fight of the 80s and all eras beforehand?

"Athletes and fighters have gotten faster, more conditioned, healthier, etc. over time than they were in earlier generations." The language is always so vague. Healthier? More conditioned? Most of Wladimir's opponents have appalling physiques. Ruslan Chagaev! Sam Peter! Kubrat Pulev! Eddie Chambers! Are you seriously suggesting the men in these pairings are better conditioned than, say, Holyfield/Bowe 92? Tyson/Tucker 87? Holmes/Norton 78? Frazier/Ali 71?

The thing is.... could Dempsey (as he was in his prime, without the aid of modern training, etc) be able to deal with the giant men of today who are clearly more athletic, agile and skilled than the likes of Willard, Fulton, Firpo, etc.

I'll admit, men in earlier eras actually showed up in great condition. If they walked around at 190 pounds, they trimmed down to 168-175 pounds, because they fought better at that weight. Men today, however, are averaging 6'5" in height and fighting at 245 pounds or so, and walk around at 265+. It's not the same dynamic, nor is it completely fair to base one's body image on men who were nearly a foot shorter, and naturally fifty pounds lighter, etc. than their more modern counterparts.

The big men of then, were considered enormous. But the big men of today, are bigger than they were. The big men of Dempsey's day, etc. are considered the more leaner, smaller, etc. men of today. In reality--- someone like Louis, Ali, Frazier, hell even Foreman would be considered (in their primes) either Cruiserweights or Light Heavyweights. So it is almost ridiculous to put them in the same category of fighting. Not to say those men couldn't compete with men today--- but they would need all the things that make modern men larger, faster, stronger, etc. and probably as a consequence guys like Dempsey, Marciano, etc. wouldnt be able to fight as well as they did because of the additional bulk.

There is so much wrong in your post.

Weight doesn't equal size. Peter, Chagaev and Ibragimov are "giants"? . . .they naturally aren't any bigger than Dempsey (Peter is a little thicker). I'm not even going to touch your ridiculous argument that Louis, Ali, Frazier and Foreman suddenly turned into light heavyweights and cruiserweights. Louis is the only one of those who in his prime was sometimes just below 200, and he was a very big man with a big frame (as big as Ray Mercer who outjabbed Lennox Lewis for 10 rounds) . . there is exhibition film of him fighting at 230 and he looks in better shape than the majority of modern heavyweights. But he trained his ass off and fought often-thus his 195-208 peak fighting weight.

As for Willard and Fulton, they were BETTER than the likes of Wilder, Fury, Helenius etc. I'd have no qualms picking Willard to knock Wilder into next week.

I think you are just as wrong, as you claim I am wrong.

First...

Weight doesn't equal size. Peter, Chagaev and Ibragimov are "giants"? . . .they naturally aren't any bigger than Dempsey (Peter is a little thicker).

Jack Dempsey was roughly 6'1" in height, and weighed 187 against Jess Willard. True, he trained DOWN to that size, but I also believe it is a stretch to say Dempsey was naturally 200 pounds. Maybe after his retirement and he was more invested in making movies, television appearances, etc. did he get to 210-220 but that's fat. Peter was 6'2" and on average was in that 245 pound range. Highest he ever weighed as a pro was (not including his last match) 260 pounds. Chagaev was a Marcianoesque 5'11" but weighed on average 225 pounds, and the highest was 250. Ibragimov was 6'2" and on average was 215 pounds, the most he weighed as a pro was 224 pounds. And these are generally considered THE SMALLER MEN of the division.

In today's world Dempsey would have to pack on (muscle or fat, your pick) an additional 25 pounds to compete, because 210+ is heavyweight today. And I can't really imagine the likes of Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, having the same boxing skill, ability, speed, reflexes, etc. if they had to gain that much. Could you imagine Louis, whose peak weight was 195, having to balloon/bulk up to 210-215 pounds or better? He'd be practically a sitting duck with all that additional weight on his frame. None of the all-time greats would of been the same fighters, if they had to have gains like that.

Second...

I'm not even going to touch your ridiculous argument that Louis, Ali, Frazier and Foreman suddenly turned into light heavyweights and cruiserweights.

Why not? Let's be honest here. To compete in the heavyweight division today you MUST be 210+ plus. Foreman in his prime was considered a big man--- and at 6'3" and 215 pounds he was big for his time--- but in today's world he is just 5 pounds over the limit. He'd be considered small today. Hell David Haye is the same height and weight as George was in his prime! Joe Frazier and Ali would today be considered Cruiserweights, and since Ali started off as a LHW in the amateurs, he'd be considered something of a small Cruiserweight even still. In his prime, Ali fought as low as 188 pounds to 202 pounds. When he fought Liston he was 210. It reminds me of a statement Brian London made after losing to Ali, when he was asked if he would ever rematch him, "Sure but he would need twenty pound weights around each foot." And that's the crux, cus for ANY of the all-time greats to compete today, you would have to put on 20-40 pounds to remotely make weight.

Third...

(as big as Ray Mercer who outjabbed Lennox Lewis for 10 rounds)

ARE YOU fornicating SERIOUS???? I've seen that Mercer fight so many times, and I don't know how on God's green Earth you can say that. Lewis outboxed Mercer. That fight wasn't even close. It just looked it, because Mercer threw power punches, and Lewis mainly threw jabs. It gave an illusion of being competitive. On the contrary, in my view, Lewis won that fight at least 7-9 rounds over Mercer.

And lastly...

As for Willard and Fulton, they were BETTER than the likes of Wilder, Fury, Helenius etc. I'd have no qualms picking Willard to knock Wilder into next week.

I don't think so, and for a couple of reasons. The big men of the Johnson era, were of that stiff legged, tinman style. Second, they were slower than men of today. Third, while I give the old-timers Willard and Fulton the advantage of being TOUGHER than their modern counter parts and having great conditioning--- they are behind on all-around skillset, workrate, ring generalship, and many other variables. Willard himself said all he ever did in a ring (basically) was to throw a jab and follow it up with an uppercut. Fulton, in essence, was a rather large man in an era of super middleweights who imposed his size and strength on them. Who isn't gonna look like a monster, when you are fighting midgets?

And while I am not a fan of Wilder--- as I don't believe he's really been tested, etc--- when I see a man like Fury being nearly 7'0" in height and posessing far more speed and having a high volume jab, and can switch from orthodox to southpaw, and can box reasonably well as well as brawl rather good--- in my estimation, that says more for him than the likes of Willard or Fulton or Carnera.

The Great John L wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:...giant men of today who are clearly more athletic, agile and skilled than the likes of Willard, Fulton, Firpo, etc.

No, they are not.

Really? How athletic is it... when you are 6'5" 245 pounds, and you are essentially beating men who was super middleweight in size time after time after time?... How athletic is it... when you are of such immense dimensions and you happen to lose to men of that same inferior size?... NEVER in my wildest dreams on this forum would I ever of imagined some of the most learned to one day say that JESS WILLARD AND FRED FULTON AND PRIMO CARNERA could beat modern day athletes.

That's like saying Jim Thorpe could beat the likes of Usain Bolt in a race.

Henry, how old were you when Lewis boxed Mercer? That decision was hugely controversial. I'm amazed that you don't know that. Then again, no I'm not.

Lmao

How in this gods earth would Foreman be considered cruiserweight. What? Foreman was enormous for his weight.
Problem is a lot of todays heavies are fighting at their top level well into their thirties. When they are heavier. Wlad, lewis and Bowe for example all fought in the 220 range at the same age Foreman was fighting for the title. No weight disparity there.
When Foreman, Ali, norton, Cleveland Williams, Liston, Bugner fought in their 30's they all fought in the 220-250 range... And looked in better shape than these oafs you mentioned .

Plus fighters trained to be lean back then, they 'train' to be heavy now...

HomicideHenry wrote:I'll admit, men in earlier eras actually showed up in great condition. If they walked around at 190 pounds, they trimmed down to 168-175 pounds, because they fought better at that weight. Men today, however, are averaging 6'5" in height and fighting at 245 pounds or so, and walk around at 265+.

there were always big men in boxing. willard
was not exactly a dwarf and carnero was on
even ground with today's super heavies. what
is different is that with wlad, vitali and lennox
you forget they are that tall once the ref is out
of the way, because they move like much smaller
men. the other tall men of today are just as they
were back then.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Henry, how old were you when Lewis boxed Mercer? That decision was hugely controversial. I'm amazed that you don't know that. Then again, no I'm not.

I've watched it many times. Lewis landed jabs and punches at will on Mercer. It wasnt even close. I may be in the minority here, but the Mercer fight gets sooooo over blown.

HomicideHenry wrote:

As for Willard and Fulton, they were BETTER than the likes of Wilder, Fury, Helenius etc. I'd have no qualms picking Willard to knock Wilder into next week.

I don't think so, and for a couple of reasons. The big men of the Johnson era, were of that stiff legged, tinman style. Second, they were slower than men of today. Third, while I give the old-timers Willard and Fulton the advantage of being TOUGHER than their modern counter parts and having great conditioning--- they are behind on all-around skillset, workrate, ring generalship, and many other variables. Willard himself said all he ever did in a ring (basically) was to throw a jab and follow it up with an uppercut. Fulton, in essence, was a rather large man in an era of super middleweights who imposed his size and strength on them. Who isn't gonna look like a monster, when you are fighting midgets?

And while I am not a fan of Wilder--- as I don't believe he's really been tested, etc--- when I see a man like Fury being nearly 7'0" in height and posessing far more speed and having a high volume jab, and can switch from orthodox to southpaw, and can box reasonably well as well as brawl rather good--- in my estimation, that says more for him than the likes of Willard or Fulton or Carnera.

i second that. willard was a big man, but very
poor boxer. no way he defeats a prime johnson …
wilder and wlad would expose him as being one
of those big men, someone thought could raise
attention.

HomicideHenry wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:...giant men of today who are clearly more athletic, agile and skilled than the likes of Willard, Fulton, Firpo, etc.

No, they are not.

Really? How athletic is it... when you are 6'5" 245 pounds, and you are essentially beating men who was super middleweight in size time after time after time?... How athletic is it... when you are of such immense dimensions and you happen to lose to men of that same inferior size?... NEVER in my wildest dreams on this forum would I ever of imagined some of the most learned to one day say that JESS WILLARD AND FRED FULTON AND PRIMO CARNERA could beat modern day athletes.

That's like saying Jim Thorpe could beat the likes of Usain Bolt in a race.

Where did I say anything about Carnera, Willard or Fulton beating anybody? Firpo was clumsy, but actually try watching Willard fight. Before fighting he worked at training horses and was anything but clumsy. He also had good foot movement and a pretty jab.

You said that giant men of today are more athletic, agile and skilled than the likes of Carnera, Fulton, Firpo, etc. I think that’s a ridiculous and generalized statement. While I do agree Firpo was a clumsy, albeit powerful mess, Willard moved better and had a better jab than any of the “giant” active HWs besides probably Wlad. Do you really think Wach and Fury look athletic, agile and skilled?

Try reading a post before getting all bent out of shape. Your generalizations about subjective things like “athletic, agile and skilled” are nothing but your opinion. Most of the giant HWs fighting today are slow and clumsy. Pulev looked like a slightly bigger and weaker chinned Chuck Wepner while he was flailing away, wide open against Wlad.

HomicideHenry wrote:Why not? Let's be honest here. To compete in the heavyweight division today you MUST be 210+ plus. Foreman in his prime was considered a big man--- and at 6'3" and 215 pounds he was big for his time--- but in today's world he is just 5 pounds over the limit.

HH, are you just flustered, or do you really not know anything about boxing? The CW limit is 200 pounds not 210. Besides, there is no LOWER limit in any weight class, so no one can be “just 5 pounds over the limit”.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Henry, how old were you when Lewis boxed Mercer? That decision was hugely controversial. I'm amazed that you don't know that. Then again, no I'm not.

I've watched it many times. Lewis landed jabs and punches at will on Mercer. It wasnt even close. I may be in the minority here, but the Mercer fight gets sooooo over blown.

How old were you when the fight took place?

You seem absolutely astonished by someone calling it a controversial decision. It was a hugely controversial decision, famously so.

man wrote: what is different is that with wlad, vitali and lennox
you forget they are that tall once the ref is out
of the way, because they move like much smaller
men.

Please describe in detail how Vitali Klitschko 'moves like a smaller man'. I've got to hear this.

If Wladimir can move like a small man, why did he resort to holding Povetkin every single time Povetkin made his ponderous bobbing & weaving advance, like some enormous immobile muscle man?

Watch Lewis-Klitschko in black & white and you have a spectacle straight out of the late nineteenth century - complete with the old fashioned festival of gore.

This thread has descended into insanity. Thank you Henry and "man".

HomicideHenry wrote:I think you are just as wrong, as you claim I am wrong.

First...

Weight doesn't equal size. Peter, Chagaev and Ibragimov are "giants"? . . .they naturally aren't any bigger than Dempsey (Peter is a little thicker).

Jack Dempsey was roughly 6'1" in height, and weighed 187 against Jess Willard. True, he trained DOWN to that size, but I also believe it is a stretch to say Dempsey was naturally 200 pounds. Maybe after his retirement and he was more invested in making movies, television appearances, etc. did he get to 210-220 but that's fat. Peter was 6'2" and on average was in that 245 pound range. Highest he ever weighed as a pro was (not including his last match) 260 pounds. Chagaev was a Marcianoesque 5'11" but weighed on average 225 pounds, and the highest was 250. Ibragimov was 6'2" and on average was 215 pounds, the most he weighed as a pro was 224 pounds. And these are generally considered THE SMALLER MEN of the division.

In today's world Dempsey would have to pack on (muscle or fat, your pick) an additional 25 pounds to compete, because 210+ is heavyweight today. And I can't really imagine the likes of Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, having the same boxing skill, ability, speed, reflexes, etc. if they had to gain that much. Could you imagine Louis, whose peak weight was 195, having to balloon/bulk up to 210-215 pounds or better? He'd be practically a sitting duck with all that additional weight on his frame. None of the all-time greats would of been the same fighters, if they had to have gains like that.

Second...

I'm not even going to touch your ridiculous argument that Louis, Ali, Frazier and Foreman suddenly turned into light heavyweights and cruiserweights.

Why not? Let's be honest here. To compete in the heavyweight division today you MUST be 210+ plus. Foreman in his prime was considered a big man--- and at 6'3" and 215 pounds he was big for his time--- but in today's world he is just 5 pounds over the limit. He'd be considered small today. Hell David Haye is the same height and weight as George was in his prime! Joe Frazier and Ali would today be considered Cruiserweights, and since Ali started off as a LHW in the amateurs, he'd be considered something of a small Cruiserweight even still. In his prime, Ali fought as low as 188 pounds to 202 pounds. When he fought Liston he was 210. It reminds me of a statement Brian London made after losing to Ali, when he was asked if he would ever rematch him, "Sure but he would need twenty pound weights around each foot." And that's the crux, cus for ANY of the all-time greats to compete today, you would have to put on 20-40 pounds to remotely make weight.

Third...

(as big as Ray Mercer who outjabbed Lennox Lewis for 10 rounds)

ARE YOU effing SERIOUS???? I've seen that Mercer fight so many times, and I don't know how on God's green Earth you can say that. Lewis outboxed Mercer. That fight wasn't even close. It just looked it, because Mercer threw power punches, and Lewis mainly threw jabs. It gave an illusion of being competitive. On the contrary, in my view, Lewis won that fight at least 7-9 rounds over Mercer.

And lastly...

As for Willard and Fulton, they were BETTER than the likes of Wilder, Fury, Helenius etc. I'd have no qualms picking Willard to knock Wilder into next week.

I don't think so, and for a couple of reasons. The big men of the Johnson era, were of that stiff legged, tinman style. Second, they were slower than men of today. Third, while I give the old-timers Willard and Fulton the advantage of being TOUGHER than their modern counter parts and having great conditioning--- they are behind on all-around skillset, workrate, ring generalship, and many other variables. Willard himself said all he ever did in a ring (basically) was to throw a jab and follow it up with an uppercut. Fulton, in essence, was a rather large man in an era of super middleweights who imposed his size and strength on them. Who isn't gonna look like a monster, when you are fighting midgets?

And while I am not a fan of Wilder--- as I don't believe he's really been tested, etc--- when I see a man like Fury being nearly 7'0" in height and posessing far more speed and having a high volume jab, and can switch from orthodox to southpaw, and can box reasonably well as well as brawl rather good--- in my estimation, that says more for him than the likes of Willard or Fulton or Carnera.

Holyfield at his peak was 205-210. Byrd, Haye and Chambers were top 5 heavyweights bulking UP to 210 (naturally smaller men). And Dempsey and Louis would have to go to 225+????? And heavyweight currently is anything over 200 lbs. Ali was never 188 in his prime unless his prime extends all the way back to when he was 20 years old. That Peter weighed up to 260 says nothing; Peter was a fatso who should've been weighing 220 tops.

LOL George Foreman was a colossal man. Again, you can't seem to comprehend that simply a height and weight listing does not tell me size. Byrd was 6'1 and 210, the same height and weight as Sonny Liston. And Liston would've dwarfed Byrd in terms of overall frame and size. Ditto with Foreman and Haye. Look at Foreman vs Shannon Briggs, by any account a very naturally big man. Foreman has a bigger frame than Briggs . .did his extra 40 lbs for mostly flab suddenly give him a bigger body frame

Your opinion of Lewis-Mercer is an extreme minority one. Even those who think Lewis won concede it was a close fight.

Show me the source of the quote of Willard. Looking at film of Willard vs Dempsey (in the first before he gets a head beating of epic proportions), Johnson, and in training, Jess was very athletic for his size, had great reflexes and fairly agile. No he wasn't a fancy dan but he was not stiff and uncoordinated. And by all accounts Fulton was much more athletic than Willard was. Look at Dempsey sparring gatekeeper Big Bill Tate . . 6'6 and in the 230s-40s . . .and moving with speed and agility. Fury compared to all of them comes off like a goof . .I've always said a good past equivalent to Fury is Ray Impellietierre.

The Great John L wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Why not? Let's be honest here. To compete in the heavyweight division today you MUST be 210+ plus. Foreman in his prime was considered a big man--- and at 6'3" and 215 pounds he was big for his time--- but in today's world he is just 5 pounds over the limit.

HH, are you just flustered, or do you really not know anything about boxing? The CW limit is 200 pounds not 210. Besides, there is no LOWER limit in any weight class, so no one can be “just 5 pounds over the limit”.

No I dont know ANYTHING about ANYTHING at all.

You win. You make me feel like a complete and total idiot and moron and completely a waste of space.

Good job.

I dunno why someone has to be an idiot. Can't we just disagree?

Isn't that the point? Don't you guys hang out and drink beer and argue about things without making everyone out to be an idiot?

I feel very strongly that Klitschko is overrated, Carnera underrated, and Joe Louis the greatest ever. That doesn't make me smart and Henry a fool, or vice versa.

We're just shooting the shit here fellas, lighten up.