BoxRec

asdfjkl wrote: Yes I do, you have to be so extremely good skilled to beat someone with a 14 inch reach advantage, it's nearly impossible.
Even Mayweather got an advantage in reach above Tyson.

asdfjkl wrote:

Wales wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:I think it's fair to say that the heavyweights of nowadays are far superior compared to the ones of 25 and more years ago.
Muhammad Ali wouldn't even have been a heavyweight all the time and barely any of his opponends were either. The ones that were clearly showed to be more competative.

The sport simply develops over time. Mike tyson is 3 inches shorter as Povetkin, who's already considered quite short for nowadays top level heavyweights standards.

So likes of John Ruin, who had WBA title for 3-4 in early 2000s is "far superior" to likes of Foreman who was in his prime around '73.

If true how come a 45 year old Foreman won WBA and IBF titles in early 90s.

Povetkin is 6ft 2. Same as Holyfield who beat Bowe, and more than hung with giants like Lewis and Valuev.

I'm not a big Tyson fan, but are we saying he wouldn't beat Wad.... or <gulps> Fury

Oh, come on, Ruiz only had 7 opponends that were actually known by wikipedia in his first 40 matches and lost most of them. You can't really consider that as a top contender. Even David Haye, with his paper wins won against him. WBA winners just usually look for a lot of bums to fight, so they can keep their belt. They aren't actually good. Ruiz is just another example of that.
He might have had a chance against the previous generation, but not in modern.

asdfjkl wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Tyson is smaller as any top 100 boxrec heavyweight boxer of nowadays, Ali is similar muscled, similar speed, less range and less height. Tyson is basically the modern and UK version of Ali, just like Ali, Fury isn't even that popular at this moment of his carreer.
Briggs is similar to Foreman in some way, old, but good chin and Powerful. There's a reason most higher, but experienced boxers are scared of him.

Not making any sense of this. Are you saying Mike Tyson would have been too small to beat Fury?

Yes I do, you have to be so extremely good skilled to beat someone with a 14 inch reach advantage, it's nearly impossible.
Even Mayweather got an advantage in reach above Tyson.

Wales wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Yes I do, you have to be so extremely good skilled to beat someone with a 14 inch reach advantage, it's nearly impossible.
Even Mayweather got an advantage in reach above Tyson.

Many of Tyson opponents had a significant reach advantage! Nearly impossible? Bruno had a 11 inch advantage in reach !

Can't believe I'm going to give this huge tactical boxing secret away, I'm sure trainers the world over will read this and it'll forever change their way of thinking . Never mind, here goes. If a fighter has a significantly longer reach... don't box on the outside.

You believe Fury beats Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman?

Wales wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:I think it's fair to say that the heavyweights of nowadays are far superior compared to the ones of 25 and more years ago.
Muhammad Ali wouldn't even have been a heavyweight all the time and barely any of his opponends were either. The ones that were clearly showed to be more competative.

The sport simply develops over time. Mike tyson is 3 inches shorter as Povetkin, who's already considered quite short for nowadays top level heavyweights standards.

So likes of John Ruin, who had WBA title for 3-4 in early 2000s is "far superior" to likes of Foreman who was in his prime around '73.

If true how come a 45 year old Foreman won WBA and IBF titles in early 90s.

Povetkin is 6ft 2. Same as Holyfield who beat Bowe, and more than hung with giants like Lewis and Valuev.

I'm not a big Tyson fan, but are we saying he wouldn't beat Wad.... or <gulps> Fury

Wales wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Yes I do, you have to be so extremely good skilled to beat someone with a 14 inch reach advantage, it's nearly impossible.
Even Mayweather got an advantage in reach above Tyson.

Many of Tyson opponents had a significant reach advantage! Nearly impossible? Bruno had a 11 inch advantage in reach !

Can't believe I'm going to give this huge tactical boxing secret away, I'm sure trainers the world over will read this and it'll forever change their way of thinking . Never mind, here goes. If a fighter has a significantly longer reach... don't box on the outside.

***You believe Fury beats Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman?***

Wales wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

Wales wrote:
So likes of John Ruin, who had WBA title for 3-4 in early 2000s is "far superior" to likes of Foreman who was in his prime around '73.

If true how come a 45 year old Foreman won WBA and IBF titles in early 90s.

Povetkin is 6ft 2. Same as Holyfield who beat Bowe, and more than hung with giants like Lewis and Valuev.

I'm not a big Tyson fan, but are we saying he wouldn't beat Wad.... or <gulps> Fury

Oh, come on, Ruiz only had 7 opponends that were actually known by wikipedia in his first 40 matches and lost most of them. You can't really consider that as a top contender. Even David Haye, with his paper wins won against him. WBA winners just usually look for a lot of bums to fight, so they can keep their belt. They aren't actually good. Ruiz is just another example of that.
He might have had a chance against the previous generation, but not in modern.

Exactly. Evidence of how poor this generation of HWs are. Ruiz was champion . Doesnt that show how poor the era was compared to others?

Who are you rating from this generation that beats a '88 Tyson or '74 Foreman?

BitPlayer wrote:

Wales wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:I think it's fair to say that the heavyweights of nowadays are far superior compared to the ones of 25 and more years ago.
Muhammad Ali wouldn't even have been a heavyweight all the time and barely any of his opponends were either. The ones that were clearly showed to be more competative.

The sport simply develops over time. Mike tyson is 3 inches shorter as Povetkin, who's already considered quite short for nowadays top level heavyweights standards.

So likes of John Ruin, who had WBA title for 3-4 in early 2000s is "far superior" to likes of Foreman who was in his prime around '73.

If true how come a 45 year old Foreman won WBA and IBF titles in early 90s.

Povetkin is 6ft 2. Same as Holyfield who beat Bowe, and more than hung with giants like Lewis and Valuev.

I'm not a big Tyson fan, but are we saying he wouldn't beat Wad.... or <gulps> Fury

Even Tyson doubts he could beat Wlad. As for Ruiz, he was never at the top, you could find a boxer of any era worse than any of the ones at the top.

BitPlayer wrote:

Wales wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Oh, come on, Ruiz only had 7 opponends that were actually known by wikipedia in his first 40 matches and lost most of them. You can't really consider that as a top contender. Even David Haye, with his paper wins won against him. WBA winners just usually look for a lot of bums to fight, so they can keep their belt. They aren't actually good. Ruiz is just another example of that.
He might have had a chance against the previous generation, but not in modern.

Exactly. Evidence of how poor this generation of HWs are. Ruiz was champion . Doesnt that show how poor the era was compared to others?

Who are you rating from this generation that beats a '88 Tyson or '74 Foreman?

No it's just a product of lots of fake titles.