Evander Holyfield (Lewis 2) vs Oleksandr Usyk (Dubois 2)

[Ambling Alp II]

Foreman beat both Frazier and Norton with his title wins, those are both bigger wins than any of Wlad or Fury's respective title defenses.

Sonny Liston was a great Heavyweight who was basically froze out of his title shot for many years. I do think he's often overrated historically though.

As for Tommy Burns. The truth is I have no idea how good that guy was or wasn't and you don't either. There's no footage of him. I suspect he was better than a lot of people give him credit for, but it definitely speaks to it being a weak time in Heavyweight history when a Super Middleweight is the closest thing they could find to a decent Heavyweight. All we really know of that era is what we read.

Glad you realize that Foreman's wins were bigger than Wlads or Fury's. That is quite an understatement, but at least you realize it. I certainly hope you realize that Foreman was much, much better than either of them, Frazier and Liston were as well.

Yes there is indeed footage of Tommy Burns. I have seen some of his fights. Several of his fights have been on Youtube. He was a very good fighter for his height. His problem was that he was only 5'7. He was great at darting in and out without getting hit. However, he was no match for Johnson, who was truly a great fighter.

You are contradicting yourself by saying you have no idea how good burns was, and at the same time thinking the number of title defenses are a important. burns had a lot of title defenses. Therefore, he had to be pretty good if you go by the silly number of title defenses thing.
My mathematical formula for the title defenses is this. Take the number of defenses and multiply it by zero. That is how important it is.

As for Burns, yes, we can get a general idea how good he was. We can compare a guy from the say the 1990s to the 1980s and the 1980s to the 1970s, then you can compare the 1990s to the 1970s. And so on. You might have to take notes. Use a bar graph if that helps. It does involve thinking but it's not rocket science either.

[witherspoon]

What about the fact that quit in the 1st Ali fight also when it again looked like he could continue.

He was a beaten man and he knew it. He chose the "easy" way out rather than the humiliation of getting knocked out.

Hardly admirable, but I still can't reconcile that with the man being cowardly or frightened. Otherwise why take the rematch?

[gilgamesh]

Foreman beat both Frazier and Norton with his title wins, those are both bigger wins than any of Wlad or Fury's respective title defenses.

Sonny Liston was a great Heavyweight who was basically froze out of his title shot for many years. I do think he's often overrated historically though.

As for Tommy Burns. The truth is I have no idea how good that guy was or wasn't and you don't either. There's no footage of him. I suspect he was better than a lot of people give him credit for, but it definitely speaks to it being a weak time in Heavyweight history when a Super Middleweight is the closest thing they could find to a decent Heavyweight. All we really know of that era is what we read.

Glad you realize that Foreman's wins were bigger than Wlads or Fury's. That is quite an understatement, but at least you realize it. I certainly hope you realize that Foreman was much, much better than either of them, Frazier and Liston were as well.

Yes there is indeed footage of Tommy Burns. I have seen some of his fights. Several of his fights have been on Youtube. He was a very good fighter for his height. His problem was that he was only 5'7. He was great at darting in and out without getting hit. However, he was no match for Johnson, who was truly a great fighter.

You are contradicting yourself by saying you have no idea how good burns was, and at the same time thinking the number of title defenses are a important. burns had a lot of title defenses. Therefore, he had to be pretty good if you go by the silly number of title defenses thing.
My mathematical formula for the title defenses is this. Take the number of defenses and multiply it by zero. That is how important it is.

As for Burns, yes, we can get a general idea how good he was. We can compare a guy from the say the 1990s to the 1980s and the 1980s to the 1970s, then you can compare the 1990s to the 1970s. And so on. You might have to take notes. Use a bar graph if that helps. It does involve thinking but it's not rocket science either.

Yes I rate George Foreman over Fury and Wlad, but your argument that title defenses mean nothing i can't go with. If Joe Louis had reigned for 3 years instead of 12 you don't think it would've vastly affected how he's seen historically?

[Ambling Alp II]

Not nowadays. Up until the 2000s, he would have been. The 2nd Schmeling fight was one of the historically important fights of all time. People talked about that. And his other big wins.

People talk about this stat now more than they did years ago. Hardly heard it mentioned much at all during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s etc. It's not like people were saying that Louis was one of the best because of title defenses or length of reign. They talked about his fights and who he beat and how good he looked in doing it. If he had won all his big fights in a shorter period of time, yes people would still have rated him very highly.

People didn't talk much about 25 defenses or 12 years. Or the number of Tommy Burn's titles defenses. Or Ali's or anyone's. It wasn't like this guy had only three title defenses, he couldn't have been as good as this guy who had 8 or whatever. Wins over quality opponents mattered. How good you were actually mattered. Not the number of title defenses over stiffs.

But when you can't come up with quality wins, you either to either pretend that the wins over stiffs were quality or just cite statistics. Statistics in boxing can be very deceiving. Tons of guys with pretty records who couldn't fight.

[gilgamesh]

Fury and Wlad obviously could fight though. You just don't like them so you don't want to see their talent or give them credit.

I get it. I don't particularly like Fury either, but I don't bullsh*t myself about someone's skill or accomplishment whether I like 'em or not.

Plus you have to consider the fact that even in "weak eras" particularly long title reigns still aren't especially common.

The 1980's was a weak era full of weak challengers, and those guys couldn't hold onto their belts for sh*t

Yes great wins, great performances over great fighters is the main criteria when ranking great fighters, but there is something to be said about being consistently good for a long time as well.

Mike Tyson at his peak was more spectacular than Wlad or Fury on their best days easily. No doubt about that, but if you put 35 year old Wlad up against 35 old year old Mike who wins? I'd lean Wlad. Why? Because he was more Professional. More consistent. More dedicated to his craft, and he got more out of his body over a longer period of time.

Does that make him a better fighter overall? I'd probably say no, but it at least gives him an argument.

[Cojimar 1946]

Not nowadays. Up until the 2000s, he would have been. The 2nd Schmeling fight was one of the historically important fights of all time. People talked about that. And his other big wins.

People talk about this stat now more than they did years ago. Hardly heard it mentioned much at all during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s etc. It's not like people were saying that Louis was one of the best because of title defenses or length of reign. They talked about his fights and who he beat and how good he looked in doing it. If he had won all his big fights in a shorter period of time, yes people would still have rated him very highly.

People didn't talk much about 25 defenses or 12 years. Or the number of Tommy Burn's titles defenses. Or Ali's or anyone's. It wasn't like this guy had only three title defenses, he couldn't have been as good as this guy who had 8 or whatever. Wins over quality opponents mattered. How good you were actually mattered. Not the number of title defenses over stiffs.

But when you can't come up with quality wins, you either to either pretend that the wins over stiffs were quality or just cite statistics. Statistics in boxing can be very deceiving. Tons of guys with pretty records who couldn't fight.

Louis opponents were pretty poor. Lots of guys would be favored to beat them. And many were not even heavyweights by todays standards

[gilgamesh]

Not nowadays. Up until the 2000s, he would have been. The 2nd Schmeling fight was one of the historically important fights of all time. People talked about that. And his other big wins.

People talk about this stat now more than they did years ago. Hardly heard it mentioned much at all during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s etc. It's not like people were saying that Louis was one of the best because of title defenses or length of reign. They talked about his fights and who he beat and how good he looked in doing it. If he had won all his big fights in a shorter period of time, yes people would still have rated him very highly.

People didn't talk much about 25 defenses or 12 years. Or the number of Tommy Burn's titles defenses. Or Ali's or anyone's. It wasn't like this guy had only three title defenses, he couldn't have been as good as this guy who had 8 or whatever. Wins over quality opponents mattered. How good you were actually mattered. Not the number of title defenses over stiffs.

But when you can't come up with quality wins, you either to either pretend that the wins over stiffs were quality or just cite statistics. Statistics in boxing can be very deceiving. Tons of guys with pretty records who couldn't fight.

Louis opponents were pretty poor. Lots of guys would be favored to beat them. And many were not even heavyweights by todays standards

And on the flip side of that you could say that all of Usyk's Cruiserweight bouts would've been Heavyweight bouts in any era prior to 2004 or so.

The Cruiserweight division came into existence I believe in 1979, the weight limit was 190 pounds up until 2004 or 2005 for some title orgs.

So for any time in Boxing history prior to 2004, all of Usyk's fights are Heavyweight fights.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fury and Wlad obviously could fight though. You just don't like them so you don't want to see their talent or give them credit.

I get it. I don't particularly like Fury either, but I don't bullsh*t myself about someone's skill or accomplishment whether I like 'em or not.

Plus you have to consider the fact that even in "weak eras" particularly long title reigns still aren't especially common.

The 1980's was a weak era full of weak challengers, and those guys couldn't hold onto their belts for sh*t

Yes great wins, great performances over great fighters is the main criteria when ranking great fighters, but there is something to be said about being consistently good for a long time as well.

Mike Tyson at his peak was more spectacular than Wlad or Fury on their best days easily. No doubt about that, but if you put 35 year old Wlad up against 35 old year old Mike who wins? I'd lean Wlad. Why? Because he was more Professional. More consistent. More dedicated to his craft, and he got more out of his body over a longer period of time.

Does that make him a better fighter overall? I'd probably say no, but it at least gives him an argument.

Klitschko had a lot of power and some good boxing skills. At one time, I thought he would be the next big thing. I thought the Purrity fight was a fluke. Then I saw the Sanders fight. He got his a$$ kicked by a guy who was very limited. Had serious
doubts after that. Then it happens against with Lamon Brewster. That was it.
No great hw got ko'd by three no-names like that. He had a glass jaw and poor stamina. No great hw had two major weaknesses.

Don't know what you see in Fury. Can he really fight? He was well for a guy who is 50 pounds overweight. So what? Mediocre power, medicore chin. Not very active.

You have to be pretty desperate if you have to resort to who would win between and old Klitschko and old Tyson. Thats pathetic. Thats best you can come up with? Really? No that's not a real argument. Any version of Klitschko and Fury don't make it to the mid-rounds against Tyson in his 20s. Tyson did just do it for or two fights either.

Klitschko and Fury were not consistently good for a long time. Klitschko won one boring fight against one stiff after another. So what. When you aren't taking any punishment and don't have any real challenges, then yeah, you might be last longer. Big deal.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not nowadays. Up until the 2000s, he would have been. The 2nd Schmeling fight was one of the historically important fights of all time. People talked about that. And his other big wins.

People talk about this stat now more than they did years ago. Hardly heard it mentioned much at all during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s etc. It's not like people were saying that Louis was one of the best because of title defenses or length of reign. They talked about his fights and who he beat and how good he looked in doing it. If he had won all his big fights in a shorter period of time, yes people would still have rated him very highly.

People didn't talk much about 25 defenses or 12 years. Or the number of Tommy Burn's titles defenses. Or Ali's or anyone's. It wasn't like this guy had only three title defenses, he couldn't have been as good as this guy who had 8 or whatever. Wins over quality opponents mattered. How good you were actually mattered. Not the number of title defenses over stiffs.

But when you can't come up with quality wins, you either to either pretend that the wins over stiffs were quality or just cite statistics. Statistics in boxing can be very deceiving. Tons of guys with pretty records who couldn't fight.

Louis opponents were pretty poor. Lots of guys would be favored to beat them. And many were not even heavyweights by todays standards

Some were good and some were not. I'm sure you have studied them all closely.
Before Louis even got a title shot, he faced three world champions. (Champions, not WBS titleholders). He also fought several other contenders before getting a title shot. As champion, some opponents, bad, mediocre, good, great. Yes you can do your thing and look at the boxrec database and cherry pick one his 71 fights and say he wasn't impressive in this or that one.

If you actually watched Louis fight, you would see that he was very skilled and had a lot of power. He is the #2 hw of all time. Fury, Klitschko etc, are not remotely in his league. We should not have to argue this.

[gilgamesh]

Fury and Wlad obviously could fight though. You just don't like them so you don't want to see their talent or give them credit.

I get it. I don't particularly like Fury either, but I don't bullsh*t myself about someone's skill or accomplishment whether I like 'em or not.

Plus you have to consider the fact that even in "weak eras" particularly long title reigns still aren't especially common.

The 1980's was a weak era full of weak challengers, and those guys couldn't hold onto their belts for sh*t

Yes great wins, great performances over great fighters is the main criteria when ranking great fighters, but there is something to be said about being consistently good for a long time as well.

Mike Tyson at his peak was more spectacular than Wlad or Fury on their best days easily. No doubt about that, but if you put 35 year old Wlad up against 35 old year old Mike who wins? I'd lean Wlad. Why? Because he was more Professional. More consistent. More dedicated to his craft, and he got more out of his body over a longer period of time.

Does that make him a better fighter overall? I'd probably say no, but it at least gives him an argument.

Klitschko had a lot of power and some good boxing skills. At one time, I thought he would be the next big thing. I thought the Purrity fight was a fluke. Then I saw the Sanders fight. He got his a$$ kicked by a guy who was very limited. Had serious
doubts after that. Then it happens against with Lamon Brewster. That was it.
No great hw got ko'd by three no-names like that. He had a glass jaw and poor stamina. No great hw had two major weaknesses.

Don't know what you see in Fury. Can he really fight? He was well for a guy who is 50 pounds overweight. So what? Mediocre power, medicore chin. Not very active.

You have to be pretty desperate if you have to resort to who would win between and old Klitschko and old Tyson. Thats pathetic. Thats best you can come up with? Really? No that's not a real argument. Any version of Klitschko and Fury don't make it to the mid-rounds against Tyson in his 20s. Tyson did just do it for or two fights either.

Klitschko and Fury were not consistently good for a long time. Klitschko won one boring fight against one stiff after another. So what. When you aren't taking any punishment and don't have any real challenges, then yeah, you might be last longer. Big deal.

Ken Norton was a no name when he beat Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Ali is the only great fighter he ever really beat. His next best win is a Jerry Quarry who had been beaten up multiple times by everyone the division had to offer by the time Norton got him.

And even the Wladimir Klitschko that couldn't beat Anthony Joshua would've knocked out Leon Spinks. You can take credit away from anyone if you want to.

I prefer to just give everyone the credit they are due, and not cut down someone's achievements. If someone achieved greater things that's awesome, it doesn't mean Wladimir or Fury's achievements were meaningless or unimpressive.

[Cojimar 1946]

Not nowadays. Up until the 2000s, he would have been. The 2nd Schmeling fight was one of the historically important fights of all time. People talked about that. And his other big wins.

People talk about this stat now more than they did years ago. Hardly heard it mentioned much at all during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s etc. It's not like people were saying that Louis was one of the best because of title defenses or length of reign. They talked about his fights and who he beat and how good he looked in doing it. If he had won all his big fights in a shorter period of time, yes people would still have rated him very highly.

People didn't talk much about 25 defenses or 12 years. Or the number of Tommy Burn's titles defenses. Or Ali's or anyone's. It wasn't like this guy had only three title defenses, he couldn't have been as good as this guy who had 8 or whatever. Wins over quality opponents mattered. How good you were actually mattered. Not the number of title defenses over stiffs.

But when you can't come up with quality wins, you either to either pretend that the wins over stiffs were quality or just cite statistics. Statistics in boxing can be very deceiving. Tons of guys with pretty records who couldn't fight.

Louis opponents were pretty poor. Lots of guys would be favored to beat them. And many were not even heavyweights by todays standards

Some were good and some were not. I'm sure you have studied them all closely.
Before Louis even got a title shot, he faced three world champions. (Champions, not WBS titleholders). He also fought several other contenders before getting a title shot. As champion, some opponents, bad, mediocre, good, great. Yes you can do your thing and look at the boxrec database and cherry pick one his 71 fights and say he wasn't impressive in this or that one.

If you actually watched Louis fight, you would see that he was very skilled and had a lot of power. He is the #2 hw of all time. Fury, Klitschko etc, are not remotely in his league. We should not have to argue this.

We shouldn't have to argue that lots of guys would be favored over anyone he beat. Id pick Jones jr over all of them. How would they even hit him?
.

[gilgamesh]

Yes. The One of the Great feats that Ambling Alp points out of Joe beating Max Schmeling. That was a big event. Max's greatest achievement as a fighter though is defeat Joe Louis in their first bout.

When Schmeling won the Heavyweight title he won it on a low blow disqualification. One of the all time weakest title wins.

You can poke holes in everything if you want. Being the best Heavyweight in the World is ultimately a meaningful achievement in any era, and shouldn't be diminished generally speaking. It's not an easy thing to achieve.

And for the record I consider Schmeling a very good fighter, and Joe's victory over him in the rematch a great achievement, but what I said above was true nevertheless.

[Ambling Alp II]

Louis opponents were pretty poor. Lots of guys would be favored to beat them. And many were not even heavyweights by todays standards

Some were good and some were not. I'm sure you have studied them all closely.
Before Louis even got a title shot, he faced three world champions. (Champions, not WBS titleholders). He also fought several other contenders before getting a title shot. As champion, some opponents, bad, mediocre, good, great. Yes you can do your thing and look at the boxrec database and cherry pick one his 71 fights and say he wasn't impressive in this or that one.

If you actually watched Louis fight, you would see that he was very skilled and had a lot of power. He is the #2 hw of all time. Fury, Klitschko etc, are not remotely in his league. We should not have to argue this.

We shouldn't have to argue that lots of guys would be favored over anyone he beat. Id pick Jones jr over all of them. How would they even hit him?
.

I'm sure you would pick Jones over all of them. They were before your time and therefore in your mind none of them were very good.
You don't think one guy that Louis fought would be able to land a punch on Roy Jones? Wow.
No Roy Jones would not have beaten Max Schmeling. Or Jersey Joe Walcott. Other guys that you know nothing about would have as well.

[gilgamesh]

Roy Jones would absolutely clown Max Schmeling. Walcott might be tougher.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fury and Wlad obviously could fight though. You just don't like them so you don't want to see their talent or give them credit.

I get it. I don't particularly like Fury either, but I don't bullsh*t myself about someone's skill or accomplishment whether I like 'em or not.

Plus you have to consider the fact that even in "weak eras" particularly long title reigns still aren't especially common.

The 1980's was a weak era full of weak challengers, and those guys couldn't hold onto their belts for sh*t

Yes great wins, great performances over great fighters is the main criteria when ranking great fighters, but there is something to be said about being consistently good for a long time as well.

Mike Tyson at his peak was more spectacular than Wlad or Fury on their best days easily. No doubt about that, but if you put 35 year old Wlad up against 35 old year old Mike who wins? I'd lean Wlad. Why? Because he was more Professional. More consistent. More dedicated to his craft, and he got more out of his body over a longer period of time.

Does that make him a better fighter overall? I'd probably say no, but it at least gives him an argument.

Klitschko had a lot of power and some good boxing skills. At one time, I thought he would be the next big thing. I thought the Purrity fight was a fluke. Then I saw the Sanders fight. He got his a$$ kicked by a guy who was very limited. Had serious
doubts after that. Then it happens against with Lamon Brewster. That was it.
No great hw got ko'd by three no-names like that. He had a glass jaw and poor stamina. No great hw had two major weaknesses.

Don't know what you see in Fury. Can he really fight? He was well for a guy who is 50 pounds overweight. So what? Mediocre power, medicore chin. Not very active.

You have to be pretty desperate if you have to resort to who would win between and old Klitschko and old Tyson. Thats pathetic. Thats best you can come up with? Really? No that's not a real argument. Any version of Klitschko and Fury don't make it to the mid-rounds against Tyson in his 20s. Tyson did just do it for or two fights either.

Klitschko and Fury were not consistently good for a long time. Klitschko won one boring fight against one stiff after another. So what. When you aren't taking any punishment and don't have any real challenges, then yeah, you might be last longer. Big deal.

Ken Norton was a no name when he beat Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Ali is the only great fighter he ever really beat. His next best win is a Jerry Quarry who had been beaten up multiple times by everyone the division had to offer by the time Norton got him.

And even the Wladimir Klitschko that couldn't beat Anthony Joshua would've knocked out Leon Spinks. You can take credit away from anyone if you want to.

I prefer to just give everyone the credit they are due, and not cut down someone's achievements. If someone achieved greater things that's awesome, it doesn't mean Wladimir or Fury's achievements were meaningless or unimpressive.

I agree in giving people credit for their achievement. If I had a relative who held a title I would brag about him even if his competition was weak. But if we are going to compare him to someone else, I am not going to say he was better if he wasn't.

Ken Norton was not a no name when he beat Ali. He was ranked in the Top 10 by Ring Magazine before the fight. This was in in an era when the division was deeper than ever. Norton proved in other fights that he was light years better than Purritty, Sanders, and Brewster,
Quarry had not been beaten up by everyone that the division had to offer. That's nonsense. Quarry had beaten Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, and Floyd Patterson.
Norton also beat Jimmy Young in a great fight. Norton also barely lost to Larry Holmes in one of the greatest heavyweight fights of all time.
Trying to compare Ali losing a decision to Ken Norton to Klitschko getting his a$$ handed to him by Ross Purritty, Corrie Sanders, and Lamon Brewster is beyond stupid. I thought you were better than this.

[gilgamesh]

I thought he lost to Jimmy Young personally. Although I had it razor thin.

He also fought to a draw with Scott LeDoux and Texx Cobb

I think Norton is better than those guys you mentioned, but he's not light years better. He's slightly better.

I'd pick Norton to beat the guys that Wlad lost to mostly, but i could easily see a Corrie Sanders chinning him as well. I mean if Cooney or Shavers could get ya, Sanders could as well.

How about addressing the opinion that Wlad on the worst day of his career could've never lost to Leon Spinks. From his 1st fight to his last fight, he could've never lost to Leon Spinks.

[gilgamesh]

Fighters have different strengths and weaknesses. That's why styles make fights. That's why you could beat some and lose to others that would be seemingly better on paper. Because fights ain't fought on paper.

[Ambling Alp II]

Totally agree that fights are not fought on paper. However, the better fighter usually wins. Obviously, not all the time, but the vast majority of the time.

None of these guys are perfect. You can find holes with anyone. The key is how many holes and how big are they. When rating a fighter, I think we have to weigh the good against the bad. Sometimes the guy we like is not as good as good as a guy that we can't stand. Sometimes a guy from a long time ago is better than a recent fighter. Sometimes he isn't.

Some guys have very mixed performances/results too. If you only watch Trinidad against Hopkins and Wright you would think he sucked. If you missed those fights but saw some others you would think he was one of the ATGs.

We need to check facts too. Norton was not a no name before the Ali fight. Quarry beat some good fighters (and got beaten badly sometimes too.) Norton didn't have a draw with Cobb, he beat him. And Tommy Burns does have several fights on youtube. . The videos of course not of great quality but maybe better than you might expect. No, Burns was obviously nowhere near one of the best heavyweights. That he had all of those title defenses and wasn't one of the best heavyweights was my point.

We should not have to argue if Norton was better than Sanders, Purritty, Brewster.

And no Sanders was nowhere near Shavers or Cooney. (Of course they were far from perfect.) Take out the win over Klitschko himself, and there is nothing. He was a one arm puncher who was easy to hit.

Also wanted to be clear about a fighter's prime. We can't just go by age, though obviously at a certain point age is a factor. How much punishment a fighter has taken in his career is a huge factor. Norton for example was way past his best when he was fighting LeDoux and Cooney.

[gilgamesh]

I have no doubt that Corrie Sanders is better than Gerry Cooney. He's probably 50/50 with Shavers. Both of those would've been fun contests.

I don't think the fellas Wlad lost to are as good as Norton either, but he also would've never lost twice to Purrity or Brewster those losses come down more to strategic errors on Wlad's part than anything they did to better him really. He wouldn't have punched himself out in a rematch with Purrity just like he didn't in the Brewster rematch.

How are we going so far into left field on this? We were talking Usyk vs Holyfield right? How did we even get here?

[gilgamesh]

Norton's best win prior to facing Ali was over a guy named Henry Clark who had a journeyman record of something like 25-7-1 or thereabouts.

Hardly the resume of a world beater, and the commentary throughout the 1st fight with Ali keeps focusing on how Norton was a "virtual unknown" heading into the fight.

Norton was a rare good fighter who had the measure of a great one. Not something that happens often in the sport, but some guys are just all wrong for your style like that.

[Cojimar 1946]

Roy is a far better athlete than Walcott or Schmelling, was far more dominant, and they don't have a huge size advantage to fall back on. Realistically he would have to be favored on the grounds of being a much better fighter.

Walcott and Schmelling are big light heavies/small cruiserweights by the standards of Jones day.

[gilgamesh]

Roy is a far better athlete than Walcott or Schmelling, was far more dominant, and they don't have a huge size advantage to fall back on. Realistically he would have to be favored on the grounds of being a much better fighter.

Walcott and Schmelling are big light heavies/small cruiserweights by the standards of Jones day.

It's not even anything about their size. They're roughly the same size as Roy. Roy is just flat out better than both of them in almost every conceivable way.

[Ambling Alp II]

First of all, no they aren't about the same size. Take a look at Jersey Joe Walcott. He weighed around 200 pounds and looked much bigger. He was all muscle. Walcott was a great athlete. He could moved around the ring very well.

Schmeling was naturally bigger than Jones too.

Jones usually weighed 175 or less. Yes I know he weighed 193 of John Ruiz. These guys aren't John Ruiz.
But lets forget about size. What do think happens when Walcott and Schmeling hit Jones? Its over. I liked Roy Jones. Loved it when he beat Toney. He was colorful and of course talented. But there is no way that he going to be able to take punches from these guys. Jones wouldn't even fight DM when he was the only threat out there at 175 for more than 5 years. No way he would step foot in the ring with Schmeling or Walcott.

[Ambling Alp II]

I have no doubt that Corrie Sanders is better than Gerry Cooney. He's probably 50/50 with Shavers. Both of those would've been fun contests.

I don't think the fellas Wlad lost to are as good as Norton either, but he also would've never lost twice to Purrity or Brewster those losses come down more to strategic errors on Wlad's part than anything they did to better him really. He wouldn't have punched himself out in a rematch with Purrity just like he didn't in the Brewster rematch.

How are we going so far into left field on this? We were talking Usyk vs Holyfield right? How did we even get here?

Corrie Sanders wasn't very good period. Outside of the Klitschko fight itself, there is nothing. At all. Cooney at least didn't get embarrassed by Holmes. He was no legend, but he had some ability. Watching him fight you could tell he was better than Sanders.

Earnie Shavers? Come on. Get real. Sanders might get lucky one of 10 times. Shavers was a force of nature. Nonstop bombs. He had his weaknesses, but most of the time he blows through someone like Sanders.

Strategic errors? Well strategic errors count. Come on. Klitschko got embarrassed three different times by guys that did virtually nothing else in their careers. That doesn't happen to great fighters. Great fighters don't have a glass jaw and poor stamina. They just don't. Might have been a reason why he ducked Lewis.

Yes we got off track as we often do.

I wonder if I would be like if I was your age. You see these guys from the last 20 years or so and like the sport. You just can't wrap it around your head that the hw division used to be so much better. After all the announcers and the promoters and the young people on the Current Scene are always going on how great these modern hws are.

I became a fan in 1976. It was a bummer knowing that I was seeing Ali on the downside. But it was fun following the hw division throughout the 70s, 80, 90s and even early 2000s. It sucked when the hw division hit the dry spell. I just kept think it bounce back but it clearly hasn't.

You and Cojimar clearly don't get how boxing used to be. At all.
There used to be so many more competitive fights. Guys in the top 10 routinely fought each other. And of course when that happens, one of them loses. And you can point those losses and ignore the big wins. Guys like Quarry, Shavers, Lyle, and Young often fought each other as well as great like Ali, Norton, Foreman. Of course they have losses.

The other thing is that I love history. I know that sometimes great stuff happened well before my time and I am interested in it. Some people aren't.

[gilgamesh]

I started following Boxing in 2001, I've backtracked and watched 100's if not 1000's of hours of fights from the 90's, 80's and 70's.

I don't know what it is you think you've seen or understood about Boxing that i haven't, but I can safely guarantee that less than 0.1% of people in this world have seen, discussed or thought about Boxing more than me.

Great and even Good fighters from the past are not unknown to me.

I have some blank spaces with my knowledge of the eras that pre-date Color television, but even then I try to educate myself and watch the guys that would be considered the cream of the crop.