BoxRec

Yuzo wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 06:38

Controversial wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 06:15 My point proven, Byrd admits in that video he couldn't trade with big guys as he wasn't a true HW. They are still few and far between these days. Small guys don't dominate the division like they used to, that its a fact not an opinion. Chris Byrd was small for a HW but still 6'2" and had 20lbs on Marciano. He also had the style to have success, has he slick, fast and hard to hit. Not a 5'9" slugger with a 67" reach (Marciano said his reach was 67" in an interview). Toney another very good technical fighter, great in fact.

well, guess what, toney withstood some big punches by some big punchers at heavyweight and he was smaller than byrd. a good chin size does not grant.

Controversial wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 06:15 Most of the small HWs that had success in recent times have had speed and/or great boxing ability as their main asset. That's why they had success. Marciano had neither of these assets.

says you. i say, boxing is not so cut and dry, and marciano can beat big heavyweights.

It’s kind of funny that people laughed when someone said modern HWs are more athletic, then Toney is rolled out as being proof that small fighters can be great HWs when he was hardly body beautiful at HW. You and others seem to keep missing the key facts why certain fighters have success and others don’t. For a start let’s not kid ourselves and pretend Toney was in the mix as being the best HW around when he was fighting. Secondly and more importantly Toney was technically a great fighter. He had tremendous skill,, fast hands, great array of punches, brilliant defensive ability and an unbelievable chin. Marciano was no Toney.

The evidence is clear, small guys that fight like Marciano have had no success and are not even in the rankings. Tyson is the most recent short HW but again he was built like a tank, had fast hands, good head movement and one punch KO power in either hand. That’s what made Tyson dangerous.

Small skilful guys have had some success as they are able to outbox bigger guys. I can’t explain it clearer than that. If Byrd fought at CW he would’ve had more success than he had at HW as physically his size and strength wouldn’t have been a disadvantage, he would be on a more level playing field.

Watch Marciano vs Cockell, remember Marciano wore smaller 8oz gloves too, unlike today, and see how ordinary Marciano looked against a small chubby blown up LHW who even managed to push Marciano back on occasions. Marciano hit him with everything including he head, elbow, low punches and after the bell and Cockell was still standing at the end. But guys naturally bigger, faster and stronger than Cockell would crumble at his feet, give me a break.

Controversial wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 08:52 It’s kind of funny that people laughed when someone said modern HWs are more athletic, then Toney is rolled out as being proof that small fighters can be great HWs when he was hardly body beautiful at HW. You and others seem to keep missing the key facts why certain fighters have success and others don’t. For a start let’s not kid ourselves and pretend Toney was in the mix as being the best HW around when he was fighting. Secondly and more importantly Toney was technically a great fighter. He had tremendous skill,, fast hands, great array of punches, brilliant defensive ability and an unbelievable chin. Marciano was no Toney.

The evidence is clear, small guys that fight like Marciano have had no success and are not even in the rankings. Tyson is the most recent short HW but again he was built like a tank, had fast hands, good head movement and one punch KO power in either hand. That’s what made Tyson dangerous.

Small skilful guys have had some success as they are able to outbox bigger guys. I can’t explain it clearer than that. If Byrd fought at CW he would’ve had more success than he had at HW as physically his size and strength wouldn’t have been a disadvantage, he would be on a more level playing field.

Watch Marciano vs Cockell, remember Marciano wore smaller 8oz gloves too, unlike today, and see how ordinary Marciano looked against a small chubby blown up LHW who even managed to push Marciano back on occasions. Marciano hit him with everything including he head, elbow, low punches and after the bell and Cockell was still standing at the end. But guys naturally bigger, faster and stronger than Cockell would crumble at his feet, give me a break.

says you. i say, marciano had a style to beat big heavyweights.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 06:27 None of the heavies in recent times have had much of a clue how to fight on the inside. Marciano definitely knew how to do that

and he threw a lot of punches. modern heavyweights have got so big and bulky, they throw a few punches, they are exhausted.

Yuzo wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 11:46

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 06:27 None of the heavies in recent times have had much of a clue how to fight on the inside. Marciano definitely knew how to do that

and he threw a lot of punches. modern heavyweights have got so big and bulky, they throw a few punches, they are exhausted.

Remind me, who holds the record for the highest number of punches thrown in a HW fight?

Controversial wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 15:34 Remind me, who holds the record for the highest number of punches thrown in a HW fight?

they set the record. but i just cant think of many modern heavyweights who consistently generate a high workrate. holyfield had a high workrate. but the more muscular he became the more his workrate seemed to drop. frazier and marciano, i think, are the two heavyweights who stick out as having the highest workrate. two small heavyweights. i think being big does have to come with some kind of price.

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Nov 2018, 15:45

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 Nov 2018, 15:27 Carnera actually had some good wins. Vitaly has a grand total of zero.. (this is the part where someone says Corrie Sanders was really good.)
Carnera was no Lennox Lewis. Neither was Vitaly. Abe Simon and Buddy Baer has better wins.
Lexnnox and Bowe are the only really big heavyweights who were great. No one else is close. Not Vitaly, or Glassjaw.
Wilder, Fury and Joshua have not proved anything yet.

Food for thought: Dempsey fought tall guys with big reaches. Guys far heavier than him. He blew them away. Many think Marciano was better than Dempsey.

In Carnera's and Willard's times there were not much advantages from the size, because boxing overall skillset level was lower, using of the size as a skill became usual much later, when behemoths began to be usual. Lewis and Bowe were the first in the young era of giants. Obviously this is the reason, why you can't find too many greats among big boxers. But height, reach and size overall are evident advantages. Evident is the greatness of Klitschkos as well, both of them are in HW top-20 list for sure.

No. Make that hell no. The Top 30 for Wladimir is pushing it. He had some power and boxing skills. He also had a glassjaw and poor stamina. His best win was orer Chris Byrd. He had three devastating loses to fighters nobody had in their top 100. Nobody else in the top 20 has that.

The skill set is not any better. The heavyweight division has been nothing short of awful for about 15 years. Vitaly Klitschko was not skillful at all. He didn't have a very good, left hook, uppercut, overhand right, jab, anything. His foot movement was awful. Slow handspeed.
Slow, mediocre power, a quitter. Zero big wins in his career. Doesn't deserve to be in the top 50.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 22:27
No. Make that hell no. The Top 30 for Wladimir is pushing it. He had some power and boxing skills. He also had a glassjaw and poor stamina. His best win was orer Chris Byrd. He had three devastating loses to fighters nobody had in their top 100. Nobody else in the top 20 has that.

The skill set is not any better. The heavyweight division has been nothing short of awful for about 15 years. Vitaly Klitschko was not skillful at all. He didn't have a very good, left hook, uppercut, overhand right, jab, anything. His foot movement was awful. Slow handspeed.
Slow, mediocre power, a quitter. Zero big wins in his career. Doesn't deserve to be in the top 50.

I'm not really a fan but he was successful because he was large and became very effective about using his size to his advantage. He was always in great shape too. For all his lack of 'skill' that was enough to dominate for many years. Not sure he had a glass jaw though. Yes he lost to some poor fighters but they were big HWs and hard punchers, it only takes one punch from these big men, just ask Lennox Lewis.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 22:27 No. Make that hell no. The Top 30 for Wladimir is pushing it. He had some power and boxing skills. He also had a glassjaw and poor stamina. His best win was orer Chris Byrd. He had three devastating loses to fighters nobody had in their top 100. Nobody else in the top 20 has that.

Even if Wlad had a glassjaw, he was able to keep everyone away of it for 10 years. He can back to dominate the division. He has just defeated almost everybody of his era. That is an important criteria of the greatness. As well as an ability to come back. Chris Byrd wasn't the only solid name. The likes of Povetkin and Haye were probably even tougher. Chagaev, Peter, Pulev - all of them were at the top then.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 22:27 The skill set is not any better. The heavyweight division has been nothing short of awful for about 15 years. Vitaly Klitschko was not skillful at all. He didn't have a very good, left hook, uppercut, overhand right, jab, anything. His foot movement was awful. Slow handspeed.
Slow, mediocre power, a quitter. Zero big wins in his career. Doesn't deserve to be in the top 50.

You could have said anything about him and made it sound at least arguable, but telling that he had no jab is an absolute nonsense.

Wilder by TKO...

Controversial wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 01:03

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 22:27
No. Make that hell no. The Top 30 for Wladimir is pushing it. He had some power and boxing skills. He also had a glassjaw and poor stamina. His best win was orer Chris Byrd. He had three devastating loses to fighters nobody had in their top 100. Nobody else in the top 20 has that.

The skill set is not any better. The heavyweight division has been nothing short of awful for about 15 years. Vitaly Klitschko was not skillful at all. He didn't have a very good, left hook, uppercut, overhand right, jab, anything. His foot movement was awful. Slow handspeed.
Slow, mediocre power, a quitter. Zero big wins in his career. Doesn't deserve to be in the top 50.

I'm not really a fan but he was successful because he was large and became very effective about using his size to his advantage. He was always in great shape too. For all his lack of 'skill' that was enough to dominate for many years. Not sure he had a glass jaw though. Yes he lost to some poor fighters but they were big HWs and hard punchers, it only takes one punch from these big men, just ask Lennox Lewis.

Rahman and McCall were a level above Sanders & Brewster. Many levels above purity. But I agree that leads chin wasn't China. Williamson almost ended his career though.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 05:12

Controversial wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 01:03

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Nov 2018, 22:27
No. Make that hell no. The Top 30 for Wladimir is pushing it. He had some power and boxing skills. He also had a glassjaw and poor stamina. His best win was orer Chris Byrd. He had three devastating loses to fighters nobody had in their top 100. Nobody else in the top 20 has that.

The skill set is not any better. The heavyweight division has been nothing short of awful for about 15 years. Vitaly Klitschko was not skillful at all. He didn't have a very good, left hook, uppercut, overhand right, jab, anything. His foot movement was awful. Slow handspeed.
Slow, mediocre power, a quitter. Zero big wins in his career. Doesn't deserve to be in the top 50.

I'm not really a fan but he was successful because he was large and became very effective about using his size to his advantage. He was always in great shape too. For all his lack of 'skill' that was enough to dominate for many years. Not sure he had a glass jaw though. Yes he lost to some poor fighters but they were big HWs and hard punchers, it only takes one punch from these big men, just ask Lennox Lewis.

Rahman and McCall were a level above Sanders & Brewster. Many levels above purity. But I agree that leads chin wasn't China. Williamson almost ended his career though.

Sure they were better fighters but a big punch is a big punch. If you are hit flush your brain doesn't differentiate whether it was hit by an ATG or a journeyman, it can knock you out regardless. Plenty of journeymen have punched harder than the ATGs of the division over the years.

It's not like they were lucky punches, he got fucked up in all those fights. He's not in Lennox league.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 06:10 It's not like they were lucky punches, he got fucked up in all those fights. He's not in Lennox league.

I don't think anyone said he was Lewis's league.

Cojimar has multiple times. He also thinks Vitaly is as good as Riddick Bowe. Seriously.
Yes occasionally a ordinary fighter has a big punch. However, great fighters seldom embarrassing stoppages by ordinary fighters. Happened to Wladimir three times. Take a look at the the Top 20. Didn't happen to them three times. They also have much better wins.
That Wladimir was a "dominating" for several years says more about his competition than anything. The sheer number of WBS title defenses don't mean anything.

He has a 9 year reign with 18 title defenses. To achieve that regardless of era is generally considered a massive feat.

As for McCall and Rahman vs Sanders and Brewster I don't see a huge gap. You can argue McCall and Rahman were better but the gap isn't huge. Why should Lewis get a pass for his losses and not Klitschko?

Riddick Bowe has Holyfield on his resume and nothing else. Based on how paper thin his resume is I find arguments for his greatness pretty silly especially coming from those who feel resume is an important criteria.

Lewis has never gotten a pass for his losses, but he also avenged them and fought in a great era. Was carved out a legacy for himself, but if you fight in a poor era without great wins, the penalties to losing to fighters tiers below fighters that other greats beat are more severe. I thought Joshua was the best result of his career.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 14:07 Riddick Bowe has Holyfield on his resume and nothing else. Based on how paper thin his resume is I find arguments for his greatness pretty silly especially coming from those who feel resume is an important criteria.

Well Holyfield was pretty good. The best fighter that fighter does count for a lot. You also have to look at the losses. Bowe's only one was to Holyfield in a great fight that was very close, could have gone his way. He looked better in that lost than almost everyone else in their best win.
The rest of resume is not that special.
You also have to actually watch his fights. Compare them to other fighters.
He could have been great for longer and that's on him. However, he should be rated for what he did do.

I think comparing a guy with such a thin resume to another guy who dominated the division for nine years is pretty silly. A great win doesn't come close to matching a near-decade of dominance legacy-wise. If it did than Buster Douglas and Hasim Rahman would be greats.

They're both more accomplished than vitali.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 23:36

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 14:07 Riddick Bowe has Holyfield on his resume and nothing else. Based on how paper thin his resume is I find arguments for his greatness pretty silly especially coming from those who feel resume is an important criteria.

Well Holyfield was pretty good. The best fighter that fighter does count for a lot. You also have to look at the losses. Bowe's only one was to Holyfield in a great fight that was very close, could have gone his way. He looked better in that lost than almost everyone else in their best win.
The rest of resume is not that special.
You also have to actually watch his fights. Compare them to other fighters.
He could have been great for longer and that's on him. However, he should be rated for what he did do.

He could have been great for decades against the likes of Sanders.

Also I don't really see much evidence to suggest the current division is weak relative to other eras. Are the critics actually watching the fights? I don't think people today fully appreciate how poor some earlier eras were relative to today.

Even the people who say it has not been weak in recent times almost never point out great performances. They almost never point out a particular fight and try to say it was great or even good. There is a reason for that. All we get is crap like heights, weights, reaches, win/loss records, WBS title defenses etc.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 03:21

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 23:36

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2018, 14:07 Riddick Bowe has Holyfield on his resume and nothing else. Based on how paper thin his resume is I find arguments for his greatness pretty silly especially coming from those who feel resume is an important criteria.

Well Holyfield was pretty good. The best fighter that fighter does count for a lot. You also have to look at the losses. Bowe's only one was to Holyfield in a great fight that was very close, could have gone his way. He looked better in that lost than almost everyone else in their best win.
The rest of resume is not that special.
You also have to actually watch his fights. Compare them to other fighters.
He could have been great for longer and that's on him. However, he should be rated for what he did do.

He could have been great for decades against the likes of Sanders.

And that is what some people just don't get. They think a lot of WBS title defenses means a lot. It doesn't. Bowe and many, many guys could have made those WBS title defenses.
One win over Holyfield is more important than 50 wins against stiffs.
Vitaly is the one with a thin resume. Dominating a division, (which he didn't even do) doesn't mean much if the competition is not good.
Take out Holyfield, and Bowe still has a better resume. Put him in (which obviously you should since it happened) and Bowe is head and shoulders better than Vitaly.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 16:52 And that is what some people just don't get. They think a lot of WBS title defenses means a lot. It doesn't. Bowe and many, many guys could have made those WBS title defenses.
One win over Holyfield is more important than 50 wins against stiffs.
Vitaly is the one with a thin resume. Dominating a division, (which he didn't even do) doesn't mean much if the competition is not good.
Take out Holyfield, and Bowe still has a better resume. Put him in (which obviously you should since it happened) and Bowe is head and shoulders better than Vitaly.

Bowe obviously had more raw talent, than Vitali, as well as the skills and I'd even pick Riddick to win Vitali, but without Holyfield wins his resume is about the same as Vitali's one, to call it better in this case is quite delusional.