BoxRec

There should be a riot over Henry placing Herbie Hide in his list of men 'difficult to knockout'. That has to be one of the most baffling comments I have ever read on a boxing forum.

Step down Polecateddy, we have a new heavyweight Champion of Idiotism.

And then we have the drunken Piper praising Vitali for 'being able to stop Ross Puritty'. Sounds like we're discussing fights we haven't bothered to watch again - classic drunken Piper. John Coyle stopped Puritty for having a papercut, and for punching back, not Vitali and his arm punches. It's an utterly absurd thing to credit Vitali with - and hilarious when you consider Piper refuses to give any credit to Chris Byrd for making Vitali quit on his stool.

And the opposition of Tim Witherspoon versus Vitali K? Christ, someone plant an overhand right on Piper and put us all out of our misery.

Hide wasn't big enough to be a heavyweight in the age of very big men and he still did some damage - Bowe said he hit him the hardest of anyone. If Herbie had been a career cruiser he'd have been a really good champ.

HomicideHenry wrote:
Vladimir is the classic textbook boxer. Albeit, he is more of a modern style. Vitali is more along the lines of a late 19th century-early 20th century boxer. Vladimir's two-knuckle method of punching, in combination with a safety first style, often leads to kayos in late rounds or to go the distance. Vitali opts for the three-knuckle method, and has a more aggressive style, which leads to kayos occuring early on in fights--- or him being capable of stopping men who never were stopped, or seldom ever were stopped in their careers. Size and weight does play a crucial part, yes, but the technique in my view is what does it.

this makes me think, (1) you seem to have done a few '3 knuckle shuffles' yourself, over Vitali's record. or are you more of a modern, 2-knuckle wanker?

(2), more generally, you're fvcking bats. nutso. not the full shilling. off your rocker. the BOTP equivalent to Kronkpride. please, please stop spewing this retarded quasi-technical stuff.

"Tuan_Jim"]

And then we have the drunken Piper praising Vitali for 'being able to stop Ross Puritty'. Sounds like we're discussing fights we haven't bothered to watch again - classic drunken Piper. John Coyle stopped Puritty for having a papercut, and for punching back,

Looked like a pretty good cut to me and fights that were stopped due to cuts while the said fighter was still in fight mode, doesn't prevent you from crediting Lewis with beating Vitali.

and hilarious when you consider Piper refuses to give any credit to Chris Byrd for making Vitali quit on his stool.

Because the key word you're using is "making." Vitali quit on his own terms and it had nothing to do with anything Chris Byrd did to him. By your logic if an I-beam pin had fallen from the rafters above and hit Vitali on the head causing him to throw fight, Byrd would have been credited as "making Vitali quit"

And the opposition of Tim Witherspoon versus Vitali K?

I am not maintaining that Tim Witherspoon's opposition was better or worse. I simply asked another poster to give his opinion. And If we do the break down of their careers, performances, opposition, records and conditioning at the time of those fights, it frankly doesn't look like Tim has too much of an edge. Tony Tubbs is likely witherspoon's best win, yet you have no problem ignoring that his record was just as padded as a lot of Klitschko's foes and turned up in the same sort of fat out of shape condition that you so commonly label Vitali's opponents as being.. At least Klitscho reguarly beat the living sh-t out of guys of that description. Spoon barely escaped that match with a SD and a less than pleased crowd.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They were better fighters than Sam Peter & Corrie sanders. So were Bruno, Snipes, Smith & Williams. I also thought Tim edged Holmes and beat Mercer. Vitali's resume is crap, Wlad's is more comparable to Tim's. Though I'd still rate Tim higher.

1. Vitali fought Peter at age 37 and coming off a four year layoff, while Peter had just battered Maskaev for the WBC title. The result was Vitali hammering him in dominant fashion. Corrie Sanders had just sparked Wlad and Klit beat him decisively with some shaky moments. Witherspoon was in the peak of his prime against Tubbs and Page who looked no better against each other than they did against spoon, yet he barely got those wins.

2. Frank Bruno hadn't beaten anyone of note with the exception of washed up versions of Bugner and Coetzee and Tim needed a come from behind win. He had his jaw broken against Snipes and there are some who wonder if Renaldo deserved the nod. Smith was nobody special in 1985 and polished off Spoon in one round a year later. Both Mercer and spoon were past it when they fought and while some gave the fight to Spoon it was hardly a stellar performance. Williams had fought once in two years and the result was again razor thin.

Again, I am not disputing who is better or worse, but I just don't see how you can automatically arrive at one conclusion with such conviction.

I think Witherspoon would likely have beaten both Klits on the same night, if he fought Wlad first.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They were better fighters than Sam Peter & Corrie sanders. So were Bruno, Snipes, Smith & Williams. I also thought Tim edged Holmes and beat Mercer. Vitali's resume is crap, Wlad's is more comparable to Tim's. Though I'd still rate Tim higher.

1. Vitali fought Peter at age 37 and coming off a four year layoff, while Peter had just battered Maskaev for the WBC title. The result was Vitali hammering him in dominant fashion. Corrie Sanders had just sparked Wlad and Klit beat him decisively with some shaky moments. Witherspoon was in the peak of his prime against Tubbs and Page who looked no better against each other than they did against spoon, yet he barely got those wins.

2. Frank Bruno hadn't beaten anyone of note with the exception of washed up versions of Bugner and Coetzee and Tim needed a come from behind win. He had his jaw broken against Snipes and there are some who wonder if Renaldo deserved the nod. Smith was nobody special in 1985 and polished off Spoon in one round a year later. Both Mercer and spoon were past it when they fought and while some gave the fight to Spoon it was hardly a stellar performance. Williams had fought once in two years and the result was again razor thin.

Again, I am not disputing who is better or worse, but I just don't see how you can automatically arrive at one conclusion with such conviction.

Peter barely threw a punch and never had a significant result again. You asked a question and I gave an answer. Spoon's opposition dwarfs Vitali's, not even debatable.

Any man comparing Ross Puritty's miniscule cut vs Vitali K to Vitali K's butchering vs Lennox Lewis is too berserk to debate with. To deny that having Chris Byrd walking forward hitting you had nothing to do with Vitali staying on his stool is simply absurd. The Spoon breakdown is as skewed and wilfully blind as to be expected. Vitali gets the benefit of doubt v light hitting Byrd, Spoon gets no benefit of doubt over man he widely beat, who was a power puncher, and who came out smoking because he knew of Spoon's labyrinthine out-the-ring problems with promoter. Yawn.

The chronology is all over the place too. Vitali beat Corrie when he had 'just beat Wlad'? No, Corrie had sat out a year+ after Wlad, getting fatter and older.

="Tuan_Jim"]Any man comparing Ross Puritty's miniscule cut vs Vitali K to Vitali K's butchering vs Lennox Lewis is too berserk to debate with.

Same principle applies. If you view cut stoppages as valid then you need to keep consistent.

To deny that having Chris Byrd walking forward hitting you had nothing to do with Vitali staying on his stool is simply absurd.

Only round I gave Chris Byrd was ninth and that was after Klit had been fighting with the agony of that torn rotator cuff for several rounds. How did you score it?

The Spoon breakdown is as skewed and wilfully blind as to be expected.

Enlighten me

Vitali gets the benefit of doubt v light hitting Byrd, Spoon gets no benefit of doubt over man he widely beat, who was a power puncher, and who came out smoking because he knew of Spoon's labyrinthine out-the-ring problems with promoter. Yawn.

I've always suspected Spoon's rematch with Smith to be a dive. But when taking that position I got jumped on for it as well. Point being, he was KO'd in one round in a fight that he never had control of. Vitali was beating the sh-t out of his opponent until he opted to quit due to an injury that wasn't caused by a punch, head butt, knife wound, little green men or anything else that may have come from Byrd.

The chronology is all over the place too. Vitali beat Corrie when he had 'just beat Wlad'? No, Corrie had sat out a year+ after Wlad, getting fatter and older.

And when did Tim Witherspoon beat Carl Williams? After he had fought once in two years and showed up at what was then a career high weight? Are we factoring his fight with Big foot Martin into this as well or should we forget about that?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They were better fighters than Sam Peter & Corrie sanders. So were Bruno, Snipes, Smith & Williams. I also thought Tim edged Holmes and beat Mercer. Vitali's resume is crap, Wlad's is more comparable to Tim's. Though I'd still rate Tim higher.

1. Vitali fought Peter at age 37 and coming off a four year layoff, while Peter had just battered Maskaev for the WBC title. The result was Vitali hammering him in dominant fashion. Corrie Sanders had just sparked Wlad and Klit beat him decisively with some shaky moments. Witherspoon was in the peak of his prime against Tubbs and Page who looked no better against each other than they did against spoon, yet he barely got those wins.

2. Frank Bruno hadn't beaten anyone of note with the exception of washed up versions of Bugner and Coetzee and Tim needed a come from behind win. He had his jaw broken against Snipes and there are some who wonder if Renaldo deserved the nod. Smith was nobody special in 1985 and polished off Spoon in one round a year later. Both Mercer and spoon were past it when they fought and while some gave the fight to Spoon it was hardly a stellar performance. Williams had fought once in two years and the result was again razor thin.

Again, I am not disputing who is better or worse, but I just don't see how you can automatically arrive at one conclusion with such conviction.

Peter barely threw a punch and never had a significant result again. You asked a question and I gave an answer. Spoon's opposition dwarfs Vitali's, not even debatable.

1. Yeah its pretty hard to fight back when someone is punching the sh-t out of you.

2. Based on what? Career accomplishments? performances in the ring? amateur pedigree? Conditioning? Because I sure don't see very many of Spoon's victims topping Vitali's in a lot of those areas, with the exception of Frank Bruno's adonis like physique but that's about it.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

See ya.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

See ya.

Alot of heated words thrown my way, over my opinions. I'm always one for a good argument or debate, but not when it starts becoming an excercise in futility--- especially when your opponents resort to name calling and using profanity and the like.

However, I will address some things, then I'm done with this matter because we got off topic anyways (concerning whether you could make an argument that small men like Dempsey could beat the likes of Lewis and the Klitschko brothers).

Tuan_Jim wrote:There should be a riot over Henry placing Herbie Hide in his list of men 'difficult to knockout'. That has to be one of the most baffling comments I have ever read on a boxing forum.

Herbie Hide only lost 4 times by kayo in his career; the latter two losses came when he was much older, and tried his hand at the Cruiserweight division, so it can be excused that he simply started too late in the game for new challenges. The only other man to ever stop a prime Herbie Hide was Riddick Bowe, the same Bowe who was also the first man to stop Holyfield. It took Bowe six or so rounds to put away Hide; it took Klitschko two rounds. Overall, I would say it was hard to kayo Hide because A) Hide could take a punch, and B) Hide was hard to hit anyways because he was fast.

Ambling Alp II wrote: Title defenses and KO%s don't mean much unless they are against good opposition. There are certainly far more than 11-15 heavyweights who could have had as many "title" defenses as him if they fought that weak of competition. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis fought some tomato cans, but they also fought some very good fighters as well.

This has nothing to do with where they are from. Watch the film. They aren't that good.

For the most part, though, Louis and Holmes either fought old washed up once great fighters, or men who were simply too small @ "but they also fought some very good fighters as well." One may argue in retrospect that Louis didn't meet no real challenges in his prime, as every single opponent was essentially a hand picked dead man until Schmeling exposed Louis as being a robot essentially. After that, he struggled with a man who weighed in under 170 pounds (Conn), and wouldnt find a challenge until he faced Walcott who everybody pegged as just another cannon fodder opponent.

As for Holmes... one may argue, the best man he fought while as champion was none other than the biggest white hope of them all, Gerry Cooney. 'Spoon, Berbick, Smith, etc. were all heavyweight novices at the time they fought Holmes having maybe 12-15 fights a piece. Sure, he beat Leon Spinks, but how special was that considering Coetzee sparked Spinks out in one round? Of course, the countless supporters will say "He fought Earnie Shavers and Ken Norton too!", but let's get real here. Norton was on his way out, and never was the same man he was again. In following years he would struggle with Scott LeDoux and Tex Cobb. As for Shavers--- a man not known for stamina, and who could be easily out thought and out hustled--- lost every single round save for one, when he managed to clip Holmes. Personally, outside of Shavers power, he wasn't anything to scream over. Most of his wins were against bottom feeders. He was a modern LaMar Clark.

Counter-puncher wrote: this makes me think, (1) you seem to have done a few '3 knuckle shuffles' yourself, over Vitali's record. or are you more of a modern, 2-knuckle wanker?

(2), more generally, you're fvcking bats. nutso. not the full shilling. off your rocker. the BOTP equivalent to Kronkpride. please, please stop spewing this retarded quasi-technical stuff.

#1- You have not yet proven me wrong that modern techniques/stances maximize power far better than in earlier eras, where you had to knock men out in order to win. So, your name-calling and lame ass jokes, only prove to me that you don't want to answer the challenge, because you don't personally either know how to prove what you are talking about, or you know you cant.

#2- Mark 'Messer' Schmidt, is a complete and total nutcase, same as Charlie Zelenoff. Neither of them can carry a conversation without going on about themselves, or some lame ass fighter like Chauncey Welliver. Unlike them, I have been a poster of this forum since I was still in junior high school. Unlike them, I actually give a crap about the history of this sport. Unlike them, I have been involved in boxing in more ways than one (competitor, writer, radio show host). Unlike them, I will stand ground and try and make a plausible argument in even the most incredulous of debates rather than act "batshit crazy" and make a bunch of threads and videos or harass someone via Twitter or Facebook.

#3- This "retarded quasi-technical stuff", was championed by some of the greatest boxers of all time. Take a look, or listen, sometime (if you ever decide to do so) and YouTube a rather interesting video entitled "Gene Tunney Spars Jim Corbett", and you will see early 20th century techniques being used by the 59 year old Corbett that not even Tunney was aware. 'Vertical Punches', like Klitschko uses, have more surface area, and therefore increases damage. Throwing vertical punches also increases the chances of hitting a target, as opposed to Non-Vertical punches. Throwing vertical punches from certain points also increase punching power, rather than diminish it.

*************************************************************************

With all that being said, I am backing away from this thread. Any further comments, will only lead to more name calling and is counter-productive to the forum. I come here to post about boxing, not get down in the trenches with a bunch of people who are overly aggressive with their opinions.

HomicideHenry wrote: Herbie Hide only lost 4 times by kayo in his career; the latter two losses came when he was much older, and tried his hand at the Cruiserweight division, so it can be excused that he simply started too late in the game for new challenges. The only other man to ever stop a prime Herbie Hide was Riddick Bowe, the same Bowe who was also the first man to stop Holyfield. It took Bowe six or so rounds to put away Hide; it took Klitschko two rounds. Overall, I would say it was hard to kayo Hide because A) Hide could take a punch, and B) Hide was hard to hit anyways because he was fast.

Nice to start off on a factual inaccuracy. Joe Chingangu was a heavyweight who clobbered a heavyweight Herbie Hide. His 4th loss was also actually at heavyweight, also against a journeyman, although on a cut.

As far as your logic, or illogic, goes in justifying why Herbie Hide, a frail man with no chin, was 'hard to kayo', I guess that means Peter McNeeley was hard to kayo too. Let's add him to Mike Tyson's greatest wins! and throw in Brian Nielsen too - he was 'hard to kayo' - until a journeymen unexpectedly started punching back. Hard to kayo? Yeah, because he never boxed a ranked contender other than Bowe and VK.

"Hide could take a punch" - you are a madman and you are making an utter fool of yourself.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: Herbie Hide only lost 4 times by kayo in his career; the latter two losses came when he was much older, and tried his hand at the Cruiserweight division, so it can be excused that he simply started too late in the game for new challenges. The only other man to ever stop a prime Herbie Hide was Riddick Bowe, the same Bowe who was also the first man to stop Holyfield. It took Bowe six or so rounds to put away Hide; it took Klitschko two rounds. Overall, I would say it was hard to kayo Hide because A) Hide could take a punch, and B) Hide was hard to hit anyways because he was fast.

Nice to start off on a factual inaccuracy. Joe Chingangu was a heavyweight who clobbered a heavyweight Herbie Hide. His 4th loss was also actually at heavyweight, also against a journeyman, although on a cut.

As far as your logic, or illogic, goes in justifying why Herbie Hide, a frail man with no chin, was 'hard to kayo', I guess that means Peter McNeeley was hard to kayo too. Let's add him to Mike Tyson's greatest wins! and throw in Brian Nielsen too - he was 'hard to kayo' - until a journeymen unexpectedly started punching back. Hard to kayo? Yeah, because he never boxed a ranked contender other than Bowe and VK.

"Hide could take a punch" - you are a madman and you are making an utter fool of yourself.

Hide was far better as a cruiser; he boxed a friend of mine and destroyed him. He was not good enough at heavy to tackle the big men though was game enough to take them on. He was fast, powerful and aggressive. There's no need to knock the fellow.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: Herbie Hide only lost 4 times by kayo in his career; the latter two losses came when he was much older, and tried his hand at the Cruiserweight division, so it can be excused that he simply started too late in the game for new challenges. The only other man to ever stop a prime Herbie Hide was Riddick Bowe, the same Bowe who was also the first man to stop Holyfield. It took Bowe six or so rounds to put away Hide; it took Klitschko two rounds. Overall, I would say it was hard to kayo Hide because A) Hide could take a punch, and B) Hide was hard to hit anyways because he was fast.

Nice to start off on a factual inaccuracy. Joe Chingangu was a heavyweight who clobbered a heavyweight Herbie Hide. His 4th loss was also actually at heavyweight, also against a journeyman, although on a cut.

As far as your logic, or illogic, goes in justifying why Herbie Hide, a frail man with no chin, was 'hard to kayo', I guess that means Peter McNeeley was hard to kayo too. Let's add him to Mike Tyson's greatest wins! and throw in Brian Nielsen too - he was 'hard to kayo' - until a journeymen unexpectedly started punching back. Hard to kayo? Yeah, because he never boxed a ranked contender other than Bowe and VK.

"Hide could take a punch" - you are a madman and you are making an utter fool of yourself.

Losses early on in careers, mean nothing. As do losses late in careers, mean nothing.

Else we would be saying the men who beat Billy Conn in his first six fights, or the men who beat Henry Armstrong in his first four fights, actually meant something. It doesn't mean nothing.

Tuan_Jim wrote: Yeah, because he never boxed a ranked contender other than Bowe and VK.

[/quote]

Hide nearly killed and hospitalized Michael Bent who was the WBO champion and had just sparked Tommy Morrison in one round.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: Herbie Hide only lost 4 times by kayo in his career; the latter two losses came when he was much older, and tried his hand at the Cruiserweight division, so it can be excused that he simply started too late in the game for new challenges. The only other man to ever stop a prime Herbie Hide was Riddick Bowe, the same Bowe who was also the first man to stop Holyfield. It took Bowe six or so rounds to put away Hide; it took Klitschko two rounds. Overall, I would say it was hard to kayo Hide because A) Hide could take a punch, and B) Hide was hard to hit anyways because he was fast.

Nice to start off on a factual inaccuracy. Joe Chingangu was a heavyweight who clobbered a heavyweight Herbie Hide. His 4th loss was also actually at heavyweight, also against a journeyman, although on a cut.

As far as your logic, or illogic, goes in justifying why Herbie Hide, a frail man with no chin, was 'hard to kayo', I guess that means Peter McNeeley was hard to kayo too. Let's add him to Mike Tyson's greatest wins! and throw in Brian Nielsen too - he was 'hard to kayo' - until a journeymen unexpectedly started punching back. Hard to kayo? Yeah, because he never boxed a ranked contender other than Bowe and VK.

"Hide could take a punch" - you are a madman and you are making an utter fool of yourself.

Losses early on in careers, mean nothing. As do losses late in careers, mean nothing.

Else we would be saying the men who beat Billy Conn in his first six fights, or the men who beat Henry Armstrong in his first four fights, actually meant something. It doesn't mean nothing.

I thought you were done? It's amazing when someone actually feels the need to declare they are leaving a thread only to post again minutes later.

"Hide could take a punch" - you are a madman and you are making an utter fool of yourself.[/quote]


Losses early on in careers, mean nothing. As do losses late in careers, mean nothing.

Else we would be saying the men who beat Billy Conn in his first six fights, or the men who beat Henry Armstrong in his first four fights, actually meant something. It doesn't mean nothing.[/quote]

I thought you were done? It's amazing when someone actually feels the need to declare they are leaving a thread only to post again minutes later. [/quote]

But at least he doesn't come back using another user name like some on BOTP have done

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Title defenses and KO%s don't mean much unless they are against good opposition. There are certainly far more than 11-15 heavyweights who could have had as many "title" defenses as him if they fought that weak of competition. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis fought some tomato cans, but they also fought some very good fighters as well.

This has nothing to do with where they are from. Watch the film. They aren't that good.

Just out of curiosity, who would you say beat the better opposition, Vitali Klitschko or Tim Witherspoon?

I am just reading this and I see someone else responded, but I feel I have to as well. Witherspoon beat at least 6 fighters who were better than anyone Vitali beat.
Witherspoon beat Snipes, Page, Smith, Bruno, Tubbs and Carl Williams. None of these guys were legends, but they all were quality fighters and were much better than Corrie Sanders.
Broad and Tillis were roughly even with Sanders.

Witherspoon beat better opposition. This isn't even remotely close.

When people are attempting to make arguments that Herbie Hide was a durable opponent you know the thread has gone to hell . . .

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote: Yeah, because he never boxed a ranked contender other than Bowe and VK.

Hide nearly killed and hospitalized Michael Bent who was the WBO champion and had just sparked Tommy Morrison in one round.

As usual you are totally ignorant to the facts. Bentt was suffering black outs and collapsing before the fight, was KOd with big gloves by the awful King Ipitan in sparring, and was advised not to go through with it. He was damaged goods. That guy is Herbie Hide's 'big win'.

Henry claiming a 30 year old Herbie Hide was some washed up old man, Piper babbling about fights he has never seen and things he knows nothing about. This thread has become a bore.

palooka wrote:Hide was far better as a cruiser; he boxed a friend of mine and destroyed him. He was not good enough at heavy to tackle the big men though was game enough to take them on. He was fast, powerful and aggressive. There's no need to knock the fellow.

He beat nobody of note at cruiserweight, so don't know how you can make that claim. He beat nobody at note as a heavyweight, either - although fighting nobody & being carefully protected has been somehow extrapolated into meaning he was 'durable'.

I remember Danny Williams KOd him in sparring prior to Vitali, with headguards and big gloves. More evidence to overlook when selling the 'prime' Hide's 'hard to kayo' status.