BoxRec

APerno wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 22:29

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 21:22

Scypion wrote: ↑25 Apr 2018, 19:17



That is the difference between Jimmy Ellis and myself. I would have made sure that I didn't get up before ten. Doubt if I could have anyway. I don't think that the result would have been any different if Ellis got a tune up fight. Frazier was just too tough for Jimmy at that time, or probably anyone else.

BTW, who was the fighter that had something bad to say about Ellis, and what did he say?

Frazier. Claimed that he had been trying to get Ellis to fight him for a long time but that Ellis had avoided him.

I am not sure of the political dynamics at the time but it makes sense for Ellis not to fight Frazier until he did.

Frazier was declared champion by the NYSAC in March 1968 (Frazier-Mathis). Ellis wins the WBA Tournament a month later in April (Ellis-Quarry). So the WBA tournament was up and running before Frazier-Mathis.

Why wasn't Frazier in the WBA Tournament?

Then in September '68 Ellis defends his 'title' against Patterson (which seems a reasonable defense considering the controversy in Quarry-Patterson.) Ellis doesn't fight again until Frazier in February '70.

During this same period Frazier is very busy with four defense, but two of them are pure walk-overs and the other two are the already (Ellis) defeated Quarry, thus making only the Bonavena win a statement to be noticed.

Is this the period (1969) Frazier was complaining about? If so I would argue Ellis (Dundee) worked their timing just right. Ellis was off long enough to rest after the tournament, without it being too long (to get rusty.)

I will turn the argument around and say that Frazier was the one ducking the tougher competition of the tournament and he had to prove he deserved the Ellis fight; IMO the Mathis fight wasn't enough to compensate for ducking the tournament, he needed to beat Quarry and Bonavena first, then claim the right to fight Ellis.

Of course with twenty-twenty hindsight this all sounds very ridiculous, but you have to view it through the political prism of the day.

I would really like to know why Frazier wasn't in the tournament?

Kalan wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 23:15

APerno wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 22:29

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 21:22
Frazier. Claimed that he had been trying to get Ellis to fight him for a long time but that Ellis had avoided him.

I am not sure of the political dynamics at the time but it makes sense for Ellis not to fight Frazier until he did.

Frazier was declared champion by the NYSAC in March 1968 (Frazier-Mathis). Ellis wins the WBA Tournament a month later in April (Ellis-Quarry). So the WBA tournament was up and running before Frazier-Mathis.

Why wasn't Frazier in the WBA Tournament?

Then in September '68 Ellis defends his 'title' against Patterson (which seems a reasonable defense considering the controversy in Quarry-Patterson.) Ellis doesn't fight again until Frazier in February '70.

During this same period Frazier is very busy with four defense, but two of them are pure walk-overs and the other two are the already (Ellis) defeated Quarry, thus making only the Bonavena win a statement to be noticed.

Is this the period (1969) Frazier was complaining about? If so I would argue Ellis (Dundee) worked their timing just right. Ellis was off long enough to rest after the tournament, without it being too long (to get rusty.)

I will turn the argument around and say that Frazier was the one ducking the tougher competition of the tournament and he had to prove he deserved the Ellis fight; IMO the Mathis fight wasn't enough to compensate for ducking the tournament, he needed to beat Quarry and Bonavena first, then claim the right to fight Ellis.

Of course with twenty-twenty hindsight this all sounds very ridiculous, but you have to view it through the political prism of the day.

I would really like to know why Frazier wasn't in the tournament?

Frazier wasn't in the Elimination Tournament cuz he was already recognized as the best Heavyweight in the world.

Joe already beat Bonavena.. He didn't want the scrub money offered by the tournament.. Joe established himself by beating Blubber Mathis - who was better than Mildenberger, Martin, Bonavena, Spencer, Patterson, or Terrell... Many felt Mathis and Frazier were the 2 top Heavyweights... Their match was much bigger than any Tournament Fight.

Frazier was in THE power position when the tournament ended... Everyone knew he'd destroy Ellis.. I hate to give Smoking Joe credit.. He would be easily beaten by any good, big Heavyweight - but he was the best til Foreman showed up.

APerno wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 00:21

Kalan wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 23:15

APerno wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 22:29

I am not sure of the political dynamics at the time but it makes sense for Ellis not to fight Frazier until he did.

Frazier was declared champion by the NYSAC in March 1968 (Frazier-Mathis). Ellis wins the WBA Tournament a month later in April (Ellis-Quarry). So the WBA tournament was up and running before Frazier-Mathis.

Why wasn't Frazier in the WBA Tournament?

Then in September '68 Ellis defends his 'title' against Patterson (which seems a reasonable defense considering the controversy in Quarry-Patterson.) Ellis doesn't fight again until Frazier in February '70.

During this same period Frazier is very busy with four defense, but two of them are pure walk-overs and the other two are the already (Ellis) defeated Quarry, thus making only the Bonavena win a statement to be noticed.

Is this the period (1969) Frazier was complaining about? If so I would argue Ellis (Dundee) worked their timing just right. Ellis was off long enough to rest after the tournament, without it being too long (to get rusty.)

I will turn the argument around and say that Frazier was the one ducking the tougher competition of the tournament and he had to prove he deserved the Ellis fight; IMO the Mathis fight wasn't enough to compensate for ducking the tournament, he needed to beat Quarry and Bonavena first, then claim the right to fight Ellis.

Of course with twenty-twenty hindsight this all sounds very ridiculous, but you have to view it through the political prism of the day.

I would really like to know why Frazier wasn't in the tournament?

Frazier wasn't in the Elimination Tournament cuz he was already recognized as the best Heavyweight in the world.

Joe already beat Bonavena.. He didn't want the scrub money offered by the tournament.. Joe established himself by beating Blubber Mathis - who was better than Mildenberger, Martin, Bonavena, Spencer, Patterson, or Terrell... Many felt Mathis and Frazier were the 2 top Heavyweights... Their match was much bigger than any Tournament Fight.

Frazier was in THE power position when the tournament ended... Everyone knew he'd destroy Ellis.. I hate to give Smoking Joe credit.. He would be easily beaten by any good, big Heavyweight - but he was the best til Foreman showed up.

You are using hindsight to come to these conclusions. Frazier wasn't recognized by anyone other than the NYSAC (and I would like to know the dynamics around that decision). Yea we thought Frazier was the best (and expected him to beat Ellis) but no one was accepting Frazier as champion until after the Ellis fight. It was because of the tournament, (regardless of your opinion of the competition) which had the nation's attention, that put Ellis (not Frazier) in the 'power position.' That's why Frazier had to fight through '69 and Ellis could rest. Give credit where credit is do, Dundee did a great job positioning Ellis.

But why wasn't Frazier in the tournament? Yea I get it, they weren't good enough, that's not a realistic reason for not entering the tournament, in fact that's a reason to enter it; what was going on in New York is the real question to answer.

Either way I argue Frazier deserved to wait, he took the easier route to a claimant title.

Kalan wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 00:37

APerno wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 00:21

Kalan wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 23:15

Frazier wasn't in the Elimination Tournament cuz he was already recognized as the best Heavyweight in the world.

Joe already beat Bonavena.. He didn't want the scrub money offered by the tournament.. Joe established himself by beating Blubber Mathis - who was better than Mildenberger, Martin, Bonavena, Spencer, Patterson, or Terrell... Many felt Mathis and Frazier were the 2 top Heavyweights... Their match was much bigger than any Tournament Fight.

Frazier was in THE power position when the tournament ended... Everyone knew he'd destroy Ellis.. I hate to give Smoking Joe credit.. He would be easily beaten by any good, big Heavyweight - but he was the best til Foreman showed up.

You are using hindsight to come to these conclusions. Frazier wasn't recognized by anyone other than the NYSAC (and I would like to know the dynamics around that decision). Yea we thought Frazier was the best (and expected him to beat Ellis) but no one was accepting Frazier as champion until after the Ellis fight. It was because of the tournament, (regardless of your opinion of the competition) which had the nation's attention, that put Ellis (not Frazier) in the 'power position.' That's why Frazier had to fight through '69 and Ellis could rest. Give credit where credit is do, Dundee did a great job positioning Ellis.

But why wasn't Frazier in the tournament? Yea I get it, they weren't good enough, that's not a realistic reason for not entering the tournament, in fact that's a reason to enter it; what was going on in New York is the real question to answer.

Either way I argue Frazier deserved to wait, he took the easier route to a claimant title.

The only thing about your post that gets to the nub of the matter is your last sentence...

Everybody knew the tournament was a joke... It had cloddish Mildenberger and Bonavena in it... It had the half assed Thad Spencer and gangly shanks Terrell in it… Patterson was thought to be passed it... Frazier didn’t need to be in it.. He didn’t need to prove himself... He was already the best Heavyweight.

Everyone knew he’d beat anyone in the tournament and they weren’t paying real good money.. It was a super cheap tournament.. He made more beating Mathis than Ellis made and could defend his Title as he chose.

APerno wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 03:34 Here's another thought.

The four fights Frazier had after Mathis,are they considered title defenses today?

When was Frazier champ? After Mathis? After Ellis? or After Ali?

How many title defenses does Frazier usually get credit for?

APerno wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 03:28

Kalan wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 00:37

APerno wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 00:21

You are using hindsight to come to these conclusions. Frazier wasn't recognized by anyone other than the NYSAC (and I would like to know the dynamics around that decision). Yea we thought Frazier was the best (and expected him to beat Ellis) but no one was accepting Frazier as champion until after the Ellis fight. It was because of the tournament, (regardless of your opinion of the competition) which had the nation's attention, that put Ellis (not Frazier) in the 'power position.' That's why Frazier had to fight through '69 and Ellis could rest. Give credit where credit is do, Dundee did a great job positioning Ellis.

But why wasn't Frazier in the tournament? Yea I get it, they weren't good enough, that's not a realistic reason for not entering the tournament, in fact that's a reason to enter it; what was going on in New York is the real question to answer.

Either way I argue Frazier deserved to wait, he took the easier route to a claimant title.

The only thing about your post that gets to the nub of the matter is your last sentence...

Everybody knew the tournament was a joke... It had cloddish Mildenberger and Bonavena in it... It had the half assed Thad Spencer and gangly shanks Terrell in it… Patterson was thought to be passed it... Frazier didn’t need to be in it.. He didn’t need to prove himself... He was already the best Heavyweight.

Everyone knew he’d beat anyone in the tournament and they weren’t paying real good money.. It was a super cheap tournament.. He made more beating Mathis than Ellis made and could defend his Title as he chose.

Quarry and Ellis's each got a $125,000 guarantee, but each fighter also shared in the ancillary money as well. Both Quarry and Ellis received 30 percent of all monies garnered above the $250,000. (The 250K came from TV, they probably got 30 percent of the live gate, I guess.) We really don't know how much they made

Frazier's $175,000, on the other hand was a guarantee, with NO share in any ancillary money.

Also Frazier's $175,000 was the same as middleweight champion Emile Griffith defense against Benvenuti (which was on the same card). Being paid the same as a middleweight isn't a HW champion's paycheck especially back then (pre Sugar Ray Leonard).

Also, also the Frazier fight was on closed circuit (PPV sixties style) but had to be a double-header with the popular middleweights Griffth and Benvenuti to make it to PPV.

The WBA Tournament was on commercial TV and got much greater public attention.

Kalan you always look at things from the point-of-view of an educated fight fan, but often fail to recognize, what was going on in the mind of the general sports fans (the casual fight fan) was usually different.

Also, in regards to Mathis. At the time the Frazier-Mathis fight was signed Frazier was ranked number one by The Ring Magazine, but Mathis wasn't ranked in the top ten. Nat Fleischer moved Mathis up to the number 10 the following month just to give Mathis (false) credibility; a fig leaf of respectability to appease NYSAC. (Of course we would find out in the mid 70s that The Ring Magazine had been selling ratings for cash.)

And finally, the Frazier-Mathis fight went off as the preliminary fight, with Griffith-Benvenuti being the main event. -- I think, I don't know if BoxRec is consistent in the manner they post their results. They usually post the main event at the top of the card, which makes Griffith-Benvenuti the final fight of the night (main event). http://boxrec.com/en/date?date=1968-03-04

The Frazier-Mathis fight was not as popular or respected as the Ellis-Quarry fight. In hindsight it seems wrong, I get it. In hindsight it seems stupid, but it was the reality of the day. You are looking back at the past through the bias eyes of an educated fight fan. The general public is much dumber than us.

And I still want to know what was going on in NY. Now that I just discovered Fleischer moved Mathis up at the last minute (The Ring was New York based) it stinks even more.

I can't figure out how to find out what Ellis fights might have fallen through; that is a tough thing to research out.

Kalan wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 15:44 There was very little interest in Ellis period.... Frazier was the real Heavyweight Champion and fans knew it.

Kalan wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 18:35 You and your friends were anomalies APerno. Most in the boxing community thought Frazier was the real deal. He was going to wreck Quarry and Ellis. It's not that nobody liked Ellis. He was too small and weak and sure to get run over.

I’m not saying that to be difficult.. Ellis who was a great little fighter... Ellis would have beaten the crap out of Rocky Marciano. Rocky weighed 184 and got hit with everything... Luckily for him there were no Liston's or Foreman's around.

I was pulling for Ellis because I didn’t like Frazier. He was a fat little butterball who needed a good pounding. I knew there wasn’t anybody around to do it. I feared Ellis was going to get run over in a couple rounds. Frazier could absorb anything the former Middleweight could throw.

I had high hopes for Ali beating Frazier, but the man ate left hooks for breakfast.

I actually felt sorry for Frazier after the Ali fight. My opinion of him changed. He took such a courageous beating and showed such massive will to win that it was unreal. I feared for Frazier’s life going into the Foreman fight.

Kalan wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 18:35 You and your friends were anomalies APerno. Most in the boxing community thought Frazier was the real deal. He was going to wreck Quarry and Ellis. It's not that nobody liked Ellis. He was too small and weak and sure to get run over.

I’m not saying that to be difficult.. Ellis who was a great little fighter... Ellis would have beaten the crap out of Rocky Marciano. Rocky weighed 184 and got hit with everything... Luckily for him there were no Liston's or Foreman's around.

I was pulling for Ellis because I didn’t like Frazier. He was a fat little butterball who needed a good pounding. I knew there wasn’t anybody around to do it. I feared Ellis was going to get run over in a couple rounds. Frazier could absorb anything the former Middleweight could throw.

I had high hopes for Ali beating Frazier, but the man ate left hooks for breakfast.

I actually felt sorry for Frazier after the Ali fight. My opinion of him changed. He took such a courageous beating and showed such massive will to win that it was unreal. I feared for Frazier’s life going into the Foreman fight.

APerno wrote: ↑01 May 2018, 00:17

Kalan wrote: ↑30 Apr 2018, 18:35 You and your friends were anomalies APerno. Most in the boxing community thought Frazier was the real deal. He was going to wreck Quarry and Ellis. It's not that nobody liked Ellis. He was too small and weak and sure to get run over.

I’m not saying that to be difficult.. Ellis who was a great little fighter... Ellis would have beaten the crap out of Rocky Marciano. Rocky weighed 184 and got hit with everything... Luckily for him there were no Liston's or Foreman's around.

I was pulling for Ellis because I didn’t like Frazier. He was a fat little butterball who needed a good pounding. I knew there wasn’t anybody around to do it. I feared Ellis was going to get run over in a couple rounds. Frazier could absorb anything the former Middleweight could throw.

I had high hopes for Ali beating Frazier, but the man ate left hooks for breakfast.

I actually felt sorry for Frazier after the Ali fight. My opinion of him changed. He took such a courageous beating and showed such massive will to win that it was unreal. I feared for Frazier’s life going into the Foreman fight.

Yes I agree everyone expected Frazier to crush Ellis, . . .

The Frazier-Ellis fight was ten days before my 14th birthday. No way was my father buying closed-circuit tickets so I listened to the round by round updates on my AM transistor radio. I had my boxing magazines spread out on the bed and a stopwatch to clock the rounds. (I was multi-tasking via 1960s available technology.) When the fourth round ended short and the announcer came back on I was crest fallen. I knew even before he spoke that Frazier KOed Ellis. I knew there was no way it was the other way around.

. . . but nevertheless Frazier DID NOT gain champion recognition (by most) until after the Ellis fight. Before that he was called (by many) the "New York State Champion," Ellis the "WBA Champion." We were not an anomaly, we were the norm, sorry!

It was much like Tyson-Spinks, everyone knew what would happen, but it had to happen, and then, and only then, was the matter settled.

Did you believe Tyson was HW champion before the Spinks fight? The 'undisputed" crap didn't mean poo to me, he had to go through Spinks then he got my recognition.

Are you a 'sanctioning body bitch,' or a real fight fan?

Is Anthony Joshua HW champion or just a claimant? (I am actually asking this last one, I am not sure how I feel.)

Kalan wrote: ↑01 May 2018, 01:52

I always knew

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 21:40 Sorry I don't think that is automatically true. I don't think it should be taken as a given.

Bigger heavyweights are often harder punchers and can take more punishment. Not always. They are also often slower and have worse stamina. Sometimes they are smarter, sometimes not. Sometimes they have more heart, sometimes not. We should look at what they can do, not what the scale says.

The evidence is overwhelming that you can be too big. Are you really that impressed with the athleticism of Nicolai Valuev and Vitaly Kltischko? Do you think they would beat a prime Ali?

If size is such a huge advantage, why is the biggest heavyweight never the best heavyweight? Is the biggest heavyweight the best right now? Was he the best 20 years ago? 40 years ago? Ever? No.

How many times in boxing history has a heavyweight under 200 lost to one over 225? I have challenged people on this before and we have come up with two examples in 130 years of boxing. We had dozens of examples of the smaller guy winning.

What happened the last time a guy under 200 fought for the heavyweight title? He won.

How is it Wilder (who weighed less than Liston did in his second fight with Patterson) beats heavier fighters over and over?

We need to start looking at evidence and not just assume. The bottom line is that so far there have only been two really heavyweights so far who have been great.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑17 Apr 2018, 17:59 That's not the case at all, prior to Liston there were many champions roughly the size of Marciano and very few significantly bigger. Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Braddock, Max Schmelling, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, and Jim Corbett all weighed about the same as Marciano. Against prior champions Marciano would in general not be at a weight disadvantage and would only be giving away 1-1 1/2 inches in height.

Kalan wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 23:15

APerno wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 22:29

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Apr 2018, 21:22
Frazier. Claimed that he had been trying to get Ellis to fight him for a long time but that Ellis had avoided him.

I am not sure of the political dynamics at the time but it makes sense for Ellis not to fight Frazier until he did.

Frazier was declared champion by the NYSAC in March 1968 (Frazier-Mathis). Ellis wins the WBA Tournament a month later in April (Ellis-Quarry). So the WBA tournament was up and running before Frazier-Mathis.

Why wasn't Frazier in the WBA Tournament?

Then in September '68 Ellis defends his 'title' against Patterson (which seems a reasonable defense considering the controversy in Quarry-Patterson.) Ellis doesn't fight again until Frazier in February '70.

During this same period Frazier is very busy with four defense, but two of them are pure walk-overs and the other two are the already (Ellis) defeated Quarry, thus making only the Bonavena win a statement to be noticed.

Is this the period (1969) Frazier was complaining about? If so I would argue Ellis (Dundee) worked their timing just right. Ellis was off long enough to rest after the tournament, without it being too long (to get rusty.)

I will turn the argument around and say that Frazier was the one ducking the tougher competition of the tournament and he had to prove he deserved the Ellis fight; IMO the Mathis fight wasn't enough to compensate for ducking the tournament, he needed to beat Quarry and Bonavena first, then claim the right to fight Ellis.

Of course with twenty-twenty hindsight this all sounds very ridiculous, but you have to view it through the political prism of the day.

I would really like to know why Frazier wasn't in the tournament?

Frazier wasn't in the Elimination Tournament cuz he was already recognized as the best Heavyweight in the world.

Joe already beat Bonavena.. He didn't want the scrub money offered by the tournament.. Joe established himself by beating Blubber Mathis - who was better than Mildenberger, Martin, Bonavena, Spencer, Patterson, or Terrell... Many felt Mathis and Frazier were the 2 top Heavyweights... Their match was much bigger than any Tournament Fight.

Frazier was in THE power position when the tournament ended... Everyone knew he'd destroy Ellis.. I hate to give Smoking Joe credit.. He would be easily beaten by any good, big Heavyweight - but he was the best til Foreman showed up.

MrGuy wrote: ↑02 May 2018, 03:38

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 21:40 Sorry I don't think that is automatically true. I don't think it should be taken as a given.

Bigger heavyweights are often harder punchers and can take more punishment. Not always. They are also often slower and have worse stamina. Sometimes they are smarter, sometimes not. Sometimes they have more heart, sometimes not. We should look at what they can do, not what the scale says.

The evidence is overwhelming that you can be too big. Are you really that impressed with the athleticism of Nicolai Valuev and Vitaly Kltischko? Do you think they would beat a prime Ali?

If size is such a huge advantage, why is the biggest heavyweight never the best heavyweight? Is the biggest heavyweight the best right now? Was he the best 20 years ago? 40 years ago? Ever? No.

How many times in boxing history has a heavyweight under 200 lost to one over 225? I have challenged people on this before and we have come up with two examples in 130 years of boxing. We had dozens of examples of the smaller guy winning.

What happened the last time a guy under 200 fought for the heavyweight title? He won.

How is it Wilder (who weighed less than Liston did in his second fight with Patterson) beats heavier fighters over and over?

We need to start looking at evidence and not just assume. The bottom line is that so far there have only been two really heavyweights so far who have been great.

They forget Wlad got sparked by guys that wouldve been sparring partners for the 90s era.

Kalan wrote: ↑02 May 2018, 13:24

MrGuy wrote: ↑02 May 2018, 03:38

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 21:40 Sorry I don't think that is automatically true. I don't think it should be taken as a given.

Bigger heavyweights are often harder punchers and can take more punishment. Not always. They are also often slower and have worse stamina. Sometimes they are smarter, sometimes not. Sometimes they have more heart, sometimes not. We should look at what they can do, not what the scale says.

The evidence is overwhelming that you can be too big. Are you really that impressed with the athleticism of Nicolai Valuev and Vitaly Kltischko? Do you think they would beat a prime Ali?

If size is such a huge advantage, why is the biggest heavyweight never the best heavyweight? Is the biggest heavyweight the best right now? Was he the best 20 years ago? 40 years ago? Ever? No.

How many times in boxing history has a heavyweight under 200 lost to one over 225? I have challenged people on this before and we have come up with two examples in 130 years of boxing. We had dozens of examples of the smaller guy winning.

What happened the last time a guy under 200 fought for the heavyweight title? He won.

How is it Wilder (who weighed less than Liston did in his second fight with Patterson) beats heavier fighters over and over?

We need to start looking at evidence and not just assume. The bottom line is that so far there have only been two really heavyweights so far who have been great.

They forget Wlad got sparked by guys that wouldve been sparring partners for the 90s era.

Big, tall Heavyweights who become contenders AREN'T more likely tho have poor stamina or be slow than smaller guys who become contenders... They're usually less skilled -- because they rely too much on size and strength to run over smaller Heavyweights... This was true of George Foreman who crushed everybody until he met a good boxer... You might call Ken Norton a good boxer, but he WASN'T.. Kenny led with his head and was wide open for a big, powerful pouncher... Foreman easily ripped Norton's head off like he did to the wide open Frazier... Ali was a good boxer, but he had many flaws in his defense.. Ali was a sucker for left hooks and allowed 10-1 underdogs to upset him...

Alexander Dimitrenko is a modern day Heavyweight who was lacking skills and relied on size and strength... Dimi was 26-0 when he faced another 6'8" X 260 guy in Timo Hoffman who also lacked skills... They traded knockdowns and knocked the Hell out of each other before Dimitrenko won by 12th round KO... Dimitrenko went 29-0 before facing brilliant boxer Eddie Chambers for the right to fight Wladimir Klitschko...

Like George Foreman facing Jimmy Young, Dimitrenko was roundly outboxed... Chambers treated Dimitrenko like a sparring partner, but Chambers was out-boxed every single round by Wladimir Klitschko and suffered his ONLY career KO defeat.. He was smashed out cold with 15 seconds left in the 12th round by a savage left hook.. Like most big, strong, powerful guys, Wladimir had many holes in his defense but hired one of the greatest coaches of all time to close them up tight... Ali, Frazier, and Norton maintained their defensive flaws throughout their careers.. Foreman closed his up to only a minor degree... None of them worked tirelessly to perfect their craft like a Tunney or Klitschko.

So not only could a peak Wladimir outbox the best boxers... He got KO punches on them when nobody else could..

This is the biggest difference between Wladimir and Ali... Wladimir was 10 times as good a boxer at 37 as he was at 27... Ali was 10 times worse at 37 than he was at 27... Some guys don't keep improving their craft throughout their career.