Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

[Ambling Alp II]

People who know the sport make allowances for the stages of a fighter's career. Klitschko was 39 years old and clearly past his best. Think about what you are saying. If you consider this a big win for Fury, then you have to do the following:

It's has to a big loss for Klitschko. You can't use the past his prime excuse for this fight when rating Klitischko. Maybe Klitschko (gasp) wasn't that good.

You also have to go back and do this for countless fights throughout boxing history.

John Ruiz's win over Holyfield? It's now a huge win for Ruiz. Maybe should start giving Holyfield consideration for being a a great fighter. Maybe Holyfield was not that good.

Tyson's win over Holmes? It's now a huge win for Tyson. It's now an embarrassing loss for Holmes.
Marciano's win over Louis? Is now a huge win for Marciano. Bad loss for Louis.

A good win for a fighter doesn't make the loss a bad one for his opponent. Stop making such outrageous notions.

Oh of course. In that classic stare down , I mean fight, we should give a ton of credit to the winner and of course we should not criticize the loser.
Calling that a good win is outrageous. In boxing history, how many big wins are there over 39 year olds ? Would love to see some other examples. There must be hundreds.

[DrDuke]

People who know the sport make

Sweet Pea Williams' guys know the sport for sure.

[Controversial]

People who know the sport make allowances for the stages of a fighter's career. Klitschko was 39 years old and clearly past his best. Think about what you are saying. If you consider this a big win for Fury, then you have to do the following:

It's has to a big loss for Klitschko. You can't use the past his prime excuse for this fight when rating Klitischko. Maybe Klitschko (gasp) wasn't that good.

You also have to go back and do this for countless fights throughout boxing history.

John Ruiz's win over Holyfield? It's now a huge win for Ruiz. Maybe should start giving Holyfield consideration for being a a great fighter. Maybe Holyfield was not that good.

Tyson's win over Holmes? It's now a huge win for Tyson. It's now an embarrassing loss for Holmes.
Marciano's win over Louis? Is now a huge win for Marciano. Bad loss for Louis.

What should be remembered with Klitschko was he kept himself in fantastic condition and always was. He lived the life, trained hard and kept in very good shape. He wasn't a fat balding Joe Louis, he was an active fighter, world champion and mentally still very sharp. Not out of shape or showing signs of damage. He is probably in better shape today than most active HWs

[DrDuke]

Klitschko's career was also quite safe, there were no battles, which supposed to take a lot from a boxer.

[Ambling Alp II]

People who know the sport make allowances for the stages of a fighter's career. Klitschko was 39 years old and clearly past his best. Think about what you are saying. If you consider this a big win for Fury, then you have to do the following:

It's has to a big loss for Klitschko. You can't use the past his prime excuse for this fight when rating Klitischko. Maybe Klitschko (gasp) wasn't that good.

You also have to go back and do this for countless fights throughout boxing history.

John Ruiz's win over Holyfield? It's now a huge win for Ruiz. Maybe should start giving Holyfield consideration for being a a great fighter. Maybe Holyfield was not that good.

Tyson's win over Holmes? It's now a huge win for Tyson. It's now an embarrassing loss for Holmes.
Marciano's win over Louis? Is now a huge win for Marciano. Bad loss for Louis.

What should be remembered with Klitschko was he kept himself in fantastic condition and always was. He lived the life, trained hard and kept in very good shape. He wasn't a fat balding Joe Louis, he was an active fighter, world champion and mentally still very sharp. Not out of shape or showing signs of damage. He is probably in better shape today than most active HWs

Louis looked better against Marciano. He at least could still do something offensively.
He may have looked good, but didn't have much left.
He was 39 and looked it. Could barely throw a punch. Slow as molasses. He was way past his best by that point. If you subject yourself to actually watching the fight, you will see that. You have to be pretty desperate to call that a big win for Fury.

[HomicideHenry]

Remember how some people on the forum remarked that Klitschko was over the hill when Fury beat him? And yet when Anthony Joshua fought Klitschko it was the absolute best version of Klitschko? Alp is reminding me of those people who said that at the time. Who knows maybe he himself said it.

I guess it's easier to say somebody was old one minute and then say they bounced back better than ever than to admit that somebody they do not like actually befuddled somebody to the point where they looked like a deer in the headlights not letting their hands go.

[Ambling Alp II]

Who said Klitschko never looked better than the Joshua fight? Certainly not me.
He was was way past it by then.
He was way past his best by the time he fought Fury and Joshua. That should be obvious.

[DrDuke]

Remember how some people on the forum remarked that Klitschko was over the hill when Fury beat him? And yet when Anthony Joshua fought Klitschko it was the absolute best version of Klitschko? Alp is reminding me of those people who said that at the time. Who knows maybe he himself said it.

I guess it's easier to say somebody was old one minute and then say they bounced back better than ever than to admit that somebody they do not like actually befuddled somebody to the point where they looked like a deer in the headlights not letting their hands go.

Don't argue with experts!

[Controversial]

People who know the sport make allowances for the stages of a fighter's career. Klitschko was 39 years old and clearly past his best. Think about what you are saying. If you consider this a big win for Fury, then you have to do the following:

It's has to a big loss for Klitschko. You can't use the past his prime excuse for this fight when rating Klitischko. Maybe Klitschko (gasp) wasn't that good.

You also have to go back and do this for countless fights throughout boxing history.

John Ruiz's win over Holyfield? It's now a huge win for Ruiz. Maybe should start giving Holyfield consideration for being a a great fighter. Maybe Holyfield was not that good.

Tyson's win over Holmes? It's now a huge win for Tyson. It's now an embarrassing loss for Holmes.
Marciano's win over Louis? Is now a huge win for Marciano. Bad loss for Louis.

What should be remembered with Klitschko was he kept himself in fantastic condition and always was. He lived the life, trained hard and kept in very good shape. He wasn't a fat balding Joe Louis, he was an active fighter, world champion and mentally still very sharp. Not out of shape or showing signs of damage. He is probably in better shape today than most active HWs

Louis looked better against Marciano. He at least could still do something offensively.
He may have looked good, but didn't have much left.
He was 39 and looked it. Could barely throw a punch. Slow as molasses. He was way past his best by that point. If you subject yourself to actually watching the fight, you will see that. You have to be pretty desperate to call that a big win for Fury.

He barely threw a punch because Fury didn’t let him, that’s what you have to do to win sometimes. Fury had him second guessing him the entire fight, boring but he beat him. Fury isn’t the most exciting HW to watch anyway.

[DrDuke]

What should be remembered with Klitschko was he kept himself in fantastic condition and always was. He lived the life, trained hard and kept in very good shape. He wasn't a fat balding Joe Louis, he was an active fighter, world champion and mentally still very sharp. Not out of shape or showing signs of damage. He is probably in better shape today than most active HWs

Louis looked better against Marciano. He at least could still do something offensively.
He may have looked good, but didn't have much left.
He was 39 and looked it. Could barely throw a punch. Slow as molasses. He was way past his best by that point. If you subject yourself to actually watching the fight, you will see that. You have to be pretty desperate to call that a big win for Fury.

He barely threw a punch because Fury didn’t let him, that’s what you have to do to win sometimes. Fury had him second guessing him the entire fight, boring but he beat him. Fury isn’t the most exciting HW to watch anyway.

Fury proved later though that he can be both more effective and exciting to watch. In some sense he beat Klitschko with Wlad's weapons.

[Controversial]

Louis looked better against Marciano. He at least could still do something offensively.
He may have looked good, but didn't have much left.
He was 39 and looked it. Could barely throw a punch. Slow as molasses. He was way past his best by that point. If you subject yourself to actually watching the fight, you will see that. You have to be pretty desperate to call that a big win for Fury.

He barely threw a punch because Fury didn’t let him, that’s what you have to do to win sometimes. Fury had him second guessing him the entire fight, boring but he beat him. Fury isn’t the most exciting HW to watch anyway.

Fury proved later though that he can be both more effective and exciting to watch. In some sense he beat Klitschko with Wlad's weapons.

Yes the Wilder fights were fun to watch. He outboxed him first time around (most people will acknowledge Fury won) and the second fight he took it to him, much against most 'experts' advice who thought he would be knocked out. Fury has looked boring in other fights though, I think he is a guy who needs the big occasion to raise his game, ultimately that could be his downfall if he goes into a fight half hearted.

Some guys age better than others, it's not unusual for HWs to still be fighting in their late 30s and even 40s. Klitschko was still a world class HW, he was far from being shot, he came back 18 months later and almost stopped AJ.

[Ambling Alp II]

The first Wilder-Fury fight was fun to watch? Take out the two knockdowns and almost nothing happened.
The 2nd one was fun if you were rooting for Fury. Wilder didn't do much more than show up.

Outside of scoring Klitschko scoring a knockdown against Joshua, Klitschko looked terrible again. Did almost nothing else offensively and was very slow. We have since seen how overrated Joshua is. By normal standards Klitschko would be considered shot. By modern heavyweight standards, you are right; a world class heavyweight.

Fury and Joshua beat Klitschko because Klitschko simply didn't have much left. Even then, they were unable to dominate him, which a great fighter would have.

[DrDuke]

By normal standards Klitschko would be considered shot. By modern heavyweight standards, you are right; a world class heavyweight.

By normal standards of those sweet days when the grass was greener and the scrotum wasn't hanging down to the ground?

[Controversial]

By normal standards Klitschko would be considered shot. By modern heavyweight standards, you are right; a world class heavyweight.

By normal standards of those sweet days when the grass was greener and the scrotum wasn't hanging down to the ground?

If Klitschko was shot god knows what Louis and Moore were then when Marciano beat them. Probably half dead.

[DrDuke]

By normal standards Klitschko would be considered shot. By modern heavyweight standards, you are right; a world class heavyweight.

By normal standards of those sweet days when the grass was greener and the scrotum wasn't hanging down to the ground?

If Klitschko was shot god knows what Louis and Moore were then when Marciano beat them. Probably half dead.

Resurrected from dead!

[Ambling Alp II]

By normal standards Klitschko would be considered shot. By modern heavyweight standards, you are right; a world class heavyweight.

By normal standards of those sweet days when the grass was greener and the scrotum wasn't hanging down to the ground?

If Klitschko was shot god knows what Louis and Moore were then when Marciano beat them. Probably half dead.

You could always watch the Louis-Marciano fight and Moore-Marciano fight. Though that would mean watching fights before the day you became interested in the sport.

[HomicideHenry]

Context is everything.

Archie Moore would still compete until 1963, and was still a top 175-pounder until 1961. I'm sure archives from Ring Magazine probably still rated him highly at 175 well into 1962.

People forget just how many heavyweight matches he had. I think it was over 85 bouts. As late as 1961-1962 he was beating guys like Pete Rademacher and drawing with Willie Pastrano in a match many thought Moore won.

Marciano was in 1955. He was at the peak of his powers as a heavyweight and light heavyweight. He was "old" then, but he defied the whole idea of age being a death sentence for an athlete long before Foreman and Hopkins.

Joe Louis is a little bit harder of a sell to make, but bare in mind, after losing a 15 round decision to newly crowned champion Ezzard Charles he won eight straight bouts against decent/good competition.

His knockout over Lee Savold, however, was what sealed the deal that Louis was still a player at heavyweight and earned him a shot at Jersey Joe Walcott who had defeated Charles.

What's so great about Savold? It's a little bit of mental gymnastics but the short story is when Louis retired there was many tournaments staged to determine who was the new champion--- and the British Board of Boxing Control recognized Lee Savold as the world champion instead of Charles.

To put it into modern terms its a bit like the situation today where Fury is the lineal champion (and WBC title holder) while Oleksandr Usyk holds all the other belts. Some view him as being the real world champion, while most people view Fury as the real world champion.

So when Louis knocked him out, it made him the "second best" heavyweight in the world. At least on paper. Louis also beat Jimmy Bivins by decision and knocked out Freddie Beshore--- which is also significant because Beshore had went 14 rounds with Charles in a title match, and Louis iced him in 4 rounds.

So while he wasn't the Brown Bomber of old, he certainly wasn't a sitting duck who was just ancient and ready to be taken out. That has become something of a myth since he lost to Rocky Marciano--- nevertheless it was quite sad to see him go out that way, losing by devastating knockout.

[Controversial]

By normal standards of those sweet days when the grass was greener and the scrotum wasn't hanging down to the ground?

If Klitschko was shot god knows what Louis and Moore were then when Marciano beat them. Probably half dead.

You could always watch the Louis-Marciano fight and Moore-Marciano fight. Though that would mean watching fights before the day you became interested in the sport.

I've watched them numerous times. Louis was 37 and past his best and Moore was 39 (or 42 if you believe other records) and had over 200 fights at that time, my money would be on Klitschko being in better shape than either aged 39 or even now.

[Controversial]

Joe Louis is a little bit harder of a sell to make, but bare in mind, after losing a 15 round decision to newly crowned champion Ezzard Charles he won eight straight bouts against decent/good competition.

So while he wasn't the Brown Bomber of old, he certainly wasn't a sitting duck who was just ancient and ready to be taken out. That has become something of a myth since he lost to Rocky Marciano--- nevertheless it was quite sad to see him go out that way, losing by devastating knockout.

You only have to look at Louis' record going into the fight with Marciano to see his punching ability wasn't anywhere near as deadly as it used to be. From losing to Charles in 1950 Louis had 8 fights. He won all 8 but 5 were on points. Of the 3 he stopped one was on a cut, and one was in the 10th and last round. To have 5 decision wins in 8 fights wasn't normal for Louis and a sign his knockout ability was on the slide. He was broke and thats the only reason he came back into boxing. He was far more a sign of a shot fighter than Klitschko was against Fury.

[HomicideHenry]

Joe Louis is a little bit harder of a sell to make, but bare in mind, after losing a 15 round decision to newly crowned champion Ezzard Charles he won eight straight bouts against decent/good competition.

So while he wasn't the Brown Bomber of old, he certainly wasn't a sitting duck who was just ancient and ready to be taken out. That has become something of a myth since he lost to Rocky Marciano--- nevertheless it was quite sad to see him go out that way, losing by devastating knockout.

You only have to look at Louis' record going into the fight with Marciano to see his punching ability wasn't anywhere near as deadly as it used to be. From losing to Charles in 1950 Louis had 8 fights. He won all 8 but 5 were on points. Of the 3 he stopped one was on a cut, and one was in the 10th and last round. To have 5 decision wins in 8 fights wasn't normal for Louis and a sign his knockout ability was on the slide. He was broke and thats the only reason he came back into boxing. He was far more a sign of a shot fighter than Klitschko was against Fury.

I already am aware the motivation's for the comeback. The IRS pursued the poor man until the day he died for taxes due for purses he donated to the Armed forces while as champion.

Yes, he was slower. Yes, his knockout prowess dropped. But he was still skilled and still hit hard enough to keep opponents off of him. Yes, he was over-the-hill. However, he wasn't a punching bag or some hapless and helpless old man who couldn't fight anymore.

A man doesn't go eight hard rounds with a guy like Rocky Marciano unless he still had something left. As I point out--- he won against the "other champion" Lee Savold, top contender Jimmy Bivins and Freddie Beshore who fought Charles for the heavyweight title just months beforehand.

I guess a great thread would be an analysis of those fights he (Joe Louis) had when he unretired to see just how "shot" he was. What I will agree with you on, though, is that the comparison of Louis and Klitschko is no comparison. Klitschko was not over-the-hill when he retired, and if he was diminishing it was barely noticeable.

[Controversial]

Joe Louis is a little bit harder of a sell to make, but bare in mind, after losing a 15 round decision to newly crowned champion Ezzard Charles he won eight straight bouts against decent/good competition.

So while he wasn't the Brown Bomber of old, he certainly wasn't a sitting duck who was just ancient and ready to be taken out. That has become something of a myth since he lost to Rocky Marciano--- nevertheless it was quite sad to see him go out that way, losing by devastating knockout.

You only have to look at Louis' record going into the fight with Marciano to see his punching ability wasn't anywhere near as deadly as it used to be. From losing to Charles in 1950 Louis had 8 fights. He won all 8 but 5 were on points. Of the 3 he stopped one was on a cut, and one was in the 10th and last round. To have 5 decision wins in 8 fights wasn't normal for Louis and a sign his knockout ability was on the slide. He was broke and thats the only reason he came back into boxing. He was far more a sign of a shot fighter than Klitschko was against Fury.

What I will agree with you on, though, is that the comparison of Louis and Klitschko is no comparison. Klitschko was not over-the-hill when he retired, and if he was diminishing it was barely noticeable.

Exactly and that was my point

[Ambling Alp II]

If Klitschko was shot god knows what Louis and Moore were then when Marciano beat them. Probably half dead.

You could always watch the Louis-Marciano fight and Moore-Marciano fight. Though that would mean watching fights before the day you became interested in the sport.

I've watched them numerous times. Louis was 37 and past his best and Moore was 39 (or 42 if you believe other records) and had over 200 fights at that time, my money would be on Klitschko being in better shape than either aged 39 or even now.

To say it is barely noticeable that Klitschko had barely decline is ridiculous. Don't look at how he looks. Look at what he is actually doing. Which is not much.

Archie Moore is an extremely rare exception. He was one fighter who actually seemed as good when he was in his late 30s or early40s. He was never ripped. However, he was in good boxing condition. He could still move and throw punches.

How many other examples can you come up with when a guy is still in his prime in his late 30s? You would be hard pressed to come up with a handful. Walcott was close, but that was because he wasn't as good as he should have been for various reasons. I can't think of anyone. If you can, name them.

Yes Klitschko was still juicing and looked in good shape. But watch what he could actually do. He had been slowly declining for years. By the time he fought Fury, he was extremely slow and simply wasn't doing anything offensively.
Watching Evander Holyfield when he was old. He still looked in great physical shape. But he was nowhere near the fighter he had once been.

Joe Louis was of course past his best when he fought Marciano. But even he had something left. Still, most people realize that he was well past it and therefore Marciano doesn't get a lot of credit for this fight.

It should be the same for Fury beating Klitschko. In just about every other similar situation in boxing history, a fighter beating a 39 year old gets little or no credit. Should be the same for Fury.

[Controversial]

You could always watch the Louis-Marciano fight and Moore-Marciano fight. Though that would mean watching fights before the day you became interested in the sport.

I've watched them numerous times. Louis was 37 and past his best and Moore was 39 (or 42 if you believe other records) and had over 200 fights at that time, my money would be on Klitschko being in better shape than either aged 39 or even now.

It should be the same for Fury beating Klitschko. In just about every other similar situation in boxing history, a fighter beating a 39 year old gets little or no credit. Should be the same for Fury.

I don't agree, the big difference was Klitschko was world champ, undefeated in 11 years and the home fighter. No one gets better physically with age but there are grades of decline. Klitschko was still a hard fighter to beat, the essence of his game hadn't really changed, you still have to beat him and Fury done that, pretty much against all odds.

[HomicideHenry]

It's not the same though.

It's been pointed out again and again the character of Klitschko was not to be "great" every time out. He'd look like a million dollars one night and a complete bore the next.

The best way to explode this myth that Klitschko was "passed his prime" is to look at the punch statistics for his last ten or so matches.

Total Punches for Klitschko's Last Twenty-Two Outings

Joshua--- 256
Fury--- 231
Jennings--- 545
Pulev--- 53
Leapai--- 396
Povetkin--- 417
Pianeta--- 144
Wach--- 693
Thompson--- 121
Mormeck--- 135
Haye--- 376
Peter--- 271
Chambers--- No Data
Chagaev--- No Data
Rahman--- 369
Thompson--- 411
Ibragimov--- 348
Brewster--- 434
Austin--- No Data
Brock--- 305
Byrd--- 265
Peter--- 523

I think you get the point. Where was the decline? You certainly don't see it by the amount of punches thrown in the matches. It's all consistent with how he always performed.

The more limited, stationary opponents Klitschko racked up higher punch numbers--- which is to be expected. The more mobile, craftier opponents Klitschko had lower punch numbers--- which is to be expected.

Obviously fights that went the distance will have more punch totals than those that ended sooner as well.

I know it's something people like Alp don't want to believe but Klitschko always was a well conditioned athlete who threw a lot of punches, albeit most were jabs. That was consistent throughout his career.

Fury just happened to make him look like crap because Fury is that skilled and awkward. Period. Joshua fought an older, slower version of Klitschko who was inactive but even those numbers are not outside the norm for Klitschko at his best--- especially when you consider for the first time in a very long time Klitschko finally was facing people who were in his league.

A man doesn't go throwing 545 punches like an ironman athlete and be considered "passed his prime." That's a stretch. Unless you want to believe only when Fury fought him did he suddenly get old overnight.

[HomicideHenry]

For greater emphasis let's look at early Klitschko punch stat numbers before he changed his style completely and was less gun shy.

McCline--- 433
Mercer--- 429
Shufford--- 262
Barrett--- 240

So all in all, even in his younger days the number seem very much comparable to when he was World Heavyweight champion. Quite the impressive feat for a man to maintain the same kind of punch rate that he had in his twenties.

Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all