BoxRec

Adamek has been on quite a decline for the last few years. I expect him to be mildly worse than he was in the Glazkov fight, and therefore I wouldn't be surprised if he was ready to lose to a fighter of Szpilka's modest caliber. However, Adamek has also been on the favorable end of a few robberies, so the next robbery could happen today if he gets outboxed.

Ah yes God bless those PEDs.

Szpilka 96-94 96-94 98-92 Adamek

Adamek is too old, he wasn't in shape.

But on the other hand - Szpilka finally looked great, fought smart by pointing and kept his right hand high.
Good for him. That loss with Jennings was better for him, he learnt something.

Now he says that he will fight with couple of weaker opponents (as his training camp insisted), then he wants to fight with Andy Ruiz and later with Jennings again. A good path.

Cards:
94-96, 92-98 (wtf?), 94-96

My points:
94-97

I think him against Ruiz is a good match-up.

Wouldnt mind seeing Spilzka put in against Glazkov. More to eliminate Glazkov from the equation than anything.

That would be a good match-up too.

On a related note, if I were Klitschko's matchmaker I would try to arrange a bout with Glazkov given that he's an unbeaten former Ukrainian Olympic medalist who is generally ranked in the top ten and thus has some credibility, yet at the same time he's one of the most mediocre contenders of recent years, doesn't have pop, and would likely be an easy way to help Wlad move closer to the title-defense records I believe he wants to break.

I don't know if anyone remembers this, but just one week ago, I was insisting up and down that Takam was better than Adamek, and the forum decided to rank Takam below Adamek anyway. And then this sh*t happens where Adamek loses to a guy who was not even ranked in the top 25. Way to not know sh*t about ranking fighters, boxrec.

Off topic but just seen on BS that HBO is showing Klitschko vs Pulev live http://www.BS.com/hbo-air-wlad ... ive--84038

Lackeos wrote:I don't know if anyone remembers this, but just one week ago, I was insisting up and down that Takam was better than Adamek, and the forum decided to rank Takam below Adamek anyway. And then this sh*t happens where Adamek loses to a guy who was not even ranked in the top 25. Way to not know sh*t about ranking fighters, boxrec.

How exactly does this prove Takam is better than Adamek?

punchoutsb wrote:

Lackeos wrote:I don't know if anyone remembers this, but just one week ago, I was insisting up and down that Takam was better than Adamek, and the forum decided to rank Takam below Adamek anyway. And then this sh*t happens where Adamek loses to a guy who was not even ranked in the top 25. Way to not know sh*t about ranking fighters, boxrec.

How exactly does this prove Takam is better than Adamek?

Because Takam can't possibly be that bad. Takam recently beat Tony Thompson. Adamek just lost to a fighter not in the top 25, right after losing to a fighter who was not in the top 15 at the time (Glazkov), shortly after robbing a fighter who was not in the top 15 at the time (Cunningham), not long after only beating Chambers because he had a shoulder injury. Takam is roughly the 8th best heavyweight, Adamek is like the 25nd best. So it's really not even close. It's about as not-close of a comparison as Bryant Jennings vs Francesco Pianeta.

Lackeos wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Lackeos wrote:I don't know if anyone remembers this, but just one week ago, I was insisting up and down that Takam was better than Adamek, and the forum decided to rank Takam below Adamek anyway. And then this sh*t happens where Adamek loses to a guy who was not even ranked in the top 25. Way to not know sh*t about ranking fighters, boxrec.

How exactly does this prove Takam is better than Adamek?

Because Takam can't possibly be that bad. Takam recently beat Tony Thompson. Adamek just lost to a fighter not in the top 25, right after losing to a fighter who was not in the top 15 at the time (Glazkov), shortly after robbing a fighter who was not in the top 15 at the time (Cunningham), not long after only beating Chambers because he had a shoulder injury. Takam is roughly the 8th best heavyweight, Adamek is like the 25nd best. So it's really not even close. It's about as not-close of a comparison as Bryant Jennings vs Francesco Pianeta.

I think Spilzka is a fairly decent fighter though in truth. He has punch resistance issues and his defense is a bit leaky but he's got pretty decent athleticism and speed for a guy of his size and he can punch a bit.

I think Spilzka is a fairly decent fighter though in truth. He has punch resistance issues and his defense is a bit leaky but he's got pretty decent athleticism and speed for a guy of his size and he can punch a bit.

I'm yet to see the Adamek fight, but based on what I've seen to date, I don't think Szpilka is particularly good. Yes, he has good athleticism and decent pop, but his chin is average and his defense is poor - he relies too much on his footspeed. He has pretty much been proven to be a level below Bryant Jennings and probably Mike Perez (who did much better against Jennings than Szpilka did) and we know that Adamek is well past his best. I think the fact that Szpilka got knocked down in both fights against Mike Mollo (twice in their first fight) speaks volumes, although it's good to see that Artur has gotten into better shape, unless he does something drastic about his defensive game, I can't see him ever being a serious contender.

jezzamundo wrote:

I think Spilzka is a fairly decent fighter though in truth. He has punch resistance issues and his defense is a bit leaky but he's got pretty decent athleticism and speed for a guy of his size and he can punch a bit.

I'm yet to see the Adamek fight, but based on what I've seen to date, I don't think Szpilka is particularly good. Yes, he has good athleticism and decent pop, but his chin is average and his defense is poor - he relies too much on his footspeed. He has pretty much been proven to be a level below Bryant Jennings and probably Mike Perez (who did much better against Jennings than Szpilka did) and we know that Adamek is well past his best. I think the fact that Szpilka got knocked down in both fights against Mike Mollo (twice in their first fight) speaks volumes, although it's good to see that Artur has gotten into better shape, unless he does something drastic about his defensive game, I can't see him ever being a serious contender.

It's here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbR_TWHdCtc

Highlights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NpZwcHmfgA&t=3m25s

jezzamundo wrote:unless he does something drastic about his defensive game, I can't see him ever being a serious contender.

You should not use the word "ever" to describe fighters as young as Szpilka. He has done more by age 25 than most of the current heavyweight contenders, aside from Fury. He will probably be a better fighter by age 29 than some of the currently 29-year-old contenders are.

Adamek said that he will probably retire after this fight. So we are close to end of his great career.