BoxRec

Heretic wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 08:55

ironbeard wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 09:10
Fury did not defeat the same WKlit as AJ did, and you know it.

Yep you got that right...

Fury had to fight Wlad that full of confidence from hes ten years undefeated streak. AJ fought the version that was 41 and had been inactive for 18 months

ironbeard wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 09:43

Heretic wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 08:55

ironbeard wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 09:10
Fury did not defeat the same WKlit as AJ did, and you know it.

Yep you got that right...

Fury had to fight Wlad that full of confidence from hes ten years undefeated streak. AJ fought the version that was 41 and had been inactive for 18 months

Wlad literally made his career on his performance vs AJ, in a loss. The Ukrainian was distracted, deflated, and less than properly prepared for the Fury fight. He was the opposite for AJ.

tiny_acres wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 09:48

ironbeard wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 09:43

Heretic wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 08:55

Yep you got that right...

Fury had to fight Wlad that full of confidence from hes ten years undefeated streak. AJ fought the version that was 41 and had been inactive for 18 months

Wlad literally made his career on his performance vs AJ, in a loss. The Ukrainian was distracted, deflated, and less than properly prepared for the Fury fight. He was the opposite for AJ.

I think there is a good argument from both sides on this topic.
Except the part of Wlad aking his career on the performance to AJ. Wlad had a hall of fame career long before AJ.

But I can see both sides of this argument I tend to lean more to Hertic's side.

dagilechia wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 05:54

ezhmael wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 05:15

dagilechia wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 02:57
Unfortunately, WBSS in HW will never happen because Heavies generate big money without it and not all of them seem to be willing to fight thw best opponents.

The idea of divisions 1 and 2 seems fantastic!

Yeah, sad but true. Those with big names in HW don't need WBSS unless they want to be recognized as the best in the division.

However, it can have a slight chance in smaller named fighters and those who were up and coming fighters as well. A lower version of WBSS comprise of up and coming fighters and gate keepers would be good. Also guys from outside the top 10 can join too.

Yeah i still like this idea. HW WBSS without the biggest names and without those who recently turned pro but i can see Usyk start in this as it seems unlikely that he will attack HW crown immediately - he needs like 3 fights i think so WBSS would be by far best option. The "small" WBSS tournament could take place at the same time when winner of Wilder/Fury fights AJ and then winner of Joshua/Fury or Wilder vs WBSS winner (most likely Usyk).

Usyk vs Parker (in NZ or UK)
Whyte vs Breazeale (in UK)
Ortiz vs Kownacki (in USA)
Winner of Pulev/Hughie vs Povetkin (in Russia, UK or Bulgaria)

I doubt that Miller would like to participate in this - seems like he doesnt want any risk before title shot

If someone else refuses to participate in this there are still some fighters who would like to take this opportunity like:
-Dereck Chisora
-Bryant Jennings
-winner of Wach vs Szpilka
-Agit Kabayel

Imagine Joshua vs Usyk at Wembley for WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO belts + The Ring belt and Muhammad Ali trophy...

ezhmael wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 21:38

dagilechia wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 05:54

ezhmael wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018, 05:15

Yeah, sad but true. Those with big names in HW don't need WBSS unless they want to be recognized as the best in the division.

However, it can have a slight chance in smaller named fighters and those who were up and coming fighters as well. A lower version of WBSS comprise of up and coming fighters and gate keepers would be good. Also guys from outside the top 10 can join too.

Yeah i still like this idea. HW WBSS without the biggest names and without those who recently turned pro but i can see Usyk start in this as it seems unlikely that he will attack HW crown immediately - he needs like 3 fights i think so WBSS would be by far best option. The "small" WBSS tournament could take place at the same time when winner of Wilder/Fury fights AJ and then winner of Joshua/Fury or Wilder vs WBSS winner (most likely Usyk).

Usyk vs Parker (in NZ or UK)
Whyte vs Breazeale (in UK)
Ortiz vs Kownacki (in USA)
Winner of Pulev/Hughie vs Povetkin (in Russia, UK or Bulgaria)

I doubt that Miller would like to participate in this - seems like he doesnt want any risk before title shot

If someone else refuses to participate in this there are still some fighters who would like to take this opportunity like:
-Dereck Chisora
-Bryant Jennings
-winner of Wach vs Szpilka
-Agit Kabayel

Imagine Joshua vs Usyk at Wembley for WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO belts + The Ring belt and Muhammad Ali trophy...

Damn! You beat me on the idea for the tournament. The one you created was very good with good substitute as well. It's good for those who don't have big names to make a name for themselves in the HW devision and for the likes of Povetkin and Ortiz to show that they still got it.

Nice elaboration on this together with the possible venues. Hope this happen then the winner takes on the undisputed HW champ. This way the HW will have a legitimate champion and challenger and all the belts will be kept by 1 person only.

thumbs up for you !

JKM1985 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 16:40 Great replies all around. Thanks a lot, guys!

My follow up question.....so, you’re telling me NOT to order the Wilder/Fury fight? Sounds like it could be a snoozefest?

JKM1985 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 16:40 Great replies all around. Thanks a lot, guys!

My follow up question.....so, you’re telling me NOT to order the Wilder/Fury fight? Sounds like it could be a snoozefest?

punchoutsb wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 15:06

DrDuke wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 14:12

punchoutsb wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 13:54

Competitiveness does not equal strength. Plenty of fun and exciting fights right now, but they’re happening between heavily flawed and relatively unskilled participants who would be an afterthought in almost every other HW era. This era isn’t close to sniffing the best of the 2000’s. Not even close.

Really? Who was better in the 2000s, than the today's top of Fury/Joshua/Wilder? Lewis. Klitschkos. But except them? The 2000s were full of inconsisted champions. I guess, Povetkin and maybe Ortiz, who had never won real championship, would have handled prime Ruiz, Valuev, Briggs, Liakhovich, Ibragimov, etc. Maybe even today's top contenders, like Whyte or Breazeale, would have handled them. So today's era is pretty good.

You already answered your own question. The Lewis and Klitschko trilogy is far superior to the current top three.

Then you proceed to use two 40 year old hangovers (not as much in Ortiz case since he turned pro later) from a previous era to attempt to strengthen this one. Before reinventing himself against this current era, Povetkin was the guy who got shutout by Klitschko and got manhandled by Marco Huck.

The top three today would be in the top ten throughout the 2000's, but none of them would rule the roost. The divisions horrific weakness and shallowness becomes painfully evident the minute you step outside the top three. Sultan, Holy, Rahman, Chagaev, Ruiz, Valuev, Oleg, Johnson, Tua, Thompson, Byrd, Brewster, Sanders, Briggs, Haye, Gomez, to name a few are all better than the majority of the current top ten and it's really not close. The division is currently a bunch of big fat guys who hit hard. The skill isn't there. The current top ten is rounded out with Whyte, Parker, Breazeale, Kownacki, and Miller...that's awful.

Impractical Poster wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 11:20

punchoutsb wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 15:06

DrDuke wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 14:12

Really? Who was better in the 2000s, than the today's top of Fury/Joshua/Wilder? Lewis. Klitschkos. But except them? The 2000s were full of inconsisted champions. I guess, Povetkin and maybe Ortiz, who had never won real championship, would have handled prime Ruiz, Valuev, Briggs, Liakhovich, Ibragimov, etc. Maybe even today's top contenders, like Whyte or Breazeale, would have handled them. So today's era is pretty good.

You already answered your own question. The Lewis and Klitschko trilogy is far superior to the current top three.

Then you proceed to use two 40 year old hangovers (not as much in Ortiz case since he turned pro later) from a previous era to attempt to strengthen this one. Before reinventing himself against this current era, Povetkin was the guy who got shutout by Klitschko and got manhandled by Marco Huck.

The top three today would be in the top ten throughout the 2000's, but none of them would rule the roost. The divisions horrific weakness and shallowness becomes painfully evident the minute you step outside the top three. Sultan, Holy, Rahman, Chagaev, Ruiz, Valuev, Oleg, Johnson, Tua, Thompson, Byrd, Brewster, Sanders, Briggs, Haye, Gomez, to name a few are all better than the majority of the current top ten and it's really not close. The division is currently a bunch of big fat guys who hit hard. The skill isn't there. The current top ten is rounded out with Whyte, Parker, Breazeale, Kownacki, and Miller...that's awful.

I think Joshua beats any version of Wlad. Wlad was better towards the end of his career. Styles make fights, and I think Joshua forced Wlad to fight the way he did. Otherwise, it would have been another boring, dominate win for Wlad.

It's really hard to say if the Vitali and Lennox of the 2000s were better than Joshua/Wilder/Fury. It's easy to say they were because we see their finished product. Not the case with the current bunch. A fair assessment would be waiting until after their careers have finished to compare them. Most concede that Joshua and Wilder are works in progress. Who knows how good they will end up getting.

A few years ago, most balked at the idea of Fury or Wilder being at the top of the current crop. They have proved otherwise. So, while the jury is still out on the greatness of the current top guys, we can all agree that the division is at least the most exciting it has been in the past 18 years. And for that reason, it's worth watching.

punchoutsb wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 11:32

Impractical Poster wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 11:20

punchoutsb wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 15:06

You already answered your own question. The Lewis and Klitschko trilogy is far superior to the current top three.

Then you proceed to use two 40 year old hangovers (not as much in Ortiz case since he turned pro later) from a previous era to attempt to strengthen this one. Before reinventing himself against this current era, Povetkin was the guy who got shutout by Klitschko and got manhandled by Marco Huck.

The top three today would be in the top ten throughout the 2000's, but none of them would rule the roost. The divisions horrific weakness and shallowness becomes painfully evident the minute you step outside the top three. Sultan, Holy, Rahman, Chagaev, Ruiz, Valuev, Oleg, Johnson, Tua, Thompson, Byrd, Brewster, Sanders, Briggs, Haye, Gomez, to name a few are all better than the majority of the current top ten and it's really not close. The division is currently a bunch of big fat guys who hit hard. The skill isn't there. The current top ten is rounded out with Whyte, Parker, Breazeale, Kownacki, and Miller...that's awful.

I think Joshua beats any version of Wlad. Wlad was better towards the end of his career. Styles make fights, and I think Joshua forced Wlad to fight the way he did. Otherwise, it would have been another boring, dominate win for Wlad.

It's really hard to say if the Vitali and Lennox of the 2000s were better than Joshua/Wilder/Fury. It's easy to say they were because we see their finished product. Not the case with the current bunch. A fair assessment would be waiting until after their careers have finished to compare them. Most concede that Joshua and Wilder are works in progress. Who knows how good they will end up getting.

A few years ago, most balked at the idea of Fury or Wilder being at the top of the current crop. They have proved otherwise. So, while the jury is still out on the greatness of the current top guys, we can all agree that the division is at least the most exciting it has been in the past 18 years. And for that reason, it's worth watching.

AJ barely beat Wlads shell. Prime Wlad follows up and stops him.

I agree with the remainder of your statement, you can’t pass final judgement based on incomplete data. You can judge what you currently see though, and it’s a weak albeit exciting era.

punchoutsb wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 11:32

Impractical Poster wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 11:20

punchoutsb wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 15:06

You already answered your own question. The Lewis and Klitschko trilogy is far superior to the current top three.

Then you proceed to use two 40 year old hangovers (not as much in Ortiz case since he turned pro later) from a previous era to attempt to strengthen this one. Before reinventing himself against this current era, Povetkin was the guy who got shutout by Klitschko and got manhandled by Marco Huck.

The top three today would be in the top ten throughout the 2000's, but none of them would rule the roost. The divisions horrific weakness and shallowness becomes painfully evident the minute you step outside the top three. Sultan, Holy, Rahman, Chagaev, Ruiz, Valuev, Oleg, Johnson, Tua, Thompson, Byrd, Brewster, Sanders, Briggs, Haye, Gomez, to name a few are all better than the majority of the current top ten and it's really not close. The division is currently a bunch of big fat guys who hit hard. The skill isn't there. The current top ten is rounded out with Whyte, Parker, Breazeale, Kownacki, and Miller...that's awful.

I think Joshua beats any version of Wlad. Wlad was better towards the end of his career. Styles make fights, and I think Joshua forced Wlad to fight the way he did. Otherwise, it would have been another boring, dominate win for Wlad.

It's really hard to say if the Vitali and Lennox of the 2000s were better than Joshua/Wilder/Fury. It's easy to say they were because we see their finished product. Not the case with the current bunch. A fair assessment would be waiting until after their careers have finished to compare them. Most concede that Joshua and Wilder are works in progress. Who knows how good they will end up getting.

A few years ago, most balked at the idea of Fury or Wilder being at the top of the current crop. They have proved otherwise. So, while the jury is still out on the greatness of the current top guys, we can all agree that the division is at least the most exciting it has been in the past 18 years. And for that reason, it's worth watching.

AJ barely beat Wlads shell. Prime Wlad follows up and stops him.

I agree with the remainder of your statement, you can’t pass final judgement based on incomplete data. You can judge what you currently see though, and it’s a weak albeit exciting era.

Impractical Poster wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 13:01

punchoutsb wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 11:32

Impractical Poster wrote: ↑16 Oct 2018, 11:20

I think Joshua beats any version of Wlad. Wlad was better towards the end of his career. Styles make fights, and I think Joshua forced Wlad to fight the way he did. Otherwise, it would have been another boring, dominate win for Wlad.

It's really hard to say if the Vitali and Lennox of the 2000s were better than Joshua/Wilder/Fury. It's easy to say they were because we see their finished product. Not the case with the current bunch. A fair assessment would be waiting until after their careers have finished to compare them. Most concede that Joshua and Wilder are works in progress. Who knows how good they will end up getting.

A few years ago, most balked at the idea of Fury or Wilder being at the top of the current crop. They have proved otherwise. So, while the jury is still out on the greatness of the current top guys, we can all agree that the division is at least the most exciting it has been in the past 18 years. And for that reason, it's worth watching.

AJ barely beat Wlads shell. Prime Wlad follows up and stops him.

I agree with the remainder of your statement, you can’t pass final judgement based on incomplete data. You can judge what you currently see though, and it’s a weak albeit exciting era.

We disagree about Wlad. I don't think that was a shell of his old self. Definitely a more savvy Wlad than the one who got starched by Sanders. And was forced to be more offensive than previously. He looked to be very in shape, and if he had the luxury of being more defensive, I doubt he would have had as many opportunities as he had against AJ.

I expect AJ to get even better in the coming years.