BoxRec

Posted: **27 Apr 2022, 13:55**

DrDuke wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 13:52
gilgamesh wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 13:50 I always liked Wlad. I don't recall ever rooting against him. He always came across to me as a really intelligent, and likable person aside from being a good fighter.
I don't like his demonstrative political correctness.

I never noticed I don't guess.

Posted: **27 Apr 2022, 15:49**

I never minded him personally; didn't like his brother.
For a few years it looked he might be the next big thing. The loss to Purrity seemed to be a fluke. He scored great power and some boxing ability. Somehow he never managed to fight Lewis, which for about three years was the biggest fight out there.
Then he gets crushed by Sanders. Sanders had some power and was aggressive, but was limited. It was a huge shock Klitschko got beat so badly. People started having doubts.
Then the Brewster fight. Brewster has ability and fought a good fight, but Klitschko got stopped again. Wow.

He did sort of reinvent himself. Clutched and grabbed to minimize his glass jaw and poor stamina. Which was good enough against the pathetic competition that was out there. (not including the greats like Povetkin and Chagaev, and lest we forget, the phenomenal David Haye).

When he was ancient, he was competitive against Fury in Joshua in bad fights, which says more Fury and Joshua than anything.

He was a good fighter. He had some positives. Most ATGs have a win over someone better than Chris Byrd. But ATGS don't lose to journeyman, and get blown away by two different decent fighters. ATGs don't have two major weaknesses.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 04:15**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 15:49
He did sort of reinvent himself. Clutched and grabbed to minimize his glass jaw and poor stamina.

I wouldn't say he had a glass jaw, not rock solid I agree but you don't have as many wins and title defences as he did if you have a glass jaw. Anyone can be knocked out, especially against decent punchers at HW. Sometimes it's just poor technique that means you get hit more than you should, tighten up on that and you don't get hit so much. But I think he would've been hurt, dropped or stopped far more than he did if his chin was that bad.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 06:37**

Joshua Vs Wlad was an excellent fight.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 07:04**

Controversial wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 04:15
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 15:49
He did sort of reinvent himself. Clutched and grabbed to minimize his glass jaw and poor stamina.

I wouldn't say he had a glass jaw, not rock solid I agree but you don't have as many wins and title defences as he did if you have a glass jaw. Anyone can be knocked out, especially against decent punchers at HW. Sometimes it's just poor technique that means you get hit more than you should, tighten up on that and you don't get hit so much. But I think he would've been hurt, dropped or stopped far more than he did if his chin was that bad.

The whole basis of his post-Brewster style makeover was to protect his glass chin. He grabbed and held his challengers tight as if he were petrified of taking a punch. Luckily his opponents from Brewster I through to Fury and Joshua were so poor he was able to jab and grab his way safely though his boring defences.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 07:55**

Billy Tully wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 07:04
Controversial wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 04:15
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 15:49
He did sort of reinvent himself. Clutched and grabbed to minimize his glass jaw and poor stamina.

I wouldn't say he had a glass jaw, not rock solid I agree but you don't have as many wins and title defences as he did if you have a glass jaw. Anyone can be knocked out, especially against decent punchers at HW. Sometimes it's just poor technique that means you get hit more than you should, tighten up on that and you don't get hit so much. But I think he would've been hurt, dropped or stopped far more than he did if his chin was that bad.
The whole basis of his post-Brewster style makeover was to protect his glass chin. He grabbed and held his challengers tight as if he were petrified of taking a punch. Luckily his opponents from Brewster I through to Fury and Joshua were so poor he was able to jab and grab his way safely though his boring defences.

Yes I get that was the point but a glass jaw means exactly that, you can't take a punch. You don't compete at a world level for as long as he did not being able to take a punch, if he was the fragile he would've been in trouble far more. People used to say Bruno had a glass jaw, I don't think he did either.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 08:20**

Glass jaw and long term world champion just don’t go together. It’s ridiculous to even suggest it.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 10:41**

He isn't a glassdjaw, although his chin is weak. Glassjaws wouldn't survive like he did vs Peter or get stopped on feet against Joshua. Surely, he protected his chin later acknowledging its weakness, but it was far from being glass.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 10:45**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 15:49 But ATGS don't lose to journeyman, and get blown away by two different decent fighters. ATGs don't have two major weaknesses.

Like Jack Sharkey or Jersey Joe Walcott?

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 11:42**

DrDuke wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 10:45
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 15:49 But ATGS don't lose to journeyman, and get blown away by two different decent fighters. ATGs don't have two major weaknesses.
Like Jack Sharkey or Jersey Joe Walcott?

No one calls Sharkey or Walcott ATGs. At their best they're very good.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 16:23**

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 08:20 Glass jaw and long term world champion just don’t go together. It’s ridiculous to even suggest it.

Yet it happened. Watch the Sanders fight. Or the Brewster fight. Barely survived the wild swinging Peter. None of these guys were considered much before the fight. Might have been a reason why he never fought Lewis when it was the biggest fight out there for so long. Says a lot about the competition that he faced as a long term champion.

Posted: **28 Apr 2022, 23:06**

DrDuke wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 10:45
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 15:49 But ATGS don't lose to journeyman, and get blown away by two different decent fighters. ATGs don't have two major weaknesses.
Like Jack Sharkey or Jersey Joe Walcott?

Et al...

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 08:56**

Jack Dempsey the Manassa Mauler, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and others are ATG's and always will be, I don't think anyone here disputes that. They even rate highly in the PFP sense, but when I first came on here, many years ago now, some of the opinions about the heavyweights were so bizarre (from otherwise knowledgeable posters) that one could say the consensus was that the earlier a period you fought (going back to about Dempsey) and the less you weighed, the more formidable a HW it made you. Several posters insisted the 180-195 lb oldtimers hit harder and were stronger than Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, etc. I've seen claims that Marciano would knock Lewis out early, that Langford would wear down and eventually stop Vitali, Dempsey would stop Evander........... well, late at least. There were so many claims that were just plain weird. One might have said that 147 lb Tommy Hearns would KO several 21st century Light Heavyweight champions, because weight means absolutely nothing. But no, the 8 original weightclasses and their limits were religiously adhered to by this bunch.

If Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, Fury, etc couldn't beat all the sub 200 pounders of yesteryear, they really are pretty pathetic specimans for all that size and the amount of time they spent in their sport.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 10:43**

oogiebe wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 23:06
DrDuke wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 10:45
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Apr 2022, 15:49 But ATGS don't lose to journeyman, and get blown away by two different decent fighters. ATGs don't have two major weaknesses.
Like Jack Sharkey or Jersey Joe Walcott?
Et al...

Was Walcott close his best when he lost a bigger fighter? No. He lost to several smaller fighters around that time as well.
Sharkey beat Carnera as well. Sharkey lost his next fight to Loughran, who was smaller than him.
Way more examples of the smaller guy winning in real life.
I will issue the challenge again. Name a great 200 or under who lost to someone over 220? So far there seems to be one case. Dozens of cases where the smaller guy won.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 10:46**

Seamus wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 08:56 Jack Dempsey the Manassa Mauler, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and others are ATG's and always will be, I don't think anyone here disputes that. They even rate highly in the PFP sense, but when I first came on here, many years ago now, some of the opinions about the heavyweights were so bizarre (from otherwise knowledgeable posters) that one could say the consensus was that the earlier a period you fought (going back to about Dempsey) and the less you weighed, the more formidable a HW it made you. Several posters insisted the 180-195 lb oldtimers hit harder and were stronger than Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, etc. I've seen claims that Marciano would knock Lewis out early, that Langford would wear down and eventually stop Vitali, Dempsey would stop Evander........... well, late at least. There were so many claims that were just plain weird. One might have said that 147 lb Tommy Hearns would KO several 21st century Light Heavyweight champions, because weight means absolutely nothing. But no, the 8 original weightclasses and their limits were religiously adhered to by this bunch.

If Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, Fury, etc couldn't beat all the sub 200 pounders of yesteryear, they really are pretty pathetic specimans for all that size and the amount of time they spent in their sport.

I do think that some people here do dispute that Dempsey, louis, Marciano were ATGs. They were before their time, therefore not that good. The weight is always a convenient excuse.

"Several posters insisted the 180-195 lb oldtimers hit harder and were stronger than Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, etc. I've seen claims that Marciano would knock Lewis out early, that Langford would wear down and eventually stop Vitali, Dempsey would stop Evander........... well, late at least. There were so many claims that were just plain weird."

I have not seen anyone specifically say that.

Under 200 is not an ideal weight for a heavyweight. (Neither is 250).
However, once in a blue moon there is a guy that could do it. Should we just pretend that Dempsey and Louis could beat fighters much bigger than themselves?

In the NBA, obviously it helps to be tall. But Dennis Rodman led the league in rebounding several times and was not close to being the tallest. Charles Barkley was even shorter and did it. Nobody says that they couldn't rebound.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 11:11**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 10:43
oogiebe wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 23:06
DrDuke wrote: ↑28 Apr 2022, 10:45

Like Jack Sharkey or Jersey Joe Walcott?
Et al...
Was Walcott close his best when he lost a bigger fighter? No. He lost to several smaller fighters around that time as well.
Sharkey beat Carnera as well. Sharkey lost his next fight to Loughran, who was smaller than him.
Way more examples of the smaller guy winning in real life.
I will issue the challenge again. Name a great 200 or under who lost to someone over 220? So far there seems to be one case. Dozens of cases where the smaller guy won.

Somehow those excuses work for Sharkey and Walcott, but not Klit.

Your bias is laughable as always.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 14:34**

Seamus wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 08:56 Jack Dempsey the Manassa Mauler, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and others are ATG's and always will be, I don't think anyone here disputes that. They even rate highly in the PFP sense, but when I first came on here, many years ago now, some of the opinions about the heavyweights were so bizarre (from otherwise knowledgeable posters) that one could say the consensus was that the earlier a period you fought (going back to about Dempsey) and the less you weighed, the more formidable a HW it made you. Several posters insisted the 180-195 lb oldtimers hit harder and were stronger than Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, etc. I've seen claims that Marciano would knock Lewis out early, that Langford would wear down and eventually stop Vitali, Dempsey would stop Evander........... well, late at least. There were so many claims that were just plain weird. One might have said that 147 lb Tommy Hearns would KO several 21st century Light Heavyweight champions, because weight means absolutely nothing. But no, the 8 original weightclasses and their limits were religiously adhered to by this bunch.

If Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, Fury, etc couldn't beat all the sub 200 pounders of yesteryear, they really are pretty pathetic specimans for all that size and the amount of time they spent in their sport.

Prior to Usyk/Joshua, it was considered bizarre to pick Usyk to school a man-mountain like Joshua. Prior to Ruiz/Joshua, the sheeple laughed you off the forum for daring to suggest a dirty weakling cruiser could better a massive modern powerhouse like AJ.

Reality, all through the annals of boxing, seems to indicate that when it comes to heavies, talent is more important that size.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 14:52**

The avg size though has gotten bigger, Usyk is as tall and 4 lbs heavier than George Foreman when he stopped Frazier in 2. George was considered a big heavyweight at the time.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 15:41**

Though Foreman looked bigger, that is true according to tale of the tape. But still, look at Billy Tully's his point. The smaller guy of the two still won.
Frazier lost to Foreman who course was bigger than Frazier. Frazier also beat Buster Mathis who was bigger than Foreman.
Why? Most because Foreman was better than Mathis. He had more ability.

Wilder often weighed less than Foreman. Yet Wilder won a lot of fights against guys a lot heavier. And Wilder was a very limited fighter.

At a certain, point, size stops being an advantage. At a later point, it becomes a disadvantage.
Just about everything points that way.
Is the biggest guy right now the best guy? No.
Was the biggest guy 10 years ago the best guy? No.
Was the biggest guy ever the best guy? No.

The question that needs to be asked is should they be so big? Might be one of reasons that the division has sucked for so long. some guys would be better off if they weighed 210-230 instead of 230-250 or whatever.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 17:29**

Seamus wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 14:52 The avg size though has gotten bigger, Usyk is as tall and 4 lbs heavier than George Foreman when he stopped Frazier in 2. George was considered a big heavyweight at the time.

Faulty comparison. George was a strong heavy guy who worked down to 220. Usyk has built up to 220.

Mike Tyson and Orlin Norris are the same size. One is a power puncher, the other was a total non-hitter. To compare Usyk and Foreman is to suggest you think same frame means all other qualities are the same. It seems impossible to believe this given the million examples to the contrary. Chris Byrd was bigger and heavier than Mike Tyson. Big whoop.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 18:09**

usyk cut weight and was weighing 210-212 in the ring for his cruiser fights, really not that much difference to 217. same height and reach as big george too

usyk would fit in the same size grouping as holmes, ali, and foreman. people often think foreman was bigger than he really was, maybe because he was such a hard puncher and so intimidating with that power, often making similar sized guys cower.

Posted: **29 Apr 2022, 18:51**

Seamus wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 08:56 Jack Dempsey the Manassa Mauler, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and others are ATG's and always will be, I don't think anyone here disputes that. They even rate highly in the PFP sense, but when I first came on here, many years ago now, some of the opinions about the heavyweights were so bizarre (from otherwise knowledgeable posters) that one could say the consensus was that the earlier a period you fought (going back to about Dempsey) and the less you weighed, the more formidable a HW it made you. Several posters insisted the 180-195 lb oldtimers hit harder and were stronger than Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, etc. I've seen claims that Marciano would knock Lewis out early, that Langford would wear down and eventually stop Vitali, Dempsey would stop Evander........... well, late at least. There were so many claims that were just plain weird. One might have said that 147 lb Tommy Hearns would KO several 21st century Light Heavyweight champions, because weight means absolutely nothing. But no, the 8 original weightclasses and their limits were religiously adhered to by this bunch.

If Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's, Bowe, Fury, etc couldn't beat all the sub 200 pounders of yesteryear, they really are pretty pathetic specimans for all that size and the amount of time they spent in their sport.

Hard to disagree.

A better small heavy should beat a lesser bigger heavy. But when proven greats meet, size will be a major factor.

Of course certain fighters find bigger men easier and smaller men trickier (Dempsey, Ali, etc...). But that is not the norm.

It's just hard to take seriously a claim that size is negligible.

Posted: **30 Apr 2022, 05:19**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 10:43
I will issue the challenge again. Name a great 200 or under who lost to someone over 220? So far there seems to be one case. Dozens of cases where the smaller guy won.

But similarly name anyone 200 or under that beat a great over 220 in the last 30 odd years. The old time HW division was mainly smaller guys, guys who would be LHWs today or CWs. There just weren’t many big decent HWs around so the fights tend to be skewed in favour of the smaller guys. Being big alone doesn’t mean much if you can’t fight but if weight wasn’t such an issue why aren’t these smaller guys successful today? You only have to listen to fighters and trainers mentioning weight and size when talking about Fury for example to see it obviously makes a huge difference.

Posted: **30 Apr 2022, 06:45**

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑29 Apr 2022, 18:09 usyk cut weight and was weighing 210-212 in the ring for his cruiser fights, really not that much difference to 217. same height and reach as big george too

usyk would fit in the same size grouping as holmes, ali, and foreman. people often think foreman was bigger than he really was, maybe because he was such a hard puncher and so intimidating with that power, often making similar sized guys cower.

Usyk in his cruiser title fights was already in his 30s. Foreman fighting Frazier was in his early 20s. Usyk at the same age was still an amateur fighting as a middle and light heavy.

These cosmetic comparisons don't work because they don't allow for intangibles. Ali and Foreman are the same frame in the jungle but one is a boxer and the other is physical powerhouse.

Posted: **30 Apr 2022, 09:09**

And what's the point ? I know there are or were guys here who will make the argument, that if Andy Ruiz ever really got himself in tip top rock solid, cut shape, he'd probably weigh 215 or thereabouts, and that would automatically be followed by the statement "So you honestly believe that 50 lbs plus of fat make Andy a better fighter". Totally irrelevant because in the real world 268 lb Andy Ruiz got off the canvas and demolished Joshua.

No one ever made a valid argument that a little man can't beat a big man. Of course they can ! The sound reasoning here is that it has been a fact that the heavyweights have gotten bigger making it harder for little men to win, and they've gone the way of 6-7 basketball centers and 260 lb offensive lineman.

BoxRec

Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?