Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 16 Jan 2018, 13:11
Ezzard charles
But does Ezzard really have more skills than a Tubbs, or Holmes?
BoxRec
Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Page 3 of 5
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 16 Jan 2018, 13:24
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 16 Jan 2018, 13:42
Lol, I'm not American.Kalan wrote: ↑16 Jan 2018, 12:50 That's more hating on modern Heavyweights... Principally cuz America's been overtaking in the last generation... It's generally North Americans who do all the hating on modern Heavyweights.
. . .
Most Heavyweight Champions had gaping holes... There were no Lomachenko's in that division -- the best defensive boxers were Johnson, Tunney, Holmes, Vitali, and Joshua... They're the top 5 defensively... They were all difficult to hit with about anything.... If they were hit real good they made adjustments on the fly and generally came back to win.... Right behind them were Lewis and a Steward retooled Wladimir -- both very hard to reach for just about any challenger.
Nearly everyone has a bit of a weakness or stylistic downside. But nothing like massive wholes in basic boxing of the current crop. Fury can't really punch, and he's the only one with any decent angles. Wilder and Joshua have near non existent ring IQs. Joshua has some neat combos, but tends to gass himself. And none of them have gone through near the number of tests you can nitpick the old legends for.
Lennox Lewis was way better rounded and natural than the current crop, he was very good, but not as good P4P as some of the top ones before.
Vitali looked great beating plodders who kept seeming to miraculously over perform against him.
Not sure why you brough up shot Riddick Bowe
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 04:36
Plodders??? You're full of gas.BitPlayer wrote: ↑16 Jan 2018, 13:42
Nearly everyone has a bit of a weakness or stylistic downside. But nothing like massive wholes in basic boxing of the current crop. Fury can't really punch, and he's the only one with any decent angles. Wilder and Joshua have near non existent ring IQs. Joshua has some neat combos, but tends to gass himself. And none of them have gone through near the number of tests you can nitpick the old legends for.
Lennox Lewis was way better rounded and natural than the current crop, he was very good, but not as good P4P as some of the top ones before.
Vitali looked great beating plodders who kept seeming to miraculously over perform against him.
Not sure why you brough up shot Riddick Bowe
Herbie Hide, 31-1, the dancing destroyer was a plodder??? Vitali took Hide out in 2 rounds... NOT an over performance by HIde I'd say... Hide easily outboxed Riddick Bowe for 3 swift rounds before he was mauled to death by the fouler.
Larry Donald was a speedy boxer (no plodder) who easily beat Holyfield... Vitali is the ONLY fighter to EVER stop Donald -- so I don't see how anyone could possibly say Donald over performed.
Kirk Johnson was no plodder... His only other defeat was by ridiculous DQ... Vitali was the ONLY man to stop Johnson... He did it in 2 rounds in what most would say was a miserable performance by Johnson -- not an over performance.
2-Division World Champion Tomasz Adamek was no plodder... He was 44-1.... At 40 years of age, Vitali was the first fighter to stop Adamek, after beating him badly every round... But Adamek beat Chris Arreola and Michael Grant to get a shot at Vitali.... Perhaps he over performed in those fights -- but not versus Vitali.
Why bring up Riddick Bowe??? Cuz he got hit too easily and faded quickly... He cannot be compared to the Klitschkos because he ducked every big puncher and looked piss poor against the plodding punching bag Golota.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 11:06
I don't think It's ever truly a disadvantage (unless It's pathological gigabtism). It's just so few people are so tall, none tend be also have rare talent.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Jan 2018, 12:03 Modern heavies only rank high H2H. At a certain point size stops being an advantage. A a later point, it starts being a disadvantage.
I think post Lennox has been a slump in general, it should pick up again eventually. LL was respectable P4P, just not at the top. Holyfield is pretty high.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 11:11
Which would be a good argument if Bowe was the best past eras had to offer. He wasn't.
David Price is far worse which I guess proves something by that logic.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 12:16
Riddick Bowe wasn’t crude on offense. I love his infighting style. You can grab a guy like Wlad did on the inside, or you can bust him up with combos the way Bowe did.
I’ll take Bowe’s way everyday.
Futch was able to half teach him. I don’t think Bowe paid much attention to defensive lessons, once he learned he could take a punch, he certainly did take a bunch.
I’ll take Bowe’s way everyday.
Futch was able to half teach him. I don’t think Bowe paid much attention to defensive lessons, once he learned he could take a punch, he certainly did take a bunch.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 13:00
So he beat someone who lost to Bowe, who according to you was carp? Not to mention Joseph Chingangu beat him just as quick, or mayb Chingangu was actually a beast.Kalan wrote: ↑19 Jan 2018, 04:36Plodders??? You're full of gas.BitPlayer wrote: ↑16 Jan 2018, 13:42
Nearly everyone has a bit of a weakness or stylistic downside. But nothing like massive wholes in basic boxing of the current crop. Fury can't really punch, and he's the only one with any decent angles. Wilder and Joshua have near non existent ring IQs. Joshua has some neat combos, but tends to gass himself. And none of them have gone through near the number of tests you can nitpick the old legends for.
Lennox Lewis was way better rounded and natural than the current crop, he was very good, but not as good P4P as some of the top ones before.
Vitali looked great beating plodders who kept seeming to miraculously over perform against him.
Not sure why you brough up shot Riddick Bowe
Herbie Hide, 31-1, the dancing destroyer was a plodder??? Vitali took Hide out in 2 rounds... NOT an over performance by HIde I'd say... Hide easily outboxed Riddick Bowe for 3 swift rounds before he was mauled to death by the fouler.
A 42 year old Holyfield, coming off losing to Byrd and being stopped by Toney.Larry Donald was a speedy boxer (no plodder) who easily beat Holyfield... Vitali is the ONLY fighter to EVER stop Donald -- so I don't see how anyone could possibly say Donald over performed.
Even Johnson didn't complain about his DQ for low blows. And he came in fat against Vitali.Kirk Johnson was no plodder... His only other defeat was by ridiculous DQ... Vitali was the ONLY man to stop Johnson... He did it in 2 rounds in what most would say was a miserable performance by Johnson -- not an over performance.
Wow so one of the biggest Heavyweight belyholders in history, beat a Light Heavyweight.2-Division World Champion Tomasz Adamek was no plodder... He was 44-1.... At 40 years of age, Vitali was the first fighter to stop Adamek, after beating him badly every round... But Adamek beat Chris Arreola and Michael Grant to get a shot at Vitali.... Perhaps he over performed in those fights -- but not versus Vitali.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 19:29
I think does become a disadvantage. There is a reason you don't see 300 pound running backs in football.BitPlayer wrote: ↑19 Jan 2018, 11:06I don't think It's ever truly a disadvantage (unless It's pathological gigabtism). It's just so few people are so tall, none tend be also have rare talent.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Jan 2018, 12:03 Modern heavies only rank high H2H. At a certain point size stops being an advantage. A a later point, it starts being a disadvantage.
I think post Lennox has been a slump in general, it should pick up again eventually. LL was respectable P4P, just not at the top. Holyfield is pretty high.
Generally speaking, really big fighters don't have good hand speed or are fast on their feet. They also have stamina issues which mean they have to choose between fighting a slow pace or getting a quick stoppage before getting gassed.
Of course there are going to be rare exceptions.
However, people assume that a bigger fighter is automatically going to have advantages in power and taking punishment which he isn;t alwayS the case.
Look at the real world. When there are actually cases of really big heavyweights fighting a great fighter under 200 pounds, the smaller guy almost always won.
How many great fighters have been really big? Lewis and for a short time Bowe. That's it.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 19:34
IMO pre exile Ali when he was champ beats every other Heavyweight that's ever lived, I'm not a fan of post exile Ali though, not at all
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 20:06
I have always thought that NFL running backs are potential heavyweight champs who were given a football at 15 instead instead of a pair of Everlast gloves.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Jan 2018, 19:29I think does become a disadvantage. There is a reason you don't see 300 pound running backs in football.BitPlayer wrote: ↑19 Jan 2018, 11:06I don't think It's ever truly a disadvantage (unless It's pathological gigabtism). It's just so few people are so tall, none tend be also have rare talent.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Jan 2018, 12:03 Modern heavies only rank high H2H. At a certain point size stops being an advantage. A a later point, it starts being a disadvantage.
I think post Lennox has been a slump in general, it should pick up again eventually. LL was respectable P4P, just not at the top. Holyfield is pretty high.
Generally speaking, really big fighters don't have good hand speed or are fast on their feet. They also have stamina issues which mean they have to choose between fighting a slow pace or getting a quick stoppage before getting gassed.
Of course there are going to be rare exceptions.
However, people assume that a bigger fighter is automatically going to have advantages in power and taking punishment which he isn;t alwayS the case.
Look at the real world. When there are actually cases of really big heavyweights fighting a great fighter under 200 pounds, the smaller guy almost always won.
How many great fighters have been really big? Lewis and for a short time Bowe. That's it.
Lower body strength. Quick. Good reflexes.
High school football coaches got to them and, hey “if you don’t make it to the NFL, at least you get a full ride to Purdue.”
LeSean McCoy, Marshawn Lynch.
Almost all running backs have that 5’10 - 6’2”
frame. 205 - 225lbs of muscle.
That’s Dempsey on a weight training regiment. That’s Louis. That’s Liston. Tyson.
The fullback position isn’t very common anymore, but there isn’t a football coach who wouldn’t have steered Jim Jeffries into becoming a fullback from 1950 on.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 19 Jan 2018, 21:16
Well Bowe was no damned good. He embodies everything you say is wrong with big Heavyweights... He was super hittable and clumsy... He knew Lewis would shittcan him if he fought him. He ducked not only Lewis, but Mercer, McCall, Tyson, Tua, and Ruddock -- who was another big, punchable guy like Bowe - as was Golota, who couldn't even punch.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Jan 2018, 19:29 How many great fighters have been really big? Lewis and for a short time Bowe. That's it
Anybody who doesn't recognize the Klitschko Bros as ATG Heavies and see Bowe as one has no sense... Bowe got hit so much he didn't last long, despite ducking every big puncher.... The K Bros went for over 20 years each -- and finished strong, even though they both fought into their 40's... Bowe was pretty much done in his 20's from taking head shots.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 07:30
Wlad is a lesser ATG, but had some major flaws and bag losses.Kalan wrote: ↑19 Jan 2018, 21:16Well Bowe was no damned good. He embodies everything you say is wrong with big Heavyweights... He was super hittable and clumsy... He knew Lewis would shittcan him if he fought him. He ducked not only Lewis, but Mercer, McCall, Tyson, Tua, and Ruddock -- who was another big, punchable guy like Bowe - as was Golota, who couldn't even punch.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Jan 2018, 19:29 How many great fighters have been really big? Lewis and for a short time Bowe. That's it
Anybody who doesn't recognize the Klitschko Bros as ATG Heavies and see Bowe as one has no sense... Bowe got hit so much he didn't last long, despite ducking every big puncher.... The K Bros went for over 20 years each -- and finished strong, even though they both fought into their 40's... Bowe was pretty much done in his 20's from taking head shots.
Vitali just didn't do enough.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 14:27
The major flaws and big losses kept W. Klitschko from being an ATG.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 17:33
He had great jab and right hand and excellent, absolutely brilliant left hook. Great power, good speed for such a big guy and excellent footwork. I don't think his chin was as bad as advertised, but I think he always had stamina problems. Even when he went full distance or knocked out opponents in 10-12 rounds, he wasn't throwing a lot of punches througout the fight, ecxept of jabs. Obviously, he was very well-trained, but I don't think he could ever last the distance in a very high-tempo fight (like was in the first fight against Brewster). I think no matter how hard he trained, he could never have had a stamina of his older brother or prime Riddick Bowe. He was just too muscular (MUCH more muscular than Vitali), and his muscles needed too much oxygen. But his biggest flaw was a complete lack of inside game. I believe that if Wlad had inside game of Lennox Lewis, he would demolish Povetkin in 3-4 rounds. Povetkin (while good fighter) is taylor made for uppercuts. If Wlad had inside game, he would have been much more interesting to watch.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 Jan 2018, 14:27 The major flaws and big losses kept W. Klitschko from being an ATG.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 18:11
So let me get this straight, people feel that Wlad's losses disqualify him from greatness but not those of Lewis and Dempsey?
Lewis's losses to McCall and Rahman are pretty bad, nearly as bad as Wladimir losing to Sanders and Brewster. Dempsey lost in his prime to Willie Meehan and didn't fight his top contender.
Lewis's losses to McCall and Rahman are pretty bad, nearly as bad as Wladimir losing to Sanders and Brewster. Dempsey lost in his prime to Willie Meehan and didn't fight his top contender.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 18:15
Corrie Sanders might well have beaten Lewis if Lewis came in overconfident like he did in some fights.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 18:17
Also, I don't find the argument about Wlad's era being weak convincing. In the golden 90s you had Moorer and a 45yr old Foreman win the heavyweight title and Frank Bruno in the top 10.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 19:29
Out-of-shape, inactive 38-years-old Sanders hurt Vitali more than anyone else did (in boxing) in round 1 of their fight. So, yes, with his handspeed and power he would have had a chance against any heavyweight who doesn't have a granite chin.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑21 Jan 2018, 18:15 Corrie Sanders might well have beaten Lewis if Lewis came in overconfident like he did in some fights.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 22:01
Louis, hands down. Its not even close.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 22:37
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 22 Jan 2018, 01:58
Depends on your definition of big. Tyson wasn't big but he was compared to Marciano. Of course if the smaller fighter is a good fighter, and the big guy isn't, then more often than not the smaller guy will win. The difference is when the big guy is also good, that's where size can make a difference. Bowe and Lewis had 99 fights between them, only three opponents were under 200lbs.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Jan 2018, 19:29
Look at the real world. When there are actually cases of really big heavyweights fighting a great fighter under 200 pounds, the smaller guy almost always won.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 22 Jan 2018, 04:27
Maybe Americans do underestimate the recent scene because of a lack of U.S. fighters. You ever think though Europeans massively overrate it because the fighters are European? Most Americans hate it because post Lewis its been dreadful. Putting Joshua and Vitali amongst the best defensively......Kalan wrote: ↑16 Jan 2018, 12:50That's more hating on modern Heavyweights... Principally cuz America's been overtaking in the last generation... It's generally North Americans who do all the hating on modern Heavyweights.
Holyfield had gaping holes in his game... He was easy to hit with overhand rights and right hooks as the crude Riddick Bowe proved in beating him twice, knocking him down 3 X and knocking him out.. A fat former Middleweight Champion ripped his body out - so that was another vulnerability..
Bowe was so easy to hit it was ridiculous... Even the inept punching bag Golota riddled him with punches so he ducked about anybody who could hit real good: Lewis, Mercer, McCall, Tyson, Tua, Ruddock etc... Lewis fought them all.
But Lewis was fairly open to right hand leads... Taken out twice with one shot.
Frazier was so easy to hit it was ridiculous... He did a good imitation of a punching bag vs Foreman.
Ali was wide open for left hooks... Even the blooping punching Norton caught him pulling back and shattered his jaw... Little teeny Heavyweights like Banks, Cooper, and Frazier decked him with left hooks.
Patterson showed his vulnerability as soon as he stepped in with the great Sonny Liston. He got smashed with hooks to the short ribs and ripping uppercuts. His peek-a-boo could be popped with jabs and right hands in succession. The tyro Jerry Quarry decked Floyd 4 X and managed to out-score him.
Max Schmeling nailed Louis with right hand counter shots through a gaping hole... He knocked JL stiff... 174-pound Billy Conn landed flurries of about everything on Louis and he was the only really quick handed boxer Louis ever beat.
Most Heavyweight Champions had gaping holes... There were no Lomachenko's in that division -- the best defensive boxers were Johnson, Tunney, Holmes, Vitali, and Joshua... They're the top 5 defensively... They were all difficult to hit with about anything.... If they were hit real good they made adjustments on the fly and generally came back to win.... Right behind them were Lewis and a Steward retooled Wladimir -- both very hard to reach for just about any challenger.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 22 Jan 2018, 04:31
During my time most skilled would be Evander Holyfield.
Re: Who was the most skilled heavyweight ever?
Posted: 22 Jan 2018, 12:54