BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:But... Do you guys consider Nikolay Valuev for example then really that skillfull?
Or a bumfighter or ??

As far as I know he only started losing when he was in fulltime pain.

I won't say length is everything, but it sure works in your advantage.

Valuev barely scraped a decision against a 47 year old Holyfield - in fact most observers thought he lost. I think that says everything we need to know about Valuev. He was very mediocre. For all this size, he couldn't punch hard either.

asdfjkl wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:But... Do you guys consider Nikolay Valuev for example then really that skillfull?
Or a bumfighter or ??

As far as I know he only started losing when he was in fulltime pain.

I won't say length is everything, but it sure works in your advantage.

Valuev barely scraped a decision against a 47 year old Holyfield - in fact most observers thought he lost. I think that says everything we need to know about Valuev. He was very mediocre. For all this size, he couldn't punch hard either.

That's why I wrote "he only started losing when he was in fulltime pain"

jamesmcdonnell wrote: He never beat anyone top flight in his whole career!

asdfjkl wrote:

zorndeslammes wrote:I don't know anyone who has sat down and watched Anthony Joshua fights and come away with a serious take other than, "Well, he looks unstoppable, but..." The core issue is that there may not be very many fighters physically careful of making the "but..." a problem if it even is one. If he has even an average Rahman/Witherspoon type of chin, he might not lose for 8-9-10 years with the kind of talent at heavyweight presently.

Actually the Dutch are ready to take over, but they just don't seem to realise or care about it at all.

Take a look at this guy:


He looks like just another muscled guy, but in fact he's 7ft2!
He has never been in a boxing ring in his entire life at all.
Even if he was a completely unskilled idiot, I still bet Joshua would have had some trouble with him.


Or this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/713216
Only fought two fights out of boredom in the kickboxing league, purely for the money.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:But... Do you guys consider Nikolay Valuev for example then really that skillfull?
Or a bumfighter or ??

As far as I know he only started losing when he was in fulltime pain.

I won't say length is everything, but it sure works in your advantage.

Valuev barely scraped a decision against a 47 year old Holyfield - in fact most observers thought he lost. I think that says everything we need to know about Valuev. He was very mediocre. For all this size, he couldn't punch hard either.

Also, fixating on being unbeaten is erroneous, it's easy to remain unbeaten, like Mansour did, when you faced terrible opponents.

asdfjkl wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:But... Do you guys consider Nikolay Valuev for example then really that skillfull?
Or a bumfighter or ??

As far as I know he only started losing when he was in fulltime pain.

I won't say length is everything, but it sure works in your advantage.

Valuev barely scraped a decision against a 47 year old Holyfield - in fact most observers thought he lost. I think that says everything we need to know about Valuev. He was very mediocre. For all this size, he couldn't punch hard either.

That's why I wrote "he only started losing when he was in fulltime pain"

zorndeslammes wrote: There's footage of Valuev getting drubbed by Taras Bidenko and he won by total robbery over Larry Donald. So no.

asdfjkl wrote:

zorndeslammes wrote: There's footage of Valuev getting drubbed by Taras Bidenko and he won by total robbery over Larry Donald. So no.

Then it still remains, even though he isn't a good fighter, he simply wins anyway because of his length.
Length simply works in your advantage a lot, Tyson Fury for example says this all day.

Tony1244 wrote: The fact you think Joshua would have trouble with this guy because of size tells us all you are very new to boxing. That's not an insult; Bob Arum who has a Harvard Law degree thought Wilt Chamberlin would give Ali trouble because of size. He realized shortly after that he didn't understand boxing then.

Tony1244 wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Or this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/713216
Only fought two fights out of boredom in the kickboxing league, purely for the money.

The guy I clicked on actually had 2 fights. The white guy hasn't had any, right? If he's on boxers, those 2 fights were boxing.

asdfjkl wrote:

Tony1244 wrote: The fact you think Joshua would have trouble with this guy because of size tells us all you are very new to boxing. That's not an insult; Bob Arum who has a Harvard Law degree thought Wilt Chamberlin would give Ali trouble because of size. He realized shortly after that he didn't understand boxing then.

And you're the guy who thought Wilder would skip the Povetkin fight right?

Lol

Tony1244 wrote: Wilder may skip the Povetkin fight. It wasn't an insult. Bob Arum, when he was new to boxing thought Chamberlin could beat Ali because of size and Arum, despite having the morals of an alleycat is smarter than both of us combined.

And yes, all boxing promoters seem to have the morals of an alleycat.

asdfjkl wrote:

Tony1244 wrote: Wilder may skip the Povetkin fight. It wasn't an insult. Bob Arum, when he was new to boxing thought Chamberlin could beat Ali because of size and Arum, despite having the morals of an alleycat is smarter than both of us combined.

And yes, all boxing promoters seem to have the morals of an alleycat.

Why on earth would he drop his belt even without fighting?

Also, Chamberlain pretty much is a larger version of Wilder isn't he?

Now I agree that being a good boxer isn't just about sizes, and mainly about skills, but I still believe size and strength works in your advantage if you have it.
If Mike Tyson was 20 cm longer he would probably have won more as he did now.