worst british heavyweights

[DrDuke]

It is pure bias. That's you, who don't understand what the word means, if you don't admit your wittingly 100% pro-oldie stuff as a bias. Old - a priori good. Modern - a priori bad. Am I getting something wrong? Enlighten me.
You've said, that he was more elusive than Fury. That was enough to illustrate the nature of your views related to boxing.
Never saw ya even calling some modern fight good. Maybe I'm missing something? And why on earth you stick to these workrate stats in the context of greatness? I'm even curious, what "great" means to ya. Is workrate somehow affects the class? Well, maybe let's compare the stats of Arreola against Klitschko and Kownacki? By the way, Kownacki-Arreola provided workrate record, if you didn't notice. Where was Arreola's workrate against Klitschko? Or maybe let's compare the stats of Tua against Lewis and Ibeabuchi? Maybe you box in a way your opponent allow you to, don't you think so? What have your been watching since your mid 70s?

It's not bias. I became a fan in 1976. If I would have claimed that the heavyweights in the more 90 years were not very good without knowing anything about them, then I would have been biased. I watched as much as I could and have read a ton. Some of the old heavyweights were bad, some were good. Some eras had more depth than other. Some divisions were great in period and not in another.
There good heavyweight fights in the late 1970s, not a a lot but some good ones in the 1980s. 1990s have some good ones. Never doubted that Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis were great. Then Lewis got old and retired. I had originally had thought W. Klitschko might be the next great one when Lewis was at the end of his career. . (I knew he had been stopped once but thought it might have been a fluke) Then the Sanders fight happened. That kind of thing doesn't happen often to great fighters. Now I (like many other people)started having doubts. Then the Brewster fight. There was no doubt in my mind now. He barely survived Peter after that.

I (like many people) thought that sooner or later some great heavyweight would come a long. He wouldn't have to be that great to beat Klitschko with his glaring weaknesses. Year after year went by, and it somehow nobody was good enough to beat him. Finally when he was ancient, he finally lost to Fury and Joshua, Even then Fury looked awful. Joshua got decked and had way too much trouble. A great fighter would have won easily.

This isn't bias. That is simply my opinion.

As for the work rate- Of course it isn't the end all be all. A fight can be good without a ton of punches throw. It can be bad, if with a lot Certain match ups will make some fights at a faster rate than another. Obviously, punching acurracy, defense, power, speed, stamina, heart, boxing skills matter a great deal.

However it's an indication. On average, good fighters throw more punchers than bad fighters. On average, the guy throwing more punches will win most of the time. If a guy is not throwing much, maybe his opponent is doing something that is keeping him at bay. More often, he simply doesn't have the stamina to throw a lot of punches round after round.

Yes you can find fights from the 1990s or the 1970s or the 1950s where there was not a lot of action. Yes you can find a heavyweight in more recent times that there was a lot. however, on average, it's a lot easier to find a fight with a lot of action in those periods than the In more recent times.

Wlad is a great fighter. It's absolutely stupid to deny it. He had a weak chin, but he was able to learn to box so that nobody was really able to reach his weak chin. He proved it with a lengthy reign, where he beat the best opposition possible. That's a definition of greatness. While you keep having doubts and point at the Peter fight, where Wlad didn't lose any round where he wasn't down, where he was able to keep to the gameplan at to show some heart, which is among your fearures of greatness. So, these anti-Wlad rants of yours sometimes don't correspond with your standards of evaluating a fighter. That's bias.

And if Fury looked awful, than Wlad looked like utter sh!t that night. Thus, Fury clearly won Wlad, without having any troubles, in contrast to Joshua. How that wasn't an easy win FFS? You tell he should have won easily, as if he didn't do that. That's another bias. You even try to take away this win of him with repeating your "ancient Klitschko" in different threads.

[evrenb]

Here is the video I mentioned earlier....enjoy...

[Ambling Alp II]

It's not bias. I became a fan in 1976. If I would have claimed that the heavyweights in the more 90 years were not very good without knowing anything about them, then I would have been biased. I watched as much as I could and have read a ton. Some of the old heavyweights were bad, some were good. Some eras had more depth than other. Some divisions were great in period and not in another.
There good heavyweight fights in the late 1970s, not a a lot but some good ones in the 1980s. 1990s have some good ones. Never doubted that Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis were great. Then Lewis got old and retired. I had originally had thought W. Klitschko might be the next great one when Lewis was at the end of his career. . (I knew he had been stopped once but thought it might have been a fluke) Then the Sanders fight happened. That kind of thing doesn't happen often to great fighters. Now I (like many other people)started having doubts. Then the Brewster fight. There was no doubt in my mind now. He barely survived Peter after that.

I (like many people) thought that sooner or later some great heavyweight would come a long. He wouldn't have to be that great to beat Klitschko with his glaring weaknesses. Year after year went by, and it somehow nobody was good enough to beat him. Finally when he was ancient, he finally lost to Fury and Joshua, Even then Fury looked awful. Joshua got decked and had way too much trouble. A great fighter would have won easily.

This isn't bias. That is simply my opinion.

As for the work rate- Of course it isn't the end all be all. A fight can be good without a ton of punches throw. It can be bad, if with a lot Certain match ups will make some fights at a faster rate than another. Obviously, punching acurracy, defense, power, speed, stamina, heart, boxing skills matter a great deal.

However it's an indication. On average, good fighters throw more punchers than bad fighters. On average, the guy throwing more punches will win most of the time. If a guy is not throwing much, maybe his opponent is doing something that is keeping him at bay. More often, he simply doesn't have the stamina to throw a lot of punches round after round.

Yes you can find fights from the 1990s or the 1970s or the 1950s where there was not a lot of action. Yes you can find a heavyweight in more recent times that there was a lot. however, on average, it's a lot easier to find a fight with a lot of action in those periods than the In more recent times.

Wlad is a great fighter. It's absolutely stupid to deny it. He had a weak chin, but he was able to learn to box so that nobody was really able to reach his weak chin. He proved it with a lengthy reign, where he beat the best opposition possible. That's a definition of greatness. While you keep having doubts and point at the Peter fight, where Wlad didn't lose any round where he wasn't down, where he was able to keep to the gameplan at to show some heart, which is among your fearures of greatness. So, these anti-Wlad rants of yours sometimes don't correspond with your standards of evaluating a fighter. That's bias.

And if Fury looked awful, than Wlad looked like utter sh!t that night. Thus, Fury clearly won Wlad, without having any troubles, in contrast to Joshua. How that wasn't an easy win FFS? You tell he should have won easily, as if he didn't do that. That's another bias. You even try to take away this win of him with repeating your "ancient Klitschko" in different threads.

Wlad was not a great fighter, and it's stupid to say he was. Name one other heavweight that is considered great that near his prime that was knocked out by three different non-great fighters. Name just one.


Beating the best opposition available is not the definition of greatness. His competition sucked.
And yes Klitschko looked like shi!t against Fury. That is kind of my point. It was more of a staredown than a fight.
No Fury didn't win easy. He lost a few rounds and others were close.
klitschko showed some heart against Peter? Guess that is one of looking at it. If it was someone that you didn't like, I'm sure you would not see it that way.
I say he was ancient against fury and Joshua becasue he was very old.

[DrDuke]

Wlad is a great fighter. It's absolutely stupid to deny it. He had a weak chin, but he was able to learn to box so that nobody was really able to reach his weak chin. He proved it with a lengthy reign, where he beat the best opposition possible. That's a definition of greatness. While you keep having doubts and point at the Peter fight, where Wlad didn't lose any round where he wasn't down, where he was able to keep to the gameplan at to show some heart, which is among your fearures of greatness. So, these anti-Wlad rants of yours sometimes don't correspond with your standards of evaluating a fighter. That's bias.

And if Fury looked awful, than Wlad looked like utter sh!t that night. Thus, Fury clearly won Wlad, without having any troubles, in contrast to Joshua. How that wasn't an easy win FFS? You tell he should have won easily, as if he didn't do that. That's another bias. You even try to take away this win of him with repeating your "ancient Klitschko" in different threads.

Wlad was not a great fighter, and it's stupid to say he was. Name one other heavweight that is considered great that near his prime that was knocked out by three different non-great fighters. Name just one.


Beating the best opposition available is not the definition of greatness. His competition sucked.
And yes Klitschko looked like shi!t against Fury. That is kind of my point. It was more of a staredown than a fight.
No Fury didn't win easy. He lost a few rounds and others were close.
klitschko showed some heart against Peter? Guess that is one of looking at it. If it was someone that you didn't like, I'm sure you would not see it that way.
I say he was ancient against fury and Joshua becasue he was very old.

You've just said everything about your own position. That's how it works with ya. That's why it's biased bullshit, a cancer, which you disseminate all over the forum. Repeating the same nonsense in a one comment after another, mostly even with the same words. Change your nickname from Ambling Alp II to Kalan II, bruh.

[Ambling Alp II]

Always nice chatting with a nice person like you. What a class act.

[DrDuke]

Always nice chatting with a nice person like you. What a class act.

Even absolutely the same ad hominem argument all the time to conclude rants.

[evrenb]

Here is the video I mentioned earlier....enjoy...

Without being disrespectful to the champions there was definitely a lag in quality from the period of Danny McAlinden in 1972 through to Horace Notice in 1986. With the exception of Joe Bugner's brief appearance. The McAlinden vs Bodell match looked particularly embarrassing.

[Ambling Alp II]

No doubt about that. As you mentioned, except for Bugner, the British heavyweights were not that impressive at all during that time period.

[Cojimar 1946]

It's not biased. You don't seem to understand what the word means. Just because someone says that the a certain certain era is weak, (in this case the recent heavyweights)doesn't automatically mean they are biased. Blowing off close to 100 years of the sport, before they got interested in the sport is bias.

It is pure bias. That's you, who don't understand what the word means, if you don't admit your wittingly 100% pro-oldie stuff as a bias. Old - a priori good. Modern - a priori bad. Am I getting something wrong? Enlighten me.

Go back and read what I have said about Cleveland Williams. Never called him Sweet Pea or nothing like it. Mentioned him in passing once and you and your buddy freaked out about it and went on how how many times. I did point out that Liston was the only one that stopped him during his prime simply because that's the truth. He was a good fighter. Wasn't a legend or anything, never claimed he was.

You've said, that he was more elusive than Fury. That was enough to illustrate the nature of your views related to boxing.

As far as the work rates go, well look at the fights between Klitschko-Fury fight and the Wilder-Fury fights(the top guys over the last several years.) They have not exactly been throwing a lot of punches. Look at the numbers; don't just go by my opinion.

Never said that there have not been any good fights recently. I have said that there has not been any great heavyweight fights recently. That's not exactly a far out opinion.

Never saw ya even calling some modern fight good. Maybe I'm missing something? And why on earth you stick to these workrate stats in the context of greatness? I'm even curious, what "great" means to ya. Is workrate somehow affects the class? Well, maybe let's compare the stats of Arreola against Klitschko and Kownacki? By the way, Kownacki-Arreola provided workrate record, if you didn't notice. Where was Arreola's workrate against Klitschko? Or maybe let's compare the stats of Tua against Lewis and Ibeabuchi? Maybe you box in a way your opponent allow you to, don't you think so? What have your been watching since your mid 70s?

It's not bias. I became a fan in 1976. If I would have claimed that the heavyweights in the more 90 years were not very good without knowing anything about them, then I would have been biased. I watched as much as I could and have read a ton. Some of the old heavyweights were bad, some were good. Some eras had more depth than other. Some divisions were great in period and not in another.
There good heavyweight fights in the late 1970s, not a a lot but some good ones in the 1980s. 1990s have some good ones. Never doubted that Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis were great. Then Lewis got old and retired. I had originally had thought W. Klitschko might be the next great one when Lewis was at the end of his career. . (I knew he had been stopped once but thought it might have been a fluke) Then the Sanders fight happened. That kind of thing doesn't happen often to great fighters. Now I (like many other people)started having doubts. Then the Brewster fight. There was no doubt in my mind now. He barely survived Peter after that.

I (like many people) thought that sooner or later some great heavyweight would come a long. He wouldn't have to be that great to beat Klitschko with his glaring weaknesses. Year after year went by, and it somehow nobody was good enough to beat him. Finally when he was ancient, he finally lost to Fury and Joshua, Even then Fury looked awful. Joshua got decked and had way too much trouble. A great fighter would have won easily.

This isn't bias. That is simply my opinion.

As for the work rate- Of course it isn't the end all be all. A fight can be good without a ton of punches throw. It can be bad, if with a lot Certain match ups will make some fights at a faster rate than another. Obviously, punching acurracy, defense, power, speed, stamina, heart, boxing skills matter a great deal.

However it's an indication. On average, good fighters throw more punchers than bad fighters. On average, the guy throwing more punches will win most of the time. If a guy is not throwing much, maybe his opponent is doing something that is keeping him at bay. More often, he simply doesn't have the stamina to throw a lot of punches round after round.

Yes you can find fights from the 1990s or the 1970s or the 1950s where there was not a lot of action. Yes you can find a heavyweight in more recent times that there was a lot. however, on average, it's a lot easier to find a fight with a lot of action in those periods than the In more recent times.

The argument against Klitschko has some merit but it seems silly to dismiss this era as a whole because Joshua and Fury did not look great against a faded Klitschko.

There are plenty of other guys like Hrgovic, Dubois, Makhmudov, etc. If you don't like Joshua and Fury.

[Ambling Alp II]

You are right, there other guys. Other guys do box. So far, no other other heavyweight has emerged. Maybe someone will soon. We hall see.

W. Klitschko got embarrassed three times by fighters no one considered anywhere near great.
he then goes on to have several title defenses. you would think someone decent would come along and beat him , but no one emerged.
Then when he is ancient, Joshua and Fury have all kinds of trouble beating him.

V. Klitshcko loses to an ancient Lewis and Byrd. there is not much impressive about him, but he never loses again.

There has not been a great heavyweight heavyweight fight in all this time and few good ones.

So yeah, it does seem like the heavyweight division has sucked for a long time.

[margaret thatcher]

They just don't make fighters like Ross Purrity anymore

[DrDuke]

Alpy has just made a compilation post of his freaky wet beliefs. Now he can stop repeating all that stuff everywhere separately, he can just copy-paste this masterpiece.

[Cap]

I've got to agree with Ambling Alp. The heavyweight division, or the 'blubberweight' or big freak-show division that's around today is one huge joke. Almost every one of them wouldn't have made it on the undercard in Sheboygan or Flin Flon twenty years ago. They would've had to make their roll being exhibited in a travelling carny. They might've done better in ol' Blighty, the land of the horizontal heavyweight.

[Cojimar 1946]

In defense of Alp, I don't think Wladimir's legacy is anywhere near as secure some people are arguing.

Part of being a great fighter is beating the best of your era and Wladimir missed out on Vitali Klitschko, Deontay Wilder, and Tyson Fury all of whom he could have fought before he started to decline.

If Wladimir and Vitali had fought and Wladimir had lost he could no longer claim to have been the best of his era. They didn't fight so we don't know who would win but Wladimir never proved himself the better man.

Likewise if he fights Tyson Fury in 2012 and loses he doesn't have the excuse of being past his prime and can't claim the second-longest heavyweight title reign after Joe Louis or 19 defenses.

[Ambling Alp II]

Long-term, It's not secure at all. He will be a first ballot Hall of Famer; even his brother is in. However, decades from now he won't be thought of so highly.

Once you get past the meaningless number of title defenses and time as a WBS titleholder, you have a guy with three embarrassing losses, and whose best win was over Chris Byrd.

Obviously he wasn't going to fight his brother so he should not be blamed for that.
He also could have fought Lennox Lewis. It didn't seem like he would touch that. He always seems to get a free pass for that.

[Cap]

If there still is a Hall of Fame for Boxing decades from now, the calibre of fighters in the behemoth division will be so abysmal the Klitschkos will be spoken of with the same reverence as Joe Louis, Jack Jonson, Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali.

[Thedentist]

Bruno was not the boxer he could have been. No killer instinct.

[Thedentist]

1)Audly Harrison(conman)
2)Richard Dunn(Bag of bones)
3)Frank Bruno(right Shithouse)
4)Neville Mead(apparently the welsh ernie shavers )
5)Joe Erskine(could`nt punch his way out a paper bag,but as angelo dundee said,technically superb)

Agree with Bruno and Harrison.

[Caractacus]

[Caractacus]

How extacly would you define "Worst" anyway ?
Fighters who did not live up to their potential ?
solid boxers who may have just only crumbled under the pressure ?
growing up in the 1970's and reading Boxing magazine at the news-stands.
I remember some writers who appeared somewhat dismissive of Phil Scott
saying that he was the "Archetipical British Heavyweight" (whatever that meant)
However here is some film footage of some of Phil Scotts fights( you be da judge)

[Ambling Alp II]

To be fair to Scott, those were probably him at his worst. He was not that good. whenever he fought someone that was good, he almost always lost and badly. He did score a decision over Tom Heeney.

Obviously none of the guys mentioned were the "worst". There have been thousands of guys that never got the main event stage.

[AntonioMartin]

I will say this: Next to the US, the British have been among the best in the Heavyweight division. Think about this: You could not talk about the worst Venezuelan, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Japanese, Brazilian, New Zealander, Nigerian, Ghanaian, Trinidad and Tobagoan, French, etc Heavyweights.

There are simply either none or not enough of them to talk about!

[AntonioMartin]

e In more recent times.

The argument against Klitschko has some merit but it seems silly to dismiss this era as a whole because Joshua and Fury did not look great against a faded Klitschko.

After the losses to Sanders and Brewster, W. Klitschko became a great one at winning. That's where it counts IMO.

Arturo Gatti was one of the most exciting fighters and I loved watching him fight. He, however, does not belong in the IBHOF in my opinion. When his time comes, W. Klitschko will belong.

[Caractacus]

I had read somewhere,that what held a lot of British heavyweights back then (1920's at least)
was that they were generally "clean-fighters" and adhered to the Marquis of Queensberry Rules
( no,head butting,elbows,kidney punches,low blows were tolorated by the referres in Britain)

[AntonioMartin]

I had read somewhere,that what held a lot of British heavyweights back then (1920's at least)
was that they were generally "clean-fighters" and adhered to the Marquis of Queensberry Rules
( no,head butting,elbows,kidney punches,low blows were tolorated by the referres in Britain)

So being a cheater was good and fighting clean and fair was bad?