View Single Post
Old 12-28-2012, 07:14 AM   #77
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 23,217
vCash: 75
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Originally Posted by janitor View Post
I will throw a couple of observations out there.

Although the super heavyweights are on a bit of a roll at the moment, they are still relatively few in number. There have been four super heavyweights who have some sort of claim to greatness, and two of them are from the same family.

Outside of Bow Lewis and the Klitschko's, are the rest of them really much better than the Carneras and Buddy Baers of the past?

Are the aforementioned four the vanguard of a new breed, or just a cluster out outliers?
I would add foreman to that list. He's the boundary for me.

But the point is moot I believe even if it is just those 5 who achieved greatness, we aren't arguing division v division, we're arguing about specific fighters.

Maybe after wlad retires it's chambers who will rule the roost, maybe it'll be the next shw in price etc.

I dont think a guy should be favoured purely down to size, I think it's more that a great big un beats a great little un.

Carnera was good but not great. I'm not 100% sold on Vitali being great. Foreman had stamina issues that smaller defensive greats could exploit. Bowe was pretty much the full package and I'm not sure how any cruiserweight beats him (I had it a draw with holy and he might just be the greatest cruiserweight in history).

Lewis and wlad only have a weakness with their chin. (early wlad tired but has since proven he can go the distance). Lewis was timed by McCall, bounced into Rahman and Wlad was timed by Sanders. Expecting a guy 60 pounds lighter to time and explode isn't feasible against greats of this stature for me.
lufcrazy is online now  Top
Reply With Quote