Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-28-2012, 07:06 AM   #76
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,326
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

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?
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-28-2012, 07:14 AM   #77
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,858
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
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 offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 04:17 PM   #78
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,326
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I would add foreman to that list. He's the boundary for me.
For my money Foreman is more in the Jim Jeffries and Max Baer category.

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

In practice I think that if the Klitschko's retired tomorrow, you would get a shuffeling of the pack, which might include a Chambers type fighter and a Price type fighter.

Quote:
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.
I don't think that it strictly holds true.

Quote:
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).
But Holyfield did split a series with him, thus undermining the principle that a great big un beats a great little un. Score it how you must, but they were clearly competitive fights.

Now great as Holyfieldwas, he was not one of the better punchers or finishers of his weight. What if it had been somebody like Joe Louis instead?

Quote:
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.
I submit that a smaller faster fighter with better finishing skills, such as Jack Dempsey, would be more likley to get to Lewis or Wlad than the guys who did.

For whatever it is worth, the only fighter of the 4/5 who has consistently dominated the smaller contenders, is Wlad.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 04:37 PM   #79
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

I think Janitor's observations are sound. I can certainly see a Holyfield sized heavyweight making a splash. But I do not think a guy giving up 20 to 30 pounds every time out will have a lot of consistency or durability at the top level. Holy was certainly durable but always inconsistent. And he was truly an exceptional specimen.

I would really welcome an action fighter who is effective moving forward to make a splash, even if only for a few years.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 04:43 PM   #80
Brockton Rock
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 60
vCash: 500
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Well Marciano would kill it no doubt. Dempsey would clubber cowardly bums like Wlad and Vitali too. But then again most guys from back in the day would. The guys today are pure trash.
Brockton Rock is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 04:48 PM   #81
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brockton Rock View Post
Well Marciano would kill it no doubt. Dempsey would clubber cowardly bums like Wlad and Vitali too. But then again most guys from back in the day would. The guys today are pure trash.
You should really try those lines at a few gyms I know of.

I would like to see how they were received.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 04:51 PM   #82
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,326
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
I think Janitor's observations are sound. I can certainly see a Holyfield sized heavyweight making a splash. But I do not think a guy giving up 20 to 30 pounds every time out will have a lot of consistency or durability at the top level. Holy was certainly durable but always inconsistent. And he was truly an exceptional specimen.
I could of course use the counter argument that Holyfield was also inconsistent against smaller heavyweights such as Moorer.

Either way, Holyfield is what I am left with at the moment.

What if Holyfield had been born with the power of Joe Louis?

Quote:
I would really welcome an action fighter who is effective moving forward to make a splash, even if only for a few years.
We all would, but there don't seem to be so many trainers who could perfect such a jewel.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 05:00 PM   #83
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

[quote=janitor;14480910]
Quote:

I could of course use the counter argument that Holyfield was also inconsistent against smaller heavyweights such as Moorer.

Either way, Holyfield is what I am left with at the moment.

What if Holyfield had been born with the power of Joe Louis?



We all would, but there don't seem to be so many trainers who could perfect such a jewel.
Another couple observations... I don't think Holyfield's conditioning program really enhanced any power he possessed. He mostly looked and performed like a roided bodybuilder, one with excellent skills and immense heart, but all top heavy and over muscled. That was his solution to compete in a division for which he naturally did not qualify.

Training an action fighter is very much high risk/high reward, but high risk in the marqee division does not play. Action fighters by nature have short shelf lives... Especially at heavyweight.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 05:48 PM   #84
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,858
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

[quote=janitor;14480714]
Quote:

For my money Foreman is more in the Jim Jeffries and Max Baer category.



That will be the acid test.

In practice I think that if the Klitschko's retired tomorrow, you would get a shuffeling of the pack, which might include a Chambers type fighter and a Price type fighter.



I don't think that it strictly holds true.



But Holyfield did split a series with him, thus undermining the principle that a great big un beats a great little un. Score it how you must, but they were clearly competitive fights.

Now great as Holyfieldwas, he was not one of the better punchers or finishers of his weight. What if it had been somebody like Joe Louis instead?



I submit that a smaller faster fighter with better finishing skills, such as Jack Dempsey, would be more likley to get to Lewis or Wlad than the guys who did.

For whatever it is worth, the only fighter of the 4/5 who has consistently dominated the smaller contenders, is Wlad.
Foreman is my boundary, anyone bigger than him is a shw by my book.

Of course it isn't strictly true, Armstrong beat Ross and Duran beat Leonard. But generally speaking it hold up.

I'm excited to see who rises to the top tbh.

Dempsey has the frame and abilities but not at 189 pounds, give him 200+ muscle and we'll see.

Holy was very competitive with Bowe but who could have fought that fight better at his size?
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013