1. This is working under the assumption the injury isn't legit. I'm not saying it is or isn't because I'm unsure myself Byrd fights very differently to Dempsey, he's a southpaw and his first punch is much quicker than Dempsey's. Dempsey's punches are easier to avoid and counter as Tunney proved. Vitali is very much stylistically a bigger slower Tunney. Dempsey has a problem getting past the jab To Dempsey's credit the punch Vitali has most problems with is the left hook. Although Danny Williams, Sam Peter, Adamek, Arreola couldn't get that punch landing, only the much bigger Lennox Lewis could and to a lesser extent Chisora. Chisora is the most similar in style and Vitali coped with it despite being under pressure. Chisora is a much stronger man than Dempsey 2. Well Vitali has a jab, Dempsey doesn't. In terms of hit and not getting hit Vitali is much more successful against a higher calibre of opposition
Ah, I did you a big old post in reply to this, but the internet got it. In essence: Jeffries training camp was ****. He did very little boxing training. Sometimes I actually think that the stories about his thinking the fix was in are true, because the number of times reporters have him shirking boxing training to go hunting or do nothing is mad. He did very little sparring indeed - hardly any as far as I can see it. There was actually a decent wee e-book about this too, it collects a lot of press reports, you would love it it was proper pro-Johnson I will try to dig out the details. But yeah, **** camp, and he was ****. I'm happy with this judgement. Langford: may not have got THAT much better as a boxer, though he would have picked up a few things. As a puncher he improved dramatically, according to his own testimony, and it's backed by the way he strated destroying heavyweights. He also became a legitimiate HW, Johnson beat a 5'6 MW. Overweight at 185: no. We have the Hague photographs to disprove this. He was a rock above 180. Given his astonishing record at that weight, i'd rather see him in with Johnson at 195 than 155, and would see that as a better win. Jeanette & McVey - have much better cases for the type of company Luff puts them in, but they both improved. I'm alone perhaps in thinking Jeanette improved more than McVey. I also have a sneaking suspicion that McVey's early record may be more incomplete.
1. He did get injured, just not as soon as he made out imo. But jack punches quicker in the combinations and can double up the left hook. Tunney could match jack for speed and movement, something vitali would fail to do. Jack comfortably dismantles vitali on the inside. 2. Vitali's defence prowess is not evident at the top end of his resume. His 3 best opponents all managed to consistently tag him. Vitali is horrible on the inside and he's slow on the outside. Because of his timing and workrate he can compensate against the majority of opponents but he doesn't fight to his strengths that well imo.
Breaking history into arbitrary eras does nothing to affect the real value of any given win. Of course, but he doesn't get credit for beating one of the two or three best fighters of a generation for beating that version of Pacquiao, any more than Johnson gets credit for beating one of the best HW's of his era when he beat Jeffries or Langford. This was my point. Why does the public's perception and thirst for a given fight impact upon Jeffries' condition in the ring? I think you are probably pretty lonely in thinking this. Of course.
Indeed. Although it wasnt as though Foreman wasnt back inside the top ten (as compared to when he started his comeback). I'd consider it at least as valid as any of the ATG scalps Marciano put on his mantle. And a desperate far cry from something such as Holmes beating Ali.
Yeah, of course. I'd see it by degrees. From least to most relevant as per the fighters at hand: Ali Jeffries Zarate Langford Pacquiao Foreman None are great wins.
I'd agree with that order, entirely. It got some wildly unexpected boost in retrospect considering Foreman pulled the impossible three years later. After that however, had little interest in fighting top contenders as champion. Although I do find it humorous that Tyson wasnt exactly keen on putting Foreman on his record when the opportunity and hype was there. I mean, if thats what it was and all... Was Lotierzo telling the truth? :think
People tend to frame a fighter's prime to however it suits their own agenda or beliefs. It oft times gets taken to a dark place where even undefeated champions are past-prime and the win's no good. It's also likely one of their personal favorites who suffered the anguish of defeat.
Foreman and Holyfield are two of my favorite fighters of all-time and both lost while undeniably in their primes: To Muhammad Ali and Riddick Bowe, respectively. On the flip, how many can claim to of beaten an undefeated 29-0 Joe Frazier in such dominant fashion or a 34-0 25-yr-old of Riddick Bowe's physical attributes, skills, ability and size advantage? Both of those wins are discredited for numerous reasons. Did Holmes or Tyson beat fighters of equal caliber? Did Marciano?
And speed is a non-factor here, being that Tyson was a featherfist and all. :rofl George would've been severely outlanded in each exchange. I've always figured Tyson stoppage before the mid-rounds. And by all means, he shouldve done it. This content is protected