ESB Weight Obession: Class vs Mass

Ask Jonathan Banks how well he did sparring Wlad and why he is his trainer.

 

Well thank ya kindly. :yep

I have no intention of letting up on these nutbags either. :bbb

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I will continue to nut hug a person by the way he looks in the ring opposed to the way he looks outside of it u h0m0s3xu4l

 

PLEASE, PLEASE name them Tommo, I could do with a laugh.....:rofl

remember to list them one by one :good

 

They're not ATGs but some of Wlad's opponents have been pretty good. Byrd, Ibragimov, Thompson, Chagaev, Chambers, Haye, McCline, and Mercer. Thats some solid second tier talent.

Did you see how Thompson just laid another beating on David Price about a week ago? That's pretty impressive for a 41 year old man.

 

In the whole scheme of things Thompson beating Price is no more significant than Brian London beating pete radmacher. Or Archie Moore beating Lavorante.

Ive been around boxing my whole life, you never stop learning but its not rocket science. You cant keep reinventing ihe wheel. A hook is a hook and a ten count is a ten count. Technically boxing has went as far as it can. now all that is left is to find different ways to get into condition. Like all art forms its possible to be effective whilst being both nearer or further from the craft. Technically heavyweight boxing has declined as a specticle but its champions are effective.

 

I sort of agree with you, but this is just such a frustrating list as is all boxing today. Not that the above guys are as bad as is often made out. IN fact, who knows head to head, each of those guys (believe it or not) are capable of knocking out or beating Ali, Louis, Marciano or even Fitzsimons if all things go their way. But the problem is we also do not know whether some of those guys are even world class fighters. They didnt even fight each other in order to prove that they were the second or third best fighters around. At best each of them has probably fought only a very small handful of fighters who themselves are actually proven fighters. They all get their shots from beating fringe top 10 fighters or worse. IN fact, i would have to question how many of the above contenders (or all of the recent contenders) have actually even fought each other. It means that there is no way of knowing (other than the ridiculous visual test which if anyone was any good at, they would make an awful lot of money betting on this sport) who is or isnt any good. (By the way, Chris Byrd can probably be excluded from this rant because his record shows he was a true contender and legitimate world class fighter).


In any case, I reckon that i coudl singlehandedly turn this current division into a golden era to rival the 90s, 70s, 20s or any other era within 12 months, or even 4 months. Off the top of my head, fighting every 3 months (or even better 1 month) well promoted cards with the following fights would do it:
Haye vs Adamek, Fury, Helenius
Helenius vs Solis, Povetkin, Haye
Povetkin vs Thompson, Helenius, Solis
Adamek vs Haye, Thompson, Mitchell

Klitchskos to Defend against the fighter (or i suppose in this case fighters) who actually perform the best in that series of fights. If the fighters (not champions) would actually fight and earn a reputation in the ring based on wars instead of "well managed" fights where the winner is almost certainly a foregone conclusion, fighters would start to gain followings and be in wars that define an era. Whether they are good or not is irrelevant. If they are evenly matched, good fights will result and interest will be raised. Ultimately when they rise to the top, even if they are dominated by the Klitchskos, at least it will be known that they are one of the best fighters in the world. At the moment, we dont even know if several of the title defenses are in the top 50 fighters in the world, must less the top 10 or even 1. We think they are, but we havent a clue really.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I don’t want to put myself forward as the champion of the IBHOF, because I think they have made some questionable calls, but they are relatively fair between eras.

For a heavyweight to be inducted, they usually have to be the undisputed champion in their era.

A champion like Wladamir Klitschko, who dominates an era, is inducted as a mere formality.

A champion with a short reign like Hasim Rahman might or might not be inducted, and it is likely to take longer if he is.

An alphabet champion like Tommy Morrison, doesn’t even get on the ballot.

If a fighter was never the undisputed champion, then he will only be inducted if he was a dominant contender over a number of years, and there usually has to be an element of avoidance from the champion contributing to him never holding the undisputed title.

Sam Langford and Ken Norton are examples.

 

Frazier beat Ali once and came close twice, kind of reminds me of what LaMotta pulled off as a middleweight against Robinson. Ali was the best heavyweight of all time so those are signature fights. He didn't fight a lot but still holds victories over Quarry and Ellis two guys who'd be on the smaller side today but highly skilled like maybe Byrd and Chambers. In terms of size and skill they are probably comparable to Jack Johnson and James J. Jeffries, not big enough to be champs at heavyweight any more but still dangerous and if they cut five or ten pounds they'd be dominant champions at cruiserweight. Then he also beat Bonavena, Chuvalo, and Mathis who at the very least were sturdy sluggers. Then there is Joe Bugner a big bruiser like today's fighters. All told he did a little bit better than Ken Norton.

 

The wisdom of a real observor of the sport.

 

Inducting Gatti and Mcguigan should tell you what the IBHOF favour over everything else.

 

You may not agree with Janitor. I may not agree with Janitor too often.

But he is anything but a fool. He backs his arguments with thoughtful, analytical arguments.

It's alright to disagree. It doesn't have to be personal.