Is this era really that weak?

CANELO???????????

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

As for the true top class guys, you got boxers like Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Ibragimov and Byrd. Maybe Pulev finds a place on the list soon as well, we'll see.

You can have an opinion about literally any era being weak or strong, I don't want to start an endless debate. The facts are that Wlad is ruling for about a decade, that he defeated opponents with some of the most decorated amateur and Olympic pedigrees and that his reign is second longest of all time. Whether you acknowledge Wladimir as one of the best of all time or not, it's your own opinion, but the facts you cannot change.

 

I acknowledged the longevity of Wlad's reign, at the outset. As you state, it's a fact, but quite what bearing you think his opposition's amateur careers have on their respective statuses as professional heavyweights, I don't know. To have even brought this up shows how far you have to reach to squeeze any type of credibility from Wlad's ledger.

If there was any evidence to support a "Yes" answer to the question raised in this thread, you just provided it.

There is not one elite-level, marquee name among Wlad's professional opponents (despite their "decorated amateur and Olympic pedigrees") and it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever be inducted into the IBHOF (or be remembered in any way, other than perhaps 'just another Klitschko opponent'). This is a fairly amazing scenario, given Wladimir has the second longest reign in history, which only adds credence to the viewpoint of this being a weak era - if not across the board, most certainly in the heavyweight division.

 

no heavyweight is the only weak link in this era.

 

If fighters will fight more per year then we will make strong fighters for this era. The thing is most top level fighters fight less now than before because they get a lot of money. Money is destroying the sport. It has become very business oriented rather than championing of the sport. Money should really be controlled, it destroys everything.

 

Yes money is the root of all evil.it corrupts everything.

 

Well, theoretically speaking, you could be entitled to that claim for an unlimited period of time as long as Wladimir is dominating his opponents, regardless of how good and skilled his opponents could possibly be.

Klitschko has done an amazing job by preventing everybody else from leaving a significant impact. It's an extremely difficult feat to accomplish.

If Tyson had kept dominating for 10 years instead of losing and going to jail, there would be no Holyfield, Lewis and others getting recognition, nor would they be remembered in the same regard they are now. They would have likely be remembered as "just another Tyson opponent" had that scenario happened.

If you don't think that guys like Povetkin and Haye are elite, then I'm not sure what to tell you, it's your own opinion and you choose what to believe. I've pointed out the amateur records to provide evidence instead of basing my claims solely on the opinion. If a guy wins virtually every possible amateur tournament, then goes undefeated in the pros and wins a belt, beating many highly rated opponents in the process, without ever being knocked down in both amateur and pro careers, then there is no objective argument to be made about that guy not being the pure elite, and you would have to be extremely subjective (and ignore many facts) to try to make that claim.

 

Emphasizing the op's point

 

pfttt ****ing troll thread

 

This is a bit of a moot and useless point really.

Your theory only applies if the assessment of Wlad's opponents is based solely on their contests against Wlad. What about their level of competition and performances before facing Wlad? Save Povetkin, this seems to be something you're generally quite light on addressing.

Also - your theoretical-speak could just as easily be applied in favour of my viewpoint, using the same criterion (Wlad's dominance) and similar terminology, i.e. '...theoretically speaking, you could constantly make the claim that Wlad's dominance reflects an extraordinary reign, for an unlimited period of time, while Wlad continues to beat his opponents with ease - regardless of their relative skill-level.'

What's missing in each case? A realistic understanding of the opposition's skill levels.

I'm not even sure of the point you are trying make here. Tyson didn't continue to dominate; he did lose; he did go to jail. Lewis and Tyson are HOF'ers and Holyfield will no doubt join them as such. If anything, the sweeping statements you make about what would have happened in your hypothetical situation, demonstrate the massive gap in understanding you have in assessing levels of Boxing ability. Again, its moot.

I do find it interesting, however, in that it confirms your Klitschko-centric thinking; meaning that you view Wlad's dominance over the division, as the only evidence required to consider him an extraordinary champion. You do not distinguish between the respective skill-levels of defeated challengers, e.g. you would class Lewis being defeated by a dominant Tyson the same thing as Povetkin being beaten by a dominant Klitschko; just another opponent. Again, you show your inability to place a champion's dominance over a division into any realistic context.

Simply put - you needn't tell me anything. Fact: Haye was a world class Cruiserweight, a division in which he spent three-quarters of his career. Fact: Haye has had a total of seven Heavyweight contests (only five prior to meeting Wlad). My opinion, supported by these facts, is that Haye's credentials, as an "elite" Heavyweight, leave a lot to be desired.

Povetkin, who is perhaps the closest thing to a world class Heavyweight by today's standards and is better than the average Klitschko opponent, has recently featured in one of the worst Heavyweight Title hug'n'lean-fests I can remember. Was Klitschko vs. Poketkin a world class contest? I don't think so and this, whilst subjective, is a view shared by many observers of the fight.

Additionally, if these two are the best and only names you can focus on from your original shortlist (which also included Chagaev, Ibragimov and Byrd and maybe Pulev, described as the "true top class guys") then it just shows how limited a scope you really have, upon which to base an argument for the current era representing a strong Heavyweight division.

You mention Povetkin going undefeated in the pros but qualify this fact with an opinion, i.e. "beating many highly rated opponents in the process". I doubt that you could support this opinion with any credible rationale. Yes, Povetkin was 26-0 going into the Klitschko bout but by way of "many highly rated opponents"? Who were they? By whose standards were they highly rated?

In addition to this, while it is a fact that many pros can go undefeated in their first twenty-plus bouts, it is not a fact that all professional Boxers with a twenty-plus-and-0 record automatically qualify as elite Fighters, your obsession with Povetkin's amateur record notwithstanding. It is no more the case that the odd blemish on a Boxer's ledger disqualifies them from being considered as such.

And, about your obsession with a pro's prior amateur record... It might well be a 'fact' that a professional Boxer once had an illustrious and decorated amateur career but, as to what this means to their status as a professional (particularly some years down the line), is sheer speculation. Pundits and even Boxers themselves often talk about the 'transition' from the amateurs to the pros and the fact is that many successful amateurs fail to emulate the same success in the paid ranks. So, how reliable is a Boxer's good or even great amateur record, as it pertains their professional calibre? It really is a matter of opinion.

In summary, your problem lies, quite ironically, with your own high 'opinion' of the facts you have used, in order to sustain the idea that Wladimir Klitschko reigns over a strong Heavyweight division. Ultimately, this has led to an overstated and unsupportable case for Povetkin being considered an elite Heavyweight.

Despite apple-polishing over your use of facts, rather than opinion, to support your stance, the pattern of your responses seems to be formed from a few facts; not many. Your few facts have little relevance to the majority of Wlad's opposition and or to actually rating the quality of this Heavyweight division. And, contrary to what you have stated, you have consistently supplemented your few facts with inflated opinion e.g. Povetkin's opposition being highly rated; Haye being "elite"; Chagaev, Ibragimov and Byrd and possibly Pulev being the "true top class guys".

Why not give a good argument for how and why Wlad's opposition, e.g Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Ibragimov and Byrd equal those players of the 90's, 80's, 70's. Because, as it stands your reasoning is very weak.

 

That's right to a certain degree. However, you couldn't really make that case about his "extraordinary" reign if he was only beating guys like Leapai for example. I believe that nobody disputes the level of those kind of opponents, but just going on and saying "that opponent was sh*t anyway" about every guy Wlad beats and keep repeating that for 10 years, then something is wrong with that.

That's right, Tyson hasn't done that, not just because Holyfield and Lewis were on his level and perhaps even better, but because he didn't have what it takes to be dominant for such a long period of time.

I do not view Wlad's dominance as the only evidence to consider him an extraordinary champion like you say. I've simply put an example to make a point. Theoretically, if there were no Klitschkos, and we had guys like Haye and Povetkin passing the belts among them and having close fights and trilogies for example, the division would generally be viewed as stronger despite losing the quality on average due to the absence of Klitschkos. That's just how it works.

I'm getting the impression that you are trying to discredit Haye as a world class heavyweight mostly because you want to defend your previous claim that Klitschko hasn't fought a single world class opponent.
I agree that Haye's streak of opponents prior to the Wlad fight was far from impressive, and even that his WBA belt was a joke, but to claim that he was not a world class? Please.

As for Povetkin, yes he was included in one of the worst "hug'n'lean-fests" as you say and it was not a world class contest, but does that mean that the guys included in that fight are not world class boxers themselves? You know better than that.

Also, it's interesting that you are labeling Povetkin as "perhaps the closest thing to a world class Heavyweight by today's standards". That's really interesting.

About the other guys from the "shortlist", I thought that it wasn't necessary to make a case for each and every one of them, but you surely didn't miss an opportunity to call me on that.

Regarding "many highly rated opponents" claim with you seem to heavily doubt that I can support with "any credible rationale", I'd be happy to make a breakdown of Povetkin's opponents, since you seem to imply that Povetkin's 26-0 was some kind of a padded record.

In his 6th fight, Povetkin fought Richard Bango, an Olympic games silver medalist and All-Africa games golden medalist, who was 17-1 at the time, with only defeat coming against Nikolay Valuev. Povektin knocked Bango out in 2 rounds. Of course, it's not where his "highly rated" opposition starts.
It starts with Chris Byrd in an IBF title eliminator. Povetkin won by stoppage and it was his 14th fight.
In his 15th fight, he defeated Eddie Chambers, who was undefeated (30-0) at the time. Those are 2 legit highly rated opponents, and were highly rated by the IBF for a fact.
Then he took on a couple of journeymen before defeating Ruslan Chagaev (former champion and a guy with world class amateur pedigree) for the WBA belt. Chagaev, despite being past his peak, was still very highly rated at the time and his only defeat was against Klitschko.
Sasha also beat Marco Huck, a cruiserweight champion. Yes, it was a bad performance by Povetkin and the fight was close, but that was another highly rated opponent he managed to defeat.
There were other solid opponents who weren't exactly highly rated, but I believe that this is enough to back my claims about Povetkin beating many highly rated opponents.
It also proves that Povetkin is not just another guy with a padded "twenty-plus-and-0" record. If you view the records of the opponents of 20+ and 0 boxers (not just today, but throughout the history), you will see Povetkin's opponents having the best overall records (or at least very close to that). I believe that somebody has already done that research on this forum, and Povetkin's opponents' win/lose records were better than of of the past champions' opponents' records if I'm correct, or at least among the very top. I hope that you have no doubts now that Povetkin's 26-0 was not an usual, padded 26-0.

Regarding the amateur-pro transition, I agree that there are countless cases of successful amateurs failing in pros and being flops. However, if a proven successful amateur continues doing well in the pros, defeats legit opponents and even wins a belt, then that's not a speculation, there's no flop there.

 

I based the claims mostly on facts, with a possible exception of things like "many highly rated opponents" which I still cared to back with the facts, or considering Povetkin, Chagaev, Haye etc an elite opponents. You, on the other hand, mostly tried to discredit that without basing your own claims by the facts which would actually support your claims.

For example, you pointed out at Klitschko - Povetkin match as some kind of proof that Povetkin isn't world class because their match was far from world class. It was a fact, but it has no relevance to discussing whether Povetkin is world class or not, because we could use the exact same logic and say that Klitschko isn't world class either, and not just him, but the countless more proven boxers throughout the history.

Also, I haven't "consistently supplemented your few facts with inflated opinion" like you say. Povetkin's opposition, Haye being elite and the others being top class were about the only claims I've made that weren't the sole facts. Of course, you were quick to jump on an opportunity and try to turn that against me. I've even elaborated why are those guys elite (didn't exactly elaborate for all of them separately, but other than time, it shouldn't be much of a problem), but considering your attitude, I think that we would just declare that neither Wladimir, nor any of his opponents are good boxers, and that there hasn't been any quality boxer over the past 10 years.

I see the pattern here. Well, I've mentioned pretty much stuff about Povetkin, it should be enough to be considered a "good argument" for a start. Also, all you have done so far was the discrediting, I'd welcome your own argument as well. I generally evade those kind of discussions because I don't want to end up debating people who think that 'Dempsey walks through Haye', 'Marciano stops Vitali', 'Jack Johnson beats Wlad' and other stuff like that.

If you keep talking about the "weak division" each time Klitschko is mentioned, then it looks like you are doing your best to discredit his success rather to just simply give him the credit he deserves. I rarely see those same people bring the same "weak division" cards each time Joe Louis' and Larry Holmes' names are mentioned. You can simply say "yes, he is one of the greatest of all time" without the additional labeling, but sometimes an agenda plays a significant role.

 

I think I should remind you that I have not out and out declared that every single Wlad Kitschko opponent has been sh*t. What I have lent towards is the general level of opposition in this era being noticeably lower than generally seen in other eras.

At this point in time, I stand by that viewpoint.





Also - regarding...

...No. That's not "just how it works". I have been watching Heavyweight Boxing since the late 70's and lived through the lull of the early-to-mid 80's; the [Tyson] spike of the late 80's and the turbulence of a talent rich 90's. What you are describing is the altered perspective of the casual sports fans and general sports media; not the keen Boxing fans, students of the game and serious writers.

If Wladimir Klitschko retired tomorrow, I would not be somehow reprogrammed into thinking we now have a stronger division. As stated in a previous post, "What Wlad leaves behind will be more akin to a vacuum, which will soon be filled with the same B and C level fighters, who just happen to be ranked right now."

Whilst elevated on paper, this state of affairs would not, in reality, transform mediocre Boxers into top-flight contenders and champions. All the belts would once again be scattered and so we would have several individual titlists - not an unfamiliar scenario. However, my view is that Povetikin would re-assume his role as heir apparent and soon be considered the Ring Number 1 Heavyweight (in one to two years); possibly taking full control of the division in time. This would not be without some challenges and, of course, there is the question of how much time does he actually have left? Povetkin is already in his mid-thirties.

But, I do not see the birth of a classic period of Heavyweight contests anytime soon; no history-writing trilogies and, while I should imagine there will be some close fights, I doubt these will be top-tier chess matches, rich with employed tactics and skills. No - rather a series of untidy brawls, perhaps.

I am not discrediting David Haye. I've already stated that I think he was a world class Cruiserweight but he is not a world class Heavyweight, let alone an "elite" of the division. Haye simply hasn't done enough there to be classed as one. One could go further and suggest that his handful of Heavyweight bouts and eventual shot at Wlad have done more harm than good to his reputation as a legitimate world class Heavyweight.


This post-fight review, following his challenge for Wlad's championship, sums it up nicely...

To put this into further context, do you think, if Haye had been a Cruiserweight in the mid-to-late-90's, he would have even been given a shot at Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis? I think it very unlikely and doubt he would have entertained the idea of moving up to Heavyweight, because it would have served no purpose for him. He was not going to pick up a major strap and, whilst the WBO route might have seemed a little easier, I think he would have had to work a lot harder to earn his title shot. Even if this led to a successful title challenge, it would have left him a minnow in a big pond, much like it did for several of the other WBO Titlists of the day.

Fast-Forward to 2009 and Haye saw an opportunity to make a name for himself by launching a seemingly serious Heavyweight Title challenge. Perhaps the bigger motivation was the deal he was aiming for and eventually made; Klitschko agreeing a 50/50 split on everything, earning Haye a reported £15M for a performance, as described by Rafael, above.

While Wladimir can be credited with finally exposing Haye, having more or less furnished him with his retirement fund (which Haye started drawing from, soon after), I cannot take Haye seriously as a genuine Heavyweight contender and, in turn, as a serious opponent for Wlad.

 

This is something I will need to mull over further; along with the other names on your shortlist. But, at the moment, I would consider Povetkin as the centerpoint/starting-point for any realistic discussion around Wlad's level of opposition reaching world class (and if you only knew what a struggle it was to type those words just now.

I am going to re-review Povetkin's earlier bouts. Records alone are not enough and not as important as watching the fights themselves, in my opinion. Hence my reaction to the Klitschko/Povetkin match, with which I was disgusted.

I will point out, however, that I don't think Bango ever fought again professionally, after his fight with Povetkin and Byrd was all but done, IMO, by the time the two faced off. That said, these were very early on in Povetkin's pro career and so should not be dismissed easily.

On the other matter - For me, 99% of the time, a Pro Boxer's amateur record is incidental. I rarely give too much, if any, thought to whether or not an Am-Boxer-Turned-Pro had a good amateur record. That bit of knowledge is little more than a trivial aside; some background perhaps for a pre-fight build-up, which I tend to draw a line under fairly quickly. It's their results and progress as Pros, which is more important.

A rare case, where an amateur record did catch my eye was that of the Featherweight, Lomachenko; mainly on account of him launching straight at an International strap, in his debut, and a World Title fight in only his second pro bout. Now that was exceptional and his Am record is awesome.

In your last post, you have begun to dig into the facts about the Fighters you consider to be Wlad's world class opposition. Fair play to you. These have provided me with some food for thought. I hope that, in clarifying my position on David Haye's Heavyweight campaign, you might think about your own stance on that particular point.


Before your last post, though, I have to maintain that the basis of your argument hung on the fact of Wladimir's long reign, coupled with some general facts and opinions about those opponents you felt were world class, capped off with the opinion that what Wlad has achieved is "amazing".

So - similarly, whereas I will use the term "weak division", you are on the opposite end of the scale with "It's unlikely that anyone could go through Wladimir's reign and have that kind of success". We are just on different sides of the argument.


As far as the Klitschko/Povetkin bout is concerned, it will count against them both, in my view, because what we actually see happen in the ring is where the real detail and context of the sporting result comes from. No, it isn't "proof" of either fighter NOT being world class but it is 'evidence' of their level of performance, which should be rightly scrutinised by fans, especially since it was a world title fight. This is a natural and unavoidable upshot of competing on the world stage.

All eras have their Champions; most have their classic battles; none are consistently 'golden' but there are, on balance, differences in the overall level of competition arriving between these eras. Even the well-discussed and documented 80's era had some reasonably good fighters and contests going on.

Just for fun, the following is a rough guess from me, as to the top Heavyweights across the 70's; 80's & 90's...


-1970's-
Muhammad Ali
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Young
Ron Lyle
Oscar Bonavena
Earnie Shavers
Joe Bugner
Duane Bobick
Chuck Wepner


-1980's-
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Tim Witherspoon
Greg Page
Michael Dokes
Mike Weaver
Trevor Berbick
Pinklon Thomas
Gerrie Coetzee
Gerry Cooney
Tony Tucker
James (Buster) Douglas


-1990's-
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Riddick Bowe
George Foreman
Michael Moorer
Ray Mercer
Ike Ibeabuchi
David Tua
Razor Ruddock
Andrew Golota
Oliver McCall
Henry Akinwande



I'm not sure of the dozen Boxers I'd pick from the Klitschko era - other than the brothers themselves. I'd also probably look at the period of 2004-2013, rather than 2000-2009. Perhaps you can have a think about that.