Classic Forum Chat: Size isn't the only factor.

This Tonto62, might it be Mendoza? He has the same knack for ignoring replies and just repeating the same thing over and over, no matter how totally transparent.

 

I think I know who it is.

 

Search @Dubblechin posts on Wilder and Shavers. Wilder is so much better than Shavers that it's almost absurd to put them in the same sentence together. The closest legit comparison to Wilder is David Haye, with Wilder essentially being a bigger and more powerful version of Haye with less skill. In terms of absolute ability, Wilder is extremely dangerous for virtually any HW in history. It's highly possible though that the losses to Fury will physically and mentally break him by the end of it. Hopefully I'm wrong and he stays around to KO AJ so he can silence some of his critics. Hearn today was claiming that Wilder isn't a top 4/5 HW, which is pure seethe considering his boy just got given a boxing lesson and took a battering to another underdog with less size and power. Hearn can talk as much sh*t as he likes but anyone with a shred of objectivity who watched the Usyk fight knows that if Usyk's left can wobble AJ consistently, Wilder's straight right will put him in hospital. Wilder is not as good as Fury or Usyk but in my view, these are the top 2 heavyweights ability-wise of all time.

Tyson was skilled, fast of hand and foot, powerful, explosive, co-ordinated and tough but he had a poor gas tank, was physically tiny, was stupid and undisciplined, was too dependent on his fear factor and was a bully-coward by nature. These limitations were largely innate and genetic. There's a lot of hype about "prime Tyson" even today but in reality prime Tyson went the distance with half a dozen journeymen and fringe contenders, some of them chinny. His best wins were Holmes and Spinks, who were compromised for various reasons. He was always there for the beating for bigger fighters with skill, toughness, heart and a superior engine. In the 90's he was compromised due to his loss to Douglas, his 4+ year stay in prison and crucially, the fact that his opponents when he came out of prison were bigger on average than those before. The 90's was a strong era at the time when it was thought of as "the weakest ever" (a common trope in boxing history) but this is just the natural progression of the sport. The Klitschko era is still extremely underrated because Americans were seething that they had lost control of the glamour division as soon as boxing became a worldwide sport, as well as the unequaled level of domination and consistency of Wlad and Vitali.

 

There you go.

 

you might be right ... same thing over and over

 

Remember Tucker fought number 8 Douglas for the vacant title.

Eddie Gregg beat Cobb. He was a two time New York Golden glove champion.

Gregg was probably about as well regarded as Tucker was when Spinks turned him down.

 

Gregg was never Ring ranked Tucker was.Tucker beat two Ring ranked contenders before Spink fought Cooney.

 

Which reply have I ignored?

 

If you are ranked number 3, how much more outstanding do you have to be to be eligible for a title fight? Tangstad and Cooney were not ranked at all, how outstanding does that make them?

 

Nobody in Sullivan`s era knew how to fight like Usyk.

 

Chisora punches a lot harder than Mathis did.

 

Mathis is faster though, and has better head movement, and better basic fundamentals.

 

Gregg beat Cobb in the middle of 1985, Cobb was ranked no 9 in 81 and no9 in 82 . Show me when he was ever ranked after that? He was in the middle of a 4 fight losing streak when he faced Gregg.