Joe Louis vs Alexander Povetkin

No arguments from me. But see, Takam isn't fat. That 252 lb is mostly muscle. Glass City Cobra has a point that Takam might be on peds because usually guys as muscular blow it out their ass after going 4-5 rounds at a high pace and Takam managed it often without problems. I think it's possible for a 175 lb guy to beat a guy as big as Takam, but there has to be something decisive in his favour, like the big guy is slow as molasses, can't box, gasses after 2 rounds etc. Takam is highly competent at what he does, doesn't gas, has a high workrate and hits pretty damn hard. I know Conn is a better pure boxer but he's gonna have to be a ghost for 12 rounds here. I don't see it, no way.

 

Is that wilders AVERAGE weight?

 

Frazier never weighed more than 210 lbs before 1972. He was at his absolute best in the first Ali fight and he weighed 205.5 lbs in that fight. Why do you pick past prime, overweighed version of Frazier?

Carnera weighed 260.5 lbs against Sharkey in rematch. He also weighed 265 lbs against Uzcudun and 270 lbs against Loughran. I'd say that these three performances are his best, at least recorded.

265 lbs vs 205 lbs is exactly 60 lbs difference.

Cool, Takam is also much slower than Conn and you don't use it against him.

No, Frazier vs Carnera is a matchup between two lineal HW champions. One of them was clearly better than the other one, but Carnera was more accomplished figther than Takam with better resume.

You pick Takam who lost to past prime freaking Chisora to "whip" Carnera despite size disadvantage, yet you think you are consistent?

So another excuse why size doesn't matter in some cases, but it is impossible to overcome in other ones? Conn would box Takam's ears off, deal with it.

 

Do you or do you not agree that Wilder weighed 238lb in Fury3?

We can take it from there.

 

Why do you keep the worst versions of Wilder and Frazier available to prove your point?

 

It is not about weight difference, it is about weight ratios.

For a 130lb man, fighting somebody 20lbs heavier is a huge ask, but for a 200lb man it is a manageable weight difference.

 

Why not pick that version? He gave Ali hell.

Yeah, and if I prefer another version?

Takam is going to walk right through Conn's pittypats and he's going to be able to impose his size because he is a mobile and busy heavyweight who won't be bothered at all by Conn's efforts.

YA THINK

That's your opinion and it was done mostly against cans and no hopers. Takam is visibly better.

We're down to 8lb now.

Applying logic and reason ... seems reasonable. Takam would pop Conn like a pimple, deal with it.

 

That's your opinion.

 

Agree. And a 175lb man fighting a 252lb man is in my opinion a huge ask ... particularly if that bigger man is mobile, busy and can box.

 

Because he wasn't in his prime? Don't be ridiculous, Frazier was far better in 1971 than in 1975, we all know that.

Because it suits your agenda, certainly not because of facts.

Louis couldn't do that, but Takam would do that... sure buddy.

I'd take Carnera's top 3 wins over Takam's best win easily. Maybe even top 5 wins to be honest...

Yeah, such a shame that you use them so inconsistently...

Not only mine. You can create a poll of 1971 vs 1975 versions of Frazier. I doubt anyone would agree with you.

 

Such a man wouldn't lose such badly to past prime Chisora. Maybe you oversell Takam's abilities a little bit?

 

I think the extra weight would help him.

Styles make fights.

I'd take Takam over Carnera

Create a poll of 238lb Wilder vs Dustin Nichols Wilder and see who agrees with you.

 

Chisora isn't Conn, who had trouble busting the skin off of a ripe grape. Chisora can actually hit bloody hard.

 

Conn wasn't a massive hitter, but he wasn't featherfisted either. He had quite a few KO wins at HW, including the one vs Bob Pastor. He's the only fighter ever who stopped Pastor next to Joe Louis himself.

Meanwhile Chisora can't box sh*t and isn't that much of a puncher.