Which Heavyweight Is Possibly Overrated Because Of Nostalgia?

They're not genuine, knowledgeable fans though.

 

It's not controversial in other sports, because they're other sports.

Boxing is a stand alone sport, with two guys pitting their skills and styles against each other, which often throws out unexpected results.


"Athletes have gotten bigger, stronger, faster and fitter now..."

It's just become such a tired, lazy line used by many people now.


The only thing you can say, is that at HW specifically, yes, the athletes have gotten bigger.

There's more SHW's in the modern era for sure.

But not in other weight classes.

It just appears that way to many, due to the different weigh-in rules.


Other than that, there is zero evidence that they're stronger and faster etc.

They're certainly not fitter.

Fighters of yesteryear were fitter simply due to the vast difference in their circumstances.

 

What times beside Coetzee?

 

I've gotten my hands on contracts showing he made several attempts to unify. It's in my secret vault alongside footage of Greb's fights.

 

Let me know when you are pulling out the Charles - Moore trilogy for another rewatch. They were good viewing.

 

As you like, sir. Meantime, I'll be waiting for the next great 6'1 heavy.

 

He tried to unify after he multiplied. He wanted Coetzee after accepting a belt from the gutter and contributing to proliferation.

Obtaining the titles WAS the same, and had been for decades. There had been split title claims going back to the days of the NBA and the NYSAC, and the first WBC champion was Liston. Holmes was the first to decide that he did not need to be the only heavyweight champ.

 

But it's not just a cliché. As new training techniques, supplements, new participants with their different skillsets and genetic advantages enter Boxing, etc, etc, the sport, in general, becomes more advanced.

Even in team sports if you take the best players 1-1 versus eachother from the 60's to today, the majority among the elite players would probably outclass their opponent.

Players in elite teams since the days of Joe Namath and Jim Brown are (in general) faster, stronger, and more athletic with access to a wide array of supplements.

In Soccer players like Ronaldo Nazario Da Lima, Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi were not around pre mid-90's, and introduced new techniques and styles.

Sprinting records, Swimming records, Powerlifting/Strongman records, etc, etc, have all improved.

If we look at Boxing a fighter like Mike Tyson with his attributes and style had not been seen prior to the 80's... And later we get new athletic beasts entering like Lennox Lewis, the Klitschkos, Fury, AJ, Usyk with his ring IQ, etc, etc.

Fighters analyze previous eras, adapt bits and pieces from their favorite fighters, and mould them together with new sports science information and training techniques; which is also true for non-sports occupations like music or any other area.

The standards for how big a HW needs to be has increased, and the ones who are not over 6'3 230 lb need to be explosive/fast or/and have exceptional Ring IQ (Mike Tyson, Usyk, David Haye, etc).

This is not to disrespect previous eras of Boxing or to say they couldn't compete today... But on average athleticism, skills and size have increased.

 

There weren't any quality heavyweights bigger than Liston in his era to fight so obviously he couldn't have ducked them as they didn't exist.

 

Doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence he would duck fighting "quality" big men or anyone in general

 

You say there's no way Ali could win but yet you scored 5 even rounds and even suggested atleast 7 of the rounds could be scored even.

That's almost half of the rounds in the fight that you think are highly debatable.

So suggesting theres no way Ali won despite thinking 7 of the 15 rounds are highly debatable doesn't add up.

And looking at my scorecard 4 of the rounds I scored for Ali you scored even so it's not that out of realms to think Ali edged the fight.

To me it just seems like you scored any decent round for Ali as even just so you could have the widest scorecard possible in favour of Shavers.

Which isn't surprising considering you are a big Ali hater for some reason.

Not that I'm saying there's no argument for Shavers winning of course there is. But only scoring 3 rounds for Ali is a joke and just speaks volumes to your bias.


Muhammad Ali vs Earnie Shavers

1 Ali
2 Shavers
3 Ali
4 Shavers
5 Ali
6 Shavers
7 Shavers
8 Shavers
9 Ali
10 Ali
11 Ali
12 Ali
13 Shavers
14 Shavers
15 Ali

143-142 Ali

 

Mike Tyson is not only the most overrated heavyweight ever, he's the most overrated sportsman ever.

 

Cause Shavers was dumb. He believed a hurt boxer is more dangerous, so he was afraid to go for the kill. Had he charged Ali in that moment with all he had, he'd have KO'd him.

Actually it was fatigue. This is what allowed Ali to land more than he did in the whole fight.

He was rarely getting hit, and the shots he was getting hit with did not have much powerbehind them.

Something was getting through, but like I said, it did little damage.

 

Yes,but even if we judge those rounds as even, Shavers still won more of those that aren't.

Ali did nothing notable in those rounds for me to think he deserved the nod in them.

For the fact that he's massively OVERRATED.

It's not joke at all. Throwing mostly tappy taps in Shavers's guard does not entitle him to win rounds.

 

Watch the full fight again and tell me what you think.
But put it on mute, those commentators are clueless imbeciles.