Ruslan Chagaev vs the 1950s

There is no way that Chagaev catches Marciano.

You're using Moore as a comparison? Moore was one of the best pfp fighers of all time, and both he and Marciano litteraly make Chagaev look like a complete amateur.

Their defense is like night and day. Chagaev would get destroyed by Moore too, as Chagaev has no handspeed, no punch, and in comparison, no stamina.

What do you see in Chagaev?

 

The only comparison Chagaev has with Tyson are the black trunks that he wears.

I believe Chagaev was called the "White Tyson" only because Chagaev's favorite fighter of all time is Tyson but not for any other reason.

 

Agreed,

The closest thing to being a " white " version of Tyson, died in a plain crash many years ago and retired with a 49-0 record... Chagaev is no Tyson by any stretch of the imagination..

 

Moore was a great light heavy, but pretty much out of his element vs the best heavies of his time. Indeed Moore did poorly vs qualify heavies in Marciano, Charles and Patterson, going 0-5. And these guys were close to his size. Chagall is a good 30 pounds heavier than these guys, and certainly has a better chin than Charles or Patterson do.

As for the comment that Chagaev has no hand speed or punch, well I suggest you watch some of his stuff because you are mistaken.

 

Chagaev is 30 pounds heavier, but doesn't punch as hard.

So what does his weight do for him except make him a larger target and take away from his stamina, leaving him with a basic, amateur, fighting style.

And who has Chagaev fought to make you believe that he has a great chin? Skelton? Ruiz?

Valuev?

And I did watch him against Valuev and I could see an agonizingly slow giant vs a guy who is slightly less slow.

Again, using a very basic, amateur style relying on his 1-2, but not fast enough to fire fluid combinations.

And Moore busted Marciano's face up quite a bit, and it was due to his style which is much better suited to the pros, but apparently, today, is a forgotten art.

Chagaev is made for the amateurs, and he is fortunate enough to be in a heavyweight division where the majority of his opposition is 30 lbs overweight, and are basically stationary targets that don't move their head, have very limited boxing ability, and don't have the stamina to put together fluid combinations and move out of the way.

And even then, he still struggles with these guys, yet you think he's a world beater?

Size is not everything. Did Wladimir's immense size give him a good chin?

Because Chagaev is not the 1 punch knockout artist that you're making him out to be.

The only fighters worth a damn in the heavyweight division today are Wlad, Vitali, and Haye.

 

I think we really need to wait and see how Chagaev does against Wlad. If he manages to go the distance and loses in a close, competitive match, then we might be able to make a case for him being competitive with smaller heavyweights of the old school. If he goes out there and gets blasted out within 6-7 rounds without even putting up a fight, then I don't know if we can really mention his name in the same breath as men like Marciano, Moore, Walcott, Charles, etc.. While he is certainly bigger than those men were and has a pretty looking record, we need to see his abilities tested at the highest level. Barely squeaking by an aging John Ruiz, Carl Davis Drummond and Nikolay Valuev is not much of an indication of anything given that a 46 year old Holyfield is still capable of similar results...

Now, the unfortunate disadavantage that Chagaev is up against, is that he is likely past his best and coming off a bad patch where he has been frequently injured and mostly inactive. If he looks like **** against Wlad, it may not necessarily be a true representation of what he might have been say two or three years ago. For the moment, however we need to see something big from him before we can claim that he'd give a great effort against hall of fame champions, albeit ones who came from an era of smaller fighters.

 

Note Valuev recently lost to 46yo Oldyfield and got a gift against Ruiz, Ruiz was past prime and had been schooled more comprehensively by 2 smaller LHWs than Moore (not to mention him being sparked in 30seconds), Skeleton is a big strong lump who Williams and Rogan beat far more emphatically.

Chagaev is decent but pretty unimpressive and unproven, plus hasnt he got hepatitis? Doesnt that make him shot anyway? I'm not that sure about the illness.

 

I struggle to see the relevance of a three round fight in which infighting is not encouraged and a scoring system which has little resemblance to the professional game is in use. Yes he could hit and was skilled but Savon was a man fighting boys in the amateurs. Tua at the age Savon was when he 'KOd' Tua was KOing Ruiz, Wilson, Izon and Maskaev, 24 year old Tua is much, much different to the 19 year old that Savon stopped.

Your analysis of Tillman is fair however the point remains that to say Chagaev is proven because he twice beat Savon as an amateur doesnt stack up to me as Savon himself is unproven as a world class professional pugilist

Audley Harrison was the best amatuer heavy for a time too

 

This argument about Moore is one of the more unconvincing I have heard:

1. Moore and Charles fought three times at lightheavyweight and Moore could not defeat Charles at that weight. I don't know what this says about him as a heavyweight.

2. Moore defeated, as far as I can estimate, at least 18 heavyweights who were rated at one time or another--Curtis Sheppard, Buddy Walker, Rusty Payne, Jimmy Bivins, Phil Muscato, Alberto Lovell, Bob Dunlap, Clarence Henry, Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, James J Parker, Roger Rischer, Charley Norkus, Willi Besmanoff, Alejandro Lavorante--plus three who were rated before or after at heavyweight, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Slade, and Bob Satterfield. That is certainly a decent total.

3. Moore actually had more trouble, as did most heavyweights of the pre-1960 era (really-all heavyweights, as far as I can tell) with under 200 lb fighters rather than over 200 lb fighers. He was 23-1-1 with 18 ko's against men weighing over 200 lbs. His only loss was to Ali when 45.

4. Without going into an endless post, I think most experts believe that Moore probably would have been champion for a couple of years in the 1953 to 1956 era were it not for Marciano.

Moore was at one time probably the second best heavyweight in the world. He had a very good record against heavies. His real problem was against lighter, quicker men such as Charles and Patterson. RING MAGAZINE ranked Moore as the 29th all time heavyweight in 1998.

 

It must be nice to stop have stopped truly observing the sport and recline leisurely and comfortably into an orthodoxy of mythology.

Sweet Dreams.

 

The difference between light heavy and heavy contenders in the 1950's was maybe 10 pounds. My point is Moore went 0-5 vs Charles, Marciano, and Patterson, who were below the 190lb weight limit when he fought them.

The total is decent, but none of these guys were top guys aside from Bivins and Vlades who had tons of losses on their reusmes before Moore beat them.. By the way, Bivins lost to 17 separate fighters, so Moore's win here is far from unique. I think Moore was a top 5-6 fighter in the 50's, but I also think the quality and depth of the top 10 in the 1950's was somewhat lacking.

Those numbers are impressive but somewhat misleading. How many ranked fighters over 210 pounds did Moore beat? I only count one. Moore did not give up much weight or size in his era.

Though Charles and Walcott were past their best from 1953-1956, Charles seemed to have Moore's number. Walcott had the style to frustrate Moore and take the decison from him like Harold Johnson did in 1951. If you think Moore had trouble with quick fighters, then beating Wlacott from 1953-1956 will be hard for him. Since Patterson Ko'd Moore with ease in November 1956, I don't think Moore would have been champion in this year.

I'll go with a maybe in terms of Moore being champion without Marcino from 1953-1955.

Moore is a popular legend, but 29th best heavy is a real reach. His record vs the elite heavies has a zero in front of it. I think Moore is still a top 75-100 ATG at heavyweight.

 

Mendoza doesnt fancy addressing this post :yep

 

We need to clear things up before I respond. I felt the need to mention Chagaev excellent amateur career ( two time world amateur champion )because it includes two wins over the best man for years in Savon, and another win over a very good professional heavyweight in Ibragimov. I did not suggest these wins equated to winning a professional championship. Nonetheless they stand as significant achievements for Chagaev.

Now back to business. If we are talking about the 1950's, we include 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959. Charles lost TWENTY times in the 1950's. Walcott was 6-4 in the 1950's. Both men in the 50's had winning percentages under 61%.

Now to explain. Charles sometimes had his hands full with good light heavyweights, but his skills, and his opponents lack of skills and power in general meant he won these bouts via attrition KO or on points.

If you objectively watch how Charles likes to fight on film, he prefers to stand and trade far more than he sticks and moves. Charles was certifiably chinny. Indeed he was Ko'd by a middleweight, and down THIRTY times in his career.

Chagaev is pretty skilled. He has fast hands, hits harder than many fighters who Ko'd or dropped Charles, and likely had perhaps the best or second best chin of Charles opponents. Plus Chagaev he has about 35-40 pounds on Charles, and a south paw advantage. It should not take an objective person long to see that Charels, who was not at his best in the 1950's and had the style of a brawler more often than not would like lose to Chagaev, who is at his best in the 2000's.

Chagaev would have a tougher time vs Walcott, because Walcott was much fleeter a foot, and had a different style. However, as I mentioned before Walcott is 6-4 in the 1950's. While I do not think Chagaev hit has hard as Marciano did, I do think he was more skilled in general, and way more accurate with his punches. He was also taller and had more reach, which helps vs a fleet footed opponent. I'll go with Walcott over Chagaev, but its far from a sure thing, and if they fought three times, I pick Chagaev to win one for sure.

As a side note, out boxing Marciano super difficult. Many fighters such as Walcott, LaStarza and Lowry had leads over Marciano past round five. In the gym many journeyman types out boxed Marciano. So out boxing Marciano was not the problem. The problem for other figghers int he era was out lasting and trading shots with Marciano.

 

There is not much too it. Valuev was older for that fight and vunerable to good counter punchers which Holyfield still is. I do beleive that Chagaev showed the world one way to beat Valuev. I felt Holyfield edged it 7-5 in rounds.

It is clear that Valuev was younger, sharper, and more in his prime when he fought Chagaev. Do you agree?

It is also clear that Chagaev beat a more prime Skelton, who was a tough hombre. Sure Rogan finished Skelton late, but he had to press for the come from behind Ko, whereas Chagaev who rocked Skelton as few times and the fight won on points due to superiror skills. Chagaev did not need to go for the desperate late round KO. A behind on points Rogan did.

If you want to benchmark common opponents that Chagaev and Holfyfield fought and take primes out of context, then Chagaev is 1-0 vs Ruiz, and 1-0 vs Valuev, while Holyfield is 1-1-1 vs Ruiz, and 0-1 vs Valuev.