Chins do not matter as much at featherweight or light weight as they do at heavyweight. Would you like to debate this, power puncher? In fact most of Kahn's amateur fights were at the junior level. In other words in the 19 and under division vs teenagers weighting 122-135 pounds. Yeah-- that is a group is known for power. Duh. We found out that Kahn did not have a good chin early in his pro career. That was never the case with Chagaev. If you want to say the padded gloves and headgear help, then Savon's Ko's are even more impressive.
Mendoza here is what you wrote NO one took this out of context. you admitted it yourself. you think an amatuer is much more dangerous(implying better) than two great proffesionals.
In a thread in the general forum refering to Wlad's Muscular physique, there is a picture of Chagaev punching his trainer in the face.
I'd take Savon to defeat the Charles who fought in the mid to late 1950's. I never said flat out that Savon was a better pro. I did say beating Savon in the amatuers twice meant somehting, then showed the board that Walcott and Charles wer but .600 fighters in this decade. By the way you did not quote what I wrote here. Try again as someone else posted it, then impled something I did not directly say. Now you owe me 20 excuses as to why Chalres lost 20 times in the 1950's!!! I'd like to read this.
How can you be certain that a man who never fought a single professional bout can beat a proven professional who was regularly competing against ranked opponents, losses or not? Savon fought in 3 round fights against far lesser men, while Charles even in defeat was battling it life and death over many rounds with proven contenders and using 8 ounce gloves, etc..... I like you Mendoza, but sometimes its better to recant one's position rather to than to a hold a course just for the sake of appearing to not reverse one's self..
Magoo, Think about this for a moment. If a guys on a slide, way past his prime, getting Ko'd multiple times, and even quit in a fight in the 2nd half of the 1950's, would you take Savon over him? This is a question for you. To put it into context, I'd take Savon in the 80's over the Riddick Bowe or Micheal Moore that are still making ring appearances in 2007-2009. Chalres was awful in much of the 1950's.
Felix Savon being more dangerous than Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You're comparing a 30 year old man who fought 3 rounders against teenagers to two of the greatest in boxing history, especially Charles.
The truth is chins clearly dont matter much in the amateurs, stoppages rarely occur, yet you quote amateur fights of proof of a chin like the biased fraud of a poster the forum know you to be. Ofcourse chins matter greatly in every division, to pretend otherwise is laughable I somehow doubt you'll be quoting Chagaev's stoppage percentage as an amateur to prove that he can't punch.
O wait Mendoza, so now its only the 1955-1959 Charles your talking about? What about the 1950-1954 Ezzard Charles? Can Savon beat this charles? How about the 28 year old 1950 Ezzard Charles? That counts as a 50s version of charles, how does savon compare to that Charles?
Now, I want YOU to think about something for a moment. Jorge Luis Gonzalez was looking rather menacing as an amateur as well. He was a 6'7" gold medalist out of Cuba, same as Savon, and who defeated the likes of Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Teofilo Stevenson and Tyrell Biggs. What happened when he turned pro? Well, a 38 year old former champ in Tim witherspoon beat the crap out of him.. And keep in mind Gonzalez was not a debuting fighter. He had over 20 pro bouts under his belt, unlike what a debuting Savon would have going up against Charles. Comparing a guy who had a hell of an amateur career to a declining ex-champion does not necessarily equate to an automatic win for the guy who won pretty medals. Charles may have started to take a big decline from about 1955 onward, but he was still a very strong force from the early to the mid part of the decade. So making the blanket statement that he flat out sucked in the 50's period, does not hold much water.... Additionally, I will ad that even in the twilight of his career, he was sometimes taking as many as 9-10 fights per year many of which were against ranked contenders and either going the distance or even winning.. You can't compare this to a guy who was in his late 20's taking on teenagers in three round fights.... So what exactly are you claiming here, that a debuting Savon would beat the same Charles who lost to Marciano around 1954? or are you talking about comparing him to the Charles who was basically finished around 1959? Either way, you can't possibly say for certain how a debuting amateur would do against a man who had such a vast wealth of experience as Charles did, even if the man was totally shot.
Savon over a 1954 charles? I dont think so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4_qPmEqZ9U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je9fncDgI-s
What I think Mendoza is doing is trying to compare a 1955-1959 charles with the 1950-1954 version of charles. You can't do this. Charles declined physically so rapidly post 1954 that 55-59 he was a shot version. But the charles from 1950-1954 was one of the best of the decade...always either CHAMPION or top contender from 1950-1954
Agreed, but nevertheless, I am still not convinced that a debuting amateur would beat even a totally shot veteran.. Do you know how many times that's been tried? by 1988, Pinklon Thomas was basically shot to pieces, yet I probably still would have picked him to beat a debuting Mercer or Bowe who had never even fought in a 4 round match...
Originally Posted by Mendoza This content is protected Magoo, Think about this for a moment. If a guys on a slide, way past his prime, getting Ko'd multiple times, and even quit in a fight in the 2nd half of the 1950's, would you take Savon over him? This is a question for you. To put it into context, I'd take Savon in the 80's over the Riddick Bowe or Micheal Moore that are still making ring appearances in 2007-2009. Chalres was awful in much of the 1950's. Gonzalez was no Savon. He turned pro late, and failed to make his mark. In addition Gonzalez turned pro in the 1990's which had far more talent than the 1950's. Still Gonzlaez did not lose 20 times as Chalres did in the 1950's. Also the man who first beat Gonzalez was Bowe. Bowe would crush Charles head to head. No he was not. Charles was a loser way too often to be called a very strong force. Chalres was 30 wins, and 20 losses in the 50's. Is this a force Magoo? No, its a journeyman's record. Type type of journeyman Olympic gold medalists feast on once they turn pro. I am saying I'll take Savon over Charles in the second half of the 1950's. If the pro is shot and the amateur is the best around, you can make a probable pick. Keep in mind Savon was essentially a professional amateur, and he did go more than three rounds on many occasions,. To suggest he could not go 10 is going against the odds and the top amateurs who turn pro in almost all cases prove they could go ten rounds. Now I ask you to answer the question. Would you pick Savon from 1986-2000 over Bowe and Morrer in 2008? I would. Who would you pick. Savon from 1986-1999 or Charles from 1956-1960? And to clarify, I am not saying Savon would have had a better professional career. We will never know. But I am saying Savon would likely KO Charles from 1956-1960. I hope people here can comprehend what I am saying.
Charles was heavyweight champion in the early 1950s...He also also rated top 2 by Ring Magazine from 1952-1954. Your saying thats not seen as a strong force?