Ruslan Chagaev vs the 1950s

Or you can say Chagaev has been through two camps in less than six months, with the recent one being for a high stakes fight. He is at a young age of 30, and at his best weigh tin years. All signs point to Chagaev being ready.

Fighters in their primes have good and bad nights too. While Chagaev looked good vs Valuev, he was sub par by his standards in his next fight with Skelton. Less than a year was between those fights. I think styles had something to do with it. Fighters tend to have tough style match ups vs Wlad's size, speed, jab, and cross alone. So if Chagaev can't get past these attritubes it doesn't mean he was not in his prime. Very few if any fighters got past Wlad's arsenal.

I doubt we will see Chagaev being Ko'd in one. In my judgment, Chagaev now is better than the Rahman's, Brock's, Thompson's or Ibragimov's that Wlad has beaten recently. If the fights goes some rounds, I think we will see Chagaev doing a bit better than the aforementioned names did.

If Wlad gets an early stoppage win here, it will be the first time in 100+ amateur and pro fights that Chagaev has been stopped. I'll take the early KO win, as long as its from a a solid shot.

 

Oh please, tell me you're not serious. Maskaev was done a year ago and has done nothing to warrant a title shot. It's a pointless fight that no one wants to see. He's already made short work of his last mandatory (Gomez) only 3 months after winning the title at his age, so it's not like there's a mandate for them to square off.

 

Chgaev is a solid heavy. I think he would beat a lot of the 50's fighter but lose to the top shelf guys. I see Charles,Walcott, Marciano and Louis beating him. I think Liston would be a tough foe with the jab and Ruslins real lack of aggression. I think Ruslin beats Williams, Valdes,Baker,Folley, Machen, Johnson(tough call) and Floyd Patterson could be a problem for him ( close fight) Clarence Henry had a punchers chance

 

If you're asking would Chagaev be one of the top 5 fighters from the entire decade then no. Despite the size difference I think the best versions, from the 50's, of guys like Moore, Walcott, Liston, Chalres, and a few others would beat Chagaev. But would Chagaev have been a top 5 contender if he fought in the 50s then yeah. If you pick a date, like Sept 57 or June 55 and then ask would Chagaev be a top 5 contender if he was fighting at those times then I'd say in most cases definitely.

 

I agree with you.

 

The story was Vitali went into the Maskeav amateur fight with a leg injury and withdrew when he re-injured it in favor of a important kick boxing match.

Yes-- I do think a storied amateur career adds a bit to a fighters legacy. In Vitali's case he was a champion with 190 wins, and the #1 guy out there before he turned professional.

Chagaev is in the same boat. A distinguished amateur with some wins over top talent. He was also a two time world amatuer champion.

 

Ahem, what makes Chalres who was 30-20 in the 1950's so great? Charles in fact had his hands full at times with light heavies. Chagaev is a legit heavy, skilled, hits harder then most guys in the 50's and has a top chin. Out boxing him is not easy either. Objectively speaking Chagaev would beat Charles. And the style match up favors Chagaev.

Walcott would be close. Yet how close, Wlacott lost 17 times..

And Moore who really never beat a top guy in the 40's and 50's as he was 0-5 vs Marciano, Charles, and Patterson?

I think Chagaev at leas tis better than Moore is, and that would make him 5th best in the 1950's, even if you felt Chalres and Wlacott were better.

As I have said plenty of times before Charles was in a decline for much of the 1950's, and Walcott did not fight far into the decade either.

Of course if you talk legacy, then Charles is better and more famous. I am talking head to head with objective reasoning, results, films, and styles.

 

By the time Charles hit the mid 50s everyone was beating him, of course I'd take Chagaev to mow down that version of Charles. But a 50-51 version who was beating Walcott and Louis would be a slight favorite to me. Chagaev would be a live underdog but Charles would be a bit too much and I think he'd take a decision.

An early to mid 50s Moore was beating a lot of solid fighters consistently. There is enough footage to add to it to make Moore a slight favorite. I don't think Chagaev's size would be a huge factor here. The power game isn't real his thing. Moore, like Charles, I think have a bit too much overall skill and experience for Chagaev.

Walcott, who I think can be overated by some on here, is trickier. He was inconsistent and lost even at his best to lesser fighters than Chagaev. An on Walcott is simply to slick for Chagaev and an off Walcott gets beat.

Chagaev is a fundamentally solid fighter who would have a nice size advantage against fighters of the 50s. But I don't think he is a fighter that relies on strength a lot. He could beat any of those 3 guys above they would be giving away a lot of size. But they are on a different level altogether skill wise and I think that would make them the favorites. Todays fight might tell us even more about Chagaev.

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO VITALI KLITSCHKO FROM OLEG MASKAEV
VITALI KLITSCHKO: STOP WHINING, STOP LYING, STOP CRYING
Dear Vitali,
Let’s stop the nonsense. When I fought you for the CSCA (Centrum Sports Club Army) Military Championship, I stopped you in the 1st round. You were badly hurt and your corner threw in the towel. Stop making excuses, stop lying and be a man and admit it. That was our 1st fight.


Edit: Lets not forget Vitali famously lied about not being ko'd by Pele Reid too