Was Butterbean any worse than some of the contenders today?

PS, Size isn't everything.

If you're Valuev, size becomes a hinderance, but not a threat.
The same as Wepner, Matthis, etc

Arreola moves a lot better than most 6'3 250lb guys, go watch his other fights where he linked combinations.

Size isn't everything, but there is a reason "A good big man will always beat a good small man" exists as a boxing quote.

 

I read through your responses, and got pretty much what I expected. This discussion can no longer serve a purpose because your not in the business of refuting 2 years of contemporary Boxing propaganda. I respect the fact that your back your points, though. More than a lot of other posters who post on the General Forum.

That said, Arreola would be a no name in the 1970's, and he has achieved absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise. His performances haven't even been that spectacular, he has no variety to his game whatsoever. I'm a fan of his, he displays the right attitude as far as I'm concerned, but he's too limited to get by just on being 6'3 against proven greats like Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes. I even expect Shavers, Lyle, Cooney to get the job done.

 

I read through your responses, and got pretty much what I expected. This discussion can no longer serve a purpose because your not in the business of taking back 2 years of contemporary Boxing propaganda. I respect the fact that you back up your points, though. More than a lot of other posters who post on the General Forum.

That said, Arreola would be a no name in the 1970's, and he has achieved absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise. His performances haven't even been that spectacular, he has no variety to his game whatsoever. I'm a fan of his, he displays the right attitude as far as I'm concerned, but he's too limited to get by just on being 6'3 against proven greats like Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes. I even expect Shavers, Lyle, Cooney to get the job done.

 

The discussion can't go ahead because you don't have any basis point to argue with.

You can't tell me Foreman was a supremely conditioned athlete with a great boxing mind, handspeed and footspeed of the likes has ever been seen.

Size was a huge aspect Foreman was as good as he was, as it was for Mohammad Ali, as it was for Larry Holmes and as it currently is for the Klits.

You don't even know what Arreola fights like, I'm guessing the first you saw of him was the Klitschko fight.

 

You really believe that Pugilistic? You're a cheeky bugger. I can't believe I'm even taking you seriously after that hideous quote about Arreola, an unproven and out of shape contender, being a front runner during the Heavyweight's greatest era.

A fighter who he himself was chopped down by Muhammad Ali, and outboxed by the good but not great Jimmy Young? Foreman is one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time, but how are we comparing him to a 6'3 unproven Mexican-American contender? Foreman hits much harder than Arreola, and was beating and stopping much better opposition that Travis Walker, Chazz Witherspoon, and McCline. Surely you aren't disputing this, Pugilistic?

Show me one quote where I said that size didn't factor in the success for Heavyweight Boxers?

I saw him against Chazz Witherspoon, Travis Walker, Vitali Klitschko, and when he blew out some unknown on Sky Sports 1 awhile back. Arreola is a banger, a slugger, he tries to make as much contact as he can. He isn't a particularly impressive combination puncher, he doesn't throw straight punches, and his defense is obviously lacking when he gets drubbed by Vitali and on the verge of a knockout loss at the hands of Travis Walker

I've seen enough of Cristobal to know that comparing him to proven Heavyweight contenders of the 70s is ******ed. He hasn't even done anything to warrant such comparison. You're an agenda-driven fool at times, pugilistic.

 

Ill stop you right there...boxing isnt other sports.

It isnt running down a straight line...it isnt passing a ball to each other and running up and down a field...it isnt lifting a weight over your head.

Boxers now compete over less rounds, with bigger gloves, with more rules and restrictions, with a totally different culture to refereeing and spectating..They fight less often..because of the the money driven and fickle nature of the sport now they consistently fight inferior opponents rather then fight the very best that was available, to protect their 0.
This would have not been acceptable in Gavlian's day.

The talents pools are smaller...the mainstream appeal of boxing has diminished ..The amateur system is gradually moving further away from its pro brother.

Again...Boxing is not other sports...Its not the same and for every field it has progressed in, it has regressed in just as many others.

Well thats just about anyone who knows what they are talking about..so Id be happy to be called crazy in that case.

The best of the best this era..are like the best of the best of any era. In fact some of them are among the best Ive ever seen.
But overall..on average.. the fighters are not better..The alphabets and increase in number of weight division have seen the quality of world champs diminish and dilute.

Lets take the Bantamweight division as an example...Now days you have Bantam, jnr bantam and superbantam divisions. There are 4 major titles to win in each division.

Back in the day..Back in Gavilans days. There was just bantamweight. So all of the small 122 pounders and all of the big 115 fighters would absorbed into this one division.
There was one title...So with an increase in competition, all gunning for one title..its safe to say whoever came out on top of that pile was going to be a bloody good fighter.

You see my point?

Whats more relevant is do you see Hatton coming within a couple of points of beating Sugar Ray Robinson.

I frankly dont even see him coming within a couple of rounds of making the distance.

 

:good Great post.

 

I believe your basis point is "There were more contenders back in those days that were considered good, therefore to have beaten those contenders meant more than it does today"

Which is simply nostalgia talking and an inability to give credit where it's due to guys like Vitali and Wlad who dominate guys who had very few issues before that fight.

You attach historical reverence to Foreman, Frazier and Ali for the wars they had as a trio, therefore you also consider guys like Norton and Cooper to be worth reverence for their battles too.

You forgive Ali, Foreman and Frazier their weaknesses and assume that they were supremely gifted to the point that they could waltz 30 years later and dominate in todays era, where everything is bigger, fight conditioning is better, money is better therefore taken more seriously by the boxers and boxing is now truly global.

That's pretty close minded, considering "Arreola is a banger, a slugger" - Foreman wasn't? Norton wasn't? Chuvalo wasn't? Bangers/Sluggers have always existed in every era and generally the better ones make their way to the Top 10. Fact.

I'd put even money on Arreola vs Norton.

 

Okay. A few things to note here.

Arreola is garbage, as is Peter. A 35 year old Butterbean (circa the infamous 10 rounder) might well outpoint either one (No clue what he's capable of now. He's coming back to fight a rubbermatch with his old punching bag Funmaker on Saturday, we shall see if any video pops up...) This is not to disparage the wins of either Klitschko over Sam, who was still a supremely confident bordering on cocky (but technically lousy) power puncher when both fought him. And Arreola proved that if nothing else he does have a decent chin and some heart. And in fact, it is nothing else. It's not an indirect slight to Vitali to say that a guy he embarrassed and TKO'ed in 10 rounds is garbage. You can say these guys are garbage (in Arreola's case, he always was; in Peter's case he went from a confident but limited power puncher to an overgrown declawed housecat) without it diminishing the stature of the Klits.

Also, Chagaev is one of the five best in the division right now. Putting his name in there with the two (three) fat slobs above is ridiculous.

 

That's because he's fat

Again, Arreola, like most other of these "huge modern heavyweights" would be at a comparable weight if he was actually in shape. Arreola still looked flabby at 229 in his fight against Wills.

 

And where you see me as ignorant about the past, this is where I know you're ignorant about the present.

Every single example of sport has seen benefits to new training methods, new methodologies, increased ability to analyse performance statistics, increased understanding of bio mechanics and conditioning.

All of these things are available and are used by the great boxers of today with no exception.

The fact that we can look at every single example of sport and see improvements, then look at the K1 Kickboxing and UFC fighting and see marked improvements there should indicate something to you, for whatever reason, it doesn't.

However, agility (running down a field), explosive power/technique (passing a ball), conditioning and core strength (lifting a weight over your head) are all parts of boxing, another area you're ignorant on.

This argument is null and void, because the same boxers that box for 12 today could box for 15 at the pace that used to be fought at, with the gloves that used to be used.

Talking about fighting 4 times a month indicates to me again, the fact that conditioning, peak physical prime and such has now become such an important factor in boxing, that alone is enough to blow away the conditioning argument.

This is utter bollocks. The talent pools in America have declined, correct. The talent pools worldwide? European fighters were in their ones and twos in the days of Ali/Louis. They're dominating the game these days, not to mention the Asian fighters. Boxing used to be Mexico and America, with the occasional brit. It's now truely worldwide.

I'd continue answering the rest of your points, but I can't help but come back too and just laugh when you keep calling me ignorant on something while telling me that just because every single other fitness/athletic based event has improved in the past 25 years, boxing hasn't.

 

Let's gets this straight here. You've come out and said that Arreola would be a front runner during Muhammad Ali's era. That's exactly what you said, and I have the quote as reference. It's actually in this thread as we speak. I dispute that entirely, arguing that Arreola isn't even proven at the top level in his own era, an era considered by many Boxing experts and the well informed to be among the worst in the history of the sport. Without even touching upon the flaws of Arreola, the assumption is ridiculous at this point in time.

I give Vitali and Wladimir credit for dominating a weak era for Heavyweight Boxing. Arreola is slow, inexperienced and easily hit. Povetkin is one paced and not outstanding in any one category. Chambers is very fast, but he seems to tire late on in fights, and where to start with Valuev? It's a **** poor division, with most of them not even able to go 12 rounds without experiencing fatigue. They dominate these fighters because they are all flawed, and have no star quality at all. Also because they stand at 6'7.

It all boils down to me watching films of Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, and being much more impressed with their efforts than that of half of the Heavyweight division today. Fight conditioning is better? Chambers badly faded against Povetkin, and Wladimir was exhausted against Brewster before he came into his own as champion. "Money is better therefore taken more seriously by the boxers". You can't be ****ing serious? That makes no sense, at all.

I wasn't calling Arreola a banger as if to discredit his ability as a fighter, only to explain to you that I do know how he fights, I've seen him fight on multiple occasions. This guy is unproven, his first step up in class he gets badly outclassed and sent packing. Why are you comparing him against good solid contenders of the 70s whilst keeping a straight face?

Norton is a winnable fight for Arreola, but Shavers and Lyle out-punch the overweight, unproven, one-dimensional slugger, with Jimmy Young out-boxing him over 15 rounds. Styles make fights, and Norton was always susceptible to fighters with a big punch. I still find no reason to favor him, though.

 

I said take away Frazier, Foreman and Ali and Arreola would mix with anyone in Ali's era. I stand by that.

For all the flaws you mention in Arreola - do you think Chuvalo was unflawed? Do you think Norton was unflawed? Matthis? Wepner? Cmon, this is where it becomes ridiculous.

"A weak era" - like the one Ali dominated before the arrival of Frazier? Why was it no one considered Frazier a bum for being absolutely bombed out by a young George Foreman at the time?

The division is no worse nor better than it has ever been, with two to three absolutely dominant fighters and a number of also rans.

60s - Patterson, Liston and Ali
70s - Ali, Frazier, Foreman
80s - Tyson, Holmes
90s - Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis
00s - Lewis and the Klitchskos.

The only difference is that in this situation, the two best fighters of our time won't fight each other owing to them being brothers. So we don't have the Holyfield vs Lewis comparison in this era.

The two most dominant fighters are splitting those they fight, therefore a division will seem weaker, if there was only one who was incapable of holding all the belts at all the time, it would allow other fighters like Arreola to fight say Haye or Chagaev, building more experience and more of a name before having to face the dominant one.

Fight science is better, fight conditioning is better - what, you forget how badly Foreman tired against Ali? You forget that Ali was so exhausted during his fight with Frazier that he was going to quit until the Frazier camp called it off due to his eye? Selective memories never work with me.

 

You're joking right?? Esch was a JOKE, he was beaten by 1-8 fighters and an ANCIENT (50+) Larry Holmes.

"Butterbean" was a media creation. ANY top contender even close to the prime of his career would destroy this clown, early.

 

Arreola would be somewhat competitive as a second teir guy. Jimmy Young would outbox him like it's nothing, Ron Lyle would rip his face off. We had a better quality of athlete in the 60's and 70's generally speaking. A ponderous, slow handed guy who can take a good shot is never going to be a top tier guy, except for right now.