70's HEAVYWEIGHTS SUCKED!

no, it's obviously someone with no appreciation for history who buys into the 'bigger is better' mantra and used the chris byrd and eddie chambers struggles against the bigger fighters to verify their theory, irregardless of the fact neither has anything close to world class power.

 

These types of articles do a massive amount of damage to the Klitschkos credibility - All I can say is Vitali and Vladimir do NOT claim such outlandish abilities...

 

Slander, sir. I call outrageous slander!

 

the 1970s saw some of the greatest heavyweights to ever grace the racket, game and or bidness....

Dude's and Mutha's like:

Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Norton
Quarry
Bonavena
Shavers
Lyle
Spencer
Holmes
Chuvalo
Ellis
Foster

Its all good here......bbb:hi:

MR.BILL:hat

 

The canonical view of boxing history, especially regarding the heavies, is ripe for contrarianism. It is fetishistic, hero-worshipping garbage. Someone please again try to convince me some wild-swinging 180 pounder of yesteryear would wipe the slate with today's or the 90's contenders. I love that ****.

 

Tell em bill. :good
Don't forget Patterson as well... At least in the early 70s

 

Seamus has been watching boxing all these years and absorbs nothing. movement and speed kills regardless of size (hit and not be hit is the aim)- ali was big and had all that lucky him. that's the top level of boxing. most don't even acknowledge broken rhythem and how effective that can be especially in an even fight.

 

really? thanks for the enlightenment.

where are those lil 180 pound heavyweight contenders right now? please to inform me you erudite master of fistianic knowledge? it is the most shameful and embarrassing form of delusion to this this one division, whose participants by definition have grown over the years, has not changed.

 

It's true that some on here view fighters from past eras through rose-tinted glasses. However, the article in question is clearly a wind-up at worst, and a piece of devil's advocacy at best.

Would you agree that Vitali hits harder than Foreman ?

(Not could, but does.)

Do you agree that Wlad's "boxing knowledge" is the equal of Ali's ?

That Ali doesn't have the power to trouble Wlad ?

That Chris Byrd is comparable to Ali as an opponent for Wlad ?

That Norton would get walked down by the better-conditioned Arreola ?

That Haye would survive the kind of power Shavers unleashed on Ali and Holmes ?


The writer has a sense of humor, and is having a bit of a lark.


As I suspect you are as well.

 

Good Lord, of course the article is a devil's advocate pose. However, there are several grains of truth contained therein. "No" is my suspected answer to all the above questions. But, also, with fighters, and especially heavyweights, you never know. There are some issues I think many chose to ignore. The 70's heavies are very largely over-hyped. Ali was on his way down the entire decade. Frazier went downhill from 71 onward. Norton and Quarry both were incomplete, somewhat fragile fighters. Foreman was colossally protected, bounced an on-his-way-down, small former champ and a fragile contender and was proclaimed to be some sort of force he wasn't.

And face it, size does matter. That's why they have weight divisions. Foreman was giant from the 70's but number-wise would be an average heavyweight today. Over the past 60 years, the division has changed more than any other due to the fact there is no ceiling on the weight. The fighters are bigger, and yes, they are generally stronger. Because they are such behemoths, they do fight in spurts, they hug a lot, and their pace is generally lower. It's a different game.

 

That point does not appear to have sunk in with some of the earlier posters.

Good.

Yes, any top 20 HW could stop any other on a given night. (Rahman, Sanders, etc.)

But with hypotheticals, the speculation is usually based on best form from both fighters.

Yes. From Zora Folley on.

True. All else being equal.

Good big man v good small man truism...

True.

And there's days when I wonder if any fighter pre- Louis would beat any top five HW from Liston's day onwards.

And I am sometimes a little bemused by lists that include both Sam Langford and Lennox Lewis.

As you say, the game has changed too much for meaningful comparisons.

I have a general sense of the abilities, strengths and weaknesses of the HWs from Liston forward. I watched them.

I have somewhat less trust in my judgment of fighters from Louis to Liston. i've watched them, long after the fact, on old film.

And pre Louis, there's just been too many changes and too little actual footage for me to guess with much certainty as to how they would fare against the moderns.

 

The article does raise the question of if today's heavyweight list is so deep and talented why haven't we seen a "great" heavyweight fight in ****ing eons?

With all these superior fighters to the 70's we should be getting equivalents of the FOTC,Thrilla in Manilla or the Rumble in the Jungles on a regular basis.Instead we're fed either boring,clinch fests with punch outputs lower than the fighters skinfolds or boring,one sided beat downs from the two main guys against fighters that everyone knew from the moment the fight was signed had absolutely zero chance of even being competitve.

If the heavies are the engine that drives this sport it's little wonder boxing is sputtering painfully in reverse.

 

Yet you pick Marciano to beat Tyson! Do you change that stance or admit you're weary on that selection now?

 

A stupid noobie production from start to finish..and worthy of seeing the light of day in the general forum only..where noobish stupidity is the standard.