He was very successful at overcoming a size disparity, so he is one of the few older heavyweights, who we might be able to back against the modern giants.
We're all totally allowed to have differing opinions but refusing to even have your mind open to persuasion is just ignorant.
It’s biology. 6ft 185 lbs good fighter vs 245 lbs 6”5 good fighter. You wouldn’t back Beterbiev to beat a top 10 heavyweight would ya.
Jack Dempsey literally beat a 6'7 245 lb fighter who was heavyweight champ. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. He could beat guys up, not travel time for the entertainment of boxing forum users. What's biological about it? Please don't bring any broscience into this.
Yes, we hear that all the time - but is it really a given, that old-timers who look awful in grainy black and white footage, would look much better in 4k? Is it not possible, that the exact opposite could be tha case: That perfect film would make their ineptitude even clearer for all to see?
I'm not really inclined to think that worse quality footage would make a fighter look better. Does that sound realistic to you? We don't improve technology to make things worse. Technological advancement almost always makes things better. I would have to see evidence of a fighter that looks better on old grainy footage than they did on more modern and better quality footage.
Take a fight like Ketchel-Papke, which we have all watched. In that old film we see two men who rush into a clinch, where they push and shove each other around, until separated be the referee - after which they rush in again! How would that look any different, if shot in 4k colour? Would we suddenly see the use of a jab, or combination-punching? Wouldn't they be fighting the exact same way?
Yeah that’s why I said good. He beat Jesse Willard, hardly on the level of AJ, Fury, Parker, Povetkin etc were they. Face it man he just wouldn’t be good enough to beat the top behemoths of this era. Him vs Kovalev and Beterbiev would be far more fairer matchups.