How would this match-up go between two mediocre Heavyweight contenders, which were a little bit small for their era, but had no real weaknesses (or strengths)?
This is a close and reasonable matchup. Two comparably sized heavyweights with similar experience. It’s anyone’s fight but I’m leaning towards Bryant by decision. I don’t think Brock had the power to stop Bryant the way that most of his conquerors needed to and Jennings appeared to be the slightly quicker on film. Again though, it could go either way.
Jennings was better. Brock had one shot power but Jennings was a natural fighter and would decision Brock.
Brock was a bit larger/ taller and had more power (almost like Grant), while Jenning is faster, similar as Chambers (but achieved a bit less).
Chambers got his ass kicked against Wlad whereas Jennings didn’t, granted Wlad was aging. Brock fell on his face.
Brock made things a bit awkward for Wlad as well, if I recall correctly. From what I remember of that fight, it was two relatively boring, conservative fighters prodding at each other indecisively before Wlad found his shot.
I only remember the knockout. He had won a single round on two cards and two rounds on the third, so it couldn't have been going well.
It doesn't matter, as the decision of Brock against him was controversial. At that time was Klitschko around his peak (but he landed something on his own and was better than Barrett), but against Jennings was he pretty faded/ on the slide and had apart of Powetkin (what was refer grabbling than boxing) no competitive opponent for years (though he improved his performance against Pullev, but was forced to do so). On paper has Jenning the better wins, but there were gifts included, especially against Perez. Chambers had the best record of all of them, with comfortable wins over Peter and undefeated Dimitrenko.
He got such against Mikey, who I had winning with 1 -3 points (probably 2), who got an unfair point-deduction too (similar as Barrera in the first Juarez fight).
Perez was since the Abdusalamov dram not himself, but he won the first 6 rounds and the last few were pretty close (these which you gave Jennings could rather gone either way), there deserved Takam rather the draw than Jennings, as the first really won the complete second half (due to the Irish Cuban had already trouble with the stamina from the mid-point onwards), maybe you mixed them up? The last round won rather Mike Perez than Bryant Jennings. But it was perhaps such a questionable decision as in Brock vs. Chambers, but here made the home-advantage the difference. Outside of the USA would he have never gotten that decision. A draw could have been barely justified, but never a win for Jennings and the referee was biased.
Ok bro. Find some fights where no knockdowns occured the guy who got robbed was outlanded in the last six rounds straight.
Do you know, not the number of hits decide who wins the round in (professional) boxing? Otherwise we can just count the punches and have the winner. But overall landed Perez still more and I think you are not correct; round 9 - 10 were even or Perez landed more. There are plenty of fights were that happened; like Ruiz vs. Golota. And your argumentation is wrong at all; I just have to find a boxer who won even when he got outlanded in these rounds, there don't have to be a robbery! By the way I didn't call it so; just unfair decision.
Brock gave Klitschko similar trouble as Thompson did later, although he had not these long straights/ reach or size of him. But the power of them can be compared and also the decent basics.