Briedis in the 70s

I don't agree there's nothing to suggest Briedis would be a heavy favourite over the Quarry who schooled Lyle or the Young who beat Foreman.

 

I never said he wasn't good but people are suggesting he'd be a heavy favourite over the likes of Quarry is overrating his H2H ability.

Quarry beat Patterson which is far and away better than any win that Briedis had likewise for Young beating Foreman.

I don't see anything on Briedis resume that suggests he should be a considerable favourite over any of them at their respected peaks.

Yes Briedis gave Usyk a tough fight but there's been many ATGs that have had close fights it doesn't necessarily mean the other opponent is a H2H demon.

Not that I'm saying Briedis isn't a good fighter H2H but for me he'd be at the lower end of the top 10 in the 70s considerably below the main 4 Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Foreman. And I don't think he would a considerable favourite over the likes of Quarry, Young, Norton, either they are very losable fights for him.

 

The 70s gets pumped to mythical levels a lot in particular with heavyweights.

 

I've never been super high on Quarry personally never really impressed me on film and Young was good but inconsistent and not active enough to win a lot of his bigger fights, while I think giving Usyk and Opetaia tough fights is very impressive (Quarry notably never stood a chance against either Ali or Frazier) as well as some very solid wins over Dorticós and Głowacki. My overall point being I think Bredis has shown a much higher level and more consistency then either Quarry or Young which is why I would favor him over them but YMMV.

 

Again, I think you are going off of name and not your eyes or intangibles. On paper Patterson is a hall of fame fighter that was blessed with incredible hand speed but he started as a Middleweight and doesn't have the size of a Breidis who was well over 200 pounds in ring and well schooled. I honestly don't think Patterson or Quarry could hurt him. Quarry and Patterson are great fighters, I'm not questioning that. Both were hurt by far smaller men than Breidis. Again, I go off of what I see on film vs nostalgia.

I don't think for a second that the Steel curtain Pittsburgh Steelers that won four Super Bowls in the 70s would do anything against modern NFL teams and in some cases, the same for boxing. Now Ali, Foreman and Holmes are a different story. They do have the size and ability to more than deal with Breidis.

Throw resume out the windows when comparing era's.

 

There’s no reason why he wouldn’t beat a last legs Ali.

 

Definitely! A post Manilla Ali could be taken by a prime Breidis.

 

I don't think Briedis size is that much of a factor he's 6'1 with a 75 inch reach he's not out of the norm size wise or regarding his dimensions.

Quarry beat Lyle who was considerably bigger than Briedis.

Likewise Young beat Lyle, Foreman, who were bigger than Briedis and he was highly competitive with Norton who's 6'3 220 with an 80 inch.

Again I'm not saying Briedis isn't good and wouldn't be a notable top 10 contender. But I don't think he's that much of a stand out fighter that I think he's a considerable favourite over some of the fighters I mentioned.

Could he beat some of the notable contenders I mentioned ? Of course. But would he run the gauntlet vs all those notable 70s contenders ? I don't think so personally. And I think he would be at the lower end of the top 10 rankings in that era.

Briedis for example got a gift decision vs Noel Gevor that alot felt he lost so again I think his H2H ability is being slightly over estimated in this thread.

 

Sorry, but Ron Lyle doesn't impress me anywhere near as much as Breidis. Sure he can punch but defensively he was not good and he had nowhere near the skillset that Breidis has.

Regarding the fight with Mikalien, I thought he lost that fight but he also was fouled repeatedly and had a concussion from a headbutt. Fighter's have off nights especially when they face tough competition. Roberto Duran lost a hell of a lot of fights to guys that weren't anywhere near as good as him but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great fighter. Bredias should have lost that fight but it is what it is. Nice times out of ten he destroys Noel.

At this point, there isn't much left for us to debate. We are not going to agree so I am walking away. Again, I don't care about resume or names when comparing era's. I base my opions off of what I see.

 

So you agree with me that Briedis lost to Gevor aswell ? Infact I had Gevor clearly beating Briedis by a few rounds.

I'm not just on about resumes I'm on about regarding the eye test Briedis is not a stand out fighter to me. He's good fighter with solid fundamentals and a good chin, but I'm not seeing why he should be a considerable favourite over the fighters I mentioned.

Obviously this is just down to you thinking more highly of Briedis than I do which is fine we'll at that we can't agree on everything.

 

I'd say the same about the 70s contenders tbh but agree to disagree

 

Yeah, from what I recall he lost that fight but like I said, he was fouled repeatedly and from what I understand, had a bad concussion. Nine times out of ten Breidis beats that man. It's no different from other upsets in boxing. Take you pick.

In my mind, Breidis lost to Uysk and Noel (with a *) and the two fights to Jai when he was pushing 40 and past his prime.

 

Regarding the Opetaia fights I actually had the 1st fight a draw and my scorecard was quite weird actually. I had the first 6 rounds for Opetaia then I thought Briedis swept the next 6 but Opetaia did suffer a broken jaw so understandly he faded down the stretch.

 

Injuries can definitely change the complexion of a fight. I think Jai has a very bright future but he is very different from Briedis. Jai relies more on his natural, physical gifts and Breidis top me is more of a technician that is blessed with an iron chin and thunderous power.

 

How comes Bredis is getting so much love on this forum? Regarding the question he'd be a solid contender but not a threat to the very top guys.