You described Adamek as "half decent" a few posts back. "Half decent" aren't words I'd use to describe a two-division (light heavy and cruiser) champ and a top heavyweight contender for years. Arreola would've done fine in the 1950s. He'd have been a top contender. Adamek would've, too.
he was LHW, and has no pedigree at top level HW, so why you lying? However the OP is right he was a good LHW but only half decent at HW in peaking at "international belt" level ie borderline top ten, so whats wrogn with what he said?
I'm not so sure about the consensus that Valdez would best Arreola. He was a sloppy fighter and things could go wrong for him quickly against Arreola. It's a pretty even match. Arreola did have enough skill to be outpointing Stiverne in the rematch before getting caught.
The image of a shot Arreola getting pummeled by Wilder is fresh in our minds. We're talking about a guy who could've knockeD Tommy Morrison's head off during his best years.
Exactly. And guys like Jimmy Slade were rated as high as number-four in the world at heavyweight in 1954. In July that year, the top 10 included Valdes at #2, C0ckell at #3, Slade at #4, Hurricane Jackson at #6, all 170-something pounds of Harry Kid Matthews at #7, Earl Walls at #9 and Heinz Neuhaus at #10. Arreola from 2008-2013 would've likely blasted out all of them. And I always rooted against Arreola. I've never liked that guy. But c'mon. Valdes is the only guy out of that crop I'd give a chance of beating him. And, like you said, Valdes wasn't always right, either. The '50s weren't exactly loaded at heavyweight.
Okay, I suppose being a big guy with a hard punch and a fighting will could take a man reasonably far in just about any era.. I can't see Chris Arreola being among the elite but with the right angles he could probably end up ranked in one capacity or another.. Areola vs Valdez would have been a crowd pleasing fight between two big sluggers that could have gone either way... Chris might even have lasted a while to give Marciano a few good rounds on a good night.
Purely as a matter of interest, how would you see a young (but much lighter) Adamek faring against Areola?
I thought Adamek was at his best as a cruiserweight - around 200 pounds - when he fought Steve Cunningham the first time. So, I think he'd fair better. But I was never a fan of Arreola's and I was a fan of Adamek's back then, because he put on such exciting fights at light heavy and cruiser. At 200 pounds (his cruiserweight days), I think Adamek would've been a top 10 heavyweight in the 50s, too. I think Marciano would've stopped him, but I think Adamek-Marciano would've been a really exciting barn-burner for nine or 10 rounds. In other words, Adamek would've done just as well or better than anyone who challenged Marciano back then.
i Agree with most of what you say and i think Adamek as a cruiser beats Areola because he is simply quite a bit better. But i was thinking more along the lines of Adamek as the world light heavy champion taking a fight at say 180 (the size of many of those 50s heavys) against Areola. Do you think that he would win or at least have an excellent chance or would the weight drop give him no chance despite him being a better fighter.
One thing we know is a contender material guy is just that, a contender material guy. Outside of champions all World level guys go 50-50, losing half the fights they have when evenly matched. What we have here is the "but this one is a big oaf" argument. It amounts to the same thing. A guy who goes 50-50 in even fights is a 50-50 guy, not a champion.
if he put his mind to it he could manage fringe contender back then. He'd not put his mind to it of course, since he never has.
Don't think people realize he fought at 175 pounds as, I believe, an adult. As an amateur, that is. Also don't think people realize how much he likes eating, drinking and smoking pot. He certainly had something going on if he was such absolute ****, because the guy could have lost 50 pounds and accomplished what he did do with plenty of vices and laziness.