Controversial boxing opinions

Another gem from Pachilles.

 

I agree with all of these. :good

 

Bob Fitzsimmons is very possibly the greatest middleweight and the greatest pound-for-pound fighter ever.

Heavyweights are underrated pound-for-pound. In fact, since the best heavyweights often compete under massive weight handicaps, some of the division's best deserve to be OVER-represented pound-for-pound, not under-represented.

A prime Chavez would be a 50-50 proposition in a fight with prime Duran at lightweight.

 

I agree with this. And its one of the reasons i rate Joe Frazier so highly. Although he wasn't really undersized, a straight up swarming style is dangerous business considering the knockout power Heavyweights generally have. Its a style more suited for the lighter weight fighters who can be more elusive and are in the firing range of much weaker bombs. To be so succesful with it at Heavyweight is quite a unique feat, i think.

 

Michael Carbajal would have probably beaten Ricardo Lopez at 108lbs between 90-93.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

I echo an earlier poster, Chris Byrd is criminally underrated.

 

He's a criminal allright.

 

Definitely.
Frazier, Dempsey, Marciano all score high pound-for-pound.
Holyfield does too.

If a 210 - 215 pound David Haye beats a 245 pound Wladimir Klitschko that's better pound-for-pound than any single Manny Pacquiao win, BY FAR.
I don't think he will though.

 

If Haye loses it won't be because of his size...it'll be because he isn't good enough in an overall H2H sense, which is;
Athletic Attributes (including conditioning) + Skills + Size (+/- Style match-up bonus/detriment) = H2H Ability vs opponent.

I would take Tyson, Holy, Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Foreman etc to beat Wlad, & they are were all similar weights to Haye in their Primes, but they were also much greater H2H.

 

I don't recall commenting on pleasure of viewing.

 

I agree.
And I believe those great heavyweights deserve more pound-for-pound credit than they usually get.
Sure, Wlad's not automatically great because of being big, but he IS pretty good and IS NOT handicapped by his bigness.
You're right : if Haye loses it's not because he's not big enough, but if he wins he should still also get credit for beating a man who weighs approx. 15% more than him.

 

I think if Haye loses it will largely have to do with Wladimir being considerably taller and bigger than him. It's this size that will allow him, in theory at least, to dominate with his jab. This isn't to say he wouldn't have a good jab if he was 6'3, but having such an advantage in height and reach goes a long way when you fight upright as Wladimir does.

 

Haye was eleven inches shorter than SNV...

 

Are you addressing me? Is this supposed to disprove what I just said?