could big abe simon compete with todays heavyweights...

He'd have moderate success and probably get a title shot down the line, but there is no way he beats either Klitschko and probably not Valuev either.

 

Simon was a rather large, strong and certainly intimidating heavyweight during his period. He had good wins over Al Delaney, Eddie Blunt and Joe Walcott ( before he peaked ). He did however, lose to most of the better fighters that he stepped up against. Simon was twice defeated by Lem Franklin ( who I felt deserved a title shot before him ), Buddy baer, and of course twice by Joe Louis, once in bad fashion..

With modern training and some polishing on his skills, he might have been a respectable contender. But, if we were to place him in a recent ring with no adjustments whatsoever, my thinking is he wouldn't go terribly far.. His defense was poor and often relied on his size, strength and chin to endure punishment. That's a bad combination when placing him in a ring during an era where he wouldn't necessarily have these types of advantages. He was also rather slow moving, and while he could certainly bang, his power probably wasn't as devastating for a man his size, as one might expect...

He was one tough looking specimen though..

This content is protected

 

Agree for the most part, although if Austin and Thompson could get title shots, surely Simon could?

 

Good point. Abe Simon was definately as good or better of a fighter than Ray Austin. Thompson wasn't that bad of a boxer though, and had fairly good stamina, along with similar size dimensions. I don't know for sure if Simon would beat Thompson, but I make no convictions about it..

 

I don't know if I'd call Quarry or Wepner " super sluggers ", per say. But truthfully, asside from Chuck Wepner I really don't see him beating any of the fighters that you just listed. The one possible exception is perhaps he might catch Earnie on a night when his head is in the clouds, but I wouldn't bet money on it. The rest of those guys like Foreman, Frazier, and Quarry are hands down favorites by a wide margin..

 

No. I just said that I don't think he'd beat the fighters you listed.. Except for Wepner who was no world beater, and perhaps a lucky win over Shavers, but no guarantees..

 

It should be noted that he got as far as he did in his own era more due to his drawing potential than ring acomplishments.

There were candidates for his first title shot with better claims. Although he put up a good fight against Louis first time round I dont think a rematch was necesary.

Having said that he showed that he matched up well with larger heavyweights of the type that are commonplace today. The fact that the title is fragmented means that he would probably only need to get ranked around No7 to get instaled as a mandatory for a shot at a belt.

I say he at least contests a title at some point.

 

He was a good contender back then, and he'd probably be one today. But no more than that.

 

I understand most ppl saying he would be a contender but is he that much worse then Peter considering his last performance.

 

Simon's best stuff was size, brute strength and very durability. On the down side, he was a poor boxer, had poor defense, was somewhat slow and clumsy and probably would not be make it into the top ten....even with good management.

I think people like Valuev, Ibragimov, and Ruiz was better.

Savold a WBO or WBA champion? I think that is a bit of a reach, even if the Champion was Ruiz. Maybe Savold could have been an alphabet cruiserweight champion.