Could M. Spinks or Floyd Patterson win titles in today's cruiser division

He beat the joint longest running CW in history, and three undefeated top ranked opponents with wins between them of Denis Lebedev, Marco Huck, Steve Cunningham, Yunier Dorticos, Krzysztof Włodarczyk, Manuel Charr and Mike Perez. He also beat Mchunu, who whitewashed Eddie Chambers, as well as numerous wins over top amateurs, both HW and SHW. He's about as proven a fighter as you're going to get at the weight, and to dismiss his achievements would be to disparage the entire sport at the heaviest weights.

 

I do not think his competition was very strong, especially by ATG standards. Marco Huck was a limited fighter.

 

Lots of fighters were limited in some way. Huck's limitations didn't stop him from becoming the joint longest running CW champ in history, or giving a prime Povetkin his hardest ever fight.

Was the competition very strong in the 40s? Were its top contenders not limited in any way?

 

he has a few good wins, but using guys like Charr as a barometer only drags him down. It would be better if you didnt mention clowns like that, it almost sounds like you are trying to covertly ruin his rep here.

I have no doubt he will add more good wins soon, and go beyond.

 

I do not think much of Huck. He fought mostly in protected Germany for the WBO belt. When he left Germany, he got knocked out.His reputation is build a lot on the Povetkin fight but Povetkin was not in shape for the fight.

Lebedev was a good win, but the win was very questionable. Against Cunningham, he was stopped. What other good fighters did he fought?

 

Triple isn't a vicious puncher, but more of a accumulation puncher, and his competition is very suspect. In Wilder and Joshua's case their good hitters but again most if not all the competition is very suspect, or well beyond prime. I will give you an example what a bunch of k.o can mean. Suspect #1 J.Garza . Garza started his career with something close to 40 straight ko's back in the day. Was a weekend staple in the 80's. I can remember some of tv announcers questioned his competition . The 1st time he stepped up to live competition against J.Meza he was stopped early. Quality of competition vs Quantity of competition. It's easy to look good against bad competition. You say G.Foreman is a example of bad technique. BUT, how many fighters today have knocked out the quality comp, when that comp was still relevant like he had? And In My opinion Foreman and Baer were trained to their strength. Trainers back in the day worked on what the fighter did well,and what the fighter did comfortably and built on it. They were not trying to make a stiff inflexible fighter fight like P.Whiatker. Unlike most of the fighters today who fight the same with minor differences. Back to Triple G. He didn't make a natural JR.Middle really pause anytime during their fight. But a natural light weight with only a couple ko's at welter did. Do you still believe he's a viscous puncher.

 

Huck was a little protected, I'll agree with you there, but he took on his fair share of top fighters, and almost always gave them hell, win or lose. He was a hair away from brutally knocking out Glowacki but dropped the ball, and he gassed out vs Cunningham gunning for the KO.

I guess what I'm saying is it wasn't as if he was some soft touch that got exposed when he stepped out of his comfort zone. He was a legit tough guy with obvious limitations and a whole lot of heart.

Ola Afolabi was a strong fighter, yet Huck got the better of him almost every time they fought. Firat Arslan wasn't bad as well (SD loss to JP Hernandez), as was Kucher. Huck fought and beat a lot of decent under the radar guys without ever notching up a marquee win. That's why his resume doesn't quite tell the whole story of his career. Undertrained or not, Povetkin is a hard man to push to the brink.

 

I like Usyk, but he's almost 32 and his major assets are speed and stamina...the two things that decline quickest.

He has about 5 more fights before he's in full decline. Just watch.

 

Briedis is 34 in January. He went 10 in his last fight with a blown-up SMW and never really hurt him. Not only do we know how good he is, we know how good he WAS.

Gassiev is an interesting case, I don't know if I have EVER been so wrong about a guy as was about him after he fought the Cuban. He looked terrified in the Usyk fight and basically quit on his feet in his hometown. He has an uphill climb to say the least.

 

Usyk doesn't rely on speed and stamina to win fights; they're just two additional strings to his bow. His main strengths are his boxing iq and overall skillset, which won't decline any time soon.

 

Briedis fights a little to the level of his opponent, but I think it's clear just by watching him against the top men in the division that he's a quality fighter. I'd like to see him push himself a bit more, maybe move up to HW again. I think he'd beat fighters like Chisora and Breazeale no problem.

I don't think he looked terrified, more befuddled. He was doing well in the early stages, and troubling Usyk with some vicious body punches, but Usyk adapted and began to neutralise him with his movement.

I think Gassiev is still a top talent that was just made to look ordinary by an extraordinary one, and provided he doesn't get mentally discouraged from the loss I think he has many great performances ahead of him. He's still at the stage of his career where he can integrate new fundamental elements into his game effectively, like a good jab for instance, and a slightly less passive mindset. He'd do well to mould himself on his hero Golovkin; that'd make him a very scary proposition indeed.

 

Golovkin is obviously a brutal puncher, and I'm saying that as someone who's not particularly high on him in the first place. Your criticisms of the above fighters can easily be labelled at the fighters you initially propped up as being top class punchers.

Shavers never got a clean one punch knockout in his career, and often feasted on small, mediocre opposition. Foreman often clubbed guys down with his raw strength. Jackson feasted on a lot of sub-tier opposition, and often had to turn fights around with one punch, same as Wilder.

You're holding the modern guys up to unrealistic standards, while giving the older guys passes for the same deficiencies you criticise the modern generation for. How can you say that there are no super slick fighters around today when we have fighters like Lomachenko making history?

 

Huck was a paper champ in this era. He did allright but we are talking ATGs here. Huck is no HOF material.

 

No, we're talking the average run of 1940s heavyweights here, most of whom weren't anywhere near ATG status.

HOF material? That's subjective and dependant on a lot of things, not necessarily related to H2H ability. Gatti's in the HOF, so it's not exactly a watertight barometer of quality.

 

How do you think a fight between Jirov and Usyk would habe played out?