ESB Weight Obession: Class vs Mass

And then Wlad would wake up with a wrap around his head and his ass in a sling and realize he got beat up by the best :heyrofl
By your logic Jess Willard and Primo Carnera prove that back in the 30s and Wlad fights off balance, this is why he always gets laid out. Wlad would not be getting knocked down so much if he was well balanced. And since Vitali has not been beaten since Lewis, how can you even say that 6'3-6-4 is the bottom of end to be a contender? Chisora has probably gave Vitali his toughest fight since Lennox and Chisora is about the smallest opponent. When you are fighting tall guys, like 6'6 being 5'10 is more of an advantage than being 6'4. When you are 6'4 you are short enough that you cannot even use being short to be an advantage. This was why Cus D'amato made tyson run with weights on his back to keep him short, because if you are short enough and duck low like marciano or Tyson then you can just duck under everything the tall guy throws. Now he has to bend down to nail you and you can pop up and nail him.

Very well, he said he could beat Wlad.

 

Tommo, who are your top ten heavies, out of interest?

 

This will be interesting ( if you get a reply that is )

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

.

 

I am guessing that this is head to head, rather than career accomplishments. You doubtless understand that I don’t agree with any of it, but I will single out two choices as being the worst:

7. Absolutely awful pick. This is a guy who manages to look second rate on both my criteria and yours put together! He doesn’t have a good resume relative to the era, and he hasn’t beaten many of your so called “real heavyweights”! It seems that he doesn’t please either of us.

10. You should be having trouble choosing from several fighters who deserve the number 10 spot , if you place any value on career accomplishments whatsoever. If you can’t find a fighter who deserves the spot , you could try somebody who dominated an era (say Joe Louis), as opposed to somebody who lost to your favourite fighter!

This content is protected

 

Hmm, I'll give that a shot. H2H
1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Larry Holmes
4.Lennox Lewis
5.George Foreman
6.Vitali Klitschko
7.Wladimir Klitschko
8.Riddick Bowe
9.Evander Holyfield
10.Mike Tyson
11.Joe Frazier
12.Ken Norton
13.Ike Ibeabuchi
14.Tim Witherspoon
15.Sonny Liston
16.Pinklon Thomas
17.Teofilo Stevenson
18.Felix Savon
19.Donovan Ruddock
20.Michael Dokes
21.Harry Wills

Biggish guys with holes in their games
George Godfrey
David Haye
Fred Fulton
Max Baer
Ernie Terrell
Jess Willard
Tony Tucker

Smaller guys who's skill might pose a problem
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Chris Byrd
Jack Dempsey
Michael Moorer
Michael Spinks
Gene Tunney
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Ellis
Jack Johnson
Young Stribling
Mike Weaver
Jim Jeffries
Peter Jackson

 

Interesting choices. Pretty much what I expected. I assume you are combining accomplishment with hth? The only guy I strongly disagree with is Haye. I think he has achieved very little at heavyweight so far, so I wouldn't have him in my top 30!

As to your placings, well I must admit this is always very hard to do. Funnily enough, I watched Holyfield-Holmes last night and while Evander won clearly, I think the fight showed that a prime Holmes would have beaten Holyfield. The more I watch Holmes, the better he gets. I also like Holyfield and his heart and quality of opposition would get him into my top ten also.

I have a major problem ranking Lewis number one because he was one punch kayoed by two not so great fighters, admittedly by cracking punches in both cases. Also I thought Holyfield beat Lewis in their second fight(Lewis should have got the verdict first time). Lewis was a dangerous fighter who has got a good cv, though.

You mention Ike, and I think he was fearsome and who knows how far he could have gone? He was an absolute tank of a man.

I know you disagree, but I have to include Ali and Louis in any top ten list. Ali, for his adaptability, has to get in. He isn't my favourite by any means but even if you only include his victory over Foreman, he is a cert. I include Louis because I honestly think he could be great in any era, and beat genuinely big men. I know you call them oafs, but Louis still destroyed huge men which attests to his power. As much as I like Marciano, he never proved he could beat huge men of championship class.

As to the Klitschko's, I can't make my mind up on them! They are huge guys and dominant in their era, but I think it is a poor era. That said, Vlad impressed me in the Haye fight with his footwork and use of range, and Vitali is a beast in an awkward way. I think you can get to Vlad if you draw him into a fight, whereas Vitali seems tougher.

Anyway, here's my list:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. Sonny Liston
5. George Foreman
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Mike Tyson
9. Jack Johnson.
10. Joe Frazier


Guys I nearly put in: Walcott, one or both of the Klitschko's, Dempsey.

 

Not to mention a Joe Louis, tells me you know little about the past, cheerio...Remember THERE WAS BOXING BEFORE TELEVISION...

 

So, he is taking 1/10th the money to be a trainer and lower-echelon heavyweight.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

-Wlad has been knocked down 14 times, I am certain he lost alot of rounds, ever 5 times he enters the ring he is knocked down. And how is Carnera an oaf when he fought in a better era and had more wins than WK had fights by a wide margin? wk is often off balance which is why he gets nailed so much and knocked down so much. WK is more of a bumbling oaf than carnera because Carnera actually beat way more fighters. So why did WK get knocked down so much?

You are assuming 1 very big thing. Just because you CAN beat the champ you will get a shot. Banks would have to fight his way up the rankings. He may not necessarily be able to beat everyone at HW. He can beat wlad and vitali but he might not be able to beat alot of guys inbetween. This was the same problem Holyfield and Toney faced. Whereas a fighter like Ali would fight deep down the rankings. k2 purposely duck their toughest fights deep down the rankings.

In fact showing you are too good often in boxing has the back effect of the champ purposely not fighting you. Well you might say, fight up the rankings. Except that all the champs are russian and the fights seem fixed. I can't prove it but I STRONGLY suspect that was what was behind the Holyfield "loss" to Valuev to ensure neither k2 would have to lose to him.

Banks best chance to win would be to win the title at cruiser then try to get a title shot at hw out of that.

 

I agree about Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, and Frazier, but I think Ali can make top 10 and should definitely be ahead of Foreman, who could barely box in his prime. I think that late 60s Ali could beat considerably bigger guys. He would beat them with speed and elusiveness, not power and chin. In that sense, it would be similar to what Mayweather does. Mayweather is usually at a considerable size disadvantage (10-15 lbs) but he still wins because he's so much faster and better technically.

 

I guess it comes down to the question of which early fighters were most proven at overcoming a weight disparity.

Of the people that you have listed, Dempsey and Louis are by far the most proven against bigger fighters.

It is a lot easier to back them up in these sorts of debates than Marciano, Frazier, and perhaps even Ali.

 

Dempsey isn't proven against bigger fighters at all. I seriously wouldn't pick that version of Willard over Jean Pascal today. As for Louis, he stands no chance against a big man with good movement and power.