Has the heavyweight division ever sucked as much as today?

I don't think you realise just how large modern day Cruiserweights are. The vast majority of them cut a substantial amount of weight just to get down to the 200lbs mark; their actual in-ring weight is closer to 210, which would have been a very respectable weight for a heavy back in Ali's day, an above average sized fighter in Louis's day (who was himself only 200lbs).

And as Haye showed us against Chisora, a smaller fighter can still get knockouts over "real heavyweights" without bulking himself up with useless muscle mass. The idea that you have to be above a certain weight to compete with other equally weighty individuals is what's led to this plethora of tubby plodders.

There are a surprisingly large number of giants fighting at heavy at the moment, but the vast majority of contenders and top 50 guys are still around the same size as they always were, hovering about the six foot mark. The only difference is that they're just heavier, and I don't see that as an improvement at all.

Even the giants, outside of Price and the Klits, are far from impressive. I'd certainly back a quick athletic fighter like Haye over Fury or Helenius anyday.

 

I have to admit, I'm a bit of a closet Chambers fan, though it's mostly because I don't think he gets his due recognition as a fighter. His preparation for his shot at the title was about as solid as you could hope for: both Peter and Dimitrenko were top fighters at the time he fought them and provided the types of attributes (power in Peter's case, height in Dimitrenko's) that he would be facing against Wlad. His schooling of Dimitrenko was extremely impressive, considering he was fighting in hostile territory against a previously unbeaten fighter, and put paid to any fears that he would be too small to fight Wlad. Prior to that he'd had a very respectable showing against Povetkin and thoroughly outclassed the none-too-shabby Calvin Brock and Dominic Guinn, unfortunately ending Brock's career. He's since gone on to controversially lose to Adamek after a hand injury in a fight which most observers would agree he would have won had he possessed the full use of his fists.

Sure, he was dominated by Wlad and knocked out, but at least he didn't sit on a mandatory position padding his record with bums. He went about things the right way, the way a contender should prepare himself, and I only wish there were more fighters in the division that were willing to follow his path.

 

What contenders were great then? Buster Fat-Ass Mathis? Ron Lyle? Chuck Wepner? Seriously, you people need to take your damn meds and take off the rose-tinted glasses.

Just goes to show that Frazier got his brains beat in a few too many times. He probably thought his son Marvis could fight. atsch

 

Ron Lyle was a very good fighter, actually.

 

He probably was one of the most deserving challengers and that's an indictment in itself.

When wins over Dimentrenko (a decent win over a very limited fighter considering the size disparity),Peter (who came in overweight and off a trouncing from Vitali Klitschko) Brock and Guinn (a fringe contender in reality) and a loss to Povotkin (who'd only had about a dozen fights himself ) make you one of the better credentialed heavyweights out there, then it suggests that there is a real lack of depth in the division at the moment.

I'm not knocking him as a fighter at all and I was probably a bit unfair in lumping him with the other guys. And for all his ability I don't think anybody gave him a chance in hell against Wladimir and sadly there hasn't been a contender who has aroused any interest in a Heavyweight title fight since David Haye, which was based partly on Hayes' power but primarily his ****ing big gob.

 

Indictment of what?

Chambers > Leon Spinks, Richard Dunn, Chuck Wepner, Buster Mathis, etc, etc, etc.

 

That the depth of todays heavies minus the Klits is dreadfully thin dumbarse.

It's easy to say Eddie Chambers is automatically better than some of the poorer names of the 70's but if you reckon he'd be competitive with Frazier, Ali, Foreman,Holmes,Norton,Quarry etc etc then you're pulling your ****.

As a matter of fact I'm not even sure he's better than Mathis anyway. Mathis beat Chuvalo,took Ali the distance and went 10 with a peak Frazier. I wouldn't favour Eddie Chambers to do any of that.

Chambers resume is wafer thin unless the awesome..ahem Dominique Guinn or an overweight and slow Sam Peter floats your boat. You're easily pleased if it does.

 

Marciano's reign toward the very end was really thin and desolate. Patterson's reign was worse, but that was by choice not because of the era lacking in talent. But from 1954-1956 the top of reign was awfully thin and weak. Let's be honest, Don Cockell wouldn't be #2 rated in any other circumstance of any other era. This was just a case of a guy having fortunate wins over past it but at one point somewhat respectable fighters.

Archie Moore was great too, but after that. Once Baker, Jackson, Valdes, Machen, Folley starting getting into the picture or getting their acts together the era got increasingly better.

Overall, though, it's been rather consistently bleak or at least sub par for quite a length in time. I would mark things around the late Ruiz title reign. Lewis, Holyfield, and Tyson were pretty much done, and it was a swap fest until either K brother grabbed a firm of hold things. Even then, while the division showed hope in 2008-2010 not much really materialized in terms of fights. Half of this had to due with bad fortune, bad management, or a clear avoidance of a Klitschko. The other part didn't live up, and certainly had its case of over-blowing a fighter's ability (Adamek).

 

Let's examine these vaunted heavies of the 1970's.

Ali = was closest to his peak on January 1, 1970 and declined ever there after. Still, in his increasingly dilapidated state was able to be a champion in the division. His longevity is an indictment upon that 70's heavyweight era.

Frazier - The last elite heavyweight he beat was March 28, 1971. After that, it was downhill as far as his physical abilities (which were limited at best) and results. He took out a shot Quarry and beyond shot Ellis. His resume, in the 1970's and past the Ali result, was horrible.

Foreman - A flash in the pan thug raised on a litany of tomato cans who pieced together a couple good fights against extremely flawed fighters (Norton being chinny and Frazier being somewhere between has been and shot), then was schooled by an old, forsaken Ali, taken life and death by novice Lyle and shamed by a mediocre Young. The most overrated heavy of all time. His 70's resume is beyond paper thin. It is transparent.

Ali holds the crown whilst defending against such non-enitites as Coopman, Evangelista, Bugner, Wepner, Young... then losing to Spinks (tho he really had already lost to this Norton character)...

This is your Golden Era? Really?

 

Eddie Chambers was every bit as good as Jimmy Young. Not that that's saying much.

 

Ron Lyle got a shot at Ali straight after being thoroughly schooled by Jimmy Young.

 

I think it might be fair to compare Chambers, Byrd, Adamek, and Haye to guys like Ellis, Young, and Quarry: technically gifted fighters who did well in the heavyweight class but lost against the elite big men for whatever reason. Either they didn't have the power or the chin, or something else entirely.

I wonder, would Holmes' era have been great too if Foreman had stuck around? Foreman fights Holmes, Witherspoon, Dokes, Page, Thomas, Coetzee, Tillis, and Weaver. Some of those fights would be exciting and liven up the era.

 

Your kidding arent you. Them 3 guys would have a ****ing field day today

 

A turn of phrase, however the likes of jerry quarry, ron lyle, jimmy young, oscar bonavena, joe bugner, earnie shavers are a better bunch of fighters, IMO, than Solis, Arreola, Ademak, Haye, Thompson and Chisora

Marvis Frazier could probably have beat most of the recent names, he certainly wasnt much worse