Has the heavyweight division ever sucked as much as today?

but....but....but.....isnt jimmy young the G.O.A.T. with his revised 45-0-2 (38KO) record???

 

"Baker, Jackson, Valdes, Machen, Folley"

Baker and Valdes lost to Moore. Valdes and Machen lost to Harold Johnson who in turn lost to Moore.

Jackson? Yeah, he was great.

Folley was in and out. He was ko'd by Lavorante who in turn was ko'd by an ancient Moore, and Folley was also ko'd by Jones who in turn was beaten by Johnson.

There is really no reason to consider this group as superior, or even equal to, the Walcott, Charles, Moore, Johnson era.

 

Let me show you the error of your this guy beat that guy who beat the other guy logic. Mike Tyson beat Larry Holmes who beat Muhammad Ali. Kevin McBride beat Mike Tyson, therefore Kevin McBride is better than Muhammad Ali.

 

If you look at the pre-Ali era, Ali, Frazier,Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Marciano, Louis these were all in the 188-215pd range. Nowadays a guy has to be 230-250 for someone to pay attention to him . Now there is a crusiserwt division, leaving guys like Louis. Mariciano,Patterson and Frazier to fight as cruisers and there is no money in that division so today if Louis and Marciano wanted to fight heavyweight they would have to fatten up to 225 -235, Hey! Wait a minute isn't that what we have today? Fat blubbery heavyweights.

 

That is not my logic, though. The other post argued that Valdes, Baker, Jackson, Machen, and Folley were better than the contenders of the Marciano era.

Moore defeated Valdes twice and ko'd Baker. I think this is fair proof that Moore was better than these two.

Johnson defeated Valdes and Machen. I think this is a fair argument Johnson was better than these two.

Folley was ko'd by Lavorante and Jones, men who in turn were beaten badly by contemporaries Moore and Johnson even though those two were well past their best.

We are not talking about a young man beating an old man (Holmes over Ali) or a very young man defeating a very old man (Tyson over Holmes) or someone beating an old and apparently finished fighter (McBride over Tyson).

We are talking about losing directly (Valdes, Baker, and Machen) or losing badly to fighters who in turn lost badly to an aging Moore and Johnson (Folley).

All these fights are during the same era

*By the way, Valdes and Baker peaked during Marciano's reign, in my judgement.

**Jackson was just not that good, in my judgement.

***I stick to my post that there is no proof in real world results that any of these men were better than the Walcott, Charles, and Moore of the early fifties that Marciano fought, or even as good.

 

And all this doesn't change that Machen, Valdes, and Baker were 0-5 against Moore and Johnson. Valdes did defeat Charles.

Also you are selecting opponents. Foreman lost to Young and Ali defeated Young. Foreman had more trouble with Lyle than Ali did.

**bottom line for me is that the burden of proof should be on those who claim that these post-Marciano fighters were better than the Marciano-era fighters. This is, after all, claiming mere contenders are better than champions.

 

Yes lets look at them.

Ali- Comes back after a 3 year layoff and straight into fights with Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena (no Peter McNeely's there) then meets an undefeated,peak Joe Frazier and loses one of the best heavyweight title fights ever. Instead of sulking he gets busy having 14 fights over 3 years against some fair to bloody tough opposition. He then meets and beats a feared, powerful and undefeated young champion at 32 by KO. He again meets a pumped up Joe Frazier and fights almost literally to the death with him in oppressive heat and triumphs. He was pretty much spent by this point but still manages a further 10 defenses including wins over formidable fighters like Ron Lyle and Earnie Shavers. Not bad for a fighter in decline is it?

Frazier-Meets an undefeated Muhummad Ali and emphatically wins over the consensus first or second best heavyweight in history. He then loses his title to Foreman and comes back to beat a capable Joe Bugner in what was Bugners greatest ever performance then destroys Jerry Quarry. A Quarry you called shot even though he had lost 2 fights in 4 years and was riding a 6 fight winning streak including wins over an undefeated Ron Lyle and a first round KO of Earnie Shavers? So that's an out and out lie by you. Frazier then goes to Manilla a puts a herculean effort forward in one of the most gruelling fights ever to push Ali right to the end of the wire. The super tough Ali and Quarry were both essentially ruined by Frazier which I'm pretty sure physically declining fighters don't usually manage to do. Fraziers 70's performances were mostly very good (watch him destroy Ellis,Foster and beat Ali) and the Ali win alone puts his 70's resume ahead of most any other heavyweight champions best ever effort.

Foreman- He was carefully matched but unlike some ( Ross Puritty anyone?) he still won every outing usually by stoppage. He was a heavy underdog against the undefeated Joe Frazier but destroyed him in 2 and does likewise to Kenny Norton. You call Norton chinny but he'd only been stopped once to that point when little more than a novice which has happened to plenty of others (Ross Puritty again anyone) and wouldn't be stopped again until he was ancient and then only by thunderous punchers like Shavers and Cooney. He sure didn't look chinny when Holmes was teeing off on him. After being upset by the consensus first or second best heavyweight in history he rebounds to bravely defeat the dangerous Ron Lyle in a war and again thrashes Frazier. He loses to the clever Jimmy Young whilst nearly dying of dehydration and then retires. He comes back a decade later and eventually wins the heavyweight title by KOing a 20 years younger undefeated puncher in Michael Moorer. And even though George is by now old,fat and slow your modern adonis's like Holyfield, Morrison, Stewart, Moorer and Briggs couldn't come close to flooring or stopping him. If he's the most overrated heavyweight ever these modern fighters must truly be as weak as ****.

I know your schtick is to talk down the older guys whilst overating the newbies but at least don't bull**** us with your glib "he was shot" and "they were tomato cans" rubbish. Basic research shows when you're taliking **** and making stuff up, yet you do it constantly (sparing that posting an unflattering photo of a fighter you're deriding is your other ploy).

Yet people still take you seriously when you post stuff like this? Really?

 

I don't see it as an indictment of anything. Chambers is clearly a skilled operator by any standard you care to choose. He has a watertight defence, firm command of distance, good ring generalship, excellent timing, quick sharp punches that almost always find their mark, and a top class boxing brain that has enabled him to beat far larger fighters with relatively modest punching power. This can be ascertained by watching him fight.

Sure, you can say, "but who has he fought?" and it would be a valid criticism that Chambers doesn't have any big names on his resume. But then the only big names in the division, aside from the Klits, are Holyfield and Toney, both of whom are past it and have been for years now. A resume doesn't live and die by how many ATGs and HOFers you've taken on. Quality of performance and consistency have to be taken into account as well, as do wins against consensus rated top opposition. Whatever you may think of the division a top ten fighter is a still top ten fighter, and Chambers has beaten three of them in Peter, Dimitrenko and Brock.

I'll agree with you that this era isn't the strongest, but you can't keep supposing that all these current fighters are terrible or wouldn't be able to hack it in past eras. No heavyweight era is ever going to have a truly dire top ten for any prolonged length of time. The sport is too dangerous to half ass it and too profitable for anyone not to put in the effort at some point along the way.

Chambers has clearly put in the effort to become a world class fighter and I think this is evident merely by watching the fluidity of his movements, his control of the ring, the ease with which he avoids punches and lands his own against other fighters who've been successfully doing this sport for the majority of their lives.

Yes, he can occasionally be guilty of coming into the ring overweight and suffering from decreased workrate as a result, but against Wlad he was as sharp as he's ever been, which IMO is sharp enough to give him a very good chance against all but the very best of the last few decades. He's a bit like Byrd and Young, in that respect. Skilled, but one of those under the radar guys that don't generally get a lot of recognition because they lack excitement or knockout power.

 

I bet you can't support that claim with anything other than delusional circular arguments.

 

That's all these delusional nutbags have left. It's ridiculous.