Prime Povetkin vs. Prime Luis Ortiz

Takam isn't close to Povetkins best, Chagaev is a much better win. Povetkin has the better resume but this would have been a good competitive fight, it's a shame Ortiz got such a late start.

 

The Povetkin who fought Takam seemed to have more power and was more experienced while still being very athletic, yet Takam gave Povetkin a much better fight than the fat cruiser Chagaev, whose best wins were all MD's and SD's over Klitschko era fringe contender types.

Another advantage for Ortiz was his lack of any controversial decisions whereas Povetkin was roughed up by Huck, who had a number of losses and controversial decisions of his own at cruiser.

You could make a case for Chagaev, Chambers or one or two others as better wins than Takam but it's all fairly marginal. What stands out to me is Povetkin's lack of a dominant win clearly above the level of Takam or Jennings, who Ortiz dealt with in impressive fashion. And before Ortiz turned 40, he was also dealing with the Page's, Thompson's, Scott's, Allen's and Cojanu's in better fashion than his rivals were.

I personally believe that Ortiz was unlucky he ran into Wilder in 2018 rather than Joshua in 2017. Joshua's record against Cubans, southpaws and front foot counterpunchers hasn't been good.

 

Takam/Jennings are definitely not better than Chagaev, Whyte or Byrd.

Chagaev's top 3:

Nikolai Valuev (clear win)
John Ruiz (clear but Ruiz's ugly style muddles it for some people)
Kali Meehan (clear win)

Whyte's top 3:
Joseph Parker
Dereck Chisora (x2)
Oscar Rivas

Chris Byrd top 3:
Vitali Klitschko
David Tua
DaVarryl Williamson/Old Holyfield (tie)

Takam top 3:
Forrest
Old Thompson
Perez

Come on. Takam isn't even close to being a top win, calling Nikolai Valuev and John Ruiz "Klitschko era fringe contenders" is just dishonest, they were both multi time champions, and Chagaev was a clear winner against both of them, especially vs Valuev

 

Prime Pov ko's.

Prime Ortiz was when though?

 

Byrd was 37 as a self-confessed "blown up SMW", was coming off another brutal defeat to Wlad, a slew of questionable decisions before that and was one fight removed from losing badly to Shaun George. A more experienced Povetkin had far more problems with undefeated Chambers than he did with Byrd, suggesting that Chambers was considerably better than Byrd at that stage.

Whyte might be the best name on Povetkin's record on paper (although several of Whyte's best wins were marred by contentious A-side officiating) but the performance from Povetkin barring the uppercut was poor, understandable though because he was virtually 41 with a young man's style and undersized. Still, that version of Povetkin loses to many fighters on his record. Would you favour that Povetkin over Takam/Chambers, who gave a prime/near prime version of Povetkin life and death while away from home?

Chagaev was a MD/SD man against the Valuev's, Ruiz's, Virchis's and Oquendo's: he would have probably lost to the Takam who fought Povetkin, if not it would have been life and death.

Relative to the Klitschko's, Valuev and J. Ruiz were fringe contenders for the throne: had they won the fights necessary to get a title shot they would have been wide underdogs vs either brother. They picked up alphabet trinkets and defended them controversially but no one thought of them as being "the man".

Whatever performance you want to pick: Povetkin vs Takam, Chagaev, Chambers or whatever, none of them are more impressive performances than Ortiz vs Jennings in terms of demonstrating boxing skill and power. Ortiz was also never dominated in a loss and never received a controversial decision (with the Ruiz loss at 43 being controversial against him) whereas Povetkin received two (Huck, Hunter).

 

Blond Ortiz beats Povetkin. You saw Povetkin catching shots from Eddie Chambers.

 

This is terrible logic. You're not considering stylistic attributes at all. Chris Byrd did worse vs Povetkin than Chambers because Byrd was, as you just said, a very small HW, and being undersized vs Povetkin, a guy who specializes in getting up close and beating you on the inside is a death sentence.

Whyte is definitely not the best win on Povetkin's resume. Chagaev has a couple of people on his resume who are at least roughly Whyte tier. Would that Povetkin beat Takam or Chambers? He beat Takam and Chambers, then at 41 he beat Whyte. Why play fantasy games of whether or not 41 y/o Pov would beat Takam? He beat him by KO while leading heavily on the cards in the real world. He had the right style to KO Whyte at 41 and the right style to KO Takam in 2014.

Takam has never even gotten close to beating somebody at the tier of Valuev. Do you seriously think Takam would beat Valuev? What evidence do you have? He came up short every time he got near top fighters. Chagaev would beat Takam for sure.

A fringe contender isn't anybody who's viewed as being as being an underdog "the man" of the division, but somebody who is unranked and not perceived as a threat. Valuev and J Ruiz were ranked near the top of the division. Calling them fringe contenders while they were highly ranked champions is like saying Joshua was a fringe contender after he beat Ruiz the second time because he was perceived as widely inferior to Fury.

Povetkin was only dominated in a loss by Wladimir, somebody far better than anybody Ortiz ever fought. His controversial decision vs Hunter came when he was 40, and his win vs Huck is, ironically, a better performance than Ortiz ever came up with vs a world class opponent. How am I supposed to say what is better between KO 1 Perez and KO 7 Jennings? It's difficult with gatekeepers.

 

Prime Povetkin for me, because he can beat any version of Ortiz.

BUT - when was Prime Ortiz ? just curious.

 

We never seen a prime Luis Ortiz but considering he was still pretty good in his mid 40s (he’s probably nearly 50 let’s be honest) tells me that 20 years ago he’d have been very good, enough to beat a prime Povetkin, possibly not. 50/50 fight, both could hit the floor

 

"He (Povetkin) beat him (Whyte) by KO while leading heavily on the cards in the real world."

This is a deluded fanboy take. Povetkin was getting beaten up and lost every round save maybe one. This is practically a universal consensus:

[url]https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/dillian-whyte-vs-alexander-povetkin[/url]

Compubox had Whyte outlanding Povetkin 62-32 going into the 5th, with 2 KD's scored.

"You're not considering stylistic attributes at all."

37 year old "blown-up SMW" Byrd coming off getting destroyed by Wlad and about to lose to Shaun George isn't beating prime Chambers in my opinion, or even coming close. Call me illogical if you like. Chambers wasn't a big heavy in his own right, he was just a lot better than Byrd at that stage.

"Chagaev has a couple of people on his resume who are at least roughly Whyte tier."

You could also say the reverse: Parker and Chisora are Chagaev tier, if not better. Beating Valuev is not that impressive considering that Valuev got more controversial decisions than any heavyweight I can think of, and not against world beaters.

"Takam has never even gotten close to beating somebody at the tier of Valuev."

Perez at his best gives Valuev all he can handle, just like everyone else did.

"is like saying Joshua was a fringe contender after he beat Ruiz the second time because he was perceived as widely inferior to Fury."

There's a wide continuum between "green Charles Martin paper champion" and "the man". Ruiz and Valuev were in my view fringe contenders, not top contenders to the throne. They happened to pick up a trinket or two against other fringe contenders. There are many fringe contenders (10% chance of becoming a champion is fringe in my book) and some become champions, because at the end of the day they are still contenders. Put them in the ring with "the man" though and 9/10 times they get schooled, probably KO'd. I understand that my use of the term "fringe contender" is heterodox but I believe it's more honest than referring to the likes of Whyte and Chagaev "top contenders".

"Povetkin was only dominated in a loss by Wladimir, somebody far better than anybody Ortiz ever fought."

That's a pretty contentious claim based on how Wilder and Wlad did against their sole mutual opponent and the fact that Wlad got KO'd three times by men considered to be journeymen and fringe contenders. It was not just that Povetkin was dominated but the utter lack of spirit he showed in that fight: this is why I regard Sam Peter as a superior opponent. He showed Wlad no respect (Povetkin was apparently a bit of a Wlad fanboy according to Steward) and responded to Wlad's dirty tactics with dirty tactics of his own. He was also bigger, stronger, took Wlad's power better, landed about twice as many shots as Povetkin and put Wlad down three times. Povetkin didn't even complain about what Wlad did after the fight; at the elite level it's a weak, happy to be 2nd best mentality.

"and his win vs Huck is, ironically, a better performance than Ortiz ever came up with vs a world class opponent."

Huck got more controversial decisions than any cruiserweight champion in history, was KO'd by Cunningham and Glowacki, dominated by Briedis and Usyk. Lebedev, the Turk and the Nigerian all had cause for protest at the officiating of Huck's fights. So it's very questionable how "world class" Huck was. He was 20 lbs lighter than Povetkin but was able to effectively pressure him and rough him up, losing controversially for the only time in his career. Charr also had significant success roughing Povetkin up and landing shots.

Povetkin demonstrated he could beat a wider variety of styles than Ortiz, in my view because he had those opportunities. But he wasn't harder to hit, wasn't a better pointfighter, wasn't more powerful, wasn't more tenacious and was a smaller, orthodox fighter with a one-dimensional come forward style. Jennings, Takam, Chagaev, Chambers, Whyte: throw them into a hat and all would have competitive fights with each other.

 

Povetkin KO early to mid rounds.