Ruslan Chagaev vs the 1950s

Bingo. Some posters here most certainly bask in the amplified glow of the 1950's. It must have been all the radiation from the 50's sci fi monster movies.

As I have said before, too many of these top talents in the 1950's lost to joruneyman. Top fighters should not lose more than once to a journeyman. Yet in the 1950's many of the fighters Suzie Q mentioned did exactly that. Furthermore, many of them were Ko'd by lesser talents. Its a good thing the world wide web wasn't around in those days, because if it were the internet chin police would be out in full force.

Would the top 5 fighters in the 70's, or 90's losing multiple times to joruneyman? NO WAY. Yet in the 50's it was common place. Hmmmm.....

The boxing writers who were around in the 1950's were not terribly impressed with the heavyweight talent. Writer Jimmy Cannon said Marciano stood out like a rose in a garbage dump, meaning there was a lack of talent, or the talent that was there was already well past its best.

If you want to compare Chagaev's record in the 00's to the contenders record that SuzieQ lists its a no contest. Chagaev is better by a landslide. He was also moved much faster. If you objectively watch the films Chagaev is more impressive on film for the most part too.

Like I said, Liston and Marciano could be 1 or 2, but Chagaev is certianly top 5 in the 1950's.

 

Thank you, this was the next thing I was going to mention. Even Marciano was considered sub-par compared to the real Louis. That whole lot was considered bunk.

Please, old timers, don't feed me a ****-sandwich of nostalgia regarding the depth of these 50's heavyweights.

 

Jeez, I'm afraid to enter this thread...

 

Yes, he was ripped and, as I have stated many times on this forum, a specimen.

However, as a true Heavyweight in the modern sense, he was vastly under-sized and- shall I coin a term?- under-lengthed.

 

How do you know he was "under - lengthed", knew his "personally" did you ?

 

I think Chagaev would defeat Charels in the 1950's. Charles lost his mobility in the 1950's, and prefered to fight toe to toe more often than not in his filmed fights. Chagaev hit harder, took a much better punch, and had countering skills.

Walcott was an " off and on " fighter in the 1950. I think that fight could go either way.

 

Correct. The historians say the 50's heavyweight division was lacking. The films show some colorful fighters, but most of them were also limited, small, did not hit hard, past their best, or not that good to begin with. When the top ten fighters have multiple losses, some of which at the hands of journeyman, its a tale tale sight the entire lot is not that good. I don't think Chagaev will ever lose to a journeyman. In fact, he has never lost to one in 100+ fights in an amateur or pro, and has a 100-3-1 or 97-3-1 combined record as an amateur or pro that is loaded with top talent.

I have spoken to several men who saw Marciano in their primes, and the consensus is Rocky was a worthy champion, but not quite as good as his some of his predecessors or successors.

 

Tyson amateur career was rather short. Tilliman won nothing major at the amateur level. Tilliman was a solid amatuer who took advantage of a green and young Tyson.

Felix Savon was a legend in amateur boxing. Savon was a multiple World Amateur and Olympic gold medal fighter. Savon was several notches above Tillman. With Savon, it wasn't skill alone. He was big an he could hit. Indeed Savon owns first round KO's over Tua and Briggs! Chagaev was the best amateur fighter in the world for a while and owns a 2-1 edge over a prime Felix Savon.

After reading the above, I hope you see the significance of Chagaev beating Savon twice.

 

To put it simply most of these guys were semi professional in parts of their careers this is the reason for the number of losses. Full marks for Chagaev for stepping up to the plate when so many others refuse to do so.

 

The problem is a lot of these guys don't understand what skill is. Amateur champion?

The guy still fights like an amateur, aka his style is suited to land with the white part of his glove, but it's also SUITED for the amateurs.

Chagaev is far too basic to compete with the guys from the 50's and would be annhiliated.

He doesn't have the handspeed or activity to be productive with his current style and guard to do anything noteworthy in the 50's.

He would be no more than a journeyman at best, and would NEVER be champ.

I mean, ignore everything about styles, about his level of competition, and forget about boxing history completely, and there you go, you got a guy who can hold a belt...

Basically, WTF?

 

DOn't agree with any of these statements. Chagaev doesnt do anything particularly well, he wings his punches, is slow, not strong, not athletic, not got an impressive workrate. He's technically decent

The best word to describe him is 'solid'

If were comparing eras it would be easier to put him in the 90s. Does he beat any of these? Lennox/Holyfield/Bowe/Tyson/Ibeaubuchi? No chance in hell. What about Tua/Morrison/Bruno/Rudduck/Sanders/Mercer/Golotta/Moorer very very unlikely. Does he beat Hide/Akiwande/McCall probably 50-50s if we're honest and those are none top10 fighters

 

Mendoza is making Chagaev out to be Mike Tyson, when the reality of it is that Chagaev has no handspeed, isn't good at throwing combinations, his uppercut ain't ****, where are his hooks (oh he's too slow to throw in combinations), and he relies off a basic 1-2.

Other than that, aside from the fact his footwork ins't nearly as good nor his head movement, and he hasn't fought anyone, and he appears to be out of shape, yeah I guess you got a carbon copy of Mike Tyson.

 

That's speculative unless you actually have seen him lift weights.