The book on Ruslan Chagaev

I highly doubt Charles or Walcott would need controversial Majority decisions to beat Virchis, Valuev, or Ruiz.

 

cheers i normally find a stream from a guy i know

who is on Timerlakes first name TV

 

Just getting back to topic Chagaev is not prime at the moment he has had a spate of injury and health complaints I don't believe he will finish the fight although when healthy he would do well.

 

Alright lets pause and take a step back for a moment. Please Mendoza Explain how Chagaev would beat anyone in my top 10? Honestly though, this is why I hate other Klitscko fans. I am a huge wlad fan, but Mendoza hyping Chagaev up to a sensationalized level that he doesnt deserve to be on, it takes the steam out of me defending chagaev in the future. Thanks mendoza for bringing us all down to a lower level, with this bull**** thread.



ps good luck wlad. I hope you beat a "good"(NOT very good) fighter in chagaev and unify the titles. Go for it!

 

"Charles and Walcott lost to lesser fighters than Virchis, Valuev, and Ruiz"

And they also defeated much better fighters than any of those guys in my judgement. Quite a few of them, actually. Let's see who Chagaev loses to before he's through before we anoint him as an all time great.

Also, I would point out that Carl Davis Drumond is ranked #72 in the world by boxrec--I don't even think that really makes him even a journeyman. Drumond stopped Chagaev on cuts but modern rules allowed Chagaev to get off the hook and win on points. Under the rules Charles and Walcott fought under, that would just be a KO defeat.

 

Both fought a harder schedule and werent as protected

However Virchis lost to Sprott (robbed), Valuev lost to a 46yo Oldyfield (robbed), Ruiz lost to a very fat Toney (politics). Its pretty obviously Charles/Walcott could school these 3 with their hands tied behind their backs and probably not lose a round in the process

 

"Fought a harder schedule. According to whom?"--Me, for one. What the hell does 26 fights have to do with anything, at least if compared to Charles. Charles reached his 26th fight on July 14, 1942, one week after his 21st birthday. He didn't have just 26 fights. He had 58 fights according to the boxing register against fighters rated AT THE TIME HE FOUGHT THEM. He had 24 fights against Hall of Famers and went 18-6. In other words, he had almost as many fights against Hall of Famers as Chagaev has had fights. Charles fought an awesome schedule, comparable to the very best--Langford, Greb, Moore, Robinson--no way Chagaev compares to that no matter how it is spun.

 

1. I don't doubt that Chagaev was better and was butted. He would still have lost back in the fifties.

2. Marciano losing on cuts--It depends if he were behind on points, and a decision by the ref on what caused the cut. He certainly wasn't ever behind on points against Charles in their second fight.

3. Drumond is not even a journeyman. That is what I said. Boxrec rates him #72. I don't put out the ratings. By the way, while Virchis is being brought up like he is a top man, he in fact is rated #19 by Boxrec. Has he ever even been rated in the top ten?

4. "You can't have it both ways"---Why is what you do forbidden to me? You have been arguing for years that Walcott couldn't fight after 1953 on the basis of the evidence that he didn't fight, but when I proposed that Moore would have been champion somewhere between 1953 to 1956 if Marciano were not there, you responded that Walcott would have beaten him. Well, which is it?