The weakest heavyweight division ever?

I made a couple of posts earlier replying to the idea that the heavyweight division is "not that bad", which I disagree with. Rather than post it all again, I will edit a few more thoughts onto it, though if you see a few points being repeated, I apologize. The first point I replied to, was that the fighters aren't as bad and they are just beaten by two much better fighters in the Klitschko's.

I don't think that's not the case at all.

When I look at Sam Peter, Eddie Chambers or Chris Arreola, I know they have massive flaws. Peter literally has no movement in his upper body after two rounds, he has shocking footwork, he throws wide punches and has a very basic defence. Chambers is a better fighter, just, but because of his weight, he isn't as quick or agile as a guy of his natural size should be. He doesn't have any exceptional skill and is just a basic fighter. Arreola is a guy who should be 30lbs lighter, has very little muscle shape for his weight, he has awful punching technique, especially his right hand, he throws looping shots and has absolutely no defence.

These are three guys who have all been considered top 5-10 at some point. Chambers is better than others too, so I don't hate the guy, it's just that he's absolutely basic. Adamek isn't much better as a heavyweight and will inevitably be knocked out by Wlad. Dimitrenko is still top 10 despite being a terrible fighter and then when you look at the "hot" prospects, and I use that lightly, such as Helenius who is absolutely awful, you know there's an issue.

To a certain extent, that argument works. The Klitschko's, being good fighters, make the rest of the division look poor when they fight them, because they are utterly dominant. However, it doesn't take a genius to watch one of Ruslan Chagaev's fights to tell you he wouldn't be a contender in most other eras.

A lot of these guys are just basic. They're technically flawed and limited by their size, which has become too much of an issue in the heavyweight division, where size is favoured over skill. Look at a guy like Solis, for example, who probably could rule the division if he wanted it enough, but instead he's put on a load of weight and will never accomplish anything. He's more technically skilled than Haye, Vitali and the rest of the division but he's a slob, so he's going to be limited by that.

When all these guys have retired though, nobody will look back on them too fondly, just like they don't look back on the late 70's/early 80's contenders with a lot of respect. It will go down as a bad division which was exaggerated by a few dominant champions.

If nobody beats Wlad soon, it will go down as the era where a flawed fighter, unlike, say, Holmes, Louis, Marciano, managed to rule and that will ultimately define the division. Having a dominant champion is fine but having a dominant champion who admits he isn't a true fighter, has a panic attack when he gets hit and obviously has a poor chin, that isn't good for the division when people look back in hindsight. They will say "If Wlad ruled, it obviously wasn't that good" and it's probably not too far from the truth.

No matter how good Wlad looks beating inferior fighters, anyone who is objective will always have issues ranking him highly because of how easily he's folded against C-class opponents. He could fight 100 fights of Eddie Chambers' level but the 1 loss against Corrie Sanders will never disappear. We all know that if you put a average punching, average boxer in front of Wlad, he'll look like the second coming of Joe Louis but that doesn't touch his true weaknesses. He has never won a fight against a capable opponent who tested him and that's a problem. People always say "So what if Wlad lost to Sanders, Brewster etc., Lewis did too" but the big difference is, not only did Lewis prove he was a better fighter when they had a rematch, he also showed in other fights that he could take a great punch, he showed he could handle pressure and come back and that's something Wlad hasn't ever done. Until he does, those questions won't go away.

Honestly though, I doubt Wlad will ever change. You look at ever lineal heavyweight champion from John L. Sullivan to Wladimir Klitschko himself and you won't find one - not one - champion, who has said what Wlad has about being a fighter. He's admitted he isn't a fighter and I get the impression that the next time he's under pressure, he'll fold again. Why? Because he isn't a born fighter. Jack Dempsey once famously said "A champion is someone who gets up when he can't" and that doesn't describe Wlad.

Like I said, stick a half decent puncher, who is an average boxer in front on Wlad and he'll look like he has the jab of Larry Holmes, a left hook of Joe Frazier and a right hand like Sonny Liston's. He'll look like the best boxer since Muhammad Ali and the hardest puncher since Earnie Shavers. The problem is, we know all that. The only way Wlad will prove he is a great heavyweight, is if he goes to war and wins - Which I don't think he ever will.

Boxing historians will always looking through rose tinted glasses at guys with heart. The ones who go from being "champions" to "legends" are the ones who push the boundaries, get into wars and aren't afraid to lose, to prove their greatness. That just doesn't sum up Wlad and that will be his legacy. A good fighter who didn't prove he was great.

As a result, this era is one that is full of technically inferior, out of shape guys being ruled by a guy with huge question marks, which means it probably will go down as the worst era in heavyweight history.

An easy way out is for fans to just say that the Klitschko's are dominating because they're much superior to anyone else and everyone else they've fought is actually pretty decent, so let's look at a few names:

Chris Arreola - A fighter who shows absolutely no technique and despite his decent knockout record, he doesn't really strike me as a puncher either. He just walks forward, takes two to land one, and throws punches like an amateur until he wears down his fatter, chinnier opponent. Against anyone of decent calibre, he'll be beaten.

Sam Peter _ i looked at Dan Rafael's list of prospects the other day and he had another list, his picks for "Prospect of the Year" in the last few years, and one name there was Peter! What a truly awful pick, based on the knockout of Jeremy Williams. Peter has the reputation of a knockout artist, yet he has barely beaten any top fighters. We all know Toney has a great chin but the way he took Peter's shots was ridiculous. He showed how limited a puncher Peter is because if he can't land those wide, lopping shots with 250lbs behind them, he can't hurt you. I am emphasizing his punch power because it's the only plus he has. Everything else, bar his chin, is garbage. The fact he is top 10 is bad. The fact he's a former world champion is embarrassing.

Corrie Sanders - I know I'm going back a few years with Sanders but people love to overrate him, partly because he knocked out Wlad and partly because Vitali beat him. The fact is though, Sanders is not a top 10 heavyweight for any length of time in any other era. He'd pick up an odd win here and there, sure, but this is a guy who was soundly beaten by Rahman near both guys primes and Rahman was hardly a great fighter. Sanders has a decent record, fast hands and a fair amount of power, but he wasn't technically great. In fact, nothing he had was great. He was just solid.

Eddie Chambers - C-class through and through. People praise him and say he has fast hands but really? I don't think so. It's a gimmick nickname that people buy into. His speed is alright for a heavyweight and he looks quick against guys like Dimitrenko and Peter but that's it. He's just another solid fighter, with nothing special about him. He's not a good boxer, he isn't that impressive physically. Mediocrity all round.

Alexander Povetkin - Povetkin is a guy with huge expectations...you would say in 2007. He has gone backwards with his career yet he's been considered top 5 now for how long? It's ridiculous. He's yet to beat a really good opponent, even if he is an alright fighter. He is unremarkable though, that's for sure. Top 10 in another era? I can't see him holding down a position in a top 10 for too long, honestly.

I could go on and on but you get the point. The criticism of the division isn't unfair simply because the Klitschko's are that dominant. They are dominant, yes, but they're dominating a weak group of fighters. I look at the list of fighters above and I am confident that someone like Jerry Quarry or Ken Norton would beat them all. People say Rocky Marciano fought in a weak era, but how many of those guys would stance a chance against Charles? They'd get absolutely schooled and that's without question.

In all, I'd say this is a genuinely weak era, the weakest of all-time. I think the fact the Klitschko's are so dominant, proves how weak the division is, rather than how great they are.

 

That's such a basic argument I didn't need to respond to. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Wlad is one of my favourite fighters. He has been for years. I prefer him to David Haye and any other heavyweight out there.

Pretty funny you should say that, but I'll ignore it.

I'm not saying other guys didn't have bad opponents. Of course they did, even Ali and Lewis, who beat the most top 10 ranked opponents, beat a couple of no-hopers in between. I don't fault Wlad for beating these guys, like you think I do, and I don't discredit him because they aren't great fighters. What I am doing, is putting into perspective how good these fighters are and the simple fact is, not one is that good.

Give me the top 5 most technically skilled fighters Wlad has fought, in order. Then look at how abysmal the list is.

 

I'm not saying it's the weakest because they dominate. I'm saying it's the weakest because it is.

Combine the two Klitschko's and tell me who the top 5 most technically skilled opponents they've fought are.

 

I think we can both agree Holmes has a much better record than Vitali, so let's ignore him for a moment.

Anyway, moving onto my other point, neither Wlad or Holmes had a great list of opposition, that's true. However, the big difference is, when Larry Holmes finally got beat, he was 48-0, had beaten the likes of Witherspoon, Norton and Shavers, three opponents better than anyone Wlad has beaten, and he was 7 years past his absolute peak. He would go on to do well way beyond his peak, even beating Ray Mercer.

Ciompare that to Wlad: We agree both have beaten poor opposition, however, Wlad has lost to Purrity and showed signs of mental weakness which appeared later in his career too. He was knocked out in six rounds against Lamon Brewster, again, showing signs of huge flaws which haven't gone away and the most crushing loss was against a C-class fighter in Corrie Sanders, who destoyed him in 2 rounds. Apart from those losses, he's been knocked down so many times and he still hasn't showed mental strength.

A fighter can't control how good his opposition is. They just have to beat whoever is in front of them. Holmes, Louis and Marciano get criticized but they did beat everyone in front of them. Wladimir hasn't.

That's the big difference.

 

Exactly. Talking about records has a purpose but only to an extent. Anyone who thinks this era of heavyweights is better than any other, is deluded. They are technically awful compared to fighters of the past and that shouldn't be up for debate.

 

I think Chambers at number 3 says it all, really.

Dominating an era where Chambers, who is absolutely mediocre, ranks so highly, is not a sign of greatness.