What unpopular boxing opinions do you have?

Who the hell are these 15 top heavies? lol

 

Wlad was awful in that fight and not much landed.

 

Hearns had more power than Spence and everybody that knocked Hearns out had more power than Spence too, Errol is no Barkley.

 

Remember, Judah stood up and fell to the ground again. I can't recall too many refs letting the fight go after the fighter falls trying to stand.

 

Judah couldn`t control his legs.

 

Errol was much better at cutting off the ring, fighting in the pocket, more athletic, and had a better jab than Barkley. Errol is also much stronger than Hearns. It would be the 147 version of Hagler vs Hearns with Errol closing the show late.

 

lol! Errol is nowhere near Hagler`s level and didn`t have his chin or reach, he doesn`t Barkley or Hagler`s power either, Hagler would have toyed with Spence.

 

Lmfao!
This is a straight ignorant and hate filled post you never saw pbf fight at 130 and 135. You're a casual learn the sport before typing such nonsense.

 

Riddick Bowe was nothing to write home about.

 

Floyd couldn`t throw combos.

 

In modern parlance, the was a "weight bully," and his best fights were against cruisers like Holy and Hide. They intentionally steered him away from punchers, and he should have 3-4 more loses, mostly DQs with the dodgy Tubbs decision. His much vaunted infighting ability came about due to the fact that he had no idea how to use his size.

 

Lmfao he can but wtf does that have to do with him being an atg?

 

Barkley throughout his career had the physical dimensions of a HW, hell outside of training he literally walked around as a HW, I'm shocked he even was able to boil down to MW and SMW. That's the main problem Hearns had with him. The stature. Spence doesn't have that. Errol being more athletic and having a better jab than Iran is not relevant as that ain't how Iran beat Hearns. Also, the fact that you even brought up having a better jab than Barkley is foolish because so did Hearns, also, Spence does not have a better jab than Hearns, and that's who it would matter against. Also an attempt at cutting off the ring would be foolish, you gonna stalk one of the 3 hardest hitting WW's in history, who has a significant hand speed and reach advantage and your chin ain't absolute titanium? Hearns outdueled not one but 2 of the most elite boxer punchers in history in Ray L and Benitez. Spence would have a slim chance with him, very slim. I love Spence, but Hearns was a different animal.

Back to the original question:
A completely focused, mentally solid Chad Dawson would've beaten everyone up through CW. Chad Dawson is the past generations most squandered talent because he was a dullard.

 

Liston and Holmes are comically overrated.

Liston was a weight bully most famous for starching a chinny LHW who was badly dropped by much lesser fighters. His other wins... Machon, Foley, Williams, Valdez...were also al against oft-beaten guys who started well under the modern cruiserweight limit. Liston was great, but a 15-20 type great, and the threads about him beating guys like Lewis or Fury are a joke.

Holmes best wins were either-way affairs against Norton and Witherspoon, both of whom are hot-and-cold fighters much more convincingly beaten by others. Holmes absolutely gets credit for longevity, but some of that was due to ducking fighters and bragging about it. He might get in the top ten on the low end, but people rating him #2 or #3 and talking about him as a head to head beast when he struggled with Reynaldo Snipes and Mike Weaver is just Palin funny. He was a good fighter, but not an undisputed champ who took all comers.

 

Wow!