Would Wladimir having it too easy, hurt him H2H against ATGs.

I mentioned before his reign is a top5 of all time.

 

This content is protected

Peter's shape was perfectly fine against Wlad and was fast enough to put the big man an ATG no less down 3 times. peter's not the first and certainly wont be the last to make it to the top with sheer strength, chin and raw power.

Being issued or not being issued a licence by one board doesn't particularly mean much. You only have to get a Ryanair flight to Luxembourg these days to pick one up.

 

People do tend to get nauseous when given a reality check. You don't need me to tell you anything. Watch some video and study it for yourself. Fighters today are certainly no worse than any other era. That theory is just silly.

 

I'm going to ask you a question and it's hard not to make it insulting, and if your answer is NO then disregard it completely.

Are you thick?

Do you think when I say average, that I mean as in, average compared to everybody in the world?

Because I really hope not.

I'm not sure how you can say I don't sound like someone who boxes when I am willing to discuss technical aspects and you will do anything but

****, in your last 3 posts you've used the phrase one armed bandit to describe a highly respected fighter, suggested that I fight a profesional heavyweight, and constantly waffled about the 200lb mark as if anybody else has mentioned it

Quit addressing points I haven't made

 

Yet good enough to beat Holy and Vitali.

 

D'amato,Arcel,Blackburn,Dundee called most of their opponents their champs face,bum,tomato cans,easy kills

Who hates the champ? We are saying the fighters of today aren't up to the caliber of the fighters from yesterday.
The old philosophy is gone.

 

There are a good number of fighters who would have beaten 40 year old Evander Holyfield, Christ :-(

 

Sam Peter lol.

The same Sam Peter who needed a gift decision to beat a 5ft 9", morbidly obese, 40-year-old former middleweight. Sam Peter was awful.

 

Well I'm afraid to tell you Byrd hasn't mastered the flux capacitor. He can't hit 88 mph driving his DeLorean and go back and pick up a mid 20's Holy nor can we pick up prime Ali, Foreman, Frazier etc either.

 

Exactly. Peter went 12 rounds (and should have had a loss) against a shot James Toney at heavyweight

Come on man!

 

Then we'll just have to agree use common sense and not bring up a fighter beating a guy way out of his prime and in a poor run of form as an indication of anything then. Best to treat it as it is, a respectable win over a fighter who would have made it a completely different fight if he wasn't past middle-age.

 

I was proving exactly how easy people can tear apart "skill sets". Fighters are who they are. Many only do a couple things really good, or even one thing... but a lot of times that's enough. It's always been that way.

There is no other way to compare fighters today other than against themselves. It's the only reasonable, logical way of thinking. Everything else is nothing but a biased fantasy. That's just the truth. We could have a hollow argument back and forth all day of today vs yesterday, but we all know that it's a nonsense argument in which nobody can win... because nothing can be proven.

The best thing that you can do is rate fighters within their own era.

IMO, the era's from before were great for their time. No greater than today. For the mainstream? Maybe... sure... they were all plaster through the media and on network tv. So many fighters were household names because of the exposure that they were given. Hell, people were talking about boxers on the "contender" as if they were great fighters simply because they were in their homes, on netwok television. That's the way it works. It's a lot harder to gain a healthy respect for an obscure fighter from the other side of the earth that you don't even get to see on TV. You have to actually seek that information out... go out of your way to really watch them and study their fights. That's what I do. I am from Ohio, so it isn't like I have a bias against American fighters. I'm just realistic and I love boxing.

I wish boxing was on NBC, ABC, CBS... hell... I wish that Heavyweight boxing was still on HBO. Not just the Klitschkos either... but the top contenders and up and coming fighters from the around the world. People might think differently if they got to see more of them.

 

I don't know why you posted these images. H2H? As if Louis hadn't dealt with size.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

If we're speaking only about the eye test and physical dimensions, these four Louis victims look in better shape and a tougher test than almost all of Klitschko's opponents.

They all outweighed Louis, significantly. Not to mention two of them are former HW champs. And the other two fell victim to Louis twice.

And this is before the steroid boom in the 1960's.

---

Sorry for the MASSIVE picture of Abe Simon... I tried to crop it...

 

The statement "out of shape" is nothing to do with muscle definition. Peter is out of shape, without question. A guy like Mariusz Pudzianowski is out of shape for fighting. 90% of the guys on Biggers Better are out of shape. It's not merely about body fat, it's about conditioning.

If Peter was in shape, he would never have been as ponderous and lumbering as he was. He had too much muscle.

And your right, he wasn't the first and won't be the last. That doesn't excuse his faults. A very slow, ponderous, unskilled puncher with poor stamina. He was nothing special at all.

True, but hepatitis is not a simply condition. You only have to look at Chagaev's regression to know that he shouldn't be boxing. Whether he has a slight problem or a severe one is unknown, but Chagaev's illness cannot be ignored. The fact is, one of Wlad's best opponents had hepatitis and hasn't ever looked good since having it.

 

That's because Holyfield was old and Vitali is unskilled.