IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
8 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Klitschko vs Adamek
gravytrain
post Jan 26 2011, 04:06 PM
Post #41


Junior Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 2,498
Joined: 25-July 10
Member No.: 10,970



QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 26 2011, 03:30 PM) *
ali up until the time of foreman devastates vitali... after that he is done... if byrd could hang with vitali ali devastates him... ali had more speed than byrd, better defense and a much much harder punch... and i'm talking the post exile ali... what byrd did ali did 10 times better with power (under rated punching power in my opinion) and was uncanny about making adjustments as needed and unlike most other heavies would find a way to win.... vitali would be in the ring with a creation he has never seen before... ali does what he wants with vitali...

On a side note imagine if ali never gets exiled... heavyweight history as we know it is changed... the guy would have surely reigned supreme till the late 70's if not into the 80's... guys like foreman and frazier would have never worn the crown back then and maybe even holmes cuzz his decline from his prime would have been different (slower).. those 3 and a half years wreaked havok on alis prime... just a thought...


I agree about what would have happened if he didn't get banned from the sport, those were all prime years he lost too. It's conceivable to think that he could have been undefeated from 1960-1980 as a HW and maybe even retire undefeated.

you could very well be right about the matchup when you put it like that. i guess it really just depends on the Ali that gets in the ring with Vitali.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JLUVBABY
post Jan 26 2011, 04:27 PM
Post #42


Light Heavyweight


Group: Members
Posts: 4,778
Joined: 12-February 06
From: Beaumont, Texas
Member No.: 4,447



QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 03:06 PM) *
I agree about what would have happened if he didn't get banned from the sport, those were all prime years he lost too. It's conceivable to think that he could have been undefeated from 1960-1980 as a HW and maybe even retire undefeated.

you could very well be right about the matchup when you put it like that. i guess it really just depends on the Ali that gets in the ring with Vitali.


well when discussing mythical match ups you have to figure taking about prime versus prime...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackbelt2003
post Jan 26 2011, 04:48 PM
Post #43


Light Heavyweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 4,425
Joined: 29-October 03
Member No.: 84



QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 07:47 PM) *
I think sports that have embraced strength and conditioning have seen an improvement in athletes performance, especially the NFL. Boxing hasn't really embraced it though so I think it's hard to say the athletes just naturally became bigger, stronger, and faster despite not doing anything to become bigger, stronger, and faster.



Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say.

Boxing training isn't too different now to what it was fifty years ago. A fighter's staple regime is still running, padwork and sparring. A few guys lift a few weights, but generally, the guys who are big into their weight training aren't neccessarily the strongest or biggest hitters.

And diet has changed a lot and improved fighter's longevity, but I think that can be counteracted by the way modern lifestyle isn't as demanding any more so fighters aren't quite as tough as they used to be, at least in the west anyway.

Put it all together and I don't think fighters are significantly BETTER these days. Different maybe, stronger in some areas, weaker in others, but not better or worse.



The thing that is interesting to an Adamek-Klit fight is the whole size thing. If Adamek was 6'6" or Klitschko was 6'1" then this fight would be 50/50. The only thing separating them is the size issue. If Adamek does well against Klitschko then we can say, 'size doesn't matter as much as we thought, perhaps guys comparable to Adamek in size, such as Ali, Liston etc would have beaten the modern giants.

But if Adamek gets wasted and can't get close, then we'd have to say, 'well maybe the Klits are just too big to be beaten by a little guy, no matter how good the little guy is."


I'm hoping for the former, because I'd love to think the heavyweight division is still the heavyweight division like it was in the 50's, 60's or 70's. not some modern phenomenon where you have to be 250lbs to stand a chance.




Black
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravytrain
post Jan 26 2011, 05:22 PM
Post #44


Junior Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 2,498
Joined: 25-July 10
Member No.: 10,970



QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jan 26 2011, 04:48 PM) *
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say.

Boxing training isn't too different now to what it was fifty years ago. A fighter's staple regime is still running, padwork and sparring. A few guys lift a few weights, but generally, the guys who are big into their weight training aren't neccessarily the strongest or biggest hitters.

And diet has changed a lot and improved fighter's longevity, but I think that can be counteracted by the way modern lifestyle isn't as demanding any more so fighters aren't quite as tough as they used to be, at least in the west anyway.

Put it all together and I don't think fighters are significantly BETTER these days. Different maybe, stronger in some areas, weaker in others, but not better or worse.



The thing that is interesting to an Adamek-Klit fight is the whole size thing. If Adamek was 6'6" or Klitschko was 6'1" then this fight would be 50/50. The only thing separating them is the size issue. If Adamek does well against Klitschko then we can say, 'size doesn't matter as much as we thought, perhaps guys comparable to Adamek in size, such as Ali, Liston etc would have beaten the modern giants.

But if Adamek gets wasted and can't get close, then we'd have to say, 'well maybe the Klits are just too big to be beaten by a little guy, no matter how good the little guy is."


I'm hoping for the former, because I'd love to think the heavyweight division is still the heavyweight division like it was in the 50's, 60's or 70's. not some modern phenomenon where you have to be 250lbs to stand a chance.




Black


The big problem is the fighters with a legit shot of beating a Klit don't do what they need to do to win. They don't make the commitment to gain weight so they can compete with them and aren't willing to make that sacrifice to be a champion. Paying a relatively small amount of money to go to some place like Athletes Performance and getting yourself ready will be a hell of a lot better than just giving up 10-15% of your purse to your trainer and hoping you win.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackbelt2003
post Jan 26 2011, 05:32 PM
Post #45


Light Heavyweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 4,425
Joined: 29-October 03
Member No.: 84



QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 10:22 PM) *
The big problem is the fighters with a legit shot of beating a Klit don't do what they need to do to win. They don't make the commitment to gain weight so they can compete with them and aren't willing to make that sacrifice to be a champion. Paying a relatively small amount of money to go to some place like Athletes Performance and getting yourself ready will be a hell of a lot better than just giving up 10-15% of your purse to your trainer and hoping you win.



I hear that, but part of me would like little guys to be able to win without having to bulk up or increase size. I'd love a return to the best heavyweights being 220 max, guys like Tyson, Holyfield etc, instead of these supersized freaks. The fights just seemed a whole lot better when the heavyweights were normal sized.



Black
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravytrain
post Jan 26 2011, 05:41 PM
Post #46


Junior Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 2,498
Joined: 25-July 10
Member No.: 10,970



QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jan 26 2011, 05:32 PM) *
I hear that, but part of me would like little guys to be able to win without having to bulk up or increase size. I'd love a return to the best heavyweights being 220 max, guys like Tyson, Holyfield etc, instead of these supersized freaks. The fights just seemed a whole lot better when the heavyweights were normal sized.



Black


I know what you mean with the smaller heavies, I miss that too. At the moment there's just a 2 headed beast and each of them weigh about 240, the lighter guys in the division aren't catching any breaks so they need to do something to be more competitive. I just don't see the excuse of Wlad and Vitali being too big, it's up to the challengers to find a way to beat them and it isn't being a soft 210 or flabby 240.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JLUVBABY
post Jan 26 2011, 07:58 PM
Post #47


Light Heavyweight


Group: Members
Posts: 4,778
Joined: 12-February 06
From: Beaumont, Texas
Member No.: 4,447



sports medicine in general has made the fighters of today a lot better than they where in past years... the training in itself is a lot more advanced then it ever was... now it doesnt make then ness. a better fighter but for sure more athletic... the heavtweights are prime examples of this... look at the fighter s at the turn of the 1900's to the fighters in the 20's and 30's to the 60 and 70's and 80's to today... they are bigger and stronger through each evolution of the sport... i wouldnt say better, yet, but that day is coming...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravytrain
post Jan 26 2011, 08:12 PM
Post #48


Junior Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 2,498
Joined: 25-July 10
Member No.: 10,970



QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 26 2011, 07:58 PM) *
sports medicine in general has made the fighters of today a lot better than they where in past years... the training in itself is a lot more advanced then it ever was... now it doesnt make then ness. a better fighter but for sure more athletic... the heavtweights are prime examples of this... look at the fighter s at the turn of the 1900's to the fighters in the 20's and 30's to the 60 and 70's and 80's to today... they are bigger and stronger through each evolution of the sport... i wouldnt say better, yet, but that day is coming...


You don't get the benefits of the advancements of sports medicine if you don't use it, I can't really think of any HW fighters using it other than the Klits. Look at two of the biggest fighters in the sport; Mayweather and Pac. Mayweather doesn't do anything special, he trains the same way fighters have been training for decades. Before Pac got Ariza he was doing the same thing too, all he did was take some Centrum multivitamin bullshit. Come to think of it a lot of fighters don't do much beyond some stuff with medicine balls but that's used back in the day too.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Original MrF...
post Jan 26 2011, 09:19 PM
Post #49


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,457
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Atlanta
Member No.: 1,309



QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 26 2011, 01:07 PM) *
There are way too many posts for me to have to qoute in relation to this MORONIC idea that you can justify the Klits wiping out every major gotdamn HW fighter EVER....that one post was insane...having them beat some of the all time greats....

How anybody can HONESTLY justify such thinking based on the last 6-7 years of ZERO compitition for these two guys is totally beyond me.

And Max you trying to say that TODAY'S HW divison is not as bad as the early 80's....you have clearly lost your mind....give me a list of active HW's that are as good as the following, Thomas, Smith, Witherspoon, Page, Dokes, Tillis, Coatzee, Ribalta, Weaver, Tate, Berbick, Snipes...


Like the guys in eras before this one, the Klits have fought the best fighters available to them. The guys you listed were the list of contenders and title holders during the 80's. They are no better than the era of contenders and title holders that the Klits have fought or will fight in this era. Since you want names, I'll name them... Chambers, Haye, Peter, Chagaev, Rahman, Adamek, Arreola, Brewster, Liacovich, Thompson, Byrd, Maskaev. Is there some secret way of you have of measuring the crop of the 80's who were dominated by Holmes and later Tyson compared to the guys today?? The 80's are similar to todays crop in that there is really one dominant guy at the top. The difference is that this era has 2. Unfortunately we'll probably never see a Klit vs Klit fight. We were lucky to have the 70's and 90's where there were several dominant guys willing to fight each other. I think this crop is easily competitive and likely better than the 80's but thats just my opinion.



QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 26 2011, 01:07 PM) *
Granted, they were not the golden age of HWs...but they showed more drive, ability, skill and conditioning than 95% of what we have today!


Please prove to me that Michael Dokes or Tony Tubbs are in better shape than David Haye and Tomas Adamek.

QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 26 2011, 01:07 PM) *
NOW...I say all of this, but have always said that due to their sheer size and ability they would be very good in any era. There is no denying that. BUT...to say they beat most or all of much of the ATG's....is insane, as they have lost to lesser fighters, for sure in the case of Wlad and have never been tested during their "reign"....and it is NOT that they are that good as some try to say that their comp LOOKS bad because they are so good....no...it's not like Sam Peter and many more of their opposition looked awful with JUST the bros.
Like I've said before...it truely is NOT their fault that they rule over the single worst HW division in the history of the sport...and I'd bet being the kind of guys they are...they themselves would prefer to have better comp....

and you can also put away that STUPID "ranch in Montanta" BS theory. I am so sick of seeing that, I'd like to beat with a rubber hose the guy that chose that quote for this particular argument...I've seen it EVRYWHERE..on other sites, by mutiple posters...

It's a BS EXCUSE for lackluster performances. America has time and time again embraced fighters from other countries AS LONG AS THEY ARE GETTING IMPRESSIVE KO's/WINS....now I realize that the Klits do administer slow beat downs...but that is a style of fighting that Americans do NOT see as impressive and that falls back on the shouldres of the fighters. You can't say that America would love these guys if they were themselves American. Eddie Chambers is American, it's not like America loves him...so was Chris Byrd...and they are skilled fighters that win/won fights....it's their style that does not generate a fan following. Sam Peter and David Tua on the other hand...as well as Ike Ibeibutchi, were FAR from American....yet they had huge fan support...because of their fight style. AND in the case of Peter...that support faded when he started to look less and less impressive with lower comp and failed to get the KO's....so their nationality has ZERO to do with it. If they were smashing shitty comp the way Tyson did in the mid-80's...all of America would take notice and embrace them. That never happened.


What non-American has America embraced? Peter?? Even when the guy was an undefeated prospect with a high KO ratio, people on here hated him. I liked him, but many, many people here despised him. Tua never had a Tyson like following. Both of these guys were liked a lot for devastating KO's. I dont remember them selling any more PPV's than Chambers or Byrd. Ike Ibeabuchi was a similar fighter to Vitali. He wasnt some KO monster. He was a boxer/brawler, like Vitaly. I agree, that KO's put butts in the seats. I think that if any of those guys you listed were from a Ranch in Montana, they would have actually sold out arena's here because of their American roots and their ability to KO opponents. Same goes with the Klits. I've actually been down this road here before. Previously, I injected race into the argument too.


QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 26 2011, 01:07 PM) *
BUT...it is the way it is...and for anyone to base their supposed ability to beat ATG's and dominate any era based on what they have had as a HW division...well that's just putting blinders on to the factss.


What facts? Are you stating your opinion as fact? How can you prove to everyone on here that its a fact that the 80's were better than the modern era. How can you prove as fact that Wlad or Vit wouldnt KO 1972's version of George Foreman? I think the difference between the different eras boils down to who fought who. The 70 and 90's guys all fought and beat each other for the most part. There was no 1 guy who dominated the periods. The 80's and now are dominated by 1 or 2 guys and thats why history has been pretty harsh with the two eras. . There are 2 ways that can be looked at. Either the contender list was so bad or the dominant champs were so good. Glass half empty or half full? I say that the guys at the top are that good. I thought Holmes and Tyson were great at the time and had they been thrown in the mix in the 70's or 60's, they would have won more than they lost. I also think that about the Klits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Original MrF...
post Jan 26 2011, 09:27 PM
Post #50


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,457
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Atlanta
Member No.: 1,309



QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jan 26 2011, 04:48 PM) *
The thing that is interesting to an Adamek-Klit fight is the whole size thing. If Adamek was 6'6" or Klitschko was 6'1" then this fight would be 50/50. The only thing separating them is the size issue. If Adamek does well against Klitschko then we can say, 'size doesn't matter as much as we thought, perhaps guys comparable to Adamek in size, such as Ali, Liston etc would have beaten the modern giants.

But if Adamek gets wasted and can't get close, then we'd have to say, 'well maybe the Klits are just too big to be beaten by a little guy, no matter how good the little guy is."


I'm hoping for the former, because I'd love to think the heavyweight division is still the heavyweight division like it was in the 50's, 60's or 70's. not some modern phenomenon where you have to be 250lbs to stand a chance.




Black


Spoken like a prophet! Ali would have to overcome similar obstacles to what Adamek would have. Most people will say that Ali's greatest assets were his speed and footwork. However, Ali is still human. Its not like he's gonna disappear and reappear behind his opponent. He still would have to put himself in harms way and likely take fire. Seeing what Adamek does against the Klits could go a long way toward settling the size argument. Adamek is a good, "little" man. He may be one of the best, based on body of work and experience, that either Klit has recently fought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 12:19 PM