Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Klitschko vs Adamek
FightHype Community > OTHER HYPE > Archives
Pages: 1, 2
BrutalBodyShots
I read that this fight is happening in September. Thoughts?

I'm personally not a fan of the smallest relevant heavyweight fighting the biggest relevant heavyweight, but whatever. I kinda like Adamek and think he'll give it his all, but there's a huge natural size difference that he's up against.

gravytrain
I think Wlad wins soundly but Adamek puts up a fight, better than seeing someone just stand in front of Wlad scared shitless and not trying.
JLUVBABY
im sure adamek goes down fighting... thats all we can ask of him... he will TRY is the main thing and trying anything can happen...
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 24 2011, 11:32 PM) *
im sure adamek goes down fighting... thats all we can ask of him... he will TRY is the main thing and trying anything can happen...



Yep he will try and fail but as you say at least he will try. Something Queenpin Johnson and some other recent contenders can't say.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (The Ollie Reed Fan Club @ Jan 24 2011, 09:40 PM) *
Yep he will try and fail but as you say at least he will try. Something Queenpin Johnson and some other recent contenders can't say.


most of those guys are no hopers... if they woulod at least try and give themselves their best chance to win what ever that might be id have no problem with them... tony thompson tried... arreola as fat as his ass was tried... go out on your shield is all im saying... lol... too many of these guys are happy to last the distance... a loss is a loss... id rather have the respect from my peers knowing hell i went in there and gave it my all... i didnt run llike no damn sissy ass punk... just my opinion.
The Original MrFactor
Has it been confirmed that its Wlad?? I'd like to see Adamek get his shot. No doubt that he will make it interesting in spots against either brother. The Klits are definitly dominant HOF fighters who quite possibly would have dominated any era of boxing due to their unique size and athletic ability.
gravytrain
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 25 2011, 02:17 AM) *
Has it been confirmed that its Wlad?? I'd like to see Adamek get his shot. No doubt that he will make it interesting in spots against either brother. The Klits are definitly dominant HOF fighters who quite possibly would have dominated any era of boxing due to their unique size and athletic ability.


I think Vitali would, Wlad would be in some serious shit in previous eras.

Adamek and Wlad are fighting in Poland in some stadium.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 25 2011, 01:50 AM) *
I think Vitali would, Wlad would be in some serious shit in previous eras.

Adamek and Wlad are fighting in Poland in some stadium.


im not so sure about vitali... you have to figure put them in other eras and they would have their height but they would be comprable to the others heavies of their time as far as weight... i dont see vitali beating the likes of ali, louis, lewis, tyson, holyfield, holmes, liston, johnson if he was around in those days with their skill set... that list is the best heavies in what ever order you choose to ever lace em up...they also cover most of the 20th century.... those guys would have been good fighters in any era... contenders... but i wouldnt think they'd beat the greats of the past... not to knock them but they are dominating the absolute weakest the heavies have ever been... i would give them more props but they seem to not be able to take out the tomato cans they do have to face in spectacular fashion like they should...
ViperSniper
Good news here as I'm a fan of Adamek and admire how he goes about his business. This is apparently being staged at a Soccer stadium that holds over 60,000!!
This is a better matchup than one with Haye, minus the unification and the pre fight trash talking. Adamek appears more durable and willing to take chances and think he will put up a better fight. People going on about who does and doesn't deserve a shot at the Klits? I think Adamek has done more than enough with wins over Golata, Estrada, Grant, Arreola & Maddalone. With have only 5 fights at HW he has got a pretty solid resume so far.

Out of the entire HW division I seriously think Adamek has the best chance of beating Wlad with his skills and determination!! It's kind of sad considering he was originally a Light Heavyweight but he is up there (above) with the rest of the HW division. At least we know he will come to fight and come in shape..but unfortunately Ademak will still be too small for a huge skilled Heavyweight.

WAR ADAMEK!!! aggressive.gif
gravytrain
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 25 2011, 03:09 AM) *
im not so sure about vitali... you have to figure put them in other eras and they would have their height but they would be comprable to the others heavies of their time as far as weight... i dont see vitali beating the likes of ali, louis, lewis, tyson, holyfield, holmes, liston, johnson if he was around in those days with their skill set... that list is the best heavies in what ever order you choose to ever lace em up...they also cover most of the 20th century.... those guys would have been good fighters in any era... contenders... but i wouldnt think they'd beat the greats of the past... not to knock them but they are dominating the absolute weakest the heavies have ever been... i would give them more props but they seem to not be able to take out the tomato cans they do have to face in spectacular fashion like they should...


there were heavies his size back in the day, just few and far between. Buddy Baer comes to mind for the 30s-40s. I think his chin would help him immensely and he'd get close decisions. Between the two of them I see Vitali having the better chance, Wlad would get tore up. He wouldn't even make it past the 90s division. I do agree with them not winning like they should be and that's why I don't really like either of them, I'd take Vitali to do more against ATGs than Wlad though.
Big Slim Sweet
ESPN is reporting it could be either Klit.
salvador
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 24 2011, 11:32 PM) *
im sure adamek goes down fighting... thats all we can ask of him... he will TRY is the main thing and trying anything can happen...


Yep, a real fighter. God bless him.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 25 2011, 02:50 AM) *
I think Vitali would, Wlad would be in some serious shit in previous eras.

Adamek and Wlad are fighting in Poland in some stadium.



I've always thought that Wlad was the better boxer, while Vitaly is the better fighter.
lloyd mayflower
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 25 2011, 04:13 PM) *
I've always thought that Wlad was the better boxer, while Vitaly is the better fighter.


Iv heard Wlad say as much before. Think it was when he was on Ringside on Sky sports. He was asked who was better out the two. He said Vitali, and said that was because Vitali was born a fighter whereas Wlad felt he had to learn to be a fighter.
BGv2.0
I have no idea why so many people seem to give Adamek any more of a chance than most of the bums the Klits fight. He looked like absolute shit against a fat arreola and was lucky to even get out of that fight, had it not been for Arreola's horrific conditioning, he would have gotten beat down ugly. He's a skilled fighter, but due to the sheer size issue...he has little chance of actually pulling off the upset with either Klit.

NOW ON TO THIS BS!


QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 25 2011, 02:17 AM) *
The Klits are definitly dominant HOF fighters who quite possibly would have dominated any era of boxing due to their unique size and athletic ability.


How can you type that? Based on what? They have dominated a GOD AWFUL HW division. Vitali lost to a couple of the last remnants of that division of the 90's...one to Byrd, the other to Lewis...and I'm not even taking the crap losses by Wlad into account.....yet you are going to tell me they would have "dominated" in the same fashion with the likes of Mercer, Holy, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Byrd, Morrison, Foreman, Holmes, Rudduck, Moorer, Tua, Tucker, Bruno, McCall, etc????

No F'N way.....no doubt they get wins..but they get losses to to a few on that list as well....and you can do the same comparison to other HW era's as well.

There is no way you can allow yourself in to being taken in by their supposed dominance in THIS era....because this is the worst EVER...that's a fact....not even the once rediculed division of the early 80's touches this one.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 25 2011, 12:24 PM) *
I have no idea why so many people seem to give Adamek any more of a chance than most of the bums the Klits fight. He looked like absolute shit against a fat arreola and was lucky to even get out of that fight, had it not been for Arreola's horrific conditioning, he would have gotten beat down ugly. He's a skilled fighter, but due to the sheer size issue...he has little chance of actually pulling off the upset with either Klit.

NOW ON TO THIS BS!



How can you type that? Based on what? They have dominated a GOD AWFUL HW division. Vitali lost to a couple of the last remnants of that division of the 90's...one to Byrd, the other to Lewis...and I'm not even taking the crap losses by Wlad into account.....yet you are going to tell me they would have "dominated" in the same fashion with the likes of Mercer, Holy, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Byrd, Morrison, Foreman, Holmes, Rudduck, Moorer, Tua, Tucker, Bruno, McCall, etc????

No F'N way.....no doubt they get wins..but they get losses to to a few on that list as well....and you can do the same comparison to other HW era's as well.

There is no way you can allow yourself in to being taken in by their supposed dominance in THIS era....because this is the worst EVER...that's a fact....not even the once rediculed division of the early 80's touches this one.


As far as Adamek dont forget his fight with grant... grant had chances in that fight he just couldnt take advantage of them... which by the way made me think how good he could have become had his team not pushed him so hard and allowed him to really blossom as a fighter... he had all the physical skill needed to become a good solid heavyweight and seemed on the right course... same thing after the lewis fight... he took his shot, got bombed out... he should have continued on... who knew the division would get so dismal... lol... he would have had a chance to hold a strap had he stayed active...


man i take comments like that bout the klits like this... every generation has their dominant heavyweight champ they love... mine was a mixture of first holmes then later tyson in my early teens... if that is indeed his case i dont knock their opinions its just a lack most of the time of not knowing what came before and not knowing the full history of the sport... take iron mike for instance... he is my great heavyweight fighter... but i know the history and i can name several fighters that either beat him at his best or give good fights to him at his prime fighting best.. but ive studied all the greats since i was a little kid... i read all kinds of books and every thing i could on them coming up... just a thought... lol... and of course as i always say... my opinion on that subject... oh and for the record I think larry holmes could possibly be the greatest heavy of all time... my greatest list differs from a lot of others list... lol..
SENTRAL
Adamek is a durable heavyweight with lots of heart but his fight with Grant exposed some of the things I noticed against both Estrada and Arreola. He wasnt even a great boxer at cruiserweight, getting the job done due to his relentless pressure and ability to take punishment. Credit must be given for how he has switched his game and now uses quick feet to aid in boxing the larger opponents. I think he gets eaten alive by Wlad, Vitali and Haye for different reasons and I would bet Eddie Chambers beats him too.
gravytrain
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 25 2011, 11:13 AM) *
I've always thought that Wlad was the better boxer, while Vitaly is the better fighter.


He might not be textbook but I like him as the better boxer too
gravytrain
QUOTE (Fitz @ Jan 25 2011, 06:24 PM) *
That's the thing, that sentence can pretty much apply to any opponent the Klitscko's fight, so I don't know why people like yourself and others get so worked up about it. I could replace Adamek in that sentence with Toney, Holyfield or Arreola and just about anyone, and that sentence can apply for them as well.
It's because nobody is head and shoulders above the rest. Nobody is miles ahead where they deserve a shot more than another. So just let it be. They all suck and it doesn't really matter who the opponent is going to be.


Pretty much, the disparity between the top 2 fighters and the rest of the division is too great. You combine that with how weak the division is and you can't expect shit from it. The only thing to look forward to now is hoping a fighter will try to beat Wlad or Vitali instead of just collecting a paycheck and trying to avoid getting stopped.
ViperSniper
QUOTE (Fitz @ Jan 26 2011, 12:24 AM) *
That's the thing, that sentence can pretty much apply to any opponent the Klitscko's fight, so I don't know why people like yourself and others get so worked up about it. I could replace Adamek in that sentence with Toney, Holyfield or Arreola and just about anyone, and that sentence can apply for them as well.
It's because nobody is head and shoulders above the rest. Nobody is miles ahead where they deserve a shot more than another. So just let it be. They all suck and it doesn't really matter who the opponent is going to be.



QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 01:01 AM) *
Pretty much, the disparity between the top 2 fighters and the rest of the division is too great. You combine that with how weak the division is and you can't expect shit from it. The only thing to look forward to now is hoping a fighter will try to beat Wlad or Vitali instead of just collecting a paycheck and trying to avoid getting stopped.


Pretty much!!

In regards to comparing both Adamek & Haye's chances against the Klits? Both a small un-natural heavyweights but both posses more skills than the rest of the division. But I think Adamek is more durable, tougher and will fight more, whereas Hayes mouth and belt won't help him inside the ring.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (ViperSniper @ Jan 25 2011, 09:04 PM) *
Pretty much!!

In regards to comparing both Adamek & Haye's chances against the Klits? Both a small un-natural heavyweights but both posses more skills than the rest of the division. But I think Adamek is more durable, tougher and will fight more, whereas Hayes mouth and belt won't help him inside the ring.


what are your thoughts on solis's chance in march?... i think he will represent himself very well rather win or lose... my thought is he is overlooked by most maybe even the klits for the type of skill set he actually possesses....
ViperSniper
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 26 2011, 04:13 AM) *
what are your thoughts on solis's chance in march?... i think he will represent himself very well rather win or lose... my thought is he is overlooked by most maybe even the klits for the type of skill set he actually possesses....


I couldn't give a solid opinion on his chances as I've unfortunately never seen Solis fight before but the fact that he doesn't know how to loose yet should make it interesting! What would you say Solis's strengths are leading into the fight? Hope your right about the possibility of Vitali overlooking him, as I don't mind the bros but for the sake of the division it would be nice for something new and someone new like Solis & Chisora to win.
gravytrain
QUOTE (ViperSniper @ Jan 26 2011, 12:32 AM) *
I couldn't give a solid opinion on his chances as I've unfortunately never seen Solis fight before but the fact that he doesn't know how to loose yet should make it interesting! What would you say Solis's strengths are leading into the fight? Hope your right about the possibility of Vitali overlooking him, as I don't mind the bros but for the sake of the division it would be nice for something new and someone new like Solis & Chisora to win.



I caught his fight with Drumond, he's some power but he's really raw. I don't know how he'll fair against someone like Vitali but I see him putting up some fight but not being adjusted enough to the pros to pull this one off. I think he'll press forward only to get lit up by Vitali and lose by a wide decision.
AussieLad
Cant see how he is going to deal with the height and reach coming from behind that ram-rod jab. He's not going to be able to get inside, and will become tentative after he eats a couple of dozen jabs. The only way this fight becomes exciting is if he is prepared to go out on his shield.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 25 2011, 01:24 PM) *
I have no idea why so many people seem to give Adamek any more of a chance than most of the bums the Klits fight. He looked like absolute shit against a fat arreola and was lucky to even get out of that fight, had it not been for Arreola's horrific conditioning, he would have gotten beat down ugly. He's a skilled fighter, but due to the sheer size issue...he has little chance of actually pulling off the upset with either Klit.

NOW ON TO THIS BS!




How can you type that? Based on what? They have dominated a GOD AWFUL HW division. Vitali lost to a couple of the last remnants of that division of the 90's...one to Byrd, the other to Lewis...and I'm not even taking the crap losses by Wlad into account.....yet you are going to tell me they would have "dominated" in the same fashion with the likes of Mercer, Holy, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Byrd, Morrison, Foreman, Holmes, Rudduck, Moorer, Tua, Tucker, Bruno, McCall, etc????

No F'N way.....no doubt they get wins..but they get losses to to a few on that list as well....and you can do the same comparison to other HW era's as well.

There is no way you can allow yourself in to being taken in by their supposed dominance in THIS era....because this is the worst EVER...that's a fact....not even the once rediculed division of the early 80's touches this one.


I can easily say that the Klits would have been dominant in any era of boxing. Their size and their ability to use their size to hit and not get hit is incredible. I'm not so sure that this era of heavyweights is sooo terrible. Its certainly not 80's or 40's bad. It could easily be that these guys are so good. I cant help but to bring up old stuff. If the Klits were from a ranch in Montana, they'd ultimately be much more popular in this country. Their standing among many would be elevated because they are American's. They would have had their stiffest tests with the the 90's crop due to the closer equity in size and athleticism. Bowe and Lewis(who has a W against Vitaly) would probably have given them their stiffest tests because they were the best big men of the era.

The Klits would have wiped through the 80's. Too many guys that never reached their potential due to drugs or whatever. the 80's were horrible. Holmes would have given them their stiffest challenge. I think Larry would have stood a chance at winning a decision against them. I think that in 10 fights with either Klit, Larry would lose at least 6 out of 10.

The Klits would have dominated the 70's too. Ali, Frazier and Norton were all too small. 6'2" 210 aint gonna cut it, just ask Chris Byrd and Eddie Chambers. No they arent Ali or Frazier, but they were both good heavyweights in the 2000's, who measure up sizewize and stylewize with Ali. Would Ali/Wlad be that much different from Eddie Chambers/Wlad?? What would 1973's Ali have done that much differently against a guy thats 6'6" and 240lbs with a great jab?? Foreman stood a punchers chance, but again Foreman showed the ability to be outboxed by a lighter hitting Ali. How many rounds would it take before Foreman realized he was not able to get off and getting beaten to the punch mercilessly?

I dont really want to even go to the pre 1970's. Vitaly would have wiped the floor with Marciano, Charles, Liston because they were either way to small or too slow afoot. Young Cassius Clay would have the same troubles Chris Byrd(also with a W against the older Klit) had. He's fast and great defensively, but would have trouble getting close enough to hit Wlad without taking fire himself.

Then we talk about Joe Louis, who, at his best was 190 pounds. he blew up to over 200 late in his career, but was methodical and robotic. I've heard some people question his era of heavyweights. Jack Dempsey, I wont even entertain a conversation about him and the Klits. Same with Jack Johnson.

I dont think they go 100-0 against the top tier guys in any era. I'm not saying they would be unbeatable, but I do think that they'd win a lot more than they would lose. They would come away as dominant because their wins would greatly outnumber their loses to guys in other era's. Much of their dominance may be due to improvements in sports medicine, dieting, work outs and equipment. I think all of those things play a role in these guy's success. Some folks are just too enamored due to the historical context a great fighter such as Ali fought in. What is not taken into consideration is the fact that athletes in general, today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were yesterday. In boxing, the Klits may very well be the best big men ever.


JLUVBABY
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 26 2011, 12:49 AM) *
I can easily say that the Klits would have been dominant in any era of boxing. Their size and their ability to use their size to hit and not get hit is incredible. I'm not so sure that this era of heavyweights is sooo terrible. Its certainly not 80's or 40's bad. It could easily be that these guys are so good. I cant help but to bring up old stuff. If the Klits were from a ranch in Montana, they'd ultimately be much more popular in this country. Their standing among many would be elevated because they are American's. They would have had their stiffest tests with the the 90's crop due to the closer equity in size and athleticism. Bowe and Lewis(who has a W against Vitaly) would probably have given them their stiffest tests because they were the best big men of the era.

The Klits would have wiped through the 80's. Too many guys that never reached their potential due to drugs or whatever. the 80's were horrible. Holmes would have given them their stiffest challenge. I think Larry would have stood a chance at winning a decision against them. I think that in 10 fights with either Klit, Larry would lose at least 6 out of 10.

The Klits would have dominated the 70's too. Ali, Frazier and Norton were all too small. 6'2" 210 aint gonna cut it, just ask Chris Byrd and Eddie Chambers. No they arent Ali or Frazier, but they were both good heavyweights in the 2000's, who measure up sizewize and stylewize with Ali. Would Ali/Wlad be that much different from Eddie Chambers/Wlad?? What would 1973's Ali have done that much differently against a guy thats 6'6" and 240lbs with a great jab?? Foreman stood a punchers chance, but again Foreman showed the ability to be outboxed by a lighter hitting Ali. How many rounds would it take before Foreman realized he was not able to get off and getting beaten to the punch mercilessly?

I dont really want to even go to the pre 1970's. Vitaly would have wiped the floor with Marciano, Charles, Liston because they were either way to small or too slow afoot. Young Cassius Clay would have the same troubles Chris Byrd(also with a W against the older Klit) had. He's fast and great defensively, but would have trouble getting close enough to hit Wlad without taking fire himself.

Then we talk about Joe Louis, who, at his best was 190 pounds. he blew up to over 200 late in his career, but was methodical and robotic. I've heard some people question his era of heavyweights. Jack Dempsey, I wont even entertain a conversation about him and the Klits. Same with Jack Johnson.

I dont think they go 100-0 against the top tier guys in any era. I'm not saying they would be unbeatable, but I do think that they'd win a lot more than they would lose. They would come away as dominant because their wins would greatly outnumber their loses to guys in other era's. Much of their dominance may be due to improvements in sports medicine, dieting, work outs and equipment. I think all of those things play a role in these guy's success. Some folks are just too enamored due to the historical context a great fighter such as Ali fought in. What is not taken into consideration is the fact that athletes in general, today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were yesterday. In boxing, the Klits may very well be the best big men ever.


what you are saying comparing the klits to the fighters of yesteryear is true if you send them back in a time machine the way they are now with the training methods they have now etc... are for that matter if you send the fighters from the past that where great in their time forward to today with the advances in technology think of some of the beast that would be produced... a fighter like liston or a young foreman with todays advances in technology or a joe louis would whipe their asses with both klits on the same night... specially wladimir... put them in todays division and you are looking at a good solid 230 pound men more than capable of holding their own vs these big boys... bigger dont always mean better it just looks that way with the sorry not talents that are in the division today... They are not the first 6 foot sumthing 250 pound fighters in the division that are strong, its just that fighters in the past knew how to deal with them... as small as dempsey was he'd get with both these guys... check out the film of these old school cats... either way you slice it the klits are good fighters, not saying they are not tho i will say vitali is better of the two but when you compare these fighters on even playing fields skill for skill there is no comparison... if you really want to get technical about things there is a lot about the art of boxing that has been lost over the years they did back then thats not practiced very much any more like parrying punches etc... the klits would be facing fighters with skill sets they've never seen before and never will see...
JLUVBABY
and had to throw this one in there left him out... ali... ali pre exile at that... he was good enough then to beat them now but imagine if he had todays science advances.... he would chop them boys up and play with them till a tko was called talking to them the whole time...
JLUVBABY
i could name a boatload of fighters that whip them boys if you want to match up skill for skill...
gravytrain
QUOTE (ViperSniper @ Jan 26 2011, 01:22 AM) *
Seems he could have a slightly better chance than past opponents, maybe I should check some fights of his!? Seems he will make the older Klit to work for the win at least, maybe it will take a young unknown or even a smaller fighter who is at least shape to win apposed to a fighters fans like or are familiar name?


He's not bad, just needs to keep growing as a fighter before taking on a Klit. Personally I can't think of anyone to beat either Klit in the future, all I hope for is a fighter that shows the desire to win and not be a bitch.



QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 26 2011, 01:49 AM) *
I can easily say that the Klits would have been dominant in any era of boxing. Their size and their ability to use their size to hit and not get hit is incredible. I'm not so sure that this era of heavyweights is sooo terrible. Its certainly not 80's or 40's bad. It could easily be that these guys are so good. I cant help but to bring up old stuff. If the Klits were from a ranch in Montana, they'd ultimately be much more popular in this country. Their standing among many would be elevated because they are American's. They would have had their stiffest tests with the the 90's crop due to the closer equity in size and athleticism. Bowe and Lewis(who has a W against Vitaly) would probably have given them their stiffest tests because they were the best big men of the era.

The Klits would have wiped through the 80's. Too many guys that never reached their potential due to drugs or whatever. the 80's were horrible. Holmes would have given them their stiffest challenge. I think Larry would have stood a chance at winning a decision against them. I think that in 10 fights with either Klit, Larry would lose at least 6 out of 10.

The Klits would have dominated the 70's too. Ali, Frazier and Norton were all too small. 6'2" 210 aint gonna cut it, just ask Chris Byrd and Eddie Chambers. No they arent Ali or Frazier, but they were both good heavyweights in the 2000's, who measure up sizewize and stylewize with Ali. Would Ali/Wlad be that much different from Eddie Chambers/Wlad?? What would 1973's Ali have done that much differently against a guy thats 6'6" and 240lbs with a great jab?? Foreman stood a punchers chance, but again Foreman showed the ability to be outboxed by a lighter hitting Ali. How many rounds would it take before Foreman realized he was not able to get off and getting beaten to the punch mercilessly?

I dont really want to even go to the pre 1970's. Vitaly would have wiped the floor with Marciano, Charles, Liston because they were either way to small or too slow afoot. Young Cassius Clay would have the same troubles Chris Byrd(also with a W against the older Klit) had. He's fast and great defensively, but would have trouble getting close enough to hit Wlad without taking fire himself.

Then we talk about Joe Louis, who, at his best was 190 pounds. he blew up to over 200 late in his career, but was methodical and robotic. I've heard some people question his era of heavyweights. Jack Dempsey, I wont even entertain a conversation about him and the Klits. Same with Jack Johnson.

I dont think they go 100-0 against the top tier guys in any era. I'm not saying they would be unbeatable, but I do think that they'd win a lot more than they would lose. They would come away as dominant because their wins would greatly outnumber their loses to guys in other era's. Much of their dominance may be due to improvements in sports medicine, dieting, work outs and equipment. I think all of those things play a role in these guy's success. Some folks are just too enamored due to the historical context a great fighter such as Ali fought in. What is not taken into consideration is the fact that athletes in general, today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were yesterday. In boxing, the Klits may very well be the best big men ever.


Fuck being American, if they finished guys they'd be big in America. You can't sell a big HW that can knock the dog shit out of cats carrying his opponent 12 rounds.

I see Vitali doing pretty good in previous eras, not getting blown out anyway. Wlad would have some serious issues because there were a hell of a lot better fighters than Samuel Peter that might weigh less but they'd be on Wlad's ass every round trying to stop him. He'd fold.

Come on now, man. Wlad gets stopped by Foreman and brutally stopped. Chambers and other cats don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Ali, Ali brings much more to the table. Ali beat Foreman purely with strategy, he could find a way to win.


QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 26 2011, 02:06 AM) *
and had to throw this one in there left him out... ali... ali pre exile at that... he was good enough then to beat them now but imagine if he had todays science advances.... he would chop them boys up and play with them till a tko was called talking to them the whole time...


Ali would have a fight with Vitali but I see him winning, Wlad would be embarassed. To be honest I see a lot of ATG heavies fucking with Wlad badly and Foreman would likely knock his head off. Vitali is just a big natural fighter so that's a little hard to get around, not impossible though.

JLUVBABY
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 01:44 AM) *
Ali would have a fight with Vitali but I see him winning, Wlad would be embarassed. To be honest I see a lot of ATG heavies fucking with Wlad badly and Foreman would likely knock his head off. Vitali is just a big natural fighter so that's a little hard to get around, not impossible though.


i really dont think so gravy... ali would slice vitali up like he had a straight razor... sonny liston would knock him out... dempsey was a big man killer as well and would get inside on him and eat him up (if that guy guy sinsnowski or what eveer his name is could get inside dempsey tears his ass up).... i think larry holmes could get to him in his prime... a few guys i think vitali would get to because of their styles would be a frazier, marciano type of great heavyweight simply because a tall fighter with a jab would trouble them... i think a young mike tyson struggles with him though would eventually get to him... but ali... ali would toy with vatali... post exile id say the ali to the point of the foreman fight beats him as well.. after foreman ali just took too much punishment, vitali would beat that version of ali.. tell you another guy i think would get deep down in vitalis shit... ike ibeabuchi... had he not gone to prison i think he would have been lennox's nightmare... oh yeah speaking of lennox a primed lennox beats him (vitali) as well.. lol..
blackbelt2003
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 26 2011, 06:49 AM) *
What is not taken into consideration is the fact that athletes in general, today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were yesterday.



Sorry dude, that may be true in athletics or racing or any sport where you can measure speed and power...but it's not true in boxing.

Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.


The reason is that in sports where performances are measured you can see definitive improvements over time. A guy runs the 100ms in 12 seconds, the next guy can quantifiably measure his results against that and improve on it. He can shave tenths of a second off the time and develop his speed against it.

If there were no stopwatches, and he had no clue what the previous guy had ran 100ms in, I guarantee he'd never improve on it. That's how records get broken in sports like this, and the perception is that athletes are faster, stronger etc...and that's true, but only BECAUSE the performances are measured.


In boxing, however, the performances are not measured. A punch speed isn't timed. A fighter's strength isn't measured. Therefore the boxers aren't training to shave split seconds off their speed, and therefore the overall speed and strength of the fighter's HASN'T improved.

In fact, I'd venture to say that due to the generally easier lifestyle of today's western population, the majority of fighter's natural strength attributes has DECREASED a little, which is why Eastern countries where they still live a hard slog have began to take over. The scientific training may have added to their explosive power, but strength is more than that.



Just my two cents, as I keep hearing about faster, stronger athletes, but when I see old 70's vids I see guys just as fast as today's fighters. In fact, with the benefit of today's high quality, HD video, Ali et al would probably look even faster!!!



Black
Hops
If we can't really measure performance of boxers both from today and yesterday then how can we or why do we even compare them?

TheOriginalMrFactor: Heavies today are bigger, etc. etc.
Blackbelt2003: Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.

So, there are other factors that affect performance. Are those factors measurable? If not, then we can't really compare boxers from different generations. Every comparisons would be subjective.

I'd say Willard was so big and he was a contender during his time. But I'd also say that the big contenders today are infinitely better than Willard. So, there are also craps big men yesterday.

Now, the reason I can see every other greats not having problems with the Klitz is because I think Klitz are just above average heavies.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jan 26 2011, 04:01 AM) *
Sorry dude, that may be true in athletics or racing or any sport where you can measure speed and power...but it's not true in boxing.

Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.


The reason is that in sports where performances are measured you can see definitive improvements over time. A guy runs the 100ms in 12 seconds, the next guy can quantifiably measure his results against that and improve on it. He can shave tenths of a second off the time and develop his speed against it.

If there were no stopwatches, and he had no clue what the previous guy had ran 100ms in, I guarantee he'd never improve on it. That's how records get broken in sports like this, and the perception is that athletes are faster, stronger etc...and that's true, but only BECAUSE the performances are measured.


In boxing, however, the performances are not measured. A punch speed isn't timed. A fighter's strength isn't measured. Therefore the boxers aren't training to shave split seconds off their speed, and therefore the overall speed and strength of the fighter's HASN'T improved.

In fact, I'd venture to say that due to the generally easier lifestyle of today's western population, the majority of fighter's natural strength attributes has DECREASED a little, which is why Eastern countries where they still live a hard slog have began to take over. The scientific training may have added to their explosive power, but strength is more than that.



Just my two cents, as I keep hearing about faster, stronger athletes, but when I see old 70's vids I see guys just as fast as today's fighters. In fact, with the benefit of today's high quality, HD video, Ali et al would probably look even faster!!!



Black



Great post!! I agree with you on some of your points. Speed and power are not really measured in fights. I guess they can be though, if someone wanted to take the time to measure these things. There is no speed o meter or power o meter to measure guys, unless of course you're Ivan Drago. With that, I agree that its difficult to measure who is faster or who hits harder other than by what we all see, which is based on personal perception, taste or desire.

Using your logic, can we say Foreman hit any harder than Lennox Lewis or Tyson for that matter. In my opinion, no, because there was no measurement for these things. There is no way to measure wether or not Ali is faster than Chris Byrd because after all, again, these things are not measured. The only thing we have is our personal perception of these things. You brought up a great point about film quality too. I'm sure that may play a role in our perceptions of how fast guys from a particular era were. Would Ali appear faster in today's HD?? Or would the klits appear faster in reel to reel film? It all matters as to what makes us all happy. Many people sit in comfort zones where legends of eras long gone cannot be challenged by todays greats(I am in no way saying you are one of those, I've read many of your posts). Many people on here elevate guys like Ali, Frazier, Foreman to godlike status. They were inhumanly fast, powerful, unstoppable killing machines who would ravage through todays guys like piss through wet tissue paper.

There are measureables though. I do see increases with guys today with one of the things we can measure. The number of punches thrown per round is a measureable stat. Guys are now coming out throwing more than they have in the past. With that, guys may be taking more shots than before as well. That is something that is measured. There have been a few fights over the last 5 years where guys are throwing over 100 punches per round almost effortlessly.
With guys generally being bigger and more muscular, throwing 100 punches per round, I'd argue to say guys are stronger today based on that. Back in the day, guys had to fight 15 rounder and even further back, they fought until one guy was stopped. Those guys had great stamina, but they werent throwing over 100 punches per round.

Though all things are not measurable, or just not measured, I do think that boxing is not dissimilar to other sports in that the competitors today are better athletes than their predecessors.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (Hops @ Jan 26 2011, 04:34 AM) *
If we can't really measure performance of boxers both from today and yesterday then how can we or why do we even compare them?

TheOriginalMrFactor: Heavies today are bigger, etc. etc.
Blackbelt2003: Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.

So, there are other factors that affect performance. Are those factors measurable? If not, then we can't really compare boxers from different generations. Every comparisons would be subjective.

I'd say Willard was so big and he was a contender during his time. But I'd also say that the big contenders today are infinitely better than Willard. So, there are also craps big men yesterday.

Now, the reason I can see every other greats not having problems with the Klitz is because I think Klitz are just above average heavies.



Great post. You beat me to it...

I do like the analogy someone above used about the time mahine. If the 1963 Ali were to get into a time machine and be exposed to all of the training advantages in sports medicine we have today, would he destroy the Klits? Personally, I think if that were to happen, Ali would say, "To hell with boxing!!! The Atlanta Falcons need a deep threat. i'm gonna train my ass off and make the team!"

On the flip side, if the Klits were to go back in time and be limited by the sports medicine of the day, would they beat Ali in 1963?? They could easily become Ingemar Johannsen's of the day. Limited, but big guys who can fight, but can deal with a guy in their chest or a guy who moves around.
salvador
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 25 2011, 03:17 AM) *
The Klits are definitly dominant HOF fighters who quite possibly would have dominated any era of boxing due to their unique size and athletic ability.


I agree with you. At the very least they would have been extremely competitive with the very best - Lewis would have also for the same reasons. I think that the fact that they are kind of low key makes most people discount the actual amount of fight they have in them. But the fact is that Wlad has (along with Lewis) the kind of jab that would have given any fighter (particularly the 215 -220 pounders like Tyson and Ali) fits.

And to whoever said that they weren't finishers need to look at their records. Vitali has a higher ko ratio than Tyson and I've never seen him hurt.

Neither one of them is hugely coordinated or fast, but it's hard to imagine many guys handling their power.

salvador
QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 25 2011, 02:24 PM) *
Vitali lost to a couple of the last remnants of that division of the 90's...one to Byrd, the other to Lewis...


Vitali was dominating Byrd until he quit on his stool after 9 rounds because he injured his shoulder. You might argue that it was a chickenshit move (I would), but he was absolutely dominating Byrd and would have cruised to a very lop-sided decision (88-83 on 2 cards and 89-82 on the other).

And Vitali was also up on all three scorecards against Lewis (58-56 on all 3) before the fight was stopped because of a cut.
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (salvador @ Jan 26 2011, 08:50 AM) *
Vitali was dominating Byrd until he quit on his stool after 9 rounds because he injured his shoulder. You might argue that it was a chickenshit move (I would), but he was absolutely dominating Byrd and would have cruised to a very lop-sided decision (88-83 on 2 cards and 89-82 on the other).

And Vitali was also up on all three scorecards against Lewis (58-56 on all 3) before the fight was stopped because of a cut.



Sure Vitali WAS dominating Byrd early and mid rounds on, BUT Byrd was very elusive and started getting to Vitali and tagging him and frustrating him and coming on. Shoulder or not, which I never noticed during the fight, Byrd was getting to Vitali and Chris was frustrating Vitali with his defense. I do not think it would have been as lopsided as you suggested considering there were 4 rounds left. Also, Why did Vitali not want a rematch with Byrd? Why did he have big brother do his dirty work?

AND for the Lewis fight...that was LL last fight. He was past his prime and woefully out of shape amd looked his worst ever. I remember watching that and thinking man Lewis did not even train and looked like a sloppy amateur. Man a prime Lewis would have destroyed both Klits.


The bottom line with Wlad is his chin and mentality. Sure he could beat a lot of good heavies, but most of the great ones would surely KO him.

I believe Vitali would match up better cause of his size and his toughness. He is awkward but he makes it work for him.

Also, Vitali was severely hurt in the first round with his fight with Corrie Sanders. He almost went down but the bell pretty much saved him. It's kind of funny how again Vitali had to do little brothers dirty work and stop Sanders, lol.
BGv2.0
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...

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!

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.

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 facts.
gravytrain
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 26 2011, 03:00 AM) *
i really dont think so gravy... ali would slice vitali up like he had a straight razor... sonny liston would knock him out... dempsey was a big man killer as well and would get inside on him and eat him up (if that guy guy sinsnowski or what eveer his name is could get inside dempsey tears his ass up).... i think larry holmes could get to him in his prime... a few guys i think vitali would get to because of their styles would be a frazier, marciano type of great heavyweight simply because a tall fighter with a jab would trouble them... i think a young mike tyson struggles with him though would eventually get to him... but ali... ali would toy with vatali... post exile id say the ali to the point of the foreman fight beats him as well.. after foreman ali just took too much punishment, vitali would beat that version of ali.. tell you another guy i think would get deep down in vitalis shit... ike ibeabuchi... had he not gone to prison i think he would have been lennox's nightmare... oh yeah speaking of lennox a primed lennox beats him (vitali) as well.. lol..


I don't know, I just see Ali after the exile having some trouble with Vitali. I think he could beat Wlad though. Pre-exile I think Ali would just seriously fuck with both of them. He'd dance in the first round and really frustrate them then be in and out before they could really land much, Ali had some slick reflexes too so I think he could track their punches pretty easily and only get hit if he left himself open to it. Plus even if he got hit he'd a serious chin and could take punishment.

QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jan 26 2011, 04:01 AM) *
Sorry dude, that may be true in athletics or racing or any sport where you can measure speed and power...but it's not true in boxing.

Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.


The reason is that in sports where performances are measured you can see definitive improvements over time. A guy runs the 100ms in 12 seconds, the next guy can quantifiably measure his results against that and improve on it. He can shave tenths of a second off the time and develop his speed against it.

If there were no stopwatches, and he had no clue what the previous guy had ran 100ms in, I guarantee he'd never improve on it. That's how records get broken in sports like this, and the perception is that athletes are faster, stronger etc...and that's true, but only BECAUSE the performances are measured.


In boxing, however, the performances are not measured. A punch speed isn't timed. A fighter's strength isn't measured. Therefore the boxers aren't training to shave split seconds off their speed, and therefore the overall speed and strength of the fighter's HASN'T improved.

In fact, I'd venture to say that due to the generally easier lifestyle of today's western population, the majority of fighter's natural strength attributes has DECREASED a little, which is why Eastern countries where they still live a hard slog have began to take over. The scientific training may have added to their explosive power, but strength is more than that.



Just my two cents, as I keep hearing about faster, stronger athletes, but when I see old 70's vids I see guys just as fast as today's fighters. In fact, with the benefit of today's high quality, HD video, Ali et al would probably look even faster!!!



Black


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.

QUOTE (ViperSniper @ Jan 26 2011, 04:10 AM) *
Seems he may not be quite ready for that level yet..but then again who ever will at this rate?

I think there is a good chance we have already seen all the defeats the Klitschkos have faced as they really are that far ahead of the rest. Over the years both have seemed to have improved and grown as fighters as they are smart as they don't give much away to their opponents at all. With the size, conditioning & skills they aren't in any great threat to the rest of the division that lack a lot of what the Klits have. Sure they could get old (Vitali is borderline there already) and then loose but with their style of fighting it doesn't require the traits youth may have over age & with the landscape most importantly it looks pretty smooth for them.


That's how I see it, the division just wont produce a quality fighter. If there are some good prospects[Deontay Wilder] it'd probably be smarter for them to wait before stepping it up, then one or both of the brothers might be gone. I think most promoters would wait because they know it'll be a better chance of having a champion in the lucrative HW division.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 01:47 PM) *
I don't know, I just see Ali after the exile having some trouble with Vitali. I think he could beat Wlad though. Pre-exile I think Ali would just seriously fuck with both of them. He'd dance in the first round and really frustrate them then be in and out before they could really land much, Ali had some slick reflexes too so I think he could track their punches pretty easily and only get hit if he left himself open to it. Plus even if he got hit he'd a serious chin and could take punishment.


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...
gravytrain
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.
JLUVBABY
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...
blackbelt2003
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
gravytrain
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.

blackbelt2003
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
gravytrain
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.

JLUVBABY
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...
gravytrain
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.

The Original MrFactor
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.
The Original MrFactor
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.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.