QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM)

YEAH...they were better...and there is no secret to it...simply watch all of their fights and compare them to the fighters today. How you can watch past fights of those I listed and then watch fights of the guys you listed and not HONESTLY see the difference in skills and abilitya nd determination is beyond me.
Well, to their credit in the 80's, they didnt look across the ring and see a monster. They saw a beatable guy at least until Tyson came along. Then they looked across the ring and saw a monster. When guys get in the ring with the Klits, they look across the ring and see a monster. The Klits are big and intimidating. All the guys that you listed that fought Tyson had those same issues when they saw Tyson across the ring pacing back and forth. Chris Byrd has skills(great), ability and determination. All that went out the window when he fought Wlad. He was in over his head. You telling me that Chris Byrd would not have been a very competitive heavyweight in the 80's?? Not saying he would have dominated, but I think he would have cracked the top 5 or 10 at some point.
So you are saying that Tim Witherspoon, Greg Page or Pinklon Thomas have better skills than say... Oleg Maskaev, Tony Thompson, Chris Byrd or Eddie Chambers. What are you basing that on?? You say you watched them fight. So did I. What skills are better? Their stances?? Their defense? Their Jabs? To say their skills are better is a wide open statement. It just sounds like you prefer the 80's guys because they were 80's or some type of nostalgia.
I went back and watched Greg Page vs Gerry Coetzee AND Tony Thompson vs Luan Krasniqi. For the life of me, comparing these 2 fights, I cant find a skill that the 80's guys had or did better than the modern guys. Can you? The 80's guys didnt do anything that made me jump out of my seat. It was a good fight, but so was the Thompson/Krasniqi fight. All 4 guys were well tooled and skilled heavyweights. I think the Klits beat all 4 of these guys. In fact Wlad already beat one.
QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM)

And nice pick on the "prove to me" statement....you simply took the two fat men on the list and compared them to the two extreamly well conditioned guys fighting today. I can tell you that Dokes and Tubbs were in better shape than Arreola or Peter...but guys like Ribalta and Tucker were in great shape.
Hey, I took that liberty to prove a point. As if we dont have guys in great shape today. Byrd always came in shape. Chambers has made some serious strides to get himself in shape. The Klits are always in tip top. Every generation has had their fat heavyweight who had issues with weight. Arreola, Peter and to a degree, Toney are ours.
QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM)

As for Peter's popularity on was not simply limiting it to this site....prior to his fight with Wlad and even after due to the showing he put on with Wlad, the majority of the boxing community embraced him as a commodity....NOBODY is using the word "embraced" here in comparison to Tyson...you assume too much. Tyson was a special situation that very few if any boxers live up to...maybe Ali...but that is a short list of HW's that ever reached that level of popularity. And Ike was NOTHING like Vitali...that makes me wonder if you actually ever watched the guy, Ike would slug it out in the trenches and use devestating combos..somthing I RARELY ever see Vitali do, the exception being his fight with LL. Vitali stands on the outside and jabs and rights for the most part.
One thing I'll say is this. Back in the 80's MOST of the top 20 were Americans or they were guys who embraced America and fought exclusively in America. Today we dont see that as much. Today many top 20 heavyweights are Euros and other NON Americans. Many dont speak english and dont fight in the US. We as Americans dont think highly of the division because its not top heavy with American fighters. I agree with you in embracing the concept that knocking jokers out in the 1st or second round makes a huge impression on viewers and viewership. I cant really say that Europe has recently produced such a guy. I also say that there is a bigger embrace for a hometown guy that just wins versus a guy who fights on another continent who blasts through people. Holyfield didnt have the devastating KO's that Tyson had, but he's beloved, embraced and was one of the biggest PPV attractions EVER in the sport. If there was a Euro who was Ko'ing people the way Tyson did, but only fought in Europe, you know what we'd say?? We'd say he needs to come to America. Or he's just fighting Eurobums, or he needs to come here and fight the premier American heavyweight to be credible. Well, in the modern era, its the Americans who have to fight the Euros to be credible at this point.
QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM)

And how do you explain that Ranch in Montana BS theory in relation to Tommy Morrison? Here was a guy that was white, KOing the hell out of people...he was even kin to John Wayne for God's sake and I think he actually was bron on a "Ranch in Montana"...YET he never garnered the level of respect that Tua or Lewis did....that's an BS argument. America has embraced guys like Manny and Kosta Tzyu as well as Azuma Nelson....it has to do with what you do in the ring! Americans will love anybody as long as they LOVE what you do in that ring.
Respect and attraction are not the same. Lewis is respected because of his conduct in and out of the ring. Tyson was an attraction who doesnt carry the respect of a gentleman, so to speak. Maybe we just disagree, but I thought Tommy Morrison was probably a bigger attraction in this country than Lennox Lewis or David Tua in the 1990's. I dont really think Morrison garners a lot of respect though. A white American heavyweight with a decent record will certainly put buts in the seats. Just ask Joe Mesi. Lennox Lewis didnt get his due until after Morrison was gone. Some argue that he's never gotten his due. And he's a guy who fought almost exclusively in the US. We still embraced guys like Tyson, Holy and even Bowe to some degree. I'd say because they were Americans. Morrison was an anomoly. He seemed like a great kid in his interviews after fights. He was respectable in the ring. However, I've heard that away from camera's, the guy was a complete asshole. Even with all that, he was very popular in this country, when he fought. Thats why we still talk about him today, instead of Ray Mercer who has a win over Morrison, and a better resume. Say what we want about Holy today, but Lewis was the last man standing when the 90's were done. I still dont think Lewis gets the proper respect.
QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM)

Well, when it comes down to era matchups...of course none of us can "prove" anything. We all realize that. BUT...you can base assumptions on recorded history...as in watching fights. AND...based on that...it's a FACT that the 80's lot were better! Just watch the fights...that's all it takes. So to answer your question about my secret? I use my eyes.
Well, I can say that I've definitely watched a few fights in my life. A jab is a still a jab, weather its today or 60 years ago. Footwork, stamina, conditioning are all still just that. They didnt breed a race of supermen(that I know of) in the 30's, 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's. They were all still men. To say their skills were better is just throwing out a generality with no basis in fact. You and I both watched the fights. I think that the Klits would be dominant due to their size which is an intangible, and the skills I observe them use. I'm sorry, I dont see Tim Witherspoon coming in and throwing overhand right bombs on Vitaly the way he did to smaller guys from the 80's. I dont see Joe Frazier walking through a host of Wlad's rights to get to Wlad's body. Their skill set along with the intangible of size makes them difficult to beat. When all things are equal, you have 2 well skilled guys in there, skills cancel each other out. Its other intangibles, like size, power and speed that arent teachable that should be taken into consideration. You and I seem to disagree on how these intangibles play out during a mythical matchup. An old guy I used to train with years ago, told me that a good big man should almost always beat a good little man. The Klits are good big men.