Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Klitschko vs Adamek
FightHype Community > OTHER HYPE > Archives
Pages: 1, 2
gravytrain
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 26 2011, 09:27 PM) *
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.


Considering that reach is exaggerated a lot times Wlad and Ali might have the same arm length/reach, Adamek is listed at a 75" reach. In Ali's prime his weight was about 212 so it'd really just be about a 28 pound weight advantage and 3" height advantage. Ali however was far superior in foot speed, hand speed, and strategy.Post exile Ali defeated someone nearly 30 pounds heavier in Buster Mathis so how much is that weight advantage really going to mean?

I really wonder how the fuck you try to compare Ali to someone like Adamek, Adamek could dream as being as nice as Ali then he better wake up and apologize.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 10:02 PM) *
Considering that reach is exaggerated a lot times Wlad and Ali might have the same arm length/reach, Adamek is listed at a 75" reach. In Ali's prime his weight was about 212 so it'd really just be about a 28 pound weight advantage and 3" height advantage. Ali however was far superior in foot speed, hand speed, and strategy.Post exile Ali defeated someone nearly 30 pounds heavier in Buster Mathis so how much is that weight advantage really going to mean?

I really wonder how the fuck you try to compare Ali to someone like Adamek, Adamek could dream as being as nice as Ali then he better wake up and apologize.



Dude, relax... We were just comparing size. I think I mentioned that Ali, in my opinion, has a speed and footwork advantage over Adamek. I wasnt sure of Adamek's reach. I figured it wasnt 80. Now, are you really comparing Wlad or Vitaly to Buster Mathis Sr?? Mathis's reach is only around 75 or 76 too. Not to mention, Buster Mathis weight was due to excessive fat. The Klits are 240lbs of muscle.
gravytrain
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 26 2011, 10:55 PM) *
Dude, relax... We were just comparing size. I think I mentioned that Ali, in my opinion, has a speed and footwork advantage over Adamek. I wasnt sure of Adamek's reach. I figured it wasnt 80. Now, are you really comparing Wlad or Vitaly to Buster Mathis Sr?? Mathis's reach is only around 75 or 76 too. Not to mention, Buster Mathis weight was due to excessive fat. The Klits are 240lbs of muscle.


I feel comfortable doing it.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 07:12 PM) *
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.


Most fighters train different then they did years ago... from the nutrition to the supplements that are available... the machines they have to train on are much more complex now... the fighter today is much more athletically inclined then the fighters before... thats not to say there are other intangibles that level the playing feild for the fighters of yester year cuzz there are...
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jan 26 2011, 03:48 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


rather ademak does well or not there is no comparison between him and ali... where do the comparisons begin?... they are two completely different types of fighters... ali being infinately more skilled then ademak in every catagory... what adamek does with klit has no bearing on how ali would fare with either one of them...
gravytrain
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 26 2011, 11:29 PM) *
Most fighters train different then they did years ago... from the nutrition to the supplements that are available... the machines they have to train on are much more complex now... the fighter today is much more athletically inclined then the fighters before... thats not to say there are other intangibles that level the playing feild for the fighters of yester year cuzz there are...


Mayweather and Pac weren't even taking supplements before, Mayweather said he didn't even start taking a multivitamin until he was 30 something. Mayweather probably just trains and only somewhat recently did Pac start doing some conditioning outside the normal boxing shit. Without Ariza Pac would still just be doing typical boxing stuff and taking his Centrum. Off the top of my head the only fighters I can think of to do shit outside of normal boxing training is the Klits, Pac, Khan, and Haye.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 11:22 PM) *
Mayweather and Pac weren't even taking supplements before, Mayweather said he didn't even start taking a multivitamin until he was 30 something. Mayweather probably just trains and only somewhat recently did Pac start doing some conditioning outside the normal boxing shit. Without Ariza Pac would still just be doing typical boxing stuff and taking his Centrum. Off the top of my head the only fighters I can think of to do shit outside of normal boxing training is the Klits, Pac, Khan, and Haye.


but that has nothing to do with the facilities that they use today are far more advanced than what was available even in the 70's... even most of the 80's... and as for pac the jury is still out on that guy... ariza has him on some stuff thats closed door...
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 27 2011, 02:02 PM) *
Post exile Ali defeated someone nearly 30 pounds heavier in Buster Mathis so how much is that weight advantage really going to mean?


What the fuck are you crapping on about? You are comparing a lard puck like Mathis to a Klit?



If you are going to talk about weight advantages then at least use a boxer that is a healthy weight. Mathis was a classic fatman with fast hands & zero pop on his shots.
gravytrain
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 27 2011, 12:55 AM) *
but that has nothing to do with the facilities that they use today are far more advanced than what was available even in the 70's... even most of the 80's... and as for pac the jury is still out on that guy... ariza has him on some stuff thats closed door...


boxing equipment? idk about that, wasn't boxing back in the 70s and 80s lol. i don't think the little changes to bags are going to change much in terms of performance. you're right if you're talking about strength equipment but you've got to use it and the knowledge to take advantage of it.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 27 2011, 03:09 PM) *
I feel comfortable doing it.


What are you on?
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 26 2011, 09:19 PM) *
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.


That's a tough call as those guys didn't fight in a PPV era so of course Eddie Chambers numbers are going to be better laugh.gif

Tua knocked out guys and had a big following but the reason he wasn't as big as Tyson was he simply didn't have Mike's charisma. Frankly who has had the Tyson aura in the modern era? In any division?

Nor did Ibeabuchi or Tua win titles. Hard to become world famous when you aren't even the champ.

If Mike Tyson came along today, in the modern era of the internet and cable TV with 24/7 type shows, whether he be American, Brazilian or Samoan he'd be bigger than Jesus laugh.gif
gravytrain
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Jan 27 2011, 01:28 AM) *
What are you on?


Ali is about as similar to Adamek as Mathis is to Wlad. Using Wlad/Adamek as a measuring stick for for Ali/Wlad is like using Ali/Mathis for Ali/Wlad. Wlad might have the weight and height advantage but that's likely where it stops. Ali has the hand speed, foot speed, chin, heart, and ring IQ. If anything people should be wondering how Wlad could deal with Ali rather than the other way around.

Personally, on the subject of Wlad/ATGs, I see numerous ATGs stopping him.
gravytrain
QUOTE (The Ollie Reed Fan Club @ Jan 27 2011, 03:39 AM) *
That's a tough call as those guys didn't fight in a PPV era so of course Eddie Chambers numbers are going to be better laugh.gif

Tua knocked out guys and had a big following but the reason he wasn't as big as Tyson was he simply didn't have Mike's charisma. Frankly who has had the Tyson aura in the modern era? In any division?

Nor did Ibeabuchi or Tua win titles. Hard to become world famous when you aren't even the champ.

If Mike Tyson came along today, in the modern era of the internet and cable TV with 24/7 type shows, whether he be American, Brazilian or Samoan he'd be bigger than Jesus laugh.gif


Some crude motherfucker talking about eating asses and fucking female reporters.. MTV would give him his own show.

I don't think nationality has anything to do with lack of American interest in the Klits, they're just not entertaining to anyone other than boxing fans and casual fans is where the real money is at. They're articulate, intelligent, and well mannered fighters who are very methodical in the ring against overmatched opponents. That shit isn't putting PPVs on cable bills.
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 27 2011, 04:16 AM) *
Some crude motherfucker talking about eating asses and fucking female reporters.. MTV would give him his own show.

I don't think nationality has anything to do with lack of American interest in the Klits, they're just not entertaining to anyone other than boxing fans and casual fans is where the real money is at. They're articulate, intelligent, and well mannered fighters who are very methodical in the ring against overmatched opponents. That shit isn't putting PPVs on cable bills.


Agreed. Although very quickly to make my point clear I'm talking about the pre-jail Tyson. Probably even the pre-Givens Tyson. The young kid with the lisp who politely said he was trying to drive the guys nose up into his brain and who iced guys with chilling ease.

People forget just how popular that Tyson was. It's like Elvis. Anytime you mention that dude people just think of the fat, jumps suit wearing, Vegas period Elvis. They don't remember the young Elvis at the start of his career, just the caricature. Tyson suffers the same fate (though very much of his own doing.)

When I say Tyson would be bigger than Jesus I'm actually meaning the young version. The old version would be pretty big too. laugh.gif
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (The Ollie Reed Fan Club @ Jan 27 2011, 04:32 AM) *
Agreed. Although very quickly to make my point clear I'm talking about the pre-jail Tyson. Probably even the pre-Givens Tyson. The young kid with the lisp who politely said he was trying to drive the guys nose up into his brain and who iced guys with chilling ease.

People forget just how popular that Tyson was. It's like Elvis. Anytime you mention that dude people just think of the fat, jumps suit wearing, Vegas period Elvis. They don't remember the young Elvis at the start of his career, just the caricature. Tyson suffers the same fate (though very much of his own doing.)

When I say Tyson would be bigger than Jesus I'm actually meaning the young version. The old version would be pretty big too. laugh.gif



The young version of Jesus? Was that pre crucifixion? LOL!
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 27 2011, 06:13 AM) *
The young version of Jesus? Was that pre crucifixion? LOL!


Yeah yeah the dude who could turn water into wine. Now that's big!!
BGv2.0
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 26 2011, 10:19 PM) *
They are no better than the era of contenders and title holders that the Klits have fought or will fight in this era.

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??

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

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.

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. .


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 27 2011, 12:27 AM) *
boxing equipment? idk about that, wasn't boxing back in the 70s and 80s lol. i don't think the little changes to bags are going to change much in terms of performance. you're right if you're talking about strength equipment but you've got to use it and the knowledge to take advantage of it.


you dont know about that?... why are you speaking on things you are unclear about?... lol... equipment that fighters use has taken all kinds of leaps and bounds over the years right down to the mouth piece fighters use.... doesnt matter that you werent watching boxing back in the 70's or 80's... all it takes is to research the old fighters and you'll see a major difference in equipment and the equipments ability to help fighters receive desired results... but again as i said even though they didnt have the technology of now there where other intangibles that bring them up to speed such as their toughness... i dont think fighters are as touch as they used to be... just my opinion... larry holmes fought 15 hard rounds vs norton with a torn bicep... can you imagine the pain of that and he went into the fight with the injury... vitali klit quit a fight he was winning with only 2 rounds to go in a 12 round fight.... fighters are just different these days... fighters fought each other back in the days to prove who was the baddest... they protect themselves as long as possible now so a lot of things have changed... i can go on and on with this topic...
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 11:49 AM) *
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.


dokes and tubbs beat the hell out of Arreola and peter... They where both very skilled heavyweights... yes tubbs was fat and other than tyson and a few guys that caught him later in his career he was very highly skilled... matter of fact he deserved the nod over bowe in their fight... and dokes was another fighter that if not for the caine would have had a much better career than what he amounted to... tubbs and dokes won big fights... arreola cant seem to care enough to get in shape and peter isnt much better... lol... some of these guys need to research before trying to discuss... lol.. dont give yaself to much of a headache bg going back and fourth with that dude... he just dont know...
gravytrain
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 27 2011, 12:51 PM) *
you dont know about that?... why are you speaking on things you are unclear about?... lol... equipment that fighters use has taken all kinds of leaps and bounds over the years right down to the mouth piece fighters use.... doesnt matter that you werent watching boxing back in the 70's or 80's... all it takes is to research the old fighters and you'll see a major difference in equipment and the equipments ability to help fighters receive desired results... but again as i said even though they didnt have the technology of now there where other intangibles that bring them up to speed such as their toughness... i dont think fighters are as touch as they used to be... just my opinion... larry holmes fought 15 hard rounds vs norton with a torn bicep... can you imagine the pain of that and he went into the fight with the injury... vitali klit quit a fight he was winning with only 2 rounds to go in a 12 round fight.... fighters are just different these days... fighters fought each other back in the days to prove who was the baddest... they protect themselves as long as possible now so a lot of things have changed... i can go on and on with this topic...



I don't think you can really tell how different an old double end bag would be from the new ones unless you get on one. they're made out of different material and everything now but they could feel about the same. same with heavy bags, they might be better quality now but they could feel about the same when you're on one. either way it's all the same action just with a different object, they've just changed materials and made the construction better.

the biggest difference i can think of is a fighter can hire people now to make him perform better than just what he's naturally capable of. he can hire a nutritionist to help manage weight and get him the right food to help him recover from workouts, Alex Ariza to inject steroids in his ass, and a S&C coach to give him workouts to make him quicker, have more stamina, and more explosive.

QUOTE (The Ollie Reed Fan Club @ Jan 27 2011, 04:32 AM) *
Agreed. Although very quickly to make my point clear I'm talking about the pre-jail Tyson. Probably even the pre-Givens Tyson. The young kid with the lisp who politely said he was trying to drive the guys nose up into his brain and who iced guys with chilling ease.

People forget just how popular that Tyson was. It's like Elvis. Anytime you mention that dude people just think of the fat, jumps suit wearing, Vegas period Elvis. They don't remember the young Elvis at the start of his career, just the caricature. Tyson suffers the same fate (though very much of his own doing.)

When I say Tyson would be bigger than Jesus I'm actually meaning the young version. The old version would be pretty big too. laugh.gif


I see him being someone that could make a killing especially with PPV. Once he got hot every company would want a piece of him so he'd be heavily marketed, he'd average an outrageous buy rate. I mean if I remember correctly he was making 30 million a fight and that was really before PPV took off, with how PPV is now he could be looking for a minimum of 50-60 million with the guaranteed purse and PPV revenue.
JLUVBABY
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 27 2011, 02:08 PM) *
the biggest difference i can think of is a fighter can hire people now to make him perform better than just what he's naturally capable of. he can hire a nutritionist to help manage weight and get him the right food to help him recover from workouts, Alex Ariza to inject steroids in his ass, and a S&C coach to give him workouts to make him quicker, have more stamina, and more explosive.


now we're talking... lol...
gravytrain
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.


I agree about this right here, saying you can't determine if fighters in other eras were better than some current fighters means there's no such thing as a mythical match up. With that logic you couldn't say if Ray Robinson would slap the shit out of Kelly Pavlik, in your heart you know it wouldn't even be a contest though. I don't know about you guys but I think anyone that watches boxing for a little while can know enough to make a fair decision on who could win a fight, I see a lot of the old HWs wiping the floor with the current crop. All he needs to do is look at these rankings http://www.heavyweightaction.com/Decade%201980s.html compare the 1980-1989 rankings with what we have today. Would guys like Arreola really last with them?
ROLL DEEP
You only have to watch a video of ol' Ray Robinson to see just how good he was. Anything the current guys can do, he could do better. You can SEE it on a video, forget modern athletic training. How does modern training improve the bomb Robinson landed on Fullmer? By making him decapitate the guy?

Look at the war Ali and Frazier had in Manila. Have you ever seen two better conditioned fighters? All the dietary supplements and modern weight training routines in the world haven't produced two more well conditioned fighters than those two on that night. Only a prime Holyfield comes close.


And I don't really see modern training routines having too much impact in boxing. A few heavyweights lift weights, and a few lighters guys manage their diets better, but is that really enough to have such a massive impact on the modern game?

The best way to be a champion is still to hit the pads, hit the heavy bag, run and spar. Same as it was in the 50's. And 60's. And 70's.

gravytrain
QUOTE (ROLL DEEP @ Jan 27 2011, 03:51 PM) *
You only have to watch a video of ol' Ray Robinson to see just how good he was. Anything the current guys can do, he could do better. You can SEE it on a video, forget modern athletic training. How does modern training improve the bomb Robinson landed on Fullmer? By making him decapitate the guy?

Look at the war Ali and Frazier had in Manila. Have you ever seen two better conditioned fighters? All the dietary supplements and modern weight training routines in the world haven't produced two more well conditioned fighters than those two on that night. Only a prime Holyfield comes close.


And I don't really see modern training routines having too much impact in boxing. A few heavyweights lift weights, and a few lighters guys manage their diets better, but is that really enough to have such a massive impact on the modern game?

The best way to be a champion is still to hit the pads, hit the heavy bag, run and spar. Same as it was in the 50's. And 60's. And 70's.



The big problem in boxing is that a fighter is sitting on his ass then has 3 months to get into fighting shape/fighting weight, there's only so much you can do before you start fucking with their recovery and ability to train for the fight. That and you've other issues to worry about like the fighter getting burnt out on busting his ass in the gym for hours and then telling him he's go to do S&C work. I really doubt most pros would be thrilled about doing S&C work between fights either.

There are some things I think could definitely help a fighter such as strength training to build up their lower body and their ability to generate power with their hips, it wouldn't take off unless an elite fighter was doing it and that's going to be a hard one to sell.

The Original MrFactor
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.
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.