Heavyweight division officialy dead

shufford definitely was

 

what a smart person would do is look at the schedules of WORLD-CLASS FIGHTERS from say 1940 compared to 1990... Willie Pep fought 242 times in 20 years... Bernard Hopkins has fought 1/4 that many in 20 years

 

He definitely fought on a few HBO cards.

 

BOLLOX.

BOLLOX.


BOLLOX.

Ring did nothing but put the guy down.

They had him down as THE MOST OVERRATED fighter in boxing in 1999/2000

 

Um yeah well, that's another way to say what I said I suppose :scared2::scared:

 

Mike, a study on google (don't know of it's credibility):

'The risk of chronic traumatic brain injury in professional boxing: change in exposure variables over the past century
H Clausen1, P McCrory1, V Anderson1
+ Author Affiliations

1University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Correspondence to:
 Associate Professor McCrory
 PO Box 93, Shoreham, Melbourne 3916, Australia; paulmccr@bigpond.net.au
Accepted 27 February 2005
Abstract
Objectives: To determine if boxing exposure has changed over time and hence if current professional boxers are at the same risk of developing chronic traumatic brain injury (CTBI) as historical controls.

Design: Literature review of published studies and analysis of data of active professional boxers.

Subjects: Professional boxers in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Main outcome measures: Boxing history and participation in sparring and professional bouts.

Results: Since the 1930s, the average duration of a professional boxer’s career has dropped from 19 years to five years, and the mean number of career bouts has reduced from 336 to 13. This is despite no significant decline in participation rates from 1931 until 2002.

Conclusions: The incidence of boxing related CTBI will diminish in the current era of professional boxing because of the reduction in exposure to repetitive head trauma and increasing medical monitoring of boxers, with preparticipation medical and neuroimaging assessments resulting in the detection of early and potentially pre-symptomatic cases of CTBI.'


------

That's another data source on fight numbers in Australia and the UK. It says that while participation rates have 'not decreased significantly' (though I know from another source that there was a fantastic increase in UK participation during the Thatcher years as unemployment soared), fighters are fighting less often, on average 25x less often.

Dunno if either of those contentions sound plausible to me, but it's a data point beside boxrecs (both clearly totally incomplete.)

 

he was on the covers several times between 2001 and 2003, they were on his jock big time

don't fuck around

 

Bollox. Nigel Collins fucking hated him. They did a special on him and his quitting brother. Don't fucking make me go out and buy the magazines and reproduce the articles here.

 

wladimar is good fighter i like vitali

 

Come on. He had just been KO'd by Ross fucking Purrity in December of 1998, just before 1999. Then in 2000 he picked up a World title belt. I think that is a fair assessment at the time.... he was a worl champion yet only defeated a much smaller, feather-fisted opponent for that belt and has a KO loss to a journeyman. maybe you don't agree and in hindsight certainly it may look incorrect or skewed but that is a totally fair argument at the time.

in in May 2000 he was ranked #6 by Ring magazine, May 2001 he was ranked #1 (behind Lennox who was rated as the champion), May 2002 he was still ranked #1 in Ring magazine behind Lennox, and then in May 2003 after the Sanders loss he was dropped to #8, which again is completely fair.

 

It would be OK, if it weren't for the fact that they had Mike Grant as the Most Underrated. Clear signal there.

You may not have realized this, but to become the most overrated guy out there, people have to be talking you up.

So, we find ourselves with Ring magazine fellating Wlad, and saying he was overrated, all at the same time.

OK.

As for the notion that Andrew Golota didn't kick anything off.....Golota fought Bowe for the WBO title in 1996. Vitali fought Hide for the same title in 1999 and Wladimir fought for it in 2000. You then had Oleg Maskaev- perhaps truly the most enigmatic of them all, turning in some very good losing performances before beating Rahman in the early 2000's. Ibragimov and Chagaev followed.

Of course, the division was poo-poo by then. How neat and convenient.

 

One of those is KO magazine. Actually 2 of those is KO Magazine. Scratch that, 3 of them are KO magazine. KO magazine did do a very good article on the brothers in 2000, but it went to press just BEFORE the Byrd debacle....oh, and guess who was on the cover??? Bernard. :doh:

Another one has a big yellow question mark.

Another one is of after Vitali had fought Lewis, beaten up Kirk Johnson and beaten up Sanders. Speak about having no fucking choice BUT to write about him. Yet another one is after the Lewis fight. Oh, look, another one is after the Lewis and Sanders fights. Way to go out on a limb there, Ring magazine. It also ponders if Jermaine Taylor can be a superstar, which does not engender confidence.

The last one is after Wlad had put together the best part of his current string. That same article, because I have that magazine, described Wlads significance as "C" in America and "A" in Europe...more of their shite. It also have Vasquez, he of the broken eye, an "A" prognosis and a "B" prognosis to Vitali.

Vazquez is currently retired.

If you want, I will go out and buy the article where they rip the piss out of white fighters, key amongst whom were the brothers.

 

Hey I somewhat agree with you on the whole Golota thing, that's for someone else.

As for Michael Grant did that issue come out before or after the loss to Lennox?

I didn't ever mean to say that The Ring were sucking Wladimir off, but I don't think they were particularly unfair on him and during his most glamourous period between 2001-2003 or whenever they actually rated him pretty accurately. As mentioned he was ranked #6, #1, #1, and then #8 after the Sanders loss

 

To the best of my knowledge, it was before.

Cdogg thinks this is Anti-American on my behalf.......for what it is worth, Boxing News, a British pube-lick-asian, did one of the most scathing assessments of the Byrd vs Vitali fight.

 

And I'm sorry but Michael Grant had something going for him before he was destroyed by Lennox - he didn't get knocked fucking out by Ross fucking Purrity. In fact Grant got in the ring with Purrity and defeated him.

Ten years later it's easy to look back and say that Wlad's loss to Purrity was a fluke because nothing like it ever happened again.... oh wait, nevermind. You can't just discount that loss.

Wlad has a title belt at this point, beaten a feather-fist half his damn size and has a KO loss to Purrity. While Michael Grant does not have a title belt, does not have a KO loss to Ross Purrity, rather he has a win and also has wins over David Izon, Lou Savarese and your precious Andrew Golota - I'd say again it's a pretty damn fair assessment. As much as Michael Grant turned out to be overrated in hindsight he had legitimate wins in the division better than any young contender not named David Tua, at the time.

 

You are missing the point.

It was a question of overrated and underrated.

Not a question of good or bad or anything else.

Grant had become overrated. We know because he got the Lewis fight.

Wlad had become underrated, we know because he went on to beat guys better than Purritty.

 

But it was a fair argument to call Grant underrated at the time and Wlad overrated. Based on their wins, and their title belts at the time. It's not a reflection that The Ring magazine just hated Wladimir Klitschko, it's a reflection that they thought a title holder who beat Chris Byrd and lost to Ross Purrity shouldn't be getting hyped up just yet. And you know what - The Ring got it wrong Grant was the overrated one despite at the time having BETTER wins than Wlad, and they went on to rank Wladimir as such in subsequent Ring Magazine official rankings. Ranking him as the #1 heavyweight behind Lennox Lewis for 2 years.

 

How could they be fellating him and calling him overhyped at the same time??? This is a pretty simple question, no???? :dunno:

 

As I said - I never said that the Ring were sucking him off. All I said is they didn't have some bullshit conspiracy against Wlad. They rated him as overrated for a legitimate fucking reason, and imo Grant underrated for a legitimate reason.... and then they rated Wladimir very fairly during his prime years until the Sanders loss. this conspiracy against Wladimir is completely made up like most of your hare-brained theories regarding this matter.

plus they are totally different time periods. he was labelled overrated when he hadn't beaten anyone but Chris Byrd for a title and had a loss to purrity. from that point on he had rebuilt himself to be HIGHLY rated by The Ring (fellated if you must use the phrase) until he was KO'd again.

 

LOL< KO Magazine is a subsidiary of THE RING, dude

 

I know that. Collins used to refer to it as their "Sister Publication".

 

but you are suggesting that The Ring hated Wlad and Vitali, since KO is part of the Ring, the covers are absolutely relevant

"a nice article BEFORE the Byrd fight" ... so, they are supposed to write a follow-up praising Vitali for that loss? honestly, when does that happen EVER?

You want them to suddenly say "don't worry, Wlad, you'll be back, big guy!" after he gets pancaked by a journeyman who would prefer to be golfing??

when does ANY fighter get treated like that???

They ripped the hell out of Lewis for getting blasted by Rahman... they devoted numerous articles to decrying the spectacle of Mike Tyson... They never ripped any fighter harder than John Ruiz, an AMERICAN...

You are expecting the Klitschkos to be fawned over in the EXACT SAME WAY that you routinely denounce as preposterous and misguided (KHAN)

Any fighter who quits in a fight, especially when he is still proving himself and up-and-coming, is going to get slaughtered by writers... it's the nature of the beast

Any fighter who gets positively steamrolled in 2 rounds by a 40-1 underdog is going to be lit up like a christmas tree by the press...

That's the way the cookie crumbles

 

Ah, Lennox Lewis, another pet peeve of theirs.

 

But he's BLACK??? I thought they only hate WHITE fighters????

What about Ruiz??? Wladimir could have been knocked out by Mia St. John and been regarded more favorably by them than Ruiz was... where's the conspiracy???

 

Never said that, though, did I???

Ruiz was an exception.

 

You have made it abundantly clear that you think The Ring is a racist publication, hence your constant mentioning of some article bashing white fighters... so why did they not praise Lewis to the high heavens?

Oh, I see, there are EXCEPTIONS now??? And, pray tell, why the exception is Ruiz's case?

 

Racialist more than strictly Racist.

Ruiz was broadly disliked, by prospective opponents, by TV guys, by purists and fans etc. He was brutally KO'd by David "Tony Galento" Tua, and that lent him a comical aspect to his character which he didn't deserve.

Nothing is harder to shake than a buffoon status, and Ruiz didn't really ever shake it for the rest of his career. Even when he beat Evander, the perception was he had faked a low-blow earlier in the fight.

 

Wasn't he though? He wasn't Sanders or Brewster level at the time.

 

If he was, I find it hard to see how he was overrated.