1981 compared to 2011

Well they weren't quite as good as Nunn, McCallum, Toney or Jones, unfortunately and they themselves knew it. A fact not incompatible with them being at least as good as, say, Carl Froch or Amir Khan are now.

 

Not even comparable.

 

for sure

 

find the quote.

It's funny how you cry like a bitch 'wahh wahhh i didn't say that!' and yet you turn around and accuse people of saying things they didn't say or you say them out of context.

I don't like wasting too much time with you because you are a fool.

 

no, I was imitating mikE's dumb response to me

 

I'm not discounting the heavyweights from the 80's; however, we have the benefit of knowing how the careers of the guys on the 1981 list played out. We know Larry Holmes was an all-time great heavyweight based on his career, but in 1981 there was no way to know this. Hearns and Leonard were 22 and 24 at the time.

Currently, there are guys with time on the meter to prove themselves great or somewhere near that mark:

Nonito Donaire
Andre Ward
Yuri Gamboa
Jose Linares

All are young fighters with tons ahead of them. Even Carl Froch can't be overlooked in terms of accomplishments...pending the Ward fight he's beaten every top fighter in his division (for the record, I'd take Froch or Ward to beat Bute.)

Getting back to the Klit brothers, I give them credit for dominating an awful era. Best of the worst. Let's be honest all of the guys they've fought...save for Adamek who was valiant in defeat...none really tried to win. The last time I can think of a guy trying to beat Wlad he did just that...there's a world of difference between the effort Lamon Brewster gave in the first fight vs the rematch years later.

 

my eyes say you are wrong, but it was a convenient excuse for the Americans to hold that position, wasn't it?

 

To bring perspective to how "great" Haye's win was over Valuev you realize most thought Holyfield beat Valuev the year before Haye fought him.

 

Considering McCallum beat the ever loving dogshit out of their toughest rival, Watson, you don't think it might be wise to rethink that position?

 

Yes. Just saying that Haye didn't just talk his way into a fight with Wlad, he was the logical top opponent (not named Vitali) for him based on the fights he won.

Agree though that the division is lacking. It's boring as hell no doubt. History will look "pun" the Klits favourably though IMO. They may not be smooth technicians (well not Vitali anyway) but they are very difficult to beat given their other abilities and share physical gifts.

 

you said that only the US is down, everything is else is great

I'm not making anything up

Go jack off on the WBC website, shit-for-brains

 

Even Mike knows that Benn-Eubank weren't on the level of McCallum, Toney, Jones and Nunn.

Eubank was a shameful coward. He'd never fight a good non-brit. Benn had big brass balls though. Shame he never fought Toney or Jones.

 

I think you are wrong. I don't believe for a second that mikE knows any such thing

 

There are many fighters I would put ahead of Linares on your list. That's sort of the whole point of the bullshit that is the OP. Which is why I am mostly agreeing with your points in this thread.

However, I think you are really, really wrong in your assessment that only Adamek tried against the Klitschkos. It's insulting to the challengers and common sense. There are a few challengers who went into a shell, but I don't think Adamek's effort shined over several others. It was similar.

 

It's not really a matter of 'eyes'. Collins & Watson proved themselves right on a level with Benn & Eubank & proved themselves inferior to McCallum & Kalambay. Who in turn proved themselves on a 'level' with Nunn & Toney in the way the fights between those guys & common opponents panned out.

 

I didn't say 'only' and I didn't say 'everything else', but I did say something similar to this, at least. That's not what you quoted, though.

As I said, I don't like wasting time with you. You just aren't up for it.

 

So now one victory by one of the fighters over neither of them is conclusive?

 

Eubank had incredible natural talent though. He had everything except great stamina. Give Eubank "Hagler stamina" and he's an all time great.

Benn was just all heart and power and nothing else.

Watson and collins were just basic fighters. Collins was just tough and had great stamina..but nothing else. Watson was just a pretty boy with textbook boxing skills and mediocre talent.

 

Just like the top two young light heavyweights in 2011 have proven themselves roughly 'on a level' or inferior to a 46 year old version of a guy who was roughly on a level with the aforementioned early 90s American fighters..... results not eyes.

 

Adamek gave more of an effort than the following : (adding Vitali's fights as well)

Sam Peter
Eddie Chambers
Hasim Rahman
Tony Thompson
Ray Austin
Lamon Brewster II

(I didn't see the Ibragimov and Chagaev fights)


Vitali

Kevin Johnson
Chris Arreola
Sam Peter

Solis...can't say because he blew out his ACL and didn't see the Sosnowski fight.

I'll add Shannon Briggs to the Adamek category because he was beaten within an inch of his life. He could have quit but didn't.

The fact you go into a shell means you didn't try. I'd say Mosley tried harder against Pacquiao than these guys did against the Klits.

 

I don't disagree.

 

no, but it's a better piece of evidence than your eyes

I think this has a lot more to do with your dislike of American fighters and belief that the only reason the US once dominated the sport is because the masses were manipulated into believing that was the case. I don't know WHY you believe that, but it seems to be very clear that you believe.

 

Yes, I have such trouble dealing with your brilliant points:l3:

 

The fact that you go into a shell means you have an aversion to being hurt. Its something humans do. Even ones wearing just shorts do it from time to time.

Lots of guys went into shells vs Tyson, 1990's Tyson. Lots of guys who could have beaten him went into shells.


Ali clocks an ancient Liston with "dee anka punch" and then stands over him.....a seminal moment in boxing.

Vitali had Solis every bit as hurt from a similar shot and the opening line, persisted with for weeks, is that the punch never landed at all. Then it did land, but had no power. Then it had a bit of power, but Solis had no chin. Then Solis had a chin, but was fat. Then they were all on Steroids. Fuck off.

When we get into the habit of eulogizing shit, we never see it for the shit it is. When we get into the habit of shitting on a talent, it doesn't matter how good they get or how well they do, its always going to be shat upon.

Then when they are gone, we can dig them back up and pine for yester-year.

Welcome to Club Boxing.

 

Go find some quotes. Your post, as usual, is bullshit.

 

The current crop of fighters we have at Super middeweight aren't as good as Benn and Eubank, but we'll compare today to then once the current crop have retired to establish a better understanding.

 

"my eyes say you are wrong, but it was a convenient excuse for the Americans to hold that position, wasn't it?"

"Eubank and Benn weren't that good. When they were in their primes. When US commentators had anything to say about them at that time."

-- YOU

Pretty obvious tone in those posts

 

They aren't? Based on what exactly?

 

* Barring Froch of course who is da maaan.

 

They ARE? based on what exactly?