You shift the argument whenever you look like a fool which means you are constantly shifting the argument. Frame the issue. What do you want to discuss?
REED ISN'T Shifting Shit, mikE... YOU Said the 80's Era Fighters would STILL Be Contenders Today, Right???...REED's Calling BULLSHIT, as he Thinks More than Few of them would've Been DOMINANT Champions in Today's Era...Now Kindly "Frame" YOUR Flimsy Ass Argument & REED'll Knock it OUT the Fucking Park like it's Batting Practice... REED:warning:
They would be contenders who would all get their asses handed to them by the Klitschko's, just like today's guys. And they aren't any better than today's guys, they are similar in how good they are, but rely on the American style. The American style generally has aspects of trading punches. The Klitshko's eat that shit up because they don't trade. Eddie Chambers is basically an 80's heavy, probably a better one of those mentioned. Thompson is, as well, probably a lesser one of those mentioned.
Eddie Chambers Should Be a CRUSIERWEIGHT, Dipshit...Chambers is a FAT Chris Byrd WANNABE...Chambers COULDN'T Punch a Hole in Cotton Candy, Whereas Most of the Aforementioned 80's Guys had LEGITIMATE Power...You COULDN'T have Picked a WORSE Fighter to Compare to 80's Heavyweights... Thompson???...Pretty DECENT Guy for Today's Era, Admittedly...But he LACKS the Natural TALENT (Handspeed, Mobility, etc.) of the Listed 80's Guys...REED has NO Knowledge of Thompson's Background, but he Strikes REED as the Quintessential "Big Guy" who Took Up Boxing LATE...There's a LACK of Schooling, a Dearth of FINE TUNING in Thompson, that just about ALL of the 80's Guys had...Those Guys were BOXERS, as Opposed to Being "Big Guys" who EVENTUALLY Took up Boxing... Big Difference... Eddie Chambers???...Really???... REED::
Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of that today. Just like am undiscovered guy who's 7' tall and gets pushed into basketball. They can be effective to some degree on height alone, but the difference in skill shows.
I think he would outpeck Page and lose to Witherspoon. And beat more of the rest than he'd lose to. Who cares if I'm wrong though? I'm not living off of Chambers in this discussion. Brewster is like an exact copy of an 80's heavy. Flawed, hittable, but good. Once he had his day in the sun, it was the end of the 80's chances against the Klitschko's. After that point, the only way to beat Wlad was by bull rush, and not weathering the storm. And beating Wlad by bullrush is like playing roulette.
I've liked the euro guys plus solis in the 00's over the americans because I generally think they have been better fighters. It's just when you have a decade plus to grab guys from, I can play this comparison game and try to stay with americans.
For all of their 'fine tuning', it's pretty common to hear 'off night' and 'if he was at his best' when referring to the 80's guys and coming up for excuses for their losses back then. Well, those excuses would be on a loop as they lined up and took shots at the klitschko's in our imaginary scenario.
No he's Not... Brewster BRAWLED his Way to Success...Most of the Aforementioned 80's Fighters were Guys who Could Fight VARIOUS Ways, Including COUNTERPUNCHING, if Warranted...Brewster was Tough, Respectable, but EXTREMELY LIMITED as a Fighter...Guys like Page, Dokes & Thomas Actually WON World Titles, yet were Still Considered DISAPPOINTMENTS in their Careers, whereas Brewster's Considered an OVERACHIEVER for Outlasting Wlad, After Getting Shitkicked... Lamon Brewster DIDN'T Have Even 1/10th of the All Around BOXING SKILL & TALENT of the Guys on that 80's List...You Continue to Throw Names Out There, but ALL You're Doing is EXPOSING What Little You Actually Know about the Topic @ Hand.... There was NATHAN the Least Bit SKILLFUL about Brewster, so it's COMEDIC that you'd Refer to him as an "Exact Copy of an 80's Heavy"... REED:shit:
Guys like Corrie Sanders & Lamon Brewster Would've NEVER Even Gotten SHOTS @ the Title, had they Fought in the 80's... REED:shit:
Do I really need to go find losses by these guys to etienne level fighters? Because we all know they are there.
I don't think any of these guys, even at their absolute worst, fail to KO Etienne. I'd favour you over Etienne by KO.
Logic dictates that Earnie Shavers should not be losing to Quarry and Cobb. Some fighters, relative to the wins on their resume, should not be losing to the guys they eventually do lose to.
Quarry and Cobb had to ability to absorb punches. That can get you wins that don't make sense of paper.
Why Not???:scratcher:... Shavers had MURDEROUS Punching Power, but that was IT....He was a BELOW Average Fighter in just about Every Other Regard...Quarry was a TALENTED Guy who Fought in the WRONG Era...Cobb ARGUABLY Had THE BEST Chin in Boxing History... REED:mj:
who are these giant hw that are supposed to dominate. except for the klit, the only top guys above 6'4 are fury and if you're generous with the word top, Helenius and thompson. Rest of them arent that big Pulev, Solis, Adamek, Stiverne ,arrea, povetkin, haye, banks, chambers, chagaev are all about the average size of the 80's hw, except that most of them always carry extra weight in the ring , where at least th 80's boys were in shape once in a while.
Irish just started watching boxing like 5 years ago when someone on StormFront told him there was a white HW champ. Can't really take his opinions on this sort of thing seriously, especially when the name of a white fighter is involved. mikE is just a fucking idiot.
Ken Norton was better than Quarry and Cobb, that's my point Reed. If Shavers could get in there and do numbers on Bugner and Norton, and give Ali and Holmes very very tough fights, then, all other things being equal, scrubs like Cobb should be easily dealt with. Likewise, Holmes never draped Norton over the ropes, nor did Quarry, nor did Ali, so the sight of the somewhat bummish Scott LeDoux doing it makes it all the more shocking. Some losses just don't stack up when taken into consideration against a backdrop of the wins the same fighter in question has enjoyed. If people are going to attempt to make sense of Shavers losing to Cobb, then fine. Do likewise with Wlad vs Purritty or Brewster vs Etienne. Some losses turn on their own facts, facts particular to that very evening, which never arise again in that fighters career. Wlad was outweighed by a teak-tough opponent and blew himself out trying to impress a home crowd, having been ill during the week before the fight. Brewster was always a laconic sort who worked off emotion to a great degree. He could lose to an Etienne or a Meehan as easily as he could beat Wlad, Golota or a Krasniqi.
Hi Sweetie, Go sit on a big cucumber and pretend we're making out. I want your weekend to end on a high note.
Cobb's 1 ASSET (Chin) was Perhaps Norton's Most GLARING Weakness...Ali & Holmes were FINESSE Guys who were NEVER Considered PUNCHERS, Per Se... STYLES... REED:kidcool:
This is your response: Originally Posted by Ugotabe Kidding "I repeat my agenda devil spinning yawn comment fot the 1000th time. I think the guys of 80s are better than the ones we have now, but not AS MUCH better as eyes only tell, because guys now have lesser technique and are more clumsy but also bigger and more powerful. 200lbs guys will always give a better fight than 240 lbs guys" You: "HW now aren't bigger than the 80S, one. Only fatter. If they were in shape they wouldn't be much of a size difference if any" Now you've qualified it by adding "supposed to dominate"?? The guys we are discussing, none of them dominated. Today's heavyweights are, in general and without a doubt, bigger than the guys from the 80's. And it's not all fat by any means.
