The best heavyweight title fight of the year...

I am trying to compare uncompetitive fights to uncompetitive fights, which is all I was ever trying to do.

Tyson vs Spinks was a big occasion, it involved Linear vs Undisputed, it was in America, which is vital, and Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty were there, and those are some big names. But it was uncompetitive shite.

In fact, when you factor in both Klitschko's perceived weaknesses, and compare them with Mikes indomitable aura, then I would go even further in saying that Mike had some pretty fucking uncompetitive fights.

 

Mike was also fun to watch though. He was a compelling figure.

 

Yeah but the only significant title fight of the year was in fact Wlad v. Chambers, and that turned out to be shit. Wasn't Wlad's fault - Chambers was a huge letdown who simply didn't put up a fight. But it still makes for a shit year when among seven scheduled heavyweight title fights (three lineal, four alphabet) only two feature fighters ranked in any respectable Top 10 - Wlad-Chambers and Haye-Ruiz.

That makes for a very, very poor year for any division. Especially when you factor in that every HVY title fight staged this year was largely forgettable.

That, you can never say about any given Tyson fight. Even if the fight itself was a layup on paper, he still gave you something to rave about at some point.

Wlad's dominance is to be appreciated and respected, but just isn't made up of the stuff you're going to talk about the next morning, never mind at the end of the year.

 

Maybe. That doesn't make any of his fights any "better" or "more competitive".

 

Perhaps not more competitive, but better in that they were certainly more compelling just for the fact Tyson was involved.

99% of people would rather see some no-hoper get treated like one and demolished, not jabbed to death with every round looking the same for as long as it goes.

The Klitschko's are like Carlos Monzon to me. Very effective but i have no desire to see their fights.

 

It's hard determine what better even means in this case... but more exciting would often be described as "better", I'd imagine.

 

Again, whilst most of what you say may be strictly true, I fail to see how it addresses the original premise.

For openers, you have drawn a relationship between the quality of the division, as a whole, and the entertainment factor of the title fights it has thrown up this calendar year alone.


I think that's a very narrow basis. For openers, 2009 had a lot of much more entertaining fights, but involved pretty much the same fighters, so if we were to use your modality we could use that years fights to paint a different picture- despite the fact that it is the same division, with the same fighters.

Now taking the original point: entertainment, competitiveness and quality.

Quality can be thoroughly boring, and utterly uncompetitive, yet remain quality. Wladimir Klitschkos arcing sweeping footwork, punch-hubandry and leakproof defence against Chagaev was not received well in America but ticked the boxes for Manny Steward all night long. Wlad got hit twice, floored his man, won every round, and cut and stopped his man.

Dross can be entirely entertaining and very competitive, but still dross. Gatti vs Ward, for instance.

Then there is dross which is not entertaining and not very competitive: Bika vs Andre Ward, for instance.


I do not believe that the quality of any division can be derived from the entertainment factor of any series of fights in one calendar year.

Ruslan Chagaev offered more quality and competitiveness versus Wlad than Spinks did, showing up as he did with a definite game plan and a desire to win. Spinks, on the other hand, quit before the fight even started and fought like a rank amateur, who basically expected to get stopped, and was, despite his unbeaten status, linear ranking, etc.

But because Mike offered us something to talk about, it is regarded as a better fight, more competitive.

I find that, as Howard Cossell used to say, "hard to conjure with"

If the division is as shit as people like to think it is, and we are all entitled to our opinions, it cannot be said that the division is shit simply because John Ruiz was in the best fight of the year. The fact that everybody else took care of their business in an adroit and efficient fashion does not detract one jot from the quality on offer, irrespective of the brave, entertaining {in that he got hit, went down, got up} but utterly limited toiling of one John Ruiz.

 

I have no clue where you're going with that road map.

For this particular thread topic (if there is even a topic), Haye-Ruiz by and large wasn't a particularly memorable bout. The fact that there's a case to be made for it being the best HVY title fight of 2010 speaks volumes of the lack of entertainment to come of the HVY title picture this year.

As to what you're saying:

Vitali had a significantly better year in 2009 than in 2010. His 2009 campaign was enough to warrant FOTY consideration - at least as a runner up - in beating three Top 10 heavyweights (Gomez, Arreola, K. Johnson). This year, he decided to tread water by fighting Sosnowski and Briggs.

Wlad fought more this year than in '09, yet his one fight last year (v. Chagaev) was more significant than either of his fights this year, which is funny considering it came at the last minute after Haye pulled out.

Haye-Ruiz was better (more watchable) than Haye-Valuev. That's perhaps the only upgrade the division experienced this year, even though Haye-Valuev was a more significant fight. But even that is offset by Haye-Harrison being one of the most disgraceful fights in HVY title fight history.

 

I think our discussion is diverging continuously because we both have different interpretations of what "good" and "entertaining" are...I dont want to beat it to death so Ill drop it....
....as for Vitali...I dont know how he decided to tread water: he can't/wont {and shouldnt} fight his brother, Haye was otherwise engaged so...who does that leave?

I thought Briggs would have gone down well in the States featuring as it did, a big man being beaten to a pulp requiring hospital treatment, yet refusing to quit all the same. A good example of poor boxing fare but decent entertainment, no? :dunno:

Anyways Klitschkos have better ring entrances....::<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vE3Wxbpce8g" frameborder="0"></iframe>

 

Entertaining would be overmatched fighters being dispatched the way they should be: early and emphatically.

 

Yes but now how do you define "over matched"?

 

Any recent competition either Klit has had. Not their fault, I just don't rate any of the current hw fighters.

 

This is where I disagree.

Chagaev was unbeaten. Briggs was a 260lb steroid infused lump who has a reputation for having a decent chin.

Marquez was overmatched vs Floyd, when you take it all into account. So was that utter bum, Chuck Wepner vs Ali.

Not every case of heavy underdog/overmatched fighter vs Champion need end early, especially where the underdog is a running hiding spoiling sort.

 

Briggs? You're seriously bringing up Briggs as good opposition? I'll leave this discussion right there.

 

I never brought Briggs up as good opposition.hno: Where did I do that :dunno:

There is absolutely no effort required here, beyond REEDING what is written.

I said Briggs was a heavy under-dog who wasn't going to get knocked out quickly by anybody.

 

I said their comp is overmatched. You said you disagreed and your second example was Shannon Briggs.

I read your post just fine. Your second example of a good opponent is a guy that hasn't been relevant in 10 years. His last 4 wins (ignoring the NC for the sake of arguement) were against fighters with a combined total of 44 losses between them.

No effort required to see the flaw in that statement. I'm not saying the Klits aren't good, I'm saying the current crop of HW boxers are very poor.

 

Are you drunk, Irish?

 

Briggs wasn't overmatched. He was just an underdog that very few people fancied to win. He is big, has some handspeed for around 2 rounds, and is hard to stop. He also had a point to prove. I never said he was good. I never said he was brilliant. I said he wasn't overmatched. Im sorry to differ with you- I also contended that overmatched fighters {Which I don't think Briggs was} don't always get blown out like you seemed to claim they do, and quoted Chuck Wepner vs Ali as an example.

 

Awww...what was that you said about "original" humour? :dunno:

 

I'm not trying to be funny. You seem disorientated.

 

Agree to disagree. In fairness I said that overmatched fighters SHOULD be blown out for an entertaining fight.

 

I'm not trying to be funny either, but you seem disoriented. http://www.englishforums.com/English/DisorientatedDisoriented/dwqkl/post.htm

 

Fair enough then. I'm just putting it out there- overmatched dudes may tend to stick around from time to time, for whatever reason, and it doesnt always result in a boring fight, though Howard Cossel felt it did, with Tex Cobb and Holmes.

 

Briggs could barely win a round against Ibragimov or McCline...whatever he was this year, it wasn't a guy who should be in a title fight.

 

Yeah, that bout was a travesty. A black mark on the sport of boxing.

 

Yes. It was. Too bad Jack Newfield skipped the rapture and was found slumped on his keyboard, or he would have been able to chronicle this desperate farce so that kids in years to come would know that it wasn't just Richie Melito, Oh no, it wasn't just Richie Melito. It wasn't just the one man, it was the dismal tide.

 

Maybe Vitali should have fought Ibragimov or McCline. Oh wait they ain't done jack either.

Or maybe he should have fought undefeated American contenders Chris Arreola and Kevin Johnson, preferably one of them on neutral ground and preferably the other in his own backyard in the States.

Oh wait he done that.

If he had any balls he would chance his arm against Sam Peter. Oh wait.

For fucks sake....Haye, Valuev, Povetkin want no part of the man. Whats he supposed to do? Get rusty to suit you?

 

Tomasz Adamek vs. Michael Grant (IBF INTERNATIONAL title)

 

Your desire for all things Klitschko is questionable.

 

Who should he have fought instead of Briggs?