Teofilo Stevensson

dsimon writes:

Dude I admitted 3 pages ago that I was exxagerating. I do think Stevenson was that good but obviously I can't make assumptions about what woulda coulda been. I will say that when Stevenson was fighting most experts thought Cuban boxers and their program was one of the best in the world.

But your beef is indeed with me and not Karl. Karl simply said that Stevenson is a different class of fighter than Vlad.

 

How can Karl say this?? Vlad has proven himself in the pros, and proved himself at a higher weight division in the amateurs. Karl show shocking immaturity here: shit, there a billion amateurs that were the best ever, and NEVER cut it at the Pro game, and there are a billion pro champs that never cut it in the ammys. How Karl gets to saying Stevenson was in a different class.....:dunno:

 

dsimon writes:

All I am saying is that I am the one who is making assertions about Stevenson. I knew I would catch heat for these assertions and Karl should not catch the heat for them in leau of me making the assertions.

I am quite sure that Karl is more than capable... he certainly is more capable than I regarding boxing knoweldge, of explaining his opinion of Stevenson versus Vlad.

IMO Stevenson could have beat Vlad and Vitali the same night :: :blobbox:

 

Think what you may brother, but Teo would have murdered both Vlad and Vitali.

 

So basically what you're saying is, it's a coin flip between Tefilio Stevenson and Ike Ibeabuchi for the greatest most unstoppable heavyweight of all time ??

 

Dude, there's nothing to argue....
Your whole point is "He WOULDA dominate!!"
And my point is "He WOULDA achieve NOTHING"
Both point are equally valid (that is, worthless), with my point actually being supported by example of a fighter, equal to Stevenson in amateur achievements, who actually became pro and achieved......NOTHING....

 

:laughing: :laughing: ::

 

dsimon writes:

Ohh stop it!!:: I never said Ike was one of the greatest. I thought he showed great talent.

 

dsimon writes:

Well the first part of your post is correct. But to use one fighter as an example and claim this has credability in butressing your point is ridiculous. Ugo who knows more about the guy took care of that minor point of contention. How can you say this guy was equal to Stevenson? You critiscize my stupid projection and then make a far dumber one? :dunno: :doh: How could you possibly know this guy is equal to Stevenson::?

 

Laslo Papp was 3-time Olympic champion.
So was Stevenson.
Are you saying their achievements are NOT EQUAL? :dunno:
3 equals 3, last time I checked.
Of course, Papp did achieve more, simply by virtue of having balls to step in the real ring....Sure, he didn't achieve anything, but at least he tried.....

 

dsimon writes;

Pappe smear rocks.

 

:: Vysotsky, then. Sorry - got caught up in the debate and didn't take the time to check the spelling.

I don't think Vysotsky was completely unremarkable - I believe he was 161-24 with over half by KO. He was a very good amateur who I believe did not go to the '76 Olympics because of an injury. If he had, there's every chance he would have beaten Stevenson.

Peace.

 

:: Thanks for the back-handed compliment, bro...but just two notes:

1) Again, Stevenson was in an era WITHOUT headgear. Headgear was not introduced until 1984, the last year Teo was active (I believe).

4) I think it does take more skill...and definitely an augmented set of physical talents.

Peace.

 

dsimon writes:

There are films of him doing his thing against guys with headgear. I don't know where they come from but I have seen them on Utube.

When did I give you a backhanded compliment:dunno:? Come on Donny I gave you an unconditional compliment. Ths post you preface belonged to Dimpmpel! By the way the expression is left handed compliment if you are going to be cheeky! ::

 

:: Thanks for the compliment, then. :cheer:

In the U.S.; it's "backhanded" compliment...not that I'm American or anything.

:stir:

 

Have you ever heard him talk at all btw?

 

LOL I wasn't actually referring to any of your previous posts about Ike, but rather the general train of thought. I think you're suffering from a bit of "the grass is greener on the otherside" mentality.. the same thing that leads many to believe Ike was an all-time great...

 

dsimon writes:

I am referring to his dominance. Cuban fighters were generally acknowledged as some of the best in the world when he was boxing and the way he looks on tape, his speed, his perfect extension on his punches and poise in the ring.

With Ike one can say what could have been. But Stevenson was quite dominant in what he did in the ring. Olympic boxing can be looked at as being different but I question whether it is necessarily inferior to the pros. The training is different but some may argue that the epitome of boxing is clean punching and that the pace of an olympic match is such that fighters have to let it all hang out.

I understand that one can't prove how stevenson would have done in the pros and Donny pointed out some weaknesses in his game as well. But guys like Dimpimpel on the butt are remiss in dismissing a guy who was as dominant in his game as Stevenson. AS I pointed out to dim there are plenty of guys in the pros who coasted by and probably would have sucked in a match where clean punching was a consideration.

Stevenson proved he was a great fighter IMO but as others have mentioned, not that he would have been a great pro. I happen to believe he would have been a great pro but that is just me.

 

Fair points, D.

Good discussion...which is what it's all about at the end of the day.

:clap:

 

Teo Stevenson, a man who never once stepper into a pro boxing ring, would beat a heavyweight champion Wladimir or Vitali Klitschko?? Talk about assumptions.

I can only imagine what we'd be hearing if Mark Breland never went pro.

 

dsimon writes:

When you talk about a pro baseball team it is understood that if you took the worse pro team.... the chicago cubs at their worse... the mets before 69.... that they would probably beat the best AAA minor league, or College team. If a guy is good he plays in the majors... end of story.

To continue the analogy... Baseball in Japan is a different game. A great professional championship team from Japan could conceivably beat a great major league team from the states. And part of the reason is that the youngsters play on good teams that develop talent in those leagues. And there are even Japanese playres in the majors now.

Olympic boxing works on the same principle. The olympics is a venue for great fighters, many of whom become pro. Fighters that came up through the Cuban system, The Russians, Americans, etc. The proof is in the pudding. Many Olympic fighters have at least decent pro careers. It goes without saying that many great professional fighters were olympic champions.

If you took the worse major league players they would still be better than the best minor leaguers in baseball... but in boxing if you took the worse professional fighters there is no reason to think they are better than an olympic fighter. Therefore the fact that a guy fought pro alone is no reaon to assume they are a better fighter.

In the long run it can be argued that a professional career is the sumation of boxing excellence.... but keep in mind that Ali, for example, could have never fought pro because of his decision, and there are other times when a guy does not fight pro. And there are guys who are horrible fighters who fight professional who could never be olympic fighters. You know.... the guys we don't hear about with no winning record.

My point is that being a pro fighter alone, and the fact that Stevenson never fought pro alone, is not in itself a guage of ability as it is in baseball for example. It is more analogous to a difference in the type of game Like Japanese and American baseball.

PS: do you fight half as well as your brother says?::

 

Saying that Stevenson would have domminated pro boxing in the 70's is quite a stretch, specially considering the level of competition at the time.

One, however, can draw conclussions from watching the man fight and see that he was a gifted athlete with very good technique, both offensively as well as on the deffensive. Nobody was ever awed by JLG's technical profficiency, but I watch Stevenson and I can only wonder, there in lays his greatness.