Sam Peter - Eddie Chambers

Ruiz was never all that good of a boxer to begin with. He knew the basic fundamentals, but he wasn't good enough at them to be successful, which is why, IMO, he changed his approach. I don't know of anyone who would consider the pre-stink Ruiz to be a master boxer. He was decent, at best.

It sounds to me like you're trying to infer that since Ruiz had to become a hugger and wrestler because he failed to succeed as a boxer, then the likes of Ali and Holmes would need to do the same.

Can you really see Ali or Holmes having all that much trouble against the Peter and Chambers we saw this past weekend and need to remake their styles in order to beat them? I certainly don't.

How about Lennox Lewis? He's a little closer to this time frame. When he was on his game and focused...he was the best heavy in the world and handled most opponents with room to spare. When he allowed himself to become distracted and neglected his training, he then brought himself down to the level of his opposition and looked unmotivared, out of shape and sloppy. So this kinda goes against your reasoning. When Lewis was on his game, he was better than anyone around. When Lewis was unmotivated and neglected his boxing skills, he was more on a level playing field with the less talented fighters. Lewis didn't need to make a Ruiz-type transformation because he was a much better fighter than Ruiz and didn't need to use Ruiz's tactics to win.

 

Dude...after all the trouble I went to discussing your views on the lower weight fighters, you can't even respond to it??? Or have you just thrown in the towel on that part of the discussion?

 

I would pick Ali and Holmes over both but then again they both are top- heavyweights in the history in my opinion. But I am not sure that Greg Page, Michael Dokes, Jimmy Ellis or Ernie Terrel would have done significantly better here.

I don't know if you are a follower of tennis but this is what happened there earlier: in the 1970s players were quick, fit and knew plenty of different strikes. Then in the early 1990s players grew bigger and stronger and the games turned boring. They consisted of big serves and not many moves that had usually been seen as techical finese. Now inthe 2000s we see combinations of those skilful players and powerful hitters.

So maybe heavyweight boxing now is in the same stage as tennis was then. Sports change their form from time to time. If you watch boxing films from 1920s, they look considerably different to 1960s. Sometimes the changes are to good, sometimes not. But you can't say it directly that the one that pleases your eye more is the winning way of doing things, sadly it does not work that way.

And about the small guys: you know your historics better than me. I only know that there have been some comers from lower weight divisions and also top contenders and champs from 1960s onwards who would not be heavyweights right now. If it is possible for guys like that to beat this big slobs, then why are we not seeing them anywhere?

And if you want to see yourself as winning and me throwing in the towel, by all means. As I said, I am not trying to win anything here. In my opinion we have had a good conversation so far

 

It's not about winning and losing, but i get annoyed when I spend time creating a thought-out response during a discussion and then it doesn't even get acknowledged by the person I am having the discussion with.

To be honest, I don't know much about tennis. I get the analogy you are making here, but I really I don't think it's relevant to the discussion because it is an entirely different sport.

And I just think you're making these assertations about fighters from lower weight classes without doing the research to back it up. Historically, the fighters moving up from Lightheavy (even the very best of them like Bob Foster) have not done all that well at heavy. And even a fighter as great as Spinks did not come close to "taking over" the heavyweight division. Maybe' it's just me, but when I think when you make the kind of statements that you have about the previous eras lower weight fighters, then you need facts to back it up because you are saying that these fighters actually existed.

So I don't see where you expected a lower weight fighter to do so now, especially since I don't see any fighter at Light-Heavy or Cruiser who appear to be at the level of Spinks or Holyfield.

And actually, I do think Page and Dokes were better fighters than what I saw this past weekend. I haven't seen a lot of Terrell's fights, but I am guessing you haven't either so I don't think he really fits into the discussion. And I would also take Witherspoon, Tubbs, Thomas (before drugs ruined him), and even Frank Bruno over Peter and Chambers.

 

agreed

The big thing with a lot of thsoe guys is that they had no discipline, no drive... but there was some clear talent and skill with boxers like Mike Dokes, Tim Witherspoon, Pinklon Thomas... all of those guys had tremendous potential and a real good performance here and there, but they lacked "greatness", there was no clear cut best heavyweight of that generation (Larry Holmes was really an older fighter, closer to the Foreman/Shavers/Norton age ... he just waited a long time to get his shot because of being in Ali's shadow) but there was talent and at times, excellent skills and even on some nights, excellent WILLS...

The Heavyweights of the post Holyfield/Lennox Lewis era are the worst I have ever seen in all aspects of fighting. It seems most of them are just giant roid monsters who are really only here because the dearth of Heavyweight fighters has allowed them to hang around and win fights.

I see little in the way of skills, wills, and true fighting ability... Heavyweight fights hold absolutley no intrigue for me anymore...

 

dsimon writes:

to be fair M moore was no slouch. He did after all... beat Holly.

 

agreed

I see no reason why any of those guys couldnt beat Peters or Chambers with room to spare

 

Good, big American athletes don't box anymore.

 

exactly



no one wants to say it because it will seem politically incorrect but it is the simple truth

close the thread, the heavyweights suck

 

Yep. That's the bottom line.

 

Good call, Moorer did knock off Holyfield....but then he got KOed by 40-something George Foreman and by Holy in a rematch. Again...there is a difference between winning one notable fight and establishing yourself as the top fighter in the division. And nothing against Moorer, but Holyfield really didn't seem himself physically that night and still knocked Moorer down and almost won the fight.

The things I remember most about Moorer at heavy are going life and death with Bert Cooper and then getting KOed by Foreman. To be honest, I almost forget sometimes that he had the win over Holyfield due to his lack of any other significant wins at heavy.

 

Moorer/Cooper is one of the underrated slugfests. Really fun fight to watch for anyone who hasn't seen it.

And agreed on Holy'd condition for the first Moorer fight. Evander obviously wasn't at a very high level that night.

 

Moorer/Cooper is a classic!

fun fight, two guys with nary a chin between them

 

Peters and Chamber sure, but I wouldn't bet on several of those guys with any confidence against either Klitschko, Possibly Chagaev, possibly Povetkin...its funny that the comment "big american heavyweights don't box anymore" is followed by "close the thread, the heavyweights suck"....I think both Klitschkos on their best day match up well across several HW eras, while falling short against top 5-10 all-timers

 

Americans are just superior

 

I actually agree with you. I think Vitali would be a decent top 10 heavyweight in any era. Wlad is more borderline to me.

 

Not anymore.

 

dsimon writes:

The problem with Moore is that he sort of ruined himeself on that career move... The one thing I like about it is that moore saw a weakness in the division and stepped up. Thats what a good cruiser should do imo.

Part of Moores "insignificance" (again to be fair) is that the division was somewhat insignificant at that time. I mean compared to today it was better but not great by any stretch. Also Moore lost interest. By the time he fought Holy again he was a stepping stone ready to be crossed.

But yeah it was not his destiny.

 

dsimon writes:

Yup...

 

dsimon writes:

Well lets see what Haye can do. heres the thing, The cruisers can make some noise at times. and win a few fights and get in the mix. But eventually things are restored. But don't let that fool ya!! What Broadway Joe is saying is historically accurate. Even in the old days... guys like Archie Moore who were fantastic fighters would eventually lose to a decent heavy. Marciano beat the shit out of Moore. And let me tell you: if they had fought at Archie's weight it would have been a totally different story!

What cruisers do is eliminate the chaf in the division. And there is more to the difference between a cruiser and a heavy than just weight. Michael Moore is a great example of that. As a cruiser the guy was on a par with Spinks. But like Spinks the way a cruiser fights and wins, etc is different than a heavyweight that is part of the problem.

 

agREED. And I think this is because Vitali is more consistent...you know what you are getting from him in pretty much every fight.

Wlad, on the other hand, looks like Superman sometimes, gets KOed by mediocre fighters sometimes and fight in the most boring manner imaginable against sometimes.

 

I don't know that I agree that the division was all that insignificant when Moorer was champ. There was a lot of buzz in the heavyweight division at this time.

1. Bowe and Holyfield were beating the crap out of each other in on a regular basis.
2. Lennox Lewis was upset by Oliver McCall, but was fighting his way back into the title picture with wins over Morrison and Mercer.
3. Mike Tyson returned to the ring.
4. Razor Ruddock made his comeback and put on a very exciting fight with Tommy Morrison.

I think the middle to late 90's were a good time for heavies. Moorer could have been a bigger part of it all...and all he had to do was not lose to Foreman.

 

I think you can argue that it was one of the greatest heavyweight divisions of all-time.

 

Yeah, I think there are a few era's where Wlad doesn't survive the 2003-2005 phase of his career.

 

I would agree, though at the time it didn't get its proper respect, instead the common argument was that Tyson would have cleaned the division up easily. That was probably because while the division was packed with talent, paradoxically some of the beltholders were among the poorest ever (Seldon, Botha, Bruno, McCall, old Foreman)

 

Vitaly, perhaps, because of his toughness.

But even then, I think its significantly based on the fact that he is so large as much as anything else... I mean he'd run over a Joe Frazier, for example. By that same token an NFL bench warming Offensive Lineman of today would toss Mean Joe Greene or Merlin Olsen around like rag dolls, doesnt make him "greater", you know?

Wlad I think would be far less successful than Vitaly, because he just isnt tough enough. It is a testimony to the barren wasteland that is the current heavyweight scene that a guy with a chin like that, known stamina problems, and tissue paper skin is a successful title holder

The bottom line is that historically, the best "big" athletes have come from the States. But those big athletes play football and basketball now in the U.S., they aren't boxing

It isnt some "America rules" bullshit... I could care less, to be honest... if the Bantamweight top ten was suddenly filled with guys from the UK and the US, and boxing was no longer popular in Mexico, I would say the same thing: "Mexicans arent boxing anymore"

If there were 8 white guys from Romania in the Flyweight top ten, and two Asian guys, I would note the same thing

It not some xenophobic, pro-American thing, its reality. The majority of the best "big" athletes have come from the US

 

This is a very good observation

If you think about it, Holyfield wasn't universally accepted as a great fighter until he beat Tyson (and ironically, Evander was thought to be completely washed up at the time) ... I think that win helped change the perception of that era

 

To me, it's #2 behind the 1970's. Much better than now, or any time in the 80's. I think it could have been even more fun than it was if Lewis-Bowe actually happened and if Tyson didn't avoid Lewis after he won his 90's title.

 

That really is the case, if Lamon Brewster managed to spook him badly, its hard to imagine him rising to the top again, say during the early-mid 90s, when there were as many dangerous mid-tier guys about

 

Exactly.