Anyone care about Adamek/Chambers?

I like watching Eddie Chambers, at least when he's not fighting a Klitschko. He has really smooth skill. Adamek is skillful and tough, too, so this may be an underrated fight. I'm taking Chambers by decision.

My boy Marcus Upshaw was supposed to be on the undercard fighting Curtis Stevens. I think he still is.

 

It`s funny because I was going to post the same thread but I guess no one cares so I didnt. I want Adamek to win but I actually think Chambers will not only beat him but possibly stop him late. I was even of thinking of putting some cash down on Chambers as he`s a decent underdog but didnt feel like betting against one of my favorite fighters.

 

I am a heavyweight apologist and thus I think this is a very good and interesting fight. Both are top-10 contenders, and there is an interesting contrast of one fighter having the physical talent while the other has the mental talent.

Most of all, these guys are small heavyweights (ie big guys by 1970s standards) so it will probably be a fast-paced fight with some traditional skills at display (which most media calls higher class) so the fight will probably be an entertaining one by today's standards

 

I feel bad for Adamek because he will never be champion as long as Wlad is around. And I believe they`re roughly the same age so when Wlad retires Adamek will already have retired as well.

 

As expected, Adamek worked hard while Chambers was the more flashy with his sharp and clean shots and thus I could see the fight going either way, many rounds depended on preference between quantity and quality. One judge obviously didn't watch the fight

 

How orsum was the fight Ugo?

 

The division needs some new talent in a bad way. Did anyone other than Ugo watch it?

 

I have a feeling even the topic starter didn't watch it, so yeah, just Ugo.

 

The A.P. article says Chambers injured his left bicep in the first round, making him a one handed fighter for most of the fight.

 

This is correct, and it probably decided the fight eventually. Chambers did well considering that

 

the forum is dead, yet you all managed to miss my thread about it

http://www.fightbeat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44785

 

Ademeck is a good fighter. He must have found his missus with his best friend and that and sudden weight loss explains his loss to Chad Pussy.

 

the DVR cut off after round 4 but from what i saw adamek was looking horrible and not landing shit. chambers didnt throw a single punch with his left hand in round 4 either.

 

Of course I watched the fight! It was apparent Eddie wasn't himself from the third round on. He said he had a biceps injury, that's why he was essentially a one handed fighter for the duration of the fight.

Either way, it was still a close fight and may lead one to wonder IF the injury had not occurred, then what? On the other hand, if it's not bad judging, it's the injury whether real or manufactured. BTW, that 119-109 score is just ridiculous. You would think the judges would be walking on egg shells in the wake of the Pac/Bradley decision; apparently not with that card.

 

Decent entertaining fare.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yHgUbAKBvBo?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yHgUbAKBvBo?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

 

Yeah, it's not world class stuff, but it wasn't a terrible fight.

 

Chambers is a shite bag puncher. Every punch is short.

 

Just to revisit something Ugo said the other day: neither of these guys are 'big guys' in the 70s. Chambers is a soft, bulky 202 and Adamek has clearly been lifting weights & eating the fridge to get up to 220 : he's light boned and narrow backed.

I'd say both are probably naturally smaller than any top 70s heavyweight including Spinks & Quarry.

 

I was wondering where Ugo pulled that from. Both small even by 70's standards. Even Ali would look bigger than both of them in the ring.

 

Much bigger!

 

Yes, Ali would look bigger than them, but what most people forget is that Ali was usually bigger than his opponents. It was typical those days that contenders weighed under 200 lbs, while now there is always a discussion of how these guys shouldn't even fight at heavyweight.

Perhaps I was exaggerating saying that these would be big guys in 70s but they would be full-sized solid heavyweights nevertheless. And thus their fight also looked more like the fights between 70s contenders

 

Except the 70s contenders were better. But other than that, agreed.

 

Ugo is generalizing when he talks about the typical contender being under 200 lbs in the 70's. Most of the fighters who fell into that category started their careers in the 50's and then fought into the 60's (and the 70's in a few cases).

Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Norton, Lyle, Young, Weaver & Bugner were all over 6'0" and were all over 200 lbs. Even Frazier weighed over 200 for all of his major fights.

Earnie Shavers, George Chuvalo, Cleveland Williams, Sonny Liston, Ernie Terrell, Mac Foster were all at least 6'0" and weighed over 200 lbs.

Quarry and Elllis were both under 200, and there were some others, but most of the best heavies around that time were bigger than them.

Even 70's fringe contender types like Scott LeDoux, Chuck Wepner, Stan Ward, Kallie Knoetze, Duane Bobick & Dino Denis were over 6'0" and over 200 lbs.

There were plenty of top contenders and fringe-contenders who were over 6'0" and over 200 during Ali's time as champ.

 

weights for title challengers during the 1970s:

Jimmy Ellis 201
Bob Foster 188
Muhammad Ali 215
Terry Daniels 195
Ron Stander 218
George Foreman 217 1/2
Jose Roman 196
Ken Norton 212 3/4
Muhammad Ali 216 1/2
Chuck Wepner 225
Ron Lyle 219
Joe Bugner 230
Joe Frazier 215 1/2
J.P. Coopman 206
Jimmy Young 209
Richard Dunn 206
Ken Norton 217 1/2
Alfredo Evangelista 209 1/4
Earnie Shavers 211 1/4
Leon Spinks 197 1/4
Muhammad Ali 221
Larry Holmes 209
Alfredo Evangelista 208 1/4
Ossie Ocassio 207
Mike Weaver 202
Earnie Shavers 211
John Tate 240 and Gerrie Coetzee 222

Of the 28 challengers for the heavyweight title and the split WBC and WBA titles during the entirety of the 1970s, FOUR weighed under 200, one of them was a career light heavyweight

It was hardly common for a sub 200 pounder to excel in this era

Of those listed, the first three lasted just under a combined SEVEN ROUNDS in their tries at the title

The only winner was Leon Spinks, who registered a split decision over a tired old man in a dreadful fight

 

Great post Cdogg...


Not to mention, a guy like Mike Weaver at 202 is a different animal in terms of size than a 202 pound Eddie Chambers.

 

Eddie Chambers is fat

 

And shit.

 

No no he`s pretty good actually. He just might be the best American heavyweight out there.

 

He is still fat.

 

Who cares if he`s fat . I mean sure abs get my dick hard just any of you here but if he can go 12 he can go 12 who cares.