Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Heavyweight Boxing

1263264266268269276

Comments



  • You can't compare how fighters are just because of there age Wlad got better as he matured, He was miles better than a already retired Holmes was at that age, Sure look at Mike who was past his best by 25

    Usyk was 221lbs when henwon the title Spinks was 200lb big difference,





  • Wlad was done when he fought Fury. He'd been going downhill for quite a while.

    So now 20lbs is huge? How on earth did Joshua beat the nearly 50lbs heavier Ruiz?





  • No there a huge difference between a 200lbs heavy weight & being a 220lbs heavy weight, As you just pointed Ruiz would have been 83lbds heavier than Spinks ,

    Not really he wasn't great against Jennings but he had ko'd out 3 of his last 5 opponents ,





  • I'm not a Fury lover like a good few posters on here, but to say Wlad was done is nonsense. He nearly took out Joshua 2 years later. Hindsight is always used to fit a narrative.

    Wlad was a fine champion but he always used his size advantages to outmatch an opponent, and his pseudo intellectual ways of trying to psyche people out. He had no idea how to deal with Fury, he was spooked. Fury would turn up at one press conference, compliment him, call him a great champion, the next day he was mouthing off in his face. He genuinely could not figure out if the guy had mental health issues or if it was gamesmanship.

    Couple all of that carry on with his inability to be able to pin Fury down, giving up his usual size advantages etc.. he wasn't done he just had no answer to it. The fight was razor close, but all this crap about Wlad being afraid to pull the trigger, its ok pulling the trigger (i.e big straight right hand) when your opponent is standing right in front of you).

    Chances are the likes of Usyk would have beaten Wlad too, not too many fighters on his resume with a great degree of movement.





  • Has Hearn spoken on Whyte v Wallin , will it ever happen now , i wonder what the ocntract situation is there



  • Advertisement


  • Is Wallin a voluntary defence of that WBC international title? I'd be trying to get out of that one if I was Whyte, so much at stake (potential shot at Fury), handier tune up on the menu for Hearn maybe.





  • Isn't Whyte WBC mandatory for Fury?

    So this fight with Wallin just jeopardized that if he lost? He had nothing really to gain from it but a potential fight with Fury to lose?

    Am I right in thinking that?





  • Let’s say that is right… how does Fury Whyte go? Does Whyte put up a better show than Wilder did? As well as wilder dug in he was a beaten docket for long n long in that fight





  • Whyte doesn’t have Wilder’s range and height to be a problem..and, he’s far more predictable than Wilder. That’s not a compliment to Wilder, more an observation as to his awkwardness.





  • Very hard to predict Fury vs Whyte fight. There is so many variables.

    Fury was not in as good a shape for Wilder 3 as Wilder 2, will he be in worse shape for Whyte?

    They have no common opponents so hard to judge on that score, I personally think Wilder is useless from a boxing point of view so Whyte is a better boxer imo.

    Whyte jabs a bit and has a left hook, will be hungry to prove himself, is strong. But Fury is the better fighter/boxer but will the real Fury turn up?



  • Advertisement


  • They both fought Chisora twice each. Perhaps a different type of Chisora I’ll give you.

    I agree I think whyte is a much better boxer than wilder even if wilder would likely ko him. I think whyte is a sterner test





  • Whyte has done all he's going to do and no more. He's peaked.

    Only way he wins heavyweight title is if he gets a lucky punch





  • I’m not so sure I agree with you on that. If he’s peaked then what is the peak? Rivas? I was at that fight and there’s another gear in him. Pov II? Finished old man that wasn’t fit for fighting in any case. Chisora? Those were two good wins based on the performances Chisora has pulled out in the last few years so maybe that will be Whyte’s best moment. In reality Povetkin I he messed up. It wasn’t completely agaisnt the run of play no but he had that fight in the bag. He can be careless but against Fury I don’t think that’s a ko like it was with Pov or aj.

    I’ve been reluctantly impressed at how he has improved over the years. Big Helinius will likely get a shot at Usyk if he beats aj again and I’d have Whyte well above him. He’s a lump of a man and he’s game as. Fury would have no respect for him either. I’d expect Fury to win but not easily at all. Outside of aj and Usyk what’s the challenge for him?





  • The only thing Whyte will do against Fury is enjoy the millions in his bank account afterwards.





  • Please, for the sake of boxing, stop giving Whyte any chance here

    In pretty much any other era he'd be a journeyman





  • Unfortunately in an era where most of the top guys would be journeymen, that makes the likes of Whyte and formerly Chisora contenders.





  • I disagree. If he were in another era and Mike Tyson KO’d him then you would be referencing him as evidence of Tyson’s greatness in any prime fantasy showdown. He’d be competitive in any era. He’s not great but he’s not awful and he has attributes that would make him a handful for anyone. He can and has beaten anyone outside of the top 3 or 4 now that Usyk has joined. He rattled aj - I’ve dismissed that in the past but looking more at aj he missed quite an opportunity in that 2nd or 3rd round. I’d like to see him vrs Joyce or Dubois if not for a title fight.

    1995 had Bruno, Moorer, Seldon, Zolkin and Akinwande all in it I’d be betting on him against all of them and Foreman that year too.

    I’ve looked at the 1985 (I was 1 so don’t remember it) and I’d have him lower down but would he beat Berbick, Weaver and dokes?

    2005 Byrd, Rachman, Toney, Brewster, Ruiz, Barrett, Brock, Wlad, Peter and Valuev


    That’s all just from a quick search of Ring Mag. I’m not his biggest fan. I think he’s an asshole but he’s at the upper end of the division at the moment and I think the division is better than a lot are giving it credit for. There were always turkeys in the top 10 or thereabouts.





  • No, Whyte I would argue a journeyman full stop. Based on purely what I have seen of him. Is never a real contender in some other eras.

    if in Tyson’s 80s championship group I’d back all the others as bettter.

    and yes, turkeys in all eras.





  • @squinn2912


    You summed it up yourself


    "He’d be competitive in any era. He’s not great but he’s not awful and he has attributes that would make him a handful for anyone. He can and has beaten anyone outside of the top 3 or 4 now that Usyk has joined"

    I fully agree with this statement but, That just makes him just not good enough to be a champion. He's just outside the real contenders. He'll get the shot bit can't see him beat any of the top 3 or 4





  • I get your point pal I’m not saying he’s great but good.

    fir me a journeyman would be Hammer, Allen, Harrison or Price. Whyte is a good cut above that. Washington, Browne… yano tune ups



  • Advertisement


  • Yes, I'd agree here. Maybe I am a bit harsh on him.





  • I said it a few weeks ago that I wondered if Whyte regretted the Wallin fight.

    He wouldn’t have known at the time that he’d get a shot at Fury. Title on the line in an all UK fight.

    Whyte probably wanted another decent name on his CV. But no need for the risk now.

    He’s waited long enough. Make the fight with Fury.





  • Just on this. You used Tyson in his 2002 loss to Lewis to mention his age and being younger than Lewis. Even though by 2002 aged 36 or so, Mike was shot to bits.

    Also, Tyson was past his best aged 25, but only very very slightly. He was still exceptionally good in 1991. Could argue still in his prime years.

    His performances in both Ruddock fights were very very close to his late 80s performances.

    When he came out prison aged 29/30, then he was noticeably past his best.






  • Cannot agree with the last line of your post there Walshb. When Tyson came out of prison he looked just as fast and ferocious as he had ever done. He actually looked more ripped than in his early twenties.

    He came out and regained a title and only took 3 rounds to rip Bruno apart and took out Sheldon in a round. He was 30 and finally Holyfield and himself were getting it on. Holyfield was 34 and had looked poor in a couple of previous fights.

    Holyfield was by far the underdog going into the fight and he won a great fight, but lets be clear Tyson before this fight no one was saying Tyson was noticeably past his best.

    Maybe this was the time that the tag "prime" and "peak" started to be used for Tyson.





  • Well, for me it seemed clear that in 1995, albeit still good, he was clearly not as sharp, ferocious or as physically fit as pre prison. How could he be?

    being more ripped, or having a more chiselled torso. What is this supposed to mean? Are you arguing that it shows/proves he was as good, if not better than pre prison?

    also, a 1995 Bruno was not the same as a 1989 Bruno. And Seldon wasn’t up to much at all, and some thought that he took a dive.

    it’s all down to percentages and slight changes: 1987/1988 years he was at 100 percent. 1991 I’d say 90 percent, and 1995 he was at 75/80 percent..

    btw, Holyfield too was not at his best. Holyfield’s prime HW years were 1990-1992





  • Wow, you must have been the only person in the world who seen before the Holyfield fights that Tyson had regressed that much.

    It was clear to you that Tyson was past his best before he fought Holyfield? Really?

    Well no one can prove that is what you thought I suppose.

    All I can remember about Tyson vs Holyfield 1 is that Holyfield shook the world but you must have seen that Mike was in decline better that everyone else.





  • I was hardly the only person. And it’s not like he was shot to bits. Just noticeably past his best.

    Specific to Holyfield fights: Was anyone in 1996/1997 claiming Mike was as good/same fighter he was in the 1980s? I highly doubt it

    Watch the footage of him post prison v McNeely and Bruno, and then compare it to his prime championship reign. It’s quite clear he’s not as sharp/fast or even as accurate.

    google Tyson’s prime and pretty much standard you’ll see it was pre prison.

    like I said, it’s about percentages, and in 1995/1996/1997 he was at about 75-85 percent.

    whether or not he beat Holyfield is irrelevant. Tyson post prison was past his fighting best.

    I’d be very surprised if I was in the minority in claiming that both Holyfield and Tyson were noticeably past their best in 1996/1997. Tyson was favoured for the very reason tyat Holyfield was past it.





  • Your trying to claim now after the event that people were saying that Tyson was only 75 to 85% the fighter he was before the Holyfield fight and that's just not true in my opinion.

    It's only after the two Holyfield fights and beyond that Tyson gets a pass by his supporters claiming he was past his prime.

    Too easy to claim that now in my opinion, as I said earlier Holyfield beating Tyson in their first fight was a shock because Tyson was the red hot favourite.



  • Advertisement


  • So what is the point? That it was or wasn’t still Tyson’s prime or that he wasn’t that good in the first place? Impossible to really know I suppose because during his pre-prison days he didn’t fight the guys who later on didn’t have the question marks like Holyfield, Lewis etc. Problem is that when you rely on speed and reflexes and those are even a fraction off then you become so much more beatable - a brute strength, long reach HW will have a much longer shelf life. Add into that turmoil and indiscipline.

    But once a fighter loses it’s not hard to produce the question marks - Fury is getting it now; Wilder was no good anyway, Wlad fought in an era where there was no challenge (similar to Holmes), aj and Fury get detracted from because Wlad was finished, Foreman got hit too much anyway, Frazier was small

    The issue here is that when you start to ask the Tyson questions there are a lot of questions in contrast to Lewis say.

    Anyhow looking back he was awesome pre-prison. After prison he didn’t do or look nearly as good. I’m not sure even awesome 80s would beat Lewis. Not confident he’d beat Holyfield either, maybe. Bowe I don’t think so. That’s today, I’ll think something else tomorrow I’m sure.



Advertisement