Peak Ali vs Peak Vitali Klitschko

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 1:40pm

walshb wrote: »

Well, what does that make Chisora, Williams, Adamek, Johnson, Haye, Peter etc? Because in my view the Tucker's and Biggs and Pinky's and Bruno's and Mason's and Berbick's and Dokes etc eat theses guys alive,.

They don't though! I disagree and there is no reason to believe otherwise, chisora and Williams where British level anyway and Williams was ages ago after beating Tyson, ie a good name at the time to fight, chisora was a weak fight but his performance v helenius gave him credence, adamek Peter Johnson would sit right in with the other lads making up the numbers.

The fact you know them far better than you know today's crop is blinding you-most of them are better known for been victims of Tyson, if Vitali was around they would have been his victims and probably unknown.

walshb · 29-02-2012 2:11pm

cowzerp wrote: »

They don't though! I disagree and there is no reason to believe otherwise, chisora and Williams where British level anyway and Williams was ages ago after beating Tyson, ie a good name at the time to fight, chisora was a weak fight but his performance v helenius gave him credence, adamek Peter Johnson would sit right in with the other lads making up the numbers.

The fact you know them far better than you know today's crop is blinding you-most of them are better known for been victims of Tyson, if Vitali was around they would have been his victims and probably unknown.

Yes, Vitali may well have beaten them. That is not my point. My point is that they would be better opposition for him than what he has beaten and met, apart from Lewis. Clearly better. And they weren't just known because Tyson beat them. They were world class HW fighters. Tucker and Smith were known, and were much better than what Vitali has beaten. Dokes, for example, when he met and lost to Holyfield in a terrfic fight, he was past his best days, but still better then than the names on Vitali's record. The 80s crop to me were clearly superior to anything today. That view has NOTHING to do with where they're from, their colour, popularity etc, it is a view I have based on looking at them perform inside the squared circle.

Carl Williams took Holmes the full distance. 6 feet 4 inches and put on a very good show vs. Holmes. Tyson whacked him in one rd. Williams to me is a whole lot better than Chisora, Adamek, fat Solis, Johnson etc.

I have said it many times, Vitali has the talent and size to be competitve in any era. The separate discussion is who he has beaten. It makes for poor reading. One of the poorest of all the HW greats.

Do you believe Adamek, Kirk Johnson and Sam Peter would be able to possibly beat Tucker, Berbick, Tubbs, Thomas, Dokes, Whiterspoon, Biggs, and even Bruno AND a 1988 Holmes? I don't think they have any real hope. They are simply not good enough. Cooney and Spinks too I'd add in as too good for the names you mention.

Klit? Yes, I would give him a very good chance at beating any. That, again, is a separate issue.

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 2:18pm

Bren its like beating a dead horse!!
They where not world class, they where ok just like today's bunch-just because you say they where does not make it so, they where not up to much and world class is pushing it way too far, some of the 70's challengers where world class no doubt.

Tysons challengers where not great in any time, till he started losing that is, Holyfield, Lewis I mean.

Douglas was more or less just above journey man.

walshb · 29-02-2012 2:24pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren its like beating a dead horse!!
They where not world class, they where ok just like today's bunch-just because you say they where does not make it so, they where not up to much and world class is pushing it way too far, some of the 70's challengers where world class no doubt.

Tysons challengers where not great in any time, till he started losing that is, Holyfield, Lewis I mean.

Douglas was more or less just above journey man.

Well, they were world class according to the era. In your view they didn't look great, but they were for that time world class, just as the lads today are world class for today. No?

Douglas was no journeyman. Williams was the number one ranked challenger when Tyson fought him.

The best of the 80s are better by far than the best of today, and recent years. To me. But, you are right, it is a dead horse.

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 2:46pm

walshb wrote: »

Well, they were world class according to the era. In your view they didn't look great, but they were for that time world class, just as the lads today are world class for today. No?

Douglas was no journeyman. Williams was the number one ranked challenger when Tyson fought him.

The best of the 80s are better by far than the best of today, and recent years. To me. But, you are right, it is a dead horse.

So then their all world class then!

Douglas was massive under dog in the bookies and drew against Phil brown 7-20-0 and lost to David jaco a complete journey man
Morrison and Lewis both knocked him out.

Bonecrusher smith had lost 5 before Tyson and even Marcos Frazier beat him! And his next 3 fights he lost 2 and drew 1 so was not great by any means

Tucker Had beat about 30 nobodies then beat Douglas and got a shot at Tyson, he had 1 average fight before Tyson.

This is all factual and none at the time or after where world class.
And by that I mean actually world class. Ranked maybe but in weak era riddled with don king easy matches etc

walshb · 29-02-2012 2:54pm

Yes, both the 80s men and todays men were world class for their eras. I will back the 80s men all the time vs. the men today and from recent years.

Like it or not, Tucker and Thomas etc were the best around in the mid 80s. Just like Chisora and Adamek and Helenius and Povetkin are the best today.

walshb · 29-02-2012 3:00pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Tucker Had beat about 30 nobodies then beat Douglas and got a shot at Tyson, he had 1 average fight before Tyson.

Tucker didn't "get a shot" at Tyson. It was for the unified belt. Tucker was the IBF Heavyweight Champion Of The World, Spinks having been stripped of this belt.

As for the nobodies TNT beat, Who did Adamek, Johnson or Chisora ever beat to get to Klit?

RiseToTheTop · 29-02-2012 3:12pm

kryogen wrote: »

You can't really use the fact that there is nobody to oppose him or challenge him sufficiently in the HW division as a stick to beat him, its not his fault like!

The evidence of his ability is clear for all to see, as long as you are watching with a little bit of knowledge!

He easily makes the top 10 all time.

Where he lands in the top 10 list is up for debate, no interest in that right now though!

He would pose a problem for anybody in the history of the sport. I'm not saying he would definitely beat anybody who has ever laced up a pair of gloves, but he would certainly pose a threat to anyone.

How can you say this when he hasn't proved himself against top class opposition? The era is very poor, and he has been the best, but it doesn't "easily" make him top 10 of all time IMO.

Unless you count this era as one of the best???

cowzerp · 29-02-2012 3:34pm

walshb wrote: »

Yes, both the 80s men and todays men were world class for their eras. I will back the 80s men all the time vs. the men today and from recent years.

Like it or not, Tucker and Thomas etc were the best around in the mid 80s. Just like Chisora and Adamek and Helenius and Povetkin are the best today.

And i will lump them all in as not good enough to be the best, you have no basis for rating them better and i do have basis for not rating them any better, If anything todays challengers have better records to go by than the lads you mentioned who some have poor records.

Simple truth is that yopu rate this bunch for no reason at all because it's apparent they where not great Boxers.

walshb wrote: »

Tucker didn't "get a shot" at Tyson. It was for the unified belt. Tucker was the IBF Heavyweight Champion Of The World, Spinks having been stripped of this belt.

As for the nobodies TNT beat, Who did Adamek, Johnson or Chisora ever beat to get to Klit?

He did get the Shot! whatever way you spin it-Tucker was a nobody who beat nobody, and the 1 who you may say he beat was nothing either in Douglas.

I'm not saying the challengers now are great, you're making out that Tysons opponents where when i am after putting facts up to dispute this, they where average fighters and would be the same as Adamek etc if they where around now

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

How can you say this when he hasn't proved himself against top class opposition? The era is very poor, and he has been the best, but it doesn't "easily" make him top 10 of all time IMO.

Ok so Tyson and Marciano are out too in that case.

RiseToTheTop · 29-02-2012 9:30pm

Tyson? He KO'd his opponents in spectacular fashion. That is why Tyson looked so impressive.

Meanwhile Vitali just jabs, jabs, right hand. He KO's late. Caution first, entertainment second.

Plus when Tyson got to the champ, in Berbick, he beat him away in 2 rounds, Vitali lost to a faded Lewis. Also, Tyson was 26-0 when he got the title, Vitali was 33-2. (plus much older.)

Tyson KO'd Spinks; an Olympic Gold medallist, first LHW to ever win HW title, ended Larry Holmes unbeaten run, in 90 seconds. All of this before he turned 22. Vitali didn't accomplish feats anywhere this and he is 40. He is mainly knows for losing to Lewis and beating sub-par opposition, late on and very boringly, in subsequent years.

(I agree with you on Marciano, his opponents records were bad for most of his career.)

cowzerp · 01-03-2012 10:28am

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Tyson? He KO'd his opponents in spectacular fashion. That is why Tyson looked so impressive.

Meanwhile Vitali just jabs, jabs, right hand. He KO's late. Caution first, entertainment second.

Plus when Tyson got to the champ, in Berbick, he beat him away in 2 rounds, Vitali lost to a faded Lewis. Also, Tyson was 26-0 when he got the title, Vitali was 33-2. (plus much older.)

Tyson KO'd Spinks; an Olympic Gold medallist, first LHW to ever win HW title, ended Larry Holmes unbeaten run, in 90 seconds. All of this before he turned 22. Vitali didn't accomplish feats anywhere this and he is 40. He is mainly knows for losing to Lewis and beating sub-par opposition, late on and very boringly, in subsequent years.

(I agree with you on Marciano, his opponents records were bad for most of his career.)

Spinks was a light heavy and even when he moved up was not like a big strong Evander who moved up, he was still basically a light heavy, he had 4 fights before Tyson at Heavyweight 2 against 37 year old Holmes, Tangstad and Cooney who was finished.

Spinks was not a bad Boxer but you could say the same about David Haye at Cruiser, and he also got the title at heavy! Truth is at Heavy neither where anybodys and there reputations are based on there lighter careers.

Holmes was coming off 2 losses to spinks and was 2 years out of the ring and 39 years old!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttx8aNnZHM
This is a UFC promo clip, v short but it mentions Tyson in the last line, this is how he is looked at if you really look back on it without blinkers on.

RiseToTheTop · 01-03-2012 1:12pm

Mike Tyson's ascension in the boxing game was the most meteorotic start to a boxers career in the history of the sport IMO. None of those fancy words apply to Vitali Klitschko, period. This period in the future will be looked on as a bad era, whilst Tyson's era was good.

Why are you putting down Spinks? Holmes was still good when he fought Spinks, but Spinks was able to beat him twice, Holmes wasn't "finished." Tyson knocked him out in 91 seconds, that says it all. We can all put on our contact lenses and look at the world the way we want to, but Michael Spinks was an outstanding fighter, at both light heavy and heavy.

BTW why would I trust UFC as my source when viewing a boxers career? I might as well look at ya man Wanderli Silva's career in BoxNation.

(BTW, I never claimed Holmes was one of Tyson's best victories. Holmes was 38 BTW.)

walshb · 01-03-2012 1:19pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

va's career in BoxNation.

(BTW, I never claimed Holmes was one of Tyson's best victories. Holmes was 38 BTW.)

And aged 42 when Holyfield went 12. Does anyone believe that the 1988 Holmes (aged 38) loses to any of Klit's victims? I don't. Tyson destroyed that Holmes, and I believe that Holmes beats Peter, Johnson, Chisora, Williams, and Adamaek pretty easily. Add in any other Klit victim as well. That to me is why I believe that the 80s fighters were a notch or two above any of Klit's victims.

One could also look at it like this: Pit Tyson in 1986-1988 against any Klit victim. I think he absolute murders them. Pit Klit against Tyson's victims, championship victims, I don't see any killings. I think Vitali is made work damn hard against Holmes, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Biggs, Bonecrusher etc.

cowzerp · 01-03-2012 3:46pm

walshb wrote: »

One could also look at it like this: Pit Tyson in 1986-1988 against any Klit victim. I think he absolute murders them. Pit Klit against Tyson's victims, championship victims, I don't see any killings. I think Vitali is made work damn hard against Holmes, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Biggs, Bonecrusher etc.

Laughable! Tyson was a finisher-Vitali is a Boxer and would KO all them, but just in a different fashion to Tyson, Ali was not a finisher like Tyson but does not make Tyson a better fighter

Again and this is a running thing on here lately, i have laid out actual reasons why Tysons opponents where not class and nobody has any good comebacks bar their opinions, i've actually laid out why these guys where not tough opposition and apart from you just saying todays are weak you have not actually giving any substancial debate on the matter.

I'm not claiming that todays are great but i am saying straight out that Tysons opponents where not and i have put up why above

(Holmes coming off 2 losses was a couple of months off 39, sorry for my mistake Rise to the top) older than Lewis was against Vitali too and against an even younger fresher man.

walshb · 01-03-2012 4:42pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Again and this is a running thing on here lately, i have laid out actual reasons why Tysons opponents where not class and nobody has any good comebacks bar their opinions, i've actually laid out why these guys where not tough opposition and apart from you just saying todays are weak you have not actually giving any substancial debate on the matter.

No, your reasons are also opinions. No real proof. These debates are always subjective. Pointing to a win-loss record, for example, doesn't tell the whole story.

Me: I look at the men today, and compare them INSIDE the ring, and what I see today is not near as good as the 80s men. I rarely ever touch on win-loss records, if so, then the likes of Haye beats Tucker or Thomas etc. That's laughable.

Comebacks? The only comeback to you stating that you believe the 80s HWs men were weak or poor, is that "they were not." That is really the only comeback.

As noted earlier the men today are world class for their era, and those men in the 80s were world class for their era. The debate is that I believe the 80s fighters were superior fighters, boxers, and you believe those today are superior. No need for comebacks, or "proof." There is none.

You seem to bring up a 38 year old Holmes a bit. But, Klit is 40 for chrissake and is the best in the world, so please, tell me why Holmes is such a classic case of a weak and poor fighter at 38, yet Klit at 40 is not?

Look who Wlad meets in his next defense. It's beyond silly.

At least in the 80s, Holmes was not the best. The standards were higher. Klit at 40 would also not have been the best of the 80s.

walshb · 01-03-2012 4:53pm

cowzerp wrote: »

Laughable! Tyson was a finisher-Vitali is a Boxer and would KO all them, but just in a different fashion to Tyson, Ali was not a finisher like Tyson but does not make Tyson a better fighter
.

I get this, but the point is that Klit isn't guaranteed a win against some of these men. Tyson is pretty much a dead cert to murder all Klit's victims, and I bet that those victims don't do half as good as the likes of Thomas and Biggs and TNT did vs. a peak Tyson. That is because the 80s names are better fighters.

cowzerp · 01-03-2012 5:48pm

I gave actual reasons for my opinions, age, wrong weights, coming off losses, 2 years out of the ring, losing to poor opposition, several if you read back-add to that not beating anyone of note before Tyson

Spazdarn · 01-03-2012 8:04pm

80's men probably had steroid's lobbed into every orifice as well though that's something that has changed significantly between those heavyweights and current ones.

megadodge · 02-03-2012 9:33pm

ToiletFusion wrote: »

80's men probably had steroid's lobbed into every orifice as well though that's something that has changed significantly between those heavyweights and current ones.

Actually on that note, the 80's heavies were known as 'The Lost Generation' at the time, simply because so many of them were cocaine addicts. Thomas, Tubbs, Page, Witherspoon, Biggs, Tucker were all talented fighters, but none of them reached their full potential because of their fondness of coke.

This is not my opinion, it's well documented and there's no doubt that physically they were not at their best around Tyson's time.

badabing106 · 02-03-2012 9:49pm

Could you get get away with taking steroids in boxing in the 80's ?

walshb · 02-03-2012 9:50pm

badabing106 wrote: »

Could you get get away with taking steroids in boxing in the 80's ?

Depends if you get caught or not.;)

badabing106 · 02-03-2012 10:00pm

walshb wrote: »

Depends if you get caught or not.;)

Ha!:p

I wonder Was 100m runner ben Johnson's drugs fail in 1988 the turning point for prolific testing of drugs ? in sports as a whole ?

RiseToTheTop · 02-03-2012 10:09pm

How do people still get away with taking steroids today? It is made out to be impossible to not get caught taking banned substances but you hear a case sometimes where a person is caught. It was not the very first time they took the drug!

Shows the use is still going on. Wonder how they do it.

walshb · 02-03-2012 10:10pm

badabing106 wrote: »

Ha!:p

I wonder Was 100m runner ben Johnson's drugs fail in 1988 the turning point for prolific testing of drugs ? in sports as a whole ?

Yes, I would say it had a huge impact on testing standards. Wouldn't surprise me at all if all the greats across all sports, Ali included, were using drugs. I mean, some of the performances and what their bodies were doing defied belief.

Interesting historical timeline here: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002366

Apart from the sham drug suspicions that Floyd's team threw about, there is no mention of boxing whatsoever.

RiseToTheTop · 02-03-2012 10:44pm

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I would say it had a huge impact on testing standards. Wouldn't surprise me at all if all the greats across all sports, Ali included, were using drugs. I mean, some of the performances and what their bodies were doing defied belief.

Interesting historical timeline here: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002366

Apart from the sham drug suspicions that Floyd's team threw about, there is no mention of boxing whatsoever.

You can't say that. Just because of their talent, and thus looking great, that infers the possibility of drugs? You could say the same for Foreman or Shavers, how could they punch so powerful.

plasmaguy · 02-03-2012 10:46pm

I think it's pretty much a given that almost all successful, high performance athletes in the 1980s were doing steroids or something similar.

The east germans and russians were at it in athletics, ben johnson, a fair few of the americans, a few british sprinters.

It was rampant in cycling and you probably could put an asterisk beside every single Tour De France winner for the last 30 years except perhaps the 2011 winner, when it comes to some form of performance enhancing substance.

I'm not too familiar with what the story was with swimming, although we had our own scandal in that.

Baseball, yeh pretty sure it was rampant in that. In fact in almost all sports which demand strength, stamina, muscle and so on.

Was it rampant in boxing? Possibly so, yes. It would be naive to think that boxing was totally clean.

Even one of the Klitchskos has admitted to using steroids to overcome an injury I think.

Questions have been asked about Tyson and his remarkable physique for a young guy. It's a hard one to call, he supposedly always had a great physique even when younger, and he was obsessed with boxing, training and weights, it was 24/7 for him, so that might explain his physique.

walshb · 02-03-2012 11:10pm

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

You can't say that. Just because of their talent, and thus looking great, that infers the possibility of drugs? You could say the same for Foreman or Shavers, how could they punch so powerful.

I never said it was definite, just that it would not surprise me. Read the article and then tell me that it's silly or illogical to think what I think. Drugs have been around for centuries. Men today and from recent years are still men who want to be successful, the best, the fastest, toughest, fittest etc.

Regarding Tyson: I do believe he was just a natural and special talent. When one looks at the thrilla in Manila I do not think it's crazy to think that both fighters were possibly getting some sort of "pick me up," either before or during the fight. Not saying they did, but it's not stupid to think it.

That doesn't at all take away from the fact that Ali and Frazier were to begin with very special athletes. They were. But, to watch what they did in that ring under those conditions etc, does make one wonder was it all natural? Not so much the way they did it, but the incessant and continuous and hellacious effort they kept giving.

corny · 02-03-2012 11:30pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

It was rampant in cycling and you probably could put an asterisk beside every single Tour De France winner for the last 30 years except perhaps the 2011 winner, when it comes to some form of performance enhancing substance.

And the 2008 winner Carlos Sastre. He was as clean as they come.:)

RiseToTheTop · 03-03-2012 9:09pm

Regards their gentleman manners and class.

as the late great Angelo Dundee said, before Ali came along all the fighters said to each other before the match was "I look forward to seeing you on fight night." and "See you there, good luck". Then Ali came along and shuffled the pieces all outta order.

That was good. It's what we need.

plasmaguy · 03-03-2012 9:22pm

corny wrote: »

And the 2008 winner Carlos Sastre. He was as clean as they come.:)

Not sure about Sastre to be honest, hard to tell if you are being sarcastic!

But the rest, I can't actually think of one in 30 years, who didn't have a large question mark hanging over them.

They say 2011 was the first Tour in decades where it was almost certain none of the leading contendors were taking some, hence why it was so exciting, as opposed to some drug fueled freaks racing up Alp D'Huez like it was a small hill.

Peak Ali vs Peak Vitali Klitschko

Comments