|
 |
|
| F-Lo can't see KJ pulling the upset. Who out there can? Raise your hand, and then send a comment, with reasons why. |
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
 |
Klitschko vs. Johnson: Johnson Next In Line To Find Out Vitali Can Fight
By Frank Lotierzo
This coming December 12th, WBC heavyweight champ Vitali Klitschko 38-2 (37) will fight for the third time this year when he defends his title against American Kevin Johnson 22-0 (9) in Berne, Switzerland. Klitschko just fought three weeks ago and stopped another undefeated American heavyweight, Cris Arreola, in the 10th round.
Vitali's performance against Arreola was one of the most complete showings of his career. Klitschko showed a varied attack and good mobility while shutting down and neutralizing the forward-pressing and hard-hitting Arreola for the entire 30 minutes they shared in the ring.
Kevin Johnson seems like a decent and engaging guy. At 30 years-old he's at or close to his physical prime, and he's no doubt showed improvement and maturity during the last year he's fought. But like it is for every other heavyweight contender excluding Vitali's brother Wladimir, it's hard to find a reason to pick him to topple the elder Klitschko. In all honesty we're basically reduced to hoping Johnson can be competitive and at least make it reasonably compelling while the fight lasts. And that doesn't mean just going the distance and losing every round except the ones Klitschko decides to catch a breather and take off. Then again going the distance with Vitali may be something to brag about since he's stopped 37 of the 38 fighters he's defeated.
Kevin Johnson is a good boxer with not much power. Like most "Boxers" he prefers to move away and circle his opponents and lead with his jab. He only really asserts himself if he's fighting someone who is beneath his skill level and he feels they can't hurt him in any way physically. Sometimes he plays a con game and tries to inject a little trickery into his repertoire, but he's not the most imaginative fighter around. And lastly his motivation and intensity leave a little to be desired.
It's easy to say who's Kevin Johnson fought up to this point that somewhat resembles an upper-tier heavyweight? Actually it's something that can be said about any undefeated and untested heavyweight fighting in 2009 getting ready to fight Vitali Klitschko. It's not like there's a couple of clones roaming in the division who resemble either Vitali or Wladimir Klitschko to help another contender prepare for a fight with either one of them. And the reality is if any top heavyweight wants to cash in and have a say in the division the Klitschkos have to be addressed and dealt with.
The questions surrounding Kevin Johnson are not unlike those asked about a lot of the top heavyweights in the division. How physically strong is he and does he have the type of strength that's applicable in the ring? It's already known that he's no puncher and will have to go the distance if he's to beat Klitschko. In addition to that his stamina and chin haven't been tested in a big spot versus a heavy handed puncher like Vitali. Again, it's not like there's a plethora of punchers fighting today who he could've met on the way up to give any indication to what kind of a beard he has.
To date the 30 year-old Johnson just hasn't shown anything that would indicate he can push the 38 year-old Klitschko off the cliff and take his WBC title. From a style vantage point there's nothing to hang your hat on to make the case for Kevin to pull the upset. It's not remotely possible that he can win the fight outside and outbox Vitali. The more likely scenario is once they touch each other Johnson will be the fighter who breaks the exchange. And what if he senses he can't win playing tag with the jab from outside, then his only choice is to pressure Klitschko. As we saw with Cris Arreola, it takes more than just walking towards Vitali to rattle him, it takes real pressure. And Johnson isn't that type of fighter so the odds of him forcing Vitali to work and tire himself out are minuscule.
The other problem Kevin Johnson has to hurdle is the fact that Vitali Klitschko can fight. He may not look all that fluid and smooth and doesn't overwhelm fans with Muhammad Ali type flash and brilliance, nor does he produce Joe Louis picturesque knockouts, but the guy knows what he's doing inside the ring. And it's more than just him knowing how to impose his size and strength. He can box and has a great sense of distance and timing along with a good defense. He hits you with punches that you don't see and they come from unconventional angles, and that makes up for his lack of speed.
Vitali is also very strong physically and can fight on the move going to his left or right, something that's very befuddling, especially for a fighter who isn't all that experienced at the A-level. It's hard to think of one heavyweight fighting today who is extremely effective fighting as the aggressor; change directions on them and you might as well put a blindfold over their eyes. Add to that they're getting hit cleanly and can't get off themself, it's not long before they are thinking more about going the distance than winning.
To beat Vitali Klitschko it'll take a fighter with a multi-faceted ring attack and fight plan. Klitschko's boxing IQ and aptitude is much higher than he ever gets credit for and he's fighting with a confidence level right now that appears to be unshakable. Ask yourself if Johnson has the size, strength and toughness to negate Vitali's size, strength, style and power? It's doubtful Kevin has the power to disrupt Klitschko enough with the few clean shots he'll get through with, at least to the point where Vitali has to stray from what he wants to do during the fight. And if Johnson can't make Klitschko do anything he doesn't want to during the fight, the question isn't if he'll win, it's if he can even make a fight of it?
The odds are when the fight is over Kevin Johnson will echo the same thing Cris Arreola did after he fought Vitali Klitschko, and say "he's much better than I thought he was."
Frank Lotierzo can be contacted at GlovedFist@Gmail.com
|
Dan L:
|
Vitali's only weakness now is injury during training. Kingpin may have a shot to make it a fight for 2-3 rounds, but at that point V's jab will be on point and its GAMEOVER.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 08:48:17 AM
|
|
Brendan C;ancy:
|
Vitali is a victim of his own era where the fighters on offer are no where near his standard. He'll never get the credit he deserves. As the saying goes he can only beat the fighters put in front of him and right now there is no one that can beat him. Not even David Haye would have a chance because of his suspect chin. His one chance to really prove his credentials as one of the best ever was against Lewis and he was unlucky the fight had to be stopped due to an injury with his eye.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 09:26:20 AM
|
|
Matthew:
|
I've seen Kevin Johnson fight once or twice, and there was nothing about him that overly impressed me. To beat Vitali, I think you have to hit hard enough to at least gain respect. I don't think Johnson can do that. Give Vitali credit for being an active champion. Three defenses in one calendar year is almost Henry Armstrong-like in these times. He's at least fighting the best available challengers. I like Vitali to win by lopsided decision or late round stoppage.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 10:38:27 AM
|
|
Cox's Corner:
|
Its hard to tell how good Klitschko really is fighting these bums. Would Kevin Johnson, Chris Arreola or Danny Williams even be contenders in the 1970's? Duane Bobick, an outstanding amateur would probably have beat the lot of them not to mention Quarry, Norton, Lyle and Shavers or god forbid, Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Holmes. Samuel Peter would likely not have cracked the top 10. The heavyweight division lacks talent. I dont care how big they are a big bum is still a big bum.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 10:51:37 AM
|
|
Jason:
|
I know almost nothing about Johnson. It amazes me how these guys just come out of the woodwork. He sports a glossy record (22-0-1; the draw was an early career 4 rounder against Timur Ibragimov, 38-38 for all 3 judges), but if he lacks power, as the article states, then he's got absolutely no chance. This is essentially a stay-busy fight. In my opinion, a more intriguing match would be against David Tua. He has a concrete chin and at least a puncher's chance. He'd be a huge underdog, but he has the experience and a name to warrant the fight.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 11:14:48 AM
|
|
dr3r42:
|
Johnson does have a hell of a jab and he does have an accurate straight right. He's never going to be heavy handed, but often accuracy is underrated. Jimmy Ellis used to lull openents to sleep with his lack of power, and then would drop them with a straight right that they wouldn't see. It should be an interesting fight in one way, you have a slower, taller fighter, who depends on his jab, fighting a shorter armed fighter, with a faster jab. Depends on who can out jab who. Usually the taller fighter wins the jabbing contest, but not always. Ali out jabbed Terrelle, Liston, and Foreman and they were dead. Not comparing Ali to KJ, but same principle
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 11:58:32 AM
|
|
straight jab:
|
Its sad to say, but until either the Klitschko bros. fight each other or their skill levels diminish, what Franks is writing here can be copied and pasted to every heavyweight fight on the horizon. That said. there is nothing Klitschko can do about that except stay active and beat everyone who comes along. Thats all we can ask of him, or any champion. Don't duck anyone, stay active, and fight the top contenders. It's not a negative or his fault that he is a physical monster, who trains religiously, and uses his head, experience and smarts in the ring along with his physical gifts. It gets old when you have comments comparing todays fighters to the Era of Ali, Frazier,Foreman, Quarry etc.
we can sit there and ask exactly who did Mike Tyson beat? with the exception of 38 yr old Larry Holmes( who was long past the great fighter) did tyson ever beat anyone who would be considered a top 15 heavyweight ever? No it could be said Mike was undefeated against bums but 0-4 in real fights.
Who did Holmes beat that would be considered a top 15 heavyweight ever? Ken Norton could be 1. name another?
above Cox's corner takes shots at Kevin Johnson, Arreola, and Danny Williams( who KO'D Mike Tyson) one could point out that Tyson fought such "contenders" as Steve Zouski, Dave Jaco, Jose Ribalta, Alonzo Ratliff, and of course that world beater Peter Mc Neely
this is NOT a shot at Tyson, or Holmes, or anyone else. the point is that mostly all of the great heavyweights rarely were forced to fight other great heavyweights to prove their pedigree.
I can almost bet that 15 years from now , you will have a champion fighting and beating guys you don't know, and we will be saying ha these guys are no Chris arreola, or Chris Byrd, or even Kevin Johnson.
If a champion is deemed virtually unbeatable, as seems to be the case with the Klitschko's then I don't care if they are fighting Mother Theresa you have to give them proper respect.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 12:02:23 PM
|
|
dr3r42:
|
Duane Bobbick wouldn't last two rounds with Arreolla. Most people in the 1970's, thought the same way you do now. All they did was complain that the fighters of the past would destroy bums like Norton, Quarry, Lyle (the argment was that the heavies were so bad that an old, shot, Ali was still champion). Same argument, "the fighters of the past could do everything." Didn't matter that most of the pre-1960 heavyweights were 5-11, 185-190 llbs (many of them moonlighted as lightheavyweights). You do realize that there hasn't been a sub 195 llb heavyweight champion in 47 years, and the size of the champions and contenders has been increasing every decade. A Gater-armed, 195 llb Jerry Quarry would have the same problems fighting the 6-7, 240 llb Klitchko's as the Cruiserweights of this era would have. I havn't even gone into the fact that the heavyweights of the 1970's wouldn't have a clue on how to fight a southpaw, since their managers avoided them like the plague. Or that 90 + percent of the 1970's heavyweights only moved to their left (Ken Norton was the exception) and didn't have a clue on how to throw punches while moving to their right. Since we're gloriying the past, how would the Klitchkko's fare against the great Sam Langford ? All 5-7, 175 llbs of him
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 12:17:57 PM
|
|
deepwater:
|
Hey Johnson go out on your sheild at least
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 12:55:38 PM
|
|
dr3r42:
|
Great points Straight Jab. It's rare that two all time great fighters ever fight each other. And it's even rarer that the two guys fighting would be perceived as all time greats at the time that both men are fighting each other. Mainly because it's human nature to view the past through rose-colored glasses and to downplay the present. Maybe Ali-Frazier I, when both guys were unbeaten there was the anticipation of two ATG's fighting each other, but still at the time, most of the boxing "experts" said that Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey would have beaten both of them in the same night (Nat Fleischer said something to the effect that "Frazier couldn't punch, if he could he would have KO'ed Clay in the 15 round). Maybe Ali-Foreman would have been an exception, since the oldtimers were impressed with Foreman's destruction of Frazier, and were hoping that Foreman would shut Ali's big mouth up. Many of them sort of left themselves open for criticism after Ali KO'ed Foreman, and grudgingly had to admit that Ali was a great fighter after that fight, although many of them went to the "Foreman's dumb" card for falling for the rope a dope, or said "Ali couldn't have gotten away with that against Marciano."
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 01:05:51 PM
|
|
The Saint:
|
@cox's corner: I think we can make a fair assessment of how good Vitali truly is even when he's fighting "bums." One thing we know for sure is that he's on a whole different level. How much better do you think the heavyweights you mentioned will fare against the same names on Vitali's record? I think Vitali has dominated these bums in the same way any of the greats should have. Vitali has knocked virtually all of them out and has hardly lost a single round in any of his fights. How much more domination could you ask for?
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 01:18:39 PM
|
|
dr3r42:
|
Another question could be "have the heavyweights EVER been considered any good at the time that they fought ?" The 1990's are now viewed as a tough era, but at the time everyone was bad rapping the fighters saying that "the era is so bad that 40 year old men like Foreman and Holmes are either champions or contenders." The 1980's ? Holmes and Tyson's opponents were always put down. Even the "Golden Era" 1970's. It wasn't considered Golden then. Like I said, they used to make a point about the divison being so bad that an old, shot, Ali was champion despite being 10 years from his prime. In the 1960's, they not only put down Ali (said that he wasn't tough, couldn't take a punch- Henry Cooper, ect) but the rest of the division. Near the end of the decade, with Ali in exhile, you almost had Floyd Patterson winning a portion of the title from Ellis, and many considered an aging Sonny Liston the best heavyweight in the world in 1968. In the 1950's, Gene Tunny wrote in Look Magazine that Jack Dempsey could beat Marciano, Charles, Walcott, and Rex Lane all on the SAME Night. In the 1940's Joe Louis' oppenents were called the "bum of the month club" and former champs like Jack Johnson wrote that not only would he destroy Louis but so would Jeffries, Tom Sharkey, Bob Fitzsimmons, James Corbet, and a few others. Jack Dempsey used to question Louis' chin because he was dropped so many times. When Dempsey was champion they used to write that he wouldn't beat Jim Jeffries and that his opponents during the 1920's wern't any good. James Corbett had Dempsey tied with Frank Slavin (a bare knuckle fighter from the past) on his All time ratings.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 01:19:28 PM
|
|
Matthew:
|
Some good points are brought up here about eras in which fighters fought and how they are regarded. The 70s wasn't considered the "golden era" at the time, but I think most educated people realized that there were some really good fighters around. This is why the hall of fame makes you wait 6 years after you retire to be considered for enshrinement. The waiting time helps people gain perspective and properly judge the accomplishments of one's career. I think we could all agree that when he retired, Lennox Lewis deserved to be a hall of famer, but his resume looks even better now that we have time to reflect and compare it to the current heavyweight crop. Same holds true for the 90s era heavyweight contenders. They look a lot better, in retrospect, than what's out there now.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 02:21:30 PM
|
|
The Saint:
|
@dr3r42: While I agree with you for the most part, I don't think they make rose colored glasses thick enough for boxing analysts a few decades into the future to view this era of the heavyweights as noneother than one of the worst in boxing history, if not THE absolute worst. Still, they won't be able to argue the fact that Vitali Klitschko was as dominant in this era as Joe Louis, Holmes and Ali were in theirs.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 03:36:11 PM
|
|
brownsugar:
|
with Johnsons record,.. it's nearly impossible to expect too much from him,.. but he does have the longer reach and the jab on Klits if nothing else,.. plus he's a little more graceful on his feet...it's almost like Rocky Balboa vs Opollo Creed,..nobody expects anything out of the Kingpin,.. but a quick and humiliating loss,. I think Johnson will exceed expectations,.. win,... well,.. I would dare push it that far,.. but anything is possible in boxing
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 03:50:17 PM
|
|
Porkupine:
|
Ola Afolabi has the style and size to be effective against K2 should he move up to heavyweight. Very underrated fighter IMHO.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 05:42:49 PM
|
|
dr3r42:
|
Come on Saint, you're not going to argue with me that Tommy Burns at 5-7, 170 llbs, who held the title for 3 years would be champion today (or even contend), or that a big, slow, stiff like Jess Willard, who never even put on a pair of boxing gloves until he was almost 30 years old (Willard held the title for 4 years) would be a contender. There have been other big stiffs like Abe Simon, Carnera, and a ton of 185 llbers who were either champions or contenders would not compete today. I'll agree that it is a down era, but worst ever ? I think it's a little overreaction, there were stiffs in every era, and some became champs (Neon Leon ain't winning a title today). In fairness to the "00's", you take a potentually great fighter like Ike Ibeabuchi out of the mix and it really effects the era. You'd have had some great potentual matchups between Ibeabuchi and Lennox Lewis, or Ibeabuchi vrs the Klitchkko's. I can't prove that Ibeabuchi would have been great, but I know the guy had a concrete chin, threw tons of punches (Tua fight, that I actually thought he lost), and could destroy a difficult opponent in Chris Byrd. You take Joe Louis out of the 1930's and 40's- what do you get ? You take Ali out of the 60's and 70's- and the era suffers (Liston's probably champion until about 1969). Again, I'll never say this is a good era, but "worst ever" is quite a stretch.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 06:34:35 PM
|
|
dr3r42:
|
Another thing. It's bad enough that southpaws wern't allowed to fight for titles during these so called "Golden Era's", but how about not allowing black fighters to fight for the title ? Hell, even Joe Louis (2X's) and Jack Johnson (1X) wouldn't defend their titles against blacks. And it wasn't like the top white contenders were fighting them either; that's why many of them fought each other about 15 X. You've also taken out of play the Soviet Bloc, (Asia and Latin Amercia have also dominated recently, but not at heavyweight, but give them a few years-they're producing bigger people as well). Yes, I think the US has declined in boxing, but at the same time the rest of the world has improved
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 06:43:36 PM
|
|
Isaiah:
|
Mr. F-LO, you may as well save your self some work and go ahead and put another notch in Vital's win column. @Matthew, Wow, I'm immpressed that your're giving Kevin Johnson here a chance to last the distance. I don't see it happening, but who knows? List of guys who've lasted the distance with Vitali Klitschko, 1.) Timo Haufmann (I think that's how you spell his name) and... THAT'S IT! My prediction stands. Dr. Ironfist stays true to his name.
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 10:22:18 PM
|
|
dr3r42:
|
Isaiah- one interesting point about this fight is that Johnson does have skills. the way the Klitchkko's operate is that the skilled one (Wlad) takes on the fighters who have skills (but can't punch), while Vitali takes on the big hitters (Fat Sam Peter; was going to fight Haye instead of Wlad) or the nasty ones like Arreola. But because Wlad's injured and has mandatories out the a$$ against Chambers and Povetkin. So Vitali has to make money, which means he has to fight an American that leaves him with Johnson. Then again Gomez had some skills too (easily beat McCall) but got shut out and stopped by Vitali in a boring fight. This one will probably be the same, but KJ does have a hell of a jab; so at least that makes it interesting. Trust me, no matter what Vitali does the haters won't give him any credit- they'll blast Johnson or the rest of the division.
Wednesday Oct 21, 2009 12:07:54 AM
|
|
Ahsan:
|
Am a big time fan of Vitali since he roughed up with Lennox several years ago. I was worried when he decided to return to ring against Samuel Peter since we all beleived that he retired with dignity and some greatness and VK might be risking it by returning against hard punching opponent in Sam Peter.
However VK proved that hes the greatest and defeated all his opponents since his return. He seemed very exhausted at the end of Gomez fight and that was my only concern when he fought against Arreola however i was confident that i would see a repeat telecast of Sam Peter fight on Arreola fight night...and very much it happened.
There is no way you can have Vitalis ground get behind that mighty reach. He keeps his opponent at bay with his menacing jabs taking more risks then his younger brother. However i noticed in all 3 fights that VK has become a very smart fighter and uses his opponents strength to his advantage all the time. He lets the figher charge into him and breaks him down slowly not looking for a one punch KO unlike his destruction of Danny Williams and Johnson years ago. However Sanders fight could be an example of letting the aggressor come to the predator.
Verdict:
The only person who can help defeat VK is VK himself...that is if he gets over confident and takes the fight lightly and doesnt prepare stamina for full 12 rounds and so on so forth then he might lose. Thats my only concern that he shouldnt take KJ lightly
Am a VK lover. Hes my king. Greatest fighter ever since Tyson
Cheers
Wednesday Oct 21, 2009 12:27:32 AM
|
|
LeRoy A. Peters:
|
Vitali Klitschko deserves alot more credit than even his fans give him. The heavyweight division would be more exciting if all boxers followed Vitali's example, when it comes to training for a fight and staying in shape. The man is a machine, he trains exactly 12 hours a day for his fights, more than his brother Wladimir who according to Emmanuel Steward is a handful when it comes to training and that is a huge complement. I knew Vitali would beat Arreola, I just didn't think it would be that one sided. I was expecting alot from Arreola in turning the fight into a HEAVYWEIGHT version of GATTI-WARD and making the fight a fight of the year candidate. I'm not impressed with Kevin Johnson, even though I have never seen him fight, he only has 9 KO's in 22 wins. That tells me he is not going to last long with Vitali. My prediction, Vitali wins by 2 round KO.
Wednesday Oct 21, 2009 09:25:16 AM
|
|
The Saint:
|
In this decade, we saw two former middleweights become heavyweight champs (although Toney's title was revoked almost immediately). Three if you count Chris Byrd's amateur background. Where were Toney and RJJ when the major belts were split between Lewis and Holyfield? They were taking refuge in the light heavyweight division. We didn't see any middleweight become heavyweight champion since Bob Fitzimmons because the best middleweights of the modern era knew better than to tangle with a heavyweight. Roy Jones and James Toney shared this sentiment as well, until the division started going down the toilet nearly 10 years ago. It's not just the quality of the boxers, it's the lack of order in the heavyweight division for most of this decade. You have titles changing hands like it was the WWE. Case in point, Lamon Brewster's lineage, which started with Wladimir to him, to Liakovich to Briggs and to Ibragimov and back to Wladimir. The only consistency we have is with the Klitschkos, and Vitali was absent for a few years due to injuries. In regards to Willard, Carnera and Tommy Burns, their eras were more of an intermission. They were what happened in between Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis. While I think that the outcome of hypothetical matchups make for pointless arguments, I do believe that it's possible to gauge a fighter's skills by watching him fight. Most heavyweights today can't fight. They don't want to fight. The pre-Joe Louis era saw countless heavyweights with flawed technique that couldn't compare to today's heavyweights from a technical standpoint, but they could still fight and were more than willing. What this era truly lacks is drama and excitement, which are the main ingredients to any sport. The overwhelming majority of heavyweights today take a safety first approach. It's one thing to be a defensive fighter, it's a whole other thing to avoid getting hurt at all costs. If you don't want to get hit hard, don't be a pro boxer, join the UFC (hehehe). When Lennox Lewis was in his prime, he was an outcast because he was the only heavyweight who fought that way. Even so, Lewis was a warrior who would take risks to go for the kill and could more than hold his own if the fight turned into a brawl. It's about entertainment, and this heavyweight era isn't entertaining. This is what ultimately makes today's heavyweight division the worst in history, IMHO.
Wednesday Oct 21, 2009 12:55:35 PM
|
|
LeRoy A. Peters:
|
I must respectfully disagree with you Saint. This era of Heavyweights is not as bad as people make it out to be. Alot of these heavyweights from Eastern Europe need to get Americans attention, because they are alot better than people give them credit for. The Klitschkos and Nicolay Valuev were lucky to get the attention they have in the states, but in Europe the Heavyweight division is thriving. I think we as Americans really do need to change our attitudes and forget that these guys aren't American and start praising them for their talent and what they have done so far in the Heavyweight division.
Wednesday Oct 21, 2009 04:52:18 PM
|
|
dr3r42:
|
This ain't the first time blown up middleweights or Lightheavyweights contended for the title. The difference is that this decade had 4 sanctioning bodies. Jimmy Ellis was a mediocure middleweight in the 1960's; however he became heavyweight champion (WBA) during the 1960's and was a top contender during the 1970's. Had there been 4 titles, then he could have won one of them. Same thing with Jimmy Young. During the 1950's Archie Moore beat the #1 contender in Nino Valdez, and would have easily won a title had there been 4 available for him. Same with Spinks in the 1980's, and Billy Conn had Joe Louis beat when he got greedy and tried for the KO. So chances are, had there been 4 titles to win in the 1940's he'd have won one of them. Fact is that Byrd got destroyed (twice) by Wlad Klitchkko and once by Ibeabuchi. Thos two would have probably did the same to Toney (who got a gift draw against Rachmen-I bet on Toney that night and was lucky to get my money back). So there's always been small slick heavies who outslick and counter punch the big slow heavies. But a big heavy with skills or beasts like Tyson and Ibeabuchi will destroy them. I could also mention steroids being a factor in some middleweights/lightheavies suddenly becoming 215-225 llb heavyweights today.
Wednesday Oct 21, 2009 05:13:49 PM
|
|
The Saint:
|
@LeRoy A. Peters: Skill-wise, I wouldn't necessary consider this heavyweight era as the worst. But the fact that nobody really cares about who the heavyweight champion is anymore is a testament to the sad state of the division. I don't think I've ever seen such a lack of interest in the heavyweights as I do today. Even when Tyson was fighting tomato cans in the late 80's people tuned in to watch him. As I said, sports exist for the sake of entertainment and nothing more, and the current heavies are anything but. There's no drama. If it were the NBA, two points is two points, but people want to see spectacular dunks, not layups. People didn't come to watch the scoreboard change, but to be entertained.
Thursday Oct 22, 2009 06:52:42 AM
|
|
The Saint:
|
@dr3r42: There's a huge difference between Toney, RJJ and the small heavyweights from the past that you mentioned. Toney & RJJ were both taking advantage of the weak heavyweight division and cash in. They saw John Ruiz as their ticket to the title and took the opportunity. There's a reason Toney just all of a sudden decided at age 34 to move up to the heavyweight division rather than doing it a few years earlier. And you're right, Tyson and Ibeabuchi (who by the way belongs to the late 90's class, not 2000's) would've absolutely destroyed Toney and RJJ not on the same night, but probably the same ROUND, which further proves my point why Toney & RJJ waited to mess around with the heavyweights; they waited until they deemed the division to be "safe."
Thursday Oct 22, 2009 07:05:14 AM
|
|
The Saint:
|
@dr3r42: Also, I'd like to add that the fact that there are too many titles today make the championship practically meaningless, which further supports my stand as this heavyweight era as being the worst. Just about everybody in the top 10 could become a champion. Toney is technically a world champ today. The sanctioning bodies do not respect the sport, and they even have that whole champion emeritus or however you spell it, so you can have the most popular guy cut to the front of the line and fight for the title as a mandatory, after being inactive for 4 years.
In regards to your steroid comment, it's not that hard to gain weight. I gained almost 30 pounds since high school, 20 of those in the last 10 years. The first 10 to 15 pounds were the result of weight training, the rest had to do with aging and being lazy.
Thursday Oct 22, 2009 07:25:29 AM
|
|
boxing fan:
|
Guys,
Please quit talking about American boxers from 30 years ago...
One again Ali , Foreman and Frazier would get knocked out and quickly by todays champions. Ali is the most overrated boxer of all time Frazier was just terrible he got knocked out by foreman in the first round. Ali was so bad he lost to Frazier once and went the distance with him twice. The K brothers would destroy
those guys...
Monday Oct 26, 2009 12:04:38 PM
|
|
Anonymous user:
|
the k- brothers would defeat and destroy past heavyweights. why can people not see this. these two brothers are in shape and they can box and fight. they have excelled and a lot of the boxing world can-not realize this fact. they are the best of all time- for real.
Wednesday Dec 9, 2009 08:16:04 PM
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angie And Goody...23 Years Later
Twenty three years later after they seconded Marvin Hagler and Ray Leonard in Las Vegas, Goody Petronelli and Angelo Dundee crossed paths again. This time, it was at Foxwoods. Photo/friend of TSS "The Iceman" John Scully reports there were only pleasantries exchanged. Goody didn't debate the split decision victory enjoyed by Leonard, which to this day Hagler disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
The Team 
Headlines 
Community 
Multimedia 
Information 
Boxing Forum 
