Booth and Groves split.

First topic message reminder :

Hasn't really been spoken about, anyone know why they split? Anyone think the influence of Hearn might have something to do with it? Booth likes to be the one in complete control, and maybe he wasn't happy with Hearn's plans/influence? Just can't see why they'd split to be honest though.

Under Booth who can get Groves fighting intelligently and with discipline, I thought he'd beat Froch, now I just think he'll get into a tear up which will be disastrous for him.

Hope Groves does win, find Froch quite a loathsome character, you'd think by the way he speaks he's the best fighter the world has ever seen. Saw an interview where he calls himself a world superstar the other day. The way he talks that Groves shouldn't possibly say a bad world about him because he's a respected world champion is very irritating. Oh, and the way he always calls himself a warrior is annoying also.

Valuev is quite obviously too far across the other side. If 6'7 boxers were always in abundance and the Klitschkos were the first ones to dominate, Id take your point, but 6'4 Foreman was the top-end of what Ali faced, so I dont think you have a historical point... I mean even Carnera won a world title, and he was a circus performer!

kingraf wrote:Valuev is quite obviously too far across the other side. If 6'7 boxers were always in abundance and the Klitschkos were the first ones to dominate, Id take your point, but 6'4 Foreman was the top-end of what Ali faced, so I dont think you have a historical point... I mean even Carnera won a world title, and he was a circus performer!

I think what is more striking is that there have been so few champion heavyweights of the Klitschkos size. I tend to think its because they fall outside the optimum range and dont make for great heavyweights. So I would say that the fact most of the greatest heavyweights have been in the 200-220lb bracket is a much stronger historical evidence.

Remember - in the 50s, the average American male was 5'9. Even now its only 5'10. So logic dictates - especially with basketball taking the truly gifted giants (surely a point you cant argue?) - that there are more people in your weight (200-225) bracket than mine. I would hazard a guess and a greater percentage of my mentioned fighters become world champions than yours. I mean even 260lbs Briggs won a title!

I dont think the average height has any impact on the optimum weight for a boxer. I dont view it as a coincidence that the best heavyweights came from that bracket. There have always big 6,7 men so using the average height basis the bigger men would have even more of an advantage back in the early days. I dont think its a coincidence either that the Klitschkos have been champions in the most talentless heavyweight division in history. I dont treat that as a sign being the Klitschko size is superior. There just arent any talented heavyweights arounds.

Louis, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Johnson, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield etc were all around the 200-220 mark and better than anything around today in my opinion. The heavyweight division is producing no talent at the moment. 200lbs-220lbs remains the optimum weight for a heavyweight for me. It allows the best blend of speed, power and agility.

If basketball takes the gifted super heavies then US football takes the 'gifted' heavies. Whichever, there are clearly more guys in the 6'3-6'4 range than 6'7-6'8.

It used to be the case that heavyweight champion was the key prize in sport. For American athletes, other sports pay more and give more opportunity. So you could argue the US talent pool, traditionally the core of the world 's heavyweight 'population has suffered.

Maybe the klitschko's are freaks at the right time... And maybe all future heavyweight champions will be 6'7 or above. I genuinely don't know, I think we are witnessing a poor talent pool being beaten up by two under-rated fighters, and it makes the 'optimal size' argument open to debate to me.

Could be wrong here, but my understanding is that punch resistance decreases proportional to size. There are more ko's in the heavyweights. From that perspective, the size differential is less significant at higher weights. Ie if haye catches wlad flush, he would go. If mayweather caught Hopkins flush, he wouldn't.

Look it up - the average weight of a heavyweight boxer has increased on par with the height increase. Mate you bring up legends, and I bring up guys who were just big and still won titles.

kingraf wrote:Look it up - the average weight of a heavyweight boxer has increased on par with the height increase. Mate you bring up legends, and I bring up guys who were just big and still won titles.

Yes and they arent legends, for the most part. It doesnt matter to me if the average weight of a heavyweight has increased I think the best heavyweights are produced from 200-220lbs. The problem isnt lack of size, its lack of talent. The past legends would have a field day in this division of rubbish. Its not rocket science to look at the heavyweights like Ali or or Liston or Foreman or Tyson or Frazier and see that they were far better boxers than what is around presently.

Im Sure Light Heavyweight Patterson won the world title because the division was bustling with talent...

What your point?

Nothing then...

Carnera's career was largely marred by him being backed by the mob, and little is known of exactly how many of his wins were legit. Willard was massive and got annihilated by sub 200 pound Dempsey. Also took a beating of a shot Jack Johnson before turning it around when Johnson got tired for a KO win...in round TWENTY FIVE.

Ali faced 6'6 Ernie Terrel and nobody really makes a big deal out of that win because Terrel was an also ran in the era.

Who are the best heavies in the world right now?
Wlad
Vitali
Haye
Arreola
Povetkin

Would anybody seriously disagree with that list, purely on head to basis? Out of that top five, only the K's are super heavies and I'm not even sure if Vitali counts any more.

Why would Vitali who came in at 250lbs not be called a super heavy?

I dont view the Klitschkos as being some kind of advanced heavyweight. They have built their reputation on beating alot of rubbish heavyweights over a lengthy period. They are solid unspectacular heavyweights around during a time badly lacking in any heavyweight talent.

JBW - Might as well bring up Klitshko beating around Chisora, as my proof positive. Terrel went 15 with Ali, beat Chuvalo, and Cleveland Williams - While it wasnt Ali's magnum opus, it certainly was a decent win.

Willard did not begin boxing until 27... and he still won the world heavyweight championship

kingraf wrote:Why would Vitali who came in at 250lbs not be called a super heavy?

Didn't mean that. I'm saying that as he hasn't fought in over a year, has nothing lined up and didn't look great in his last two fights it's only on benefit of the doubt that he's a top five heavyweight talent.

Kingraf I think jbw was questioning whether vitali counts as a current heavy, given he hasn't  fought in a year has no fight scheduled, and his retirement has been the source of speculation for some time.

Willard and carnera were fighting predominantly sub 200lb heavies, below catchy's 'optimum heavy'

I don't read jbw's posts so apologies if I've just repeated him;)

kingraf wrote:JBW - Might as well bring up Klitshko beating around Chisora, as my proof positive. Terrel went 15 with Ali, beat Chuvalo, and Cleveland Williams - While it wasnt Ali's magnum opus, it certainly was a decent win.

Not sure what you mean here. Chisora was among Vitali's harder fights. Terrel had some good wins, got smacked by some trash too, an also ran. Going 15 with a non aggressively minded Ali isn't a massive achievement for a heavy. 5'11 Frazier among the very best.

kingraf wrote:
Willard did not begin boxing until 27... and he still won the world heavyweight championship

Yeah in a fight against an old, shot, overweight champion. The fight was actually scheduled for 45, as the powers wanted a white champ and knew Johnson was too old to last.

What's milky on about now? I've got him ignore.

Oh, my apologies JBW -

Given the fact that Vitali has lost no more than two rounds a fight for the last ten years, I have to question how anyone is convinced that this is the best he has had to offer.

Mhmm, Vitali's been a dominant champ, but it's not just because he's big, otherwise all the top heavies would be the 6'6 + guys which they aren't.

Still, impressive for a guy who had only been boxing for nine years, in his whole life.

Of course its not just because he is big, I never said that, what I did was find a few guys who have won the title soley because they are big. Theres a distinction.

I guess, but to paraphrase David Haye his second defense against a primed, young fighter was more one sided than a gang r4pe.

Overall, guys like Carnera and Willard achieving anything have been aberrations, and had asterisks in those cases. Most heavyweight champions have been athletic/talented. Look at power as an example of size not being as big an advantage above 220. There are plenty of giants whose power you wouldn't think is alongside Shavers, Foreman, Tyson etc.

Does Vitali hit harder than Shavers (weight difference of about 40 pounds)? I say no.
Does Jean Pascal hit harder than Mathysse? I say yes.

Does Shavers hit harder than Klitsckho - yes, but I never made an argument otherwise. Who would I back in a fight? Vitali...

Heavyweight might be getting bigger but they arent getting better. There isnt the talent coming through there.

Manny Steward claimed Wlad to be the hardest HW hitter he has ever seem. I don't know if he met Shavers.

That's the point JBW is trying to make, the weight differences at heavyweight can be compensated by power and speed. Both of which are optimised at about 220lbs.

If power was optimised at 220lbs, then those 300lbs linebackers are a bunch of idiots

kingraf wrote:If power was optimised at 220lbs, then those 300lbs linebackers are a bunch of idiots

Why? How does that have anything to do with punch power?

Valuev was over 300lbs and he couldnt punch worth a damn.

Power and strength are two very different things, at heavyweight quality is a combination of factors with size being just one. Wlad is a very good big man beating merely good smaller men. Take a great smaller man like Ali and he beats a very good bigger man with speed and talent.

Thing is establishing power is a difficult thing to measure in boxing - Shavers and Foreman were huge hitters, and yet it is Cooper and Frazier who dropped him, and Norton who broke his jaw...

The thing with Ali is that, between all the fawning, lies the fact that he had a glaring flaw, one Norton exposed three different times, so it's not like he learned either. That hand was a bit of beacon, something which only Futch saw, admittedly, but a beacon nonetheless.

The flaw to the left hand something which only Frazier could utilise to beat him convincingly, the best left hand puncher in heavyweight history. Power only works when you connect with it and these flaws in Ali were only evident in his physically diminished years.

Norton beat him quite convincingly too... Three times really.

Once with two close fights when he was no longer as mobile, Frazier and Norton offered stylistic problems that very few others could replicate.

The second one is acceptable, the third was quite clear. To suggest Ali won the series is tantamount suggest Alvarez came within two rounds of scoring a draw with Mayweather

Futch found Ali's weakness, if the story is to be believed, Norton embarassed Ali in a sparring session during Ali's exile period, so I don't quite take the old man Ali excuse

catchweight wrote:

kingraf wrote:If power was optimised at 220lbs, then those 300lbs linebackers are a bunch of idiots

Why? How does that have anything to do with punch power?

Valuev was over 300lbs and he couldnt punch worth a damn.

Valuev could punch very well. that's why nobody ever wanted to engage with him. his poor ko ratio was because he couldn't get near his opponents who usually kept out of range

kingraf wrote:Futch found Ali's weakness, if the story is to be believed, Norton  embarassed Ali in a sparring session during Ali's exile period, so I don't quite take the old man Ali excuse

Most Ali's sparring partners embarrassed him in sparring.

Ali came back the next day to try set the record straight. thats how bad it was. According to Futch, at one point Ali tried to back Norton into a corner, Norton then picked him up mad threw him into the corner.... This wasn't Ali rope-a-doping against Holmes to prepare for Foreman. It was a very agitated Ali being frustrated That this $10 a round fighter was making an ass of him. Essentially, if you watched any of their fights (Ali landed 28% in III, by the way) you know how a young Ali did vs Norton.

Lance wrote:

catchweight wrote:

kingraf wrote:If power was optimised at 220lbs, then those 300lbs linebackers are a bunch of idiots

Why? How does that have anything to do with punch power?

Valuev was over 300lbs and he couldnt punch worth a damn.

Valuev could punch very well. that's why nobody ever wanted to engage with him. his poor ko ratio was because he couldn't get near his opponents who usually kept out of range

He didnt punch well at all for his size, if the argument in place was bigger heavyweights automatically punch harder. By heavyweight standards he was an ordinary puncher. It wasnt his power that kept boxers trying to stay outside it was his bulk. Other than Haye fight any fight Ive seen him in he didnt have much trouble hitting his opponents. Id fancy Haye to hit alot harder for all the supposed weight difference is supposed to make.

I think these stories get exaggerated. Ali wasnt known for taking every sparring session seriously. If Norton found it easy to embarrass Ali then their fights wouldnt have been close. Futch also said of Ali that he shows you his weaknesses and then beats you with them.

Their fights weren't close!

Compubox did a retro accumulation of the third fight...

Jabs (thrown/ landed)
Ali 345/71
Norton 289/ 94

Power punches
Ali 364/128
Norton 346/187

Total punches thrown
Ali 709
Norton 635

total Punches landed
Ali 199
Norton 281

I dont need Compubox to tell me Norton won, but really, that is embarrassing.

One of my favorite quotes on 606 comes from Azania when he was asked why he stopped riding the Sugar Ray Robinson train

"Then I used my eyes"

Pretty much the same with me and Ali

Even the final round in which Ali is suppsed to have made a grand stand finish could given to Norton.

I can't see a case for Ali getting more than five-six rounds... Winning the last thirty seconds only counts if you hadn't lost the first 150

I'm guessing the thriller, the rumble and his battles with Young and Lyle took nothing out of him by the time of that fight.

I saw the 3rd fight recently and gave it to Ali. Extremely close fight and hard to score. I wont quibble much with those who scored it to Norton. Norton won his rounds big. Ali squeaked past him in the rounds he won. Ali in the end won most rounds.

Don't pay too much attention to compubox. If a fighter lands 200 punches in total but lands all of them in 3 rounds and nothing else thereafter and the other lands 100 for the rest of the fight, who wins and who is ahead on compubox?

Argue Norton won if you want but dont tell me the fight was some walkover. It was a very close competitve fight.

No two ways about it Norton won the third easily but the issue is the first two which were close. By the time of the third Ali had very little left and losing that fight has very little bearing on him as a fighter.

Easily my hat. He might have won by a couple of rounds but he had to put in a heck of a performance to do it.