Heavyweight boxing died since boring Wladimir Klitschko killed the division -OR- American and British Complainers

AMERICANS AND BRITONS love to complain about the bad shape the current heavyweight division is in ("ABC" = "American and British Complainers").

"My god, how exciting was Mike Tyson. I wish he still would box!"

"And how wonderful Muhammad Ali was! These were truly the glorious golden boxers in the golden days of the golden age of the heavyweight division."

Interestingly ABCs mention only Ali and Tyson and then it pretty much ends right there.

ABCs usually cannot come up with any other exciting boxer except "Amazing Ali" and "Mental Mike" (and maybe Lennox).

Even worse:

When they talk about Ali they can only come up with a HANDFUL of Ali fights. Because *psst* let me tell you a secret: MOST of Ali's fights were borefests and stinkers and usually don't even feature proper knockdowns.

Johnny Carson (The Tonight Show): "This just in from the News Room… Muhammad Ali and Alfredo Evangelista have just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize – For Promoting Non-Violence in Professional Boxing"


The following clip is the first(!) round of Muhammad Ali vs Ron Lyle. It features the typical Clay-as-Clay-can style: neck grabbing, opponent pushing, rope hanging, reluctance to punch, you name it.

_THIS_ was the heavyweight championship of the world (WBC + WBA) in the 1970s. _THIS_ was the golden age.


However Mike Tyson is indeed more exciting than Wladimir Klitschko.

But that's because probably nobody in the history of boxing (past and future) will ever match Mike Tyson in terms of craziness and entertainment.

Nearly all of Tyson's fights were spectacular and ended in a KO (= either the opponent got KO'ed or Mike himself) or were exciting for other reasons.

No boxer prior to Mike and probably no boxer after Mike will ever be remembered for such a combination of

  • fury
  • suspense
  • and memorable quotes (yes, Mike Tyson is the boxer with the best boxing quotes of all time).


Compared to Mike Tyson's
out-of-the ring escapades (rape, cocaine, trashtalking, leg biting)
and in-ring madness (ear chewing, referee punching, riots)
ANY other boxer is boring
including Muhammad Ali and the Klitschkos


Emanuel Steward (top trainer and Hall-of-Fame inductee) nailed it:

"What made Mike Tyson so special was the way that he knocked people out so savagely.

The manner was like with the clock ticking, Mike got ten minutes and if he didn't knock out or kill this guy, someone was going to murder his loved ones and family, or something like that…

I don't think I've seen any heavyweight in my lifetime fight with that type of intensity, and very few fighters outside the division.

I remember one night on a Friday night, it must have been about 1989. I was out having a good time and I remember I told all of my friends I have leave and go home. They asked why I had to go, and I said because I got to go see Mike Tyson knock somebody out. They asked who he was fighting, and I said… I didn't even know who he was fighting and I didn't care, but that was the kind of excitement Mike Tyson created and I had never known anyone else to do that…

He had no socks, the little black shoes, and no robe. I mean it was totally different and we're still experiencing that today. It was totally the opposite of Muhammad Ali with the long pretty white robe, the white shoes, the pretty looks, and the dancing. Mike came out totally just the opposite."



"Boring Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he fights like a robot"

Americans/British Complainers (ABCs) and good-old-time nostalgists love to complain about Wladimir Klitschko's STYLE.

He fights like a […] Read more »

Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (#5) Losses and avenged losses

RANKING BOXERS BY THEIR RECORD leads soon to a problem: Instantly others will bring up losses. And instantly after someone brought up losses someone else will say "but he avenged his losses" or "he failed to avenge his losses".

Thus, believe it or not, the assessment of losses causes huge problems.


Please note: This article is part of a multi-part series:


Losses dilemma #1 (The low number of losses)

Since we are compiling toplists the boxers on the toplist will have only little losses (otherwise they would be not considered "top").

But since these top boxers have only little losses (e.g. 2 losses in 40 fights) it's stupid to draw too many conclusions from these 2 losses, just as it would be stupid to draw too many conclusions from 2 wins in 40 fights.


Losses dilemma #2 (49 > 220)?

Another problem are flawless records (= zero losses). Is a record of 49-0 better than 50-1?

I know 49-0 sounds good…

  • "He retired unbeaten"
  • "No man touched his belt"
  • "Flawless career, stainless record"
  • "Not one dent in his crown"
  • "He beat every man he ever faced"
  • "49 tried, 49 failed"

…but isn't having twice as many wins and a few losses even more impressive?

Can anyone claim that […] Read more »

Definition: Boxing Prime -OR- The favorite excuse of boxing fans

THE MOST OVERUSED EXCUSE fans use to protect their favorite boxer is:

"When my boxer lost he was PAST HIS PRIME"

Variations are

  • "He was shot"
  • "He was shot to pieces"
  • "He was old as f*ck"
  • "He was past his peak"
  • "He was declining while his opponent was peaking"
  • "Wheelchair Boxing Federation"
  • "Grandpa wouldn't stop"
  • "The eye of the geezer"

So whatever you try to say to AliFans (e.g. about Ali vs Larry Holmes) or to Lennox fans (about the performance against Vitali Klitschko) they pretty fast will claim:

  • "Muhammad Ali was past-prime"
  • and "Lennox Lewis was fat and old"

This killer argument ("KO argument") is even twisted by accusing […] Read more »

George Foreman vs Wladimir Klitschko – Who is the hardest hitter?

GEORGE FOREMAN is considered a power hitter by fans and boxing experts.

Usually when good-old-time nostalgists claim something you have to check it thrice because it very often turns out to be fiction, not fact. I analyzed some ancient fighters at

and it always turned out that the punching power of these fighters is overrated or even GROSSLY overrated.

However, George Foreman is of a different caliber. George Foreman was INDEED one of the hardest punchers and his KO abilities are very good.


How does the KO power of George Foreman compare to Wladimir Klitschko?

The first difference between Wladimir Klitschko is already visible from the following table: […] Read more »

Wladimir Klitschko – Best world heavyweight champion of all time?

NOBODY TRANSFORMED BOXING as much as Wladimir Klitschko.

Think about it: His jab, footwork, defense and offense are so unbelievably good that he completely transformed boxing to a higher level because NOT ONE of the usual strategies or boxing styles works against him.

He proved uppercuts, combos, feinting, swarming etc to be near-worthless (in the case of his opponents) and unnecessary (in the case of himself). Thus by his perfect minimalistic-seeming technique he actually shows how bad previous generations of boxers were who […] Read more »

Muhammad Ali vs Wladimir Klitschko – Fact-based analysis and prediction


A lot of fans and experts know that Muhammad Ali would have not much chance against the Klitschko brothers (be it Wladimir Klitschko or Vitali Klitschko).

They know that the Klitschkos are far too modern to be endangered by any ancient fighter, even if it's an ATG like Ali.

Most fans and experts consider ·George Foreman, ·Earnie Shavers or ·Mike Tyson (or any other hard puncher) to be far more competitive against a Klitschko than Ali. They know that Klitchko vs Ali would be a mismatch.

I already wrote

so it's time to analyze Muhammad Ali (aka Cassius X aka Cassius Clay) now.


Wash your face in _my_ sink, Muhammad!

This article is a boxing record analysis in the sense of "Who would win in the same ring?" ("head to head", "toe to toe", "prime for prime").

A different record analysis in the sense of "Who has the better achievements?" ("record for record") can be found at Boxing eras (#3) Wladimir Klitschko in the Golden Age of Heavyweight -OR- How abysmal was Ali's era really? and at Statistical analysis of heavyweight world championship records -OR- Joe Louis, Wladimir Klitschko, Muhammad Ali: Who has the best world title record?.

Before you continue, I suggest you check my definitions of bum[?] or featherfist[?] for which I apply a mathematical formula.


Cassius Clay, the cruiser -vs- Klitschko, the ultraheavyweight

Basically THE ONLY reason why people even think about comparing Wladimir Klitschko to Muhammad Ali is the ridiculous definition of *heavyweight*.

In Ali's times heavyweight was defined completely different (approximately 40 pounds lighter than nowadays) and EVERYBODY who glances at these pictures knows instantly that such "boys" would have no chance, even against modern B-level heavyweights:

Ali 1963 01 01
Cassius "The Greatest" Clay
in his 4th year (1963) as

Joe Louis Arlington
Joe Louis
Another "heavyweight"

The visual comparison is actually enough and my article should stop right here.

But the governing bodies messed up the term "heavyweight" thus you landed on this page and I have to write about CLAYPIGEONS vs STEELHAMMERS.

Would ancient boxers like Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis be appropriately named CakaHweights (= "Cruiserweights AKA Heavyweights" or "Cruiserweights formerly known as heavyweights" or "170-pounders") and would modern heavyweights (like the Klitschkos, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson etc) be named appropriately (e.g. "ultraheavyweights") it would be sufficiently clear how laughable a comparison is.

But back then they didn't have the term "cruiserweight" and they simply called all boxers from around 165 lbs and up "heavyweights". Thus fights like 163 lbs vs 172 lbsPhiladelphia Jack O'Brien vs ·Tommy Burns) were called "heavyweight" (picture below), which confuses fans to this very day.

Heavyweight world championship
172 lbs vs 163 lbs
Tommy Burns vs Philadelphia Jack O Brien


In Ali's times "heavyweight" was defined as 176+ lbs
which is lighter than today's female heavyweight division.


Clay/Ali and Joe Louis (the two boxers from the pictures above)
out-weighed their opponents
in approximately 75% of the fights
hence to compare Louis' or Ali's records to the records of modern heavyweights is even more laughable
than the body comparison already is.


Clay/Ali had supposedly his prime in the 1960s.
His median weight in the 1960s was 199 lbs.
Nowadays Prime Ali wouldn't even be ALLOWED to box against the Klitschkos.


"Weight is not everything in boxing"

I already know how AliFants ("Ali fantasizers") try to cover up this truth (= that Ali was merely a blown up cruiser).

They will chant "Height And Weight Are Irrelevant" (HAWAI). I discuss this HAWAI myth at Height and weight are irrelevant at heavyweight boxing -OR- Joe Louis vs Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer.

Thus let me only say so much here:

Boxing is divided in weight classes for a reason, dear AliFants. There are no height divisions, age divisions or reach division, because weight at heavyweight boxing is one of the _most_ important factors.


Muhammad Clay – A fast athletic heavyweight with great stamina and a granite chin

The main reason why Ali turned from a light heavyweight to a 200+ heavyweight is because he got fatter ("From light heavyweight to lard heavyweight").

Cassius the cruiser boy
Clay, the cruiser kid

Ali the Sam Peter of the 70ies
the "seasoned" BUTTER-fly

Now, I personally think that chubby boxers can actually have an advantage because of the protective assets of fat, but nevertheless anybody who insists on an "Ali vs Klitschko clash" has to be reminded of the fact that there are 2 versions of Muhammad Ali

  1. Clay, the cruiser: With a suspect chin (see below)
  2. Ali, the heavyweight: Fat and plodding, with a better chin but far slower

I know that AliFants ("Ali fantasizers") love mind melts ("a fast Ali with speed and a durable chin") but such Ali never existed, except for rare moments.


Muhammad Ali and his abysmal KO performance

Clay/Ali is one of the most featherfisted champs in the history of real[?] heavyweight boxing ("like a butterfly").

Usually if you talk about Ali's boxing merits then fans mention "speed", "stamina", "reflexes" and "chin" BUT NOT "power".

Because AliFans know exactly that their man was rather a powder puffer than a power puncher.

But even to fans it comes as a shock HOW ABYSMAL Clay/Ali's KO performance actually was.

His overall KO ratio is not that bad, but that's because he KO'ed a lot of bums[?] and cruisers (= sub-200 opponents).

But once you delete bums and cruisers and overlate KOs (= in round 13+) off the record (to have a more realistic assessment of his KO power as compared to modern heavyweight times) you find out that he scored the following SEVEN KOs in his entire career

  • ·Sonny Liston (1st fight): Sonny (most probably 37 years old, some even claim 45 years old, thus probably Ali's second oldest opponent), retired on his chair due to a shoulder problem (he had an inflammated shoulder that tore up during the fight).
  • Sonny Liston (2nd fight): The most contested KO in heavyweight history for several reasons, for example: The referee didn't even start to count. Also mention worthy is that Liston's wife and son were kidnapped prior to the fight by Ali's friends (the Black Muslims).
  • ·Cleveland Williams: Williams was gun-shot prior to the bout, had intestines removed, parts of the kidney, couldn't train properly and came to fight with […] Read more »

Earnie Shavers – Power hitter or overrated featherfist?

WAS EARNIE SHAVERS REALLY a hard hitter? Or was he a featherfist?

This question seems ABSURD to boxing fans (and may even induce epileptic seizures in boxing nostalgists) because they grew up with the belief that ·Earnie Shavers ("The black destroyer") is the hardest hitting hitter of all time (or at least one of the hardest).

Earnie Shavers is considered THE power puncher. In discussions about KO performances of boxers Earnie Shavers is ALWAYS ranked at the top of near the top.

He has been called the "puncher of the century" and being "among the most destructive punchers of all time".

So it's time to take a closer look and separate facts from nostalgia.


Quotes about Earnie Shavers

The MAJOR SOURCE of Shavers' fame is the collection of legends…

  • "On a given night, Shavers can knockout any heavyweight or water buffalo" (JET Magazine, 1978)
  • "Earnie Shavers takes no prisoners" ("Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times", 1992)
  • (Fight vs ·Bernardo Mercado): "Legend has it that Shavers split his glove open from the force of a hard punch he landed on Colombian Bernardo Mercado"

…and quotes on Shavers' power by his opponents…

  • ·Tex Cobb: "Nobody hits like Shavers. If anybody hit harder than Shavers, I'd shoot him."
  • ·Larry Holmes: "Earnie hit me harder than any other fighter, including Mike Tyson. He hit me and I was face down on the canvas hearing saxophonist Jimmy Tillis."
  • ·Tex Cobb: "Earnie could punch you in the neck with his right hand and break your ankle."
  • ·Muhammad Ali: "Earnie hit me so hard, he shook my kinfolk back in Africa"
  • ·Ron Lyle: "Hey man, that's the hardest I've ever been hit in my life. And George Foreman could punch, but none of them could hit like Earnie Shavers did. When he hit you, the lights went out. I can laugh about it now, but at the time,it wasn't funny."
  • ·Ron Lyle: "Hardest he's ever been hit: Earnie Shavers. The ground came up and met me. That's all I remember."
  • ·James Tillis: "Shavers hit so hard he turned horse p*ss into gasoline! He hit me so hard he brought back tomorrow. When he hit me… I was seeing pink rats and cats and animals smoking cigarettes. I was in the land of make-believe."
  • ·James Tillis: "The baddest motherf*cker I fought was Earnie Shavers. That motherf*cker can make July into June and made me jump over the motherf*ckin' moon. That motherf*cker hit so hard, he'll bring back tomorow. He hit me so hard, I thought I was on the corner smoking cigarette and eating a spam sandwich. That's how hard that motherf*cker hit."


These are some of the most funny boxing quotes you will ever read, but fun and legends aside:

EVERYONE of these guys was NOT KO'ed by Shavers. They all won against Shavers.

Thus when they say "Earnie Shavers is the hardest heavyweight puncher ever" they […] Read more »

Boxing eras (#6) Is heavyweight boxing dead or dying?

DO WE LIVE IN THE WORST heavyweight boxing era?

When has there ever been a worse heavyweight boxing era than now?

These are question asked by hundreds of fans daily so here is the final answer:

Here are the top 10 reasons

  • why the boring Klitschko brothers killed boxing…
  • why this era is the worst era of boxing…
  • why the heavyweight division died or is nearly dead
  • why Muhammad Ali's era was better than Klitschko's era
  • why Muhammad Ali is the greatest and the Klitschkos suck


Please note: This article is part of my multi-part heavyweight boxing eras comparison:


Reason #1 why this heavyweight era is so poor: You compare B-level fights to highlight fights of past eras

Too stupid to mention, but if you watch some random YouTube clip of nowadays' "John Doe vs John Doe" and compare them to YouTube clips of previous eras, then previous eras look better because usually only highlight fights of previous eras are uploaded. And many fights of previous champs weren't even recorded to begin with.

Compare today's John Does to yesteryear's John Does, not todays's John Doe to a "fight of the century".


Reason #2 why this heavyweight era sucks: You believe someone who earns money with previous eras

If someone is part of the 1970s Hero Hype Machine (e.g. if he is a former associate of Muhammad Ali) he EARNS MONEY by keeping the Ali myth alive. Every word he says (like "Ali was the best boxer of all time") ends up miraculously in his pocket by increasing DVD sales, securing TV interviews or selling Muhammad Ali memorabilia (autographs, boxing gloves etc).

Thus this person has a direct interest in preaching how fabulous Muhammad Ali was. And how the boxers of his era were faster, stronger and more durable than anything any other era has ever produced. And how nowadays boxers would all be KO'ed by the greats of the past.

Americans/Britons complaining about the Klitschko era
is like the Republican Party complaining about the Democratic Party and vice versa.
Useless trashtalk.


Read here about an example of how Angelo Dundee and Larry Holmes and Earnie Shavers try to brainwash the casual boxing fan: Height and weight are irrelevant at heavyweight boxing -OR- Joe Louis vs Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer


Reason #3 why the Golden Era of Heavyweight boxing was the best: You believe a former winning boxer

If someone fought against the […] Read more »

Joe Frazier vs Muhammad Ali: 2 overrated featherfists in an overrated fight

LET ME BE blunt: Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier (1971-03-08) is overrated. And since good-old-time fetishists seriously call it "Fight of the century" it's even GROSSLY OVERRATED.

Boxing forums like EastSideBoxing.com and BoxingScene.com (as great as they may be) DO DELETE CRITICISM and DO BAN POSTERS

  • who criticize Ali
  • or criticize Frazier
  • or criticize Ali vs Frazier.


Hence you will not find objective information about this fight in most of US-American forums or from any US-American "expert" because US-Americans GO AFTER CRITICS (by deleting posts or by banning users).

Thus any "expert" you might find in forums is already the filtered leftover who was ALLOWED to post only positive (or barely negative) information about this fight.

As a general rule: US-American boxing forums are usually an "ALI RESERVE".

Don't take anyone serious who

  • praises Frazier
  • or Ali
  • or Frazier vs Ali
  • or any other boxer of the 1970s

since this praiser simply may lack objective information as free speech is limited by forum moderators (or might have other reasons that I mention at Boxing eras (#6) Is heavyweight boxing dead or dying?)

Thus you will encounter usual brainwash about this fight like the following without much counter-opinion:

  • "There will never be another fight like Ali-Frazier again"
  • "An event so big it was one that would never be matched in their lifetime."
  • "The two black men… gave way more for their cause than any paid performer has before or since"
  • "Wlad and Haye couldnt carry Ali's and Joe Fraziers jock straps regardless of how hard they tried!!!"
  • "Adding anymore excitement to a fight would be a fantasy."
  • "fight of the century, indeed! and, the heavyweight division was at its all-time pinacle in both depth & greatness"
  • "That was boxing, best vs the best, prime vs prime, hate vs hate, 15 rounds of heart, blood and sole. ALI VS SMOKIN JOE, was the very definition of boxing. No other bout in the history of time is a MATCH."
  • "trained to perfection for 15 rounds of all out action,never a dull moment"
    (all original quotes)

Yes, it's the typical nonsense by

  • the American Mythology Mill
  • the Hollywood Fantasy Factory
  • and the 1970s Hero Hype Machine.

I am just waiting for the day when they will claim the fight was the reason why the Vietnam war ended and slavery was abolished.

However, someone said that "Ali vs Frazier was overrated and amateurish" thus before we continue let me make clear that I consider this fight indeed OVERRATED but not AMATEURISH.


The war of the BUTTER-flies

Let me start my analysis with something that American boxing fans hate to hear:

Both fighters were chubby.

Muhammad Ali was chubby half of his career and Smokin' Joe Frazier was non-athletic in nearly all of his fights.

But Ali and Frazier are so OVERHYPED and US-American fans are so BRAINWASHED by "experts on TV" that they would laugh at you when you'd claim that modern heavyweight are more athletic.

US-American fans DO NOT KNOW the truth and they BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE.

Fortunately for us a porky picture says more than athletic fog talk of a thousand "experts": […] Read more »

Boxing eras (#5) The worst heavyweight era of all time! -OR- Americans play Basketball now!

HOW MANY ALIFANS do you need to screw in a light bulb?


One will screw in the light bulb and three will […] Read more »

Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Cookies