My few readers and correspondents must think I absolutely hate Adamek. I have argued that he lost against Steve Cunningham, dismissed his wins over Andrew Golota and Jason Estrada, and stated I still consider him an underdog in a fight with Cunningham or Bernard Hopkins. I don't hate Adamek. I think he's a fun fighter, an entertaining fighter, a solid boxer, and a good puncher. Given the state of the heavyweight division, I even think that a #4 ranking is not entirely out of order.
I'm not sure about ranking him above Eddie Chambers. Chambers has arguably accomplished more at heavyweight than Adamek despite his losses to Wlad Klitschko and Alexander Povetkin. Despite his loss to Povetkin, one could argue that between himself and his European rival, Chambers has accomplished more. Still, Povetkin won his fight against Chambers (and Chambers, with his unwillingness to fight to win, deserved the loss) and remains undefeated. While I would favor Chambers over Povetkin in a rematch and favor him even more against Adamek, rankings are not all about who might beat whom. Chambers' losses to Povetkin and Wlad both showed the same defect: an unwillingness or inability to let his hands go against some opponents. The loss to Klitschko was expected and the disparity in size, Wlad's cautious style, and Wlad's great jab makes Chambers' usual jab/parry/counter style difficult to execute correctly. Against Povetkin, however, Chambers showed himself both capable of beating his opponent and unwilling to make the extra effort to do so.
As for the men ranked above and below him, I have to admit I'd favor him in a rematch with Arreola now. I'd also favor Adamek over Povetkin, who is a smaller-framed man than Arreola and would not possess the strength and power advantage I had expected Arreola to have over the Pole. I can see Adamek using the careful, conservative strategy that Chambers used against the Russian very successfully. He'd land bigger right-hand counters and it's not at all hard to picture him hurting Povetkin enough to ice the decision-influencing advantage in the late rounds. Povetkin isn't as good as Steve Cunningham. The real question mark here is Adamek's chin and power at heavyweight. The latter appears to definitely have declined. The former has yet to be tested. His technique and fundamentals are better than those of David Haye and Haye has something Adamek has never displayed: a questionable chin. Moreover, both men started at cruiserweight and moved up. I don't see a particular size advantage or disadvantage for anyone.
So it's obviously fair to call Adamek one of the top five heavyweight contenders in the world.
There is such a thing as too much hyperbole:
Tomasz Adamek may never realize his goal of becoming the heavyweight champion of the world but he’s well on his way to being recognized as one of the best fighters, pound for pound, in the sport.
Is he? Really?
The above, written by Doug Fischer in The Ring's ratings update this week, is very difficult to support. Adamek's biggest accomplishments are as follows: he knocked Chad Dawson down en route to losing an otherwise one-sided decision, he knocked Steve Cunningham down three times and won an arguably controversial decision to claim the cruiserweight championship, and he beat Arreola. This is not the stuff of greatness, folks. His most significant win (over Cunningham) and his less to Dawson show the same thing... against world-class boxers, he has to rely on right-hand power. Though his knockdowns of both men were impressive, he failed to stop either and was only capable of landing the big right sporadically and to ultimately limited (if dramatic) effect. His power, his big ace in the hole, appears to be lessened at heavyweight.
I like Adamek. I'm not a hater. I think he's a good fighter who wil be competitive at heavyweight and am impressed that he proved me wrong about his ability to outbox a bigger, stronger man for 12 rounds without getting badly mauled. I am more than happy to repeat that I was very wrong about his level of ability. I just don't think he has done anything near establishing a pound-for-pound future.
Neither should you.
No comments:
Post a Comment