Media Top 5 Greatest Heavyweights of the Golden Era.

Yodsanan

Yodsanan

K'FESTA.1
@red
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
9,889
Reaction score
243
vtso6nk.png
 
Always personally rated Aerts as the #1 HW, but I can't be upset seeing Hoost at the top spot. The top three are all very close and had great fights with each other, imo
 
I rate Le Banner, Filho and Bernardo ahead of Bonjasky.
 
1. Schilt
2. Hoost
3. Aerts
4. Bonjasky
5. Hug

Right! Le Banner was overrated as fuck, Remy was also overrated but won 3 crowns. I am sure Daniel Ghiță without Semmy Schilt, would have lifted trophies after. Badr Hari the same, even though in some editions was unlucky, always faced problems against an opponent... Overeem was good, 1 year, when he was doped!

Ghiță was stupid as fuck to pick Schilt, then if we would have won against Saki, could have won the whole thing with only 2 fights left. Saki was wonderful, but he isn"t on long term because he has no reach. He simply isn"t a tournament "player".

The way Ghiță was winning opponents like Guidon, even Ben Saddik and others in Glory, was impressive. Plus the won qualifying tournaments in K-1..
 
Lebanner ! "Roi sans couronne" at his best he probably was the most powerful heavyweight ever .
 
I'd personally say after recently re-watching all the K-1 events and WGPs it should be like this:
1. Semmy Schilt
2. Ernesto Hoost
3. Peter Aerts
4. Remy Bonjasky
5. Jerome Le Banner / Andy Hug

In 2003 and 2004 Bonjasky was really impressive and had a great style. He just seemed to bring something new to the heavyweight division.
 
I think Schilt is objectively the best but I'm not mad with Hoost at the top there.
I'm a little surprised by Andy Hug being there instead of Le Banner - can anyone here argue that case for me? I often find that Hug - I've seen all the K1 GPs at least once, but I'm more familiar with the ones that happened after Hug had died
 
Though Bonjasky and Schilt are great, are they part of the golden era ? Imo no, they got there a bit after.
The rest of the names are known by everybody, Aerts and Hoost being ahead probably.
 
Lettuce be cereal; how successful is Schilt at 6’2”...?

The guy is an MMA reject.
 
AndyMaBobs said:
I think Schilt is objectively the best but I'm not mad with Hoost at the top there.
I'm a little surprised by Andy Hug being there instead of Le Banner - can anyone here argue that case for me? I often find that Hug - I've seen all the K1 GPs at least once, but I'm more familiar with the ones that happened after Hug had died
Click to expand...

Well arguments of favour of Hug:
  • For a start he wasn't a real heavyweight and only 5'11 tall. He was a middleweight in Kyokushin who bulked up to fight the bigger guys in K-1.
  • He won a WGP which sadly Le Banner was never able to.
  • When Hug and Le Banner fought in 95, Hug won by decision.
  • Hug is 2-2 vs Peter Aerts while Le Banner went 1-3 against him.
But then I also have arguments for Le Banner being in there instead of Hug, that's why I'd put both of them on that 5th place as per above.
 
Last edited:
Tayski said:
Well arguments of favour of Hug:
  • For a start he wasn't a real heavyweight and only 5'11 tall. He was a middleweight in Kyokushin who bulked up to fight the bigger guys in K-1.
  • He won a WGP which sadly Le Banner was never able to.
  • When Hug and Le Banner fought in 95, Hug won by decision.
  • Hug is 2-2 vs Peter Aerts while Le Banner went 1-3 against him.
But then I also have arguments for Le Banner being in there instead of Hug, that's why I'd put both of them on that 5th place as per above.
Click to expand...

Cheers! I didn't realise he was quite that small compared to the others

Kind of want a cheeky honourable mention for Melvin Manhoef.
 
1: Hoost
2: Aerts
3: Bonjasky
4: Schilt
5: Le Banner
 
AndyMaBobs said:
Cheers! I didn't realise he was quite that small compared to the others

Kind of want a cheeky honourable mention for Melvin Manhoef.
Click to expand...

Melvin Manhoef didn't achieve nearly anything Andy Hug or Jerome Le Banner did. There's plenty of other Kickboxers who achieved more than him in Kickboxing. I mean he's lost pretty much every fight against a big name he's had in Kickboxing other than his win vs Stefan Leko.
 
Last edited:
IndyCovaHart said:
Lettuce be cereal; how successful is Schilt at 6’2”...?

The guy is an MMA reject.
Click to expand...
how well does Andy Hug move at 7’?

there is no secret as to why all smaller guys are more coordinated and able to sustain pace.
 
Tayski said:
Melvin Manhoef didn't achieve nearly anything Andy Hug or Jerome Le Banner did. There's plenty of other Kickboxers who achieved more than him in Kickboxing. I mean he's lost pretty much every fight against a big name he's had in Kickboxing other than his win vs Stefan Leko.
Click to expand...
That's why I said 'cheeky'
 
IndyCovaHart said:
Lettuce be cereal; how successful is Schilt at 6’2”...?

The guy is an MMA reject.
Click to expand...

if an MMA reject came in and became the most decorated tournament fighter in kickboxing history, then kickboxing has a problem.

The height argument from Schilt's detractors has always been stupid - because Hong Choi Man was taller and didn't have anywhere near the success, and it's not like Stefan Struve or George Roop dominated the UFC. His height played a factor, but it wasn't the be all and end all.

Most freakishly tall fighters are nothing special, and the second one that is special comes along the narrative becomes 'they only won because they were so tall' - and it's nonsense.

He wasn't just tall, he was the best.
 
AndyMaBobs said:
if an MMA reject came in and became the most decorated tournament fighter in kickboxing history, then kickboxing has a problem.

The height argument from Schilt's detractors has always been stupid - because Hong Choi Man was taller and didn't have anywhere near the success, and it's not like Stefan Struve or George Roop dominated the UFC. His height played a factor, but it wasn't the be all and end all.

Most freakishly tall fighters are nothing special, and the second one that is special comes along the narrative becomes 'they only won because they were so tall' - and it's nonsense.

He wasn't just tall, he was the best.
Click to expand...

Doesnt Hong Man Choi have a win over him?
 
AndyMaBobs said:
A completely irrelevant split decision, Hong Man Choi didn't win 5 K1 GPs and the Glory Grand Slam.
Click to expand...

i would say it’s pretty relevant when the discussion is whether Semmy’s height is relevant and some tall guy you call irrelevant happened to beat him.
 
IndyCovaHart said:
i would say it’s pretty relevant when the discussion is whether Semmy’s height is relevant and some tall guy you call irrelevant happened to beat him.
Click to expand...

He was beaten by shorter people too (people who also beat Hong Man Choi), it's irrelevant. Semmy knew how to use his height but he didn't only win because of it.

The giant in sports is always seen as the obstacle to be overcame, rather than the athlete that they are. That's why when Mark Hunt walks through Stefan Struve (in a fight that was purely striking) it's this amazing feat, but when Mark Hunt lost to Schilt it was because Schilt was tall. It's nonsense. You can't ramble and moan about Schilt winning because he was 7 foot tall when he's the only 7 foot tall kickboxer who's even good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,255,804
Messages
56,740,272
Members
175,384
Latest member
203224

Share this page

Back
Top