Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks

First topic message reminder :

Saw this elsewhere and seemed like a good idea.

Basically you pick someone who you think would be able to upset a superior boxer. The idea is you can justify it based on styles/precedents and you should try and be as controversial as possible.

Good idea if we stick to roughly similar eras I think.

I'll start. I think Forrest gives Mayweather nightmares with his reach, jab and power.

Dempsey gets less lauded by "White America" Az. At least that's the impression that comes across.

Now if I see you praising Jeffries for the excellent fighter that he was - I'll know I'm wrong.

I could easily flip that around and say the reason why when discussing Rocky people put him up there is because of race. Speak to black boxing fans/scribes and they dont rate him that highly. But white scribes put him iin the top 5 in many cases.

Being undefeated is meaningless when your opposition is not very good or faded greats.

Moore was a LHW who lost whenever he stepped up. Walcott was coming off a 3 win streak (form of his life?) His record was very parchy. Charles was finished and did nothing after. It could be argued (as has been) that the beating Rocky dished out finished him. But any reasonable or sensible person would admit that he was finished.

And then there was Cockell. Bless him but give me Occasio over him any day.

Marciano was labelled as a great white hope after years of dominance in the division by Louis and I fully agree with Oxy, I picked up on it fairly quickly and was accused by you of being racist. There is a common trend in your arguments which are emphasised by your opinions of both Marciano and Patterson, think it's time it came to a stop (hint: Oxy, Windy and Fists) as it is a very unsavoury way of discussing a SPORT.

azania wrote:I could easily flip that around and say the reason why when discussing Rocky people put him up there is because of race. Speak to black boxing fans/scribes and they dont rate him that highly. But white scribes put him iin the top 5 in many cases.

The reason people rate him is because he is the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history with a perfect record that hasn't yet been matched.

And given that the HW division has had some pretty low ebbs since - clearly - being undefeated is not an easy thing to achieve.

Sorry Az - I don't want to censure you - but please stay away from the "white America" nonsense in future. We can't have reasoned logical debates if you're basing opinions upon prejudice.

Of course. Dempsey fought in an incredibly racist and probably drew the colour line. My instincts suggest I should dislike him. But watching him (yes I do watch black and white films), I just like his style and ruthlessness.

When watching fighters, I discount any politics. I just watch the fighters. I remember when Brian Mitchell fought in London in the late 80s. There were anti apartheid protests outside. I went to the fight to support Mitchell. I liked his approach to boxing and his fight anyone attitude. No politics here mate. Just boxing.

Rocky couldn't hold the jockstrap of most HW champs and many contenders.

Look at the flak he copped when Holmes said. It gives you an indication of how endeared he was to white america. Holmes had said similar thimgs about Foreman with no controversy.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:I could easily flip that around and say the reason why when discussing Rocky people put him up there is because of race. Speak to black boxing fans/scribes and they dont rate him that highly. But white scribes put him iin the top 5 in many cases.

The reason people rate him is because he is the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history with a perfect record that hasn't yet been matched.

And given that the HW division has had some pretty low ebbs since - clearly - being undefeated is not an easy thing to achieve.

Sorry Az - I don't want to censure you - but please stay away from the "white America" nonsense in future. We can't have reasoned logical debates if you're basing opinions upon prejudice.

Its not prejudice at all. Being undefeated is meaningless if your opponents have been substandard. He was the best in an era which would make today's fighter almost godlike.

Lets take Holmes as an example shall we, his whole standing in the division is based on longevity, he beat some good fighters but never anyone truly great, struggled with fighters he shouldn't have yet you cut him all sort of slack. Do the likes of Weaver, Cooney, Cobb, Snipes, Evangelista amongst numerous no marks really represent a step up from the likes of La Starza, Charles, Louis, Moore and Walcott, I really don't think so.

Really? Louis, Charles, Walcott, LaStarza, Moore - you'd say that they make the likes of

Ruiz, fat-Toney, Rahman, Maskaev - you'd rate them higher?

You reckon that Louis, Charles, Walcott, Lastarza would make Ruiz, fat Toney, oldHoly, Rahman and Maskaev look godlike?

And why are you complaining about the reactions to Holmes' disrespectful and inaccurate comments if you're not judging with regards to your public dislike of "white" America.

Regarding the different reactions of Holmes comments on Foreman and Marciano, it's worth poiting out that Foreman being alive to defend himself from Holmes' spite makes it look better than insulting a dead man who never had a bad thing to say about anybody.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lets take Holmes as an example shall we, his whole standing in the division is based on longevity, he beat some good fighters but never anyone truly great, struggled with fighters he shouldn't have yet you cut him all sort of slack. Do the likes of Weaver, Cooney, Cobb, Snipes, Evangelista amongst numerous no marks really represent a step up from the likes of La Starza, Charles, Louis, Moore and Walcott, I really don't think so.

I'd take Norton and Witherspoon over those guys anyday. The fact is they were all old and past it. Louis came back only to pay off taxes and even Rocky admitted that Louis was past it. But why dont you analyse the records of Walcott, Moore, Charles going into the fight? Use wiki or boxrec or whatever you choose and tell me, without prejudice, if those guys were at their peak?

In fact, other than Evangelista, I'd take all the names you mentioned to beat all Rocky's opponents.

oxring wrote:Really? Louis, Charles, Walcott, LaStarza, Moore - you'd say that they make the likes of

Ruiz, fat-Toney, Rahman, Maskaev - you'd rate them higher?

You reckon that Louis, Charles, Walcott, Lastarza would make Ruiz, fat Toney, oldHoly, Rahman and Maskaev look godlike?

And why are you complaining about the reactions to Holmes' disrespectful and inaccurate comments if you're not judging with regards to your public dislike of "white" America.

You have to pick the worst of the current bunch dont you.

I reckon Haye, Pov, Solis, Perez would beat the version of the names rocky beat. No doubt.

Is Maskaev still fighting?

oxring wrote:Az, I don't want to have to sin bin you and you know I will.

Leave it.

I haven't insulted anyone. Always calm here. Not called anyone a fool or questioned their intelligence.

I mean you claim that racial prejudice isn't a factor then call Patterson an uncle tom then accuse me of insults when in the same sentence call me a child seems like hypocrisy to me.

Being old and past it doesn't make a fighter useless, take Louis for example even when past his best he would still be a better fighter than the majority of Holmes' and Wlads opposition, the same for Charles, Walcott and Moore. You forever label them as old and past it without taking into consideration how good they still were.

I know Rocky's record very well - and I know the records of Charles and Walcott going in to the fight - and I know that Charles' record at HW was good enough for Sugar to rate him a top 5 all time HW on style and record.

Frankly, you'll take that Norton and Witherspoon - I can't agree with that - and we're not going to change each others opinions as I get the impression that you're debating not just on logical grounds but with serious overlays of emotion.

PS - I was thinking the Lewis-07/8 HW champions of the world. An era of miserable dross - and far inferior to Rocky's career.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Regarding the different reactions of Holmes comments on Foreman and Marciano, it's worth poiting out that Foreman being alive to defend himself from Holmes' spite makes it look better than insulting a dead man who never had a bad thing to say about anybody.

That may well be the case. But the criticism he recieved at congressional level in USA was simple OTT. If he has said the same thing about Louis, would he have gotten the same level of criticism?

Larry should have kept his mouth shut as he got well and truly shafted in his next fight against Spinks.

You seem to be reinforcing mine and oxy's point...

oxring wrote:I know Rocky's record very well - and I know the records of Charles and Walcott going in to the fight - and I know that Charles' record at HW was good enough for Sugar to rate him a top 5 all time HW on style and record.

Frankly, you'll take that Norton and Witherspoon - I can't agree with that - and we're not going to change each others opinions as I get the impression that you're debating not just on logical grounds but with serious overlays of emotion.

PS - I was thinking the Lewis-07/8 HW champions of the world. An era of miserable dross - and far inferior to Rocky's career.

I am not questioning Charles standing as a great boxer. Just at the time he fought Rocky he was on the way down. That is undeniable. Even that cigar holding scribe claims so.

P4P as boxers in their prime, I'd pick Charles anyday (size differential may cause him serious problems). But when he fought Rocky I can name 20 HW who would have beaten that version of Charles (dont ask me to name them as you know I will).

Are you talking about Denise Lewis?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem to be reinforcing mine and oxy's point...

Quit carping in the background my man. What point is that?

One love.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I mean you claim that racial prejudice isn't a factor then call Patterson an uncle tom then accuse me of insults when in the same sentence call me a child seems like hypocrisy to me.

Being old and past it doesn't make a fighter useless, take Louis for example even when past his best he would still be a better fighter than the majority of Holmes' and Wlads opposition, the same for Charles, Walcott and Moore. You forever label them as old and past it without taking into consideration how good they still were.

With Patterson its politics. Likewise I disliked Bishop Musewera and Chief Buthelezi (use google). All politics. Yes you do hurl insults. Are you denying that?

Being old and past it by definition means the fighters is not as good as they were and therefore not a good barometer to measure anything by. Are we to describe Berbick as an ATH because he beat Ali who was old and past it and with no business being in the ring? Are we to hold the losses SRR had at the end of his career against and hail those who beat him as ATGs? Get real.

Bert Sugar said Rocky was un/fortunate because he fought old guys and we can never judge how good he really was. But for me, his style was suited to fighting light hitting guys. Had he fought a miblie decent hitting HW he would lose. Forget the giants of today.

Muhammad Ali as you said had no business being in the ring against Holmes let alone Berbick but Moore, Charles, Walcott and Louis were all still very capable fighters but obviously there were all immobile useless fighters, silly of me. Your patheric manner on here leads to insults being hurled your way by not just me but many others too, you seem to forget that it is often you whom initiates these exchanges. Change the record you boring git.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Muhammad Ali as you said had no business being in the ring against Holmes let alone Berbick but Moore, Charles, Walcott and Louis were all still very capable fighters but obviously there were all immobile useless fighters, silly of me. Your patheric manner on here leads to insults being hurled your way by not just me but many others too, you seem to forget that it is often you whom initiates these exchanges. Change the record you boring git.

OK, here goes.

Charles - 2 fight winning streak coming into the rochky fight. Lost his previous 2 fights. Goes on to lose the majority of fights subsequently

Walcott - 3 fight win streak. Very patchy record losing just under 50% of his previous 15 fights. Retired promptly after.

Moore - LHW who beat no HW of note.

Are you suggesting that these guys constitute anything special? Beating on faded greats doesn't make you an ATG.

Charles was a superb boxer. Unfairly cheated out of the title in his correct division also. Great man also. Him winning the HW title proves his status as a fighter. But when he fought Rocky he was on the slide.

Those guys were not good enough.

Rocky was at the right place at the right time. Fair play to him, he cleaned up. But what he cleaned up was not the best. Far from it.

Did he defend against anyone under 35?

You seem hung up on the age thing which is looking at things from the wrong angle, age by itself means very little as the great Archie Moore proved time and time again. Ezzard Charles wasn't over 35 and you need to go into more depth than you have otherwise it suggests that beating someone such as Brian Nielsen would mean something.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem hung up on the age thing which is looking at things from the wrong angle, age by itself means very little as the great Archie Moore proved time and time again. Ezzard Charles wasn't over 35 and you need to go into more depth than you have otherwise it suggests that beating someone such as Brian Nielsen would mean something.

What?

The main body of my argument was their patchy records leading up to Rocky fight and their record after the rocky fights (Walcott exempted as he retired).

If another boxer had such a record it would be scrutinised, anaylsed and debated thoroughly and all those factors taken into sonsideration. But Rocky gets a pass always.

Lets consider Archie Moore then shall we for starters so we can break down the 50's heavyweight scene, give me the names of three ranked heavyweights he beat during his career?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lets consider Archie Moore then shall we for starters so we can break down the 50's heavyweight scene, give me the names of three ranked heavyweights he beat during his career?

What is this? A knowledge exam? An easy google search can answer that question.

You seem to be evading the points I rasied by raising strawmen arguments.

What made Walcott appear to many to be in the form of his life when his career was very patchy at best? He was the Bruno of those times.

It proves a very vital point Az, your knowledge of the heavyweight scene during the Marciano period should be the foundations of which your opinion is based, so do you care to answer?

Think that Walcott winning the heavyweight title may suggest he was in the best form of his career as well as scoring his best wins over Charles and Johnson but hey ho you know best.

Think that is what I call completely exposing him.

Exposed as what may I ask?

You see things very much in the first phase without doing the relevant research to gain enough knowledge of the era.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You see things very much in the first phase without doing the relevant research to gain enough knowledge of the era.

On the contrary. I have been consistant. Many including your good self seem to be applying different sets of standards to different eras and fighters.

Anyone coming off a 2 fight win streak and with a very patchy record prior to that 'streak' would not be getting the huge benefit of the doubt as you apply to those guys. You make allowances for them that you would not make for more recent fighters.

The facts are JJW lost 50% of his fights prior to Rocky. Charles lost more fights than he won after Rocky. Archie did nothig against HW. Those are the facts.

Rocky beat those guys. Fair play to him. He did what he had to do. But in any other era those guys would be gatekeepers and not fighting for the World title of even holding the belt (todays guys being the exception as anyone with gloves weighing over 15st can fight for the title it seems).

Archie Moore did in fact do a fair bit at heavyweight hence why he became the number contender something I knew you wouldn't know hence asking the question I did. What happens after a fight I tend to largely disregard as we would then be applying revisionist theory to a fight, it has to be judged on what it was at the time.

You accuse others of applying different logic to fighters from those eras when you in fact know nothing of the era to really pass judgement.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Archie Moore did in fact do a fair bit at heavyweight hence why he became the number contender something I knew you wouldn't know hence asking the question I did. What happens after a fight I tend to largely disregard as we would then be applying revisionist theory to a fight, it has to be judged on what it was at the time.

You accuse others of applying different logic to fighters from those eras when you in fact know nothing of the era to really pass judgement.

How about what happens prior to a fight? A fighter with a patchy record who loses 50% of his preceeding fights? Do you discount that as well especially seeing as his best win was against a faded great?

Jersey Joe Walcott was the heavyweight champion so don't think you can call it anything else than at least a good win.

I'll ask again how many ranked contenders did Moore have to beat to earn a title shot?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Jersey Joe Walcott was the heavyweight champion so don't think you can call it anything else than at least a good win.

I'll ask again how many ranked contenders did Moore have to beat to earn a title shot?

Of copurse it was a good win. Just like Bruno beating McCall was a good win.Would Bruno being in the form of his life mean anything?

A win over Bruno is a decent win because he was a decent fight, Walcott was borderline very good, you don't beat Charles and outbox Louis without being pretty decent.

How can say Moore did nothing at Heavyweight when you know nothing of his career at the weight?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:A win over Bruno is a decent win because he was a decent fight, Walcott was borderline very good, you don't beat Charles and outbox Louis without being pretty decent.

How can say Moore did nothing at Heavyweight when you know nothing of his career at the weight?

Clarify please? Whose win over Bruno is a decent win? Did McCall beat Bruno?

In respect to you saying would Bruno being in the form of his life mean anything, with regards to McCall a win over him would only be classed as decent as he wasn't the consensus number at heavyweight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:In respect to you saying would Bruno being in the form of his life mean anything, with regards to McCall a win over him would only be classed as decent as he wasn't the consensus number at heavyweight.

I see. After 3 failed tries at the HW title it does show you the level of Bruno somewhat doesn't it. 4th time lucky against a decent fighter. Ring any bells?

The big difference being that Walcotts failures came against a pair of greats in Louis and Charles while his eventual win was over one of those greats in Charles. Think beating Ezzard Charles for the world title is a bit more meaningful than winning a belt over McCall.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The big difference being that Walcotts failures came against a pair of greats in Louis and Charles while his eventual win was over one of those greats in Charles. Think beating Ezzard Charles for the world title is a bit more meaningful than winning a belt over McCall.

Correct. It reflects more on Charles than it does on Walcott being in the form of his life. Charles was on the slide then. Given his post JJW career it stands to reason. He lost the rematch and his fight after that. That he had beaten JJW previously, it is very reasonable to conclude that he was on the slide then and not at his peal. Great fighter that he was, when he fought Rocky he was no great shakes and arguably in worse condition than when he lost to JJW.

At which point did Charles start to slide, it would stand to reason that a fighter who was no great shakes would lose to the likes of Maxim, Reynolds and Layne rather than beat them.

Still awaiting your response on Moore?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:At which point did Charles start to slide, it would stand to reason that a fighter who was no great shakes would lose to the likes of Maxim, Reynolds and Layne rather than beat them.

Still awaiting your response on Moore?

I'll ask you a simple question. Who was the better fighter? Charles of Walcott?

What was the Moore question and what is its relevance?

At heavyweight there is very little to choose between Charles and Walcott, would rate Charles slightly higher based on his longer title reign but the IBRO for instance have Walcott above Charles.

What is your assumption that Moore did nothing at heavyweight based upon?

I dont think theres much disputing the validity of Marcianos oppostion. He basically beat the top contenders of the day.

But there are reasonable question marks over the level the opposition were at and a fairly decent argument to say his record flatters him in that sense and in terms of how he would fare in head to heads or other eras. If it was just names and a record Marciano would posibly be rated number 1 and certainly no lower than 3. But I think most people would acknowledge the timing and circumstances of his era makes him look better on paper than he was in the ring.

Nonsense. Charles is a top 15 ATG (top 10 in many cases). There is no comparison.

In relation to your Moore, I'll answer it. But when you asked the initial question, you completely avoided a series of points I raised and went to the age issue and then to Walcott.

Walcott only beat one HW of note. That was Valdez. Even Patterson beat him. The fact that a so-called ATG top 10 HW beat a LHW twice and 2 faded greats in order to qualify as an ATG is frankly stretching credibility.

Walcott may have been coming into the fight after a good win, but to say that beating a faded Charles means he was in the form of his life is pushing things too far. The fact are his record was patchy meaning he was a hit or miss fighter coming into the rocky fight.

The Walcott who lost to Louis was a bettter fighter than the one who beat Charles and a far superior to the version that lost to Rocky.

Anyway, I'm done for the night. Sleep well.

Based primarily on his exploits at light heavyweight Charles is ranked in a top ten pound for pound but at Heavyweight he and Walcott are pretty much level.

So you're now saying that Charles wasn't a heavyweight of note then?

The facts are you can't judge a fight based entirely on what boxrec says you have to delve a bit deeper than that.

I think Marciano would actually be considered far greater than he is if people just used boxrec. The more scrutiny you apply, the less impressive his record becomes in my view.