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.

It is based largely on boxrec that his achievements are downplayed, the wins over Moore and Walcott are disregarded because of their age when in fact they were as good as they had ever been. Louis was going into the fight on a good run very much comparable to his title reign for quality but is again disregarded.

His set of victims from Layne onwards is very much under appreciated, I have him at around 8/9 which is by and large fairly low compared to profressional opinion.

Layne
Louis
Savold
Reynolds
Matthews
Walcott *2
La Starza *2
Charles *2
Moore

Not sure how many heavyweights can claim to have a better set of victims than that if i'm honest, they all get downplayed for one reason or another. If we applied the same logic to the likes of Foreman, Dempsey, Frazier, Lewis, Tyson, Louis or anyone else except Ali I don't see them coming off much better probably much worse.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It is based largely on boxrec that his achievements are downplayed, the wins over Moore and Walcott are disregarded because of their age when in fact they were as good as they had ever been. Louis was going into the fight on a good run very much comparable to his title reign for quality but is again disregarded.

His set of victims from Layne onwards is very much under appreciated, I have him at around 8/9 which is by and large fairly low compared to profressional opinion.

Layne
Louis
Savold
Reynolds
Matthews
Walcott *2
La Starza *2
Charles *2
Moore

Not sure how many heavyweights can claim to have a better set of victims than that if i'm honest, they all get downplayed for one reason or another. If we applied the same logic to the likes of Foreman, Dempsey, Frazier, Lewis, Tyson, Louis or anyone else except Ali I don't see them coming off much better probably much worse.

I agree with you. In terms of actual record I think he has pretty handy claim for a top 3 spot. Certainly I think its ahead of Demspey, Foreman or Holmes who often compete fo the third spot.

But going past that I think it flatters him in terms of his ability. I dont think Marciano has much to answer for in terms of record, especially compared to all but a couple of other heavyweights. But I dont think it translates that well into his overall ability as a fighter. Basically I see the time he emerged as not all that strong and was ripe for someone to take over. A collection of ageing great fighters either above their best weight or past their best or in the case of Charles, both. Walcotts reputation is largely centered on his wins over Charles who was on the downward slope at the time.

I think much of the debate on Marcianos actual ability or his chances in head to head match ups centre on exactly what level his opponents were actually operating at when he beat them or how far declined they were. Ive never been too convinced they were really operating as top heavyweights and think the versions of them that were beaten by Marciano were a good deal less than the sums of their reputations, standings or past ability.

His ability in reality can't be as bad as people would like to make out because he was fighting the best available fight after fight yet never lost, there have been weaker eras since and its yet to be replicated. Take Holmes for instance considered a greater talent but lost to a lesser light heavyweight than Archie Moore or Ezzard Charles in Spinks who was having his first fight at the weight. We can apply equally harsh criticism to every heavyweight in history but that would be selling them short so why is it ok to do it to Marciano?

I believe that I've fought Marciano's corner more often than I've enjoyed hot dinners and I count myself a fan. However, I'll try to forget that for a moment and simply be dispassionate and objective.

Some fighters are assessed on the glorious records they have compiled, some on their impact and sheer ability, and some on a combination of both. Nobody, for example, would deny George Foreman a place among the elite heavies yet his record, at the highest level, is pretty mediocre. By comparison, James J Jeffries was pretty poorly equipped in terms of refinement and skills ( though he certainly improved over time, ) but was able to compile a very impressive dossier.

The question, then, ( or so it seems to me, ) is ' where does Marciano fit? '

I'd say his record at the highest level is pretty good without reaching the dizzy heights of somebody like Ali. If we accept that the first LaStarza fight in 1950 marked Marciano's arrival at world level, then the records of his opponents ( at the time he fought them ) until his retirement average 48 - 14 - 3, which is as near as makes no difference, 79%. Similar analysis sees Jeffries' opponents at 85%, Johnson 75%, Dempsey 81%, Louis and Ali both at 87%.

This, of course, doesn't quite cover the issue of form on a given night. Charles, for example, was definitely on the downslide when he faced Marciano, but dug deep to produce two last hurrahs and magnificent performances. Equally Walcott, despite azania's protestations, fought as well against Marciano first time out as he had in his two efforts against Joe Louis. All in all, Marciano doesn't top the pile on record, but he doesn't bring up the rear or earn the wooden spoon, either.

So what about ability?

One of the reasons I love Marciano is that his was a triumph of substance over style. Of course he was crude, clumsy and unschooled in the finer arts. However, his abilities were no less formidable for that. Possibly the best conditioned heavyweight in history, Marciano was simply tireless and possessed an unbreakable will. He also possessed one of the single biggest punches in heavyweight history, was durable and utterly relentless. Bottom line, when it comes to ability, is not how it looks but, rather, how effective it is. Neither Roy Jones nor Ali possessed genuine text book skills - they did things in their own ways - but would anybody seriously suggest that they weren't phenomenally gifted and wonderful fighters?

Joe Louis was an unassuming and dour man of few words. When Joe spoke it was always worth listening to because we all know he said precisely what he meant or he didn't say anything at all. He was positively glowing in his assessment of Marciano. So was Ali, who got to know Marciano very well when they were engaged in the filming of the ' computer fight ' in 1968. Ali is captured on film saying that Marciano, even at forty five, had hurt him with body shots during the sessions and that he, Marciano, would have represented a very stiff challenge to Ali, had the two been contemporaries. Was Ali merely being magnanimous? Maybe, but then I would ask if he would have said the same about other great heavyweights, and the answer would be that, in most cases, Ali was pretty confident that he would have beaten the lot of them.

Objectively I'd say that Marciano, taking ability and record into consideration, did plenty enough to be considered among the great heavies while ( in my opinion, ) not breaking into the crème de la crème with Ali, Louis et al.

Like Windy have defended the Rock on here more times than I would care to mention but his comments from Ali and Louis are also supported by Archie Moore and for me when Archie has good things to say about you it is worth listening to given Archie has shared a ring with more great fighters than nigh on anyone on earth such as Bivins, Charles, Ali and Burley amongst others and he said of Marciano he is such a tough guy to fight because no matter what you do in there the Rock simply keeps coming forward and keeps punching and things that would work against other guys such as feints simply do not work as The Rock simply marches forward, meaning at some point you will have to stand and you will have to trade and in that kind of fight the Rock is a tough nights work for anyone.

For me when Louis, Ali and Moore all speak well of Marciano we maybe have to accept that he was one hell of a fighter and a great heavy.

What I was trying to point out is the fact Az has very little understanding of the era itself so fail to see how he can pass judgement on it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What I was trying to point out is the fact Az has very little understanding of the era itself so fail to see how he can pass judgement on it.

I believe that to be a given, Ghosty.

( Morning, az. )

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What I was trying to point out is the fact Az has very little understanding of the era itself so fail to see how he can pass judgement on it.

The whole of pre 1960 is a big era.....

I'd imagine that any reasonably objective boxing fan would realise that, aside from Ali and, to an extent, Louis and Johnson (prior to winning the title in the latter's case), very few Heavyweights really have a list of wins which could make us stop in awe. As such, Marciano's level of opposition in no way makes him a contender for top spot, but would definitely put him in the chasing pack on paper.

I think a slightly more pertinent issue would be the difficultly he experienced in beating these names, given that he was at the absolute peak of his powers during his reign. Would the Ali of '64-'67, the Louis of '38-'42 or the Jeffries of 1899-1904, for example, need to rely on a single devastating shot to fell a thirty-eight year old warhorse like Walcott having lost eight of the previous twelve rounds? Would they have needed a desperate rally of right hands to narrowly avoid being stopped on cuts against a Charles who, while still dangerous, was without question a few years removed from his prime? Would they have been decked by a forty-odd year old career Light-Heavyweight in Moore, even if they did hand out something of a thrashing for the following nine rounds?

If anything, these points seem to be the ones which are used against Marciano more than anything. And in fairness, while it's valid enough to highlight his struggles with his toughest opponents, he's hardly alone in this respect. Even at his glorious peak, Louis had to peel himself off the canvas to get past Braddock and needed a surge in the championship rounds to beat Conn. Jeffries found Fitzsimmons making light of the physical disadvantages he faced before perhaps getting carless and allowing James J to get his hands on the Heavyweight title. Johnson was dropping a decision to Marvin Hart just three years before taking the title and aged only twenty-seven.

It seems odd, but I think the obsession with highlighting how Marciano nearly lost, while at the same time brushing over the similar incidents with other great Heavyweights who flirted with disaster now and then, comes from a whispering campaign of Marciano's 49-0 almost being too good to be true. People seem unable to accept that he was, shock horror, a truly fine fighter, and would rather assume that there must have been a mitigating factor underneath it all, or that he must have always had every single card stacked in his favour, as nobody as short, stocky and uncoordinated as Rocky could do something the tall, lean, blurringly fast and easy on the eye Ali couldn't.

I don't think Marciano could have remained undefeated in many other eras, but that is besides the point. His ranking, like anyone else's, is open to interpretation, but a top ten Heavyweight list without Marciano is surely ridiculous, and there remains that simple question which nobody has yet answered properly; if Marciano was so overrated / average, then why has nobody managed to replicate what he did?

Excellent post Chris and some excellent points, as you have said people will highlight the Rocks struggles with light heavies but give Johnson a pass on getting dumped on his rear by a middle or his reign having the odd draw in there despite him rarely facing anyone with a pulse as champion. No reign is without bumps in the road but as you have alluded to does seem the glass is half full with the Rock.

I think it goes without saying Chris that Jeffries would have struggled horribly against even ageing versions of the men whom Marciano faced as there are distinct parallels with Fitzsimmons to be made. With Marciano I don't think he's in the league of either Ali or Louis so it's more important to compare him to those on a level footing such as Dempsey, Johnson, Frazier and the like, do they really stand head and shoulders above him? I see the rock losing to the rangier fighters like Ali, Holmes or Lewis but put him in with a Dempsey, Frazier or Tyson and it's a real pick 'em.

A lot of you will disagree I'm guessing, but I reckon that Wladimir Klitschko takes Mike Tyson more times than not.

Don't buy this that Wlad is a scared of anyone that can bang or is intimidating. In fact I think that helps him maintain focus in the ring and in training more than anything, I think he keeps him away with his jab and ties him up when he's coming in, Tyson always has the chance of landing on what is in my opinion a very under rated chin, but I reckon that Wlad makes it too difficult with how his style is nowadays against a much smaller opponent I feel that he will control the fight to a decision and perhaps even knock him out late on with a big right hand.

Most will scream bloody murder at me and recite fights in which Wlad has been knocked out (Years ago) But I think the Wladimir of now is far more well equiped for him.

yson always has the chance of landing on what is in my opinion a very under rated chin

Excuse me?

He's been down more times than Jordan Caprice.

He has one of the worst chins for a champ i've known! It makes Khan's look granite like!

Underrated?! What are you smoking!?

I don't think it's that bad in my opinion, he has been knocked down in the past, but he used to gas late and now he doesn't seem to do that, I think it was a mental problem of not wanting to take the punches and conditioning wasn't as good as it is now.

but he used to gas late

Sanders TKO 2
Brewster TKO 5
Peter, knockdowns in 2 + 5
Panell, knockdown in 1

Only difference is nowadays he stays out of trouble.

Here's one - Pernell Whitaker, at Welterweight, beats Ray Robinson more often than Ray Robinson beats him.

88Chris05 wrote:Here's one - Pernell Whitaker, at Welterweight, beats Ray Robinson more often than Ray Robinson beats him.

Pipe down Azania.

I like controversy. What's your reasoning Chris?

coxy0001 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Here's one - Pernell Whitaker, at Welterweight, beats Ray Robinson more often than Ray Robinson beats him.

Pipe down Azania.

Ha!

As you know, Coxy, styles make fights. If Robinson had a slight weakness, it was inside fighting, and getting frustrated on the inside when he couldn't have it all his own way. Whitaker's ability to work in the pocket without taking clean punches was incredible, he knew the dark arts, and wasn't the weakling in clinches which some paint him to be.

And then, of course, there's that fabulous back foot defence of his. I defy any other boxer in history between 135 lb and 147 lb to box a total of forty-eight rounds against Jose Luis Ramirez, Azumah Nelson and Julio Cesar Chavez and take fewer clean punches / punches of consequence than Whitaker did. I doubt anyone could, to be honest.

Whitaker's record doesn't quite match up to Robinson's, but the more I study him, the more I think his talents do.

And on the other foot Whitaker threw fights away due to not being active enough.. Which would be somewhat dangerous against SRR who'd make him fight at a pace i'm not sure Whitaker would like to go at, spent more time evading punches than actually clocking the other guy back in some instances.

SRR would have his troubles with a few very select welters, Whitaker wouldn't be someone i'd personally put in that bracket though

coxy0001 wrote:And on the other foot Whitaker threw fights away due to not being active enough.. Which would be somewhat dangerous against SRR who'd make him fight at a pace i'm not sure Whitaker would like to go at, spent more time evading punches than actually clocking the other guy back in some instances.

SRR would have his troubles with a few very select welters, Whitaker wouldn't be someone i'd personally put in that bracket though

Whitaker could rough it up and go at a fair old pace when he needed to - or did you forget Whitaker-McGirt I? Whitaker (with the exception of the twelfth, which I admit he did clown away) abandoned the back-pedalling technique he'd used against Ramirez and Nelson and fought McGirt right in the pocket at a frantic pace, and still had too much for him. McGirt, of course, isn't Robinson (though he was a very, very fine Welterweight in his pomp). But I bring this up to dispell the myth that Whitaker was a one trick pony who could only fight at one pace going backwards.

Don't expect many to agree with me - it is, after all, a thread looking for controversial takes on dream fights - but I sincerely believe that Robinson would be in a world of trouble against Whitaker, one of the few men who could trump him in a series of fights.

I'd agree with you possibly Chris, I think he could actually be quite active and mix it if he needed to, but that actually he'd aim to get Robinson to come to him, and frustrate him with his upper body movement and then get out of the way. Doesn't have that much pop but enough, and had good handspeed in combinations.

coxy0001 wrote:

but he used to gas late

Sanders TKO 2
Brewster TKO 5
Peter, knockdowns in 2 + 5
Panell, knockdown in 1

Only difference is nowadays he stays out of trouble.

That means nothing, what I'm saying is he's beter conditioned not saying he sued to gas late and thats why he was knocked out early, what I'm saying is he's now better conditioned judging by the way he doesn't gas at all which helps his punch resistance.

Problem for me Chris is you put an "if" on Whitaker going at a pace he never exactly exerted, preferring a much more backfoot style during most of his pomp, as you mentioned.

My personal controversial pick would be Mosley takes down Duran at lightweight....

AlexHuckerby wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

but he used to gas late

Sanders TKO 2
Brewster TKO 5
Peter, knockdowns in 2 + 5
Panell, knockdown in 1

Only difference is nowadays he stays out of trouble.

That means nothing, what I'm saying is he's beter conditioned not saying he sued to gas late and thats why he was knocked out early, what I'm saying is he's now better conditioned judging by the way he doesn't gas at all which helps his punch resistance.

I'd be really, really worried if he was gassing inside 2 rounds.... Or 5 judging by when he's gone down in the past.

And Wlad changed trainers and style which is the big main reason his career got turned around, he didn't change nutrionists and certainly wasn't coming into the ring looking like Chisora.

So yeah, it does mean something.

coxy0001 wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

but he used to gas late

Sanders TKO 2
Brewster TKO 5
Peter, knockdowns in 2 + 5
Panell, knockdown in 1

Only difference is nowadays he stays out of trouble.

That means nothing, what I'm saying is he's beter conditioned not saying he sued to gas late and thats why he was knocked out early, what I'm saying is he's now better conditioned judging by the way he doesn't gas at all which helps his punch resistance.

I'd be really, really worried if he was gassing inside 2 rounds.... Or 5 judging by when he's gone down in the past.

And Wlad changed trainers and style which is the big main reason his career got turned around, he didn't change nutrionists and certainly wasn't coming into the ring looking like Chisora.

So yeah, it does mean something.

Sorry Coxy you clearly cannot see it, please read again, you are still talking about something that I have dispelled.

It's not to do with him gassing, he hasn't ever been knocked out due to gassing, but what I'm saying is he is now conditioned better as he doesn't ever gas! So therefore his punch resistance is better for it, read that really slowly now Coxy.

When and where has better conditioning been credited for his punch resistance getting better? No-one thinks he has a chin, he jabs and stays out of trouble - something that Steward banged into him. His transformation has been solely credited to changing trainers, now read that really really slowly and stop making stuff up.

How is him being better conditioned and having a better chin for it making stuff up, I know Steward has transformed him into a much better fighterm, however you picked out the point with the chin, and I actually think he has an ok chin, not legendary or anything most certainly but can take shots on it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote: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.

At HW Charles was much better than JJW. And how on earth can you possibly come to the conclusion that I believe Charles wasn't a HW of note?

I am not basing it on Boxrec. I dont even look at that site. I'm basing it on my opinions and a worldwide general concensus that mostly assumes that is a fighter comes into a fight with a win ratio of 50% that person's record is patchy at best bordering on the journeyman.

That is a simple fact that you refuse to acknowledge but is regularly applied to modern fighters.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What I was trying to point out is the fact Az has very little understanding of the era itself so fail to see how he can pass judgement on it.

Predictable and always your fallback position. Point being JJW had a win record of 50% in his last 16 fights. Always lost 1 out of 3 fights. He was hardly mr consistent.

Charles was on the slide. Facts you refuse to accept. All you can say is "Az doesn't have the knowledge". Even Stevie Wonder can see better than you.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What I was trying to point out is the fact Az has very little understanding of the era itself so fail to see how he can pass judgement on it.

I believe that to be a given, Ghosty.

( Morning, az. )

Greetings Mr Wind.

The things is your facts aren't facts in the slightest, Walcott was inconsistent but on his day he could be sublime as he was against Louis, Charles and Marciano himself. Only Ali has better footwork in the heavyweight division, safe to say Walcott was a supremely talented heavyweight who didn't fulfil his potential down to both his own application and some very poor management. When we talk about the likes of Louis, Charles or Moore we're not talking about ordinary fighters they were all sublime in different ways so depsite being past their absolute bests they were still damm fine fighters.

At heavyweight I don't see a huge difference between Walcott and Charles, a view supported by the IBRO.

I use the same old 'Az doesn't know what he's talking about' card because you simply don't, I ask a simple question and your stumped for the answer.

chris, i'm a big fan of whittaker, he made my all time p4p top 15 we did a while back. I can see where you are coming from with this stylistically, but my question on your analysis is re weight.

He may have been good enough to beat good welters, and even a decent light middle champion but, his only real scalp at welter was mcgirt, given jcc was no real welter himself. He was nearly 30 by the time he made it to welter. I see him more as a lightweight and he wouldn't make my all time welter lists. Not his best weight, whilst it was definitely SRRs best weight. Too much in robinson's favour imo.

milkyboy wrote:chris, i'm a big fan of whittaker, he made my all time p4p top 15 we did a while back. I can see where you are coming from with this stylistically, but my question on your analysis is re weight.

He may have been good enough to beat good welters, and even a decent light middle champion but, his only real scalp at welter was mcgirt, given jcc was no real welter himself. He was nearly 30 by the time he made it to welter. I see him more as a lightweight and he wouldn't make my all time welter lists. Not his best weight, whilst it was definitely SRRs best weight. Too much in robinson's favour imo.

I agree that, from the outset, things definitely seem stacked in Robinson's favour mate, which is precisely why I thought it was a perfect suggestion for a 'controversial' take on a fantasy fight!

Until recently, I had been guilty of underestimating just how good a Welterweight 'Sweet Pea' was, not just because of who he was beating, but because of how dominant he was in doing so. His opposition there wasn't as good as his Lightweight opponents had been, for the most part, but still represented a better quality between 1993 and 1997 than most of the other major pound for pound players (Chavez, Jones, Trinidad etc) were facing in that same period. McGirt would have been a top Welterweight in any era. Chavez was really not much smaller (if at all) than Whitaker in the grand scheme of things, so while your point that he wasn't a natural Welterweight is true, neither was Whitaker in all reality. I'd also add that I'd expect Chavez to have been able to pick up a 147 lb title in quite a few other eras - can you imagine him against the Ortiz, Berto and Senchenko types of today!?

But more than that, I do believe this controversial dream fight really does lend itself to the 'styles make fights' dictum like few others. Head to head, Whitaker fares as well against the 135 lb - 147 lb greats as anyone. Comparable in hand speed to Robinson, his jangling ability to roll with and avoid punches up close could have Robinson blowing his top, as he occasionally did when frustrated on the inside. Even a puncher of Robinson's ability has got his work cut out landing cleanly on Whitaker (of course, the exact same applies in reverse, too!).

Being very honest, I admit that there's a good chance that Robinson could beat Whitaker three times out of three at Welterweight, but I wouldn't bet much on it. Whitaker may not be amongst the very elite at 147 lb, but I do think he could be something of a bogey man to Robinson at the weight.

mcgirt was quality chris... and i'd agree that neither jcc nor whittaker were natural welters. I'd say that jcc's style hits a glass ceiling before whittaker's though and that was probably reached at light welter. Would love to have seen them fight at lightweight, though i'd still fancy whittaker.

My point was that mcgirt was probably the only top genuine welter that sweet p beat. I don't doubt he was very capable of giving any welter through the years a run for their money though... or at the very least make them look worse than they were!

It's an interesting fight Chris, so many variables to comprehend however!!

Sweet Pea has a particular style that makes him far more effective than most in terms of moving up in weight, like a JCC type fighter they will run into a guy who's too big for him to bully and push back. Whereas with Sweet Pea you come across a style that if he maintains the speed and reflexes as he goes up in weight he should be able to utilise that more and more. However to beat the very pinnacle of the sport in a weight division that he isn't at his best in is a huge ask. There is always an air of unknown when SRR's Welterweight career is talked over, as on paper and by reports everything sounds too perfect for my taste, however judging who he has beaten then supposedly he is of course supreme to all at the weight.

Re: JCC - Whitaker, I actually think JCC wasn't suited fro Welterweight, I think he weighed in very low for the Whitaker fight around 141 or something (Can't be bothered to check) so not sure that he was able to get the weight on to use his usual tactics and be big enough to push people around at WW.

In regards to a SRR - Whitaker fight, I would have to side with SRR personally, I think that Whitaker would be outworked and there would be a bit too much on the size factor for Sweet Pea to make up. McGirt made it close the first time although the second Pernell won far more decisively I just can't help but look at the size of McGirt, by no great shakes was a big Welter! Whereas I feel SRR is an overall better fighter and is a good sized Welterweight that has something that is key to beat a guy like Sweet Pea which is adaptability. Have to go with a safe SRR UD Chris, sorry.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The things is your facts aren't facts in the slightest, Walcott was inconsistent but on his day he could be sublime as he was against Louis, Charles and Marciano himself. Only Ali has better footwork in the heavyweight division, safe to say Walcott was a supremely talented heavyweight who didn't fulfil his potential down to both his own application and some very poor management. When we talk about the likes of Louis, Charles or Moore we're not talking about ordinary fighters they were all sublime in different ways so depsite being past their absolute bests they were still damm fine fighters.

At heavyweight I don't see a huge difference between Walcott and Charles, a view supported by the IBRO.

I use the same old 'Az doesn't know what he's talking about' card because you simply don't, I ask a simple question and your stumped for the answer.

Your facts are assumptions based on your bias. Simply not accurate facts whatsoever. That facts are quite simple. Walcott was on the downslide and even at his peak was a boxer who blew hot and cold. He had a patch record at best. Do you disagree that his record was patchy?

I am not disagreeing with you on his talent. But talent alone is not enough. He lacked consistency as you have stated for whatever reason. Those are the facts. Add an inconsistent fighter who is on the slide and you get an accurate picture of him.

azania wrote:That facts are quite simple. Walcott was on the downslide

Sorry, az, but this is simply ludicrous.

Nobody disputes that Walcott was a patchy performer. Management problems, ( he had already retired a couple of times before he came good, ) inexplicable lapses in motivation and concentration, together with a host of other things, rendered him the heavyweight Kirkland Laing.

However, on the slide when he fought Marciano?

Utterly derisory comment. Just about everybody agrees that Jersey Joe was on a high going into the defence against Marciano, and just about everybody agrees that he produced a superb display for twelve rounds.

Seriously, you need to watch a few fights and ditch the silly rhetoric. You are at odds with just about everybody who has an informed opinion on this subject.

To be put it very simply Az i've researched the 1940's and 1950's a hell of a lot so have an appreciation of where fighters were in their careers, Walcott wasn't for one second considered to be on the slide when he fought Marciano quite the opposite. Unless you wish to rewrite history the considered opinion of the time was that he was in the form of his life, I have no bias unlike your good self and see things for what they are.

Marciano has an impressive set of good wins in relation to the heavyweight division, we could in theory downplay Alis wins over Liston, Frazier, Norton and Foreman if we so chose but that would be ludicrous so why take things to the extreme with Marciano? Well we know the answer to that all to well.

Here's another take on this one, az.

Ali was, is and always will be my biggest boxing hero and he remains my pick as the best heavy of the lot, albeit by a very slim margin from Joe Louis. I only mention this so that you can't accuse me of having an agenda against Ali. Now, most would say that Ali was at his mercurial best during his first incarnation, so let's look at his opposition during that period :

Rematch with Liston - hugely contentious, with strong rumours that Liston dived.

Patterson - already vanquished twice by Liston, disadvantaged in size and strength and carrying a back injury.

Chuvalo - excellent opponent and good performance by Ali.

Cooper - please!

London - double please!

Mildenberger - pretty good fighter, but hardly a world beater, who made Ali struggle for long periods.

Williams - sparkling performance by Ali but against a man years past his best.

Terrell - bonafide contender, excellent fighter and, for my money, Ali's best performance as champ first time out.

Folley - past his best, dubbed ' a poor man's Ezzard Charles ' but still a pretty good contender and a pretty good performance by Ali.

Now, I don't wish to demean Ali's first reign, which was truly magical, but I ask you, seriously, if most of this lot are significantly better than LaStarza x 2, Walcott x 2, Charles x 2, Cockell and Moore?

I don't believe they are.

The opponents are similar however Ali's first reign is usually looked upon in regards to how easily he dismantled most of his opponents and how flashy he looked doing it, manner of victory counts for an awful lot.

Whereas the opposition perhaps was around the same level, the skill shown by Ali was obviously far greater than Marciano's. Think because more of the way Marciano fought which was slightly crude at times is a reason he gets marked down, could be wrong though.

I see boxing as a results business, you can be as flashy as you like but if in the case of a Laing or Graham it doesn't get you the wins then it doesn't mean a lot. Marciano was crude but was mightily effective at what he did, Moore a fighter who had seen every style under the style was baffled by Marciano and had no idea how to counteract his plodding style. Things that worked against other fighters didn't work against him, he's not unbeatable far from it but he would give many more lauded heavyweights a tricky night.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:That facts are quite simple. Walcott was on the downslide

Sorry, az, but this is simply ludicrous.

Nobody disputes that Walcott was a patchy performer. Management problems, ( he had already retired a couple of times before he came good, ) inexplicable lapses in motivation and concentration, together with a host of other things, rendered him the heavyweight Kirkland Laing.

However, on the slide when he fought Marciano?

Utterly derisory comment. Just about everybody agrees that Jersey Joe was on a high going into the defence against Marciano, and just about everybody agrees that he produced a superb display for twelve rounds.

Seriously, you need to watch a few fights and ditch the silly rhetoric. You are at odds with just about everybody who has an informed opinion on this subject.

All joking aside Windy, you state that he had a patchy record. That much is agreed by all concerned. The issue now is given his patchy record, many claim that he was on the form of his life. How can that be accurate given that he was prone to another laspe anytime soon. Yes he boxed brilliantly. But he was facing someone with an agricultural style at best and not to difficult to keep away from his swings. Rocky had a 67in reach, exceptionally crude footwork and style. JJW in the form of his life would have kept away from him. The JJW who beat Charles would have beaten Rocky. But he suffered another lapse.

I wouldn't insult Walcott by putting Laing's name next to his in any form. Classy man and boxer. But that he retired after the rematch speaks volumes about where JJW saw himself at.

JJW was on a high going into the fight. But he had a patchy record prior to the fight and prone to serious lapses in fights. You make your mind up (already made up anyway) what that means and how such a boxer would be viewed today.

Also I have (surprisingly) seen that fight many times and his fights with Charles and Louis.

AlexHuckerby wrote:The opponents are similar however Ali's first reign is usually looked upon in regards to how easily he dismantled most of his opponents and how flashy he looked doing it, manner of victory counts for an awful lot.

Whereas the opposition perhaps was around the same level, the skill shown by Ali was obviously far greater than Marciano's. Think because more of the way Marciano fought which was slightly crude at times is a reason he gets marked down, could be wrong though.

That's a fair point, Alex, but az insists on trashing Marciano's opponents wholsesale.

As to the manner of Rocky's wins, both his wins over Walcott were kayos, one with THAT punch and one a first round demolition ; one of his wins over Charles was a kayo and the other a fairly wide decision, and he fairly brutalized Archie Moore after the early scare.

Of course it would have been better had Charles been a younger man and Cockell - a very under rated fighter - not been forced to fight at heavy because of health issues, but to forever trash a great fighter in the manner which azania pursues with utter disregard for historical context or comparison with the resumés of other great champions, really does become tedious and tiresome after a while.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:To be put it very simply Az i've researched the 1940's and 1950's a hell of a lot so have an appreciation of where fighters were in their careers, Walcott wasn't for one second considered to be on the slide when he fought Marciano quite the opposite. Unless you wish to rewrite history the considered opinion of the time was that he was in the form of his life, I have no bias unlike your good self and see things for what they are.

Marciano has an impressive set of good wins in relation to the heavyweight division, we could in theory downplay Alis wins over Liston, Frazier, Norton and Foreman if we so chose but that would be ludicrous so why take things to the extreme with Marciano? Well we know the answer to that all to well.

YOu appreciate where fighters were in their careers and add some bias to it. Windy has claimed that walcott had a patchy record and prone to lapses in fights ond durin fights. I have said as much but not in so few words.

My position is that a man with a patchy record, ageing and prone to serious lapses cannot be viewed as in the form of his life given that his form dips when least expected for whatever reason. How come the guys who beat him 3 fights before Rocky fought him are not considered ATGs?

Rocky's record is impressive no doubt. I doubt if anyone will ever match it. But his standing amongst the greats of the HW division is grossly over-stated. I will concede that I grossly understate his standings but I have my bias. Fo rme, Rocky is no great shakes as a boxer and wouldn't hold a candle or go near the title were he fighting 3 years after he retired. I can name 50 HW who in a H2H would beat him with relative ease.

How can you downplay Ali's wins over Frazier (1973 fight) or Foreman? Norton I believe had the hoodoo over Ali.

With regards to Walcotts form you can put it in black and white, he was coming off the two biggest wins of his career going into the Marciano fights and were that KO to happen today we would all question him for taking the rematch. Easy to say but a punch like that takes a lot out of a fighter. He did have a patch career but when we take into account his opposition from 1945 onward it stands to reason he's going to lose a few, were he losing to nobodies consistently then that would be a whole different ball game.

If one takes Ali and Louis out of the equation as most do as they stand apart amongst the heavies who has not had the odd bump in the road.

Johnson was dumped on his rear by a middle and found a way to draw with the ordinary Jom Johnston

Jeffries had all he could handle from both Fitz and Corbett, guys who were no more than middles or light heavies by modern standards

Holmes was damned lucky to get the nod against a green Witherspoon and dumped his title to a light heavy (should be noted for all his "problems" against light heavies the Rock came out victorious)

No fighter is beyond criticism or scrutiny but if we do it for the Rock lets hold every fighter up to similar levels of analysis, anything else is unfair.

I can name 50 HW who in a H2H would beat him with relative ease

Go on then.

This will be very, very amusing indeed.

coxy0001 wrote:

I can name 50 HW who in a H2H would beat him with relative ease

Go on then.

This will be very, very amusing indeed.

He's done it before, no?

We could go further Windy.

Ali loses to the only peak version of Frazier he fights. Beats Foreman in a good win, but not without mitigating circumstances and loses to the hopeless Neon Leon Spinks.

Robs Young and Norton blind.

Rest of his career filled with has beens and never weres - and shamefully ducks a rematch with Foreman.

Don't know why anyone thinks he's any good really.