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.

Scottrf wrote:

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?

Did he?

Either way it's bound to contain names like Ruslan Chagaev which will open him up for more ridicule, if that's possible.

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

He fought in color rather than black and white.

That's good enough reason for some on here.

azania wrote: 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.

Oh you mean Ezzard Charles isn't considered an ATG or Layne isn't considered to be on the best heavyweights never to win the title?

There are simply put not 50 heavyweights who beat him with ease, if that were the case then Charles, Moore, Walcott, Louis and La Starza would have beaten him, must really hurt that the only undefeated heavyweight champion was a banner for white america. I'm so happy knowing I don't have such insecurities.

Frazier- Past his best and battered round the ring by Foreman previously, seems the logic to use for a Marciano opponent
Foreman- Subsequently loses to Jimmy Young before retiring

You can take everything to the extreme is you so choose

HumanWindmill wrote:

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.

Windy, In no way am I trashing Charles (who most have acknowledged was past it when Rocky fought him and his post rocky career justifies it). And I am not trasking JJW. I'm simply stating acknowledged facts. The issue is how good were they when they fought Rocky. My position is that they were beatable by many other guys and the facts prove it. Charles did nothing after and JJW was patchy. As for Moore, he did little whenever he moved up to HW. Exceptional boxer but not much as HW. Those are established facts not the usual made up stuff by me .

Any career is up for scrutiny. And any fading champ is allowed one last hurrah. But people are trying to big up rocky's wins against faded ex champs by claiming they were better than their actual records suggests. That is as much an insult to reality as my criticism of Rocky.

coxy0001 wrote:

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

He fought in color rather than black and white.

That's good enough reason for some on here.

Shoo

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

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?

Did he?

Either way it's bound to contain names like Ruslan Chagaev which will open him up for more ridicule, if that's possible.

Scram

oxring wrote: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.

So we could, oxy.

azania loves Larry Holmes. How about Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Le Doux, Cobb, Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier?

Bonafide all time greats, the lot of them.

In regards to Marcianos actual skill level, I think it was rather good. Of course at times he swung rather wildly and looked painfully crude and I think this was down to his lack of experience (Little to none amateur background) but you can see even in the lead up to THAT punch against the likes of Walcott he has good lateral movement has good timing and good head movement.

At times I find myself puzzled as to some people that serously underestimate Marciano as even taking on a past Joe Louis knocking a man like that out in the middle rounds which is when Joe was usually around his best is most certainly not easy!! Marciano was most certainly not unbeatable but had a very strange knackof landing his best punches which is what some of the best schooled boxers have a very hard time doing, especially against guys like Charles and Louis albeit they were not in there primes.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote: 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.

Oh you mean Ezzard Charles isn't considered an ATG or Layne isn't considered to be on the best heavyweights never to win the title?

There are simply put not 50 heavyweights who beat him with ease, if that were the case then Charles, Moore, Walcott, Louis and La Starza would have beaten him, must really hurt that the only undefeated heavyweight champion was a banner for white america. I'm so happy knowing I don't have such insecurities.

Frazier- Past his best and battered round the ring by Foreman previously, seems the logic to use for a Marciano opponent
Foreman- Subsequently loses to Jimmy Young before retiring

You can take everything to the extreme is you so choose

Here you go again. You cant read anything without imposing your own bias. No I dont mean that but if that's what your bias tells you, run with it bro.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm so happy knowing I don't have such insecurities.

I dunno, you claimed to be editor of Classic Rock magazine

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

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

He fought in color rather than black and white.

That's good enough reason for some on here.

Shoo

I would, but you're back talking your usual amount of tosh.

Still waiting on your "50" that would beat him.

Moore did little at Heavyweight? Give me strength, that by itself proves the FACT you don't have a clue, he had spent 3 years beating ranked contender after ranked contender to earn his shot at the heavyweight crown, put it this way he did a fair bit more at the weight than the majority of future title contenders.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania loves Larry Holmes. How about Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Le Doux, Cobb, Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

.

Do find it ironic that someone who is such a fan of Holmes can give Rocky so much grief for struggling with blown up light heavies, perhaps would be more forgiving if the Rock had dumped his title to one.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote: 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.

Oh you mean Ezzard Charles isn't considered an ATG or Layne isn't considered to be on the best heavyweights never to win the title?

There are simply put not 50 heavyweights who beat him with ease, if that were the case then Charles, Moore, Walcott, Louis and La Starza would have beaten him, must really hurt that the only undefeated heavyweight champion was a banner for white america. I'm so happy knowing I don't have such insecurities.

Frazier- Past his best and battered round the ring by Foreman previously, seems the logic to use for a Marciano opponent
Foreman- Subsequently loses to Jimmy Young before retiring

You can take everything to the extreme is you so choose

Here you go again. You cant read anything without imposing your own bias. No I dont mean that but if that's what your bias tells you, run with it bro.

How am I imposing bias on it in the slightest?

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.

More measured and less attention seeking posters will know that I gave 100 HW a few months back.

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania loves Larry Holmes. How about Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Le Doux, Cobb, Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

.

Do find it ironic that someone who is such a fan of Holmes can give Rocky so much grief for struggling with blown up light heavies, perhaps would be more forgiving if the Rock had dumped his title to one.

You seem to forget Rowley that all of the above would've beaten Rocky with consumate ease

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote: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.

So we could, oxy.

azania loves Larry Holmes. How about Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Le Doux, Cobb, Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

Bonafide all time greats, the lot of them.

Of course those guys were not the best there was and is. But if they were Rocky's opponents we would be saying that they were near on supermen when Rocky fought them and retired them.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

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

He fought in color rather than black and white.

That's good enough reason for some on here.

Shoo

I would, but you're back talking your usual amount of tosh.

Still waiting on your "50" that would beat him.

Shoo

azania wrote:

Windy, In no way am I trashing Charles (who most have acknowledged was past it when Rocky fought him and his post rocky career justifies it). And I am not trasking JJW. I'm simply stating acknowledged facts. The issue is how good were they when they fought Rocky. My position is that they were beatable by many other guys and the facts prove it. Charles did nothing after and JJW was patchy. As for Moore, he did little whenever he moved up to HW. Exceptional boxer but not much as HW. Those are established facts not the usual made up stuff by me .

Any career is up for scrutiny. And any fading champ is allowed one last hurrah. But people are trying to big up rocky's wins against faded ex champs by claiming they were better than their actual records suggests. That is as much an insult to reality as my criticism of Rocky.

I'm assuming that you rate Jack Johnson a great heavy, az. ( So do I, by the way. )

Johnson shamelessly ducked Langford, McVea and Jeannette when he was champion, and chose instead to fight lumianries such as Tony Ross, Al Kaufmann, a lightheavy ( past his best, ) in O'Brien, a middleweight in Ketchel, a six years over the hill Jeffries, Frank Moran and Jim Johnson ( who retired with a losing record. )

At world level, Johnson's opponents boasted an average record of 18 - 5 - 4 when Johnson fought them, which is about 75%. Marciano's averaged 48 - 14 - 3, which is, as near as makes no difference, 79%

coxy0001 wrote:

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania loves Larry Holmes. How about Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Le Doux, Cobb, Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

.

Do find it ironic that someone who is such a fan of Holmes can give Rocky so much grief for struggling with blown up light heavies, perhaps would be more forgiving if the Rock had dumped his title to one.

You seem to forget Rowley that all of the above would've beaten Rocky with consumate ease

I imagine a couple of them would have trouble eeking out a split decision against the current version of Rocky, to be honest.

How would we? Louis, Moore and Charles are bonafide great fighters, it's not a case of bigging up his opposition but rather applying the same standards we would to everyone else, we can take the opposition of every fighter to the absolute extreme if we so choose.

Marciano has many good wins, no great wins but then again there are very few of them in the heavyweight division anyway.

Jesus Windy you're gonna get him bashing Marciano AND Jack Johnson now...

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania loves Larry Holmes. How about Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Le Doux, Cobb, Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

.

Do find it ironic that someone who is such a fan of Holmes can give Rocky so much grief for struggling with blown up light heavies, perhaps would be more forgiving if the Rock had dumped his title to one.

The fact is that Holmes was robbed. The irony also is that the Spinks fight was the fight following this comments about Rocky. For heavens sake it even went as far as congress in the USA.

azania wrote:

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.

More measured and less attention seeking posters will know that I gave 100 HW a few months back.

Or i just wasn't around to view it? More measured posters would provide a link because i don't spend 24/7 on here like some people.

And attention seekers usually blabber on about what one particular subject and create a persona for themselves that they act up to. Does that sound familiar?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote: 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.

Oh you mean Ezzard Charles isn't considered an ATG or Layne isn't considered to be on the best heavyweights never to win the title?

There are simply put not 50 heavyweights who beat him with ease, if that were the case then Charles, Moore, Walcott, Louis and La Starza would have beaten him, must really hurt that the only undefeated heavyweight champion was a banner for white america. I'm so happy knowing I don't have such insecurities.

Frazier- Past his best and battered round the ring by Foreman previously, seems the logic to use for a Marciano opponent
Foreman- Subsequently loses to Jimmy Young before retiring

You can take everything to the extreme is you so choose

Here you go again. You cant read anything without imposing your own bias. No I dont mean that but if that's what your bias tells you, run with it bro.

How am I imposing bias on it in the slightest?

Yes you are.

azania wrote:
The fact is that Holmes was robbed.

No, that is what is known as an opinion. Boxing scoring is a subjective matter so a robbery is rarely if ever a fact.

You can say that a great heavyweight should not let him get into a position to get robbed by the judges as Holmes did against Spinks, was far from the robbery you suggest anyway.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

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.

More measured and less attention seeking posters will know that I gave 100 HW a few months back.

Or i just wasn't around to view it? More measured posters would provide a link because i don't spend 24/7 on here like some people.

And attention seekers usually blabber on about what one particular subject and create a persona for themselves that they act up to. Does that sound familiar?

Go look for it. Shoo, of you so son.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania loves Larry Holmes. How about Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Le Doux, Cobb, Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

.

Do find it ironic that someone who is such a fan of Holmes can give Rocky so much grief for struggling with blown up light heavies, perhaps would be more forgiving if the Rock had dumped his title to one.

The fact is that Holmes was robbed. The irony also is that the Spinks fight was the fight following this comments about Rocky. For heavens sake it even went as far as congress in the USA.

Not sure which fights you were watching, mate. In no way was Holmes robbed, on either occasion. Spinks deserved the nod first time out. Second time around, I did score it 143-142 to Holmes, but it was far too close to call it a robbery, particularly given that Holmes just stopped working in the mid rounds.

Also, I believe his famed 'jockstrap' comment came after the first Spinks fight, not before it.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Jesus Windy you're gonna get him bashing Marciano AND Jack Johnson now...

Hadn't thought of that, mate.

Me and my big mouth.

HumanWindmill wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Jesus Windy you're gonna get him bashing Marciano AND Jack Johnson now...

Hadn't thought of that, mate.

Me and my big mouth.

Starts on Johnson I might join in.

The fact is that Holmes was robbed

I'm sorry, but i take an exception to you labelling things as "Fact" and that we should all bow down and just accept it.

Holmes sat behind a jab for too long, Spinks did enough early doors before Holmes actually did something to take the win. It was a close fight that went Spinks' way, Holmes only had himself to blame and comments about the judges being drunk smacked of him being a sore loser.

Fact is he struggled massively against a blown up light heavy. You try and give some concession that "oh but whinge, Holmes was robbed" and then will quite happily try to put down Marciano's opponents. Therein lies the big bias, therein lies why everyone here thinks you're a waste of time to debate with when it involves anything or anyone pre 1960.

you're just lucky someone has distracted him with Holmes/Spinks!

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Windy, In no way am I trashing Charles (who most have acknowledged was past it when Rocky fought him and his post rocky career justifies it). And I am not trasking JJW. I'm simply stating acknowledged facts. The issue is how good were they when they fought Rocky. My position is that they were beatable by many other guys and the facts prove it. Charles did nothing after and JJW was patchy. As for Moore, he did little whenever he moved up to HW. Exceptional boxer but not much as HW. Those are established facts not the usual made up stuff by me .

Any career is up for scrutiny. And any fading champ is allowed one last hurrah. But people are trying to big up rocky's wins against faded ex champs by claiming they were better than their actual records suggests. That is as much an insult to reality as my criticism of Rocky.

I'm assuming that you rate Jack Johnson a great heavy, az. ( So do I, by the way. )

Johnson shamelessly ducked Langford, McVea and Jeannette when he was champion, and chose instead to fight lumianries such as Tony Ross, Al Kaufmann, a lightheavy ( past his best, ) in O'Brien, a middleweight in Ketchel, a six years over the hill Jeffries, Frank Moran and Jim Johnson ( who retired with a losing record. )

At world level, Johnson's opponents boasted an average record of 18 - 5 - 4 when Johnson fought them, which is about 75%. Marciano's averaged 48 - 14 - 3, which is, as near as makes no difference, 79%

Of course I rate Johnson. Great boxer for his day but has flawed fundermentals when comparing to many boxers who followed him.

Yep JJ ducked black fighters. I dont know his reasons but I believe it has to do with 2 reasons. 1 being that he didn't see much money in fighting black fighters and 2 maybe he liked beating up on white fighters to p peope off. Probably a combination of the 2 imo.

Here it is, although he used Ali twice.


1) Ali
2) Holmes
3) Tyson
4) Louis - peak not the washed up version Rock beat
5) Charles - see above
6) Johnson
7) Lewis
8) Liston
9) Witherspoon
10) Tony Tubbs
11) Holyfield
12) Vit K
13) Wlad K
14) Frazier
15) Foreman
16) Bonavena
17) Cleveland Williams
18) Jimmy Young
19) Greg Page
20)Jeffries
21) Tunney
22) Roy Jones Jnr
23) Toney
24) Hopkins
25) Cassius Clay - 2 different guys
26) Riddick Bowe
27) Corbett
28) Sharkey
29) Mike Spinks
30) Bob Foster
31) Tony Tucker
32) Shavers
33) Norton
34) Larry Donald
35) Pinklon Thomas (if he got of the gear)
36) Dempsey (that would be legalised murder)
37) Ike Ibeabuchi
38) Tua
39) Mike Weaver
40) Bruno
41) McCall
42) Sharkey
43) Corbett
44) Sullivan
45) Baer
46) Mercer
47) Briggs
48) Haye - close call here
49) Terrell
50) Pac with weight stipulations.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote: 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.

Oh you mean Ezzard Charles isn't considered an ATG or Layne isn't considered to be on the best heavyweights never to win the title?

There are simply put not 50 heavyweights who beat him with ease, if that were the case then Charles, Moore, Walcott, Louis and La Starza would have beaten him, must really hurt that the only undefeated heavyweight champion was a banner for white america. I'm so happy knowing I don't have such insecurities.

Frazier- Past his best and battered round the ring by Foreman previously, seems the logic to use for a Marciano opponent
Foreman- Subsequently loses to Jimmy Young before retiring

You can take everything to the extreme is you so choose

Here you go again. You cant read anything without imposing your own bias. No I dont mean that but if that's what your bias tells you, run with it bro.

How am I imposing bias on it in the slightest?

Yes you are.

Rather than merely acting like a child with accusations, explain how i'm applying to bias in any way?

I have Marciano at around 8/9 at heavyweight which is a few places lower than the IBRO by the way and feel his level of opposition was no worse than that of Holmes, Louis, Dempsey, Johnson or about any heavyweight.

It's often asked of Foreman for instance if victories over Chuvalo, Frazier and Norton combined with losses to Ali and Young are enough for him to lay claim to such a lofty position. He has no world level longevity during his first incarnation and only has a handful of world level fights but he is held in high esteem because of the way he fought much like Dempsey and Tyson. I tend to agree with his high standing but think there are certain double standards applied to both he and Dempsey.

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Jesus Windy you're gonna get him bashing Marciano AND Jack Johnson now...

Hadn't thought of that, mate.

Me and my big mouth.

Starts on Johnson I might join in.

Ha!

Thought you might, jeff.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:
The fact is that Holmes was robbed.

No, that is what is known as an opinion. Boxing scoring is a subjective matter so a robbery is rarely if ever a fact.

True. But most independant people who saw the fight had Larry winning comfortably.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:How would we? Louis, Moore and Charles are bonafide great fighters, it's not a case of bigging up his opposition but rather applying the same standards we would to everyone else, we can take the opposition of every fighter to the absolute extreme if we so choose.

Marciano has many good wins, no great wins but then again there are very few of them in the heavyweight division anyway.

Of course they were greats. Ali was also a great. He remains a great. He was a great when Berbick beat him.

Suppose a fight with Jim Johnson brought in huge money for Jack Johnson then AZ?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You can say that a great heavyweight should not let him get into a position to get robbed by the judges as Holmes did against Spinks, was far from the robbery you suggest anyway.

Holmes was past it and had struggles with others in his previous 3 fights.

I believe he would have eaten up Tyson had they met when Larry was at his peak. I see that fight with many similarities with the Rock/Louis fight.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:
The fact is that Holmes was robbed.

No, that is what is known as an opinion. Boxing scoring is a subjective matter so a robbery is rarely if ever a fact.

True. But most independant people who saw the fight had Larry winning comfortably.

Not really, it's very much a mixed opinion on the first fight, the second I felt Holmes did just about enough to win.

Suppose it did Ghosty. What is your point there?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Windy, In no way am I trashing Charles (who most have acknowledged was past it when Rocky fought him and his post rocky career justifies it). And I am not trasking JJW. I'm simply stating acknowledged facts. The issue is how good were they when they fought Rocky. My position is that they were beatable by many other guys and the facts prove it. Charles did nothing after and JJW was patchy. As for Moore, he did little whenever he moved up to HW. Exceptional boxer but not much as HW. Those are established facts not the usual made up stuff by me .

Any career is up for scrutiny. And any fading champ is allowed one last hurrah. But people are trying to big up rocky's wins against faded ex champs by claiming they were better than their actual records suggests. That is as much an insult to reality as my criticism of Rocky.

I'm assuming that you rate Jack Johnson a great heavy, az. ( So do I, by the way. )

Johnson shamelessly ducked Langford, McVea and Jeannette when he was champion, and chose instead to fight lumianries such as Tony Ross, Al Kaufmann, a lightheavy ( past his best, ) in O'Brien, a middleweight in Ketchel, a six years over the hill Jeffries, Frank Moran and Jim Johnson ( who retired with a losing record. )

At world level, Johnson's opponents boasted an average record of 18 - 5 - 4 when Johnson fought them, which is about 75%. Marciano's averaged 48 - 14 - 3, which is, as near as makes no difference, 79%

Of course I rate Johnson. Great boxer for his day but has flawed fundermentals when comparing to many boxers who followed him.

Yep JJ ducked black fighters. I dont know his reasons but I believe it has to do with 2 reasons. 1 being that he didn't see much money in fighting black fighters and 2 maybe he liked beating up on white fighters to p peope off. Probably a combination of the 2 imo.

Mercy, please.

Compared with whom Az? Joe Louis? Johnson's defence was technically more proficient than Louis, but Louis had a greater range of offensive shots. That's not to detract from Johnson - Louis had more offence than any other HW.

Name your HW who show Johnson's "flawed" fundamentals. I'd be intrigued.

azania wrote:Suppose it did Ghosty. What is your point there?

So you think the Jim Johnson fight brought in more money for Jack Johnson than a fight with Sam Langford would have for instance?

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:
The fact is that Holmes was robbed.

No, that is what is known as an opinion. Boxing scoring is a subjective matter so a robbery is rarely if ever a fact.

True. But most independant people who saw the fight had Larry winning comfortably.

Most independent people who saw them fight reckon that Marciano was pretty good and that Walcott went into their first fight in fine fettle.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:
The fact is that Holmes was robbed.

No, that is what is known as an opinion. Boxing scoring is a subjective matter so a robbery is rarely if ever a fact.

True. But most independant people who saw the fight had Larry winning comfortably.

Most independent people who saw them fight reckon that Marciano was pretty good and that Walcott went into their first fight in fine fettle.

That sounds like a game set and match post to me, even if you forgot to put FACT at the end, az style.

I'm still waiting on your list of fighters with better fundamentals than JJ az.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania loves Larry Holmes. How about Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Le Doux, Cobb, Rodriguez, Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

.

Do find it ironic that someone who is such a fan of Holmes can give Rocky so much grief for struggling with blown up light heavies, perhaps would be more forgiving if the Rock had dumped his title to one.

The fact is that Holmes was robbed. The irony also is that the Spinks fight was the fight following this comments about Rocky. For heavens sake it even went as far as congress in the USA.

Not sure which fights you were watching, mate. In no way was Holmes robbed, on either occasion. Spinks deserved the nod first time out. Second time around, I did score it 143-142 to Holmes, but it was far too close to call it a robbery, particularly given that Holmes just stopped working in the mid rounds.

Also, I believe his famed 'jockstrap' comment came after the first Spinks fight, not before it.

I had Larry comfortably ahead and I believe the Ring, KO, Boxing illustrated all had Larry winning. And the jockstrap comment came before the first fight. It was in the build up to it.

vitali klitscho beats tyson, dempsey and Marciano more often than not

coxy0001 wrote:

The fact is that Holmes was robbed

I'm sorry, but i take an exception to you labelling things as "Fact" and that we should all bow down and just accept it.

Holmes sat behind a jab for too long, Spinks did enough early doors before Holmes actually did something to take the win. It was a close fight that went Spinks' way, Holmes only had himself to blame and comments about the judges being drunk smacked of him being a sore loser.

Fact is he struggled massively against a blown up light heavy. You try and give some concession that "oh but whinge, Holmes was robbed" and then will quite happily try to put down Marciano's opponents. Therein lies the big bias, therein lies why everyone here thinks you're a waste of time to debate with when it involves anything or anyone pre 1960.

Shoo.