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.

That comment came directly after the Spinks loss Az, now that is a FACT.

azania wrote:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Holmes#IBF_Heavyweight_Champion

You sure about that?

I'll ask again, would the the Jim Johnson fight have earned Jack Johnson more money than a fight with Sam Langford?

azania wrote:

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.

Can't speak for those publications, but I have no problem with the Spinks verdict. Been a while since I watched the first one, so unlike the second I can't give you my exact score, but I felt that Spinks won it by a couple of points. Honestly, you can't seriously think that it was worthy of 'robbery' status, can you?

And nope, the jockstrap comment was definitely after the fight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

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?

I gave 2 reasons why Johnson didn't fight other black fighters. I'll give another reason. He ducked legit challengers because of fear of losing his prized possession.

azania wrote:

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.

You're making a great showing of yourself.

88Chris05 wrote:

And nope, the jockstrap comment was definitely after the fight.

Was indeed Chris, have got Larry's autobiography at home and have read it a few times, was in the post fight press conference.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

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?

I gave 2 reasons why Johnson didn't fight other black fighters. I'll give another reason. He ducked legit challengers because of fear of losing his prized possession.

So rather than the other reasons you gave, the more likely reason was that he didn't want to face anyone he could lose to?

That list is fantastic - I like the use of both Sharkeys but why only one Baer and can we be sure as to which Corbett he is referring? Could it be Harry, Matthew or Ronnie?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That comment came directly after the Spinks loss Az, now that is a FACT.

Oxy, Ghosty et al. Apologies I made an error. So much for posting purely on memory only. Yes, the strap comment was after Spinks 1.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

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?

I gave 2 reasons why Johnson didn't fight other black fighters. I'll give another reason. He ducked legit challengers because of fear of losing his prized possession.

Never mind his reasons. Do you accept that Marciano faced better challengers than Johnson? Do you also accept that Marciano took on the best available, whereas Johnson ( who was, by your own admission, a great heavy, ) didn't?

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

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?

I gave 2 reasons why Johnson didn't fight other black fighters. I'll give another reason. He ducked legit challengers because of fear of losing his prized possession.

I'm going to pester you for this. Explain your "flawed fundamentals" comment with regards to Johnson.

I hav eno idea why he didn't fight Langforsd. You dont either. Only JJ knew and he took that to the grave. Anything else is just guesswork. Like his comments in taking a dive. He got legitimately KO'd in my opinion.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That comment came directly after the Spinks loss Az, now that is a FACT.

Oxy, Ghosty et al. Apologies I made an error. So much for posting purely on memory only. Yes, the strap comment was after Spinks 1.

So your facts are in fact far from being facts.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

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?

I gave 2 reasons why Johnson didn't fight other black fighters. I'll give another reason. He ducked legit challengers because of fear of losing his prized possession.

I'm going to pester you for this. Explain your "flawed fundamentals" comment with regards to Johnson.

I'd be interested to hear Az Futch's breakdown on this, also.

azania wrote:I hav eno idea why he didn't fight Langforsd. You dont either. Only JJ knew and he took that to the grave. Anything else is just guesswork. Like his comments in taking a dive. He got legitimately KO'd in my opinion.

So the first two reasons you gave are in most likelihood false then?

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

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.

You're making a great showing of yourself.

You're like an irritable mosquito than meeds swatting. But shoo. Take a hint. You claimed that no-one wants to debate with me, and yet you are trying hard to get my attention.

Shoo.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:I hav eno idea why he didn't fight Langforsd. You dont either. Only JJ knew and he took that to the grave. Anything else is just guesswork. Like his comments in taking a dive. He got legitimately KO'd in my opinion.

So the first two reasons you gave are in most likelihood false then?

What part of I was wrong dont you understand? Have you never been wrong on this board and thread?

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

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?

I gave 2 reasons why Johnson didn't fight other black fighters. I'll give another reason. He ducked legit challengers because of fear of losing his prized possession.

I'm going to pester you for this. Explain your "flawed fundamentals" comment with regards to Johnson.

I'd be interested to hear Az Futch's breakdown on this, also.

Ignore coxy az.

Please explain Jack Johnson's flawed fundamentals.

I'm actually after you to make a retort to my comment, i've raised points that Holmes was over-reliant on his admittedly excellent jab but that he just didn't do enough and let Spinks build a lead.

You on the other hand don't appear to have anything to come back with so just resort to petty insults.

Consider yourself reported as i've had enough of it personally.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

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?

I gave 2 reasons why Johnson didn't fight other black fighters. I'll give another reason. He ducked legit challengers because of fear of losing his prized possession.

I'm going to pester you for this. Explain your "flawed fundamentals" comment with regards to Johnson.

Good question. Because that deserves a decent response and one that takes time, I cant do it on my lunch break. Its not like the usual rabble I've been getting on this thread.

Can you PM him if you want to keep asking the same questions.

This thread is about Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks?

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:I hav eno idea why he didn't fight Langforsd. You dont either. Only JJ knew and he took that to the grave. Anything else is just guesswork. Like his comments in taking a dive. He got legitimately KO'd in my opinion.

So the first two reasons you gave are in most likelihood false then?

What part of I was wrong dont you understand? Have you never been wrong on this board and thread?

When you throw about facts here and there but get shown to be wrong time after time it does lend itself to some abuse. I'm probably a fair bit but I don't proclaim my OPINION to be FACT.

azania wrote:

You're like an irritable mosquito than meeds swatting. But shoo. Take a hint. You claimed that no-one wants to debate with me, and yet you are trying hard to get my attention.

Shoo.

C'mon, az.

Absolutely no need for this to get ugly.

Scottrf wrote:Can you PM him if you want to keep asking the same questions.

This thread is about Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks?

Many apologies, Scott.

Any more controversial Picks?

Sorry windy but I wont debate with coxy.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:I hav eno idea why he didn't fight Langforsd. You dont either. Only JJ knew and he took that to the grave. Anything else is just guesswork. Like his comments in taking a dive. He got legitimately KO'd in my opinion.

So the first two reasons you gave are in most likelihood false then?

What part of I was wrong dont you understand? Have you never been wrong on this board and thread?

When you throw about facts here and there but get shown to be wrong time after time it does lend itself to some abuse. I'm probably a fair bit but I don't proclaim my OPINION to be FACT.

Only been wrong on this occassion mate. Your probably a fair bit what? And mate, dont make me laugh. I've said several times that you pass opinion as fact all too often. I will give you credit though, you know your stuff. But fall very short on modern boxing.

oxring wrote:Many apologies, Scott.

Any more controversial Picks?

Is Vitali to beat Bowe controversial?

azania wrote:Sorry windy but I wont debate with coxy.

None of my business whether you do or you don't, but it's everybody's business that you don't attack him personally.

Please don't.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Sorry windy but I wont debate with coxy.

None of my business whether you do or you don't, but it's everybody's business that you don't attack him personally.

Please don't.

Apologies to the board and to coxy if I comments were a personal insult. I'm sure the boy's grown up enough to take it though. It wasn't meant to be personal.

Thanks, az.

Okay then, onward and upward.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:Many apologies, Scott.

Any more controversial Picks?

Is Vitali to beat Bowe controversial?

I'd back Vitali to beat him personally, so from my point of view not especially. Bowe, for me, had his flaws and was someone i never quite rated as high as some. Not a bad heavy, but not one you could level greatness at. Not least in his own era when he wasn't even the dominant force.

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Can you PM him if you want to keep asking the same questions.

This thread is about Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks?

Many apologies, Scott.

Any more controversial Picks?

Has Marciano to beat Tyson been done?

superflyweight wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Can you PM him if you want to keep asking the same questions.

This thread is about Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks?

Many apologies, Scott.

Any more controversial Picks?

Has Marciano to beat Tyson been done?

I think with alot of these controversial picks, the reason they become controversial is because theres a heavy emphasis on where each fighter slots in on an overall rating lists. I wouldnt really pay too much detail to this myself as I think the changing nature, timing and circumstances of eras will always lead to pretty big distortions.

Personally I wouldnt consider Tyson to beat Marciano as all that controversial at all. I think it only becomes controversial if you argue it from their respective placings on an all time list or something along those lines.

My feeling with Marciano is while you cant really knock what he did in the era he existed - his record basically flatters him as an actual fighter.

Rather than just tear down Marcianos record, which I think is a bit pointless unless you do the same to every top heavyweights record, you can try and look at it in other ways. For eample, Marcianos opposition is generally considered superior to Tysons (who has kind of unfairly become almost a by-word for "overhype"). But how would Tyson have fared against Marcianos opposition? How would Marciano have fared against Tysons? I dont see Tyson slipping up anywhere against Marcianos opponents. I think given their respective circumstances hes a decent favourite over all. Marciano on the other hand I can genuinely see slipping up or getting outpointed against some of those 80s early 90s guys and would start as an underdog against Holyfield and Lewis for me.

Have to be honest, I've always fancied Tyson to take Marciano out early. Tyson a ferocious starter, Marciano a notoriously slow one; doesn't bode well for the Hard Rock from Brockton. Tyson, for all his faults, was probably the most electrifying four-round Heavyweight of them all along with Dempsey.

Have to consider that the two of them shared quite a few similarities in style, and when this is the case, size and weight comes in to play a lot more. Marciano would be giving away something in the region of 30 lb to Tyson, just can't see how he'd keep Tyson off early doors. Tyson by knockout / stoppage inside three or four rounds would be my guess.

Personally I don't rate Bowe all that highly, think he is a "what could have been" if he had stayed out of KFC and not been shot by the age of 29 butfrom the evidence given he was a good Heavy but not at all THAT good, Vitali but UD maybe late KO for me.

On the balance of things, Vitali has been a more consistent performer across his era. That said, he's never impressed the way Bowe did against Holyfield first time out. Truly, that was one of the most magnificent performances you could wish to see from any Heavyweight in any era.

That version of Bowe probably beats Vitali by decision. On most other nights, you'd have to fancy Vitali to do the exact same to Bowe or stop him late on via his better conditioning.

You see Chris it's all well and good saying "that version" well let's look at the opposition on "that" night, an Evander Holyfield that possibly hadn't truly grown into a fully fledged Heavyweight and was a considerably smaller man anyway to Bowe.

I'd fancy Tyson for an early stoppage over Marciano, also.

Having said that, he would need to get it over with early, because Marciano was one of those who warmed to his task as the fight went on and Tyson wasn't. Probably not much in it for sheer strength, notwithstanding the fact that Rocky would be spotting Tyson twenty five pounds or so. Marciano was freakishly strong for his weight. However, Tyson's superior qualities - skill, handspeed, etc., would be on parade from the get go, whereas Rocky's superior qualities of durability, stamina, will, etc., required, by definition, time to kick in.

As big a fan of Marciano as I am, I can't get past Walcott and Moore dropping him very early and Tyson, along with Joe Louis, was probably the best finisher in heavyweight history.

If Marciano would still there after five or six he would knock Tyson out, in my opinion. Trouble is, I don't believe he would still be there after five or six.

Pretty much agree with your premise that Marciano's chances improve immeasurably if he makes it to the fifth / sixth round, Windy. But again like you, I just don't see him getting to that stage more than once in, say, four meetings with Tyson.

Come to think of it, my take on Tyson-Marciano is very similar to my take on Tyson-Frazier.

Agree completely, Chris.

It's horses for courses and, funnily enough, I'd reckon Frazier's bob and weave would see him with a better chance than Marciano against Tyson.

If Frazier could make Ali miss so often during their first fight I believe he could make Tyson miss, also. Agree with you, as I say, that the two fights ( Marciano v Tyson and Frazier v Tyson, ) share a similar prognosis but I'd fancy Frazier's chances ever so slightly more.

Head to head scenarios are so damned difficult.

So hard to judge with the whole "Bob and weave" head movement, I think that it's more suited to a more straight puncher that is a bit taller like Ali was to Frazier, I'm unsure as to whether the bob and weave would work on someone similar size and technique that throws hooks. Could be wrong though it's very up in the air.

As i pointed out before, Marciano vs Tyson is slow starter vs the wilter. If, and it's the big if when trying to figure out an outcome, is if Marciano is still there by the 6th he stands a great chance. As above 'if' he's still there is the big question. And bearing in mind he was never stopped suggest he had one hell of a chin, also had the relentless pressure that i'm not sure Tyson would've been keen on as it we all know he wasn't a huge fan of things when the going got tough.

One thing we could guarantee is the first 4 would be pretty incredible to watch.

And it's not like Tyson stopped every opponent early, he had his struggles against the likes of Tillis, Tucker etc etc in terms of he didn't get them out of there. So to assume he knocks out Marciano early would be jumping the gun a bit as he couldn't get guys out of there (i.e. Tillis) who'd been stopped before.

AlexHuckerby wrote:So hard to judge with the whole "Bob and weave" head movement, I think that it's more suited to a more straight puncher that is a bit taller like Ali was to Frazier, I'm unsure as to whether the bob and weave would work on someone similar size and technique that throws hooks. Could be wrong though it's very up in the air.

Still a moving target though, Alex, and Frazier kept it going throughout the entire fight ( unlike Tyson, ironically, who used to let it lapse after a couple or three rounds. ) Whichever way you spin it, even the mature version of Marciano, whose defence was a little better than the early version, was easier to hit than was Frazier.

Just to really set the cat among the pigeons, though, I'd make Marciano favourite against Frazier.

Go figure, if you can, because I can't.

coxy0001 wrote:
And it's not like Tyson stopped every opponent early, he had his struggles against the likes of Tillis, Tucker etc etc in terms of he didn't get them out of there. So to assume he knocks out Marciano early would be jumping the gun a bit as he couldn't get guys out of there (i.e. Tillis) who'd been stopped before.

Also true.

Sod this. It's too complicated. Head says Tyson, heart says Marciano and I'm going to leave it before my head goes into meltdown.

coxy0001 wrote:And it's not like Tyson stopped every opponent early, he had his struggles against the likes of Tillis, Tucker etc etc in terms of he didn't get them out of there. So to assume he knocks out Marciano early would be jumping the gun a bit as he couldn't get guys out of there (i.e. Tillis) who'd been stopped before.

Bit of a moot point when we're talking about Tyson-Marciano though, Coxy. Guys like Tillis, Tucker, Smith etc were all tall and rangy fighters who built their game around a solid jab. They had height and reach advantages over Tyson - things which Marciano didn't have - and used them to keep him off. There's absolutely no way that Marciano could have fought Tyson the way those guys did.

Should also be added in the case of Smith at least he went in with the express aim of seeing the final bell and surviving, can bet your bottom dollar the Rock ain't doing that.

Still think coxy has a point, Chris.

Marciano, lest we forget, had the punch to serve as deterrent.

88Chris05 wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:And it's not like Tyson stopped every opponent early, he had his struggles against the likes of Tillis, Tucker etc etc in terms of he didn't get them out of there. So to assume he knocks out Marciano early would be jumping the gun a bit as he couldn't get guys out of there (i.e. Tillis) who'd been stopped before.

Bit of a moot point when we're talking about Tyson-Marciano though, Coxy. Guys like Tillis, Tucker, Smith etc were all tall and rangy fighters who built their game around a solid jab. They had height and reach advantages over Tyson - things which Marciano didn't have - and used them to keep him off. There's absolutely no way that Marciano could have fought Tyson the way those guys did.

Alternatively we can't say Marciano would'nt have had success a guy who was coming at him whilst he was going at Tyson. I was merely commenting on a knockout scenario rather than styles. Marciano had a chin, whether he could weather the storm is the main sticking point, but would Tyson have liked being met head on by someone who could seriously crack when he was renowned for folding? It's too much of a toss up for me personally, i can't say for certain either way, one thing i can be certain of is that it would've been one of the great fights in history. If two styles were going to mesh it would be those two, in my opinion anyway.