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.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If Marciano gets close enough to throw his punches then its bad news for Tyson who had next to no inside game, the key for him is to keep it at mid range because up close and personal he would be beaten up fairly quickly. Only Foreman would have a realistic chance of taking Marciano out in 2 minutes.

Manos you can say his record flatters him but his opposition was still better than 90% of heavyweights, only Tunney, Jeffries, Ali, Frazier and Foreman can claim to hold great wins in the heavyweight division which puts everything into perspective. That his unbeaten record has yet to be replicated in poorer eras suggests Marciano is far better than you're giving him credit for.

What would you make of Tyson's win against Holmes? Do you take the fact (my opinion) that Holmes was past his best?

Of course Holmes was past his best, az, but experience and talent count for something. A faded Holmes was still a better challenger to Tyson than were many a rated heavy at the time, and it's the same with Charles to Marciano.

A genuine all time great in his twilight years compared to a young gun of lesser talent and experience. Which represents the more formidable opposition?

Pick'em, I would have thought.

HumanWindmill wrote:Of course Holmes was past his best, az, but experience and talent count for something. A faded Holmes was still a better challenger to Tyson than were many a rated heavy at the time, and it's the same with Charles to Marciano.

A genuine all time great in his twilight years compared to a young gun of lesser talent and experience. Which represents the more formidable opposition?

Pick'em, I would have thought.

I see things very differently. I rank his win over Pinklon over his win over Holmes. The basic point is that Holmes was past it. So were all Rocky's ATG opponents. Not one was in their prime. You, and others, have said JJW was in the form of his life coming into the fight. 3 fights prior to the Rocky fight he lost. 2 fights prior to that loss he suffered another loss. His loss to Rocky was just a continuation of his patchy record.

In my opinion, people elevate the ATG at the time they fought Rocky to be something close to their very best when in fact they weren't. It gives the impression that Rocky beat ATG who were near their peak when the oppisite is more accurate.

For the love of God, az, we KNOW that Walcott was ' up and down.' The point is, was six months ago, and will be in 2059 when you are still banging this drum, WALCOTT WAS IN TOP FORM AGAINST MARCIANO, WHICH WAS A PERFORMANCE EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS HIS PERFORMANCE AGAINST LOUIS FIRST TIME OUT.

Do you get it, now?

Seriously, mate, if 999 soldiers are marching ' left right ' and one is marching ' right left ' isn't it reasonable to believe that the one guy just might have it wrong?

HumanWindmill wrote:For the love of God, az, we KNOW that Walcott was ' up and down.' The point is, was six months ago, and will be in 2059 when you are still banging this drum, WALCOTT WAS IN TOP FORM AGAINST MARCIANO, WHICH WAS A PERFORMANCE EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS HIS PERFORMANCE AGAINST LOUIS FIRST TIME OUT.

Do you get it, now?

Really don't see what is so difficult with this surely we can watch the fight and decide what sort of form Jersey Joe was in that night? Think even the most generous amongst us would struggle to describe Buster Douglas as anything better than inconsistent and the cruel amongst us could use many a harsher adjective, but does not mean his performance against Tyson was anything less than stellar, why should this instance be any different.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If Marciano gets close enough to throw his punches then its bad news for Tyson who had next to no inside game, the key for him is to keep it at mid range because up close and personal he would be beaten up fairly quickly. Only Foreman would have a realistic chance of taking Marciano out in 2 minutes.

Manos you can say his record flatters him but his opposition was still better than 90% of heavyweights, only Tunney, Jeffries, Ali, Frazier and Foreman can claim to hold great wins in the heavyweight division which puts everything into perspective. That his unbeaten record has yet to be replicated in poorer eras suggests Marciano is far better than you're giving him credit for.

I dont agree. Given the level that his opposition were at. In terms of names on paper then yes you may be right but in terms of the practical level of the wins I dont think Marcianos wins translate nearly aswell.

Charles, for example, was a 10/10 light heavyweight at his best. But as a heavyweight at his best hes probably only 8/10 or 7/10. And when Marciano beat him he was fading so probably only about a 6/10 or a 5/10. Thats not a massive win for me. No better really than Tysons wins over Spinks, Holmes, Tubbs or Tucker in my view all of who would have had more than a decent shot against that version of Charles.

I see when Marciano came to prominance as a pretty weak period that looks alot more glamourous on paper than in reality.

HumanWindmill wrote:For the love of God, az, we KNOW that Walcott was ' up and down.' The point is, was six months ago, and will be in 2059 when you are still banging this drum, WALCOTT WAS IN TOP FORM AGAINST MARCIANO, WHICH WAS A PERFORMANCE EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS HIS PERFORMANCE AGAINST LOUIS FIRST TIME OUT.

Do you get it, now?

Seriously, mate, if 999 soldiers are marching ' left right ' and one is marching ' right left ' isn't it reasonable to believe that the one guy just might have it wrong?

Windy, its quite simple. Allowances are being made for Rocky which are not applied now. JJW was patchy and past it.

I'm not the only one saying this also. Read the article Rowley posted. Rocky fought faded greats. Even if I was th eonly one, the 999 would be wrong. Obviously.

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:For the love of God, az, we KNOW that Walcott was ' up and down.' The point is, was six months ago, and will be in 2059 when you are still banging this drum, WALCOTT WAS IN TOP FORM AGAINST MARCIANO, WHICH WAS A PERFORMANCE EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS HIS PERFORMANCE AGAINST LOUIS FIRST TIME OUT.

Do you get it, now?

Really don't see what is so difficult with this surely we can watch the fight and decide what sort of form Jersey Joe was in that night? Think even the most generous amongst us would struggle to describe Buster Douglas as anything better than inconsistent and the cruel amongst us could use many a harsher adjective, but does not mean his performance against Tyson was anything less than stellar, why should this instance be any different.

Bingo.

The voice of reason.

az, Marciano wasn't fighting a record book or a list of statistics. He was fighting a live opponent. The whole fight ( apart from one round which wasn't filmed because of a camera problem, ) is out there. Go watch it, and then tell me Walcott wasn't as good that night as he had ever been, including the first fight against Joe Louis.

HumanWindmill wrote:

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:For the love of God, az, we KNOW that Walcott was ' up and down.' The point is, was six months ago, and will be in 2059 when you are still banging this drum, WALCOTT WAS IN TOP FORM AGAINST MARCIANO, WHICH WAS A PERFORMANCE EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS HIS PERFORMANCE AGAINST LOUIS FIRST TIME OUT.

Do you get it, now?

Really don't see what is so difficult with this surely we can watch the fight and decide what sort of form Jersey Joe was in that night? Think even the most generous amongst us would struggle to describe Buster Douglas as anything better than inconsistent and the cruel amongst us could use many a harsher adjective, but does not mean his performance against Tyson was anything less than stellar, why should this instance be any different.

Bingo.

The voice of reason.

az, Marciano wasn't fighting a record book or a list of statistics. He was fighting a live opponent. The whole fight ( apart from one round which wasn't filmed because of a camera problem, ) is out there. Go watch it, and then tell me Walcott wasn't as good that night as he had ever been, including the first fight against Joe Louis.

I've seen the fight windy. He looked decent whilst it lasted. Mainly because Rocky is that bad a boxer. No way was he as good as when he fought Louis. You have to take the opponent into consideration. Rocky can make an average Jersey Joe look superhuman.

azania wrote:He looked decent whilst it lasted.

Well, I was only concerned with ' while the fight lasted,' though I do believe he showed some pretty good footwork on March 23rd., 1966, while jumping over his dog on the way to the toilet.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:He looked decent whilst it lasted.

Well, I was only concerned with ' while the fight lasted,' though I do believe he showed some pretty good footwork on March 23rd., 1966, while jumping over his dog on the way to the toilet.

Then he quit after the rematch. He knew he was totally finished by then.

Ladies and gents, the gospel according to azania :

' Marciano was crap. He only beat faded old men. '

' Walcott was a faded old man who only looked good against Marciano because Marciano was crap.'

I'm no mathematician but I believe that, by cancellation, we arrive at :

' Marciano was crap because Marciano was crap.'

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:He looked decent whilst it lasted.

Well, I was only concerned with ' while the fight lasted,' though I do believe he showed some pretty good footwork on March 23rd., 1966, while jumping over his dog on the way to the toilet.

Then he quit after the rematch. He knew he was totally finished by then.

And in his next fight after Tyson, Douglas turned in as inept a defence of a heavyweight title as you are ever likely to see, does this in any way detract from what he did in Japan?

HumanWindmill wrote:Ladies and gents, the gospel according to azania :

' Marciano was crap. He only beat faded old men. '

' Walcott was a faded old man who only looked good against Marciano because Marciano was crap.'

I'm no mathematician but I believe that, by cancellation, we arrive at :

' Marciano was crap because Marciano was crap.'

Windy, mind your language please. Its Alex's birthday. Show some respect!!

The bottom line is Rocky is grossly over-rated. His records looks stellar but looks are decieving as my missus tells me (after yesterday's dinner anyway). Closer scrutiny of his record shows that the top guys he beat were past it. His best win was over a guy with a very patchy record at best. You claim he had good footwork in hi Rocky fight. Not too difficult to display good footwork against Rocky is it. To move sideways was displaying good footwork against Rocky's agricultural skills.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:He looked decent whilst it lasted.

Well, I was only concerned with ' while the fight lasted,' though I do believe he showed some pretty good footwork on March 23rd., 1966, while jumping over his dog on the way to the toilet.

Then he quit after the rematch. He knew he was totally finished by then.

And in his next fight after Tyson, Douglas turned in as inept a defence of a heavyweight title as you are ever likely to see, does this in any way detract from what he did in Japan?

Yep, Douglas was very patchy. Sometimes quit for reasons only known to him and against Tyson when everything came together, he showed ATG skills. But alas, his patchyness is a blight on Tyson.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Ladies and gents, the gospel according to azania :

' Marciano was crap. He only beat faded old men. '

' Walcott was a faded old man who only looked good against Marciano because Marciano was crap.'

I'm no mathematician but I believe that, by cancellation, we arrive at :

' Marciano was crap because Marciano was crap.'

Windy, mind your language please. Its Alex's birthday. Show some respect!!

The bottom line is Rocky is grossly over-rated. His records looks stellar but looks are decieving as my missus tells me (after yesterday's dinner anyway). Closer scrutiny of his record shows that the top guys he beat were past it. His best win was over a guy with a very patchy record at best. You claim he had good footwork in hi Rocky fight. Not too difficult to display good footwork against Rocky is it. To move sideways was displaying good footwork against Rocky's agricultural skills.

Wrong.

The bottom line is that that is your opinion, which you have backed up only by the most illogical of gibberish and shifting of goalposts.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:He looked decent whilst it lasted.

Well, I was only concerned with ' while the fight lasted,' though I do believe he showed some pretty good footwork on March 23rd., 1966, while jumping over his dog on the way to the toilet.

Then he quit after the rematch. He knew he was totally finished by then.

And in his next fight after Tyson, Douglas turned in as inept a defence of a heavyweight title as you are ever likely to see, does this in any way detract from what he did in Japan?

To some extent I would say yes because it raises doubts about the level Tyson was fighting at and Tysons on performance.

There are lots of examples of fighters considered past it or just not that good turning in the odd singular good display, but the lack of consistency means you always question the oppositions performance awell.

Mercer came within a hairs breath of beating Lewis, Morales recently took Maidana all the way, Barkley v Hearns, Laing v Duran, Braddock against Baer, etc

always felt sorry for buster... on that night he was breathtakingly good... but the story was all about tyson's under-preparation and the 'long count'. Losing to an unfancied fighter did damage tyson's rep, because not enough allowance was made for how good douglas was that night... in most quarters.

To answer oxring's earlier comment, i'm one who'd take the buster that fought tyson to beat marciano...in fact there are very few heavies ever who i think could have beaten him that night... and just as few who wouldn't have beaten the version who fought holy.

milkyboy wrote:always felt sorry for buster... on that night he was breathtakingly good... but the story was all about tyson's under-preparation and the 'long count'. Losing to an unfancied fighter did damage tyson's rep, because not enough allowance was made for how good douglas was that night... in most quarters.

To answer oxring's earlier comment, i'm one who'd take the buster that fought tyson to beat marciano...in fact there are very few heavies ever who i think could have beaten him that night... and just as few who wouldn't have beaten the version who fought holy.

terribly written, meant to imply neither fighter ends up with a fair assessment after a fight like that... buster's performance gets undervalued because of perception that tyson must have been in terrible shape to lose to someone like douglas, and likewise tyson gets slated for losing to someone as bad as douglas, when on that night he was brilliant

Disagree Milkyboy - I'd take Marciano over that Douglas. Douglas turned in a fantastic performance, no doubt - but Marciano was one hell of a fighter.

And Manos - as for Ezzy being a 7/10 HW at his best - Sugar rated him as his #5 All time HW - based on styles - so not everyone agrees. Personally I wouldn't have him that high - 10 - 15 for me - but he's still a good win. The performance he turned in against Rocky both times out was full of guts and determination and no little skill

we're on a thread regarding controversial opinions oxring, and i recognise my views aren't consensus on this. IMO always the chance that rock hangs in there and catches up with him as he did with most others, and as tyson did with douglas at one point... but douglas would win every round until that happened... if it did. But i'd give him a decent chance against pretty much any top 10 heavy on that peformance. He always had the talent... circumstances gave him the conditioning and resolve for 1 night only.

Hey I'm not attacking you Milkyboy - it was a fabulous performance by Douglas no doubt - I'm just saying I don't agree. For me - Marciano weathers Douglas' best shots whilst being able to land some heavy punishment of his own - but its all about opinions.

I disagree with az - but I think I've made that relatively obvious on the thread already...

oxring wrote:Disagree Milkyboy - I'd take Marciano over that Douglas. Douglas turned in a fantastic performance, no doubt - but Marciano was one hell of a fighter.

And Manos - as for Ezzy being a 7/10 HW at his best - Sugar rated him as his #5 All time HW - based on styles - so not everyone agrees. Personally I wouldn't have him that high - 10 - 15 for me - but he's still a good win. The performance he turned in against Rocky both times out was full of guts and determination and no little skill

Sugar should light his cigar. Charles was a superb boxer but not the best HW out there. I'd have him outside the top 10 (want me to name them).

You'd take Rocky over that Douglas? Well its all about opinions and each to their own. But whatever organic juice you're drinking, let me have some please.

You see that#s the problem I have when people analyse Rocky. All his contenders, although past it, fought at their very best when they faced him. All bar none. Now you'll claim Charles put in one of his best performances but Rocky was too good instead of the more accurate version that Rocky beat a shell of the once great Charles. Look at his post Rocky record. The argument will soon be that Rocky beat him so bad it took everything out of him hence his poor performances.

Rocky could barely walk on the canvas, but he could walk on water. Heck he didn't use an axe when chopping wood, he just punched the wood. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No its Rocky!!

Give me strength.

Rocky couldn't carry Charles's jockstrap if he was at his peak. FACT!

oxring wrote:Hey I'm not attacking you Milkyboy - it was a fabulous performance by Douglas no doubt - I'm just saying I don't agree. For me - Marciano weathers Douglas' best shots whilst being able to land some heavy punishment of his own - but its all about opinions.

I disagree with az - but I think I've made that relatively obvious on the thread already...

Seriously?

oxring wrote:Disagree Milkyboy - I'd take Marciano over that Douglas. Douglas turned in a fantastic performance, no doubt - but Marciano was one hell of a fighter.

And Manos - as for Ezzy being a 7/10 HW at his best - Sugar rated him as his #5 All time HW - based on styles - so not everyone agrees. Personally I wouldn't have him that high - 10 - 15 for me - but he's still a good win. The performance he turned in against Rocky both times out was full of guts and determination and no little skill

Sugar has Charles at number 7 I think, which in itself is pretty far fetched in my eyes and difficult to support. Its a tiny minority opinion on Charles in any event so how much weight to you give it? Very few would rate him as top ten.

Charles was a guy who started at middleweight and did his best work in the 1940s between middleweight and light heavyweight. Marciano fought him in the mid 1950s when Marciano was close to his best and Charles was faded and above his best his own best weights. There are a great many heavyweights of different eras and different shapes and sizes which I would give an equal or better chance of beating the version of Charles that Marciano beat. Tysons wins over Spinks, Tubbs, Tucker and Holmes all rank as equal or better wins for me in the circumstances.

az,

Nobody claims Charles was at his very best against Marciano ( though Walcott was. ) The point is, he put up two very good efforts which represented a severe test for Marciano and would have to many a good heavyweight champion.

Were Frazier and Ali at their best in Manila? Of course they weren't, but it would have taken a heck of a fighter to beat either of them on that particular night.

HumanWindmill wrote:az,

Nobody claims Charles was at his very best against Marciano ( though Walcott was. ) The point is, he put up two very good efforts which represented a severe test for Marciano and would have to many a good heavyweight champion.

Were Frazier and Ali at their best in Manila? Of course they weren't, but it would have taken a heck of a fighter to beat either of them on that particular night.

Walcott was having one of his lapses against Rocky. Circular argument. Charles looked good because Rocky was that bad. Faded greats looked good against him until they faded during the fight.

The Manilla fight was a great fight. 2 warriors laying it all out. But I would say that Holy, Tyson, Holmes, Vit and Wlad would beat Ali and Frazier if Manilla was their best performance. Their most exciting fight but not their most skilled.

You are as slippery as soap, sometimes.

I didn't say that nobody would have beaten Ali or Frazier that night, did I? I said what you implied; that it would have taken a heck of a fighter to have beaten them.

HumanWindmill wrote:You are as slippery as soap, sometimes.

I didn't say that nobody would have beaten Ali or Frazier that night, did I? I said what you implied; that it would have taken a heck of a fighter to have beaten them.

Rocky was not in that class. The Charles and JJW he beat would have lost to Frank Bruno, Oliver McCall and most top 10 HW in the 70s and 80s regardless of what performance they put in.

HumanWindmill wrote:You are as slippery as soap, sometimes.

I didn't say that nobody would have beaten Ali or Frazier that night, did I? I said what you implied; that it would have taken a heck of a fighter to have beaten them.

You have to use another comparison - I don't think he has ever used any Reckon Az is right about the result although I'd say 4-5 round as opposed to 2 minutes.

ShahenshahG wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:You are as slippery as soap, sometimes.

I didn't say that nobody would have beaten Ali or Frazier that night, did I? I said what you implied; that it would have taken a heck of a fighter to have beaten them.

You have to use another comparison - I don't think he has ever used any Reckon Az is right about the result although I'd say 4-5 round as opposed to 2 minutes.

Shower gel mate

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:You are as slippery as soap, sometimes.

I didn't say that nobody would have beaten Ali or Frazier that night, did I? I said what you implied; that it would have taken a heck of a fighter to have beaten them.

Rocky was not in that class. The Charles and JJW he beat would have lost to Frank Bruno, Oliver McCall and most top 10 HW in the 70s and 80s regardless of what performance they put in.

You are rapidly driving me to the brink of a breakdown.

I didn't say Marciano would have beaten them that night, either. Haven't even thought about it, to be honest, and nor do I intend to since it has the square root of zero to do with my main point.

Tell you what, I was going to make an effort, once again, to spell out that point but I can't be bothered. I'll just drop in here what I wrote earlier and be done with it :

HumanWindmill wrote:Ladies and gents, the gospel according to azania :

' Marciano was crap. He only beat faded old men. '

' Walcott was a faded old man who only looked good against Marciano because Marciano was crap.'

I'm no mathematician but I believe that, by cancellation, we arrive at :

' Marciano was crap because Marciano was crap.'

PS. Shah,

That's the daft thing in all this. I actually agree with az about Tyson v Marciano. It's his casual trashing of the man and his opponents, without even the semblance of a balanced argument, which drives me up the wall.

I see the point abou the Thrialla fight, but I dont think it would have taken a fighter of all time great proportions to beat the version of Charles Marciano faced. Id say a good few contenders from many eras would have a shot and almost any genuinely great heavyweight in their peak would have beaten him.

He had lost to Valdes and somebody like Johnson as well as Walcott prior to Marciano so there is plenty to say that despite fighting a good fight against Rocky, its evidence to suggest that it was Marciano struggling with a faded Charles rather than a rejuvenated Charles taking it to Marciano.

Mercer pushed Lewis all the way. Would it have taken an all time great heavyweigh to beat Mercer that night? I doubt it. It says more about Lewis that night than Mercer in my view.

Huge defences of Charles are mounted in relation to Marciano yet Tysons win over Holmes is routinely dismissed and barely worthy.

Windy I am being balanced. Chip is on both shoulders.

Rocky is an over-hyped invention of an ATG. It is that simple for me. Just trying to balance things out a little.

azania wrote:Windy I am being balanced. Chip is on both shoulders.

Rocky is an over-hyped invention of an ATG. It is that simple for me. Just trying to balance things out a little.

Well if its windy - you would be teetering on both sides as you fought to maintain your balance. From here it looks like you've been buried arse out on the other side of the argument

ShahenshahG wrote:

azania wrote:Windy I am being balanced. Chip is on both shoulders.

Rocky is an over-hyped invention of an ATG. It is that simple for me. Just trying to balance things out a little.

Well if its windy - you would be teetering on both sides as you fought to maintain your balance. From here it looks like you've been buried arse out on the other side of the argument

Never buried mate. I have been consistent in my argumeents since day 1. Rocky is an over0hyped over-rated, crude plodding boxer who was at the right place and right time. The media machine went into over-drive to enhance his rep from an average slugger into one of he best ever due to his undefeated record.

Facing and beating 49 stiffs does not make an ATG.

manos de piedra wrote:I see the point abou the Thrialla fight, but I dont think it would have taken a fighter of all time great proportions to beat the version of Charles Marciano faced. Id say a good few contenders from many eras would have a shot and almost any genuinely great heavyweight in their peak would have beaten him.

He had lost to Valdes and somebody like Johnson as well as Walcott prior to Marciano so there is plenty to say that despite fighting a good fight against Rocky, its evidence to suggest that it was Marciano struggling with a faded Charles rather than a rejuvenated Charles taking it to Marciano.

Mercer pushed Lewis all the way. Would it have taken an all time great heavyweigh to beat Mercer that night? I doubt it. It says more about Lewis that night than Mercer in my view.

Huge defences of Charles are mounted in relation to Marciano yet Tysons win over Holmes is routinely dismissed and barely worthy.

Agree with much of what you say, manos.

I actually DO think that Tyson's win over Holmes was worth something, though. To my shame, I tipped Holmes to win that one. I figured his savvy, his experience and his ego / pride would see him fight above himself. He looked on for it for a couple of rounds, too, but the way Tyson chopped him down, arm tangled in rope or not, was mightily impressive.

Charles v Marciano as good as Holmes v Tyson? In all honesty, probably not. However, I'm one of those who doesn't trash Tyson's opponents. My perspective is this. I love Ali and always have, so there's no agenda here. Was the Ezzard Charles who fought Marciano as good as the Patterson, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, Williams and Folley who fought Ali?

I believe he was.

Ali, quite rightly, is revered for his work in the sixties. It was magical to watch. However, with the exception of Chuvalo and Terrell I don't regard his opposition as being any better than Marciano's.

HumanWindmill wrote:' Marciano was crap because Marciano was white.'

Think that's more what you were looking for Windy.

oxring wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:' Marciano was crap because Marciano was white.'

Think that's more what you were looking for Windy.

Haha!

How, on God's green Earth, did I forget that one?

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I see the point abou the Thrialla fight, but I dont think it would have taken a fighter of all time great proportions to beat the version of Charles Marciano faced. Id say a good few contenders from many eras would have a shot and almost any genuinely great heavyweight in their peak would have beaten him.

He had lost to Valdes and somebody like Johnson as well as Walcott prior to Marciano so there is plenty to say that despite fighting a good fight against Rocky, its evidence to suggest that it was Marciano struggling with a faded Charles rather than a rejuvenated Charles taking it to Marciano.

Mercer pushed Lewis all the way. Would it have taken an all time great heavyweigh to beat Mercer that night? I doubt it. It says more about Lewis that night than Mercer in my view.

Huge defences of Charles are mounted in relation to Marciano yet Tysons win over Holmes is routinely dismissed and barely worthy.

Agree with much of what you say, manos.

I actually DO think that Tyson's win over Holmes was worth something, though. To my shame, I tipped Holmes to win that one. I figured his savvy, his experience and his ego / pride would see him fight above himself. He looked on for it for a couple of rounds, too, but the way Tyson chopped him down, arm tangled in rope or not, was mightily impressive.

Charles v Marciano as good as Holmes v Tyson? In all honesty, probably not. However, I'm one of those who doesn't trash Tyson's opponents. My perspective is this. I love Ali and always have, so there's no agenda here. Was the Ezzard Charles who fought Marciano as good as the Patterson, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, Williams and Folley who fought Ali?

I believe he was.

Ali, quite rightly, is revered for his work in the sixties. It was magical to watch. However, with the exception of Chuvalo and Terrell I don't regard his opposition as being any better than Marciano's.

Patterson I would fancy to wipe out Charles, Liston too obviously, but the rest I would agree. But it was Alis performances and display of talent that captivated at the time, and his legacy would be nowhere near as strong without both the political angle and the later performances in late 1960s/1970s.

Marciano was far more underwhelming. Admirable in other ways of course - power, chin, courage, determination but he made harder work of his opposition than Ali did overall and was not as impressive or talented.

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:' Marciano was crap because Marciano was white.'

Think that's more what you were looking for Windy.

Haha!

How, on God's green Earth, did I forget that one?

I bet you whiteys have been waiting a few decades to use that one True equality is when everyone cries racism. Well done gents. We have overcome.

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I see the point abou the Thrialla fight, but I dont think it would have taken a fighter of all time great proportions to beat the version of Charles Marciano faced. Id say a good few contenders from many eras would have a shot and almost any genuinely great heavyweight in their peak would have beaten him.

He had lost to Valdes and somebody like Johnson as well as Walcott prior to Marciano so there is plenty to say that despite fighting a good fight against Rocky, its evidence to suggest that it was Marciano struggling with a faded Charles rather than a rejuvenated Charles taking it to Marciano.

Mercer pushed Lewis all the way. Would it have taken an all time great heavyweigh to beat Mercer that night? I doubt it. It says more about Lewis that night than Mercer in my view.

Huge defences of Charles are mounted in relation to Marciano yet Tysons win over Holmes is routinely dismissed and barely worthy.

Agree with much of what you say, manos.

I actually DO think that Tyson's win over Holmes was worth something, though. To my shame, I tipped Holmes to win that one. I figured his savvy, his experience and his ego / pride would see him fight above himself. He looked on for it for a couple of rounds, too, but the way Tyson chopped him down, arm tangled in rope or not, was mightily impressive.

Charles v Marciano as good as Holmes v Tyson? In all honesty, probably not. However, I'm one of those who doesn't trash Tyson's opponents. My perspective is this. I love Ali and always have, so there's no agenda here. Was the Ezzard Charles who fought Marciano as good as the Patterson, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, Williams and Folley who fought Ali?

I believe he was.

Ali, quite rightly, is revered for his work in the sixties. It was magical to watch. However, with the exception of Chuvalo and Terrell I don't regard his opposition as being any better than Marciano's.

Patterson I would fancy to wipe out Charles, Liston too obviously, but the rest I would agree. But it was Alis performances and display of talent that captivated at the time, and his legacy would be nowhere near as strong without both the political angle and the later performances in late 1960s/1970s.

Marciano was far more underwhelming. Admirable in other ways of course - power, chin, courage, determination but he made harder work of his opposition than Ali did overall and was not as impressive or talented.

The Patterson who fought Ali first time out, crippled by back pain?

Marciano was underwhelming ( who wasn't, compared to Ali? ) but do we dismiss him because he wasn't pretty to watch? If so, we'd better get ready to delete from the ATG lists quite a few others who normally get a place.

ShahenshahG wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:' Marciano was crap because Marciano was white.'

Think that's more what you were looking for Windy.

Haha!

How, on God's green Earth, did I forget that one?

I bet you whiteys have been waiting a few decades to use that one True equality is when everyone cries racism. Well done gents. We have overcome.

oxy, rugbydreamer and I are reforming ' Peter Paul and Mary ' and will shortly be appearing at a folk club near you.

I reckon Waingro should be your Martin Luther King. He's always dreaming - although he may set you back about 5000 years.

[quote="HumanWindmill"]

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I see the point abou the Thrialla fight, but I dont think it would have taken a fighter of all time great proportions to beat the version of Charles Marciano faced. Id say a good few contenders from many eras would have a shot and almost any genuinely great heavyweight in their peak would have beaten him.

He had lost to Valdes and somebody like Johnson as well as Walcott prior to Marciano so there is plenty to say that despite fighting a good fight against Rocky, its evidence to suggest that it was Marciano struggling with a faded Charles rather than a rejuvenated Charles taking it to Marciano.

Mercer pushed Lewis all the way. Would it have taken an all time great heavyweigh to beat Mercer that night? I doubt it. It says more about Lewis that night than Mercer in my view.

Huge defences of Charles are mounted in relation to Marciano yet Tysons win over Holmes is routinely dismissed and barely worthy.

Agree with much of what you say, manos.

I actually DO think that Tyson's win over Holmes was worth something, though. To my shame, I tipped Holmes to win that one. I figured his savvy, his experience and his ego / pride would see him fight above himself. He looked on for it for a couple of rounds, too, but the way Tyson chopped him down, arm tangled in rope or not, was mightily impressive.

Charles v Marciano as good as Holmes v Tyson? In all honesty, probably not. However, I'm one of those who doesn't trash Tyson's opponents. My perspective is this. I love Ali and always have, so there's no agenda here. Was the Ezzard Charles who fought Marciano as good as the Patterson, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, Williams and Folley who fought Ali?

I believe he was.

Ali, quite rightly, is revered for his work in the sixties. It was magical to watch. However, with the exception of Chuvalo and Terrell I don't regard his opposition as being any better than Marciano's.

Patterson I would fancy to wipe out Charles, Liston too obviously, but the rest I would agree. But it was Alis performances and display of talent that captivated at the time, and his legacy would be nowhere near as strong without both the political angle and the later performances in late 1960s/1970s.

Marciano was far more underwhelming. Admirable in other ways of course - power, chin, courage, determination but he made harder work of his opposition than Ali did overall and was not as impressive or talented.

The Patterson who fought Ali first time out, crippled by back pain?

Marciano was underwhelming ( who wasn't, compared to Ali? ) but do we dismiss him because he wasn't pretty to watch? If so, we'd better get ready to delete from the ATG lists quite a few others who normally get a place.[/quote]

Should I start editing the list?

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:' Marciano was crap because Marciano was white.'

Think that's more what you were looking for Windy.

Haha!

How, on God's green Earth, did I forget that one?

America wanted a great white hope. They had Cooney, the Quarrys, Morrisson. All failed. So they steadily buil;t up rocky as this impregnable punchine machine who couldn't be beaten.

If the K bros were American then God help us all. They would be on cereal boxes.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I see the point abou the Thrialla fight, but I dont think it would have taken a fighter of all time great proportions to beat the version of Charles Marciano faced. Id say a good few contenders from many eras would have a shot and almost any genuinely great heavyweight in their peak would have beaten him.

He had lost to Valdes and somebody like Johnson as well as Walcott prior to Marciano so there is plenty to say that despite fighting a good fight against Rocky, its evidence to suggest that it was Marciano struggling with a faded Charles rather than a rejuvenated Charles taking it to Marciano.

Mercer pushed Lewis all the way. Would it have taken an all time great heavyweigh to beat Mercer that night? I doubt it. It says more about Lewis that night than Mercer in my view.

Huge defences of Charles are mounted in relation to Marciano yet Tysons win over Holmes is routinely dismissed and barely worthy.

Agree with much of what you say, manos.

I actually DO think that Tyson's win over Holmes was worth something, though. To my shame, I tipped Holmes to win that one. I figured his savvy, his experience and his ego / pride would see him fight above himself. He looked on for it for a couple of rounds, too, but the way Tyson chopped him down, arm tangled in rope or not, was mightily impressive.

Charles v Marciano as good as Holmes v Tyson? In all honesty, probably not. However, I'm one of those who doesn't trash Tyson's opponents. My perspective is this. I love Ali and always have, so there's no agenda here. Was the Ezzard Charles who fought Marciano as good as the Patterson, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, Williams and Folley who fought Ali?

I believe he was.

Ali, quite rightly, is revered for his work in the sixties. It was magical to watch. However, with the exception of Chuvalo and Terrell I don't regard his opposition as being any better than Marciano's.

Patterson I would fancy to wipe out Charles, Liston too obviously, but the rest I would agree. But it was Alis performances and display of talent that captivated at the time, and his legacy would be nowhere near as strong without both the political angle and the later performances in late 1960s/1970s.

Marciano was far more underwhelming. Admirable in other ways of course - power, chin, courage, determination but he made harder work of his opposition than Ali did overall and was not as impressive or talented.

The Patterson who fought Ali first time out, crippled by back pain?

Marciano was underwhelming ( who wasn't, compared to Ali? ) but do we dismiss him because he wasn't pretty to watch? If so, we'd better get ready to delete from the ATG lists quite a few others who normally get a place.

Patterson at his best I mean. Id say he would make similar work of that version of Charles as he did to Moore.

Im happy enough with Marcianos acheivements getting him a top ten spot but in paractical terms I dont think he or his opposition would fare very well in head to heads with other more talented fighters who accomplished less. Tyson being an example.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:' Marciano was crap because Marciano was white.'

Think that's more what you were looking for Windy.

Haha!

How, on God's green Earth, did I forget that one?

America wanted a great white hope. They had Cooney, the Quarrys, Morrisson. All failed. So they steadily buil;t up rocky as this impregnable punchine machine who couldn't be beaten.

If the K bros were American then God help us all. They would be on cereal boxes.

Given he went 49 fights unbeaten, has one of the all time best HW KO records and has, next to Ali, one of the best records at HW - perhaps he didn't need too much building up.

manos de piedra wrote:
Patterson at his best I mean. Id say he would make similar work of that version of Charles as he did to Moore.

But that was my point, manos.

Charles, as you and az rightly point out, wasn't considered to be at his best when he fought Marciano. However, Patterson was patently not at his best against Ali first time out, either.

I know perfectly well that you see the distinction but, with no disrespect intended to az, I don't believe he wants to make that distinction.

What about Nigel Benn? Now this guys was very underrated he fought quality fighters and he was robbed against Eubank in their second fight. I reckon he would have beaten guys like Duran, Hearns, hopkins and Toney far to much power for those guys but I think Calzaghe, Hagler and Jones would have schooled him. Hagler was a beast with a iron chin and Jones and Calzaghe had too much speed and skill.