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.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a difference between heart and guts, az.

Tyson had guts, no doubt. He absorbed awful shellackings from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis. However, he lacked the heart and self belief to rescue a losing situation. Only once, against Botha, did he turn a fight on its head and rescue a lost cause, and that was with a punch from nowhere when Botha got careless.

How many boxers have rescued a lost cause? Frazier is considered great but never rescued a lost cause. Neither did Ali. Even Holmes. Tyson lost to Douglas who fought out of his skin against a jaded tyson who took him lightly. But even if he took him extremely seriously, there are doubts in the back of my mind if he could have won anyway. Tyson's main weakness was against a good jab and footwork. Douglas had it all on that night.

Instead of saying he didn't rescue a lost cause I'd rather give credit to his opponent for not letting him do that. Its not as if he stopped trying to win.

Now you are being, sorry to say, ridiculous.

Frazier v Bonavena I

Ali v Cooper

Ali v Foreman (!)

Ali v Lyle

Ali v Norton II

Holmes v Weaver

Holmes v Snipes

Holmes v Shavers (!)

The difference is windy that those guys were winning the fights up until they got rocked/dropped. Tyson on the other hand was losing from round 1 in the main fights he lost.

In the Zaire fight, I had Ali ahead. He was landing the cleaner shots throughout. Its a myth that he just layed on the ropes and let foreman punch himself out. ESPN classic show that fight often enough.

Nonsense.

In some cases they were and in some cases they were not. However, if you really wish to wriggle like an eel in a bucket of snot, how about Holmes v Norton?

I believe Manos has answered the issue of Charles earlier and so have I. Dont want to be repeating myself.

Not nonsense windy. You mentioned the Botha fght where Tyson was far behind on points and won via KO. That's what I thought you meant by coming back from adversity. Hence I stated that hardly any fighter who I mentioned had done that. No great shakes as a past it tyson beat up a never had it Botha.

While we're at it :

Fitzsimmons, a mile behind on points, changes tactics, feints Corbett into knots and kayos him.

Jeffries, battered and bruised, weathers a ferocious onslaught from Fitzsimmons, wears him down and kayos him.

Jeffries turns a similar trick against Corbett.

Willard, having sustained a fifteen round beating, has the toughness, grit and stamina to outlast Johnson and kayo him.

Louis, going nowhere against Billy Conn, sticks to his task, creates an opening and kayos him.

Louis, in the return against Walcott, is struggling badly, takes Jersey Joe to the ropes, refuses to be befuddled by Walcott's shoulder shuffle, picks his punches and unleashes a beautiful combo to - you've guessed it - kayo him.

Marciano ( remember him, ) nose split in two, is given one more round by the referee and says ' thank you ' by kayoing Charles.

Patterson, in Johansson II and III, finds himself in all sorts of trouble but sticks to his task and kayos him.

Will that do for now?

azania wrote:I believe Manos has answered the issue of Charles earlier and so have I. Dont want to be repeating myself.

Heaven forbid that you would do that, eh?

HumanWindmill wrote:While we're at it :

Fitzsimmons, a mile behind on points, changes tactics, feints Corbett into knots and kayos him.

Jeffries, battered and bruised, weathers a ferocious onslaught from Fitzsimmons, wears him down and kayos him.

Willard, having sustained a fifteen round beating, has the toughness, grit and stamina to outlast Johnson and kayo him.

Louis, going nowghere against Billy Conn, sticks to his task, creates an opening and kayos him.

Louis, in the return against Walcott, is struggling badly, takes Jersey Joe to the ropes, refuses to be befuddled by Walcott's shoulder shuffle, picks his punches and unleashes a beautiful combo to - you've guessed it - kayo him.

Marciano ( remember him, ) nose split in two, is given one more round by the referee and says ' thank you ' by kayoing Charles.

Patterson, in Johansson II and III, finds himnself in all sorts of trouble but sticks to his task and kayos him.

Will that do for now?

Yep. That's why I said not many. But once again you are not giving credit to the fighters who won. Its not as though Tyson lost to stiffs.

Lewis fight was a payday fight. Holy just beat him up using the jab and good foorwork (see above post about Tyson weakness) and Douglas fought the fight of his life.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I believe Manos has answered the issue of Charles earlier and so have I. Dont want to be repeating myself.

Heaven forbid that you would do that, eh?

Windy, you're a star!

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:While we're at it :

Fitzsimmons, a mile behind on points, changes tactics, feints Corbett into knots and kayos him.

Jeffries, battered and bruised, weathers a ferocious onslaught from Fitzsimmons, wears him down and kayos him.

Willard, having sustained a fifteen round beating, has the toughness, grit and stamina to outlast Johnson and kayo him.

Louis, going nowghere against Billy Conn, sticks to his task, creates an opening and kayos him.

Louis, in the return against Walcott, is struggling badly, takes Jersey Joe to the ropes, refuses to be befuddled by Walcott's shoulder shuffle, picks his punches and unleashes a beautiful combo to - you've guessed it - kayo him.

Marciano ( remember him, ) nose split in two, is given one more round by the referee and says ' thank you ' by kayoing Charles.

Patterson, in Johansson II and III, finds himnself in all sorts of trouble but sticks to his task and kayos him.

Will that do for now?

Yep. That's why I said not many. But once again you are not giving credit to the fighters who won. Its not as though Tyson lost to stiffs.

Regarding the bit in bold, I could cite numerous other examples, but I'm afraid I gave you the benefit of not being a hair splitting pedant.

Regarding the bit in italics, I have no idea what you mean, but that would hardly be a ' first.'

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

Shouldn't that read :

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

Shouldn't that read :

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

azania wrote:



Windy, you're a star!

Getting too big for your boots windy old boy

Oh, I have no delusions of grandeur, Shah.

The fact that az can reduce me to a dribbling nervous wreck, shuffling around my apartment in carpet slippers and smelly dressing gown, mumbling ' az repeats himself, Windy is a star, Marciano is crap because Marciano is crap, boxers became good on the 11th. Februaray, 1945 ' and various other nonsensical comments, serves as a great leveller for a man's self esteem.

I've given my reasons why I believe Rocky is over-rated and his standings grossly inflated. Just try and remain calm old chap.

one of the good design features of this site, is repeating the original post at the top of each page.

click on this thread and you are greeted with scott's opening line:

"Saw this elsewhere and seemed like a good idea"

perhaps he should edit it, adding the words 'at the time'.

Or perhaps the mods could simply add a health warning flag to the thread... or at the very least post a number for the samaritans

azania wrote:I've given my reasons why I believe Rocky is over-rated and his standings grossly inflated. Just try and remain calm old chap.

No. you haven't.

manos de piedra has, and he has also attributed qualities to Marciano while pointing out his flaws.

Yours is a prejudicial carte blanche trashing of a great fighter and his achievements. That this is so is amply proven by your ridiculous assertion that you can find fifty better heavyweights than Marciano.

milkyboy wrote:one of the good design features of this site, is repeating the original post at the top of each page.

click on this thread and you are greeted with scott's opening line:

"Saw this elsewhere and seemed like a good idea"

perhaps he should edit it, adding the words 'at the time'.

Or perhaps the mods could simply add a health warning flag to the thread... or at the very least post a number for the samaritans

Haha!

And milky boy comes from nowhere to scoop the ' Post of the day ' award.

I was on like page 9 yesterday when Az was trashign Marciano or something and I thought I'll see where they are now, Az still trashing Marciano...

Just take it Az, Marcianos record stands up well, he wasn't the greatest heavy of all time, but he was unbeaten for a reason and ducked nobody, his record stands strong next to most Top 10 ATG heavyweights. Jeez.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I've given my reasons why I believe Rocky is over-rated and his standings grossly inflated. Just try and remain calm old chap.

No. you haven't.

manos de piedra has, and he has also attributed qualities to Marciano while pointing out his flaws.

Yours is a prejudicial carte blanche trashing of a great fighter and his achievements. That this is so is amply proven by your ridiculous assertion that you can find fifty better heavyweights than Marciano.

Yes I have windy. Read my posts again (if you can survive that long). I gave Rock credit for his punch power, his determination and his chin. All that was written before Manos more eloquently said the same.

Against Tyson as I said, his flaws outweigh whatever strength he had.

AlexHuckerby wrote:I was on like page 9 yesterday when Az was trashign Marciano or something and I thought I'll see where they are now, Az still trashing Marciano...

Just take it Az, Marcianos record stands up well, he wasn't the greatest heavy of all time, but he was unbeaten for a reason and ducked nobody, his record stands strong next to most Top 10 ATG heavyweights. Jeez.

His record on paper beats all other ATGs.

Dig an inch deeper then a can of worms open up. And no I am not trashing his opponents either. To say that they were washed up and patchy is not trashing them. Its stating a fact.

To say that they were washed up and patchy is not trashing them. Its stating a fact.

I guess that's why most intelligent boxing fans would have him in their top 10 heavies of all time then.

azania wrote:

Dig an inch deeper then a can of worms open up. And no I am not trashing his opponents either. To say that they were washed up and patchy is not trashing them. Its stating a fact.

Yep, and is also something it is impossible to do with any other heavyweight champion.

coxy0001 wrote:

To say that they were washed up and patchy is not trashing them. Its stating a fact.

I guess that's why most intelligent boxing fans would have him in their top 10 heavies of all time then.

Were Charles and JJW at their peak when they fought Rocky? Simple question that I'm sure a lad like you can answer.

i knew 2 brothers once... nice enough lads, but bit of a family stubborn streak. One weekend they and some other mates came to visit me at college in sheffield. At the end of a chemically assisted evening the brothers began an argument about how one of them treated women with no respect. True as it goes, but irrelevant to the story. The rest of us retired for the night, bored of them bickering endlessly about it.

When i arose late the following morning they hadn't been to bed and were still repeating the same points in the same argument. I sent them packing back to london with another mate who was the dedicated driver.

half way down the m1, he finally lost patience, pulled up at a service station and refused to take them any further.

no moral to the story, it just came back to me for some reason

The same question to you rowley. Were Charley, Louis and JJW at their peak when they fought Rocky.

I'll throw in another. Was Holmes at his peak when he fought Tyson?

azania wrote:The same question to you rowley. Were Charley, Louis and JJW at their peak when they fought Rocky.

I'll throw in another. Was Holmes at his peak when he fought Tyson?

Have I ever claimed they were?

milkyboy wrote:i knew 2 brothers once... nice enough lads, but bit of a family stubborn streak. One weekend they and some other mates came to visit me at college in sheffield. At the end of a chemically assisted evening the brothers began an argument about how one of them treated women with no respect. True as it goes, but irrelevant to the story. The rest of us retired for the night, bored of them bickering endlessly about it.

When i arose late the following morning they hadn't been to bed and were still repeating the same points in the same argument. I sent them packing back to london with another mate who was the dedicated driver.

half way down the m1, he finally lost patience, pulled up at a service station and refused to take them any further.

no moral to the story, it just came back to me for some reason

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

To say that they were washed up and patchy is not trashing them. Its stating a fact.

I guess that's why most intelligent boxing fans would have him in their top 10 heavies of all time then.

Were Charles and JJW at their peak when they fought Rocky? Simple question that I'm sure a lad like you can answer.

Charles wasn't at his 'peak' as such but he was still beating guys like Maxim, JJW, Bivins etc. I'm quite happy to accept that, whereas you trot out the excuse "oh Douglas just had the fight of his life" when trying to excuse Tysons loss to Douglas.

Charles and JJW swapping wins with each other, coupled with wins over other notable heavies of the era is enough to give the Rock kudos for beating them both. Add in he beat every single fighter from that era and you generallly come to the conclusion he was a ruddy damn good heavyweight and fighter.

Good grief coxy. You are on a railtack. Yes Douglas fought the fight of his life. I also responded to windy that I have my doubts if Tyson would have won if he was at his very best because Douglas used the jab perfectly and good footwork (Tyson's weakness).

Charles and JJW were past it. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Beat every HW in a very weak era. And Cockell.

Charles and JJW were past it

No, you've made another silly comment based on not being able to read properly. Please read the whole paragraph in future before making sweeping statements.

And the era wasn't as weak as the era Tyson fought in. Saying that you probably think that Tubbs takes all of Marciano's opponents without breaking a sweat.

Were they or were they not past it? Yes or no will suffice.

Tubbs, Thomas and some of Tyson's opponents would have beaten the Charles and JJW that Rocky beat. I have no doubts about that.

Give it up coxy.

azania wrote:
Were Charles and JJW at their peak when they fought Rocky? Simple question that I'm sure a lad like you can answer.

This really is my last throw of the dice, after which I'm out of here faster than reason flies out the window when the words azania and Marciano come within a tome of each other.

Was Charles any weaker than a crippled Patterson, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, at least five years past his best Cleveland Williams, or Zora Folley?

How about Tony Ross, Al Kaufmann, Frank Moran, Battling Jim Johnson, Luis Angel Firpo, Paolino Uzcudan, Johnny Paycheck, Tommy Jackson, Pete Rademacher, Eddie Machen, Terry Daniels, Ron Stander, Jose King Roman, Axel Schulz, Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Scott Le Doux, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank or Lucien Rodriguez?

These would be just a sample of men who fought Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Patterson, Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Holmes for the title, with one of Carnera's for good measure.

azania wrote:Beat every HW in a very weak era. And Cockell.

A feat that hadn't been achieved since Jeffries first reign and hasn't been achieved since.

You rate Lewis highly - but he holds 2 wins over future ATGs, both past their primes and more on the downslope than Rocky's opposition.

Perhaps that Rocky fella was pretty impressive.

He has a unique strength in the history of boxing - no-one else has been sufficiently well conditioned to throw so many power punches, one after another, in endless succession. He was the archetypal model of a pressure fighter - in fact - arguably - his is the model of how to be a successful pressure fighter and the technique required.

He was also a nice bloke.

You don't like him because white america liked him - we get it. Your position is frankly untenable - but you seek to cling on anyway.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Were Charles and JJW at their peak when they fought Rocky? Simple question that I'm sure a lad like you can answer.

This really is my last throw of the dice, after which I'm out of here faster than reason flies out the window when the words azania and Marciano come within a tome of each other.

Was Charles any weaker than a crippled Patterson, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, at least five years past his best Cleveland Williams, or Zora Folley?

How about Tony Ross, Al Kaufmann, Frank Moran, Battling Jim Johnson, Luis Angel Firpo, Paolino Uzcudan, Johnny Paycheck, Tommy Jackson, Pete Rademacher, Eddie Machen, Terry Daniels, Ron Stander, Jose King Roman, Axel Schulz, Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Scott Le Doux, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank or Lucien Rodriguez?

These would be just a sample of men who fought Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Patterson, Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Holmes for the title, with one of Carnera's for good measure.

Answering a question with another question really is a cop out windy.

Tubbs, Thomas and some of Tyson's opponents would have beaten the Charles and JJW that Rocky beat. I have no doubts about that.

And Michael Jackson had no doubts that he was Peter Pan. Yet everyone else thought he was basketcase, hint hint the same is applying here.

And you have a "peak" yes, but it's not a "yes or no" answer. Hopkins peak was back in the early 00's - but he's still bloody effective and pulling out the results 10 years later. You don't go from 100% to 0%, these guys were still darn good heavies no matter which way you try to spin it.

And you're just embarassing yourself now Azania, Tubbs beats the Charles version that Rocky fought eh? Give it a break, you have no idea how you're coming across. And it most certainly isn't in a positive sense.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Beat every HW in a very weak era. And Cockell.

A feat that hadn't been achieved since Jeffries first reign and hasn't been achieved since.

You rate Lewis highly - but he holds 2 wins over future ATGs, both past their primes and more on the downslope than Rocky's opposition.

Perhaps that Rocky fella was pretty impressive.

He has a unique strength in the history of boxing - no-one else has been sufficiently well conditioned to throw so many power punches, one after another, in endless succession. He was the archetypal model of a pressure fighter - in fact - arguably - his is the model of how to be a successful pressure fighter and the technique required.

He was also a nice bloke.

You don't like him because white america liked him - we get it. Your position is frankly untenable - but you seek to cling on anyway.

Wrong again Oxy (consistant again).

I am on record here in saying that Lewis would NOT be in my top 15 HW. Got roundly criticised once again. Also stated that he beat two washed up greats and that doesn't qualify him as an ATG. As you can see I am very consistent in this issue. Nothing to do with colour mate.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Were Charles and JJW at their peak when they fought Rocky? Simple question that I'm sure a lad like you can answer.

This really is my last throw of the dice, after which I'm out of here faster than reason flies out the window when the words azania and Marciano come within a tome of each other.

Was Charles any weaker than a crippled Patterson, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, at least five years past his best Cleveland Williams, or Zora Folley?

How about Tony Ross, Al Kaufmann, Frank Moran, Battling Jim Johnson, Luis Angel Firpo, Paolino Uzcudan, Johnny Paycheck, Tommy Jackson, Pete Rademacher, Eddie Machen, Terry Daniels, Ron Stander, Jose King Roman, Axel Schulz, Evangelista, Ocasio, Zanon, Leroy Jones, Scott Le Doux, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank or Lucien Rodriguez?

These would be just a sample of men who fought Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Patterson, Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Holmes for the title, with one of Carnera's for good measure.

Answering a question with another question really is a cop out windy.

You should know. I've asked you this at least twice before and still haven't received a reply.

Guess you're still Googling them.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Beat every HW in a very weak era. And Cockell.

A feat that hadn't been achieved since Jeffries first reign and hasn't been achieved since.

You rate Lewis highly - but he holds 2 wins over future ATGs, both past their primes and more on the downslope than Rocky's opposition.

Perhaps that Rocky fella was pretty impressive.

He has a unique strength in the history of boxing - no-one else has been sufficiently well conditioned to throw so many power punches, one after another, in endless succession. He was the archetypal model of a pressure fighter - in fact - arguably - his is the model of how to be a successful pressure fighter and the technique required.

He was also a nice bloke.

You don't like him because white america liked him - we get it. Your position is frankly untenable - but you seek to cling on anyway.

Wrong again Oxy (consistant again).

I am on record here in saying that Lewis would NOT be in my top 15 HW. Got roundly criticised once again. Also stated that he beat two washed up greats and that doesn't qualify him as an ATG. As you can see I am very consistent in this issue. Nothing to do with colour mate.

Remind me of your top 15 all time HWs?

coxy0001 wrote:

Tubbs, Thomas and some of Tyson's opponents would have beaten the Charles and JJW that Rocky beat. I have no doubts about that.

And Michael Jackson had no doubts that he was Peter Pan. Yet everyone else thought he was basketcase, hint hint the same is applying here.

And you have a "peak" yes, but it's not a "yes or no" answer. Hopkins peak was back in the early 00's - but he's still bloody effective and pulling out the results 10 years later. You don't go from 100% to 0%, these guys were still darn good heavies no matter which way you try to spin it.

And you're just embarassing yourself now Azania, Tubbs beats the Charles version that Rocky fought eh? Give it a break, you have no idea how you're coming across. And it most certainly isn't in a positive sense.

Calm down lad.

Were they past their best? I have no qualms in saying that Holmes was past it when Tyson beat him. No qualms in saying that Holy was past it when Lewis beat him. Lewis was past it when he cut up Vit etc etc etc. What it means is that I also believe that a peak version of those fighters I believe would have beaten the guys they lost to (except Lewis who won on cuts).

You guys make excuses which stretch credibility.

In no particular order my top 10

Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Johnson
Louis
Tyson
Jeffries
Liston
Holy

Sometimes swap Dempsey for Holy though

azania wrote:In no particular order my top 10

Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Johnson
Louis
Tyson
Jeffries
Liston
Holy

Careful, Windy will have a hernia as there's no Rock or Fitz in there........

Top 15 Az?

Can I ask how often in the history of heavyweight boxing have two great fighters met when both are in their "primes" Dempsey, Johnson, Holmes, Jeffries are all consistently and rightly in most top tens but how many of those have wins against great fighters, natural at the weight who were in their absolute prime when they beat them. If that is the stick we beat the Rock with lets put others under the same microscope.

rowley wrote:Can I ask how often in the history of heavyweight boxing have two great fighters met when both are in their "primes" Dempsey, Johnson, Holmes, Jeffries are all consistently and rightly in most top tens but how many of those have wins against great fighters, natural at the weight who were in their absolute prime when they beat them. If that is the stick we beat the Rock with lets put others under the same microscope.

Exactly right, jeff, and therein lies the essence of any sensible and reasoned effort to assess Marciano's worth.

It really is that straightforward.

Lets not forget that Johnson wouldn't fight the 5'6 Langford either Rowley. But he still makes Az's top 10

coxy0001 wrote:Lets not forget that Johnson wouldn't fight the 5'6 Langford either Rowley. But he still makes Az's top 10

Don't even get me started Coxy, suspect my views on Johnson make Az's opinions on Marciano appear even handed.

rowley wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Lets not forget that Johnson wouldn't fight the 5'6 Langford either Rowley. But he still makes Az's top 10

Don't even get me started Coxy, suspect my views on Johnson make Az's opinions on Marciano appear even handed.

But you'd listen to logic, no doubt - if I were to suggest that he had outstanding fundamentals and was a great technician - who ducked his major challengers during his title reign?

oxring wrote:

rowley wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Lets not forget that Johnson wouldn't fight the 5'6 Langford either Rowley. But he still makes Az's top 10

Don't even get me started Coxy, suspect my views on Johnson make Az's opinions on Marciano appear even handed.

But you'd listen to logic, no doubt - if I were to suggest that he had outstanding fundamentals and was a great technician - who ducked his major challengers during his title reign?

I would agree that is a fair assessment of the man and the fighter.

Were Charles and JJW at their peak when they fought Rocky? Simple question that I'm sure a lad like you can answer..

Equally simple question for you, Az. When do you consider Walcott to be at the peak of his powers?

P.S. in terms of your list, I know he fought in black and white (or sepia) but you do know that Jeffries was white, don't you?

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents

I suppose that's why Rocky is rated higher than Tyson then?

Yeah well, some people are looked at with rose tinted glasses. As manos stated earlier, even in the 1960s, Rocky was not in the top 10. Ali, Holmes, Liston came after him and suddenly Rocky's stock began to rise, especially after Ali came onto the scene.

Plus his opponents began standings began to elivate.

Rock roooles ok!

The Ring P4P list didn't start until the 1980s. Stop making stuff up would you?

Stop being such a tool. Ring is not the only body who compile lists ranking fighters. Also are you saying that Manos made that up? I have zero reason to disbelieve what he writes. Do you? Please answer.

The Ring has only ever been the official guide for P4P lists.

To say Rocky wasn't in it when they didn't even have their P4P list is just making stuff up.

The Ring only started doing pound for pound lists in the 1980s, but the magazine began in the mid 1920s and they began doing up divisional lists and ratings back then when there were no real independant lists around.

They did a poll in the early 1960s I believe where they asked a number of experts to complie a list of the best heavyweights and Marciano ended up in 7th.

Fleischer himself had Marciano 10th, Rose had him 8th, McCallum had him 9th. Considering this was before Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Liston and Lewis amongst others, it does paint an interesting picture and would seem to suggest Marciano and the way his competition was viewed at the time was not all that highly though of. In fact hes almost bottom of the noteable heavyweight champions list of the time.

Now I think in those days given many experts would have had the luxury of witnessing many eras up to that point, the lists were compiled n how good they thought the fighters were as opposed to their paper acheivements. All but the biggest Marciano fans would accept to some degree as skills go he was pretty limited and I think opinions from people of the day reflected this.

Nowadays the links to the past boxing eras have become more distant so the emphasis has shifted alot more to actual record and acheivement in judging fighters in the name of consistency. In this Marciano does well because he was unbeaten and beat some big names. However if we were take it on talent and ability he would not be rated as highly and the fact his wins over Louis, Charles, Walcott and Moore were only sufficient to see him rated in the lower end of the heavyweights in the 1960s by very credible sources - I think speaks volumes about how his competition was seen at the time. In essence they were viewed as over the hill and the era was seen as weak. Personally I think its become a bit revisionist to try and insinuate otherwise these days although I appreciate he has become a favoured figure in boxing and many would wish to defend his legacy.

As the old song goes - "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till its gone"

After Marciano retired - just 5 years later, he was to be found in the top 5 to top 1.

In the same way - you wouldn't find Lennox Lewis in a serious top 10 list in 2003 whilst he was fighting, the same for Clay in 1967 etc.

The lists in the 60s had Jeffries and Corbett higher than Marciano - and Fleischer had Fitzsimmons at #3.

There's a fair bit of nostalgia in those "at the time" rankings - for sure. I personally don't rank Fitz in the top 15 at HW - he himself didn't think he was a heavy for a start!

HWs without exciting styles are always appreciated after they retire - this has been the same throughout history.

Jeffries received kudos after retirement and before his return - however at the height of his powers, more credit went to his opponents eg Fitz II, Corbett - whilst he was frequently seen as cumbersome and durable - damned with faint praise if ever I heard it.

Johnson won the first "fight of the century" - and so JJ became a legend.

Dempsey was a massive underdog going into the Willard fight (although revisionist history tells us the result was a foregone conclusion). His win catapulted him to superstardom - even though the calibre of his victim's was far below the Rock's.

The ratings of boxing historians changed to look more favourably on the Brockton Blockbuster not long after Rocky retired - during the rise of Patterson and to the point that within 10 years he was believed to be the greatest who ever lived. That's not revisionist history - that's within living memory. They had an era to compare Rocky's with - and in the light of that, Rocky's performances seem more stellar.

Before Az says it - I appreciate you rate Patterson as your only HW in history worse than the Rock. You're wrong, of course, but that's neither here nor there.
---------------------------------------------
Final point on this - I am extremely gratified, manos, to see you accepting that the opinions of people "at the time" are important when compiling all time rankings lists. I trust, therefore, you will accept my points made on the Jimmy Wilde debate about the abilities of the likes of Tancy Lee? (at the time seen as an excellent fighter, a great technician whose flaw was being too willing to engage in a scrap) and dismiss your research from boxrec that suggested (erroneously) that he was 17-12-10?