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.

oxring wrote: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?

My point with Tancy Lee/Zulu Kid was not they were not good wins, but why should they be viewed as better than the wins of Roy Jones? We have no tangible evidence to support Tancy Lee being a great fighter, no credible ranking system to evaluate him on. This has been lost in time or never was to begin with. Jones on the other hand was routinely fighting and beating top ten ranked opposition as ranked by independant ratings systems. Yet his wins are dismissed by his critics. Why should Tancy Lee be considered a better win than Eric Harding, Virgi Hill, Reggie Johnson all of whom were considered amongst the top 5 light heavyweights in the world when Jones beat them easily? This my point. It the inconsistency in ratings rather than the abilities of the fighters in question.

In relation to the rankings, I think you may be missing my point. I used it to illustrate the changes in emphasis in ranking fighters over time. Back in the early 1960s many eperts had witnessed most of the heavyweight eras so they could draw direct comparisions more easily. Nowadays we cant and as a result or emphasis for rating fighters has shifted. I agree that based on Marcianos acheivements on paper he has to be a top ten guy, but in terms of ability and how he would fare against other top heavyweights he most definately is not. There is an argument that ratings change over time - Holmes for instance has risen steadily over the decades, guys like Tunney has fallen way down by contrast. But this is down to new fighters emerging and changing shifts in emphsasis on how fighters are judged. Lewis was considerd a top ten candidate or higher by most even as he was fighting in 2002. Holyfied is still fighting and is a top 15 man. In 30 years the landscape wll have changed again.

Marcianos biggest wins on paper were Charles, Walcott, Moore and Louis. Three of the guys would make it into many peoples top 20 pound for pound greatest. So why was Marciano ranked so lowly despite beating them all? Its because the wins were not seen as that big an acheivement in the various circumstances and because Rocky himself was not rated as supremely great. Theres literally little of no difference between those wins and Tyson beating Holmes or Spinks or Tucker for example. You can use near identical arguments to big them up the same as Rockys wins. Holmes was less shot than Louis, Spinks was far bigger and more formidable form wise than a faded Charles was, Tucker was in the form of his life etc - all the arguments used to mount a defence for Marcianos opposition. Yet because most on here witnessed Tysons era first hand they are able to make their own judgement call on it. Comparitively few on here was around to witness Marcianos era first hand so they are making the call retrospectively and in my opinion over emphasising the wins and standard of competition Rocky fought.

Fair to point out that Fleischer revised his rankings in 1972, having seen Liston, first incarnation Ali and Frazier.

He kept Rocky at number ten on his list.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein.

ShahenshahG wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein.

Practice makes perfect :

Everybody else.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein


I reckon he knew you'd still be about, opposing him just to spite him

HumanWindmill wrote:Fair to point out that Fleischer revised his rankings in 1972, having seen Liston, first incarnation Ali and Frazier.

He kept Rocky at number ten on his list.

Yeah his list didnt change essentially.

Ironically Fleischer is a guy that I give very little credence to in terms of ratings as I think his methodology is crackpot for the most part not to mention impartial. The reason I brought him into the debate was precisely because his method of ranking was based on how good he thought a fighter was as opposed to their tangible record and acheivement. The fact he had Rocky so low a decade after the he had retired was a reflection of how poorly he thought of him as a fighter. Were he alone on Marciano, I would dismiss his rating fairly happily (as I would Sugars of Charles rating), but he wasnt alone at the time by any means and his view was in line with many contempory opinions amongst the boxing afficiendos at that time.

ShahenshahG wrote:A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein


I reckon he knew you'd still be about, opposing him just to spite him

Not a chance, Sir.

I'm very much with Albert, and especially with this second quotation which you have cited.

manos de piedra wrote:Why should Tancy Lee be considered a better win than Eric Harding, Virgi Hill, Reggie Johnson all of whom were considered amongst the top 5 light heavyweights in the world when Jones beat them easily?

Because Lee was considered better than the Eric Harding according to the reports of the time. I don't rate Wilde's win over Lee as better than RJJ's over Hill - some of Wilde's opposition was better than RJJ's, some wasn't. Overall, on balance I believe Wilde has the better wins.

manos de piedra wrote:Back in the early 1960s many eperts had witnessed most of the heavyweight eras so they could draw direct comparisions more easily. Nowadays we cant and as a result or emphasis for rating fighters has shifted.

That's true - however, we have film evidence, combined with written testimony. That is sufficient for historical analysis, so I would attest that it is sufficient for analysis of a fighter's abilities.

manos de piedra wrote:but in terms of ability and how he would fare against other top heavyweights he most definately is not.

Disagree. There are fighters in the top 10 who dispatch Marciano comfortably - Foreman being the obvious example. However - there are fighters in the top 10 - in a H2H - who would severely struggle, or lose to the Rock, based on the old Maxim of styles-make-fights. Rocky appears crude - however - as Windy pointed out he was the best conditioned HW, probably in history - and, further - he is one of the only people in history where every shot is a power shot. He has enough in his armamentarium that he is no easy night's work for anyone.

manos de piedra wrote:There is an argument that ratings change over time...But this is down to new fighters emerging and changing shifts in emphsasis on how fighters are judged.

In part, perhaps - but a large part of ratings landscapes changing is due to nostalgia. Fleischer, as mentioned before, had Fitzsimmons at #3. He also had the good fortune to see Fitzsimmons in the flesh and in his memory, perhaps, he believed him capable of incredible deeds. If we're taking Fleischer's opinions seriously on HW top 10 ratings, please go back to my Fitzsimmons piece and leave some favourable remarks.[/quote]

manos de piedra wrote:Yet because most on here witnessed Tysons era first hand they are able to make their own judgement call on it. Comparitively few on here was around to witness Marcianos era first hand so they are making the call retrospectively and in my opinion over emphasising the wins and standard of competition Rocky fought.

Perhaps - but I don't really buy it given that on here we have all (except az, obviously) seen the fights and careers of both Tyson and Marciano. I am well able to make an assessment of the abilities of the JJWalcott, E Charles and J Louis that stepped in the ring with Rocky. They weren't at their peaks - but they were still damn good fighters, for sure.
-----------------------------
Maybe Rocky is a bottom top-10 all time HW, maybe. Maybe he's the greatest who ever lived. Having seen footage of his career - I don't know of any better conditioned HW, I don't know of many harder punching HWs. He has underrated defence - and there is no way that he should be dismissed by a certain user as being KOd by anyone decent "in a round". Given that he was never stopped.

A different perspective, which might interest you:
[quote="LondonRingRules"
comment by LondonRingRules (U2628221)
posted Apr 23, 2008
Ali's boxing skills were superior and his legacy is better (I had written this in a Marciano v Clay/Ali piece)
-----------------------

** Not true.

Rocky was quite skilled by the end of his reign. Because he had such a brawlerstyle, all the little things he did to set things up get lost in the brutality.

Ali was short of traditional skills, or if he had them he seldom used them, like body shots.

The one guy Rocky would really like to go after is bigmouthed Larry Holmes. Rocky and Ali became friends while doing the boxing tournament, but Larry's big mouth would light a fire under Rocky to really go after him.[/quote]

PS - don't forget the "superfights" done via the NCR started in 1967 Manos - so its not really fair to say Rocky was rated lowly a decade after he retired.

Further - pundits like Rose and Fleischer tended to rate technicians highly. Rocky, whatever LRR once said, was never much of a technician. Had just enough technique to establish a gameplan.

When considering their opinions, its worthwhile to consider their motives for making such claims.

Oxring (Dont want to use the quote function or it will take up half a page),

Firstly with Tancy Lee, I have to dispute that he was considerd beeter than Harding. Harding was ranked as a top 5 light heavyweight at the time Jones fought him. We dont have any such ranking for Lee. He never even fought Stateside and was almost exclusively confined to Britain (he fought in France a couple of times). So right there is already a major issue of contention. How can a guy who only fought domestically ever be accurately world rated? Lee won domestic titles and didnt fight t world level as we know it simply because he didnt fight in America and test himself against their best. So I honestly dont think we can say with any authority he was considered better than Lucas or was rated higher than Lucas. This is the best I could find on Lee:

http://sbhof.co.uk/inductees-and-induction-events/2008-induction/james-%E2%80%9Ctancy%E2%80%9D-lee/

Back to Marciano. Il refer you to my resonse to HumanWindmill above on Fleischer but which explains why I have quoted him.

As for Marciano being top ten based on talent or head to head. Certainy not for me. Not just against fellow top ten men, but me like Tunney, the Klitschko brothers, Bowe, Holyfield, Tyson, Norton, Liston, Langford, Wills all of whom are examples of guys I give an equal or better shot of beating Marciano but are not neccessarily top ten guys themselves.

I think we are in danger of overcomplicating the whole rating/ranking system which is proably too inconsisntent and subjective territory so will suffice to say in the simplest terms my view is tha Marcianos top ten rating flatters him with regard to his actual ability, if not what he achieved. Given the vast differences in era and methods of ranking and how they evolve changes in rankings will always occur.

But in a couple of simple questions - why do you think that Marciano, in the 1960s was viewed rather underwhelmingly and in the lower reaches of the top 10 heavyweights? What reasons do you think are behind this? And why, given the status of men he beat like Charles, Louis, Moore and Walcott, were these victories not deemed worthy to place Marciano much higher up the list? Why the big discrepancy between wins on paper and actual ranking?

To be honest, I think that myself, yourself and the likes of HumanWindmill, rowley and others are not a million miles apart on this in terms o how we view Marciano. I would say I perhaps rate him lower in a practical sense but think I might actually rate him higher in acheivements than a couple of you guys. I think its more azania more robust criticisms of Marciano that has prompted a more vigorous defence of him and his opposition than might otherwise be the case. Most people recognise his limitations, his strengths and perhaps the flattering nature of his competition. I am basically approaching this from the viewpoint that I think Tyson beats him and Marcianos overall place in boxing history is inflated relative to his talent.

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

manos de piedra wrote:Why the big discrepancy between wins on paper and actual ranking?

I think its more azania more robust criticisms of Marciano that has prompted a more vigorous defence of him and his opposition than might otherwise be the case. Most people recognise his limitations, his strengths and perhaps the flattering nature of his competition. I am basically approaching this from the viewpoint that I think Tyson beats him and Marcianos overall place in boxing history is inflated relative to his talent.

I suspect you may be correct.

There is an excellent case for Tyson beating the Rock - no question. To dismiss the fight as being over in a round is frankly a joke - as it ignores their styles, careers and likely talent.

Good find on the SBHoF article - I agree re: "world" rankings - being incredibly difficult in an age without Jumbo jets and cheap(ish) flights - but I don't think it would be too far of a stretch to say that Lee was a top 5 flyweight, 2/3 in the world at his best (and #1 if Percy Jones had made weight) - and all this in a talent-rich flyweight division. While Harding etc - whilst all top ranked LHWs - it wasn't for sure the best LHW era in history.

As for the discrepancies in Marciano's achievments and ranking there are several factors. 1 is, obviously, his ungainly awkward style. 2 is the fact that whilst he was still fighting, there was an expectation that he would lose eventually - due to his crude ungainly, seemingly untalented style. 3 would be a degree of nostalgia in his rating - ie Fitzsimmons at #3.

Overall - I don't think there is anyone in history who did more with their talent than Marciano. Made every limitation a strength - which, for me, is incredibly impressive.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Why the big discrepancy between wins on paper and actual ranking?

I think its more azania more robust criticisms of Marciano that has prompted a more vigorous defence of him and his opposition than might otherwise be the case. Most people recognise his limitations, his strengths and perhaps the flattering nature of his competition. I am basically approaching this from the viewpoint that I think Tyson beats him and Marcianos overall place in boxing history is inflated relative to his talent.

I suspect you may be correct.

There is an excellent case for Tyson beating the Rock - no question. To dismiss the fight as being over in a round is frankly a joke - as it ignores their styles, careers and likely talent.

Good find on the SBHoF article - I agree re: "world" rankings - being incredibly difficult in an age without Jumbo jets and cheap(ish) flights - but I don't think it would be too far of a stretch to say that Lee was a top 5 flyweight, 2/3 in the world at his best (and #1 if Percy Jones had made weight) - and all this in a talent-rich flyweight division. While Harding etc - whilst all top ranked LHWs - it wasn't for sure the best LHW era in history.

As for the discrepancies in Marciano's achievments and ranking there are several factors. 1 is, obviously, his ungainly awkward style. 2 is the fact that whilst he was still fighting, there was an expectation that he would lose eventually - due to his crude ungainly, seemingly untalented style. 3 would be a degree of nostalgia in his rating - ie Fitzsimmons at #3.

Overall - I don't think there is anyone in history who did more with their talent than Marciano. Made every limitation a strength - which, for me, is incredibly impressive.

It is particularly because of their styles why I say it wont go past one round. Rock was a slow starter. Tyson quite the opposite. Rock was slow handed. Tyson was the opposite. Rocky threw wild shots. Tyson threw accurate and deadly combinations. Rocky didn't take a backward step. Neither did Tyson. They would meet in the middle of the ring. Tyson was physically stronger and would not be bullied. It would be short, explosive with Tyson winning inside a round.

No disrespect to Rocky. He was made for Tyson. Tyson did all Rock did but was much better at it.

Also Oxy, you are saying exactly what I have been saying for 10 freaking pages but in a more pleasant tone. Thanks for agreeing with me.

azania wrote:Also Oxy, you are saying exactly what I have been saying for 10 freaking pages but in a more pleasant tone. Thanks for agreeing with me.

You long-winded bar steward .

Didn't Fleischer once famously write an article that was titled along the lines (and this is a very vague recollection) "Ali an all timetop 10 heavy? You must be joking"? But where is he ranked now?

So you can clap all you want Az, but please address the point above before you do.

coxy0001 wrote:Didn't Fleischer once famously write an article that was titled along the lines (and this is a very vague recollection) "Ali an all timetop 10 heavy? You must be joking"? But where is he ranked now?

So you can clap all you want Az, but please address the point above before you do.

Easy. Everyone has an opinion. I'm giving mine. You disagree? Good for you. Only difference is I am right and you all are wrong. Rocky does not belong anywhere near the top 10 ATG hw champs.

Beating up old men does not make you an ATG. Simples. I'm sure even a lad like yopu can understand that. Now go seek some attention elsewhere you internet warrior you.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Why the big discrepancy between wins on paper and actual ranking?

I think its more azania more robust criticisms of Marciano that has prompted a more vigorous defence of him and his opposition than might otherwise be the case. Most people recognise his limitations, his strengths and perhaps the flattering nature of his competition. I am basically approaching this from the viewpoint that I think Tyson beats him and Marcianos overall place in boxing history is inflated relative to his talent.

I suspect you may be correct.

There is an excellent case for Tyson beating the Rock - no question. To dismiss the fight as being over in a round is frankly a joke - as it ignores their styles, careers and likely talent.

Good find on the SBHoF article - I agree re: "world" rankings - being incredibly difficult in an age without Jumbo jets and cheap(ish) flights - but I don't think it would be too far of a stretch to say that Lee was a top 5 flyweight, 2/3 in the world at his best (and #1 if Percy Jones had made weight) - and all this in a talent-rich flyweight division. While Harding etc - whilst all top ranked LHWs - it wasn't for sure the best LHW era in history.

As for the discrepancies in Marciano's achievments and ranking there are several factors. 1 is, obviously, his ungainly awkward style. 2 is the fact that whilst he was still fighting, there was an expectation that he would lose eventually - due to his crude ungainly, seemingly untalented style. 3 would be a degree of nostalgia in his rating - ie Fitzsimmons at #3.

Overall - I don't think there is anyone in history who did more with their talent than Marciano. Made every limitation a strength - which, for me, is incredibly impressive.

I agree 100%. Marciano is actally one of my favourite heavyweights. Rocky pretty much maximised on the hand he was dealt in every possible way. But I cant help feel if he arrives 10 years before, or ten years after he wouldnt be viewed as he is now. This shouldnt take away what he did in his own era, but when discussing hypothetcial matches with other greats or comparing talents, its neccessary to view him outside of his own era.

ShahenshahG wrote:

azania wrote:Also Oxy, you are saying exactly what I have been saying for 10 freaking pages but in a more pleasant tone. Thanks for agreeing with me.

You long-winded bar steward .

Its simple. People dont listen. They love to argue. Must be a white thang, you feelin me (not literally of course ).

coxy0001 wrote:Didn't Fleischer once famously write an article that was titled along the lines (and this is a very vague recollection) "Ali an all timetop 10 heavy? You must be joking"? But where is he ranked now?

So you can clap all you want Az, but please address the point above before you do.

Also man, when did Nat write that? 1960s?

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Didn't Fleischer once famously write an article that was titled along the lines (and this is a very vague recollection) "Ali an all timetop 10 heavy? You must be joking"? But where is he ranked now?

So you can clap all you want Az, but please address the point above before you do.

Also man, when did Nat write that? 1960s?

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?7942-CLAY-AN-ALL-TIME-TOP-10-DEFINITELY-NO!-by-Nat-Fleischer

1971

Actually found the article which was a bit of luck, i vaguely remember seeing someone mention it years ago.

In fairness though Fleischer wrote that about Ali prior to his wins over Frazier and Foreman, and in my own opinion he had a bit of an agenda with Ali over the draft and wasnt objective.

As HumanWindmill pointed out earlier, if we were just judging Ali off his pre exile years it wouldnt be all that great anyhow. The 70s cemented his greatness. The book hadnt been closed on Alis career let alone the dust settled whereas in the 60s Marciano had been gone for almost a decade.

One of the reasons I brought up Fleischer in any case was to illustrate the way they tended to rank fighters back then which was alot different to how we do it now. They rated on "feel" more than on acheivement and tangible record. Who was better, rather than who had acheived more. This is why I think its noteable that Marciano was rated very low. Guys like Schmelling, Jeffries and even Fitzsimmons were rated higher and consdered beter fighters.

I dont agree with Fleischers methods of rating. I think they are off the wall and hard to justify. But his system of rating fighters was based more on how good they were rather than what they had acheived has Marciano extremelly low and was not really a minority opinion at the time. This is why I wanted to highlight it.

Nice1 coxy.

No az, we're not agreeing - or if we are, you seriously need to look at what you're writing.

Rocky had a very very good chin. He was never stopped. The Moore KD came from a sucker punch and he was up at ~3. So its not a "Tyson connects and its all over scenario".

Yes - there is a chance it could be over in <4 rounds - there's a chance that Marciano stops Tyson in 8. The fact that you blindly refuse to accept the latter whilst shouting the former is enough to drive a more reasonable man (Windy) to despair (see debate passim).

Interesting point on the ratings Manos -

Fleischer says after the Moore fight in his "Rocky an All time top 10 HW? No way" that in no way will Rocky ever be a top 10 HW.

5 years later, he's in at #10, in spite of not having fought over that time.

Fleischer's HW rankings are bizarre.

His H2Heads are a lot more realistic - the guy knew a load about boxing but he seemed to rate people who he saw in the flesh and liked on his rankings lists.

I have to say with regards to Lee and Harding, I will relate it to the heavyweight division for a minute. Lets consider the fact that Haye was ranked the third best heavyweight in the world at the time stand up to a similarly ranked heavyweight during the 70's? I personally would have to no by a long shot, so while Harding was ranked highly he wasn't regarded as highly as Tancy Lee was so the wins have to be put in perspective.

Marciano would probably lose to a few fighter ranked lower than him but despite coming out of the series against Ali at 1-2 I would in fact favour Frazier to beat him at their respective bests. Frazier would of course rank lower but he is the fighter whom I think would give Ali the most trouble not those ranked higher than him. As for Wlad beating Marciano, not a chance in hell.

oxring wrote:Interesting point on the ratings Manos -

Fleischer says after the Moore fight in his "Rocky an All time top 10 HW? No way" that in no way will Rocky ever be a top 10 HW.

5 years later, he's in at #10, in spite of not having fought over that time.

Fleischer's HW rankings are bizarre.

His H2Heads are a lot more realistic - the guy knew a load about boxing but he seemed to rate people who he saw in the flesh and liked on his rankings lists.

Fleischer is a guy that I think made a herculean contribution to the sport and basically lived and breathed boxing. But his ratings are just boggling and if you think his reasoning behind them will clarify them then your mistaken as they are even more confusing.

I think he liked his status as the guy who had seen every heavyweight champion from Fitzsimmons to Frazier but in the early days without television you were limited to the amount of action you could see at the top level. He couldnt tune into a big fight he had to travel if he wanted to witnes it first hand. Ive reports of him detailing Fitzsimmons but in reality he was just a kid when Fitzsimmons was fighting. Was this 10 year old kid following Fiz all over the States watching each and every fight???

I think he also rated McCoy as the best light heavyweight of all time (even though he was middleweight primarily). I cant rmember off hand when he made that rating so it could have changed but frankly its absurd no matter what criteria you use. One of my problems with him was he was often watching second rate fights or mismatches since they fought alot more often back then. Hence he will have seen McCoy decemate some guy thats just a journeyman but he will place alot of emphasis on it. For example he will say something like:

"McCoy threw meanest short right to the body of any fighter in history. The punch which stopped the California Kid in San Francisco was body punching at its meanest and no fighter could withstand McCoy when he was in such a mood"

Then upon further research you will see the California Kid was a guy with a losing record who had lost 4 out of last 5 fights. Yet Fleischer attaches the greatest importance on a minute detail from an ultimately meaningless fight.

Its almost like he ignored record and acheivement entirely and placed total emphasis only on what he had witnessed. Hence Fitzsimmons knocking out a 160 pound guy with a patchy record probably impressed him more than Marciano stopping Moore.

Agreed - especially the who he saw bit. I've reckoned that he saw Fitzsimmons fight once or twice - and was impressed more than he should have been. Kind of like watching a 1990s kid see RJJ hit Percy Jones with 4 hooks - and believe that alone makes Roy the greatest p4p of all time.

As was pointed out - he changed his rankings without Marciano having fought. Why? Because Marciano had retired?

As I said - his rankings are all a bit bizarre.

His H2Hs are much more interesting - he had seen an awful lot of the sport and he thoroughly respected the notion that styles make fights - and how styles clash.

I give him enough benefit of the doubt to hope that he didn't base his rankings on H2Hs - 1, because its a stupid thing to do and 2 - because anyone who puts Corbett ahead of Dempsey in a H2H based ranking needs his head checking.

oxring wrote:Agreed - especially the who he saw bit. I've reckoned that he saw Fitzsimmons fight once or twice - and was impressed more than he should have been. Kind of like watching a 1990s kid see RJJ hit Percy Jones with 4 hooks - and believe that alone makes Roy the greatest p4p of all time.

As was pointed out - he changed his rankings without Marciano having fought. Why? Because Marciano had retired?

As I said - his rankings are all a bit bizarre.

His H2Hs are much more interesting - he had seen an awful lot of the sport and he thoroughly respected the notion that styles make fights - and how styles clash.

I give him enough benefit of the doubt to hope that he didn't base his rankings on H2Hs - 1, because its a stupid thing to do and 2 - because anyone who puts Corbett ahead of Dempsey in a H2H based ranking needs his head checking.

I think from our perspective, its difficlt to imagine how Fleischer rated fighters because our methods and cirrcumstances are so different. The lack of television and footage meant that for much of Fleischers life the only action he saw was live. He had no tv or internet to watch back fights and he literally couldnt attend every big fight there was in those days so much as he watched alot of boxing, he had nowhere near the luxuries we have now. I think this accounts for much of the illogic. Its just a case of comparing apples and oranges. He used different means in different circumstances than what we do today.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Didn't Fleischer once famously write an article that was titled along the lines (and this is a very vague recollection) "Ali an all timetop 10 heavy? You must be joking"? But where is he ranked now?

So you can clap all you want Az, but please address the point above before you do.

Also man sausage, when did Nat write that? 1960s?

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?7942-CLAY-AN-ALL-TIME-TOP-10-DEFINITELY-NO!-by-Nat-Fleischer

1971

Actually found the article which was a bit of luck, i vaguely remember seeing someone mention it years ago.

1971? And he still called Ali Clay? Say a lot really. More importantly that was before Ali beat the ATGs in his 2nd reign. Nat may have been a great boxing historian but he let his politics influence his judgement imo.

Try again cox. Think lad think. Must try harder.

oxring wrote:Nice1 coxy.

No az, we're not agreeing - or if we are, you seriously need to look at what you're writing.

Rocky had a very very good chin. He was never stopped. The Moore KD came from a sucker punch and he was up at ~3. So its not a "Tyson connects and its all over scenario".

Yes - there is a chance it could be over in <4 rounds - there's a chance that Marciano stops Tyson in 8. The fact that you blindly refuse to accept the latter whilst shouting the former is enough to drive a more reasonable man (Windy) to despair (see debate passim).

Of course he had a good chin. Im not denying that. His chin would mean that Tyson would have to connect frequently and he would. Rocky was too wide open to deter tyson's rapid combinations.

Dont believe the hype Oxy. Be rational and go by your own eyes and head rather than your heart.

Hang on

coxy0001 wrote:Hang on

Hanging on bro.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Didn't Fleischer once famously write an article that was titled along the lines (and this is a very vague recollection) "Ali an all timetop 10 heavy? You must be joking"? But where is he ranked now?

So you can clap all you want Az, but please address the point above before you do.

Also man sausage, when did Nat write that? 1960s?

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?7942-CLAY-AN-ALL-TIME-TOP-10-DEFINITELY-NO!-by-Nat-Fleischer

1971

Actually found the article which was a bit of luck, i vaguely remember seeing someone mention it years ago.

1971? And he still called Ali Clay? Say a lot really. More importantly that was before Ali beat the ATGs in his 2nd reign. Nat may have been a great boxing historian but he let his politics influence his judgement imo.

Try again cox. Think lad think. Must try harder.

Try harder? Ok sunshine...

Ali changed his name in 1964, a full 7 years before the article was written. To most intelligent people that would seem like Nat had a chip on his shoulder and an agenda regarding Ali. The article was written after Frazier I, yet he doesn't rate Frazier in his top 10 either - do you not think that's a glaring omission?

Ali had Frazier and Foreman, as well as a loss to Norton and close struggles with him, as his standout fights (IMO). Do you really think wins over Frazier, who he obviously didn't rate (and wouldn't rate at all if he'd seen what Foreman did to him), and Foreman would lift him high into the top 10? Or the top 10 at all? It Nats view?

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Didn't Fleischer once famously write an article that was titled along the lines (and this is a very vague recollection) "Ali an all timetop 10 heavy? You must be joking"? But where is he ranked now?

So you can clap all you want Az, but please address the point above before you do.

Also man sausage, when did Nat write that? 1960s?

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?7942-CLAY-AN-ALL-TIME-TOP-10-DEFINITELY-NO!-by-Nat-Fleischer

1971

Actually found the article which was a bit of luck, i vaguely remember seeing someone mention it years ago.

1971? And he still called Ali Clay? Say a lot really. More importantly that was before Ali beat the ATGs in his 2nd reign. Nat may have been a great boxing historian but he let his politics influence his judgement imo.

Try again cox. Think lad think. Must try harder.

Try harder? Ok sunshine...

Ali changed his name in 1964, a full 7 years before the article was written. To most intelligent people that would seem like Nat had a chip on his shoulder and an agenda regarding Ali. The article was written after Frazier I, yet he doesn't rate Frazier in his top 10 either - do you not think that's a glaring omission?

Ali had Frazier and Foreman, as well as a loss to Norton and close struggles with him, as his standout fights (IMO). Do you really think wins over Frazier, who he obviously didn't rate (and wouldn't rate at all if he'd seen what Foreman did to him), and Foreman would lift him high into the top 10? Or the top 10 at all? It Nats view?

What it means is that you cant take Nat seriously. Like many here he had a soft spot for older boxers. Objectivity goes out of the window with him and many here.

Face it, Rocky wasn't good enough to carry Tyson's strap. No disrespect to Rocky, but them's the facts.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Hang on

Hanging on bro.

Apologies, i had to rewrite what i'd written as it didn't actually make any sense to read...

I blame beer.

azania wrote:

Face it, Rocky wasn't good enough to carry Tyson's strap. No disrespect to Rocky, but them's the facts.

No, they are your opinions, until someone invents a time machine and puts the pair of them in the ring together at their best it will remain as such, just as it will for those who see it differently.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Face it, Rocky wasn't good enough to carry Tyson's strap. No disrespect to Rocky, but them's the facts.

No, they are your opinions, until someone invents a time machine and puts the pair of them in the ring together at their best it will remain as such, just as it will for those who see it differently.

True. My opinion is based on actual facts as to how they both fought, styles, hand speed, power, chin, strengths, weaknesses, skills. In every aspect Tyson comes out on top.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Didn't Fleischer once famously write an article that was titled along the lines (and this is a very vague recollection) "Ali an all timetop 10 heavy? You must be joking"? But where is he ranked now?

So you can clap all you want Az, but please address the point above before you do.

Also man sausage, when did Nat write that? 1960s?

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?7942-CLAY-AN-ALL-TIME-TOP-10-DEFINITELY-NO!-by-Nat-Fleischer

1971

Actually found the article which was a bit of luck, i vaguely remember seeing someone mention it years ago.

1971? And he still called Ali Clay? Say a lot really. More importantly that was before Ali beat the ATGs in his 2nd reign. Nat may have been a great boxing historian but he let his politics influence his judgement imo.

Try again cox. Think lad think. Must try harder.

Try harder? Ok sunshine...

Ali changed his name in 1964, a full 7 years before the article was written. To most intelligent people that would seem like Nat had a chip on his shoulder and an agenda regarding Ali. The article was written after Frazier I, yet he doesn't rate Frazier in his top 10 either - do you not think that's a glaring omission?

Ali had Frazier and Foreman, as well as a loss to Norton and close struggles with him, as his standout fights (IMO). Do you really think wins over Frazier, who he obviously didn't rate (and wouldn't rate at all if he'd seen what Foreman did to him), and Foreman would lift him high into the top 10? Or the top 10 at all? It Nats view?

What it means is that you cant take Nat seriously. Like many here he had a soft spot for older boxers. Objectivity goes out of the window with him and many here.

Face it, Rocky wasn't good enough to carry Tyson's strap. No disrespect to Rocky, but them's the facts.

Nats views weren't distorted with every single boxer though, and not every person will have the same top 10. He had the same thing with modern heavies (at the time of writing, so early 70s) as you do with old heavies, that they 'couldn't carry their jock strap'.

You're just as peculiar when it comes to some of your rankings. FACT.

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived. Perhaps he thought Cassius Clay was too uppity for him. Didn't know his place.. Whatever the reason, it matters not.

Fact is Rocky couldn't have lived with HWs of the 1970s, 1980, 1990, 2000s, 2010+. Their straps would be too heavy for him. Not skilled enough. He was a supremely fit chap, strong willed and a decent chin. But that would proling the beating he would recieve.

Frankly he was not all that.

I put Rocky on par with Chuvalo, Wepner, Cobb. Brutally strong but limited HW. Jerry Quarry would have beat him imo. So would most ranked HWs in the 1960s and 1970s (Patterson being the exception).

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived.

Appeared to also have a gripe with Frazier, his conqueror....

coxy0001 wrote:

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived.

Appeared to also have a gripe with Frazier, his conqueror....

You dont say? He evidently had a gripe against the modern boxers of his day. Much like many here do. In 10 years time the next generation including yourself when you've grown up, will start rating the K bros very highly and perhaps the lower end of the top 20 HW ATG.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived.

Appeared to also have a gripe with Frazier, his conqueror....

You dont say? He evidently had a gripe against the modern boxers of his day. Much like many here do. In 10 years time the next generation including yourself when you've grown up, will start rating the K bros very highly and perhaps the lower end of the top 20 HW ATG.

And much like Nat may have ranked Marciano higher based on the above statement.

Thanks Az for clearing that one up.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived.

Appeared to also have a gripe with Frazier, his conqueror....

You dont say? He evidently had a gripe against the modern boxers of his day. Much like many here do. In 10 years time the next generation including yourself when you've grown up, will start rating the K bros very highly and perhaps the lower end of the top 20 HW ATG.

And much like Nat may have ranked Marciano higher based on the above statement.

Thanks Az for clearing that one up.

Yep. Allowing nostalgia to overcome common sense. Thankfully I'm not infected with that mental illness.

Wow, this is the thread that keeps on giving.

Pity all it's giving is no more enjoyable than a dull ache in the nads.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived.

Appeared to also have a gripe with Frazier, his conqueror....

You dont say? He evidently had a gripe against the modern boxers of his day. Much like many here do. In 10 years time the next generation including yourself when you've grown up, will start rating the K bros very highly and perhaps the lower end of the top 20 HW ATG.

And much like Nat may have ranked Marciano higher based on the above statement.

Thanks Az for clearing that one up.

Yep. Allowing nostalgia to overcome common sense. Thankfully I'm not infected with that mental illness.

If it's not mental it's obviously a hormonal problem that allows you to come out with some of the things you say.

Here's the number for NHS Direct - 0845 4647

The below could prove useful for you Az.

It's Marciano is rubbish in a multitude of languages.
Go forth into the world dear boy and spread your wonderous facts across the globe.

岩石marciano是垃圾 - Chinese
rotsachtige marciano is vuilnis - Dutch
le marciano rocheux est des déchets - French
felsiges marciano ist Abfall - German
утесистое marciano хлам - Russian

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived.

Appeared to also have a gripe with Frazier, his conqueror....

You dont say? He evidently had a gripe against the modern boxers of his day. Much like many here do. In 10 years time the next generation including yourself when you've grown up, will start rating the K bros very highly and perhaps the lower end of the top 20 HW ATG.

And much like Nat may have ranked Marciano higher based on the above statement.

Thanks Az for clearing that one up.

Yep. Allowing nostalgia to overcome common sense. Thankfully I'm not infected with that mental illness.

If it's not mental it's obviously a hormonal problem that allows you to come out with some of the things you say.

Here's the number for NHS Direct - 0845 4647

Young lad, you try to be funny but you often sound like you belong in a 6th firm common room. Dont you have re-sits to study for?

Must try harder.

Facts are Rocky is not good enough to be ranked as highly as you all have him. An undefeated record is meaningless if you are beating old men who were pass their sell by date.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived.

Appeared to also have a gripe with Frazier, his conqueror....

You dont say? He evidently had a gripe against the modern boxers of his day. Much like many here do. In 10 years time the next generation including yourself when you've grown up, will start rating the K bros very highly and perhaps the lower end of the top 20 HW ATG.

And much like Nat may have ranked Marciano higher based on the above statement.

Thanks Az for clearing that one up.

Yep. Allowing nostalgia to overcome common sense. Thankfully I'm not infected with that mental illness.

If it's not mental it's obviously a hormonal problem that allows you to come out with some of the things you say.

Here's the number for NHS Direct - 0845 4647

Young lad, you try to be funny but you often sound like you belong in a 6th firm common room. Dont you have re-sits to study for?

Must try harder.

Facts are Rocky is not good enough to be ranked as highly as you all have him. An undefeated record is meaningless if you are beating old men who were pass their sell by date.

"As you all have him"

General consensus and opinion tends to count alot more than what a small minority think. Especially when part of the minority is biased.

And if you're going to try a retort about being at school you can at least have the intelligence to make the point waterproof by spelling FORM properly.

I put Rocky on par with Chuvalo, Wepner, Cobb.

The shark is just a distant dot to you now, Az. Miles below and no longer a threat as you soar into orbit towards your home planet. God speed, Az.