Greatest mismatches

First topic message reminder :

we on here all like to go through the possible great match up over the generations that could/should/wished/dreamt to have happened and how the best of the match ups would have gone. we have gone through many a great match up but what match ups between the greatest boxers would have been all wrong? try to keep it to the best in the divison (top 20ish) and prime v prime, we all know that ali v valuev would have been a mis match!! few examples starting with the heavies:

george foreman v wlad klitshcko: just see foreman walking right through wlad, prime v prime wlad has a good defence but dont see his jab then grab tactics working on a bull like foreman, see foreman being strong enough to shake him off and hurt him, george might have been crued but he was effective and much better moving boxers then wlad were often caught by him. see a very early ko nearly all the time in this one. while wlad might not be the greatest heavyweight of all time would have thought he would be in most peoples top 20.

ali v tyson: people often use this one as their dream match up, but i only ever see a one sided beating for tyson. tyson was a bully and with ali you have one of the greatest chins around and fantastic recovery (if ali could recover from frazier left hook he could easily do the same with tyson, has to be one of the greatest non knock out punches of all time!) see ali frustrating tyson and tyson tiring to get stopped late. you also have to consider what mental state tyson would have been coming into the ring after ali had finished with him. tyson known to be weak mentaly would have been a mess before they even entered the ring.

so do people dis/agree with my couple of examples? im sure there loads more i can think of but i'll leave them to you!

compelling and rich wrote:all good points there genetleman but the hardest thing for me is trying to find this supposed prime tyson. most people would agree that it was early tyson. but i watch all the fights backs and every fighter he fought was beaten before they entered the ring, they were all pertified of him. the first fighter that didnt show no fear was douglas. once that bubble was burst he showed how beatable he was. you needed to be agressive against tyson, he was a bully and he was allowed to bully all his oppenents in the late 80's. tyson also lacked a plan B something that ali didnt. the biggest thing agaisnt your point is i cant see tyson stopping him and after 4/5 rounds its going to be a one sided beating.

thought of another that might cause some debate:

holyfield beats marciano over 12 rounds by a wide UD. dont want to get az too exicted but i see holyfiled having the better skill set to win majority of rounds and his chin being able to get him through to points. over 15 rock has better chance of wearing him down but over 12 i think holy is tough enough to last more often than not.

Well Tyson's prime consisted of nearly 9 title defences and a total of 10 championship fights so it shouldn't be that difficult to pinpoint.

I don't think Holmes, Biggs and Tucker were petrified of Tyson. I actually think that Biggs fought very bravely and showed very little fear. He still got heavily beaten. I wouldn't necesarilly say that it was insulting to imply that all Tyson's opponents were literally scared senselss of fighting, but I do think that it does some of his opponents a severe disservice.

I also don't really think that Tyson somehow becomes vulnerable and gets battered from the 4th onwards (that seems to be the magic round after which Tyson turns into a walking punch bag). Although I agree that Tyson never demonstrated he had the ability during this period to turn a fight in his favour. Although I do think that the Douglas fight showed he had heart and a solid chin.

Agree with you on Holyfield v Marciano. Holy absolutely hard as nails with a far superior skill set. Marciano a slow starter as well, I can see Holy building up a big lead and having some uncomfortable moments towards the end of the 12 rounds but would fully favour him to see it through and win a clear UD.

Over 15 rounds perhaps Rocky catches up with him? Out of interest how do you see this fight going over 15 rounds?

Agree wholeheartedly that movment, rather than just a great jab, is the key to beating Tyson. Although I said earlier that it wouldn't be easy for Ali, I think saying that Tyson 'has his number' or wins seven times out of ten is a little fanciful. Just my opinion, of course, but the writing was on the wall as early as the Tillis fight that Tyson was eventually going to come unstuck against an Ali-type fighter. Still, that one's been covered many, many times over from just about every angle imaginable, so I'm out of that particular one now!

Holyfield-Marciano is about as close to a pick 'em as you can get, I'd say. If Holyfield were a more intelligent fighter, I'd make him a hot favourite here; he's the better technician, boxes better at range and is one of the few who is comparable to Marciano in the stamina department.

But he was always a bit too much of a 'rush of blood' fighter, I think. Once he was clocked and clocked heavily, he reverted to instinct brawling which played in to his opponent's hands. If Holyfield uses the ring then he's got the beating of Marciano more often than not, but if he slugs it out there's every chance he gets stopped late on, or outpointed in a grueller. I can see Rocky taking a tough split decision if Holyfield's warrior mentality gets the better of him.

Tyson v Marciano
Foreman v Marciano
V Klitschko v Marciano
W Klitscko v Marciano
Lewis v Marciano
Frazier v Marciano

Strangley the rudimentary style of Marciano does better against Ali but still loses. Marciano loses handily to all the above.

I believe Azania has hacked Super D's account, is there anyway we can check?

rowley wrote:I believe Azania has hacked Super D's account, is there anyway we can check?

What! Don't tell me I have the same opinion as Azania? Impossible!

Trust me mate, his views on Marciano make yours look positive.

Well that's okay then. I'm more measured, just think the Rock was too small, too basic and his Suzie Q wouldn't get him out of jail against that lot.

Marciano is an odd one for me, he is a guy I am not certain I pick to beat too many of the real top guys but by the same token he is not someone I consider any of them have an easy nights work with, because he is going to keep coming at you, will not get discouraged and at some point I see moments when he drags even the best into the trenches, and once there he is going to have some success and make things uncomfortable for everyone.

Well given his massive right hand you couldn't write him off exactly but just sense his marauding style wouldn't work against these guys. There's not much evidence to suggest Marciano could do what he did against guys north of the 200lbs mark.

Massive issue with a guy who weighed in 185-190 pounds wet against someone who weighs 250+ of solid muscle and can box a bit.

HOWEVER - I will point out something that Windy proposed in one of our previous Az debates (summary listed below).

According to Windy - using growth/height progression charts etc - Marciano of today would weight between 210 and 220 pounds and would be about 6'1/6'2.

That isn't too small to compete as a modern day HW - especially with an engine like the Rock's and power like the Rock's - HOWEVER - it is monstrously speculative.

Worth thinking about, however?

summary of previous "Rocky" debates wrote:
azania: Marciano was crap because Marciano was crap
someone else (sadly, mostly me):No he wasn't.
azania:Yes he was

That's not to say previous debates didn't include some fantastic rhetorical ability from both sides - but they never really went anywhere.

I agree largely with what you wrote about Marciano above, Super D, with just a couple of minor quibbles. Marciano-Frazier, to me, is a genuine 50:50 fight, or something very much like it. Frazier naturally the bigger man, but not by enough to devastate Marciano the way a Foreman or Tyson likely would.

Both slow starters, both swarmers, both tough as old boots. I forsee a war of attrition rather than Frazier having it all his own way. If they boxed half a dozen times a 3-3 scoreline wouldn't surprise me at all.

88Chris05 wrote:I agree largely with what you wrote about Marciano above, Super D, with just a couple of minor quibbles. Marciano-Frazier, to me, is a genuine 50:50 fight, or something very much like it. Frazier naturally the bigger man, but not by enough to devastate Marciano the way a Foreman or Tyson likely would.

Both slow starters, both swarmers, both tough as old boots. I forsee a war of attrition rather than Frazier having it all his own way. If they boxed half a dozen times a 3-3 scoreline wouldn't surprise me at all.

Can you imagine the damage Frazier and Marciano would do to each other if they were to fight 6 times?

Super D Boon wrote:Tyson v Marciano
Foreman v Marciano
V Klitschko v Marciano
W Klitscko v Marciano
Lewis v Marciano
Frazier v Marciano

Strangley the rudimentary style of Marciano does better against Ali but still loses. Marciano loses handily to all the above.

Foreman most probably obliterates him, Marciano was tough but I don't think anyone is tough enough to keep taking punches off Big George.
Vitali could out tough him but it's no foregone conclusion while he knocks Wladimir out eventually.

Lewis, Frazier and Tyson are all pick ems that could go either way.

Lewis Beats seven shades of Poopie out of Marciano - hes probably the least likely to lose after Foreman.
All others beat him too Foreman and Klitschkos rather easily and dully, Frazier and Tyson 60-40s

This the same Lewis that was stopped by McCall and Rahman?

Lewis could control the space with the jab and dominate the fight to a late stoppage/wide UD - a la Tua.

However - Rocky was a much, much better fighter than Tua, much fitter than Tua and Rocky, unlike Tua, bothered to move his head.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that Rocky, based upon pressure, workrate and a hard overhand right to the head, delivered from the inside - a punch Lewis wasn't overly fond of receiving - could give Lewis a torrid time.

There's definitely a case in both directions.

You will all live to regret where you have allowed this thread to go, when you find yourselves still here at 3am reading why Pele Reid would have beaten Rocky in a round you only have yourselves to blame.

I've always thought Frazier is made to order for Rocky. Great though he was he was very left hook reliant which could be his undoing.

A straight line will always get to it's destination first, will it not?
I see Marciano's straight right getting to Frazier's chin when Frazier throws the hooking left hand too many times. Frazier and Marciano both had great engines and Frazier was tough as they come, but he could be undone by heavy hitters. You can't deny Rocky was a very heavy hitter and could get under Frazier.

Wladimir wouldn't be able to cope with the relentless pressure of Marciano and would eventually wilt to the power he'd be receiving. Any fighter who is knocked out by a Mccall, Rahman, Purrity, Brewster or Sanders is not guaranteed to see the final bell against a devastating puncher, can't really see Lewis or Wladimir risking sitting down on their punches too often.

Dempsey v Vitali.
The similarities between Vitali and Willard are plain to see and look what happened there...

haha Rowley. We'll just ignore him.

Oxring But this is peak for peak is it not? So fully focused, fully trained etc etc. Lewis really gives Marciano a beating. The problem is quite simply Size weight and skill is all in favour of Lewis. Great big man beat great Small man.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Dempsey v Vitali.
The similarities between Vitali and Willard are plain to see and look what happened there...

Willard - I dont think was as good as Vitali and Marciano might be a harder puncher but is nowhere near as skilled as dempsey.

ShahenshahG wrote:haha Rowley. We'll just ignore him.

Oxring But this is peak for peak is it not? So fully focused, fully trained etc etc. Lewis really gives Marciano a beating. The problem is quite simply Size weight and skill is all in favour of Lewis. Great big man beat great Small man.

It's too easy to ignore a fighters shortcomings by saying they don't fit into his peak but Rahman was slap bang in the middle of Lewis' prime so has to be considered.

Maybe not overall as good, but his posture, style and strengths were quite similar. Infact his one punch power and stamina may have been better than Vitali's.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Wladimir wouldn't be able to cope with the relentless pressure of Marciano and would eventually wilt to the power he'd be receiving. Any fighter who is knocked out by a Mccall, Rahman, Purrity, Brewster or Sanders is not guaranteed to see the final bell against a devastating puncher, can't really see Lewis or Wladimir risking sitting down on their punches too often.

Wlad would leg it and everyone tends to point out how brilliantly both Lewis and Wlad recovered from those defeats and then uses those very examples to bash em when it suits them. After these fights Wlad developed into a much superior fighter than he was before. He stays away and as much pressure as Marciano applies - Wlads one step gives him a massive space to move in so he continues and jabs jabs jab. Against such a dangerous fighter as marciano - he takes less risks than usual and more or less walks to a win.

I praise Lewis for the way he came back and comprehensively beat Rahman immediately but I don't praise Wladimir because he didn't do it but they were both still knocked out by inferior fighters and punchers to Marciano. Would have Lewis as favourite but not Wlad.

ShahenshahG wrote:Oxring But this is peak for peak is it not? So fully focused, fully trained etc etc. Lewis really gives Marciano a beating. The problem is quite simply Size weight and skill is all in favour of Lewis. Great big man beat great Small man.

True - good big man beats good small man - a la Dempsey Willard :p

Styles make fights. Swarmers do well against tall boxers with suspicion surrounding their chins.

Swarmers do NOT do well against tall sluggers with dynamite power in their fists.

So was Lewis a slugger or a boxer? I've always seen him as a boxer-puncher myself - and a boxerpuncher without quite enough power to be a clear and obvious favourite...

Lewis has more than enough power Oxy but hasn't got the style of a Foreman to fully utilise it.

oxring wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Oxring But this is peak for peak is it not? So fully focused, fully trained etc etc. Lewis really gives Marciano a beating. The problem is quite simply Size weight and skill is all in favour of Lewis. Great big man beat great Small man.

True - good big man beats good small man - a la Dempsey Willard :p

Styles make fights. Swarmers do well against tall boxers with suspicion surrounding their chins.

Swarmers do NOT do well against tall sluggers with dynamite power in their fists.

So was Lewis a slugger or a boxer? I've always seen him as a boxer-puncher myself - and a boxerpuncher without quite enough power to be a clear and obvious favourite...

Dempsey was a great and willard was merely good :P Styles do make fights. But there is usually a point where the physical differences overwhelm the smaller man. If you are asking p4p then the question is entierely different and will recieve a different answer - but as they are Marciano loses to all of them - some more handily than most. Think someone with the jab of Wlad would cut Marciano to ribbons. Lewis is a serious puncher and cant see anything but a one sided drubbing.

Have to say, aside from the obvious one of Foreman, I'd back Tyson to make short work of Marciano, too. Rocky a great, of course, perhaps greater than Tyson in legacy and career terms. But he's made to order for Mike. Absolute carnage that one, with Tyson putting Marciano away inside four rounds, I think.

Hearns vs Manny.......

Can you Imagine that pole like jab stopping the one dimensional Filipino coming in a la Duran...those devastating body shots a la Shuler to set him up....and then the right hand over-the top coup de grace....

One dimensional guys and bent judges need not apply!!!!!!!!!!

Made for Tommy...not hard to hit, predictable and when Tommy lands he goes!!!!!!

Then again Tommy would probably have to come in at 141 to get the fight wouldn't he!

Truss, I think the captain summed it up perfectly on the old 606 that Roach loves Manny way too much to put him in there with Hearns. It would be an absolute demolition. If there had been a Hearns-type fighter around over the last few years, Pacquiao simply wouldn't have dared to venture above 140 lb.

I don't think he'd have dared venture that far if Duran or Pryor around which is by the by anyway, losing to naturally bigger men at their preferred weights isn't a terrible thing.

Agreed.....

Pryor was so badly matched it's sad to think of the fights he could've took...

Curry-Pryor in 84 would have been nice..

I find it hard to believe any smaller fighter could beat Pryor, Arguello is about as good a boxer as you could hope to watch but was for large parts baffled by how wrong Pryor fought. A clever boxer like Whitaker or Mayweather could do it but a fighter like Pacquiao, Duran or Chavez, can't see it myself.

I do actually like Curry but how would he cope with fighting for a full 45 minutes at a hectic pace against a man who has one hell of a chin and dynamite in both fists?

Don't think it goes 45 minutes If I'm honest...Curry was bigger at 147 and packed a clout....

Curry's angles and skill just feel that 147 suits him too much!!

Just think Pryor was more of a jr welt and Curry a jr midd...be tough early on though...while Pryor could see...

However evenly matched at the same weight It would be interesting...

Would even consider aaron...

Pryor-Mancini....Pryor-Leonard etc....were all superstar fights for him....shame he missed the boat..

Pacquiao would acquit himself reasonably against Pryor. Handspeed + angles -

In light of the recent Marquez fight - and the baloney between Mayweather and Pacquiao - it is easy to forget how good Manny has been.

I'm not arguing he'd be guaranteed to win, by any means - but he would certainly give Pryor a decent argument.

He would NOT give Hearns a decent argument at 147, however - I am following the consensus here - which seems to be that Hearns' jab and freakish power rolls Manny like a drunk - if Roach hated Manny enough to ever let the fight happen.

Ref: Marciano- Tyson - I believe we've done this debate on here before.

Certainly - the early rounds are all Tyson's - and there's no way that I would refuse to accept the possibility of a Tyson stoppage within 4 - however - after 4 - Marciano would really come into the fight, in my opinion.

Slow starters won't ever be favourites against Tyson, however.

Think Pacquiao would do ok for a short while against Pryor but he isn't a clever enough boxer to utilise those angles against such an awkward and wrong fighter. What he's managed to do is a remarkable achivement but have never thought he matches up well in head to heads with fellow greats above super featherweight and even below that he would struggle against boxers rather than fighters.

oxring wrote:This the same Lewis that was stopped by McCall and Rahman?

Lewis could control the space with the jab and dominate the fight to a late stoppage/wide UD - a la Tua.

However - Rocky was a much, much better fighter than Tua, much fitter than Tua and Rocky, unlike Tua, bothered to move his head.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that Rocky, based upon pressure, workrate and a hard overhand right to the head, delivered from the inside - a punch Lewis wasn't overly fond of receiving - could give Lewis a torrid time.

There's definitely a case in both directions.

Can you imagine Rocky throwing 1000 punches in a fight? The dude had to think before he threw a punch. Tua would anihilate him.

Anyway, I wont argue. A small cruiser in Rocky would beat the K2. 69in reach and all. Sure!!!

Im so happy it's time to go to bed, can leave Az all alone with his delusions.

azania wrote:Can you imagine Rocky throwing 1000 punches in a fight?

Yes - perhaps you should go to bed and spend your weekend watching him fight - he was superbly conditioned with a very good punch output - especially power punch output. Widely recognised as the best conditioned HW ever - and that's against some pretty stiff competition in Jeffries.

azania wrote:The dude had to think before he threw a punch.

Someone should have told Walcott that - he would't have left his face in the way of that left hook.

And someone should definitely have warned LaStarza - who managed to leave his arms in the way often enough for Rocky to break them both before punching him through the ropes.

Rocky must have thought fast...

azania wrote:Tua would anihilate him.

And Tony Sibson annihilates Greb, as well...

azania wrote:Anyway, I wont argue.

That I very much doubt...

You used to be more subtle old bean. You sure you're not running out of ammunition? D4 went into a bit of a tailspin eventually - are you sure this repetitive hating on Marciano and old timers isn't wearing you a little thin?

And he should have been DQ'sd in the walcott fight.

Hating old timers? Not me. Huge fan of Dempsey, Benny Leonard and Henry Armstrong (who I'd rank #1 ATG when the mood takes me).

Just dont rate rocky at all. He'd KO Wlad is the biggest joke I've heard in a long time. He wouldn't get near Wlad. Next y'all be saying that blacksmith would KO Tyson or give him a decent fight.

Nostalgia rules.

azania wrote:And he should have been DQ'sd in the walcott fight.

You keep on saying this - but actually:
1. Watch the KO - Walcott's knee hasn't touched the floor when Marciano hits him with the left.
2. The ref hasn't called break when the punch is triggered - so the only problem is that Walcott is failing to "defend yourself at all times".

azania wrote:Just dont rate rocky at all.

Really? You surprise me.

azania wrote:He'd KO Wlad is the biggest joke I've heard in a long time. He wouldn't get near Wlad.

You'll be telling me that a relatively small part time golfer like Corrie Sanders could KO Wlad next.

azania wrote:Next y'all be saying that blacksmith would KO Tyson or give him a decent fight.

No-one gives peak Tyson a decent fight. Not even Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris in a tag team. And especially not a nailed on top 10 all time p4p fighter like Fitzsimmons.

Compared to Rocky, the South African is a giant. As you know, Saffers are full of surprises . Look at the 1995 rugby world cup.

By the bely of Budha, you think that part time boxer, part time blacksmith would give Tyson a decent fight? Coe on. Sugar Ray (both) would beat him with relative ease.

I've never understood how a man with a primitve style and no defense could weigh in at under 160 pounds yet perform respectably against fully fledged heavyweights. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I've never understood how a man with a primitve style and no defense could weigh in at under 160 pounds yet perform respectably against fully fledged heavyweights. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

The heavyweights were alot smaller and equally primative back then for the most part.

So then, do we all agree with my belief that a Super-Middleweight unification between either Benn / Eubank and James Toney in 1993 / 1994 would have resulted in both of the Brits being made to look a little silly at times, being outclassed for the most part and, in the case of Benn, very probably being stopped late on? Three big names in the history of the 168 lb weight class, but I don't think either could have handled Toney at that stage.

Depends chris if he fought to his best then both get their arses whipped bt if he does his usually trick of failing to bother then it could be a hard night for him. Remember he held both of them in contempt - considering them overprotected bums.

The thing is, Shah, that Toney's nights of seemingly not caring didn't really come to the fore until after Jones smashed his pysche. There was a distinct difference in the Middleweight Toney and the Super-Middleweight one. I don't particularly think that it was a lack of drive and effort which resulted in the struggles with Tiberi and McCallum at 160 lb, I just genuinely think he was almost dead at the weight.

At Super-Middleweight, he looked a lot more comfortable, a lot busier, and generally was far more impressive than he'd been at the lower weight. His 168 lb form prior to Jones really did have the feel of a man who, potentially, was starting a journey towards true greatness. I'd fear that Benn and Eubank would have been made to look decidedly average had Toney been in the same mood as he was against Barkley, Littles and Williams. In particular, Toney was absolutely brilliant in the latter, for me. Took on a huge Super-Middleweight at his own game, matched him on the inside in a phonebooth brawl but, as soon as he started to give himself just a little more room and range from the half way point onwards, absolutely ran away with the fight and produced a gorgeous knockout to top it all off. Underrated fight, underrated performance.

Roy, of course, buried that particular incarnation of Toney, and he was never the same again. But for a while, as a Super-Middleweight, he really was something else.

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I've never understood how a man with a primitve style and no defense could weigh in at under 160 pounds yet perform respectably against fully fledged heavyweights. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

The heavyweights were alot smaller and equally primative back then for the most part.

But Jeffries was a decent sized and heavy handed fighter for any era. Fitzsimmons gave him a very tough fight. If he was just there to be hit he'd surely be taken out in one round by any heavy with a decent dig. If he had no defense he must've had a P4P chin that made Lamotta look soft.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I've never understood how a man with a primitve style and no defense could weigh in at under 160 pounds yet perform respectably against fully fledged heavyweights. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

The heavyweights were alot smaller and equally primative back then for the most part.

But Jeffries was a decent sized and heavy handed fighter for any era. Fitzsimmons gave him a very tough fight. If he was just there to be hit he'd surely be taken out in one round by any heavy with a decent dig. If he had no defense he must've had a P4P chin that made Lamotta look soft.

Looks like a nostalgia debate is about to start...

Before we go too much further - I will point out that even Fitzsimmons famously didn't consider himself a HW (sitting in the sauna after winning the title - "eavyweight champion of the world - and I'm only a bleeding middleweight"). Fleischer's rating of him as the #3 all time HW is ludicrous.

However - equally - Az's idea that someone with a punch that could fell an elephant and ring skills and smarts that allow him to compete against genuine top weight heavies - and yet will be unable to provide an "argument" against someone who edged an aged Hagler - lost to Hearns in most people's eyes and then was torn apart by Camacho - is frankly rather stupid.

p4p fighters like Fitzimmons are never beaten "easily". Comfortably, perhaps. But without difficulty? Nope.