Appreciating Rocky

First topic message reminder :

Morning

Since this fighter is one of the most beloved/underrated/overrated on the board I'd like to take an opportunity, once and for all , to memorialise some thoughts on him.

From what I've read and learned about Rocky Marciano over the many years in the beginning he was an acquired taste; it took a long time. But, even the sceptics soon become Marciano believers. He apparently was clumsier in sparring than many could imagine a ham-‘n’-egger against most half-decent boxers in the gym wearing his 16-ounce gloves that looked like the fluffy pillows from Debenhams the wife keeps buying for some reason each week. I see the flaws what the doubters see on tape don't get me wrong, but every guy who looked like they boxed rings around him, the ones who pinned his ears back, the ones never missed him with jabs, came out of the ring looking like he was dropped from a 10-story building and landed flat-footed. Rocky's cuffing, pawing, mauling, grazing shots, flicks to the sides when he was tied-up on the inside, impacted them like they'd been bumped by a rhino. From ringside many reporters said when Rocky landed, the only evidence was an "OOPH!" grimace and quiver.

Rocky was ponderous. Fighters could see the punches. They weren't surprised; they were beat down, every sparring partner who looked sensational against him, said the same thing exiting the ring: "I hurt all over." The wonderkinds and Robinson-clones that watched Rocky in the gym or at the Garden and licked their lips at a future match thought of him like cancer: He could only happen to the other guy.

Off a stat sheet, any number of guys now would be favoured over him, but doing it in the ring proved it would be a sobering experience. The lads yesterday Jeff, Windy, Chris etc mentioned how Archie one of the toughest creatures on earth held Rocky in the highest esteem.

There are certain dimensions to his game, that are not immediately obvious, that quickly became apparent to anybody who shared a ring with him from Louis to Ali.

I cant remember who said "it hurt to bump into him", but they probably summed it up best. He could seemingly make an oponent hurt for every second of every round, and he was a lot more unpredictable than people think.

This is one fighter who definitely had the devil inside him.

I tend to rate him in the listings higher than most, Rocky is my number 3, not the most glamorous c.v I accept, however his undefeated feat and winning streak is yet to be replicated in any era at the heavyweights top level, that is proof to me thats how difficult it is.

Thanks and have a great day.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Think your now starting to be a bit harsh on Patterson

Chuvalo, Bonavena, Johannson, Moore and Durelle were all good wins, top 20 heavyweight for me, was around in the golden age past his best but was still a top rated Heavyweight for over 15 years

I'd rank Patterson lower than Rocky. I dont see how he'd be top 20.

Maybe you should start a thread, az.

You know, when this one finishes.

If this one finishes.

If this one doesn't finish us.

The Mighty Atom wrote:He was a bloody hard man to keep down on the floor, despite his fallibility to being floored only Liston managed to keep him down for the count. His heart and determination were second to none, many flaws but a nicer guy outside the ring there will never be.

yep, he had very good recuperative powers. But all too easy to put down. Very good handspeed, but all too fragile.

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Would it have been at LHW?

Yes. SRR was not that good at middleweight. He earned his greatness as a welterweight where he was simply THE best ever. Anything above that would have been touch and go. At LHW would have been legalised murder. Not against Patterson though who had the chin of a flyweight and was easy to hit.

You said it was to be at LHW I knew nothing about it and was asking a question. You ain't taking me done with that sinking ship.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Think your now starting to be a bit harsh on Patterson

Chuvalo, Bonavena, Johannson, Moore and Durelle were all good wins, top 20 heavyweight for me, was around in the golden age past his best but was still a top rated Heavyweight for over 15 years

I'd rank Patterson lower than Rocky. I dont see how he'd be top 20.

Maybe you should start a thread, az.

You know, when this one finishes.

If this one finishes.

If this one doesn't finish us.

You have to be kidding me. I've taken too much flak on this thread already. I feel like I've been 15 rounds with Rocky. Actually I still feel fresh so maybe.......

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Would it have been at LHW?

Yes. SRR was not that good at middleweight. He earned his greatness as a welterweight where he was simply THE best ever. Anything above that would have been touch and go. At LHW would have been legalised murder. Not against Patterson though who had the chin of a flyweight and was easy to hit.

You said it was to be at LHW I knew nothing about it and was asking a question. You ain't taking me done with that sinking ship.

My bad. I means that EVEN at LHW against Rocky it would have bene legalised murder.

Patterson

Youngest champion at the time, first man to regain the title, quality wins over Moore, Bonavena and Johansson puts him there or thereabouts for the top 20

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Think your now starting to be a bit harsh on Patterson

Chuvalo, Bonavena, Johannson, Moore and Durelle were all good wins, top 20 heavyweight for me, was around in the golden age past his best but was still a top rated Heavyweight for over 15 years

I'd rank Patterson lower than Rocky. I dont see how he'd be top 20.

Maybe you should start a thread, az.

You know, when this one finishes.

If this one finishes.

If this one doesn't finish us.

You have to be kidding me. I've taken too much flak on this thread already. I feel like I've been 15 rounds with Rocky. Actually I still feel fresh so maybe.......

Do a Manny one, then.

This one's beginning to feel like a Manny thread, anyway.

AZANIA the new D4

prettyboy1304 wrote:AZANIA the new D4

There it is !

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Think your now starting to be a bit harsh on Patterson

Chuvalo, Bonavena, Johannson, Moore and Durelle were all good wins, top 20 heavyweight for me, was around in the golden age past his best but was still a top rated Heavyweight for over 15 years

I'd rank Patterson lower than Rocky. I dont see how he'd be top 20.

Maybe you should start a thread, az.

You know, when this one finishes.

If this one finishes.

If this one doesn't finish us.

You have to be kidding me. I've taken too much flak on this thread already. I feel like I've been 15 rounds with Rocky. Actually I still feel fresh so maybe.......

Do a Manny one, then.

This one's beginning to feel like a Manny thread, anyway.

Oh my......

prettyboy1304 wrote:AZANIA the new D4

The Mighty Atom wrote:Patterson

Youngest champion at the time, first man to regain the title, quality wins over Moore, Bonavena and Johansson puts him there or thereabouts for the top 20

Ahead of who?

Shouldn't the question rather be behind who

Who would you rank him above?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Patterson

Youngest champion at the time, first man to regain the title, quality wins over Moore, Bonavena and Johansson puts him there or thereabouts for the top 20

Ahead of who?

Ahead of all the other guys who later regained the title...

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Patterson

Youngest champion at the time, first man to regain the title, quality wins over Moore, Bonavena and Johansson puts him there or thereabouts for the top 20

Ahead of who?

Ahead of all the other guys who later regained the title...

ok

azania wrote:Floyd beat Oscar because Oscar didn't hit as hard as Rocky. He imo, would have out hustled and out worked rocky. Would have been a close fight between two similar fighters.

Hang on. So a fighter who couldn't beat Patterson would out-hustle Rocky? No-one ever out-hustled Rocky. Out-worked Rocky? No-one ever out-worked Rocky. He could be out-boxed - eg Walcott 1.

To say that someone who couldn't outhustle Patterson would outhustle Rock is a joke. Not a very funny one, I grant you, but a jest nonetheless.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. George Foreman
6. Larry Holmes
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Sonny Liston
10. James J. Jeffries
12. Joe Frazier
13. Gene Tunney
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Mike Tyson
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Sam Langford
17. Jersey Joe Walcott
18. Bob Fitzsimmons
19. Floyd Patterson
20. James J. Corbett

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Floyd beat Oscar because Oscar didn't hit as hard as Rocky. He imo, would have out hustled and out worked rocky. Would have been a close fight between two similar fighters.

Hang on. So a fighter who couldn't beat Patterson would out-hustle Rocky? No-one ever out-hustled Rocky. Out-worked Rocky? No-one ever out-worked Rocky. He could be out-boxed - eg Walcott 1.

To say that someone who couldn't outhustle Patterson would outhustle Rock is a joke. Not a very funny one, I grant you, but a jest nonetheless.

Rocky wouldn't be running. He would come to take your head off. So would oscar. I think Oscar's busier style would win it for me. Ah, perhaps not. I concede.

But Pac with weight stips would win against all.

The Mighty Atom wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. George Foreman
6. Larry Holmes
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Sonny Liston
10. James J. Jeffries
12. Joe Frazier
13. Gene Tunney
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Mike Tyson
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Sam Langford
17. Jersey Joe Walcott
18. Bob Fitzsimmons
19. Floyd Patterson
20. James J. Corbett

I#d have both K bros ahead of him in ATG and h2h. Beating an even older Moore means little.

The Mighty Atom wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. George Foreman
6. Larry Holmes
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Sonny Liston
10. James J. Jeffries
12. Joe Frazier
13. Gene Tunney
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Mike Tyson
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Sam Langford
17. Jersey Joe Walcott
18. Bob Fitzsimmons
19. Floyd Patterson
20. James J. Corbett

Suprised to see Lewis so high up would have him just outside my top 10.

Why are you so hung up on Moores age, in itself thats a better win than anything the K Bros have achieved not to mention Bonavena or Johannson. Getting beaten by the likes of Purity, Sanders or Brewster and having not top class wins to counteract it, simply isn't acceptable for a supposed top level fighter, he doesn't even have the excuse of fighting every week like you would put it.

Shows the lack in depth of the division really throughout history

I dont see how you can elevate Johannson and Bonavena. Beating them and Ancient Archie doesn't add to any legacy. Is it any surprise that Cus managed him very carefully? Why do you think that is?

Fact is Azania your going to dismiss anything to try and prove your point, having Patterson at 19 is hardly an absurd ranking for him. Thing is I know you've never watched really watched any of the fighters mentioned so don't even know why i'm bothering.

He was ranked in the top ten of the heavyweight division longer than anyone before or after, he wasn't brilliant and was flawed but he competed at an unusually strong time for the division and never had the judges on his side. Should have 2 wins over Quarry and a win over Ellis on his record which for a light heavyweight isn't bad going.

azania if you dont understand someones point then you should ask for clarification, if you still cant understand then you should respect someones view. What you dont do is jump to your own conclusion and label people what you think they are.

azania wrote:I dont see how you can elevate Johannson and Bonavena. Beating them and Ancient Archie doesn't add to any legacy. Is it any surprise that Cus managed him very carefully? Why do you think that is?

That's a fair point, az, but it shouldn't be forgotten that Patterson INSISTED on fighting Liston, which led to his split with D'Amato. We should also remember that the losses to Liston actually helped him to exorcise his demons and made him a better fighter.

I can never be bothered putting together a top twenty, but I reckon if places came by way of a fighter's courage, dignity and downright decency Patterson would be in the top two or three.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Fact is Azania your going to dismiss anything to try and prove your point, having Patterson at 19 is hardly an absurd ranking for him. Thing is I know you've never watched really watched any of the fighters mentioned so don't even know why i'm bothering.

He was ranked in the top ten of the heavyweight division longer than anyone before or after, he wasn't brilliant and was flawed but he competed at an unusually strong time for the division and never had the judges on his side. Should have 2 wins over Quarry and a win over Ellis on his record which for a light heavyweight isn't bad going.

I would have the 2 Ks on that list based on their achievement. As I said beating Johansson is no great shakes. Beating a one handed bonavena should be taken into context. Floyd would not be in my ATG top 20 for those reasons. He didn't beat anyone considered good and was found out when he went up in class.

Good guy and a class act, but not top 20 imo.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:azania if you dont understand someones point then you should ask for clarification, if you still cant understand then you should respect someones view. What you dont do is jump to your own conclusion and label people what you think they are.

I dont believed I have labelled anyone.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I dont see how you can elevate Johannson and Bonavena. Beating them and Ancient Archie doesn't add to any legacy. Is it any surprise that Cus managed him very carefully? Why do you think that is?

That's a fair point, az, but it shouldn't be forgotten that Patterson INSISTED on fighting Liston, which led to his split with D'Amato. We should also remember that the losses to Liston actually helped him to exorcise his demons and made him a better fighter.

I can never be bothered putting together a top twenty, but I reckon if places came by way of a fighter's courage, dignity and downright decency Patterson would be in the top two or three.

I agree totally.

Moore, Bonavena and Johansson were all considered good, this where your so naive, what you think isn't what is considered. At the time all these guys were considered good whereas today no one that the K bros have beaten is considered good.

Johansson for instance beat 3 guys considered good enough for shots at Ali's title beforehand, you have a way of dismissing things without thinking about it.

So Azania what is your top 20 then, this should be fun

Also which fights of these guys have you seen or you going to avoid that question like you did the Walcott ones

The Mighty Atom wrote:So Azania what is your top 20 then, this should be fun

Also which fights of these guys have you seen or you going to avoid that question like you did the Walcott ones

Oh boy. Put me on the spot there. I'll give a top 10.
1) Ali
2) Holmes
3) Louis
4) Tyson
5) Dempsey
6) Johnson
7) Jeffries
8.) Foreman
9) Lewis
10) Liston

The next 10 would keep me here forever. I'll add that I will not include Holyfield unless with an asterix until the whole truth about the Evan Field is resolved.

The Mighty Atom wrote:So Azania what is your top 20 then, this should be fun

Also which fights of these guys have you seen or you going to avoid that question like you did the Walcott ones

I gave you the reason for walcott.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So Azania what is your top 20 then, this should be fun

Also which fights of these guys have you seen or you going to avoid that question like you did the Walcott ones

I gave you the reason for walcott.

I must have missed it

Holmes and Tyson are ridiculously high but other than looks alright

I wont get into anything here but the other day you shut down an article by me accusing me of racism which was un-deserved, totally wrong, and very insulting to myself. I tried to explain my point which was not racist or wummist in any way, but was met with a very stoic stance by yourself. At no time did you bring your concerns to me if more lucid clarification was indeed needed. I apolagise to anyone who may have misunderstood the point of my article which was a great number of you except D4 who was able to understand that, when I stated that ethnic rivalry was good for boxing, I meant in a factual sense and by no means did I incur that racial propaganda was critical for the success of boxing.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Holmes and Tyson are ridiculously high but other than looks alright

I based my list on what they did and their ability as I see it. In a h2h I'd give Holmes a very good shout in beating Ali. But based on who Ali beat and what he did inside the ring, there's no chance of placing him anywhere else.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I wont get into anything here but the other day you shut down an article by me accusing me of racism which was un-deserved, totally wrong, and very insulting to myself. I tried to explain my point which was not racist or wummist in any way, but was met with a very stoic stance by yourself. At no time did you bring your concerns to me if more lucid clarification was indeed needed. I apolagise to anyone who may have misunderstood the point of my article which was a great number of you except D4 who was able to understand that, when I stated that ethnic rivalry was good for boxing, I meant in a factual sense and by no means did I incur that racial propaganda was critical for the success of boxing.

This is the wrong place to bring that issue up. I asked everyone to PM me if they wanted that thread unlocked. No one did and all supported my decision to lock the thread.

Thanks

Well my opinions on their opponents are well known

Find it hard to place Holmes over Foreman based on their respective best wins and ability, tend to think Foreman KO's him, if Shavers puts him down the big George keeps him down.

Tyson has to be below Frazier, he was fun and explosive but it was all too short lived, not sure what on Tysons record comes close to Ali, Quarry*2, Ellis*2, Bonavena*2 and Chuvalo, loses places for the Foreman fights but aside from that his record is outstanding.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well my opinions on their opponents are well known

Find it hard to place Holmes over Foreman based on their respective best wins and ability, tend to think Foreman KO's him, if Shavers puts him down the big George keeps him down.

Tyson has to be below Frazier, he was fun and explosive but it was all too short lived, not sure what on Tysons record comes close to Ali, Quarry*2, Ellis*2, Bonavena*2 and Chuvalo, loses places for the Foreman fights but aside from that his record is outstanding.

Foreman had serious problems with a boxer with a very good jab. Jimmy Young proved that. Holmes imo had the best jab of all HW and excellent footwork. No shame in being floored by Shavers. The man hit harder that God.

Tyson was always going to be controversial. With the exception of Ali (hard I agree), the guys Frazier beat were very beatable by many other guys. Same with Tyson's victims. But its the manner in which Tyson beat them that stands him out.

Don't think Holmes has a win like Lyle, Norton or Frazier on his record for me but can't argue against his longevity

Tyson looked very impressive blasting the guys out he did but they're a notch below what Frazier and some others in the division beat.

Tend to have Holmes, Foreman, Dempsey and Johnson floating around the 3-6 spots with Ali and Louis a clear 1 and 2. Lewis, Marciano, Jeffries and Liston are also very interchangeable below that there's very little between places 11-20.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don't think Holmes has a win like Lyle, Norton or Frazier on his record for me but can't argue against his longevity

Tyson looked very impressive blasting the guys out he did but they're a notch below what Frazier and some others in the division beat.

Tend to have Holmes, Foreman, Dempsey and Johnson floating around the 3-6 spots with Ali and Louis a clear 1 and 2. Lewis, Marciano, Jeffries and Liston are also very interchangeable below that there's very little between places 11-20.

The Jimmy Young fight is what did it for me. It showed Goerge's weakness against someone who can move and with a decent jab.

Holmes did beat Norton in probably one of the best HW fights in history. Certainly R15 was one for the ages. Norton was all wrong for movers also. Shame that his chin went awol against a big hitter.

Im of the opinion that you cant be at your best, especially in the old days, at the age of 38/39/40 or whatever Walcott was when he fought Marciano.

You are entitled to point to his wins over Charles as evidence but I would simply argue that his biggest wins came late and not neccesarily when he was at his best. Furthermore, he basiclly retired after Marciano and didnt do much after. The second fight he didnt last a round.

Im not saying he was this shot to pieces fighter that warants complete ignoring but I do think its not unreasonable to say after the age and career he had that at that stage he was best his best.

For example how much credit do you think Haye or the Klitschko boys would have got had they beat say Joe Calzaghe or Bernard Hopkins a couple of years back? Calzaghe coming off arguably his biggest win against Hopkins or Hopkins coming off a great performance v Pavlik?

I would liken Hopkins in some ways to Moore. Similar dimensions, both cagey and well schooled and both great fighters. Yet Hopkins would never dream of facing either Klitschko at any age and if he did he would be massacred. I doubt the Klitschkos would get any credit for beating him and people would obviously point to the size difference.

Yet I would back Hopkins to make a similar fist of it with Marciano as Moore did. Maybe outbox him early, spoil middle before ultimately getting stopped by Marciano. I wouldnt give Hopkins much of a chance against most of the genuine heavyweight champions.

Well, we live in the age of the juggernaut, manos, and while I don't subscribe to the view that bigger is always better I do think that Marciano, at 185lb., would be very much up against it against a decent 240lb.er such as Klitschko or Lewis. It's not without precedent, of course, for a similar size disparity to be nullified, but head - to - head I'd naturally lean toward Vitali Klitschko to beat Marciano. Not so sure about Wlad, but that's another story.

In any event, Moore weighed exactly the same as Marciano when they fought, and Charles was heavier than Rocky second time out.

As to Walcott, we'll simply need to respectfully disagree. I can't escape the fact that contemporary opinion was that Walcott was better than he'd ever been when he twice beat Charles and was going into the Marciano fight and you aren't to be budged from your stance that he cannot have been at his physical best.

It would be a funny old world if we all agreed on everything and this debate, with its passionately argued and varied opinions, has been great fun, in my opinion.

With Walcott I don't subscribe to the opinion is was at anything but his best, simply put prior to the years leading up to the fight he was dreadfully inconsistent, if anyone could specify when exactly they think he was better I may agree but until then i'll have to disagree.

In Moore we're talking about someone who had proven himself at Heavyweight, was as if he'd just jumped up to the weight and faced Marciano, if someone proves themselves at a weight then in my opinion that legitimises the win. He also had a great equalizer that neither Calzaghe or Hopkins possess, incredible power.

It's all when and good saying guys are old or moving up in weight but you need to apply some context rather than simply stating it.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don't think Holmes has a win like Lyle, Norton or Frazier on his record for me but can't argue against his longevity

Tyson looked very impressive blasting the guys out he did but they're a notch below what Frazier and some others in the division beat.

Tend to have Holmes, Foreman, Dempsey and Johnson floating around the 3-6 spots with Ali and Louis a clear 1 and 2. Lewis, Marciano, Jeffries and Liston are also very interchangeable below that there's very little between places 11-20.

The Jimmy Young fight is what did it for me. It showed Goerge's weakness against someone who can move and with a decent jab.

Holmes did beat Norton in probably one of the best HW fights in history. Certainly R15 was one for the ages. Norton was all wrong for movers also. Shame that his chin went awol against a big hitter.

I just don't see what Holmes achieved to be rated higher than Foreman, he may possibly have the edge in a head to head but I also don't think he deals with any version of Frazier as easily as Foreman did nor did he deal with Norton so easily.

It's all subjective and can't argue with Holmes being at 3 but above Louis too much, he in my opinion isn't even close. Tyson will always polarise opinion and while he was exciting he simply didn't excel at the top top level, he beat some good names during his pomp but this lasted for such a short time that we can't ignore his speedy fall from grace. Douglas highlighted all of Tysons vulnerabilites, physically impose yourself and don't be intimidated, once his aura of invincibility is gone your left with a shell of a fighter, no really top class wins to crack the top ten for me.

Foreman's reign was brief. His only stand out win was frazier which is by any definition was a very good win. Frazier was made for Foreman. That alone should not merit a place in the ATG top 10. His loss to Jimmy Young puts serious question marks as to why he should not be rated over Holmes. Young was a very similar boxer to Holmes but not as good.

I think we all know the issues surrounding Tyson prior to the Douglas fight. All his fault though. After he sacked his coach, he was never the same. He became an average boxer after that. But for those 4 years, he was a force of nature and possibly the moxt exciting HW in history.

I'm not going to accept any excuses that are directly caused by the boxer himself and thus the Douglas fight is a perfect example of his vulnerabilities. Why let him off but not Foreman for losing his self belief after Ali?

I'm not sure why Tyson is rated so highly for the manner in which he beat fairly decent fighters but Foreman gets rated lower for destroying two fighters in Norton and Frazier who were a level above anything Holmes or Tyson beat. Even in his comeback he beat Cooney, Moorer, and Savarese all of whom were the equals of the likes of Smith and Witherspoon.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I'm not going to accept any excuses that are directly caused by the boxer himself and thus the Douglas fight is a perfect example of his vulnerabilities. Why let him off but not Foreman for losing his self belief after Ali?

I'm not sure why Tyson is rated so highly for the manner in which he beat fairly decent fighters but Foreman gets rated lower for destroying two fighters in Norton and Frazier who were a level above anything Holmes or Tyson beat. Even in his comeback he beat Cooney, Moorer, Coetzee and Savarese all of whom were the equals of the likes of Smith and Witherspoon.

You dont have to accept it but it is a fact. He was never the same after Rooney left and was surrounded by yes men and gold diggers. Yes it is his fault, but nevertheless it contributed to his loss.

I can ask you the same question. Why let off foreman but not tyson?

Tyson is rated highly for the manner in which he cleaned up the HW division and his reign of terror for 4 years. I remember a quote from Holmes after the loss where he said only a nefarious woman and a good jab would beat Tyson. He got both and then some.

I doubt you are being serious in referring to Cooney et al as being equal to Smith and Witherspoon.

By the way, Holmes also beat Norton to win the WBC title.

Also whose comback included Cooney, Coetzee and Moorer. Tyson didn't fioght any of them and Holmes refused to fight Coetzee at any stage of his career. He took the correctmoral stance against apartheid by not fighting a south african.

Foreman fought those guys in his comeback, ignore Coetzer the guys a nobody and a bad admission on my part.

It's not a fact, the fact is he looked perfectly capable then losses and suddenly all the excuses come out, if you read again what I wrote I said if your making excuses for Tyson then the same applies for Foreman, it's either both or none not just one of them.

Cooney was Holmes' most legitimate title defence, no one else he faced held such quality wins as Norton, Lyle and Young. You seem to rate Smith and Witherspoon far too high considering they never did anything to deserve such high praise.

Holmes beat Norton for the title so what? Foreman had previously destroyed the guy in two rounds, I know which win I rate higher.