The Klits legacy - Is dependent on what comes after !!!

First topic message reminder :

Whatever happens to the Klits in the near future we do owe them a certain debt of gratitude..........

1. They have brought a certain level of quality to the heavyweight division in desperate times...........Though I've always thought World Boxing would have been better served had Haye won that fight........

2. In an age of gutter no class personality............Haye, Hide, Chisora and now wilder....They have brought a certain dignity and respect to the Heavyweight title and shown you can have certain standards and moral fibre and excel in Boxing............."Nice guys finish last" certainly doesn't/didn't apply to these guys......

However the Klits have helped Lennox Lewis legacy no end by taking the title away from the mainstream and hiding it to a certain extent in Germany.........It makes Lewis look like the LAST OF THE MOHICANS...............I think with time Lewis will be a top 10 heavyweight........Legacy tends to improve when people realise what they have lost !!

Which brings me to the KLITS..............Yes they are maligned as one dimensional types now and mauling types................

But make no mistake If when they've gone and garbage like Fury, Chisora and Wilder types start playing pass the parcel with the title with other stiffs.............. In years to come their legacy will blossom and they will garner more and more respect...and shoot up the rankings.

However If say a look-the-part Joshua cleans up at heavy.......and makes a statement then in all likelihood the Klits legacy will become more of a Head- of-a-disappointing era-footnote......

Like a lot of fighters the Klit legacy depends on what happens in the few years after !!

No point passing judgement now !!

WTf are you talking about

TopHat24/7 wrote:If you're going to knock Primo then for the same reasons shouldn't you detract the Liston 'wins' from Ali??

Not really, as far as I can see the first fight was on the level while the second is up for interpretation. It's a common theme throughout Carnera's career and the fact he was so useless leads me to think the problem is bigger than Rowley suggests.

I'm simply saying that knocking everything Da Preem ever achieved based on perceived mafia association is a little harsh, and if the same brush were to be applied everywhere then one could equally question Ali's Liston wins which many have suggested smelt fishy and Liston was an equally known 'mafia fighter'.

The difference for me Toppy is that Liston like LaMotta had actual ability so it's easier to believe that what they achieved wasn't overly influenced by the mob.

I wasn't so much casting dispersions over what Liston achieved, as I was hinting towards the suggestion he took a dive versus Ali (on mob orders)......

The second fight possibly but not in the first fight and personally I don't think of it as a pair of wins over Liston but initially winning the title from him. With anything like this there's rumour and counter rumour, christ Jack O'Brien in later life tried suggesting pretty much his whole career was a sham. The Fitzsimmons and Johnson fights do sound a bit iffy.

Amazing that the one, single punch which would have helped us get to the bottom of the whole Carnera issue was somehow completely obscured at the precise second it landed by Carnera himself, in the line of the only camera to be recording it!

As Sharkey said of the knockout years later, "Even my wife has her doubts."

It was either an extraordinarily ballsy and risky move by Carnera and / or his people, or poor Primo is the unluckiest Heavyweight champion of them all. As Rodney says, some bystanders called it a fantastic uppercut, right on the button, while others at ringside swore that it missed by as much as a foot.

Truth went with Sharkey back in 1994, it seems.

Think Joseph Page summed up the debate around Carnera for me, in his excellent biography of him. He pretty much argued that for many of his fights we will never know. However there are pretty much zero rumours around either the Loughran or Uzcudun defences so perhaps a more sensible question was is it possible that Carnera got good enough to beat those two. Personally I think it is.

Have no doubt some were fixed...However Sharkey became very bitter about rumors he took a dive so maybe we'll give him that one..

Ali Liston was a masterclass

Ali never knocked out anyone In the first round with one punch , He couldn't put the canvas backed Patterson away. I find it hard to believe Ali/Liston 2 was on a level.

Cheers Rodders

Walcott wasn't stopped in one often either

cheers

Walcott wasn't dropped by a tap to the head surrounded by copious amounts of mitigating circumstances.

Cheers Rodders

If we use elemental physics. We could judge whether or not the punch landed. Its quite basic really. We call Primo's punch at the beginning P1, and his hands position at the end of the motion P2. Now, from here we simply calculate the angle needed for A knock down to occur from the Difference between P1 and P2, (tentatively called Alpha), Only issue is I haven't done AP physics since I was 17, but I'm confident that this is the way forward.

What's your cut off for modern being rubbish Rodney or is it just the heavyweights that finish with Louis?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What's your cut off for modern being rubbish Rodney or is it just the heavyweights that finish with Louis?

Pah, he is playing at it. If you have ever fought in gloves you're rubbish. Chuck any of these fancy dans in a field with Jem Mace or Cribb to see what they're made of.

Wouldn't you want to go further back to the days of Mendoza?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The harder they fall was based on Primo...

So they must have thought he was crap then as well..

I always though it was "Requiem for a Heavyweight" with Anthony Quinn...oh well.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What's your cut off for modern being rubbish Rodney or is it just the heavyweights that finish with Louis?

I've always maintained the position no era is weak , for some reason Louis is opposition is now perceived as inferior to other era's when we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. No one has replicated what Louis has done since so make of that you will.

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What's your cut off for modern being rubbish Rodney or is it just the heavyweights that finish with Louis?

I've always maintained the position no era is weak , for some reason Louis is opposition is now perceived as inferior to other era's when we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. No one has replicated what Louis has done since so make of that you will.

Cheers Rodders

I make of it that it was a weak era especially compared to the 70's when a superior heavyweight in Ali twice in anything approaching his prime. Saying no era is weak is the same as saying no era is strong, we have to compare the relative strengths of an era for any achievement to hold any credence.

What gives you the automatic assumption the 70s was standout above any other ?

Cheers Rodders

My eyes, I can see that Norton has more ability than Schmeling, how do you know that Louis is any better than Haye?