12 Greatest Victories Of All Time

Think we've ran something similar here. Can't argue with the top three:

http://www.thefightcity.com/top-12-time-greatest-victories/

Nice thread - thanks for digging that out.

Must say I'm a tad surprised Douglas beating Tyson didn't make the cut. Any thoughts Hez?

Interesting stuff Haz............Can't argue with 9/10 of the list..

Nice to see you Cast.......

Would have Clay v Liston on there though.........After all Corbett had been out for near enough three years when Fitz beat him...Was Corbett in his prime ??

Really great read, thanks for sharing.

Yeah - been a while Truss. How are you?

Cast a Shadow wrote:Nice thread - thanks for digging that out.

Must say I'm a tad surprised Douglas beating Tyson didn't make the cut. Any thoughts Hez?

It was a great performance against a great champion, however, Tyson rolled into the ring as though he'd just stumbled out of a club. I'd say Bowe over Holyfield was possibly better.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Interesting stuff Haz............Can't argue with 9/10 of the list..

Nice to see you Cast.......

Would have Clay v Liston on there though.........After all Corbett had been out for near enough three years when Fitz beat him...Was Corbett in his prime ??

Ali over Frazier (3rd fight) must have been close, too (despite the fact both had faded).

Yep pretty good list.

The criteria was beating great fighters in their prime with no mitigating factors.

Given most would say Ali was never the same post Vietnam, I'd put a slight asterisk against the number 1 slot.

If Frazier Ali and Ali foreman are top 3, George must be unlucky to not get a shout for his win over the unbeaten Frazier... A strong favourite.

De Jesus duran 1 must be close. None title fight but duran was champion at the time.

Leonard hearns 1 can't have been far away.

I would agree with Ali Frazier 1 as the #1 fight Ali had no answer to Joe's left hook and how he got up from the knockdown in the last round shows what heart he had. It's one of the few fights I've bet on and won. Just watched it again, but for some reason the last round wasn't shown.The Douglas Tyson bout deserves a mention too but I don't know which one you could leave out.

I'm guessing the 'no mitigating factors' (ie question marks over conditioning) or prime, rules out douglas Tyson. Harsh on a brilliant performance by douglas, but probably fair given the criteria.

milkyboy wrote:Yep pretty good list.

The criteria was beating great fighters in their prime with no mitigating factors.

Given most would say Ali was never the same post Vietnam, I'd put a slight asterisk against the number 1 slot.

If Frazier Ali and Ali foreman are top 3, George must be unlucky to not get a shout for his win over the unbeaten Frazier... A strong favourite.

De Jesus duran 1 must be close. None title fight but duran was champion at the time.

Leonard hearns 1 can't have been far away.

Great shout on DeJesus over Duran - maybe the performance wasn't deemed "remarkable" enough?

Frazier possibly took Foreman lightly - off touring with his band.

You might be right on de Jesus duran.. They were over the lightweight limit... You could argue duran had been in party mode. But the loser always has an excuse.

I thought about Turpin Robinson... How far past prime was robbo when Turpin beat him? Depends whether you think everything above welter was post prime. And then... how seriously did he take his european tour?  

I think the guy making the picks has been quite specific with his criteria but they're good picks so can't grumble.

I'd probably have Charles or Burley beating Moore instead of Charles against, less mitigating circumstances regarding weight.

No Fonfara v Ngumbu? Ridiculous list.

Lamotta vs SSR. Granted he lost five times to SSR but for a man of his crude style to be the first man to beat the greatest ever is some victory.

Only read article because couldn't load it on my phone. Good to see my pick is on the list

There's a few on the list where size difference played too much of a part rather than the better man simply winning so personally wouldn't have LaMotta beating Robinson on there.

Bit surprised that Leonard vs Hagler isn't on there, I know some don't agree with the decision but there's no way a retired welterweight has any business even being competitive with a Middleweight of Haglers calibre. Also as others have mentioned Leonard vs Hearns 1 should be on the list and Foreman vs Frazier.

Of a more modern vintage Rigo beating Donaire must be the best of recent times and might find it's way onto lists like this in years to come.

bellchees wrote:Bit surprised that Leonard vs Hagler isn't on there, I know some don't agree with the decision but there's no way a retired welterweight has any business even being competitive with a Middleweight of Haglers calibre. Also as others have mentioned Leonard vs Hearns 1 should be on the list and Foreman vs Frazier.

Of a more modern vintage Rigo beating Donaire must be the best of recent times and might find it's way onto lists like this in years to come.

I think there were mitigating circumstances against all of those save Leonard vs Hearns

There's a school of thought, perpetuated largely by Frazier fans that he left his prime in the ring with Ali in 1971. Even if not physically  diminished, he was mentally not as driven. There may be some truth in that, but if you start nailing someone's prime down to a couple of fights or years then you're really limiting your field for this exercise... you can make excuses for most defeats. I think george's win over an unbeaten frazier, given the odds, circumstances and manner of victory is worth inclusion here.

Irrespective of debates over the decision I think both Leonard and hagler were past their primes when they met, so I understand why it's not included. I still think it was a hell of an achievement from Leonard irrespective of circumstances and scorecards.

A case could be made for Hagler v Hearns. Two fighters in their primes or fairly close to it. Both fighters rated one and two on the P4P lists at the time and they provided what Ring magazine rated as the greatest round of all time (first round). But I will admit that I'm a little biased.

Atila, again it comes down to the size argument, there can't be a great many fights that don't come a disclaimer or some sort of excuse.

Morales beating Pacquiao?

hazharrison wrote:

bellchees wrote:Bit surprised that Leonard vs Hagler isn't on there, I know some don't agree with the decision but there's no way a retired welterweight has any business even being competitive with a Middleweight of Haglers calibre. Also as others have mentioned Leonard vs Hearns 1 should be on the list and Foreman vs Frazier.

Of a more modern vintage Rigo beating Donaire must be the best of recent times and might find it's way onto lists like this in years to come.

I think there were mitigating circumstances against all of those save Leonard vs Hearns

Including Rigo-Doanire?

Toppy, from what I remember the mitigating circumstances in Rigondeaux-Donaire was that Rigondeaux didn't stand straight in front of Donaire and offer him up some free left hooks on his chin, which seemed to get under some people's skin a bit. It should have been lauded all-round as a brilliant win, but Rigondeaux's 'purist' style as well as the fact that Donaire's form has been pretty average since means it'll likely never be as well-received as it should be.

Anyway, it's a good list overall but maybe a bit too geared towards the old timers for my liking. No wins post-1980?

Fitzsimmons-Corbett was a cracking win for Ruby Rob, even allowing for the fact that he was being outboxed before his power got him out of a hole, but as I've said before I tend to think that Gentleman Jim is one of boxing's more overrated fighters from a historical perspective. I'd take that fight out and definitely replace it with Douglas-Tyson, which should feature in any list, for me. Appreciate that it upsets the delicate sensibilities of the 'PRIME TYSON!' brigade, but it was still the Tyson era and Douglas wiped the floor with him, that eighth round wobble aside.

I'd make room for Randall-Chavez, too. Whitaker might have dented Chavez's aura a little, but Randall was still a 15-1 outsider, in his first world title bout and was up against a set of judges who were let's say, erm, a little bit partial to Julio (Chavez would still have retained his title via a draw had Steele not deducted a second point, despite the fact that Randall, in the eyes of any sane person, outclassed him on the night and also put him on his backside, which nobody else had ever done). For the quality of the performance, the context of the fight and the man he was up against, it's a win which should replace either Booker-Moore or Angott-Pep in my opinion, probably the former.

Not sure which fight you'd take out to make room for them, but wins such as Mosley-De la Hoya (first fight), Sanchez-Lopez and Jones-Toney are worth consideration as well. But the other two I've talked about are musts, I reckon.

I thought Tyson Douglas had a rather obvious mitigating circumstance, Chris? Douglas should have lost via knockout with that little "wobble".

If the referee had reached 'ten' I might agree, Raf. But seeing as he didn't, Douglas beat the referee's count, which is the only one that matters.

But how's that better than a dodgy scorecard Chris? In a million Sundays, Douglas wasn't going to get up before a proper count of ten.

Just think sometimes fans like to have it both ways. It's fine to admonish bad judges, but incompetent refereeing is fine if it leads to a legendary night.

Not sure if being serious........?

Mate I'm dead serious. I don't understand how a ref incapable of administering a proper count isn't a mitigating factor, yet dodgy scorecards are. It doesn't, as Chavez Jr would say, make sense.

I hope he's not being serious toppy.

Chris I discounted Randall chavez on the post prime basis as I did regarding Tyson douglas. I did this on the basis that the article seemed to be strict on the 'at the peak of their powers' rather than my own view on what constitutes a prime. Jones Barrera might be nearer.

Disagree again, raf. Douglas knew enough to hit the canvas in frustration at getting caught with the shot and was clearly following Meyran's count (he looked as if he was about to rise a couple of seconds before he did, but realising where Meyran was with the count he collected himself again and delayed it for a little while longer). In my opinion, had Meyran counted a little faster Douglas would have just adjusted his rise accordingly and still beaten the count. People talk as if he had tweety birds circling his head when he hit the deck - it was a good shot by Tyson, but not a devastating one or one which had Douglas totally detached from his senses.

Of course, by the technical definition Meyran's count wasn't ten seconds, but when you're dealing in human judgement a perfect ten count is nigh-on impossible. There have been plenty of other fights (off the top of my head, Watson-Benn or Bruno-Cummings on these shores) where a fighter has been counted out in what was definitely a bit less than ten seconds, rather than more.

I don't particularly see the link between Meyran's count and crooked judges. Mayran didn't show any favour or partiality to Douglas ahead of Tyson in that fight - there's a good video on YouTube which shows the two counts given to the pair of them in that fight side-by-side in real time, and Tyson got the exact same count as Douglas did, almost to the nano-second. Difference being that Douglas was up and able to continue at nine, whereas Tyson wasn't. Every ref has different parameters in some way and ultimately Douglas did everything he was required to do to beat Tyson legally.

Frank Tate got a more generous count against Michael Nunn, but it didn't matter because Nunn was so superior on the night he was able to stop Tate in the very next round. Complaining about Meyran's count in my eyes just looks like a convenient excuse to ignore the way Tyson was outclassed by Douglas on the night. Can't help but feel that if was anyone other than Tyson (who gets more excuses made for him than most) on the receiving end of Douglas' performance that night, there'd be a lot less outrage about that fight.

It's quite simple, for me. I'm not crying foul about Douglas' victory or asking for it to be rescinded. I simply don't care enough for Tyson to argue this with the necessary gusto. But I do take objection to it not being a mitigating factor. By very definition, surely, being allowed to regather yourself longer than you're supposed to is a mitigating factor?

So, Raf, you genuinely buy into Don King's long/slow count cr@p??

No, but luckily I can count myself. Turns out he was right.

The referees count is all that matters and like Chris said Douglas was following the count just like Tunney did against Dempsey. Were he in serious trouble the fight would surely have ended soon after.

kingraf wrote:No, but luckily I can count myself. Turns out he was right.

And your count sat at home in front of the telly is utterly irrelevant.

Both fighters were given the exact same count, only 1 could answer it. Total even-handedness.

Interesting how Corbett boxes the ears off a top ten alltime great and first man to win three titles at different weights and is overrated...

Corbett was a great boxer of his day...Just like Tunney..........Lok nothing special both of them by today's standards but that's by the by...

Corbett was a trailblazer and history is right to rate him highly..........Like Ali he also slayed a dragon...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The WBC bowing down to King's long count crap has to be one of the lowest points of Boxing and that is saying something....Disgusting..

Luckily the press weren't having it...The IBF coming out for Buster straight away helped too..

Look, I'm not calling for a rematch, or the fight to be rescinded. But I fail to see how this isn't a mitigating factor simply because it's the ref who f.ed up. Jeez, it's like an umpire accidentally giving a player three serves match point down, and being told it didnt change anything, as he fixed it buy affording the same to the other player when he went down match point... That's not how it works. These things don't "even themselves out"

Well then are you going to deduct two points at the end of thirty or so soccer games every week when the winning goal is offside ????

Don't be silly.........

It helps to read mate. I haven't called for the fight to be restarted.

Going with your example. Seems everyone here is pretty happy to say that, "yes the goal was offside, but it didn't change anything"

Most people are happy Douglas was watching the ref and picking up the count...

Or maybe he should have realised it was a long count and told the ref off before fighting on...

"Naughty ref you need to count properly....Now come here Tyson"

Leave it out !!

Plenty fighters don't get up from properly timed counts watching the ref. It's not a never before seen occurrence. It helps when "eight" really "Forty and a half"

Jones Vs James Toney, one sided beatdown between 2 top p4p fighters

kingraf wrote:Plenty fighters don't get up from properly timed counts watching the ref. It's not a never before seen occurrence. It helps when "eight" really "Forty and a half"

Tough s**t then isn't it....You haven't got an argument.......Referee is in charge, Douglas followed the count..

Tyson fan are we ??................You'll be telling me Andre Agassi can bench 400 for two reps in a minute..

Ooh... Trussy still hurt from that thread... Wasn't that the thread where you swore up and down that elite athletes can't bench big, and didn't say a word when it was confirmed that will genia all 85kg of him benches 410 for two reps (that's the player you're thinking of... I said, like multiple times over four or five threads, that Agassi benches 350)

Personal experience has taught me that the monsters in the gym who take s**t struggle to do " complete " reps at 400............

Some pipsqueak who's clean lifting 400 properly...........

Guess there are freaks... but no don't buy it..

I doubt Agassi could bench 350 without a bro spot. I could bench near 400lbs if the right guy was spotting me. I take athletes claims of power with a pinch of salt unless I see video proof.

AdamT wrote:I doubt Agassi could bench 350 without a bro spot. I could bench near 400lbs if the right guy was spotting me. I take athletes claims of power with a pinch of salt unless I see video proof.

I bench 700 for 6.....

Of course there are freaks... you tend to need to be one to play elite sports.

Haven't benched in a while. My shoulder were nagging me for a few weeks, so dropped the pull up and bench. Started pull ups again, but I'm wary of the bench.