A little perspective on hang a Klit day !!!!

First topic message reminder :

Would Jack Johnson have lost to Willard If he was 26 instead of 36...............Nope.

Would Ali have lost Spinks If he was 26 instead of 36.....................Nope.

Would Louis have lost to Charles if he was 26 instead of 36..............Nope.

Would Holmes have lost to Spinks If he was 25 and not 35............Nope...

Those guys are all top 5 heavies....................

Wlad is 3/4 years older than them........

Let's not go over the top on Wlad.......

A great career and in a results orientated business a high achiever...

Not as high as Tyson, Lewis, Holy for me but not far off.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Not arguing your general point haz, but ezzard charles one of the best ever heavyweights in history? That's a bit of a stretch... considered a pound 4 pound great and one of the greatest light heavies ever. Which is ultimtely the finger that gets pointed at marciano... as you can say the same about moore.

Of course rocky was only a cruiser himself, but that was the norm back in the day.

Charles is a surely a top 20 heavyweight all-time? He holds wins over Walcott (twice), Louis, Elmer Ray, Rex Layne, Tommy Harrison, Billy Gilliam, Satterfield, Holman - all top ten ranked fighters (back when that meant something). He whupped Pat Valentino, Lee Oma, Freddie Beshore, Gus Lesnevich and Joe Bivins and Maxim umpteen times. Just finishing his biography and - while he was never a real heavyweight - he was good enough to put in some really solid work there. He fought his way to the top of the division (how could he have achieved that if he wasn't a quality heavyweight?). I've seen some rank him in their top ten. He also pushed Marciano as close as it gets.

He actually outweighed Marciano in their rematch if I'm not mistaken?

Walcott and Charles are underrated heavyweights. They were great craftsmen.

"Back when the top 10 meant something"..............Doesn't mean the fighters that are in it aren't crap does it ??

You should be a politician the way you try to spin  b**lshit...

Louis was finished and Walcott was no great heavyweight either..and he lost to him twice..

No, it doesn't mean they aren't crap......only they weren't (to my knowledge). Do you know much about the era to suggest otherwise?

Walcott was another top 20 heavy all-time - he was good enough to drop a highly contentious decision to a still-useful Louis (who he gave fits in the rematch). He also boxed Marciano's head off for most of their first fight. Ok Charles walked onto one in their rubber match but most felt he should have got the decision in their fourth encounter.

Carl froch ranks higher as a super-middle;)

Not disputing any of the above haz, Charles is revered because of his ability to mix it with the bigger guys, he probably does make the tear end of most top 20's... Your description seemed to imply a bit more than that... Probably semantics fella

I don't want to argue with you Haz.........But I could make a case for Norris being a top 10 ATG..

Beat undisputed welterweight champ, two time champ and p4p number 1 Curry..
Beat Chavez robbed and two time champion Taylor.....
Beat Top 10 alltime great Ray Leonard......
Beat Mugabi who had a great war with Hagler in 1....
Beat great welterweight Simon Brown....
Beat promising and much fancied unbeaten Quincy Taylor

Defended his title probably 11 times ??

That looks great without context !!!!!!......

Know what I mean ??

milkyboy wrote:Carl froch ranks higher as a super-middle;)

Not disputing any of the above haz, Charles is revered because of his ability to mix it with the bigger guys, he probably does make the tear end of most top 20's... Your description seemed to imply a bit more than that... Probably semantics fella

Had Marciano not managed that improbable comeback, he might well have made top ten. Mind-boggling to read about the work Charles got done. Every other month he'd take a fight with a Maxim, or a Bivins or Walcott. Insane schedule.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't want to argue with you Haz.........But I could make a case for Norris being a top 10 ATG..

Beat undisputed welterweight champ, two time champ and p4p number 1 Curry..
Beat Chavez robbed and two time champion Taylor.....
Beat Top 10 alltime great Ray Leonard......
Beat Mugabi who had a great war with Hagler in 1....
Beat great welterweight Simon Brown....
Beat promising and much fancied unbeaten Quincy Taylor

Defended his title probably 11 times ??

That looks great without context !!!!!!......

Know what I mean ??

Exactly - but Charles and Walcott were top heavyweights in context!

Brown wasn't a great welter for one. Taylor and Curry were poor (and past their best) at 154. Hagler ruined Mugabi. Leonard was shot to smithereens.

Norris was a top fighter but your argument doesn't take long to pick apart.

Charles was a great boxer at Light Heavyweight and showed glimpses at Heavyweight against largely unspectacular opposition, this was not the Ezzard Charles who made mince meat of Burley and Moore. By the time he fought Marciano, he could be best described as a once great boxer who was on a very steep downward spiral, you paint the rematch as if it was a miraculous comeback when it wasn't. I'm going to wager you have not watched the fight as it was a very one sided fight, yes Marciano split his nose and was given the now legendary one more round but he'd softened up Charles for a good 7 rounds previous.

Being a top ten fighter means nothing without context, I could point out that Mayweather won 25 fights against such opposition but you can look deeper into it and realise that includes Ortiz, Berto, Guerrero, a blown up Marquez, an ageing Mosley etc.

In Marciano I see a fighter who made his name against ageing smaller boxers and he tended to steer clear of the bigger guys like Valdes or Baker in what was possibly the weakest or one of the weakest Heavyweight divisions.

Always like participating in a "Bash a Marciano" Day but I don't recognise the players today...

It is interesting to note how few eras of Heavyweight boxing were actually decent. Probably has to do with how heavyweights are generally disproportionately large compared to the general population and finding more than a handful who have the coordination not associated with gigantors is about as easy as finding a Jehovas Witness who doesn't want to talk about Jesus

Very true the 60's and the 70s were heavy prime time.

Why I laugh when I see Louis number 1 on lists.

I watched Ali vs Quarry last night. Also caught the last few rounds of Ali v Frazier 3. Brutal fight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Charles was a great boxer at Light Heavyweight and showed glimpses at Heavyweight against largely unspectacular opposition, this was not the Ezzard Charles who made mince meat of Burley and Moore. By the time he fought Marciano, he could be best described as a once great boxer who was on a very steep downward spiral, you paint the rematch as if it was a miraculous comeback when it wasn't. I'm going to wager you have not watched the fight as it was a very one sided fight, yes Marciano split his nose and was given the now legendary one more round but he'd softened up Charles for a good 7 rounds previous.

Being a top ten fighter means nothing without context, I could point out that Mayweather won 25 fights against such opposition but you can look deeper into it and realise that includes Ortiz, Berto, Guerrero, a blown up Marquez, an ageing Mosley etc.

In Marciano I see a fighter who made his name against ageing smaller boxers and he tended to steer clear of the bigger guys like Valdes or Baker in what was possibly the weakest or one of the weakest Heavyweight divisions.

Cool story bro. The rest of the world will continue to regard him as the great fighter he was while you stick with your esoteric claptrap.

I didn't think you wagered? Shame you didn't last week. I watched Marciano vs Charles when you were in nappies (complaining no doubt that nappies were overrated).

Of course you've seen a fight you described completely wrong.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Of course you've seen a fight you described completely wrong.

Here it is look!:

https://youtu.be/yN-XjXONPrU

Marciano may have bossed it but he came perilously close to being stopped (as close as he ever came). While some believe the referee would have been lynched had he called time, Marciano had to work on the premise he only had three minutes. Great performance.

Charles was lauded for his guts and tenacity in their first savage encounter. He was a top heavyweight.

Very opinionated for a fella who knows nothing about boxing!

Unlike you Haz i've seen the fight and not merely read about it, quite why the referee is telling him he had one round left is anyone's guess.

The emphasise being was a top Heavyweight but no longer was when he fought Marciano, it's fashionable to rate him highly but he really wasn't all that good.

Haz for interest what age are you??

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Unlike you Haz i've seen the fight and not merely read about it, quite why the referee is telling him he had one round left is anyone's guess.

The emphasise being was a top Heavyweight but no longer was when he fought Marciano, it's fashionable to rate him highly but he really wasn't all that good.

Yep. Never seen the fight I just posted up. Maybe it was something to do with Rocky's nose being slashed to the bone?

No idea what the second sentence means. He was putting more and more erratic shifts prior to facing Marciano (and had been well matched against Wallace and Satterfield) but he was still one of the best heavyweights on the world. It is to his credit that - faded somewhat - he put in such a ballsy shift against one of the greatest heavyweights in history.

To claim he "wasn't all that good" sums you up.

AdamT wrote:Haz for interest what age are you??

What is this? Tinder?

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Unlike you Haz i've seen the fight and not merely read about it, quite why the referee is telling him he had one round left is anyone's guess.

The emphasise being was a top Heavyweight but no longer was when he fought Marciano, it's fashionable to rate him highly but he really wasn't all that good.

Yep. Never seen the fight I just posted up. Maybe it was something to do with Rocky's nose being slashed to the bone?

No idea what the second sentence means. He was putting more and more erratic shifts prior to facing Marciano (and had been well matched against Wallace and Satterfield) but he was still one of the best heavyweights on the world. It is to his credit that - faded somewhat - he put in such a ballsy shift against one of the greatest heavyweights in history.

To claim he "wasn't all that good" sums you up.

I actually think it sums you up Haz that you take what writers say as gospel, Charles being one of the best in the world during a very weak era means absolutely bugger all.

Marciano was not a great heavyweight and would not stand a chance against the very best and only excelled because of the opposition, once great names but no longer world class.

Funny. You don't have to be on the defensive, was only wondering

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Unlike you Haz i've seen the fight and not merely read about it, quite why the referee is telling him he had one round left is anyone's guess.

The emphasise being was a top Heavyweight but no longer was when he fought Marciano, it's fashionable to rate him highly but he really wasn't all that good.

Yep. Never seen the fight I just posted up. Maybe it was something to do with Rocky's nose being slashed to the bone?

No idea what the second sentence means. He was putting more and more erratic shifts prior to facing Marciano (and had been well matched against Wallace and Satterfield) but he was still one of the best heavyweights on the world. It is to his credit that - faded somewhat - he put in such a ballsy shift against one of the greatest heavyweights in history.

To claim he "wasn't all that good" sums you up.

I actually think it sums you up Haz that you take what writers say as gospel, Charles being one of the best in the world during a very weak era means absolutely bugger all.

Marciano was not a great heavyweight and would not stand a chance against the very best and only excelled because of the opposition, once great names but no longer world class.

You lost me at "Marciano was not a great heavyweight." Nowhere to go from there really.

AdamT wrote:Funny. You don't have to be on the defensive, was only wondering

I'm 112 in boxing years.

I suppose you could post some links to a few articles, that always furthers debate.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I suppose you could post some links to a few articles, that always furthers debate.

You don't debate - you offer contrarian views based on a very poor grasp of the sport. Attention seeking and little more. Good luck with it all!

Was only questioning your age because you mentioned watching boxing when Hammer was in nappies.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I suppose you could post some links to a few articles, that always furthers debate.

You don't debate - you offer contrarian views based on a very poor grasp of the sport. Attention seeking and little more. Good luck with it all!

I offer opinion, a concept you seem unable to grasp, I could go post a few articles and pass that off as my opinion instead.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I suppose you could post some links to a few articles, that always furthers debate.

You don't debate - you offer contrarian views based on a very poor grasp of the sport. Attention seeking and little more. Good luck with it all!

I offer opinion, a concept you seem unable to grasp, I could go post a few articles and pass that off as my opinion instead.

That would probably help as your opinions are doing you no good at all. Klitschko in 3!! Cracker that.

I presume you've never called a fight wrong then, the fact you picked Cotto to beat Alvarez must show you know bugger all too.

Lighten up guys, you are both kings!!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I presume you've never called a fight wrong then, the fact you picked Cotto to beat Alvarez must show you know bugger all too.

Here's what I wrote:

I think Cotto is the cleverer of the two fighters and, with Roach in his corner, they'll have the better gameplan to frustrate Alvarez inside and then bust him up down the stretch. Alvarez, for me, is overrated. He's Ok against plodders - very powerful, very good offensively - but struggles against fighters who can make him think. I'll go with Cotto late. TKO 11.

The pick was off (misjudged the size discrepancy) but the rest is pretty sound.

Your Klitschko pick was preposterous - as are most of your opinions.

No you called the fight completely wrong Haz and are now trying to back track, I could say I misjudged the ageing process but that would a load of old crap.

As much as it pains me to say this, both you guys have good knowledge and I doubt picking a bad prediction proves nothing on a debate.

I bet none of us picked Marquez to spark Manny or Maidana to push Floyd. What about Maidana vs Ortiz?
Martinez knocking out Williams?

We all get it wrong sometimes and that's what makes sport great. Nobody knows for sure what will happen.

Why don't you stop licking butt...

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No you called the fight completely wrong Haz and are now trying to back track, I could say I misjudged the ageing process but that would a load of old crap.

That would show - once again - how little you understand boxing.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why don't you stop licking butt...

So this is Tinder?

Of course, I called a fight wrong but I actually called it right because I didn't realise something until after the fight happened.

None of us know as much as Haz..

He's wonderful..

Why don't you mind your own??

"Canelo is an overrated..one dimensional plodder"...

Unless it's about the 80s you don't anyway.

AdamT wrote:Unless it's about the 80s you don't anyway.

Everyone else is ignoring you..I'll do the same.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Canelo is an overrated..one dimensional plodder"...

Which he is. Golovkin will take him to the cleaners - will put money on it with anyone who thinks otherwise.

I think we should all just agree with Haz...

It isn't worth the aggravation...

You're spot on Haz...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think we should all just agree with Haz...

It isn't worth the aggravation...

You're spot on Haz...

This IS Tinder!!

Think that goes to show how little you know doesn't it really Haz.

And I get accused of trolling!

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think we should all just agree with Haz...

It isn't worth the aggravation...

You're spot on Haz...

This IS Tinder!!

The Tinder joke wasn't funny the first time out and now after three times it's quite boring.

As an aside: read that Charles sparred a young Sonny Liston and didn't think much of him. I wish we had footage of that and Liston sparring Foreman (apparently Liston put it on Big George).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think we should all just agree with Haz...

It isn't worth the aggravation...

You're spot on Haz...

This IS Tinder!!

The Tinder joke wasn't funny the first time out and now after three times it's quite boring.

You're going to hate it when you finally pop your cherry. The disappointment will be crushing.

Boring...good night.

You must be a child, it would be embarrassing to think a fully grown adult would act in such a childish manner.