All-time boxing P4P lists:

[Takaloo]

Originally posted by SnoopDoggyCow
Alright number 1

I am not comparing Marciano to Joe Mesi. I realize Mesi hasn't really accomplished anything great yet. But he is a good heavyweight with potential.

You ask what tools he has? How about power, and resiliancy.

You like to point out how Jirov had him down like its a bad thing. I look at it the other way. Mesi who was ahead the whole fight, got up and finished the fight. Thats shows he has heart. Heart and power hmmm what great heavyweight is known for that???

And yeah I know a body shot in the right spot can knock you out. Oscar is one of my favorite fighters, or at least was. Its just when you see guys like Mayorga and Gatti take punishment and still keep coming, it makes you question someone's heart.


Floyd Paterson is definitely a great heavy weight. Like Marciano, he was the best for his time (before the Sonny Liston fight)

Now as far as the fights I mentioned

I say Oscar beats Pryor thats night.

Tyson could beat Clay that night, I mean Joe Frazier who doesn't hit as hard floored Ali, why couldn't a crazy killer like Tyson do it? You never know, so I wouldn't be so quick to say Clay wins. I think it could go either way.

Nobody, and I mean nobody beats Roy Jones the night he fought Toney.

I say a prime Marciano knocks out a prime Joe Louis in the late rounds, or wins a decision.

True Louis was washed up when Marciano fought him, but he still is a great fighter, and Marciano disgraced him.

Jirov is a blown up cruiserweight mate.

That was a TEN ROUND FIGHT. Mesi should have been stopped IMO. He WOULD have been stopped if the fight went 10 seconds longer. AGAINST A BLOWN UP CRUISER who subsequently got BEAT by moorer... lol

Power??? resiliency?????

Oh dear. No further comment.


And how can you question Oscars heart. Do you know what he has accomplished in his carreer? and Do you know he DEMOLISHED Gatti?

 

[CLOONEY]

Re: Re: All-time boxing P4P lists:

Originally posted by Takaloo
I don't think Tunney should be as high as you have him. Certainly Ali and Loius should be higher. I don't really like debating over lists like these because it's all so subjective.

I agree, that is why I said this list is NOT IN EXACT order. It is just a list of some of the top fighters ever to grace the sport.

I definately think Tunney should be in there. He only lost twice and they were both to Greb who was one of the legends of the sport, in all their other fights Tunney got the best of Greb.

Tunney also stepped up to heavyweight and beat, TWICE (although yes one is debated due to the long count), Jack Dempsey, who was one of the greatest heavyweights ever to live.

 

[CLOONEY]

Originally posted by SnoopDoggyCow
Alright number 1

I am not comparing Marciano to Joe Mesi. I realize Mesi hasn't really accomplished anything great yet. But he is a good heavyweight with potential.

You ask what tools he has? How about power, and resiliancy.

You like to point out how Jirov had him down like its a bad thing. I look at it the other way. Mesi who was ahead the whole fight, got up and finished the fight. Thats shows he has heart. Heart and power hmmm what great heavyweight is known for that???

And yeah I know a body shot in the right spot can knock you out. Oscar is one of my favorite fighters, or at least was. Its just when you see guys like Mayorga and Gatti take punishment and still keep coming, it makes you question someone's heart.


Floyd Paterson is definitely a great heavy weight. Like Marciano, he was the best for his time (before the Sonny Liston fight)

Now as far as the fights I mentioned

I say Oscar beats Pryor thats night.

Tyson could beat Clay that night, I mean Joe Frazier who doesn't hit as hard floored Ali, why couldn't a crazy killer like Tyson do it? You never know, so I wouldn't be so quick to say Clay wins. I think it could go either way.

Nobody, and I mean nobody beats Roy Jones the night he fought Toney.

I say a prime Marciano knocks out a prime Joe Louis in the late rounds, or wins a decision.

True Louis was washed up when Marciano fought him, but he still is a great fighter, and Marciano disgraced him.

The difference is, Marciano was in there with some good comp, Jirov is a cruiser and not that good of a heavyweight. Moorer (yes the way past it, former light-heavy champ, just ate him up).

As far as Oscar taking punishment like Gatti or Mayo, perhaps you should view the Vargas, Mosley 1, Qartey fights. Oscar showed the heart of a lion in those fights and took some great great shots.

Patterson lost to Maxim, who was by no means a GREAT light heavyweight. He was crushed by Ingemar Johansson, but I give him credit for winning the rematch. He was blown out by Liston both times in the first round and he was cut to shreds by Ali. A good heavyweight? Yes. A great heavyweight? Probably. But not up there with the all-time great heavies.

Oscar could have beaten Pryor that night.

Frazier v Ali? That was not a prime Ali. You have to look at Clay, the guy who could move and was real fast with his punches, not the one who played the ropadope. That Clay would beat Tyson IMHO, although then again, nobody can write off a guy with the power Tyson possessed in his prime.

Comparing Louis to Marciano in their fight is not appropriate. Louis beats Marciano IMHO. And fairly convincingly, just too complete, good on his feet, reasonably defence, solid chin, great power, great jab, and great awareness of the distance. It takes/took fast guys like Billy Conn, to really trouble Louis.

Roy could have been KOd. Who can say his chin was definately strong enough to take the power of a Ray Robinson or a Thomas Hearns? But then again, if his chin held up, Roy in his prime would have won on points against any man in history. IMHO.

 

[CLOONEY]

Re: Marciano, Walcott, and Louis

Originally posted by Bonhomme
Yeah, Louis was well past his prime when Marciano beat him. This is mixing apples and oranges, but Maciano was like Utah's college football team this last year and Miami Ohio's the prior year: as good a record as anybody, but didn't get a proper test when they were in their groove.

We are talking pound for pound here, and Marciano did go undefeated against bigger guys. He had an iron chin and incredible endurance by all accounts. The only kind of fighter of his weight who might beat him might be a super-skilled and fast fighter like Muhammad Ali in 1967. Of course, a much larger, more powerful fighter like early 70s George Foreman might knock him flat before he could even get in to land a decent shot, but again, we're talking pound for pound.

Speaking of untested fighters, who knows what Teofilo Stevenson of Cuba would have done against the classic fighters of his time (Ali, Frazier, Foreman, etc.)?

Jersey Joe Walcott? My dad (who was a lot closer an observer for obvious reasons) thinks he was the best heavyweight of his era, but didn't get a proper shot until he was past his prime. It is generally agreed he clearly beat Louis when they fought, but at the time judges would very rarely give a decision to a challenger.

Still, hard to imagine anyone beating Ali in his 1967 prime.

Yes, a prime Walcott was a good fighter. A good jab, relatively fast and a good chin. He did give Louis great troubles, but remember he was KOd in the rematch.

Marciano fought Walcott when he was nearly 40, and in the first fight he gave Marciano hell. Other than him, Marciano had no proper great heavyweight on his resume other than a very old, very past it Louis.

When does your dad think Joe Walcotts prime was? He lost 11 times all throughout his career before he got a shot at the title? Its not as if he was as dominant as a guy like Joe Louis (who was in his same era), throughout his career. Walcott was far too inconsistant.

 

[Bonhomme]

Looking at Walcott's record, my dad must have been referring to when he fought Louis the first time, at the end of '47. Actually, he was already 33 then, when he was on a roll and did his best fighting. My dad is deceased, so I have no way of asking him. I think part of my dad's sentiment had to do with Walcott having been so badly ripped off in the 1st Louis fight. I'd like to see a film of that one.

Walcott's record certainly shows inconsistency. I don't know if he had any personal issues (a la Leon Spinks), such as alcohol, bad training habits, or what not, but his record sure shows he hung with the best at times, and also got whupped by unexceptional fighters. I personally wouldn't call him one of the absolute best, but he certainly was no slouch.

I agree that Ali after his hiatus was clearly less sharp and slower than he was during the first part of his career. Some of the films of his early fights are amazing: first-class heavyweight power with lightweight speed. Obviously could take a shot, too, from the fact that Liston (who was flattening everyone else) couldn't nail him. I don't think he'd have needed to rope-a-dope Foreman in that kind of condition.

On related news, there's a PBS program airing tonight about Jack Johnson. If I'm home, I definitely plan to check that one out.

 

[CLOONEY]

Originally posted by Bonhomme
Looking at Walcott's record, my dad must have been referring to when he fought Louis the first time, at the end of '47. Actually, he was already 33 then, when he was on a roll and did his best fighting. My dad is deceased, so I have no way of asking him. I think part of my dad's sentiment had to do with Walcott having been so badly ripped off in the 1st Louis fight. I'd like to see a film of that one.

Walcott's record certainly shows inconsistency. I don't know if he had any personal issues (a la Leon Spinks), such as alcohol, bad training habits, or what not, but his record sure shows he hung with the best at times, and also got whupped by unexceptional fighters. I personally wouldn't call him one of the absolute best, but he certainly was no slouch.

I agree that Ali after his hiatus was clearly less sharp and slower than he was during the first part of his career. Some of the films of his early fights are amazing: first-class heavyweight power with lightweight speed. Obviously could take a shot, too, from the fact that Liston (who was flattening everyone else) couldn't nail him. I don't think he'd have needed to rope-a-dope Foreman in that kind of condition.

On related news, there's a PBS program airing tonight about Jack Johnson. If I'm home, I definitely plan to check that one out.

Yes I agree, Wacott was a very good heavy (even great), but not up there with the all-timers. I am sure somewhere I have a tape or at least lengthy clips of the Walcott fight (if I remember correctly, Louis was not in the greatest shape at the time), as this was when he was approaching mid 30s, very old for a heavyweight back in those days. Even old for a heavy today, but then again, Walcott was about the same age.

As for Walcotts inconstancy, I agree, I think its probably a mix of partying, and laziness.

Did u catch the thing on Johnson? He was a truly great heavy. Whipped all the top white men around the world (although given Jeffries was past it). Johnson was just unlucky to be around at the time he was, with all the racism and all.

 

[Bonhomme]

Yeah, excellent program

I did catch the Johnson program, though it was on a distant UHF station with a barely watchable picture, so it was hard to make out the fight footage. For some reason it did not appear on the local public TV station that was supposed to be airing it, and I don't have cable.

Pretty intense stuff. It is amazing he got a shot at it, and was able to carry on as long as he did before he was sidelined in one way or another. He certainly appeared to be the best of his era, though a fight with Jefferies before Jefferies retired might have been very interesting. Both were definitely among the very best.

The other thing that was really noticeable to me was how far boxing has evolved in terms of strategy.

 

[CLOONEY]

Re: Yeah, excellent program

Originally posted by Bonhomme
I did catch the Johnson program, though it was on a distant UHF station with a barely watchable picture, so it was hard to make out the fight footage. For some reason it did not appear on the local public TV station that was supposed to be airing it, and I don't have cable.

Pretty intense stuff. It is amazing he got a shot at it, and was able to carry on as long as he did before he was sidelined in one way or another. He certainly appeared to be the best of his era, though a fight with Jefferies before Jefferies retired might have been very interesting. Both were definitely among the very best.

The other thing that was really noticeable to me was how far boxing has evolved in terms of strategy.

Yes, a fight with a prime Jeffries would have been great. Did you see the size of Jeffries legs? They were huge, and he was meant to be one of the strongest men in the world at the time (apparently). Not to mention, experts say 70% of power is derived from the legs. Most of the hardest hitters in history have very muscular and or solid legs, Hearns, Robinson, Tyson etc.

Boxing evolving? haha, yes it has hasnt it! Far less rounds, far less holding! It can get very boring watching some of the really really old school boxing. Just too much holding. Although Johnson, was really the first man in boxing history to be so defensive. He really mastered the art, "hit and not get hit".

Sucks that you didnt get a good picture! Oh well, maybe next time u will get luckier!

 

[Bonhomme]

Boxing evolving? haha, yes it has hasnt it! Far less rounds, far less holding! It can get very boring watching some of the really really old school boxing. Just too much holding. Although Johnson, was really the first man in boxing history to be so defensive. He really mastered the art, "hit and not get hit".

Yeah, I was reading a bit about the fighters of Johnson's era, and noticed some fights were ended with no decision on account of being boring. LOL!

I was rather surprised to see the greatest fighters of the era just lunging in and swinging. No wonder Tunney was able to "bullfight" Dempsey and the other lungers of the time (though Dempsey really did KO him once, had it not been for Dempsey's forgetting to step away).

 

[CLOONEY]

Originally posted by Bonhomme
Yeah, I was reading a bit about the fighters of Johnson's era, and noticed some fights were ended with no decision on account of being boring. LOL!

I was rather surprised to see the greatest fighters of the era just lunging in and swinging. No wonder Tunney was able to "bullfight" Dempsey and the other lungers of the time (though Dempsey really did KO him once, had it not been for Dempsey's forgetting to step away).

Yes, Tunney was one of the greatest, he surely knew how to box.

haha, yes a lot of no decisions were given in those days. Wouldnt be fun to watch if you were watching it live!

As for the Dempsey KOing Tunney, I dont think we can ever be sure on that. Tunney did look hurt, and bewildered, but by about the time of the standard 10 count, Tunney looked like he came back to it. After 14, he was very well much back in reality. Would have been interesting to see how Tunney stood up if he did only get the stardard 10 count, could have went either way. But Tunney got the win in that fight nonetheless.

 

[SnoopDoggyCow]

Marciano beats any of those guys.

 

[Bonhomme]

Tunney/Depsey and size of athletes

Yeah, Tunney might have been able to drag himself off the canvas a second or 2 earlier if he kew he had to. As it is, the rules are the rules, Tunney won. Interesting fight. A very innovative boxer, Tunney.

One thing that is also obvious -- as in other sports (most notably hockey, lately) -- is just how much bigger the guys are nowadays. Johnson and Jeffries were big for their time, but now would be considered "small" heavyweights. Certainly not like Lennox Lewis or the Klitschko brothers.

 

[CLOONEY]

Re: Tunney/Depsey and size of athletes

Originally posted by Bonhomme
Yeah, Tunney might have been able to drag himself off the canvas a second or 2 earlier if he kew he had to. As it is, the rules are the rules, Tunney won. Interesting fight. A very innovative boxer, Tunney.

One thing that is also obvious -- as in other sports (most notably hockey, lately) -- is just how much bigger the guys are nowadays. Johnson and Jeffries were big for their time, but now would be considered "small" heavyweights. Certainly not like Lennox Lewis or the Klitschko brothers.

Yep, exactly, rules are rules and Dempsey lost the fight.

I could see Tunney outboxing Marciano, he took a great punch, and had the skills. But even if he didnt win, he would still put up a great show for a former light-heavy.

Also, yes, athletes are getting much bigger and stronger. Just evolution. Although that doesnt bother me too much, because all the lower weight divisions still have their same limits, and I am not a real big fan of anything above light-heavy. Just too much clinching and not enough skills (footwork, combinations, ring generalship etc).

 

[Bonhomme]

Lighter weight classes

I know more about the older fighters in the higher weight classes because that's what I've been able to follow. Not having cable TV, I pretty much only get the big news these days. Boxing is one thing that really makes me miss cable or satellite TV.

That said, good point made about the lighter divisions. The fights do tend to be more action-packed for the most part. The weight restrictions tend to favor taller, leaner fighters (reach advatage), who also happen to be nimble, and need to have very good skills to hang at the high levels. Much harder for a dull fighter to make it with brute force.

Another interesting thing about Tunney/Dempsey: I hadn't realized Tunney outweighed Dempsey. Dempsey's reputation as a great puncher definitely made him "bigger."

 

[CLOONEY]

Yes, most people know more about the heavy division, because it gets most of the publicity. There are only a handful of fighters you learn about outside the heavy division, and thats because they transend the sport of boxing. Guys like Robinson, Leonard and De La Hoya are in this category. Only the hard core boxing community seem to know the lighter divisions in depth.

As far as Tunney V Dempsey, I am pretty sure Dempsey outweight Tunney JUST, although the weights were so close it barely counts.

Dempsey, as you say, however, was definately thought of as bigger because of his ferocious attitude in the ring and his big punch.