what where the 10 greatest upsets in boxing history?

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Fair enough.

It just suprises me that a pretty die-hard boxing fan (correct me if i'm wrong) like yourself goes from following the sport to completely leaving it for a change in the rules. I agree that 15 rounds allows for more strategic fighting and imposes higher standards on conditioning. Nethertheless you are missing out on some great fights that have happened the last twenty years. Watch them. You can thank me later.

Well, I can't truly lay claim to being a die-hard boxing fan if I abandoned it so easily. I think the genuinely loyal fans may be found in the General Forum. I'm hardly a Max Kellerman type who can sustain boyish enthusiasm about a sport that continually sabotages itself, and fails to keep the public imagination. Who knows, perhaps I would have outgrown my interest in it anyways. It's people like yourself who are truly the present and the future of boxing, if it is to have a future.

Alas, I seem to have been nothing more than a fair weather friend to boxing. While it's fashionable for ESB Classic snobs to deride those who post in the General Forum, the fact is that they are the ones keeping what's left of the sport going. In that respect, they are far better than I could ever aspire to be with regard to this.

I am starting to watch a little of what has happened in the ring over the last few years. That's a great thing about this internet, that we can do this. Perhaps the time will come when I do thank you, but I fear it may be a long process of acceptance on my part.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=mr. magoo][quote=OLD FOGEY][quote=mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

I never said Johnson wasn't impressive, but he's definately not in Ali's league. A "Long run" like the one the one you're illuding to, is typically the result of weak or lackluster opposition. One of the things that made the 70's such a hallmark in heavyweight history, was the incredible log jam of talent, and the rivalrys that came from it. Johnson was a good fighter, I'm not saying that he didn't have a legacy worth mentioning. He simply however, cannot be rated anywhere close to Muhammad Ali.

1. I rate Ali #1, followed by Louis, Marciano, Johnson, and Lewis.
2. I rate Ali #1 basically because he did fight the best opposition, in my judgement, but I would also say that Louis, Marciano, and Johnson did better against the best men of their time than Ali did against the best of his.
3. I think one has to be very careful about golden era talk. The seventies were dominated by a fighter well past his prime, obviously slipping, and who towards the end may even have had health problems. If this really the most competitive era? Yes, heavyweights in the '70's were on the whole bigger than in earlier eras, but they were also not as big as the heavyweights to come. They are merely a point on an upward curve.
In contrast, in the Louis era the champion was in his prime and so were the contenders.

[Cojimar 1945]

Johnson failed to defend against the most deserving challengers after beating Burns and this undermines his title reign. Had he fought the best challengers he likely would not have reigned as long.

[Cojimar 1945]

Marciano was more dominant against his contemporaries than Ali was but he did not fight against top contenders for as long as Ali did. Johnson on the other hand did not face his best challengers so comparing him with Ali is difficult given that Ali did not duck the best.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945

Marciano was more dominant against his contemporaries than Ali was but he did not fight against top contenders for as long as Ali did. Johnson on the other hand did not face his best challengers so comparing him with Ali is difficult given that Ali did not duck the best.

What you say about Marciano and Johnson is why I rate them third and fourth and not first. Don't forget, though, that Johnson did defeat the black dynamite fighters before he won the white championship and Ali did not rematch Foreman, who was clearly the #1 contender between 1975 and 1977, and also probably avoided the rising Holmes.

[mr. magoo]

Ali did not rematch Foreman, who was clearly the #1 contender between 1975 and 1977, and also probably avoided the rising Holmes

I don't know how anyone can accuse Ali of ducking anyone, even in the latter part of his career as champion. He beat Foreman more than convincingly, after which, Georges career declined between 75 and 77. I'm not so sure that a rematch was warranted. Holmes was a promising young prospect, but was pretty much an unknown entity until maybe late 1977. Up to this point, he was actually on Ali's payroll as a sparring partner. In the meantime, Ali was facing far more established contenders in Earnie Shavers, Jimmy Young, and of course Ken Norton. Rather than saying Ali ducked Holmes, it would be more appropriate to say that without the mentoring of Ali, Holmes never would have flourished. The fact that Muhammad Ali, was heavily involved in the making of another all time great, who would take his place in the grand scheme of boxing, is another big star on his legacy in my opinion.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

It sure is.

Going into the fight, Holyfield was washed up, and after it, it was a prime Holyfield vs a shot Tyson.

I think Liston also still something like a 2 to 1 favorite in the Clay-rematch. History repeating itself during Tyson-Holyfield II.

Exactly! The usual Tyson fans were crowing like mad out here, he was back to better than ever, he was gonna kill, yada, yada. I had some good debates with friends who mostly laffed at me when i told them Lewis would leave him prone. Even then people here only half knew Lewis whilst Tyson was still feared and seen as almost invincible.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by redrooster

My pick was Hopkins but what do I know?

Oh out with ya, you wouldn't pick Hopkins or SRL over your frigging grand parents.

[redrooster]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Oh out with ya, you wouldn't pick Hopkins or SRL over your frigging grand parents.

I was unwavering in my ability to go against the grain in this man vs. boy matchup. It shows how little most people really thought of X.

I thought if I'm right and I usually am, Hopkins will overpower him with his superior strength, rough him up at every opportunity, and finish Tito within the distance. I almost ran out of time but still made it with seconds to spare.

The rest of you should have seen it coming. Big mistake on your part.

What's wrong with you people?

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

1. Ali defeated Foreman in convincing fashion. Following the Ali loss, Foreman's career went on a downslide. I'm not sure if he was the #1 contender, but his performance in the first fight did not necessarily warrant a rematch in my opinion.

2. How did Ali avoid the rising Holmes, when the two were sparring partners working in the same camp? What's more, Holmes was pretty much a nobody until about 1977. Meanwhile, Ali was busy taking on far more established fighters in Norton, Young, Shavers, and some others.

Foreman was the #1 contender in 1974--He dropped in 1976 because of inactivity, but quickly regained the #1 spot in 1976 and held it through most of 1977. However decisive Ali's win over Foreman, Foreman had more decisively defeated Frazier and Norton, who got the shots. There was plenty of buzz among boxing fans about a rematch after Foreman's wins over Lyle (who had beaten Shavers) and Frazier in 1976, but Ali was busy fighting Dunn, Coopman, Evangelista, etc and somehow never got around to George again.
Johnson also had decisively defeated the black dynamite fighters but you still score him for not defending against them when he held the white title.

I yield the Holmes point to you. Howard Cosell began talking up Holmes in 1976 or so, but Holmes really didn't do enough to get excited about prior to 1978 or so.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by redrooster

I was unwavering in my ability to go against the grain in this man vs. boy matchup. It shows how little most people really thought of X.

I thought if I'm right and I usually am, Hopkins will overpower him with his superior strength, rough him up at every opportunity, and finish Tito within the distance. I almost ran out of time but still made it with seconds to spare.

The rest of you should have seen it coming. Big mistake on your part.

What's wrong with you people?

How would you see the Hopkins of the Tito fight vs peak Frank Fletcher going?

[redrooster]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

How would you see the Hopkins of the Tito fight vs peak Frank Fletcher going?

How would you see it going?

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by redrooster

How would you see it going?

There would be a lot of blood, and it wouldn't be Hopkins. Frank cut very easily, led face first (sometimes doubling and tripling up), had zero defence and didn't hit hard enough or accurate enough to bother topline fighters. Hopkins would cut him down, totally outclassed around about the 6th stanza.

And you?