Heavyweight Tourney: Rd 3: Pt. 2: Results

[ChrisPontius]

Okay, i've just gone to the thread and counted the votes.

The tally is in:

Number of votes for:

Sullivan: 5
Wlad: 25
Neutral: 4

Looks like not only the government of Ukraine is corrupt...


Link to the thread: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Their reasons and picks:
Sullivan:

Boilermaker (Sullivan TKO3)
Janitor (Sullivan TKO6)
Djanders (Sullivan TKO4)
Unforgiven (KO1, seems to be joking, but i'll include him in the John L camp)
Legend X (Sullivan TKO4)



Wladimir:

ChrisPontius (Wlad TKO10)
Seamus (Wlad TKO2)
Jack (Wlad KO2)
Bummy Davis (Wlad TKO7-
Mr Butt (Wlad UD, though wouldn't be surprised to see Sullivan TKO)
RonnieHornSchuh (Wlad TKO when he wants)
Frankenfrank (Wlad TKO2)
mckay_89 (Wlad early KO)
DudeGuyMan (Wlad KO1)
Guilalah (Wlad wins)
PowerPuncher (Wlad KO1)
Fleaman (Wlad TKO2)
Teeto (Wlad TKO2, agreeing with Fleaman)
196osh (Wlad by KO within a couple of rounds)
Jim Broughton (Wlad wins by KO)
PetethePrince (picking Sullivan is irresponsible thinking)
Squire (Sullivan doesn't have the skillset)
Mendoza (Wlad TKO mid rounds)
He grant (Wlad by boring decision. Janitor doesn't understand why Sullivan's face is not on dollar bills.)
am0kgonzo (agrees with Seamus)
Del Boy (Wlad KO6)
KTFO (Wlad KO2, superior footwork, etc)




Commented, but undecided:
BlackWater
Cross_trainer (does hint towards a Wlad victory)
TheGreatA
JohnThomas1

[McGrain]

Chris, what does any of that have to do with Gary Kasparov?

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Yeah, Kasparov was exceedingly special. I love him against Karpov, horribe. He played with real panache, too. I guess the reason I got out of chess and into boxing is that it tended to lack that visceral moment - Bronstein and Tal aside - but Kasparov's open play of his sealed move in the match with Karpov was breath-taking. Really special stuff.

His domination of Short was incredible too, given how far he was past his prime by then, a strange shadow of Duran-Barkley to me. Short would have beaten many other greats at a similair stage IMO.

As to Fishcer, I think it is only modern training that made Kasporove better. Fischer was never going to match him in the opening theory department, Gary was just brutal in that department...but Fischer may be more brillaint (hard for us mortals to be sure i guess). Head to head I favour Kasparov. I think Tal is an interesting one, and I think prime Tal may have been a bit of a bogey-man for Gary in tournie play, if unable to overhaul him in a match.

Didn't he beat Short in the early 90's, when he was in his prime? A Brit, right?

More impressive perhaps is that he defended the title against Anand who now is champ for a few years. Some Lewis-Klitschko / Louis - Walcott stuff right there, beating the future champ while having seen better days yourself.


Thing is, some people play brilliant, entertaining chess (Fischer), but as a result leave themselves open. Others aren't as brilliant, but play so extremely solid and on safe that they're utterly boring to watch but incredibly hard to beat (Lasker). Kasparov is somewhere in between.

[ChrisPontius]

Off to bed now. Hate being a working class slave.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Didn't he beat Short in the early 90's, when he was in his prime? A Brit, right?.

Yes, that's him, but Kasparov was already dropping of by then. His weird Linares tournament wasn't far away, but it's his own commentary on his paly is the real kicker. Never heard him so hard on himself. In his own words his play was rife with "serious, serious mistakes".

Short did well in the second half of that match playing for dirty pawn structures and activity - totally counter-intuitive but it worked. In the first half of the fight Short tried to play clean and got utterly destroyed. I think Kasparov was losing his edge in terms of calculations.

Considering what Karpov era Kasparove would have done with Short is frightening. It certainly would have been a white-wash it nearly was anyway.

You're right about Kasparov-Anand though. Kasparov had recognised his short-comings by this point IMO. The short match was him at his most vulnerable until he fell of and he still utterly destroyed the world's #2 matchplayer. Horrible genius bastard. One of the most dominant protagonists of any sport ever.

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Off to bed now. Hate being a working class slave.

Tragic.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Wlad's stamina for the past few years has been great. No trouble going 12. Who was the best fighter that Sullvian beat? Kirlain is the pick, and I tend to doubt he would be a top ten guy today.

The only film on Sullivan is when he's an old man hitting the bag, or mock sparring with Corbett.

Bottom line is most historians don't rate John L over the best men who came after him up to Louis in the 1930's. In fact, I'm not sure Sullvian would even have the edge in power in this match. Wlad size, skills, speed, power, defense, reach, footwork..everything but chin point to a systematic TKO here. The length of this fight would depends on how tough Sullivan really was. Sullivan has a puncher's chance, but he's short, and without a lot of reach or modern science.

Sullivan may have looked like an old man ,but he was actually 52 when that footage was filmed,8 years later he was dead.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Okay, i've just gone to the thread and counted the votes.

The tally is in:

Number of votes for:

Sullivan: 5
Wlad: 25
Neutral: 4

Looks like not only the government of Ukraine is corrupt...


Link to the thread: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Their reasons and picks:
Sullivan:

Boilermaker (Sullivan TKO3)
Janitor (Sullivan TKO6)
Djanders (Sullivan TKO4)
Unforgiven (KO1, seems to be joking, but i'll include him in the John L camp)
Legend X (Sullivan TKO4)



Wladimir:

ChrisPontius (Wlad TKO10)
Seamus (Wlad TKO2)
Jack (Wlad KO2)
Bummy Davis (Wlad TKO7-
Mr Butt (Wlad UD, though wouldn't be surprised to see Sullivan TKO)
RonnieHornSchuh (Wlad TKO when he wants)
Frankenfrank (Wlad TKO2)
mckay_89 (Wlad early KO)
DudeGuyMan (Wlad KO1)
Guilalah (Wlad wins)
PowerPuncher (Wlad KO1)
Fleaman (Wlad TKO2)
Teeto (Wlad TKO2, agreeing with Fleaman)
196osh (Wlad by KO within a couple of rounds)
Jim Broughton (Wlad wins by KO)
PetethePrince (picking Sullivan is irresponsible thinking)
Squire (Sullivan doesn't have the skillset)
Mendoza (Wlad TKO mid rounds)
He grant (Wlad by boring decision. Janitor doesn't understand why Sullivan's face is not on dollar bills.)
am0kgonzo (agrees with Seamus)
Del Boy (Wlad KO6)
KTFO (Wlad KO2, superior footwork, etc)




Commented, but undecided:
BlackWater
Cross_trainer (does hint towards a Wlad victory)
TheGreatA
JohnThomas1

So if Wlad won the vote 25-5 in the classic section, why did Sullivan advance?

[Boilermaker]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

So if Wlad won the vote 25-5 in the classic section, why did Sullivan advance?

Janitor and my votes are woth 5 points each.

And Wlad loses 30 points because Frankenfrank picked him.

[PetethePrince]

Obviously I agree with the majority. I happen to think Marciano beats Tunney even more convincingly, but glad he won. I watched the first Charles fight and he is actually better than I thought from the last few times I watched it. In fact, Charles from the first and second Rocky fights are two different animals. Charles was a hungry and willful and very game fighter that had a lot more than 75% of it left like I had thought. His mobility, I also underrated. His combinations, were very fluid, quick, and sharp. The difference from the first and second fights is the quickness, freshness, speed in hand and foot and the motivation and stamina. Charles had more than enough to beat many fighters from the first fight.

On the other hand, I re-watched the Tunney fights with Dempsey. His footwork is overrated. He has no rhythm and just dances around - honestly I believe I can move better and more fluid than him. He doesn't have quite the rhythm and ability to shoot off and move like Ali. It's not the stick and move and distribute weight as effectively like an Ali. On the other hand, his offense is underrated. He shoots quick dashing combos that are very effective and strong. Strangely, Tunney doesn't reminds me of Manny Pacquaio more than Ali. He dances, but dashes in and out offensively in the Dempsey fight. It's hand speed and offense is great to watch. His dancing is just complete defense for the time

[KOTF]

I thought the results were run off a computer simulation?

[janitor]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Tournament lost every credibility when a small, untested, oppositionless fighter that fought under COMPLETELY different rules beat one of the very best superheavyweights of all time under his own rules.

I guess in the next tournament, Wilhelm Steinitz is going to beat the Kasparov?

You still don't get it.

Sullivan was not particularly small, he sure as hell wasn't untested, and he didn't even fight under a particularly different ruleset when all is said and done.

At least Wlad gets $1000 for lasting four rounds against Sullivan.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Bottom line is most historians don't rate John L over the best men who came after him up to Louis in the 1930's.

This is not actualy true.

Many people rated Sullivan as the greatest ever into the reign of Jack Johnson and beyond.

He only started to slip when the people who had seen him started dieing off.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by janitor

Sullivan was not particularly small,

No, that's some pretty large padding he's got there, almost a front-butt, too!

Originally Posted by janitor

he sure as hell wasn't untested,

Yeah, he fought terrors who looked like this...


Ahh, that 19th century physiognomay... Oh, I know, they had that one-inch phantom crucial punch to the solar plexus that would kill you three weeks later.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

Obviously I agree with the majority. I happen to think Marciano beats Tunney even more convincingly, but glad he won. I watched the first Charles fight and he is actually better than I thought from the last few times I watched it. In fact, Charles from the first and second Rocky fights are two different animals. Charles was a hungry and willful and very game fighter that had a lot more than 75% of it left like I had thought. His mobility, I also underrated. His combinations, were very fluid, quick, and sharp. The difference from the first and second fights is the quickness, freshness, speed in hand and foot and the motivation and stamina. Charles had more than enough to beat many fighters from the first fight.

On the other hand, I re-watched the Tunney fights with Dempsey. His footwork is overrated. He has no rhythm and just dances around - honestly I believe I can move better and more fluid than him. He doesn't have quite the rhythm and ability to shoot off and move like Ali. It's not the stick and move and distribute weight as effectively like an Ali. On the other hand, his offense is underrated. He shoots quick dashing combos that are very effective and strong. Strangely, Tunney doesn't reminds me of Manny Pacquaio more than Ali. He dances, but dashes in and out offensively in the Dempsey fight. It's hand speed and offense is great to watch. His dancing is just complete defense for the time

It was raining in one of the Tunney Demspey fights. Tunney had quick feet, and could move. To say he's over rated in this department is way off unless someone says he is on par with a prime Ali.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

Janitor and my votes are woth 5 points each.

And Wlad loses 30 points because Frankenfrank picked him.

Ok then. Frankenfrank strikes again. Case closed!