Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-12-2007, 11:36 PM   #31
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempsey1238
Lets say Jeff DOES fight and BEAT Johnson in 1905, . I still dont see how it can be rank over Ali imo.
Well, Jeffries would have been undefeated, assuming he did not make the comeback against Johnson, and he would have defeated the top heavyweights between John L Sullivan and Jack Dempsey--Jackson, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Johnson, as well as Goddard, Sharkey and Ruhlin. He would certainly be a formidable candidate for the best ever, even when compared to Ali or Louis.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-12-2007, 11:39 PM   #32
Marciano Frazier
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by C. M. Clay II
Terrible example. Larry Holmes was fighting four times a year, so lesser opponents are going to be more expected in that situation. Jeffries defended only once or twice a year, so he had no excuse for not fighting the best opponents all the time.
Oh, really? In 1983, Holmes fought, in a row, mediocre and undeserving Lucien Rodriguez, completely undeserving Scott Frank, and the extremely green 10-0 Marvis Frazier. At that time, the RING magazine and general consensus top four contenders for his title were Dokes, Thomas, Page, and Coetzee- Holmes didn't fight any of them.
And did he improve the following year? Certainly not. In fact, he didn't fight for a year after Frazier, then took on another very inexperienced prospect in 14-1 Smith, and then the following March, the 14-0 David Bey! I've just counted off a period of close to two-and-a-half years in which Holmes didn't fight any of the elite challengers for his title and instead took on a string of journeymen and highly-inexperienced prospects. These aren't lesser opponents being "mixed in" in the process of cleaning out the top ranks; these lesser opponents are just the standard.
READ: However, Holmes is my #6 all-time heavyweight, and I do not believe he ducked Thomas, Page, or Dokes, even though those men were the top contenders for his title for a solid couple years while he was champion. Rather he was largely prevented from fighting them by politics, and since none of them was an overwhelming #1 who loomed for his entire title reign or somesuch, I don't see it as a big void in history or a severe crime.


Quote:
Jack Munroe had losses during Jeffries reign as well, so how did he get a title shot? So did Gus Ruhlin.
Please point out where I claimed that if you've lost during someone's title reign, you're therefore eliminated from any chance at a title shot. To save you the time looking: I didn't.
Rather, if Jeffries hadn't fought Munroe or Ruhlin, would there be a reasonable argument that he ducked them? Of course not. If someone said "Jeffries ducked Ruhlin," I would say "No, Ruhlin was losing to Fitzsimmons and Joe Kennedy and there was no reasonable immediate push for him to receive a title shot."
I never claimed that Johnson wasn't a contender or couldn't reasonably have been given a title shot through most of Jeffries' title reign. But when the guy is losing to Joe Choynski and Hank Griffin, he's obviously not in a position to demand a title shot and there can be no reasonable claim that the champ is ducking him.

Quote:
Point is Johnson in 1904 was far and away the best heavyweight contender in the world and instead of taking him on, Jeffries fought a stiff in Munroe, and then retired before Johnson could get to him.
This isn't really what you were saying before, but is the most reasonable point on your side. However, the Jeffries-Munroe thing was more of an honor deal before Jeffries retired, because Munroe had surprised him and floored him in an exhibition and he wanted to clear up any questions that may have raised before he retired. And I wouldn't call Munroe a "stiff."
Again, it is true that Johnson was the #1 challenger in 1904, but it is equally true that numerous champions in numerous divisions have failed to face someone who was #1 contender for a few months, particularly at the tail end of their reigns, and it is certainly never compared with Harry Wills being denied a title shot for seven years in spite of occupying that position for all that time. And if Jeffries was terrified of facing Johnson in 1904, what was he doing coming out of retirement five years later with no tune-ups to face an even better version of Johnson?
Not fighting the guy who recently became #1 contender in your final title defense before retiring isn't a crime. Not fighting the guy who was #1 contender for the entire seven years of your title reign is(although in Dempsey's case, his hands were tied).

And just to make things clear, I do think Jeffries' legacy may suffer a little from leaving a sort of question mark lingering at the end of his title reign. However, again, this is not any enormous blight, as Johnson was only top challenger for a few months without receiving a shot, which is not unusual, and it certainly isn't comparable to Harry Wills being denied his title shot in spite of being the clear #1 challenger for 7-8 years.
Marciano Frazier is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 12:13 AM   #33
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

I think it is important to point out also that Marvin Hart had defeated Johnson in March, 1905, and so at the time Jeffries retired, it was in fact Hart he did not fight, not Johnson.

There is no question, though, that Jeffries made it clear he would not defend against Johnson and blatently drew the color line. The Hart victory got Jeffries off the hook.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 03:26 AM   #34
C. M. Clay II
Manassah's finest!
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 1,138
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marciano Frazier
Please point out where I claimed that if you've lost during someone's title reign, you're therefore eliminated from any chance at a title shot.
Here it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marciano Frazier
The Choynski and Griffin fights took place about halfway through Jeffries' title reign. If Johnson was still suffering losses to contenders at this time, it's difficult to argue that he was an impending terror who Jeffries was avoiding at all costs- he was just another member of the pack, more or less.
There you go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marciano Frazier
Again, it is true that Johnson was the #1 challenger in 1904, but it is equally true that numerous champions in numerous divisions have failed to face someone who was #1 contender for a few months, particularly at the tail end of their reigns, and it is certainly never compared with Harry Wills being denied a title shot for seven years in spite of occupying that position for all that time.
These "#1 challengers" ou talk about were not held in as high a magnitude as Jack Johnson in 1904. Chris Byrd shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Johnson. And Jeffries wasn't necessarity at the "tail end" of his career, or at least not the tail end of his prime. He retired very young when he still had quite a few years of prime left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marciano Frazier
And if Jeffries was terrified of facing Johnson in 1904, what was he doing coming out of retirement five years later with no tune-ups to face an even better version of Johnson?
Not fighting the guy who recently became #1 contender in your final title defense before retiring isn't a crime. Not fighting the guy who was #1 contender for the entire seven years of your title reign is(although in Dempsey's case, his hands were tied).
Jeffries had no title to lose. That's why he fought him. He didn't want to fight him if it meant risking his title. A fight in 1904 meant Jeffries had little to gain and everything to lose. The fight in 1910 meant Jefries had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marciano Frazier
And just to make things clear, I do think Jeffries' legacy may suffer a little from leaving a sort of question mark lingering at the end of his title reign. However, again, this is not any enormous blight, as Johnson was only top challenger for a few months without receiving a shot, which is not unusual, and it certainly isn't comparable to Harry Wills being denied his title shot in spite of being the clear #1 challenger for 7-8 years.
It is worse than the Wills situation. Dempsey showed a desire to fight Wills, and even made an effort to get the fight to happen. Jeffries on the other hand showed no desire to fight Johnson and made every effort to avoid him that he could, including retiring in the middle of his peak years so that he wouldn't have to eventually face the music.

And furthermore, Jack Johnson was simply a superior fighter to Harry Wills. He was seen as more of a threat to jeffries than Wills was to Dempsey. by many accounts, Wills seemed like the right kind of opponent for Dempsey. Dempsey had trouble with small boxer types. He handled big sluggers fairly easily. Wills was a threat, but to this reporter, he didn't look the part of an actual successor to me.

Jack Johnson on the other hand would have present stylistic problemd for Jeff. Jeffries fought only cruiserweights and lightheavyweights for his entire championship stint. he never fought anyone over 200 pounds during this time. He enjoyed weight advantages averaging as much as a score or more for each opponent, and this would not be the case if he fought Johnson. Johnson was a full-fledged heavyweight with little man-type skills, and comparable physical strength. Many of Jeffries stylistic advantages would be nullified in this case, and he knew it. Johnson would have been far and away the best opponent Jeffries ever fought. no doubt big jeff was worried and decided not to take a chance and bowed out before he would have to be eventually shamed into a title defense against Jack.
C. M. Clay II is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 09:54 AM   #35
UpWithEvil
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 340
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Jack Johnson on the other hand would have present stylistic problemd for Jeff. Jeffries fought only cruiserweights and lightheavyweights for his entire championship stint. he never fought anyone over 200 pounds during this time. He enjoyed weight advantages averaging as much as a score or more for each opponent, and this would not be the case if he fought Johnson.
Johnson was still fighting below 190lb when Jeffries retired, while Big Jeff was consistently weighing in at 220lb.
UpWithEvil is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 12:24 PM   #36
C. M. Clay II
Manassah's finest!
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 1,138
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpWithEvil
Johnson was still fighting below 190lb when Jeffries retired, while Big Jeff was consistently weighing in at 220lb.
Jeff only weighed 220lbs once in his entire career. His average weight was actually about 215. Plus Johnson posted 190 for small oponents. He could have easily been over 200 by 1905.
C. M. Clay II is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 12:32 PM   #37
C. M. Clay II
Manassah's finest!
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 1,138
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
Nope, youīre wrong. The only thing Marciano Frazier wrote there is that Johnson wasnīt more deserving a title shot than the other top contender.
Yes he was. Johnson was superior to anyone Jeffries ever fought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
How do you know? Maybe he retired because he was feeling he couldnīt compete on this level much longer? Thatīs pure speculation from you, stay with the facts please.
He had not shown any signs of slowing down by his last fight. He was only 29 years old and he fought only 19 times. That's hardly a rough career IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
He still had to lose his good name and that means more than a title especially in that time.
No. If he lost (like he did) then he could just say he was old, and way past his prime and that if he was six years younger he would have won (which he did say). He did not lose any of his good name after the Johnson fight. However, if he lost in 1905, he would lose everything, from his name, his title, and ATG standing. And since it was his prime, therte would be no excuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
Well, why should he? Like Marciano Frazier pointed out, Johnson was the number 1 contender but not more deserving of a shot than the other contenders. So why should he fight Johnson when he could fight another contender and earn more money? Thatīs not ducking, thatīs business.
Tell me this "contender" Jeffries could have fought that would make him more money than a Johnson title defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
Disagree, imo prime for prime Jeffries beats Johnson clearly but Dempsey - Wills could go either way. Just a oppinion so ...


Jack Johnson is not Jack Munroe. Johnson had every tool to beat any version of Jeffries. Strength, speed, defense, and intelligence. Johnson clearly decisions Jeff any day of the week.
C. M. Clay II is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 12:58 PM   #38
UpWithEvil
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 340
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Jeff only weighed 220lbs once in his entire career.
Jeffries' official weights leading up to his retirement:

vs Corbett (5/11/1900) - 218lb

vs Ruhlin (11/15/1901) - 218 lb

vs. Fitzsimmons (7/25/1902) - 219 lb

vs. Corbett (8/14/1903) - 220lb

vs Munroe (8/26/1904) - 219lb

I believe the operative term here is "hair-splitting".

Quote:
Plus Johnson posted 190 for small oponents. He could have easily been over 200 by 1905.
Do you have any evidence of this claim? What was the first fight that Johnson tipped 200lb for in his career? 190lb?
UpWithEvil is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 10:19 PM   #39
C. M. Clay II
Manassah's finest!
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 1,138
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
Well, donīt know Corbett and Fitzsimmons werenīt that bad either But i tend to agree with you but that doesnīt mean he was more deserving in 1904 than the other contenders.
Yes he was. He didn't get the shot because he was black, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
Imo the 19 fight thing is bs. You have to count all the exhibitions also īcause they take something off you as well, also i think he had more than the recorded 19 bouts just look how much fights all the other guys at the time had. Do you really believe that he could get a titleshot with that few fights? With 29 years Tyson was thought of beeing shot for years thatīs no argument. Well, he was still good enough to beat guys like Munroe but that doesnīt mean he was prime. Iīm not saying he was shot or so. Iīm just saying we canīt really know if he was still prime or not. He retired because there wasnīt enough money-fights out there.
Other accounts do not say that he had more than 19 fights. Many other fighters around that time were reported to have more fights than what boxrec says. Jeffries wasn't.

And what do you mean exhibitions count? No, they don't. That's why they call them exhibitions.

Also, don't compare Tyson's predicament to Jeffries. Tyson had a 4 year layoff. Jeffries didn't. Don't try to twist the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
Well, youīre right and a bit wrong at the same time. The loss tarnishes his legacy. You could make a case for him beeing Top3 all-time without the loss.
Louis had 25 defenses and fought often. Ali fought the best comp. of any heavyweigth and had 19 defenses. Johnson's resume is more thick than Jeffries in terms of big name fighters in their prime. Holmes was very active as well. No way jeffries is top 3.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkhan
He could have taken some white guy from the street and a fight with him would have brought him more money. Very sad indeed but thatīs how things were then.
Like I said, name one. You can't because he doesn't exist.
C. M. Clay II is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 11:28 PM   #40
Marciano Frazier
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by C. M. Clay II
Here it is.


There you go.
No, again, I DID NOT say that it eliminated him from a title shot. You're putting that in my mouth. If you read the selection you just quoted without interpreting it imaginatively to say what you imagine I must be thinking, you'll see I said that you can't reasonably claim he was an impending terror being avoided when he was losing to those guys. Is this so hard to understand? Plenty of fighters who have recently lost are worthy challengers and are given title shots arbitrarily, but they aren't in a position to demand title shots and it can't reasonably be argued that the champion is avoiding them if he doesn't give them a shot. For most of Jeffries' title reign, Johnson was no more entitled to a title shot than several other contenders who may or may not have received title shots.



Quote:
These "#1 challengers" ou talk about were not held in as high a magnitude as Jack Johnson in 1904. Chris Byrd shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Johnson.
In retrospect, of course Byrd shouldn't be in the same breath with Johnson, but at the time, as far as one may have known, Johnson could simply have been a flash in the pan. If, instead of going on to dominate the division for the next decade, Johnson had retired or lost and faded out of the picture after Jeffries' retirement, do you think people would claim that Johnson was disgustingly robbed of a chance at Jeffries or something of the like? Johnson was on a good winning streak when Jeffries retired, but the best wins were against a very inexperienced McVey and Denver Ed Martin. If Johnson hadn't gone on to greatness, people would largely dismiss him as having been a bit overhyped and wouldn't make much of a big deal out of it. I think it's because you're looking back in retrospect that you get this image of great injustice.



Quote:
Jeffries had no title to lose. That's why he fought him. He didn't want to fight him if it meant risking his title. A fight in 1904 meant Jeffries had little to gain and everything to lose. The fight in 1910 meant Jefries had nothing to lose and everything to gain.



It is worse than the Wills situation. Dempsey showed a desire to fight Wills, and even made an effort to get the fight to happen. Jeffries on the other hand showed no desire to fight Johnson and made every effort to avoid him that he could, including retiring in the middle of his peak years so that he wouldn't have to eventually face the music.
Now, come on, here, you really think he would give up his title and retire rather than keep going and fight Johnson or just ignore him? Certainly it would've been possible for Jeffries to pull the race card and not give Johnson a shot rather than retire; that's what John L. Sullivan did with Peter Jackson, for example. It isn't as though someone was going to strip him of his title.
Frankly, I think Jeffries was racist and didn't want Johnson or any black man fighting for the title, but he didn't retire because he was terrified of losing to any given opponent. The comeback was more or less because of the public clamor to bring the title back to the white race.
Surely if he thought Johnson was a terrible threat and could/would beat him, Jeffries would've at least not hopped directly out of retirement to face him and instead taken a tune-up or two to give himself the best chance.

Quote:
And furthermore, Jack Johnson was simply a superior fighter to Harry Wills.
In retrospect, yes. As of 1904 compared with 1920 or 23 or 26, not necessarily at all.

Quote:
He was seen as more of a threat to jeffries than Wills was to Dempsey. by many accounts, Wills seemed like the right kind of opponent for Dempsey. Dempsey had trouble with small boxer types. He handled big sluggers fairly easily. Wills was a threat, but to this reporter, he didn't look the part of an actual successor to me.

Jack Johnson on the other hand would have present stylistic problemd for Jeff. Jeffries fought only cruiserweights and lightheavyweights for his entire championship stint. he never fought anyone over 200 pounds during this time. He enjoyed weight advantages averaging as much as a score or more for each opponent, and this would not be the case if he fought Johnson. Johnson was a full-fledged heavyweight with little man-type skills, and comparable physical strength. Many of Jeffries stylistic advantages would be nullified in this case, and he knew it. Johnson would have been far and away the best opponent Jeffries ever fought. no doubt big jeff was worried and decided not to take a chance and bowed out before he would have to be eventually shamed into a title defense against Jack.
Now, again, if he were so worried about what a threat Johnson was that he retired rather than face him, the odds are he wouldn't have been willing to come directly out of retirement after five years to fight him later on- if he didn't think he could and would beat Johnson, one would have expected him to be much less bold than he was. Frankly, in 1904, I would say he was running out of fights that would generate money(he'd already dismissed Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Sharkey, and the Munroe fight generated interest because of the exhibition), with about the only one available to him being against a black man, and more or less felt he'd proven his point and was ready to retire. Remember, here, that the color barrier was the norm at this time and no black man had ever received a title shot- it wouldn't have been too hard for Jeffries to avoid Johnson and just keep fighting white men had he wanted to continue and been too desperate to avoid Johnson. More or less, he didn't feel like the money or glory was there. He made the comeback because a black man- and a brash, offensive, defiant black man at that- had gotten the title and the public(and perhaps he personally) wanted it back in the hands of white America. The fact that he was willing to come directly out of retirement and take Johnson on with no tune-ups after five years indicates to me that he was confident he could beat Johnson- he just didn't want black men fighting for the title in his first title reign, didn't want the stigma associated with giving a black man a shot, and didn't have Johnson as a serious pressing top contender for very long.
Marciano Frazier is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2007, 06:56 AM   #41
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,102
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
C. M. Clay II Yes he was. He didn't get the shot because he was black, period.
He got his shot


Quote:
Other accounts do not say that he had more than 19 fights. Many other fighters around that time were reported to have more fights than what boxrec says. Jeffries wasn't.
What a champion does and who he fights with his title matters most. Jeffries was 7-1 in title fights. Johnson title defeses were on the weak side.

Quote:
And what do you mean exhibitions count? No, they don't. That's why they call them exhibitions.
Many fighter pre 1950 are un-recorded.

Quote:
Also, don't compare Tyson's predicament to Jeffries. Tyson had a 4 year layoff. Jeffries didn't. Don't try to twist the truth.
Yes, Jeffries did not fight from 1904-1910. That is more than a 4 year layoff. Furthermore, he was over 300 pounds when he signed the contract for the 1910 fight with Johnson.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2007, 09:02 AM   #42
UpWithEvil
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 340
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Well, people are saying Tyson was past his prime after 1988 and there was no lay off involved.
ROONEY! ROONEY! ROONEY!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
"You ever wonder why Mike Tyson folds under pressure?"
UpWithEvil is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2007, 03:55 PM   #43
Cojimar 1945
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 185
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Moore was deserving of a title shot against Marciano but there were other top contenders for Marciano to defend against. He still had guys to fight when he retired.

I don't think Tyson was Lewis's most deserving challenger by 2002. Although some boxing magazines still ranked Tyson fairly high he did not have recent wins that seemed to justify such a high ranking and Lewis might have been better to fight Wladimir Klitschko or Chris Byrd in 2002.
Cojimar 1945 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2007, 04:00 PM   #44
Cojimar 1945
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 185
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Jeffries did not show the longevity of Lewis and Ali but I think one could argue that he ranks as highly as Marciano. He was quite dominant against top competition for a while.
Cojimar 1945 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 01:18 AM   #45
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945
Moore was deserving of a title shot against Marciano but there were other top contenders for Marciano to defend against. He still had guys to fight when he retired.

I don't think Tyson was Lewis's most deserving challenger by 2002. Although some boxing magazines still ranked Tyson fairly high he did not have recent wins that seemed to justify such a high ranking and Lewis might have been better to fight Wladimir Klitschko or Chris Byrd in 2002.
Marciano actually seems to have wanted a fight in 1956 but there was no one out there the public viewed as a credible challenger. Patterson was still a lightheavy. Machen was just getting started. Liston was in prison. Jackson was not taken seriously, fairly or not.

Moore had been far and away the outstanding contender.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013