what where the 10 greatest upsets in boxing history?

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=mr. magoo]

Ali EARNED his second chances, by beating the top contenders of his era. He won his rematches with Frazier and Norton and defeated several other top fighters, before getting a shot at Foreman. The other guys you mentioned weren't successful at getting themselves back into contention. Louis failed against contender Marciano. Jeffries chose to retire undefeated, and remained inactive for 6 years before finally coming out to face Johnson. You're comparing apples to oranges.

.

No he wasn't. Just because he was the first black champion, doesn't mean he was one of the best champions. Ali's competition and acheivements were infinately better. Johnson wouldn't even have beaten some of Ali's better opponents.

Johnson defeated the top heavyweights between Sullivan and Willard, quite a long run, despite not getting any breaks from biased judges. He lost only one fight over a twenty year period, and that at 37 in a finish fight with Willard. I don't think Ali at that age could have done better or even as good.
Which of Ali's opponents would he clearly not have beaten and why?

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

I was trying to confine the list to ten upsets. The only matches of Tyson's I'd viewed at the time of the Douglas fight were against Quick Tillis, Blood Green, Bonecrusher Smith, and Tony Tucker. In those 44 combined rounds of action, I saw Mike score exactly one inconsequential flash knockdown, against Tillis. Then, Greg Page dropped Tyson in sparring for the Douglas match. I was actually more surprised that Smith did not knock out Tyson before Douglas did. Douglas had beaten Cobb, Page, Berbick and McCall, so I figured it was possible he could decision Tyson. I will admit though, that I didn't expect him to kayo Mike as he did.

Holyfield had 14 wins over 13 world title claimants, including seven HW title claimants, and also secured his 15 round championship pedigree in the first Qawi matchup. By the time Holyfield had his first match with Tyson, I had watched two more of Mike's fights; the kayo loss to Douglas, and his 12 round decision win in the rematch with Ruddock. So in 66 total rounds of action, I saw Tyson get knocked out, and score a grand total of four knockdowns. Consider that first impressions are lasting impressions, and obviously the first impression Tyson made on me was, "What's all the fuss about?"

I didn't view any of Tyson's knockout victories until just this year, on internet services like youtube, but by then it was too late for Tyson to make a favorable impression on me as a top tier ATG.

So perhaps you can understand from my personal perspective why I didn't consider the outcome of Douglas/Tyson to be a monumental upset, although an upset nonetheless. And after seeing Tyson fail to knock out five opponents, and get knocked out himself by a sixth, I sort of expected Holyfield to prevail. (I'm also confident that Holyfield would have prevailed had they met before Tyson was incarcerated.)

Make no mistake about it, I was very mindful of those two matches when compiling my list, but I simply didn't think those upsets were of the magnitude necessary for me to include them in my top ten. Again, this is merely my subjective opinion, and I wouldn't expect or desire anybody to agree with it completely.

Well i guess you and me have different interpretations of an 'upset'.
Maybe if you have seen a selection of fights in which he didn't look too impressive, they may not have looked like upsets.

If i had only seen Holmes' fights with Carl Williams, Witherspoon and Mike Weaver, and some of Spinks' fights, then Holmes-Spinks I would not have looked like an upset to me either.


But having seen all the fights, they certainly were. Douglas' victory over McCall meant very little at that time. Basically, the only time he stepped up he lost by knockout (to Tucker).
Tyson just destroyed Williams in less than 2 minutes, who had a very close fight with Holmes, destroyed Spinks in 90 seconds, who beat Holmes, and broke Bruno down after a rough start. The 42 to 1 odds attest to it: this upset cannot be overlooked.


The same basically goes for Holyfield. He looked horrible in recent outings vs cruiserweight Czyz, got knocked out by Bowe in which he looked very frail and he got outboxed by a lightheavyweight in Moorer. He was considered to be washed up.
Tyson, on the other hand, stopped Bruno in only 3 rounds and looked sensational in doing so.



By the way, in what cave have you been hiding that you managed to miss those fights?

[mr. magoo]

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

He lost only one fight over a twenty year period, and that at 37 in a finish fight with Willard. I don't think Ali at that age could have done better or even as good.

Weather or not Ali was better than Johnson at age 37 is irrelevant. Ali was already showing the signs of a man who had acquired an illness. What's more, it doesn't detract from the fact that he was much better than Johnson when the two were in their primes. I mean really, how many people go around calling Jack Johnson the greatest?

Which of Ali's opponents would he clearly not have beaten and why

Ali won the heavyweight title for the first and second times by beating Sonny Liston and George Foreman. I think most people would pick these men over Johnson , given that he had never faced a puncher who was even remotely of the calibur that these guys were. Ali Also defeated Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Lyle, Quarry, Patterson, Young, Machen, Bonavena and numerous others who many would either pick to beat Johnson or give him hell.

Johnson became champ by beating tommy Burns, who was 5'7" and 168 Lbs. What was this guy doing with the havyweight title? He beat a 35 year old Jim Jeffries who hadn't fought in 6 years and had to shed 125 Lbs in a very short period. In fact, Johnson fought many fighters who were well under the 200 pound mark and who's records were rather atrocious.

[C. M. Clay II]

1. Liston-Clay I
2. Louis-Schmeling I
3. Tyson-Douglas
4. Tyson-Holyfield I
5. Baer-Braddock
6. Johnson-Willard
7. Dempsey-Tunney I
8. Robinson-Turpin I
9. Sullivan-Corbett
10. Foreman-Ali

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Well i guess you and me have different interpretations of an 'upset'.
Maybe if you have seen a selection of fights in which he didn't look too impressive, they may not have looked like upsets.

If i had only seen Holmes' fights with Carl Williams, Witherspoon and Mike Weaver, and some of Spinks' fights, then Holmes-Spinks I would not have looked like an upset to me either.


But having seen all the fights, they certainly were. Douglas' victory over McCall meant very little at that time. Basically, the only time he stepped up he lost by knockout (to Tucker).
Tyson just destroyed Williams in less than 2 minutes, who had a very close fight with Holmes, destroyed Spinks in 90 seconds, who beat Holmes, and broke Bruno down after a rough start. The 42 to 1 odds attest to it: this upset cannot be overlooked.


The same basically goes for Holyfield. He looked horrible in recent outings vs cruiserweight Czyz, got knocked out by Bowe in which he looked very frail and he got outboxed by a lightheavyweight in Moorer. He was considered to be washed up.
Tyson, on the other hand, stopped Bruno in only 3 rounds and looked sensational in doing so.



By the way, in what cave have you been hiding that you managed to miss those fights?

Ahhh Chris, I was under the impression that ESB Classic was a cavernous bomb shelter from the morass which boxing has declined into during the 12 round supported steroid era!

As I've extensively discussed elsewhere on this forum, my interest in boxing pretty much evaporated with the removal of the 15 round championship distance. Boxing amputated itself of much history and drama when that happened, and with the elimination of the 15 round distance, steroid inflated competitors blew up like balloons. The human element of strategy, intelligence, resourcefulness, and resiliency became subsumed by a premium on anaerobic athleticism. Skittish referees began stopping matches prematurely (robbing Mike Weaver of his WBA Title, and yes, Lennox Lewis against Oliver McCall in their first match).

If I had any genuine interest in contemporary boxing, I wouldn't be hanging out on this classic boxing forum exclusively. I have no use for the distorted and diluted mutation which has passed for boxing in recent years.

Bless Arthur Mercante Sr., for vowing to never invoke the standing eight count while still perfoming as a referee. Although a mandatory eight count after a knockdown seems sensible to me, the standing eight count deprives strategic boxers of using the time honored feigning of distress as a clever tactic for creating openings in an adversary's attack. (I haven't seen a boxer do this well since Weaver suckered Williams into his shrewd web of deceit.)

Truthfully, I hadn't watched or read anything about boxing in eons, before finding myself being uncontrollably sucked into ESB Classic. (The kindest thing these moderators can do for me now is to ban me for life, so I don't feel myself compelled to spew forth my vile rhetoric about a glorious past.)

[Dempsey1238]

Jack Johnson EARN his 2nd shot at Willard and perhaps Dempsey. Louis could have goting a shot earler if Charles was not stuck with the Walcott battles. And when Charles won, he sat on the title for about 6 months before he rematch Charles. I belive Louis should have goting a return for the title in 1951 shortly before faceing Marciano.

[Dempsey1238]

Lots of people EVEN today claim Johnson was the greatness. Even Jack Blackburn rated Johnson over Louis.

[mr. magoo]

Lots of people EVEN today claim Johnson was the greatness.

Well, I hate to break it to ya pal, but he wasn't.

Even Jack Blackburn rated Johnson over Louis.

So what? Louis wasn't better than Ali either.

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

Ahhh Chris, I was under the impression that ESB Classic was a cavernous bomb shelter from the morass which boxing has declined into during the 12 round supported steroid era!

As I've extensively discussed elsewhere on this forum, my interest in boxing pretty much evaporated with the removal of the 15 round championship distance. Boxing amputated itself of much history and drama when that happened, and with the elimination of the 15 round distance, steroid inflated competitors blew up like balloons. The human element of strategy, intelligence, resourcefulness, and resiliency became subsumed by a premium on anaerobic athleticism. Skittish referees began stopping matches prematurely (robbing Mike Weaver of his WBA Title, and yes, Lennox Lewis against Oliver McCall in their first match).

If I had any genuine interest in contemporary boxing, I wouldn't be hanging out on this classic boxing forum exclusively. I have no use for the distorted and diluted mutation which has passed for boxing in recent years.

Bless Arthur Mercante Sr., for vowing to never invoke the standing eight count while still perfoming as a referee. Although a mandatory eight count after a knockdown seems sensible to me, the standing eight count deprives strategic boxers of using the time honored feigning of distress as a clever tactic for creating openings in an adversary's attack. (I haven't seen a boxer do this well since Weaver suckered Williams into his shrewd web of deceit.)

Truthfully, I hadn't watched or read anything about boxing in eons, before finding myself being uncontrollably sucked into ESB Classic. (The kindest thing these moderators can do for me now is to ban me for life, so I don't feel myself compelled to spew forth my vile rhetoric about a glorious past.)

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.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Dempsey1238

Jack Johnson EARN his 2nd shot at Willard and perhaps Dempsey. Louis could have goting a shot earler if Charles was not stuck with the Walcott battles. And when Charles won, he sat on the title for about 6 months before he rematch Charles. I belive Louis should have goting a return for the title in 1951 shortly before faceing Marciano.

You are exactly right. Louis had earned a second shot at Charles with his knockout of Savold, the #2 contender, and a man actually recognized as champion by the British Board of Boxing Control. The fight was penciled in for September in Yankee Stadium. Charles had one scheduled fight first, a third match with Walcott--one not expected to be a tough one. Walcott pulled an upset and Louis was out in the cold. He signed for Marciano in the Polo Grounds, but when the Giants and Dodgers went into a playoff, the fight was moved to Madison Square Garden and postponed a few weeks.
Given Louis' great record in rematches, it is intriguing to consider what he might have done against Charles if the match had come off.

[OLD FOGEY]

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

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Weather or not Ali was better than Johnson at age 37 is irrelevant. Ali was already showing the signs of a man who had acquired an illness. What's more, it doesn't detract from the fact that he was much better than Johnson when the two were in their primes. I mean really, how many people go around calling Jack Johnson the greatest?


Ali won the heavyweight title for the first and second times by beating Sonny Liston and George Foreman. I think most people would pick these men over Johnson , given that he had never faced a puncher who was even remotely of the calibur that these guys were. Ali Also defeated Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Lyle, Quarry, Patterson, Young, Machen, Bonavena and numerous others who many would either pick to beat Johnson or give him hell.

Johnson became champ by beating tommy Burns, who was 5'7" and 168 Lbs. What was this guy doing with the havyweight title? He beat a 35 year old Jim Jeffries who hadn't fought in 6 years and had to shed 125 Lbs in a very short period. In fact, Johnson fought many fighters who were well under the 200 pound mark and who's records were rather atrocious.

Your problem here is that the film we have is of his title fights against white fighters, which may exaggerate the small size of the opposition--still, Jeff was 227 lbs, Moran 203 lbs, and Willard 230 lbs, and all were in top condition, and Johnson dominated them all, including Willard for over 20 rounds at 37 years of age. Burns was 5' 7" and a stunted "heavyweight" champion, but Johnson fought far bigger and better men for his colored championship. The talented Denver Ed Martin was 6' 4" and over 200 lbs. Sam McVea was only 5' 10" but about 210 lbs and was the prototypical Joe Frazier, only Johnson dominated him in a way Ali never dominated Frazier. Peter Felix was 6' 3", Jim Jeffords 6' 4",
Sandy Ferguson 6' 3", and each about 200 lbs. After losing his title, Johnson was still good enough to beat the 6' 2", 210 lb Tom Cowler and even approaching 50, defeated the 6' 4", 225 lb Pat Lester.
Johnson was a great athlete who would have been outstanding in any era. He was a top heavyweight for a quarter of a century and went from 1906 through 1926 with only the one loss to Willard, a fantastic run. He rates as a peer of any champion in history.

[redrooster]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Taylor-Hopkins 1?

For a guy who has "many more options than Hagler", X didn't prove to be much of a match for Jermaine Taylor, a fighter with 23 fights, in a one sided affair.

Being the great fighter he's been proclaimed by so many, I was surprised to watch as Hopkins literally did nothing to defend his title. What some may mistake for patience on Bernard's part, I call reluctance to move in as he gave away the early rounds and several others before warming up and displaying some sloppy infighting in the middle rounds while failing to slip past Jermain's jab.

Other than that, about the only thing other he managed to do in that time was stand straight up and make funny faces. By the tenth round I was thinking "congradulations, you finally won a round"


Bernard HOPKINS, THE THINKING MAN'S FIGHTER

the quick change of expression on his face was the best part for me upon hearing the words "and new undisputed middleweight champion"

[mr. magoo]

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

Your problem here is that the film we have is of his title fights against white fighters, which may exaggerate the small size of the opposition--

You can use speculation all you want, but frankly, I'd rather go with what we can actually see and analyze. Most would agree that Ali's competition was light years better than Johnson's. Some wouldn't even consider this a debate worth having ( I know that I certainly don't ) .

still, Jeff was 227 lbs, Moran 203 lbs, and Willard 230 lbs, and all were in top condition, and Johnson dominated them all, including Willard for over 20 rounds at 37 years of age.

Jeffries was 35 years old, and hadn't fought in 6 years. I don't know how many times I have to mention that to people. Some of you guys continuously ignore that as if it's no object. Willard and Moran were good fighters, but I have my doubts about them being in the same league as Foreman, Frazier, Liston and Patterson, abd basically half of the guys whom Ali beat in his prime.

[OLD FOGEY]

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

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

You can use speculation all you want, but frankly, I'd rather go with what we can actually see and analyze. Most would agree that Ali's competition was light years better than Johnson's. Some wouldn't even consider this a debate worth having ( I know that I certainly don't ) .



Jeffries was 35 years old, and hadn't fought in 6 years. I don't know how many times I have to mention that to people. Some of you guys continuously ignore that as if it's no object. Willard and Moran were good fighters, but I have my doubts about them being in the same league as Foreman, Frazier, Liston and Patterson, abd basically half of the guys whom Ali beat in his prime.

They weren't in Johnson's class either and that's my point. Except for a probably unfair decision to Hart and the loss in a finish fight with Willard, which he would have won in 20 or 25 rounds, and a loss on a foul, Johnson didn't lose from 1901 to almost the Great Depression. That is a hell of a run that even Ali can not match and is most impressive.

[mr. magoo]

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

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

They weren't in Johnson's class either and that's my point. Except for a probably unfair decision to Hart and the loss in a finish fight with Willard, which he would have won in 20 or 25 rounds, and a loss on a foul, Johnson didn't lose from 1901 to almost the Great Depression. That is a hell of a run that even Ali can not match and is most impressive.

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.