Witherspoon v Layne,Lastarza,Mathews,C*ckell ?

Because you defend them constantly while you degrade marcianos victims

Yet everyone would agree Marciano beat far better opposition than Dempsey

 

I am getting a little bored with all these guys trying to get Marciano beat because it kills them that it never happened. The only way they can do it is to undermine his era, notice how they build up the 80's,Witherspoon's best wins were close decisions other than stiff and green Bruno and Gonzales ...his whole career was against underachievers and I dont put to much stock in him in any era to be honest

 

You put stock into whom he actually fought. He fought 4 hall of farmers who were either world champions or number 1 contenders at the time of facing Marciano. 3 of the 4 were still producing great results in there record and on film leading up to Marciano fight and the three looked spectacular on film in the first Marciano fights.

I would say that's good competition

Maybe some of the bigger heavyweights of the modern era could go undefeated vs marcianos opposition but that would mean they would have to bring consistency every single fight, which most didn't.

No heavyweight champ around marcianos size likely goes undefeated against rockys competition

 

Tim had what it took to beat men who are rated above him on an all time list. He had 15 fights behind him when he took a top five ATG the distance in a bout that some felt he could have gotten the decision or at least a draw. He fought the best heavyweights of the 80's save for Mike Tyson and beat most of them. In another era the man might have achieved greatness especially if it hadn't been for a certain promoter who was trying to wreck him. Layne, Lastarza, Mathews, and that other guy who's name the spelling police won't let me type? Yeah I think he beats those and probably some who rated higher in that era, but I'll stop there.

 

Well, I think there is a distinction between 'prime' and 'best night'. Some guys are inconsistent, even in their primes.

So I don't think chocklab is having any difficulty with the idea of PRIME FOR PRIME, or that there's anything the f*ck wrong with him.

 

Tim Witherspoon had potential. A lot of fighters have potential. Only the greatest fighters actually realise their potential however.

On a good night Tim actually had it. As a veteran fighter he pulled off some surprising results and solid performances. I remember his fight with Mercer was a great fight.

But in the 1980s was when he was supposed to deliver. And he did not deliver. He gave Holmes a great fight, beat page lost to Thomas who lost to Berbick who was no better than Snipes who Witherspoon already beat. Thomas had also drew with Coetzee who lost to snipes who Witherspoon already beat. Then he beats Smith, then Tubbs and loses to Smith by one round knockout after Marvis Frazier and Tubbs had beat Smith. Every good guy Tim beat also beat the guys he lost to. At his best Tim was capable of losing to guys who lost to guys he could beat. And that's just not good enough.

Late in his career when they were both equally old Tim rematched Greg Page in a revival of perhaps his best signature win. And he lost by knockout!!

By comparison Holmes also rematched Weaver and Smith in simular veteran showdowns only Holmes duplicated his earlier results knocking both out.

 

"You keep mentioning Dempsey so I'll say Dempsey beats all Marciano's competition and probably quicker than Rocky did, happy now that I mentioned Jack?"

Ok well considering he was knocked out in 1 round by a 37 year old journeyman, lost twice in his prime to a fat trial horse, and was twice shutout by gene Tunney, and avoided the best out there,

I favor Dempsey to drop at least one to a Marciano victim. Marciano beat men as good as Tunney

 

I don't use connect the dots games to either build or undermine a fighter's legacy. His win list is incredible and when prime comparitvely long to his loss column. From 1982 to 1991 Tim Witherspoon beat Tony Tubbs, Greg Page, Frank Bruno, Renaldo Snipes, James Tillis, James broad, James Smith, Jose Ribalta and Carl Williams while only losing to Pinklon Thomas, Larry Holmes and James Smith. He also captured to world titles and by my recokoning was the third best heavyweight of the decade.. His legacy was certainly better than Don C, Roland Lastarza's or Rex Laynes.

 

But he barely won much of those fights. Some of these wins, most of his best ones like Snipes, Tubbs, Ribalta, Carl Williams, Greg Page were not clear wins. They officially could have all gone either way. They were each split or majority verdicts. If you exclude Witherspoon's split decisions and majority decision wins it's a much smaller resume isn't it?

By your own admission it leaves only the Broad, Tillis, Bruno and Smith (who he also lost badly too) fights among witherspoons biggest wins.

Split decisions with Larry Alexander and Mike Williams too. This is not a run of domination is it?

His legacy is certainly better than C0ckell and Lastarza. And potentially he was better than many contenders. I will give you that. But there is no real consistency to guarantee anything at all.

In the 1980s you had Holmes and Tyson. Everything else was either as good or as bad as the rest. There was talent but most of it was wasted or diluted.

 

I can flip flop that and say that if ALL split or majority decisions could have gone the other way then Witherspoon should have wins over Thomas and Holmes too. Works both ways.. The consensus is he won his bouts with Page and Tubbs. The snipes fight was close, but tim was what? a 13 fight prospect?

No.. I will never admit to those being his biggest wins. And he beat all four of the above when they were prime including Bonecrusher whom you're so fond of.. He also beat Carl Williams, Jose Ribalta, Jorge Gonzalez, Alfred Cole and arguably Ray Mercer when he was past it.

This is biased nit picking.. Did you even see those fights? Are you aware that he was past his prime in those bouts, regrouping from a devastating loss that may even have been a fix and working under new management? Are you also aware that Williams and Alexander were tough customers when the wanted to be? Lot of missing info there to be trusting a simple boxrec entry.

how consistent was he supposed to be to gain approval. He beat a 15-0 prospect in his 8th pro fight. Defeated a ranked contender in his 14th pro bout and fought the heavyweight freakin' champion of the world in his 16th pro bout in a match that a lot of people thought could have gone in his favor. He then wins a few fights against decent opponents and captures a title.. He loses to what many felt was the second best fighter in the world then becomes a champion again.. Are you aware that Tim Witherspoon was ranked top 10 by ring magazine for about 11 years and fought about 80% of the best fighters of two eras? How much more consistency do you want?

I personally rank Tim Witherspoon as being the third best heavyweight of the era. Place him wherever you like.