Strange boxing opinions

Because of the advantages you rightly named Frazier has a 50/50 chance imo .What has always swayed me towards Marciano is the two handed power,but I wouldn't put a penny on either man!

 

Thanks. But judging by this forum as well as other boxing news sources, the organizations have a lot of clout. Pretty much every time I post something that discounts the organizations, someone - experienced, knowledgable posters whom I respect - will counter with a post supporting the organizations.

Examples - over on the Gerry Cooney thread someone wrote where Cooney and Jimmy Young were ranked prior to their fight. I posted the Ring rankings (and while Ring has had their own biases and problems, their rankings were certainly more reputable and accurate at that point in history; the organizations were bowing to the promoters by that time) issued immediately prior to their bout. Someone countered with, "They were ranked at number __ by the WBx." If the organizations are irrelevant, why do we continue to cite them? Their rankings haven't been based on merit since the mid 1970's, so thus they don't mean much IMO.

In another thread I commented about Mike Tyson cementing his hold on the world title in June of 1988. I was countered with, "No, Tyson won the world title against Berbick in November 1986." I take that as an opinion that the organizations hold considerable clout.

Edit - Another example: The African American History museum in DC recently hosted a Muhammad Ali exhibit. The local media called Ali the "three-time WBA heavyweight champion." So they A) discounted Ali's achievement as the three-time World Champion; B) Gave the WBA clout and recognition they haven't earned (they've done nothing to earn comparisons to the NBA (basketball) or NFL); and C) Were inaccurate. If they wanted to cite just the WBA, why didn't they acknowledge that Ali was a FOUR-TIME WBA heavyweight champion? Geez, the guy fought boxing politics and won that particular title four times. Again, this example shows that the organizations have a lot of clout with boxing fans and the general public.

 

Marciano is the heavyweight H2H goat, and almost unstoppable
The Dempsey from that afternoon in Toledo is nigh invincible

 

i mean he was slow on his feet. with little mobility like a Micheal Nunn or Cassius Clay

Even Foreman was much better on his feet. In short, Frazier was a target coming in

and no, he wasn't fast

 

Marciano was easy to hit as well. His nose was hanging off in half off his fights.

 

Exactly Joe was one of the fastest moving in. He cut the ring well.

 

He was one of the greatest fighters that ever lived that is for certain.

 

Ayyy. I rate that.

What's your criteria? Do you include skill? If so I agree. If not then I don't. BTW I'm a huge Charles fan

 

Ali had a better jab than Larry Holmes.

 

That Bellew would beat Froch

At a catchweight of 170lbs....

 

I dunno. For a guy who wasn’t suppose to be fast, he sure as hell didn’t have much trouble catching up and connected with Ali one of the fastest heavyweights ever, in all of their fights.

 

Vinny Paz iz underrated
Rocky had excellent balance and coordination
Ward wasn't that dirty
Kovalev would beat Calzaghe
Foreman II crushes Wlad
Fury outboxes big Lemmie
Povetkin chin > Vitali chin
Froch beats Eubank
This HW era is as good as the 90's era

 

I didn't say he was fast ,though his handspeed was very respectable.
He wasn't as fast on his feet as Ali? How many heavyweights have been?
Put 35lbs on Nunn and see how mobile he would be!

 

its no wonder the way he lay on the ropes the majority of the time

this wasnt the Ali of the 1960s

 

He was a plodder and to make matters worse, he was a one handed fighter who pretty much just threw a left hook all the time

Joe doesnt match up well against the more versatile heavyweights of recent decades: Holmes, Tyson, Douglas, Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield