you know perfectly well what you said and now you deny . your debates are absurd, you said to me "norton was past his best moment" and then you mention don cokkel as win of valdez and don cokkel was at his end when he faced valdez and anyway at his best cokkel was a can. You tell me I can't mention Marciano against Louis, but you mention Tyson against Holmes. you are a person impossible to debate with because it is like doing it with a 12 year old boy because of type of argument. Very very biased and hypocrite
I’d pick Zora, Machen, Baker over Lyle as well. Lyle was good but he could be out boxed. These other men were good as well. As in on the Lyle level. Moore had a lot more ranked wins and against prime opposition then Lyle. Not a knock on Lyle who I like as a fighter he just wasn’t as good. Shavers was on the Lyle level and he lost to him. Lyles best wins were an out of prime Oscar, Shavers, and Bugner. I’d put Ninos and Bakers wins up there with him. PS making everything caps doesn’t enhance your argument. Not really necessary.
You pick? It is totally irrelevant.peak Machen is the only one who would have a chance against lyle h2h stylistically and even machen would not win 100% sure, anyway this fight never happened and lyle as hw is greater and h2h bigger force than any win that archie moore had at hw and it is a fact. This nonsense of "ranked contenders" is a joke because they did not fight in the same era. John ruiz also was better "ranked" than David Tua in fact he was hw champ of the World and Tua never was and still Tuaman killed him.. What is your point? Would you pick floyd patterson to beat David Tua? Who was better ranked?
Ranked contenders are generally good fighters. If someone has more ranked wins they are going against a multitude of styles aagainst solid competition. Meaning they are generally and probably more well rounded then the next guy. Lyle wouldn’t be his best win. I think you’re severely over rating Lyle but to each their own.
Ron lyle was much better than nino valdez. Compare their records and the performances of both them on the film Ron lyle. 43-7 in a much harder era and a guy who started in the boxing very late https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/226 He did beat Buster mathis Earnie shavers Jimmy Ellis Joe bugner Goyo Peralta Oscar Bonavena Close of stopping Foreman toe to toe. When he was not shot He lost Against Muhammad Ali George Foreman Jerry Quarry Jimmy young Against great fighters only. Now we will see the record of valdez https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/10360 48-18 in a weaker era for the hw division He did beat a past prime lhw ezzard charles Before he was shot He lost against: Julio lazaro diaz by ko lmao Mario raul ochoa lmao Federico malibran by ko lmao Archie mcbride lmao Billy giliam Archie moore Bob baker Harold johnson Bob stterfield Eddie machen Zora foley Nino valdez was a joke next to ron lyle
I said that Louis and Holmes had comparable recovery, not durability. I said that Norton was past his prime, but I still counted this fight. I didn't say that Cokkell was at his best. If you want to call me 12 years old, feel free to do that. A lot of posters here presents lower intelectual level than that. You can call me whatever you want, I don't care. My arguments are not inconsistent and I don't insult other posters like you. Believe in whatever you want, I don't care. Just please, don't quote me if you want to make up things I never said.
I never insulted you. I told you the pure truth and just admit it that you are biased and hypocrite in your argument several times
You called me a liar and hypocrite. If that's not an insult, I don't know what is. Everyone is biased, so you are. My arguments aren't bias-less, but at least I'm trying to be objective. You are not any better than me, except that you attack everyone who has different opinion.
Yes, Lyle was better than Valdes and Shavers. Doesn't matter in this thread, because Shavers didn't beat Lyle. Outside of lucky punch, I don't see any reason to believe that Shavers could beat someone as good as prime Archie Moore.
Said someone who argues against Joe Louis in Louis vs Shavers thread. 1970s is not a golden era when everything was better, you know?
It's a fight that would be wonderful to watch. Moore would box him beautifully and, by that I do not mean, he would 'stick and move ' because that was not his game and, by his late 30s, he didn't have the legs. I reckon that Moore would fight him close, not giving Shavers room to swing those arms. But the whole time he would be turning him, one way then the other, to keep Shavers from setting his feet. And the whole time Archie would be putting his left hand on Shavers, while setting up the opportunity to time Shavers with a right hand.
