What generally accepted opinion about one boxer's superiority over another seems incorrect to you?

Wouldn't take a super heavyweight to beat Marciano,,a prime Joe Louis lights him up

 

Cus D'Amato even said that Joe would eventually hurt Ali, and that Joe would do to Ali what he did to everybody else that he hurt. Many people when they imagine this fight just imagine Ali dancing around Louis for 15 rounds and that Joe slowly walks into the jab all night, and this simply just wouldn't happen. Joe was a very technical boxer and would see weaknesses to exploit, so yeah it's much closer to a 50/50 match-up than many people think.

 

That Vitali was somehow better than Wlad. In my book, he didn't prove it even in the H2H sense.

 

I feel people have subconsciously attributed traits of the movie character Rocky Balboa to Rocky Marciano.

Louis did not have his power when he fought Marciano. After the Mauriello fight and the subsequent layoff Louis's power just vanished. Despite facing only sub 200s he just could not knock guys down at will anymore. If Louis still had it Walcott, Charles and Marciano all would have been knocked out. Bivins would have never survived 10 rounds with Louis either even at his peak which he was nowhere near.

 

Styles make fights. Bob and weave is completely nullified by Foreman and Listons slugger style uppercut/hooks. Both of them would be a nightmare for Tyson stylistically.

Foremans desrctuon of Frazier twice is ample evidence. Granted, Tyson was more durable but this would only lead to a more thorough beating.

 

Me. And I stand by it.

Tyson is tailor-made for Foreman in my opinion. I probably wouldn’t go as far as to say Foreman wins 100 times out of 100 but I would have him winning at least 90 times.

 

Yep that's is were I disagree. Tyson was very crude and hard to hit in the 80s so in my opinion he would have a better chance of landing than Frazier and if he did land Foreman would definitely feel it. I disagree any fighter in history would beat Mike Tyson 95 times out of 100.

 

It's just a style mismatch. Listons demolition of Patterson is another example of how bob and weave/peak a boo has just no hope here. Tyson would be bobbing and leaning into the shots, and against both Foreman and Liston, who hit harder than anyone he faced, Tyson wouldn't reach the bell.

Notice in both of these examples how Patterson and Frazier are caught early ducking their heads into the path of those hook/uppercuts;

This content is protected

This content is protected

It's not like its a tough battle and a late stoppage or decision win. The mismatch is immediate from the opening bell. I love Tyson, he's a great fighter, he's stands almost 0 chance against both.

 

This is were we disagree. You explained your points though.

 

Yeah, I think Ali was at his best when he established his mobility and offence, building on it exponentially, round after round - without any significant interruptions from the opposition.

I see Louis’ technical abilities, especially in terms of offence - with acute power to go, periodically breaking that rhythm, setting Ali back somewhat.

An older Zora Folley, without being overly mobile, pivoting but not chasing, stopped Ali up with some no frills, basically fundamental left jabs and straight right hands - scoring and breaking the rhythm.

Folley began to tire around the 4-5 round mark - Ali said he noticed same and that’s when Muhammad began to step up his offence.

I don’t think it’s a too fanciful extrapolation to envisage Louis doing somewhat similar, but doing it far better and doing a lot more for much greater success.

 

Fair enough. I don’t agree but I respect your opinion.

 

That Wlad was superior between the brothers.

 

I think foreman is a really bad style matchup for tyson, but young foreman had technical and tactical flaws and old foreman had a reduced output. So both fights are probably competitive.

If young foreman paces himself and just contains tyson until he slows down after round six and still has stamina and doesn't fight in a super hot arena without air like against Ali for their fight, I believe it really doesn't look good for tyson.

But with the old version, since tyson had a really good chin I don't think he would have had too much trouble with the shots moorer took to end their fight and then he probably just wins by points at least.

 

Ezzard Charles over Archie Moore.

I get why, but their three fights all happened within a couple years.

Despite Moore being older he went on to stay at the top of the boxing world for longer and would be defending his title against top guys while Ezzard wasn't a relevant top guy anymore.

Honestly, Moore probably could have rematched Charles three times in the late fifties and evened the scorecard.

Anyway, a lot of lists put Charles over Moore. I get it, but I think Moore's longevity puts him over Moore.

Don't really have a problem with others disagreeing with that sentiment though, and both were great anyway.

 

*Moore's longevity puts him over Charles