George Foreman 73 Vs Lennox Lewis 95

You gotta love boxing! Many different fighters, so many different opinions! That is what I love about the sport, on any given night. Anything is possible...

 

Yeah, I didn't want to list ALL of the famous fighters.

Louis is 7+1 of 7+3 (+1 because it was a KO after round 12 and +3 because in 3 of the 10 fights Louis himself was below 200).

And since you mention bum of the month:
Marciano is 2 of 0+2.

These two wins were against 9yr-older Louis (Louis' 68th fight) and featherfist Cockell (in Cockell's 79th fight). Cockell started at 150+ lbs.

Marciano is one of the most overrated heavyweight ATGs. He should not be on any heavyweight toplist. Marciano is NOTHING but a cruiser (178 to 192 lbs) and just because he beat two somewhat *cough* good 200+ guys should not allow him an entry on the same toplist that features Foreman or Lennox.

He belongs on nothing but cruiserweight toplists. The same applies to Ezzard Charles (1 of 0+2) and Archie Moore (5 of 0+7). But that's another topic.

 

Do us a favour and go back to general, where you have been mocked and ridiculed for three quarters of your posting life. Please. :dead

 

This is the same nut who labeled the likes of Jersey Joe Walcott and Mike Weaver 'bums' because they didn't have 91% winning records.

 

First of all let me clarify that I only start to compare some of the old fighters when they are compared to modern heavies. Or when someone asks for an assessment of their record. This is a thread about Lennox vs Foreman thus I wanted to deliver some stats that might be of interest.

I don't go to the Classic Box forum and out of nowhere start to bash a classic fighter.

Second: Mike Weaver is B-level. He is at #90 on ChrisPontius consensus toplist. Case closed.

Third: Where does your 91% come from? Not from me. If a fighter loses every 4th fight I call him bum ("below usable margin") because a win over such fighter usually means nothing and I expect every ranked fighter to beat such a bum. This stems from the idea you have to delete sub-prime opponents off the record otherwise Eric Esch or LaMar Clark would be some of the best heavyweights ever lived. Once you delete bums you see Eric's and Clark's REAL record: Eric Esch (5-2) and LaMar Clark (0-2). They are both bum-beaters.

Fourth: The obvious discrepancy between my assessment and others is that I make an assessment by CAREER ACHIEVEMENTS, while others usually make an assessment by SINGLE FIGHT PERFORMANCES.

Jersey Joe Walcott is an OK boxer, but you cannot deny his record.
His record against good cruisers is 8(4KOs)-9(4KOs). His record against good heavies is 4(1 KO)-3(2 KOs). Thus is career record against good fighters is 12-12. Mike Weaver is 8-12 by the way. He won against an average good-opponent of of 26-5 (approx like Axel Schultz) and lost against an average good-opponent of 39-5 (approx. Donovan Ruddock).

If that makes him an A-level fighter for you then be it so.

 

And since does that make you a bum?

 

No, it doesn't make him an automatic bum.

But you know exactly that if Wlad would fight someone with a record of 41-18, then the negative comments wouldn't stop. My god, Rahman (45-7) is called a "bum" and a "proof of the sad state of the division", but if Larry Holmes beats Weaver then this is a sign of Holmes' greatness?

 

A. Weaver was not considered as a legacy fight for Holmes, and nor was Rahman for Wlad.

B.Weaver was 28 years old and peaking when he fought Holmes, whereas Rahman was 36 and utterly past it.

C. Weaver had won 13 of his last 15 fights. Rahman's record looked a bit better admittadely, but was coming off of a No contest against James Toney, which in all honesty, probably should have been a loss. Weaver had also recently beaten a contender in Bernardo Mercado, but Rahman hadn't beaten anyone of note in years.

 

Well, Rahman should've gotten the win against Toney in 2006, which probably is a better win than Mercado for Weaver. Neither Weaver or Rahman (at that point) were big wins, but they were solid ones nethertheless.

 

Really all this proves is you need to use a bit of common sense judgement when assessing a fighter.

 

"Common sense" put Sam Langford at #2. Common sense is not enough.

 

Jersey Joe is an A level fighter because he was HW champion of the world.

 

When you ask for Holmes' achievements then Weaver most probably WILL be mentioned, whereas in case of Rahman it's the "sad state of the division".

Rahman was not past it. Wlad makes everyone look like shot.

Weaver was not 28 but nearly 30. It was 1979 so maybe by our standards today he was like 35 (= like Rahman). He was 50 lbs lighter than Rahman and smaller. It took Holmes 12 rounds to KO him.

But this is unbelievable how you try to run revisionism. Weaver at the time of the first bout with Holmes was a 19-8 guy having scored just 2 KOs against somewhat good oppositions. You compare such a fight to Wlad-Rahman?

Between Weaver-Mercado were approx 250 days. Between Toney and Rahman were approx. 150 days. I am sorry that it was a NC but I am confident that Rahman would have won. It's not Rahman's fault that the fight ended because of the nasty cut.

 

But so was Weaver. If being a titlist makes you an A-Level fighter then be it so.

For me that isn't enough. Even Lee Savold (93-40) was a titlist. Would a Wladimir Klitschko with 22 losses still be an A-Level fighter?

And moreover Jersey Joe's world title record is 1 KO and 6 losses.

 

Perhaps because of what Weaver did in hindsite, but the fight was not a legacy builder, and nor was the Rahman fight.

Sure, just like he did against a 38 year old Corrie Sanders, and if you don't think that Rahman at age 36 and with no meaningful wins to speak of in years, wasn't shot then I dare you to tell me the definition.

Now this is why I find debates on here a waste of my time, given that people seem to have difficulty with basic adding and subtracting. Weaver was born on June 14th, 1951. He fought Holmes on June 22th, 1979. For the numerically impaired, that adds up to age 28. Could you tell me how being approximately one week past your 28th birthday makes you closer to 30?

So a fighter in 2008 is more physically revitalized at age 35 than a 28 year old was in 1979? Hmmmm..

This content is protected

This content is protected

And what the hell had Hasim done going into the Wlad fight? Weaver was young, in good shape, had not been stopped in a while, and was beating semi-decent opposition. What the **** had Rahman done as of late? Gotten Ko'd by Oleg Masakaev, Tko'd by Toney, and defeated Zuri Lawrence?

What exactly do you think happens in boxing? Fighters lose bouts for various reason, and cuts are no exception. You can't award a fighter a victory that wasn't given to him on the basis of what you THINK MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED.