Controversial statements on boxing that you stand by...

Possibly just letting people get an idea, your tangent, is my thoughts, your thoughts is my tangent.

Whatever.


The main thing is, lets not kid ourselves and say Dempsey was some sort of immortal god, with incredible skill...

And attack this era...oh they are fat, they are crap...its a load of crap in all honesty.

The problem for this era is the best dont fight the best...Haye gets way with fighting Ruiz, Harrison..

Wlad and Vitali will never fight each other.


Also it dosent help that Holyfield beat Valuev...boxing should be vocal about that robbery...Evander showed how good the 1990s was. The guy won that belt...5 time champ.

 

Yeah I don't really understand. You say that we can compare Liston of 61 to Wlad of 2011 (a 50 year time gap), but won't notion the idea of Liston - Johnson (also a 50 year ago).

If you are choosing to rate fighters in their own eras (something I don't agree with) as opposed to a single bracket, then a cut off date is needed. Personally I think the HW division is easy to look at as we have dominate fighters. Johnson to Dempsey, Louis to Rocky, Patterson to Liston to Ali, Holmes Tyson Lennox etc etc.

But you saying modern fighters are better doesn't hold up. You gave the example of the HW division, but there are 7 other divisions worth talking about. I mean, could you imagine what Pancho Villa would do to today's Flyweights? Ezzard Charles to Jean Pascal? Burley to Sturm? etc etc.

But I'm not gonna change your mind. When I rank fighters I try to rank them to include every fighter from the gloved era. Stanley Ketchell would be in my MW rankings, as would Greb and Fitz. Tunney and Bivins in my top 5 LHWs, Johnson in my HW top 5, Sugar Ray Robinson as the best Welter.

If you choose say, 1960 as a cut of point, then make two lists, one for before, one for after. That is the only way it is a fair argument IMO

 

My knowledge on flyweights is literally nothing, so cant comment. Ive watch every great fighter that was a heavyweight...ive sat and watch an Old C. Williams fight Chuvalo...dont know why as it was an insignificant fight but just enjoy watching the heavyweights.

I never said fighters of today are better......I keep on about Liston becuase i feel he was that good...it was unlucky that Floyd avoided him for 3 years...then Ali came. I mean how unlucky can you be.

I know the times fella, if you look back I say that when fighters are closer in times the matchups are easier to think about it...so Joe Louis fighting Ali is more plausible...Joe Louis fighting Bowe? It too much of a stretch.

Ive also pointed out how the skill level has stopped progressing, really the 70s/80s was the pinncale, Ali, Holmes, Monzon, Ray Leonard, Hagler, Tyson and since then has plateau in skill...but muscular size has increased.

Floyd Patterson really belonged to the era before, a small heavyweight but he still was able to fight well into the 60s, and bit of the early 70s..Ali never had an easy time with him.

Again Rocky isnt going to lose to A. Sosnowski or J.M. Mormeck head to head...but I honestly cant see him fighting the very best today and winning or beating everyone up...just feel his era is long gone. I think its unfair we even try to say that, the guy was a hero....his tenacity, his will to win incredible...but im going to show young fighters a tape and this guy beats up the Wladimir and Vitali?

Why cant we admire, his fortitude to win, or how he would do against a prime Tunney?


When I first watched boxing, my uncle he was 67 or 68, died now, but born early 20s, he had all those VHS bill cayton library fights of everyone, we watched every day hour after hour all the greats....one tape stuck out...call heavyweight biggest punchers...showed dempsey, then louis, then rocky, then tyson....you could see a noticeable size difference and performance linear. Anyhow...he we would talk about boxing all the time,, i said who was the scariest fighter ever. I thought he would say Foreman, or Tyson, or Liston or Louis (that was his number 1 fav)...he looked at me hard...and said ''Rocky Maricano.. kid never seen a fighter take a beating like he did and keep on coming for you'' that will stick me for the rest of my life.

 

While I agree with your general sentiment Vano, I don't think Villa-Pong is quite on the same level of mismatch as both Charles-Pascal and Burley-Sturm.

 

Jack, that would actually be a damn fine fight

 

Villa would kick his ass. He's in black and White FFS!

 

ali from the liston fight is the best hw ever

 

Larry Holmes could beat almost any heavyweight on his day.

I'd pick him to beat Lewis, and Foreman. His speed, timing, control of distance and absolutely amazing jab would tend to those 2 IMO.

I consider him to be one of the most underrated fighters.

 

I love Larry, but I think he was so underrated for so long that he's now a bit overrated.

LikeLouis, who could be hit and badly hurt, but had excellent powers of recovery. I think even on his best day, against some of the better finishers he might have no time to get himself back together. I'd definitely pick Tyson on his best day to do Larry.

Quality, Larry is one of my fave Heavys, but I've re-evaluated him in the past few months. I actually think the division in his reign is underrated, but Larry is probably a 6-10 fighter for me.

There you go, there's a controversial IMO: Larry Holmes is not a top 5 Heavyweight. I'm surprised with myself that I've finally said it

 

I'm kinda surprised at that Flea Man. I sometimes question Holmes' resume, but for myself, when I put it into perspective I can't really come up with that many heavies who do have a better record. Holmes' resume is quality I reckon, lots of names, almost every top name of his era except for Greg Page and John Tate, other than those 2 fighters, Holmes cleaned out big time. Shavers, Ocassio, Weaver, Spoon, Williams, Mercer and arguably a win over Spinks plus every challenger around is good enough to trump the likes of Lewis and Foreman and Marciano for me, though it is close. I know that you know Holmes resume, and I'm not trying to be patronising or anything, I just want to kind of put his accomplishments into perspective.

And yes, Tyson wrecks Holmes any day of the week.

 

This is all fair of course, Foreman gets in based on his mental achievement! He also has wins over a better Norton & a better single win than Larry in Joe.

Lennox has the better ring record for me, despite two fairly embarrassing losses.

 

I haven't watched Lennox in a while, I might delve into his career again, see how it compares to Holmesy.

They're close enough for me to not question anyone who rates Lewis higher, even if I disagree. It's worth a thread in the future comparing their respective resumes IMO

 

I have:

Louis
Ali
Johnson
Holmes
Lewis
Foreman
Marciano

 

:-(