H2H Heavyweight King: Who comes out on top?

"Literally"

This content is protected

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

I remember being a little suprised by the Byrd v Vitali fight. I don't think I scored it, or watched it all in one sitting, so I couldn't say exactly what I thought the score was, but Chris was doing a lot better than people seem to give him credit for. People only remember the shoulder injury, but Chris was at the height of his elusiveness and Vitali was having a hard time landing much of note. People talk about it like it is basically a Vitali win, which is bizarre, but perhaps not so bizarre when you consider what people say about the Lewis fight too.

 

Exactly, vitali was down to about 10% connect rate. Byrd outlanded him despite throwing half of the punches plus he forced vitali back during the second half of the fight.

 

Is it realy fair to judge the issue on the basis that a fighter who had lapses always puts out their best performence?

A major part about what made Louis, Ali and Holmes great, was the fact that they were able to be verry consistent over a long period.

Setting the bar a little lower, the same could be said about somebody like Floyd Patterson.

 

The best version of Walcott vs Liston is a 50-50 Fight IMO

 

Prime Louis beats Marciano, of that I'm sure. I can see the counter argument, but of the two I'd much prefer to be Louus.

 

How do you see Liston vs Jeffries Janitor ??

 

Good question.

It might be one of those fights that would depend whose rules it was held under. Stylisticaly,

I am inclined to give the edge to Liston. Jeffries is not quite fighting the right fight to beat him. Liston was an absolute master of both using range and using a fighters forward momentum against them.

Whether Jeffries rushes Liston, or drops into a crouch to counter him, Liston will know what to do.

On the other hand, Jeffries was arguably as strong as Liston, and faster in both hands and feet. These factors will make for a verry interesting fight.

 

Janitor, I think when considering fantasy fights the ONLY fair course of action is to consider how each man looked at their absolute peak: the one fight out of the whole career that you'd use as a showcase of their talents. Despite how a career panned out you can always see what they were best capable of producing.

So when pitting people against buster, I use the douglas who moved beautifully against tyson, the one who's combinations seemed to flow seamlessly from one punch to the next. When pitting against braddock I use the version who was actually able to outfox the great max baer. I use the version of louis who splattered schmelling in the rematch. The version of pea who danced around chavez and made him look like an amateur etc.

Fantasy fights should assume the very best version of a fighter unless you're considering a time specific scenario.

 

I just don't see it that way, or think it fair.

If you fought Louis or Holmes, you were going to meet something approaching the best version, and that was verry unlucky for you.

If you fought Douglas, you could be up against prety much anything.

That is why some champions enjoy logevity, and most don't.

 

:smoke

I just can't see Liston losing to the swarmers. Like shooting fish in a barrel, as he said.

I think late 1960s Liston even gives Frazier all kinds of trouble, much less a prime version. Same goes for Dempsey and Marciano. Mike is a different animal due to his speed and power combos, but he has less heart and endurance than both Rocky and Frazier.

If I were to tone down my bias, I'd concede Holmes. 22-2. 1A jab, superb technician, ring generalship, quick feet, boatloads of heart and chin.

 

Yes but we're not talking about greatness nor longevity here; we're specifically talking about 1 fight as opposed to a career.