Lee Oma vs. 2017 heavyweights

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mrkoolkevin, Feb 9, 2017.


  1. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    Dude, which ATG in modern times loses 19 times?
     
  2. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,114
    Jun 2, 2006
    No they don't that's just your personal interpretation of it! Look Oma just wasn't that good !
     
  3. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    Gavilan has almost as many losses as Mayweather has wins.
    Yet, some people would pick Gavilan to beat Mayweather!

    Does that say something about records then vs. now?
     
  4. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,114
    Jun 2, 2006
    No they don't that s just your personal interpretation of it! Look Oma just wasn't that good !
    How many have 143 fights over 15 years?You're trying to excuse Oma's losses on the basis of frequent fights, but his schedule was no busier than most other fighters how do you explain them not losing long sequences of fights?
     
  5. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,114
    Jun 2, 2006
    You have strayed so far from the original topic you're in another continent now,I'd rather stay on topic.
     
  6. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    Bob Satterfield. Pretty good boxer....25 losses!
    Joe Walcott...18 losses! Who the **** has 18 losses these days? lol. And he had 51 wins.

    C'mon. There's obviously something screwy here.
     
    The Kentucky Cobra likes this.
  7. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    Forget about that.
    I'm onto something far greater!
     
  8. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Fritzie Zivic had 60 losses. He's regarded as a very good fighter.
     
  9. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,114
    Jun 2, 2006
    Satterfield, like Oma was a party hound plus he was essentially a light heavy competing with heavyweights and he wasn't very durable . Walcott took fights at short notice without the benefit of proper training,diet, or a decent manager.What's Oma's excuse?
     
  10. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    What exactly was Walcott's diet ?
    I hear he didn't have a great diet but he looked well-nourished in almost every picture I've ever seen of him.
     
  11. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,114
    Jun 2, 2006
    Grits , possum,and black-eyed peas.
     
  12. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,114
    Jun 2, 2006
    65 actually he also had 232 fights and 21 of those losses were when he was past prime. I wonder how many losses Oma would accrue had he had the same number?
     
  13. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    My calculation has it at 67.
    The proportion of losses-from-fights is about the same.
    Unless my maths is off ?

    Oma lost a greater proportion on the first half of his career so from the stats you could equally argue he was pre-prime and that he improved.
    I heard he took some dives anyway.

    I'm not saying he was good but I don't think any of these questions can be answered merely with stats and numbers, how many losses etc.
     
  14. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Imma get me some !
     
  15. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,579
    Jan 30, 2014
    Saw the fight several years back and was underwhelmed. Will rewatch and maybe throw together a gif or two this weekend. I remember Oma slowly walking after Charles when Charles was on the move, and I remember being shocked that Charles didn't use his jab or fight from distance more effectively.