Oliver McCall

I,m pretty sure McCall in his heyday was a top 5 Heavyweight, Price on the other hand can still make some noise ( don,t forget that Mike Weaver lost a lot of his early fights before becoming a "champion " )

 

And was holding on for dear life at the final bell.

 

I agree, but McCall did buger all in the previous 11 rounds.

 

Weaver was never world class, being a champ doesn`t make you world clas, sometimes a division is weaker than other times, there were plenty of decades when McCall would not have been rated in top 5 at all.

 

McCall was at one time rated Ring #2 and was top 10 for a few years.

Weaver was quite likely the second best Heavyweight in the world for a time and gave the number #1 a helluva battle. He was Ring rated #2 or #3 for a few years and beat a top #4 challenger for starters.

One doesn't have to be an ATG to be world class. Jesus Mark. Being in the top #10 would comfortably make you automatically World Class.

You are definitely one of a kind mate lol

 

I disagree on two counts.

First, if you are among the very few best fighters in the world in any era, then you are by definition World Class.
Which means roughly that you could be competitive with the top 10 or so in your division.
There is no legitimate definition that ranks you on a sliding scale based upon era.

Also, McCall was at his best in the mid '90's.
This is widely regarded as no less than the 2nd best HW era ever. And if you think size makes a significant difference, could be #1.
Ollie had trouble with drugs, mental illness & the law.
But he was absolutely World Class, which does not mean you need to be any ATG.
He did not even start to lose with any regularity until he was 45, despite his personal problems.
And he is at least among the very top candidates for the very best chin EVER.
Sparred Tyson for 300 + rounds.
Mid 70 fights against some huge dudes, several that were themselves world class, beating some-& never even down.

Mike Weaver had a rocky start & fought way too long, until 49.
But then he changed management, & from 1974-1984 he was World Class, at least most of the time.
He even gave an absolutely peak Holmes his toughest fight to date, & hurt him several times before Holmes gutted it out.
Though a slugger against a boxer is at a stylistic disadvantage.
He beat guys that then were World Class-Mercado, & in consecutive bouts, Tate, Coetzee & Tillis.
These 4 had a combined record of 83-2!
His last Hoorah was stopping Carl "The Truth" Williams, who then had only lost to Holmes-& that likely was an unfair decision.

These guys were beating people who were top contenders for years.
And rarely losing to any who were not around this level.

They deserve respect as World Class.
I think you confuse the term with among the very best ever in the history of the division.
But you accomplish what they did against the best (in absolute terms) division for ANY periof of time...You are World Class.

 

...Is this weirdo serious?

 

Let me tell you something . .McCall s gunna win back his WBC strap ..Just needs a shot ..

 

No, it is boxing! If he can get a licence, who are we to judge?! We get our jollies from watching two fighters punch each other in the head and body, quite a bit of society would say that is sad!

 

Why is it different watching a 53 yr old get hit to watching, say, a 25 yr old getting hit? Of course he's 'severely diminished' from what he was. So you put him against a lower level of opponent. one more in keeping with his 'severely diminished' abilities. Nobody wants to see him in against the equivalent of a prime Lennox Lewis but as long as he passes all the tests, then let him go for it. And he'll keep doing it as long as he passes the tests and enough people pay to see him. And if you don't like that, you have to ask yourself if you really like boxing.

 

PS calling someone 'r3tarded' is the 'opposite of decency', too. I trust you'll knock that practice on the head now, lest you offend yourself.

 

Of course 53 year olds have no place in the Tour de France. That is an elite race for elite athletes but there are millions of people who enjoy road cycling. Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to cycle unless they are going to compete in the Tour? Are you also suggesting that people wishing to pay to see them do so should be denied that right? God knows I wouldn't want to but then I don't want to see two young performers on a bike so what do I know?

Pro sport is not necessarily only about the elite and you don't have to be elite to 'perform for the fans'. In England we have a football league in which there are 92 teams. Obviously some are much better than others so, for the most part, they are not pitted against each other. They are streamed so that they are relatively evenly matched. And people like that or, at least, enough do (and pay the entrance fee) to watch the lower leagues and make it financially sustainable and enable a lot of guys to make a living.

That is what I suggested with McCall. Match him evenly or thereabouts so that he fights someone of similar ability. I didn't say '2 senior citizens'. Where did you get that? I said 'similar ability'. That might very well be some 26 year old whose youth compensates for not being anywhere near as skilled as McCall.

Now obviously boxing, what with getting hit in the head, is more risky than cycling but that's the same whether you are 23 or 53. It's a risky business whatever your age. That's why there are tests in place and fighters have to have licences. And why rank novices don't get in the ring with top contenders.

But a 53 year old has as much right - as long as he is licensed and has the medical clearance - to earn his living boxing as a 23 year old. As long as he is fighting a fighter of similar capabilities, it is no less dangerous for him as it is for two men who are much younger and much better fighting each other. It's both a case of being punched in the head by someone who's more or less as good as you are at it.

And that's why I say if you think it is 'the opposite of decency', then maybe boxing is not for you. It's not 'r3tarded' on my part. If boxing is for you, and your indignation suggests that you think it is, you might want to reset your bar for what is decent because the sport is filled with cases of men not being good enough, fit enough or whatever to 'pursue excellence' but they fight all the same. In fact, that describes the vast majority of fighters. And they're the building blocks without which there would not be elite PERFORMERS. Whether you like it or not, the sport needs them and again, whether you like it or not, Oliver McCall wants or needs to be part of it and none of us has the right to pass judgement on that as being 'the opposite of decent' while we wait to see two really elite performers punch each other in the head.

 

Actually that last post was a bit long and boring. What I should have said was
a) Is McCall licensed?
b) Is he being overmatched?

If the answer is yes to the first question and no to the second then all is good.

Look, I don't want to see 53 year olds fight either. But if they do, it is no more or less 'decent' than two young men in their prime hitting each other. Some see hitting another man in the head as the 'opposite of decency' whatever their age and capabilities and, generaly, they're the kind of people that boxing's not for.

By the way. Thanks for continuing to call me r3tarded. Are you aware I have a nephew with Down's Syndrome?

 

I did suggest there was a medical judgement, so it is not nihilism, not that I have a problem with nihilism.

You do not need to watch McCall, it is rightly your call, but neither is it for you to morally judge. But again perhaps the licence he got needs to be quantified further, as boxing should be as safe as is possible under the circumstances.