PrimeWlad v Walcott,Charles & Moore?

edward morbius · May 22, 2015

mcvey said: ↑

edward morbius said: ↑

Yes he did and I've never denied it.
Now, are you going to duck and dive around the question I posed,or are you going to answer it?:think
Because it's sh*t or get of the pot time!:yikes
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you're not going to get the answer you demand from me as I don't share your criteria for historically judging older heavyweights.

Your question boils down to something like who is the better fighter, Pascual Perez (the old flyweight champion) or his contemporary Willi Besmanoff.

Your criteria seems to be that Besmanoff could beat Perez head to head so he is better.

Mine is that Perez is a great fighter who could beat the best in his division while Besmanoff was an unexceptional in all ways journeyman who lost a great deal, often to other ordinary fighters.

Now Marciano was in an unlimited division but was big enough in his own day to beat the best available.

That the human race has exploded in size in the sixty years since Marciano was champion is interesting on all kinds of levels, but I don't make it the basis of historical evaluations.

As for how good Marciano's opponents were in their day--while all these ratings are of course debatable, here is boxrec's current top ten p4p all time rankings

1-----Archie Moore
2-----Sugar Ray Robinson
3-----Muhammad Ali
4-----Joe Louis
5-----Ezzard Charles
6-----Harry Greb
7-----Carlos Monzon
8-----Tony Canzoneri
9-----D-ck Tiger
10----Carlos Ortiz

This is extreme, with three of the top five, but Ring Magazine in their ratings of the best fighters of their eighty years also had Louis, Charles, and Moore in their top fifteen. I would expect that any one or more of these three might make a lot of such lists.
Click to expand...

Ted Spoon · May 22, 2015

Though he would be the decided underdog you cannot write off 'Jersey' Joe. His combination of unique movement and sly counters may trouble Wladimir. It is not just size but footwork that gives Klitschko the edge. He understands range. Walcott understood confusing range. He was great at getting opponents to miscalculate. He'd be on high alert for clinches and look to fire a looping right mid-clinch, the kind that decked Louis, fast on the draw/no telegraphing.

Finishing Wladimir is improbable, and the smart money says the Ukrainian will take him out, but to imply Walcott is simply out-gunned is a misrepresentation of a talent that infuriated by-the-book fighters.

mcvey · May 22, 2015

edward morbius said: ↑

mcvey said: ↑

I'm sorry but you're not going to get the answer you demand from me as I don't share your criteria for historically judging older heavyweights.

Your question boils down to something like who is the better fighter, Pascual Perez (the old flyweight champion) or his contemporary Willi Besmanoff.

Your criteria seems to be that Besmanoff could beat Perez head to head so he is better.

Mine is that Perez is a great fighter who could beat the best in his division while Besmanoff was an unexceptional in all ways journeyman who lost a great deal, often to other ordinary fighters.

Now Marciano was in an unlimited division but was big enough in his own day to beat the best available.

That the human race has exploded in size in the sixty years since Marciano was champion is interesting on all kinds of levels, but I don't make it the basis of historical evaluations.

As for how good Marciano's opponents were in their day--while all these ratings are of course debatable, here is boxrec's current top ten p4p all time rankings

1-----Archie Moore
2-----Sugar Ray Robinson
3-----Muhammad Ali
4-----Joe Louis
5-----Ezzard Charles
6-----Harry Greb
7-----Carlos Monzon
8-----Tony Canzoneri
9-----D-ck Tiger
10----Carlos Ortiz

This is extreme, with three of the top five, but Ring Magazine in their ratings of the best fighters of their eighty years also had Louis, Charles, and Moore in their top fifteen. I would expect that any one or more of these three might make a lot of such lists.
Click to expand...

This seems to me a convoluted way of avoiding picking Wlad to beat the three I named.
I see no reason to mention different divisions here at all, we are talking HEAVYWEIGHTS, and CHAMPION heavyweights at that. Everyone and his granny knows that Perez is p4p a better fighter than Besmanoff ,it has no relevance to the question at all. If you think Wlad is just too big/ too good,a combination of both say so.
If you believe there was a cut off point after which the heavyweights just became too big for the old guys be specific.
You are going the long was round the barn.
Click to expand...

Balder · May 22, 2015

Synth said: ↑

No 190lb fighter in history is beating Wlad. They wouldn't even have a mid range, even if they had the capacity to outbox him. The two ranges would be Wlad's punching range and clinch range.
Click to expand...

Wlad..... Only weakness, questionable stamina, and Chin.

Rocky major Strengths .... Stamina and power.

Don't sell rocky short in this one.

mcvey · May 22, 2015

Balder said: ↑

Wlad..... Only weakness, questionable stamina, and Chin.

Rocky major Strengths .... Stamina and power.

Don't sell rocky short in this one.
Click to expand...

You seem determined to turn my thread into a Wlad v Marciano one,even though the title of it expressly states it is :
Wlad v Walcott,Charles and Moore.

So, just to satisfy you.

You say.

"Don't sell rocky short in this one"

I sell him short.
Short by 8 inches in height.
Short by 14 inches in reach.
Short by 60lbs in weight.

Below is a preview of the fight.

:vonne****

SuzieQ49 · May 22, 2015

Wlad would beat all of McVeas heroes including Dempsey and Holmes

mcvey · May 22, 2015

SuzieQ49 said: ↑

Wlad would beat all of McVeas heroes including Dempsey and Holmes
Click to expand...

You really have a hard on for me don't you.:rofl

SuzieQ49 · May 22, 2015

mcvey said: ↑

You really have a hard on for me don't you.:rofl
Click to expand...

I just love to mess with you because you're so arrogant and full of yourself..but in all honesty you're just a bitter weak old man

mcvey · May 22, 2015

SuzieQ49 said: ↑

I just love to mess with you because you're so arrogant and full of yourself..but in all honesty you're just a bitter weak old man
Click to expand...

You're not messing with me sunshine, I've been pm ing posters on here explaining some of my more outlandish picks, saying,
"I'm just rattling Suzie's chain".
You're the one who was being messed with, but you are too thick to have noticed it.
I've absolutely nothing to be bitter about,I've a loving partner, 5 good kids and 7 adorable grand children ,plenty of dough , no debts at all ,a nice house, a very full life and so far I've been blessed with decent health for my age.
The doors to my garden are open right now, its nearly 8 o clock in the evening and the birds are still singing in my trees, I have a cup of tea in front of me and 3 German beers in the fridge for later when I watch the preview of the Perez fight.
What's to be bitter about? You should have my life!

Full of myself ?
You're dead right, if I was anymore full I would BURST !!!.:happy

edward morbius · May 22, 2015

mcvey said: ↑

edward morbius said: ↑

This seems to me a convoluted way of avoiding picking Wlad to beat the three I named.
I see no reason to mention different divisions here at all, we are talking HEAVYWEIGHTS, and CHAMPION heavyweights at that. Everyone and his granny knows that Perez is p4p a better fighter than Besmanoff ,it has no relevance to the question at all. If you think Wlad is just too big/ too good,a combination of both say so.
If you believe there was a cut off point after which the heavyweights just became too big for the old guys be specific.
You are going the long was round the barn.
Click to expand...

I was very specific that there is no way to compare the pre-1960 fighters with the modern guys, for something very interesting is happening to the human race, and it is worth delving into for scientific inquiry,

Interestingly, physically one could easily compare Figg or Cribb or Sullivan with each other or with Marciano or Charles.

None compare with modern giants.

There is a point to each side. Is the elephant a small land animal? Compared to some dinosaurs--yes. But the elephant is by far the largest animal walking the Earth today. So in a way it is very large.

Everything is context.

*Just an aside. I notice the one thing you and Mendoza agree on is that you each want to judge historical heavyweights and make up your all-time lists based on size. Sorry, but I don't think that if one jumps across time and out of context, size is an absolute,

as per the elephant.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

PrimeWlad v Walcott,Charles & Moore?

edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

Ted Spoon Boxing Addict Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

Balder Well-Known Member banned Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

PrimeWlad v Walcott,Charles & Moore?

edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

Ted Spoon Boxing Addict Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

Balder Well-Known Member banned Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

mcvey VIP Member

edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member