What generally accepted opinion about one boxer's superiority over another seems incorrect to you?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Azik, May 11, 2025 at 2:43 PM.


  1. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,467
    18,078
    Oct 4, 2016
    Wouldn't take a super heavyweight to beat Marciano,,a prime Joe Louis lights him up
     
  2. GRIFFIN

    GRIFFIN "Speak softly and carry a big punch" Full Member

    53
    66
    Nov 7, 2024
    Cus D'Amato even said that Joe would eventually hurt Ali, and that Joe would do to Ali what he did to everybody else that he hurt. Many people when they imagine this fight just imagine Ali dancing around Louis for 15 rounds and that Joe slowly walks into the jab all night, and this simply just wouldn't happen. Joe was a very technical boxer and would see weaknesses to exploit, so yeah it's much closer to a 50/50 match-up than many people think.
     
    Pepsi Dioxide likes this.
  3. MaccaveliMacc

    MaccaveliMacc Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,272
    4,790
    Feb 27, 2024
    That Vitali was somehow better than Wlad. In my book, he didn't prove it even in the H2H sense.
     
  4. HistoryZero26

    HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,332
    2,794
    Jan 6, 2024
    I feel people have subconsciously attributed traits of the movie character Rocky Balboa to Rocky Marciano.

    Louis did not have his power when he fought Marciano. After the Mauriello fight and the subsequent layoff Louis's power just vanished. Despite facing only sub 200s he just could not knock guys down at will anymore. If Louis still had it Walcott, Charles and Marciano all would have been knocked out. Bivins would have never survived 10 rounds with Louis either even at his peak which he was nowhere near.
     
  5. Glassbrain

    Glassbrain Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,590
    1,366
    Apr 9, 2016
    Styles make fights. Bob and weave is completely nullified by Foreman and Listons slugger style uppercut/hooks. Both of them would be a nightmare for Tyson stylistically.

    Foremans desrctuon of Frazier twice is ample evidence. Granted, Tyson was more durable but this would only lead to a more thorough beating.
     
    The Cryptkeeper likes this.
  6. The Cryptkeeper

    The Cryptkeeper Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,612
    4,780
    May 9, 2023
    Me. And I stand by it.

    Tyson is tailor-made for Foreman in my opinion. I probably wouldn’t go as far as to say Foreman wins 100 times out of 100 but I would have him winning at least 90 times.
     
  7. OddR

    OddR Active Member Full Member

    1,163
    1,140
    Jan 8, 2025
    Yep that's is were I disagree. Tyson was very crude and hard to hit in the 80s so in my opinion he would have a better chance of landing than Frazier and if he did land Foreman would definitely feel it. I disagree any fighter in history would beat Mike Tyson 95 times out of 100.
     
  8. Glassbrain

    Glassbrain Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,590
    1,366
    Apr 9, 2016
    It's just a style mismatch. Listons demolition of Patterson is another example of how bob and weave/peak a boo has just no hope here. Tyson would be bobbing and leaning into the shots, and against both Foreman and Liston, who hit harder than anyone he faced, Tyson wouldn't reach the bell.

    Notice in both of these examples how Patterson and Frazier are caught early ducking their heads into the path of those hook/uppercuts;

    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    It's not like its a tough battle and a late stoppage or decision win. The mismatch is immediate from the opening bell. I love Tyson, he's a great fighter, he's stands almost 0 chance against both.
     
  9. OddR

    OddR Active Member Full Member

    1,163
    1,140
    Jan 8, 2025
    This is were we disagree. You explained your points though.