Which Heavyweight Champion benefited most from weak competition?

OK, he made his own luck on that one.

 

No matter how serious his injury was (and I personallly think he has exagerrated it, as is the norm when you lose as one-sidedly as he did), he came into the fight as a legit top contender.

He had been rising steadily on the Ring's top 10 the three years before facing Ali. A decent contender, I'd say. Also a southpaw, and Ali took him on in his own back yard. That should also be mentioned: Ali faced Chuvalo, Bugner, London, Mildenberger and Cleveland Williams in front of their home crowds.

 

First off - the initial line of questioning at the start of this thread pertained to competition in defence of the title

secondly in defence of the title vs Liston in the rematch - most actually considered there to be something very fishy going on - most thought Liston did a tank job of the first fight and thought the rematch might be even dodgier (and they were right)

thirdly - Foreman was not in defence of title? - on the contrary Ali never did give Foreman a rematch back in the states at a more acceptable altitude for George - it was a fight Ali had to obviously take and hats off to him that was a great great great performance and win - but you're missing my point because my point is that was one amazing performance BUT THERE WERE ALSO 15 OTHER WEAK MATCHES IN MY VIEW

fourthly Terrell was never given a decent chance at all by anybody - especially not Ali!!

fifthly Patterson might have produced some performance late that made people appreciate him but he was about 6 years on from his prime and he looked like he could barely stand up straight let alone fight properly!!!?? - that was no fight whatsoever

sixthly Folley was no match for Ali at all - if he could land a decent punch it was considered a success

seventh you really need to look at Chuvalo's record properly and stop just listening to the usual "he was never ever floored in over a hundred fights" stuff - have you ever checked the names of some of the fighters he lost to - hitting Chuvalo may have been like hitting a brick wall but he really was a journeyman - he's over hyped these days for the very fact that he fought the likes of Ali/Frazier/Foreman - back in the day he was thought of as a trialhorse

eighthly - Mildenberger was considered well a german heavyweight (read: very average - not the second coming of Schmeling)

Frazier again beat Ali when it really mattered so Ali couldn't really benefit from that - and again that first fight was a fight Ali simply had to have - not one he chose to have - he only picked him once as a defence (thrilla) and Pacheco admits they chose him as a name who was on the slide who they thought they could deal with a lot easier at that stage.

Lyle was beating Ali until Ali pulled it out so fair enough

Shavers and Young beat Ali IMO

and Norton again beat Ali once (twice IMO including their third match)

So that makes IMO no tough defences that he actually chose to make

2 very good wins - one (vs Foreman) when challenging for the title and the other (Norton II) when neither were champ - so not during his reign/in defence of title

the other 15!! easy marks for him that were picked for that very reason - so you see my point he benefitted because people still said he looked great in those fights and people still wax lyrical about hoiw he was the greatest and go on about how it was the deepest and and most talent laden era blah-di-blah-di-blah - while he padded out his record with a bunch of stiffs without whom his record wouldn't have seemed that great because other when you look at the names most either beat him at one time or another, or should've been given the decision or were at the time just names only and either quit, were old or ridiculously green - and who else could it be deemed benefitted more from anything more the Ali??? After all his is popularly considered the best ever heavyweight - nobody could benefit more than that right?? :good:good

 

And dont forget Bill Farnan, who knocked Jackson out, when Sullivan was in his prime! Or Larry Foley who was a the top Gun for a long time, while Sullivan was around. Or Tom Lees, who also ruled the roost for a lot of Sullivan's prime. These guys were avoided more than Jackson, who only really came along after Sullivan was past prime.

And here is another name to throw into the works. Bob Fitzsimmons. He was only a small middlweight/welterweight/lightweight, but he was probably closer to prime than when he fought and beat Corbett! He also did hold a victory over Herbert Slade who was selected as a John L opponent, when John L was in his prime. In hindsight, this could have been a serious legacy maker fight, for both of these guys.

 

Hey Mongoose - the point being who benefitted more?? - as I've said earlier nobody benefitted more than Ali on anything as he is the guy who's always called the greatest now so obviously nobodies benefitted more than him - in what way has Lennox benefitted?? - he was never given the credit for being a great fighter while he was in his career so he's not benefitted much as far as i can see - and Grant, Botha, Tua, Rahman, Tysona nd Vit Klit were all better comp than Ali's shabby lot anyway - fact is Ali padded his record with 80plus % crap whereas Lennox fought all the best in his era by choice - he wanted to defend against the danger men - for one thing Tua was considered a serious threat going in - Tyson was a pretty much pick em fight and Klit was also considered the best other heavyweight in the world at the time bar none - and Grant was already being touted (admittedly too soon) as the next heir apparent

 

:rofl

This content is protected

Number one contender, coming off wins over Holyfield and a better fit Tua than the one that faced Lewis.

Mike Tyson-$$$$$$$$$

 

McVey doesn't like to admit or talk about it, but Burns was not 100% for the match. Indeed he was at a very low weight of 168 pounds ( low 180's was Burns ideal weight ), and reports suggest he was suffering from a jaundice. It is fact that Burns asked the promoter HD Mcintosh to delay the match, but his request was denied when HD Mcintosh said all the tickets were sold and you better fight as scheduled if you want to get paid.

As we know, Johnson had some uneven performances just before he became champion, and as champion. He lost to Hart. He might have been edged by O'Brien in a 6 round match. And IMO, Jack Johnson got a gift draw in a championship match vs Jim " battling Johnson/ Battling Jim clearly won according to the press, yet the result after 10 rounds was a draw. There is some debate as to the scheduled length of the fight. The Cyber Boxing Zone says it was scheduled for 20 rounds, which makes sense as Johnson's fight vs Moran in France was also 20 rounds. If Jack quit in 10, he should have lost via TKO.

Anyway, Burns defeated Hart, O'Brien, and was surely better than joruneyman Battling Jim.

Had Burns been given a re-match with Johnson at 100%, I think he does better. I would not pick Burns to win the re-match, but judging by Johnson numerous un-even performances, he could have shot for the upset.

 

I wouldnt pick him either, as he was totally dominated, first time around, but it might have been closer as you would expect Johnson not to be as up for the rematch as he was first time in.

One of the other things mentioned in the article though, was that Burns, who was obviously taking a shellacking, says he thought that he could outlast Johnson and turn the fight around. The police stopped the fight, not the referee. Do you think that Tommy may have been any chance of turning the fight around? Personally, i dont, but it cant be dismissed totally out of hand. Tommy was never Knocked out for a 10 count in his entire career which spanned 20 years!

 

two klitschkos and lennox lewis

 

he could hardly be called a 'dangerman' - i could probably punch harder!! there was definately no public demand for him to fight Byrd anyhow - people were desperate for Lennox to get it on with Tyson - that was one of the most eagerly anticipated clashes ever!!?? PS LET ME KNOW HOW TO ATTACH PICTURES - I'VE BEEN WONDERING HOW YOU DO THAT?? LET ME KNOW - CHEERS:good - how do you think Byrd would have done BTW?

 

-There is an insert image icon above the undo arrows.

-You don't have to punch hard to be a threat. Yes, the public demanded Tyson....so Lewis looking for the best during his reign is bull****, he wanted a payday despite Byrd being the most successful heavyweight of the era behind himself. He ducked him on roughly three seperate occassions as he seeked out the Tyson fight, took more time off and than signed to fight Kirk Johnson.

-Lewis in all likelyhood would have managed a decision in a frustrating fight. Hard to say, he avoided slippery boxers most his career and Steward hinted that Chris might have made him look very bad. I think it would have been an interesting fight as Lewis dominated lots of sluggers but rarely faced anybody that could box well save old Holyfield.

 

Wow just wow.

So Byrd-Lewis should have taken priority over Lewis-Tyson? A fight 10 years in the making? Need I remind you who Lewis fought after Tyson?

Byrd would have been no more than a footnote in Lewis's career, Tyson has meaning even if shot.

And who are these 'slippery boxers' Lewis dodged?

 

Chris Byrd

You also seem to agree that Lewis was looking for dollars instead of the best of his era.

 

Lennox Lewis dodged Chris Byrd? Really?

 

Not this **** again... :roll:

Yes, he dumped his belt to avoid him. THIS IS FACT.