Boxing

[The Nal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/9192282.stm

Really hope it happens.

Didn't mince his words there!

[Greeny_Musicchild]

Harrison to keep boxing

[Uncle Liam]

The man is such an amazing heel. Or, at least he would be if he wasnt a useless lug.

I would possibly die laughing if he came out and said it was still his destiny to be the World Champion.

[Cardboard Box City]

Cracking night of boxing next Saturday night (11th).

Wladimir Klitschko (Ukraine) v Derek Chisora (England)

Nathan Cleverly (Wales) v Alejandro Lakatus (Romania) (Cleverly a good up-and-comer)

Kell Brook (England) v Nathan Clark (USA) (could go either way apparently)

Frankie Gavin (England) v Dean Harrison (England)

Then in Vegas:

Amir Khan v Marcos Maidana (should be a tear-up)

Its all on Sky Box Office I think.

[The Nal]

[The Nal]

Be interested to hear peoples top 10 boxers or heavyweights of all time. Anyone want to take a shot at it? Any boxing historians out there?

All time heavyweights. Mine are – (subject to change/correction/opinion)

1. Ali

2. Joe Louis

3. Jack Johnson

3. Jack Dempsey

4. Rocky Marciano

5. Larry Holmes

6. Joe Frazier

7. George Foreman

8. Gene Tunney

9. Sonny Liston

10. James J. Corbett

[A-Rob]

Be interested to hear peoples top 10 boxers or heavyweights of all time. Anyone want to take a shot at it? Any boxing historians out there?

All time heavyweights. Mine are – (subject to change/correction/opinion)

1. Ali

2. Joe Louis

3. Jack Johnson

3. Jack Dempsey

4. Rocky Marciano

5. Larry Holmes

6. Joe Frazier

7. George Foreman

8. Gene Tunney

9. Sonny Liston

10. James J. Corbett

mine would be

1 Rocky Marciano

2 Joe Louis

3 Muhammed Ali

4 George Foreman

5 Lennox Lewis

6 Jack Dempsey

7 Larry Holmes

8 Evander Holyfield

9 Joe Frazier

10 Jack Johnson

Notable mentions not in the Top 10, but I beleieve on their finest hour could give any of these 10 a hard time, Mike Tyson, James Bradock, Sonny Liston and perphas even Vitali Klitscho considering his huge size and killer jab

Edited April 5, 2011 by A-Rob

[The Nal]

mine would be

1 Rocky Marciano

2 Joe Louis

3 Muhammed Ali

4 George Foreman

5 Lennox Lewis

6 Jack Dempsey

7 Larry Holmes

8 Evander Holyfield

9 Joe Frazier

10 Jack Johnson

Notable mentions not in the Top 10, but I beleieve on their finest hour could give any of these 10 a hard time, Mike Tyson, James Bradock, Sonny Liston and perphas even Vitali Klitscho considering his huge size and killer jab

Interesting. I wouldn't have Marciano that high as his competition wasn't the best, he beat a few guddins, Jersey Joe Walcott twice, Ezzard Charles twice and Archie Moore but by the time he got to Louis, Louis was nearly 40 and all but retired.

Same for Lennox Lewis. Interested to get your opinion on why you have him that high?

[A-Rob]

Interesting. I wouldn't have Marciano that high as his competition wasn't the best, he beat a few guddins, Jersey Joe Walcott twice, Ezzard Charles twice and Archie Moore but by the time he got to Louis, Louis was nearly 40 and all but retired.

Same for Lennox Lewis. Interested to get your opinion on why you have him that high?

Well IMO Lennox is one of the very best, given his size, streght and style and he compiteted in a very competitive heavyweight era. For example many people rate Holmes above him, because of his domination and consistancy. However competion in the 90s was way more stiffer. In the 90s we had an amazing Heavyweight Division, Lennox, Evander Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Tua, Ruddock, Bruno.

Also I think both Lennox Losses were a flukes, as a matter of fact he avenged both losses in style, especially the way he knocked Rahman out, freaking Brutal.

Then an other hand you can make the argument that Lennox never faced a prime Mike Tyson or Riddick Bowe. Altough I would still picked Lenox to win if these fights had happened. Don't forget that he wanted to fight Bowe, but Bowe walked out of that fight. Which is a shame because I think it could have been another memorable heavyweight bout of the 90s.

But despite this I still think Lennox is one of the Top 5 great heavyweights of all time.

Edited April 5, 2011 by A-Rob

[The Nal]

Well IMO Lennox is one of the very best, given his size, streght and style and he compiteted in a very competitive heavyweight era. For example many people rate Holmes above him, because of his domination and consistancy. However competion in the 90s was way more stiffer. In the 90s we had an amazing Heavyweight Division, Lennox, Evander Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Tua, Ruddock, Bruno.

Also I think both Lennox Losses were a flukes, as a matter of fact he avenged both losses in style, especially the way he knocked Rahman out, freaking Brutal.

Then an other hand you can make the argument that Lennox never faced a prime Mike Tyson or Riddick Bowe. Altough I would still picked Lenox to win if these fights had happened. Don't forget that he wanted to fight Bowe, but Bowe walked out of that fight. Which is a shame because I think it could have been another memorable heavyweight bout of the 90s.

But despite this I still think Lennox is one of the Top 5 great heavyweights of all time.

It’s a very interesting argument. He was no doubt a great in a great era which is important.

However, I’d only having him about 11 or 12–

- He didn’t give Klitcho a rematch, he should have even though he went chasing Tyson again before he retired.

- There was no clear “best” heavyweight at the time from the guys you mentioned above – could’ve been any of Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield or Bowe I reckon.

- The only half decent fighters he fought in their prime were Rahman and McCall, and he lost to both first time, although the McCall decision was ridiculous if you remember, he got up at 6 and could have recovered, The ref really has to give the champ the benefit of the doubt there.

- He only fought 44 times as a pro due to his 2nd trip to the Olympics.

You’re right about Bowe dodging him. Lewis beat Bowe a few times as an amateur, knocked him out in the Olympics actually.

Hes great, no doubt, but I just can’t place him above Dempsey, Holmes, Frazier, or Johnson.

[A-Rob]

Hes great, no doubt, but I just can’t place him above Dempsey, Holmes, Frazier, or Johnson.

Well these are without a doubt all legends in Heavyweight division, but it's difficult to compare especially with Johnson and Demsey, I mean they fought in a complete different era and many of the opponents they faced that time were realitevly unknow. Yet because of their legendary carrers you can easily place them above Lenneox in the Rankings

Holmes it's a toss up, I think they had similiar styles( Holmes had a better jab) but as a complete Boxer I take Lennox. If a fight had to take place I probably would pick Lennox, however I wouldn't bet my house on him .

Frazier Like Lewis fought in a very tough era, (probably the best era of heavyweights)however execpt from the first Ali, he ended up losing his most important fights. So this one I'm sure ranking Frazier below Lennox.

On the Vitali rematch, I agree with you 100% I think he desereved a re-match, especially since he was ahead on the score sheets.

However Lennox sense that he wasn't in his A-game anymore and probably if he gave Vitali a rematch he would ended up losing.

On this note, I admire Lennox becuase sometimes boxers doesn't know when to hang their boots and it ends up hurting their carrers. Holyfield and Holmes are two good examples of this.

On a side note what's your favorite era(decade)of Heavyweight boxing ?

Edited April 5, 2011 by A-Rob

[The Nal]

Yeah I take your point, Lewis was complete alright, huge puncher too but was knocked out pretty bad by Rahman and put on his arse by McCall. I've reservations about his chin.

On a side note what's your favorite era(decade)of Heavyweight boxing ?

70s for me I think in retrospect. Rumble in the Jungle, Thrilla in Manilla, "Down Goes Frazier, Down Goes Frazier, Down Goes Frazier". Other boxers like Norton, Holmes, Quarry, Shavers, Spinks, Lyle, Young etc. All good. George Chuvalo we're pretty decent too. Was was never knocked down in his career!

The 60s is facinating. The changing of the sport. For all the hype, Ali really did change heavyweight boxing forever. The first Liston fight is incredible. Liston was the Mike Tyson of his day. A proper hardened criminal, a mean bastard, but fought old school. Then along comes this 22 year old mouthy kid who moves like Sugar Ray Robinson and Liston quits in his chair. Looking back, its "Ali", but at the times he was a little known "light" puncher who danced and was technically good. That was about it. Must have been a huge shock at the time.

But I'm 31, so obviously the 90s was where I first started watcthing boxing properly with Tyson, Lewis, Bruno, Bowe, Holyfield, Foremans return, Ruddock, Moorer, McCall, Tua etc.

Also at other weights, Naseem, Steve Collins, Eubank, Benn, Calzaghe, Roy Jones Jr, Hopkins, De La Hoya etc. Naseem was glorious to watch, loved and hated him in equal measure.

Exciting times. Pity about boxing at the moment. Its still a huge draw but there just aren't any greats!

On a side side issue, I watched Alis in ring interview after he lost to Spinks in 81. Compare that to the “I must be the greatest” speech after he beat Liston. Really really sad. Hes totally f**ked. Amazed he could even box.

Edited April 5, 2011 by The Nal

[lance21]

Vitali won. Now I can't wait for wladimir to beat and ko david Haye. Manny vs Mosley! bring it on.

teak protector

[diddly-dee]

Well these are without a doubt all legends in Heavyweight division, but it's difficult to compare especially with Johnson and Demsey, I mean they fought in a complete different era and many of the opponents they faced that time were realitevly unknow. Yet because of their legendary carrers you can easily place them above Lenneox in the Rankings

Holmes it's a toss up, I think they had similiar styles( Holmes had a better jab) but as a complete Boxer I take Lennox. If a fight had to take place I probably would pick Lennox, however I wouldn't bet my house on him .

Frazier Like Lewis fought in a very tough era, (probably the best era of heavyweights)however execpt from the first Ali, he ended up losing his most important fights. So this one I'm sure ranking Frazier below Lennox.

On the Vitali rematch, I agree with you 100% I think he desereved a re-match, especially since he was ahead on the score sheets.

However Lennox sense that he wasn't in his A-game anymore and probably if he gave Vitali a rematch he would ended up losing.

On this note, I admire Lennox becuase sometimes boxers doesn't know when to hang their boots and it ends up hurting their carrers. Holyfield and Holmes are two good examples of this.

On a side note what's your favorite era(decade)of Heavyweight boxing ?

It's a difficult one to compare like-for-like across different decades/eras. I mean, apart from there being different training and dietary regimes in place (and a lot of fights against journeymen to keep promoters wealthy), a lot of heavyweights of the pre-1980's had the physique of today's cruiserweights (which would, if it wasn't for not knowing when to quit, mark out Holyfield as one of the all time greats - physically he was a beefed-up cruiserweight but he more than held his own with much bigger class fighters) and, i think, that really muddies the waters in trying to compare them.

Also, as you allude, knowing the right time to call it a day should count for more in defining 'greatest heavyweight' - holmes, ali, lois, holyfield (and, one of my favourites, Tommy Farr) all carried on for more fights than they should have done (some were still striving for glory but, admittedly, some had the taxman on their backs and had little choice in the matter) so that's what marks out lennox and marciano as truly great heavyweights for me. Off the top of my head, George Foreman seems to be the only one who had a serious comeback and made it count without ending-up a shadow of his former self.

[A-Rob]

Also, as you allude, knowing the right time to call it a day should count for more in defining 'greatest heavyweight' - holmes, ali, lois, holyfield (and, one of my favourites, Tommy Farr) all carried on for more fights than they should have done (some were still striving for glory but, admittedly, some had the taxman on their backs and had little choice in the matter) so that's what marks out lennox and marciano as truly great heavyweights for me.

Off the top of my head, George Foreman seems to be the only one who had a serious comeback and made it count without ending-up a shadow of his former self.

Spot on.

I also strongly agree with you on Foreman. He did a great comeback and perphas he's the only HW that successfully competed in perphas 2 of greatest decades of Boxing (70s and 90s)

Regarding the favorite decade of Boxing, it's the 90s for me without a shadow of doubt. Holyfield vs Tyson, Bowe vs Holyfield Trilogy, Tyson vs Bruno. I remeber waking up real early to go to the local pub and watch these fights. At that time there was still a huge buzz around boxing, everybody would be talking about these huge matches. Nowdays I rarely hear some boxing talks, expect obvisouly with boxing fans like myself.

[worm]

Like Diddly says, there's no escaping the era. But I don't think that it's as objective as he infers, it's more a matter of style. You're not really analysing the differences in hardship, you're just identifying with the era.

For instance, I say Marciano, but there's no getting away from the fact that it's because I identify with his image. He fought in a nostalgic era when men were men and boxing was a means for the lowest of the low to rise from their working class squalor and knock the pretentions of boxing greatness on its arse.

Then you've got Ali, who comes with all the style, wit, revolution and pzazz. Or Tyson who appeals to the wild side: underlying the guileless, violent aspect of boxing. And so on........

Edited April 6, 2011 by worm

[The Nal]

Like Diddly says, there's no escaping the era. But I don't think that it's as objective as he infers, it's more a matter of style. You're not really analysing the differences in hardship, you're just identifying with the era.

For instance, I say Marciano, but there's no getting away from the fact that it's because I identify with his image. He fought in a nostalgic era when men were men and boxing was a means for the lowest of the low to rise from their working class squalor and knock the pretentions of boxing greatness on its arse.

Then you've got Ali, who comes with all the style, wit, revolution and pzazz. Or Tyson who appeals to the wild side: underlying the guileless, violent aspect of boxing. And so on........

You have to look at the competition at the time though. Marciano didn’t have the opposition Ali had. It’s the only way to compare (and of course even this isn’t accurate) – how they did in their time vs the fighters of their time.

[worm]

You have to look at the competition at the time though. Marciano didn’t have the opposition Ali had. It’s the only way to compare (and of course even this isn’t accurate) – how they did in their time vs the fighters of their time.

I'm sure I just said that you can't do this, and that preference is simply a matter of who you identify with most.

They're all a product of their time, which includes their opponents as they're partly responsible for the style of the boxer.

[The Nal]

I'm sure I just said that you can't do this, and that preference is simply a matter of who you identify with most.

They're all a product of their time, which includes their opponents as they're partly responsible for the style of the boxer.

Ah, Im not talking about preference though. Im talking about who is considered the best of all time.

[worm]

Ah, Im not talking about preference though. Im talking about who is considered the best of all time.

Which, as I've just made clear, is a matter of preference.

You could reference the better fighters put before Ali. But then you could say that Ali had a novel style better suited to fight them. You could reference the fact that Marciano beat everyone in the style of his time. But you could also reference the relatively poor opposition that the style of his time produced. So do you value being the best at what you know or do you value pushing the boundaries into the unknown?

Do you see what I'm saying? It's all about what you consider the best factor in boxing achievment. In the case of Ali and Marciano, inventing a new style that revolutionised the game or being so perfect at the current one that you defeat everyone put before you.

There's more to it, of course, but do you get what I'm saying? You simply cannot seperate the accomplishments of the boxer from the era he boxed in. As a result, it's about which accomplishment you value most in the world of boxing, not who was the best.

Edited April 6, 2011 by worm

[The Nal]

Which, as I've just made clear, is a matter of preference.

You could reference the better fighters put before Ali. But then you could say that Ali had a novel style better suited to fight them. You could reference the fact that Marciano beat everyone in the style of his time. But you could also reference the relatively poor opposition that the style of the time produced. So do you value being the best at what you know or do you value pushing the boundaries into the unknown?

Do you see what I'm saying? It's all about what you consider the best factor in boxing achievment. In the case of Ali and Marciano, inventing a new style that revolutionised the game or being so perfect at the current one that you defeat everyone put before you.

There's more to it, of course, but do you get what I'm saying? You simply cannot seperate the accomplishments of the boxer from the era he boxed in. As a result, it's about which accomplishment you value most in the world of boxing, not who was the best.

Yep understand, but disagree.

I value longevity, quality of opponents, impact on the sport etc. Call it my preference if you wish but that’s how most boxers are judged long term. But, theres more to it as you said.

Ali fought many different fighters with many different styles, and beat the lot – hence I have him at number one. Would he have beaten Marciano or Louis? That’s a different matter altogether and impossible to judge. Although I think he would have.

Regarding Marciano, to quote Whitey Bimstein: “"Show me a fighter whose undefeated and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anybody."

[worm]

Ali fought many different fighters with many different styles, and beat the lot

That's the point I'm making. It was his style, not him, that beat them. The opponents were simply estranged to his style.

Marciano's style was uniformal. Everyone knew what was coming. They could do f**k all about it because he was by far the best.

^ That's my argument.

Your argument rests entirely on your value of adapting to different styles. Mine rests on the value of being the best at a given style used by everyone.

[The Nal]

That's the point I'm making. It was his style, not him, that beat them. The opponents were simply estranged to his style.

Marciano's style was uniformal. Everyone knew what was coming. They could do f**k all about it because he was by far the best.

^ That's my argument.

Your argument rests entirely on your value of adapting to different styles. Mine rests on the value of being the best at a given style used by everyone.

No mine rests on the most important of all comparisons when judging their place in history – how they did vs their opposition and more importantly, the quality of the opposition during their career. The only period in heavyweight division history that was weaker than in Marcianos time is now.

People saw Foreman coming too, but he still lost.

P.S. Marcianos style was NOT uniformal. Far from it.

[worm]

The best, to me, requires beating the competition on an even playing field. Marciano proved he was the best of his time. Although he fought in a golden era, I don't think Ali did this. I think he was the most clever of his time because he changed the playing field, but not necessarily the best.

RE: Marciano's style being uniformal - I'm clearly speaking relatively.

Edited April 6, 2011 by worm

[worm]

No mine rests on the most important of all comparisons when judging their place in history – how they did vs their opposition and more importantly, the quality of the opposition during their career.

As I've already said, that tells you very little. They are both products of their time. They can only beat what is put before them, and in each others era they'd be completely different boxers.