Short heavyweights

marvelousmarvin · Post by **marvelousmarvin** » 01 Apr 2008, 11:20

Sam Langford was 5'6" 1/2 although he never won a world title.

I doubt any modern day heavies could make it to the top being that short

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 01 Apr 2008, 11:42

DaveV17 wrote:Dwight Qawi, when he moved up to heavyweight. He was 5'5.5". For his fight with Foreman, Qawi weighed 222 - 47 pounds over his best weight. I watched the fight on Youtube recently and even though Qawi was out of shape and far over weight he was able to confuse and out box Foreman until fatigue set in.

Watching that fight destroys the myth that Foreman's style would allow him to dominate shorter fighters. If Qawi had been in shape and confident in his conditioning, he would have won that fight. Qawi had no amateur fights, Foreman was an Olympic Champion, but from watching that fight, the better boxer was Qawi.

Yes I would agree, but Foreman was 10 years past his best.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Apr 2008, 13:47

The Great John L wrote:
DaveV17 wrote:Dwight Qawi, when he moved up to heavyweight. He was 5'5.5". For his fight with Foreman, Qawi weighed 222 - 47 pounds over his best weight. I watched the fight on Youtube recently and even though Qawi was out of shape and far over weight he was able to confuse and out box Foreman until fatigue set in.

Watching that fight destroys the myth that Foreman's style would allow him to dominate shorter fighters. If Qawi had been in shape and confident in his conditioning, he would have won that fight. Qawi had no amateur fights, Foreman was an Olympic Champion, but from watching that fight, the better boxer was Qawi.
Yes I would agree, but Foreman was 10 years past his best.

How far "past his best" was Qawi ?

How MANY POUNDS overweight was Qawi?

It's a two-way world, John.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Apr 2008, 14:41

granberry wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
DaveV17 wrote:Dwight Qawi, when he moved up to heavyweight. He was 5'5.5". For his fight with Foreman, Qawi weighed 222 - 47 pounds over his best weight. I watched the fight on Youtube recently and even though Qawi was out of shape and far over weight he was able to confuse and out box Foreman until fatigue set in.

Watching that fight destroys the myth that Foreman's style would allow him to dominate shorter fighters. If Qawi had been in shape and confident in his conditioning, he would have won that fight. Qawi had no amateur fights, Foreman was an Olympic Champion, but from watching that fight, the better boxer was Qawi.
Yes I would agree, but Foreman was 10 years past his best.
How far "past his best" was Qawi ?

How MANY POUNDS overweight was Qawi?

It's a two-way world, John.

My Way...or the Highway

So are we stating for the record that peak vs peak Qawi defeats Foreman?

Cap · Post by **Cap** » 01 Apr 2008, 15:09

marvelousmarvin wrote:Sam Langford was 5'6" 1/2 although he never won a world title.

I doubt any modern day heavies could make it to the top being that short

Sam Langford was 5' 8".

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Apr 2008, 15:44

BoxBuzz wrote:
granberry wrote:
The Great John L wrote: Yes I would agree, but Foreman was 10 years past his best.
How far "past his best" was Qawi ?

How MANY POUNDS overweight was Qawi?

It's a two-way world, John.

My Way...or the Highway

So are we stating for the record that peak vs peak Qawi defeats Foreman?

You are free to "state" whatever you want, buzz.

And buzz the 'moderator' enables other posters to make up false posts and falsely attribute them to other posters.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Apr 2008, 16:03

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
granberry wrote: How far "past his best" was Qawi ?

How MANY POUNDS overweight was Qawi?

It's a two-way world, John.

My Way...or the Highway

So are we stating for the record that peak vs peak Qawi defeats Foreman?
You are free to "state" whatever you want, buzz.

And buzz the 'moderator' enables other posters to make up false posts and falsely attribute them to other posters.

Stop whining you old bitch.

You have posted more bullshit than everyone else put together.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Apr 2008, 16:47

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
granberry wrote: How far "past his best" was Qawi ?

How MANY POUNDS overweight was Qawi?

It's a two-way world, John.

My Way...or the Highway

So are we stating for the record that peak vs peak Qawi defeats Foreman?
You are free to "state" whatever you want, buzz.

And buzz the 'moderator' enables other posters to make up false posts and falsely attribute them to other posters.

granberry, anyone can do that....I just added the highway statement to MY RESPONSE....no one changed your original post. Please study this information carefully so that you know what you are complaining about.

Now back to boxing....and let's keep it on topic.

I just wanted to know if you believe that a peak Qawi defeats a Peak Foreman. It's not a trick question I just wondered about your opinion. It seemed that you were hinting that you had an opinion on this matter.

marvelousmarvin · Post by **marvelousmarvin** » 01 Apr 2008, 16:51

Cap wrote:
marvelousmarvin wrote:Sam Langford was 5'6" 1/2 although he never won a world title.

I doubt any modern day heavies could make it to the top being that short
Sam Langford was 5' 8".

Not according to his boxrec page

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 01 Apr 2008, 17:10

Jesse Mcghee

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Apr 2008, 21:47

BoxBuzz wrote:
Now back to boxing....and let's keep it on topic.

THIS--coming from buzz--the 'moderator' enabler of collins, irene, ifeelfine, silkov, the one, etc etc etc.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Apr 2008, 21:57

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
Now back to boxing....and let's keep it on topic.

THIS--coming from buzz--the 'moderator' enabler of collins, irene, ifeelfine, silkov, the one, etc etc etc.

I see that list of decent posters who want your ridiculous antics ended is growing.

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Apr 2008, 22:11

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
Now back to boxing....and let's keep it on topic.

THIS--coming from buzz--the 'moderator' enabler of collins, irene, ifeelfine, silkov, the one, etc etc etc.

What an idiot. Buzz is his biggest defender whenever we call him out on his nonsense.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Apr 2008, 22:33

theone wrote:
granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
Now back to boxing....and let's keep it on topic.

THIS--coming from buzz--the 'moderator' enabler of collins, irene, ifeelfine, silkov, the one, etc etc etc.
What an idiot. Buzz is his biggest defender whenever we call him out on his nonsense.

granberry is an equal opportunity annoyer....I never take it personal

He has however ducked my question again. Did anyone else here infer from his statement that perhaps in granberry's opinion Qawi just might have the upper hand on Foreman in a prime for prime mattchup? Since he won't answer I guess I have to take a survey of opinions about what it is he was trying to get across with his "statement".

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Apr 2008, 23:03

BoxBuzz wrote:
theone wrote:
granberry wrote: THIS--coming from buzz--the 'moderator' enabler of collins, irene, ifeelfine, silkov, the one, etc etc etc.
What an idiot. Buzz is his biggest defender whenever we call him out on his nonsense.
granberry is an equal opportunity annoyer....I never take it personal

He has however ducked my question again. Did anyone else here infer from his statement that perhaps in granberry's opinion Qawi just might have the upper hand on Foreman in a prime for prime mattchup? Since he won't answer I guess I have to take a survey of opinions about what it is he was trying to get across with his "statement".

Has he answered any legitimate question regarding any of his comments yet?

I'm still waiting for the old bitch to tell me why he never comments on the stooge referee who was obviously paid off by the smokin joe industry in the 2nd fight with ali.

He isn't here to discuss anything, obviously.

He's just a stupid troll.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Apr 2008, 23:05

theone wrote:
granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
Now back to boxing....and let's keep it on topic.

THIS--coming from buzz--the 'moderator' enabler of collins, irene, ifeelfine, silkov, the one, etc etc etc.
What an idiot. Buzz is his biggest defender whenever we call him out on his nonsense.

Someone said poor old Buzz displays all the attributes of a battered wife in this matter.

He'll defend his man to the bitter end.

And everyday granberry drops another turd on his head.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 02 Apr 2008, 00:06

BoxBuzz wrote:
theone wrote:
granberry wrote: THIS--coming from buzz--the 'moderator' enabler of collins, irene, ifeelfine, silkov, the one, etc etc etc.
What an idiot. Buzz is his biggest defender whenever we call him out on his nonsense.
granberry is an equal opportunity annoyer....I never take it personal

He has however ducked my question again. Did anyone else here infer from his statement that perhaps in granberry's opinion Qawi just might have the upper hand on Foreman in a prime for prime mattchup? Since he won't answer I guess I have to take a survey of opinions about what it is he was trying to get across with his "statement".

Buzz, I don't get your position here. He won't answer the question, just like he always avoids questions which he can't answer. Everyone has gotten tired of the act. Is his presence here simply so we can position him in 'gotcha' moments regarding the facts? The village freak show? That could go on for years.

At first I almost had sympathy as I saw him as a sad and bitter old coot but now his sheer perseverance leads to the conclusion that he just enjoys being a total ass and pushing people's buttons. Every thread is turning into a frikkin' Ali debate and I bet it's detering new members from coming to the discussions here.

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 02 Apr 2008, 00:12

My gosh! Four posts in and everybody is snipping at each other. Can you guys just stick to boxing? Geez.

Back to topic: Tom Sharkey was 5'7" ro 5'8" - depending on the source.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 02 Apr 2008, 00:18

Jesus. Another thread consumed by Granberry. This guy shouldn't be banned?

I'm going to give up on responding to Gran. If anyone's with me, let's make it a concerted effort. I do think he should be banned, because he is hurting the forum, IMO. This thread shouldn't be in the state it's in, it's no longer focused on short Heavies.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 02 Apr 2008, 02:22

raylawpc wrote: Tom Sharkey was 5'7" ro 5'8" - depending on the source.

Look at the introductions before the Johnson-Jeffries fight.

Tom Sharkey was the shortest one introduced.

And also the widest, from side to side.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 02 Apr 2008, 06:06

Tom Sharkey is one shredded hard looking man.

Cap · Post by **Cap** » 02 Apr 2008, 19:49

Every contemporary source I've ever seen list him as 5' 8" like Sam Langford. Sharkey was tough and a hard puncher, but Tommy Burns would've outboxed him and put him away like Fitz and Ruhlin did with shots to the gut.

Cap

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 02 Apr 2008, 22:36

Most contemporaneous accounts I've seen list Sharkey at 5'8" too, but I've seen a couple that list him at 5'7". I suspect he was 5'8". In any event, he was a short for a heavyweight.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Apr 2008, 23:43

Collins2000 wrote:
granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
Now back to boxing....and let's keep it on topic.

THIS--coming from buzz--the 'moderator' enabler of collins, irene, ifeelfine, silkov, the one, etc etc etc.

I see that list of decent posters who want your ridiculous antics ended is growing.

Well, I never said that granberry should be banned. I believe in freedom of speech, even retarded speech. That said, I think I should be banned for responding to granberry, rather than ignoring him.

Short Heavyweights... Tommy Burns was very short, 5'7", the shortest Heavyweight champion, but won the title against Hart and scored 11 title defenses.

Burns scored 10 more successful title defenses than Liston who scored one, Foreman scored a combined total of five successful title defense, Marciano scored six defenses, Holyfield a combined total of six defenses, Jeffries scored seven, Patterson scored a combined seven, but no one ranks Burns ahead of them as a Heavyweight champion. I guess title defenses aren't the only criteria for being considered the best, eh?