Johansson, Clay, Tyson, Spinks, Patterson and Liston .......

[Controversial]

Further to the previous Johansson vs Clay thread as a lot of people seem to think no its almost impossible for a novice fighter to beat an established fighter here are some examples I'd be interested in thoughts on.

Its the 19th April 1986 and newly crowned champ Michael Spinks (27-0) is defending his title against heavyweight sensation Mike Tyson (19-0) after Larry Holmes pulls out the Spinks rematch with an injury. Experts dismiss Tyson chances as he has only boxed 37 rounds, 12 fights ending in the 1st round and he has never been past 6 rounds. Surely a hard fight for the untested Tyson?

OR

Its the 29th July 1957 and newly crowned champ Floyd Patterson (31-1-0) is defending his title against the largely unknown heavyweight Sonny Liston (14-1-0) after Peter Jackson pulls out the fight with an injury. Experts dismiss Listons chances and al the money goes on Patterson to defend the title with a win. Surely a hard fight for the untested Liston?

[The Great John L]

…Experts dismiss Tyson chances…

I don’t remember it that way. Does anybody else remember experts giving Tyson little chance?

Its the 29th July 1957 and newly crowned champ Floyd Patterson (31-1-0) is defending his title against the largely unknown heavyweight Sonny Liston (14-1-0) after Peter Jackson pulls out the fight with an injury. Experts dismiss Listons chances and al the money goes on Patterson to defend the title with a win. Surely a hard fight for the untested Liston?

Largely unknown Sonny Liston!!?? Where do you get this stuff?

[Controversial]

…Experts dismiss Tyson chances…

I don’t remember it that way. Does anybody else remember experts giving Tyson little chance?

Its the 29th July 1957 and newly crowned champ Floyd Patterson (31-1-0) is defending his title against the largely unknown heavyweight Sonny Liston (14-1-0) after Peter Jackson pulls out the fight with an injury. Experts dismiss Listons chances and al the money goes on Patterson to defend the title with a win. Surely a hard fight for the untested Liston?

Largely unknown Sonny Liston!!?? Where do you get this stuff?

Can you read? I guess not because we know your math is crap.

If you can read you will see I replaced the Spinks-Holmes rematch with Tyson, who was 19-0 at that time. Id imagine if Tyson fought Spinks for the world title when he was 19-0 many experts would have dismissed his chances. Many did when he fought Spinks for real.

And when Liston was 14-1-0 he was unknown to the general public. Again instead of Patterson fighting Jackson I replaced Jackson with Liston.

These are hypothetical matchups to prove the point that you don't have to be experienced to beat great fighters......

[ThatOne]

I see. A raw Mike Tyson fights the newly crowned champ, Michael Spinks, instead of Holmes who he just beat.

I like Tyson.

My reason for picking Clay against Ingo is that Clay was Clay and Ingo was Ingo. I wouldn't pick a raw Richard Dunn against an experienced Lennox Lewis.

[Controversial]

I see. A raw Mike Tyson fights the newly crowned champ, Michael Spinks, instead of Holmes who he just beat.

I like Tyson.

My reason for picking Clay against Ingo is that Clay was Clay and Ingo was Ingo. I wouldn't pick a raw Richard Dunn against an experienced Lennox Lewis.

Exactly. I see both results the same way even if Tyson and Liston fought Spinks and Patterson much earlier in their careers.

[The Great John L]

…Experts dismiss Tyson chances…

I don’t remember it that way. Does anybody else remember experts giving Tyson little chance?

Its the 29th July 1957 and newly crowned champ Floyd Patterson (31-1-0) is defending his title against the largely unknown heavyweight Sonny Liston (14-1-0) after Peter Jackson pulls out the fight with an injury. Experts dismiss Listons chances and al the money goes on Patterson to defend the title with a win. Surely a hard fight for the untested Liston?

Largely unknown Sonny Liston!!?? Where do you get this stuff?

Can you read? I guess not because we know your math is crap.

If you can read you will see I replaced the Spinks-Holmes rematch with Tyson, who was 19-0 at that time. Id imagine if Tyson fought Spinks for the world title when he was 19-0 many experts would have dismissed his chances. Many did when he fought Spinks for real.

And when Liston was 14-1-0 he was unknown to the general public. Again instead of Patterson fighting Jackson I replaced Jackson with Liston.

These are hypothetical matchups to prove the point that you don't have to be experienced to beat great fighters......

Sorry, but you're all over the place in this thread, and I find it rather difficult reading the rantings of a lunatic so I did skim your post rather than suffering through the whole thing.

Now that I have actually read it, what relevance do these examples have to your earlier posts? You're now moving into the realm of fighters with some actual experience rather than the unbeatable 4 fight Tyson of your earlier rants and the 5 fight novice Ali.

You do realize that Tyson had fought Ferguson and Tillis before his 19th fight? Doesn’t that seem just slightly different than an 18yo Tyson and an Ali with 5 pro fights? And Liston had beaten Summerlin and avenged his loss to Marshall? Seems like that’s some pretty good pro experience, don’t ya think?

Of course, at least you’re now approaching a little more credibility with these theories than your earlier Tyson silliness.

[ThatOne]

Anything is possible on this board. Another poster opined that Muhammad Ali fought fourteen rounds in a state of unconsciousness.

[dempseyfire]

Further to the previous Johansson vs Clay thread as a lot of people seem to think no its almost impossible for a novice fighter to beat an established fighter here are some examples I'd be interested in thoughts on.

Its the 19th April 1986 and newly crowned champ Michael Spinks (27-0) is defending his title against heavyweight sensation Mike Tyson (19-0) after Larry Holmes pulls out the Spinks rematch with an injury. Experts dismiss Tyson chances as he has only boxed 37 rounds, 12 fights ending in the 1st round and he has never been past 6 rounds. Surely a hard fight for the untested Tyson?

OR

Its the 29th July 1957 and newly crowned champ Floyd Patterson (31-1-0) is defending his title against the largely unknown heavyweight Sonny Liston (14-1-0) after Peter Jackson pulls out the fight with an injury. Experts dismiss Listons chances and al the money goes on Patterson to defend the title with a win. Surely a hard fight for the untested Liston?

Interesting ideas, but a 15 fight veteran Liston and a 19 fight veteran Tyson are a little different than a 4-0 Clay.

Put either Liston or Tyson in there after just 4 pro fights and Patterson and Spinks are both victorious.

[Controversial]

Sorry, but you're all over the place in this thread, and I find it rather difficult reading the rantings of a lunatic so I did skim your post rather than suffering through the whole thing.

Now that I have actually read it, what relevance do these examples have to your earlier posts? You're now moving into the realm of fighters with some actual experience rather than the unbeatable 4 fight Tyson of your earlier rants and the 5 fight novice Ali.

You do realize that Tyson had fought Ferguson and Tillis before his 19th fight? Doesn’t that seem just slightly different than an 18yo Tyson and an Ali with 5 pro fights? And Liston had beaten Summerlin and avenged his loss to Marshall? Seems like that’s some pretty good pro experience, don’t ya think?

Of course, at least you’re now approaching a little more credibility with these theories than your earlier Tyson silliness.

Not my problem if you cannot understand a simple question, maybe you should read posts before throwing silly comments around.

The relevance is I was getting the impression from people on this forum that a novice fighter would stand NO chance against a world class fighter. I disagree. As the poll on the other thread shows most people think a novice Clay would beat Ingo in 1961.

My previous point with Tyson, which you clearly keep ignoring, was the Tyson who walked into the ring in Tokyo against Douglas wasn't in shape, mentally or physically as he was when he first turned pro. He threw single punches, no combos, no head movement. The 18 year old version of Tyson would have put up a better fight against Douglas that night and been more of a handful. Not a hard concept to me, although it appears to be one you clearly do not seem to grasp.

For arguments sake lets pretend Tyson fought his pro debut against Spinks for the world title. Yes a highly unlikely event but lets assume for the sake of debate. Why is it beyond comprehension that a 18 year debutante Tyson couldn't knock out Spinks? Did he punch less harder when he turned pro? Was he slow? Did he not throw fast combos? Would Spinks's chin be able to absorb Tysons punches better just because Tyson was a novice? I don't think so. Yes, believe it or not, even someone in their debut could knock an experienced fighter out. Amazing I know. Its actually not that hard to knock someone out so to dismiss Tyson, one of the greatest punchers ever, as having no chance even as a novice is ridiculous.

I assume as you never said Tyson at 19-0 would lose against Spinks you agree he would win? He hadn't fought Tillis at that stage. So are you saying the only reason Tyson would beat Spinks at that point in his career would be because Tyson beat Ferguson? Even though 12 of his 19 wins were in the first round. What sort of experience had he gained with all those quick blowouts?

Also you are using Summerlin as reason for Liston being more experienced, even when Liston was 14-1-0. You do realise Liston fought Summerlin in his 6th pro fight. Yes 6th. Looks like a huge contradiction to me.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Further to the previous Johansson vs Clay thread as a lot of people seem to think no its almost impossible for a novice fighter to beat an established fighter here are some examples I'd be interested in thoughts on.

Its the 19th April 1986 and newly crowned champ Michael Spinks (27-0) is defending his title against heavyweight sensation Mike Tyson (19-0) after Larry Holmes pulls out the Spinks rematch with an injury. Experts dismiss Tyson chances as he has only boxed 37 rounds, 12 fights ending in the 1st round and he has never been past 6 rounds. Surely a hard fight for the untested Tyson?

OR

Its the 29th July 1957 and newly crowned champ Floyd Patterson (31-1-0) is defending his title against the largely unknown heavyweight Sonny Liston (14-1-0) after Peter Jackson pulls out the fight with an injury. Experts dismiss Listons chances and al the money goes on Patterson to defend the title with a win. Surely a hard fight for the untested Liston?

Sorry, mate, it doesn't work that way. You give me a 4-0 Tyson & a 4-0 Liston --- they both lose.

[Controversial]

Further to the previous Johansson vs Clay thread as a lot of people seem to think no its almost impossible for a novice fighter to beat an established fighter here are some examples I'd be interested in thoughts on.

Its the 19th April 1986 and newly crowned champ Michael Spinks (27-0) is defending his title against heavyweight sensation Mike Tyson (19-0) after Larry Holmes pulls out the Spinks rematch with an injury. Experts dismiss Tyson chances as he has only boxed 37 rounds, 12 fights ending in the 1st round and he has never been past 6 rounds. Surely a hard fight for the untested Tyson?

OR

Its the 29th July 1957 and newly crowned champ Floyd Patterson (31-1-0) is defending his title against the largely unknown heavyweight Sonny Liston (14-1-0) after Peter Jackson pulls out the fight with an injury. Experts dismiss Listons chances and al the money goes on Patterson to defend the title with a win. Surely a hard fight for the untested Liston?

Sorry, mate, it doesn't work that way. You give me a 4-0 Tyson & a 4-0 Liston --- they both lose.

What doesn't work that way?

[Goodnight, Irene]

[Controversial]

The point of this thread was using a 19-0 Tyson against Spinks and a 14-1-0 Liston against Patterson. Who wins? I still don't get what you mean by 'it doesn't work like that'. What doesn't?

I used Tysons real ring record at the time Spinks was due the defend against Holmes. Tyson was 19-0 when the Holmes rematch happened. Ditto for Liston. All I done was swap Holmes for Tyson and Jackson for Liston.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's weak. You are trying to use dramatically more experienced fighters to prove your (misguided) point about Ali & Johansson, & don't pretend you're not. "If I can get them to agree to this, we can herd things toward progressively less experienced fighters, & Ali against Johansson at 4-0 looks increasingly credible." Don't be coy, it's transparent.

Now, why not make a legitimate point & use Liston & Tyson at 4-0? You won't, because they'd lose, just as Clay would. This is why people like myself are mistakenly surmised as anti-Ali --- no other fighter in history would attract such laughable over-estimation, & it grinds. N o one would think to talk about a 4-0 Louis, or a 4-0 Armstrong, or Duran.

Ali? Different story

[Controversial]

It's weak. You are trying to use dramatically more experienced fighters to prove your (misguided) point about Ali & Johansson, & don't pretend you're not. "If I can get them to agree to this, we can herd things toward progressively less experienced fighters, & Ali against Johansson at 4-0 looks increasingly credible." Don't be coy, it's transparent.

Now, why not make a legitimate point & use Liston & Tyson at 4-0? You won't, because they'd lose, just as Clay would. This is why people like myself are mistakenly surmised as anti-Ali --- no other fighter in history would attract such laughable over-estimation, & it grinds. N o one would think to talk about a 4-0 Louis, or a 4-0 Armstrong, or Duran.

Ali? Different story

No I have given up on the Clay thread. I stand by my point.

Im just using different examples to prove the ridiculous arguments that the only was you can beat an experienced fighter is to be experienced yourself. You don't. The fact is these fights never happen. You usually have to earn your title shot, for good reason.

Was Holyfield experienced when he beat Qawi. No. Holyfield was 11-0 and had never been past 8 rounds. Yet he beat Qawi over 15 rounds. Point proven.

[Goodnight, Irene]

In that context, yes. Does Ali beat Johansson at 4-0?

[Controversial]

Now, why not make a legitimate point & use Liston & Tyson at 4-0? You won't, because they'd lose, just as Clay would.

Please explain why its impossible for a 0-0-0 Tyson to knock Spinks out. Are you seriously suggesting if Tyson landed he best punch flush on Spinks chin nothing would happen? Spinks would laugh it off because Tyson was making his debut. Tysons power only materialised after he had 20 fights

You have a very simplistic understanding of boxing if you think thats the case. There are so many factors in a fight, experience is one, but its not the be all and end all. If that was the case there would never be upsets. Fighters like Leon Spinks wouldn't manage 3 rounds against Ali if it were that simple.

Styles makes fights. And a knock out blow will knock someone out whether they are having their 1st fight or 100th fight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Arguing in a discussion like this is, putting it bluntly, beneath me. Enjoy it with the rest of the crowd.

[Controversial]

Arguing in a discussion like this is, putting it bluntly, beneath me. Enjoy it with the rest of the crowd.

Why is it beneath you? These are the sort of debates you have on forums like these. That sounds like a cop out to me. You and I know that its possible for Tyson to knockout Spinks, anytime in Tysons career, even in Tysons debut. He had the power and ability at 18 to do it. You can't answer because you will be agreeing with me and admitting that experience doesn't always count.

If you don't want to take part then you shouldn't have posted in the first place.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You're right. Your argument is getting deeper into red herring & false-analogy territory anyway. I won't be posting again.

[Controversial]

You're right. Your argument is getting deeper into red herring & false-analogy territory anyway. I won't be posting again.

No point in you posting your never answered any of my questions anyway. Funny that.

[raylawpc]

Floyd Patterson (31-1-0) is defending his title against the largely unknown heavyweight Sonny Liston (14-1-0) after Peter Jackson pulls out the fight with an injury.

Injury, hell. Jackson had been dead for 56 years.

[ThatOne]

This is all I have to say on the subject and I will let A. J. Liebling say it for me:

"Honest effort and sterling character backed by solid instruction will carry a man a good way, but unearned natural ability has a lot to be said for it."


He also said Ali then Clay " was the kind of Hero likely to be around for a long while."

[hhaehre]

Please explain why its impossible for a 0-0-0 Tyson to knock Spinks out. Are you seriously suggesting if Tyson landed he best punch flush on Spinks chin nothing would happen? Spinks would laugh it off because Tyson was making his debut. Tysons power only materialised after he had 20 fights

Of course it would not be impossible, just very unlikely. The argument you are making could be made for almost any heavyweight. Could a 0-0-0 Noel Quarless (journeyman puncher) knock out a prime Spinks if he hit him right? The answer would be yes, why don't you make that argument? How unlikely would something have to be, or are you saying a 0-0-0 Tyson would have a good chance vs. prime Spinks?

[HomicideHenry]

I refuse to further indulge the fantasies of a man who believes a green horn novice could easily trump a worlds champion. With his logic, if Ali could beat Johansson at 5-0-0, then certainly at 6-0-0 he would have beaten Patterson, and at 7-0-0 beaten Liston. STUFF AND NONSENSE!!!