Brian Kenny and Bert Sugar's Errors on Ringside Classic

[kovit]

There were two errors on Bert Sugar's words that he said. First Bert said Ketchel knocked Johnson down before Johnson got up and knocked Ketchel out in the 10th. Sugar said Johnson knocked Ketchel out in the tenth, but it wasn't the tenth round, it was the 12th round. Second, he talked about Joe Louis' first round knockout of former light heavyweight champion John Henry Lewis, but Sugar called John Henry Lewis, John Henry Johnson. Hello he said the error words twice. On Brian Kenny, he said that former heavyweight champion Larry Holmes defended his title 21 times, but he didn't defended his title 21 times, it was 19 or 20 title defences for Larry Holmes. They said it the wrong words on espn classic in ringside.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

There were two errors on Bert Sugar's words that he said. First Bert said Ketchel knocked Johnson down before Johnson got up and knocked Ketchel out in the 10th. Sugar said Johnson knocked Ketchel out in the tenth, but it wasn't the tenth round, it was the 12th round. Second, he talked about Joe Louis' first round knockout of former light heavyweight champion John Henry Lewis, but Sugar called John Henry Lewis, John Henry Johnson. Hello he said the error words twice. On Brian Kenny, he said that former heavyweight champion Larry Holmes defended his title 21 times, but he didn't defended his title 21 times, it was 19 or 20 title defences for Larry Holmes. They said it the wrong words on espn classic in ringside.

bert sugar also said some other foolish things as well


he rated sullivan and corbett over jeffries???



he said marciano faced awful competition even though sugar rated charles at 7th all time . i was a little dissapointed how sugar totally dismissed moore.


- he also said marciano was a -12 in skill level, which is inappropriate. i mean yes he was crude and not polished, but he had to have some skill to be able to beat master HOF boxers.



- he rated tunney at 5, which i feel is too high because he hadly had any fights at heavyweight and reitred before he could have proved himself vs baer, schmeling , sharkey. tunny fought past his prime dempsey, johhny risko, tomy heeney and that was basically it at heavyweigt?


- he rated holmes at 10th which i feel was too low. he didnt want to say why because holmes was sitting right next to him!!!


he said he rated tyson 14th or 15th?


- he rates lennox lewis 19th or 20th and doesnt think he would do well head to head








larry holmes made comments how foreman couldnt handle boxers and used to jimmy young fight as an example which was ridiculous cause foreman though 28 was clearly not his former self and was horribly dehydrated.



fact is a peak foreman 71-73 could track down anyone. u think ali beat him by outboxing him??

no, ali beat him by leaning against the ropes and triing foreman out.

fact is foreman was able to catch ali and trap him and only ali would be able to beat foreman after geting trapped like that.



i would probably pick holmes over foreman but if he thinks hes going to easily beat foreman and box circles around him hes sadly mistaken. peak foreman will easily be able to cutt of the ring vs holmes.




- i do like how sugar changed his list from dempsey being # 1 to louis. louis defintley deserves it. i have no prob with dempsey at 3

[The Great John L]

bert sugar also said some other foolish things as well


he rated sullivan and corbett over jeffries???

I would hardly call this foolish. You may not agree with this assessment, but it is certainly defensible.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

bert sugar also said some other foolish things as well


he rated sullivan and corbett over jeffries???

I would hardly call this foolish. You may not agree with this assessment, but it is certainly defensible.

i more meant corbett over jeffries. jeffries beat him twice, and corbett was defintley in his prime in the firs fight. also jeffries beat fitz, and corbett was knocked out by fitz. i admit corbett was underated and was winning the fitz and jeffries fights but he was knocked out.

sullivan over jeffries?? i dont know, its hard to rate sullivan as u know.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

sugar said of marciano "on a richter scale of 1-10 marciano had a -12 in skill level." brian kenny said "well what about infighting", sugar said "no thats all he had was a suzie Q. he had the best right hand in history of boxing."





i have no problem with ezzard in top 10, its interesting choice. i rate charles 13th greatest heavyweight



one of the most ridiculous things he said was "marciano beat a used up roland lastazra."

considering lastarza was only 23 and 26 years old!!! i would not say thats used up.







john L sullivan i rate in top 25 and have read good things about him, but its hard to judge him

A he never fought peter jackson

B the fights he had under queensbury rules were when he was past his prime

C no film - but i dont hold this against him

[theone]

i do like how sugar changed his list from dempsey being # 1 to louis. louis defintley deserves it. i have no prob with dempsey at 3

Believe it or not, the statement above is the only thing i dont agree with you on this subject Brockton. I dont beleive Dempsey belongs in the top five whether judged by accomplishment or head to head. For accomplishment only, i repect the choice of Louis at #1, even though I beleive Ali really is.

But you worded your other opinions so well, anything I else I say would be redundant.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i do like how sugar changed his list from dempsey being # 1 to louis. louis defintley deserves it. i have no prob with dempsey at 3

Believe it or not, the statement above is the only thing i dont agree with you on this subject Brockton. I dont beleive Dempsey belongs in the top five whether judged by accomplishment or head to head. For accomplishment only, i repect the choice of Louis at #1, even though I beleive Ali really is.

But you worded your other opinions so well, anything I else I say would be redundant.

well i rate dempey 6th so i also partially agree, so I dont have him in my top 5, but i dont have a problem with it and i would rate dempsey higher on head to head list.


louis or ali at # 1, i have no problem with either. I rate louis 1 personally .

But you worded your other opinions so well, anything I else I say would be redundant.

thanx




theone, what were ur thoughts on his comments. i mean its clear he said some interesting or agreeable things, but he also said some off the wall incorrect or ridiculous comments.


he called john henry lewis john henrey johnson TWICE

[theone]

theone, what were ur thoughts on his comments. i mean its clear he said some interesting or agreeable things, but he also said some off the wall incorrect or ridiculous comments.

I didnt watch the whole thing because I took my family to my mom's house for thanksgiving. She said I was there to spend time with her not watch tv, so she didnt it me watch it there either.

I'll watch the replay tomorrow night and relay my thoughts afterwards. I saw he ranked Tunney at five which is absolutely rediculous.

[Irish]

When he started off on Marciano, I almost punched the TV. -12 on the richter scale? wtf. He was unorthodoxed, but he was skilled at what his styled demanded... slipping jabs, cutting off the ring, and enforcing his will by making you fight his fight. And how the hell can he say his oppisition was bad when he beat the 7th guy on his list twice. Marciano was a great infighter and the fact is he faught 3 of the greatest technicians of all-time, not to mention they were stylistically bad for him, if he could have faught Norton, Patterson, and Lyle he would have had a much easier time. I sorry to say if Ali faught Walcott 2x, Charles 2x, and Moore once, I bet he would have lost once and maybe twice. I mean look at Louis he should have lost his first fight against Walcott one of the worst robberies of all-time and in the second fight Walcott floored Louis and was beating Louis until he got caught in the 11th round.

As for Holmes rating, that is just rediculous I mean I have him at 7th, which some say is too low and I respect that, but how can you have Tunney and Charles in front of him. As for Foreman, I have him at 4th, what he did IMO is one of the greatest and is unmatched in sports, I would definately have him higher, but I guess he is a guy that I find greater than most do.

...very stupid list.

[The Great John L]

bert sugar also said some other foolish things as well


he rated sullivan and corbett over jeffries???

I would hardly call this foolish. You may not agree with this assessment, but it is certainly defensible.

i more meant corbett over jeffries. jeffries beat him twice, and corbett was defintley in his prime in the firs fight. also jeffries beat fitz, and corbett was knocked out by fitz. i admit corbett was underated and was winning the fitz and jeffries fights but he was knocked out.

sullivan over jeffries?? i dont know, its hard to rate sullivan as u know.

Corbett was in his prime for the first Jeffries fight? He had been very inactive for a number of years, fighting mainly exhibitions and was nearing 34 years old. He was clearly on the downside of his career, and yet was still able to school Jeff for the majority of the fight. The second fight was an unfortunate end to his career and should not have taken place.

And yes, it is very hard to rate Sullivan since there are no films of him fighting. But again, what I'm saying is that rating Sullivan and Corbett ahead of Jeffries is not foolish, and in fact is very defensible. Given the number of bizarre opinions and evaluations that Sugar has made over the years, this is probably one of the least bizarre.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

yeah charles should not be in front of holmes, foreman, frazier but if he put charles in at 10 i wouldnt have a problem



- what pissed me off was sugar totally dimissed rockys competition. it was the way he did it that made him seem clueless.

- whats laughable is sugar rates one of marcianos victims charles 7th all time heavyweight

too prove how bad he was he said was "marciano beat a used up roland lastazra."

- perhaps sugar didnt know lastarza was only 26

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Corbett was in his prime for the first Jeffries fight? He had been very inactive for a number of years, fighting mainly exhibitions and was nearing 34 years old. He was clearly on the downside of his career, and yet was still able to school Jeff for the majority of the fight. The second fight was an unfortunate end to his career and should not have taken place.

many historians veiw corbetts preformance against jeffries as perhaps his finest preformance. he was 33 and yes had been inactive for 2 years but did not show signs of agig in either of his last fights vs fitz and sharkey and like i said the first jeffries fight was viewed as perhaps his finest preformance.


- 2nd fight he was defintley past his prime. corbett was never the same after first jeffries fight

[Ezzard]

Didn't see this show but do remember in the 1980s The Ring rated the top 5 as

1. Ali
2. Johnson
3. Louis
4. Tunney
5. Dempsey

I think Holmes was 6. Rocky was 8-9 (sorry from memory)

The thing is they had 10 criteria they rated out of 10 so essentially it was a measure of the fighters against the cirteria rather than who was the greatest.

At the time I thought Tunney was too high duwe to the reasosn BB states (lack of fights at the weight) but his skills were really something. Still, I'd be hard pushed to put him at 4.

[Broncano]

Bert Sugar is a boxing commentator because there were too many commentators covering his favorite sport already, BASEBALL

[The Great John L]

many historians veiw corbetts preformance against jeffries as perhaps his finest preformance. he was 33 and yes had been inactive for 2 years but did not show signs of agig in either of his last fights vs fitz and sharkey and like i said the first jeffries fight was viewed as perhaps his finest preformance.

Who exactly considered it his best performance? And if he didn't show any signs of aging in his match against Sharkey, then you are basically saying Sharkey was a much better fighter than Corbett, because he handled Corbett pretty easily. He looked good against Jeff because even though he was well past his prime and rusty from inactivity he was still able to school the raw Jeffries. It seems that anytime an old fighter looks good against a younger fighter people automatically think it's because the older fighter fought one of his best fights, but what it usually means is that he's exposed some flaw, or flaws in the younger fighter.

Of course, that said, I have Jeff ranked at 13th and Corbet at 15th in my all time HW rankings. And my original comment was only that putting Corbett and John L ahead of Jeff is not "foolish", it is clearly defensible. Foolish would be something like putting Ali or Louis at somewhere outside of the top 5. Remember, most "modern" experts pretty much relegate these older guys to the lower rungs in any type of HW ratings, so Corbett and Jeff are usually in the 10-20 range (if they are rated at all) and John L is pretty much ignored.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

bert sugar also said some other foolish things as well

he said marciano faced awful competition even though sugar rated charles at 7th all time . i was a little dissapointed how sugar totally dismissed moore.

- he also said marciano was a -12 in skill level, which is inappropriate. i mean yes he was crude and not polished, but he had to have some skill to be able to beat master HOF boxers.

Charles was really past it when he fought Marciano. The only reason he looked so good in 1954 (the first fight, in particular) was that Marciano was so unskilled.

- watch the fight again, especially the early rounds, before charles starts to slow down late after getting a punch to the adams apple.


marciano beat a very good version of charles in the 1st fight. no he did not beat a peak 175ln charles, but he beat a damm good 185lb heavyweight version of charles IN THE FIRST fight


- hell marciano labaled it "my worst fight" and said he overtrained. but i partially disagree. i think marciano fought a great fight from 6th round on and beat a very game determined in shape charles who never showed that kind of heart, guts, glory, stamina before.

marciano hadnt fought in a while and had some ring rust and his handlers said he overtrained for the 1st fight.











decagon, why do u think so low of marciano. where do u rate him?? 20th? 25th???

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

The only reason he looked so good in 1954 (the first fight, in particular) was that Marciano was so unskilled.

tell me then why did charles look so bad in the 2nd fight??


I mean im being fair here.

I think there was a good chance a peak walcott of louis I fight would outpoint marciano. i also think the walcott of louis I fight would outpoint alot of other champions

I also think there is a good chance a peak 175lb 1949 charles would outpoint rocky.


charles and walcott were great underated fighters who are IMO at the very top crop of greatest heavyweight ring technicians.

[Grimm]

What was his whole list?

I had to leave while he was on Frazier.

[josh576]

I think it was:

10-Holmes
9-Frazier
8-Foreman
7-Charles
6-Tunney
5-Marciano
4-Johnson
3-Dempsey
2-Ali
1-Louis

I mayve switched marciano, tunney and johnson, im not sure

Ok, my main problem with this list is Ezzard Charles. He was a great HW but come on, better than frazier, holmes, foreman and LISTON???

where the hell was sonny, I think he was definately better than charles

Holmes is much better than 10, I have him above frazier, charles, foreman, maybe tunney.

how many fights did charles and tunney have at hw? should they even qualify for this list?

sugar's comments on marciano were completely ridiculous, to say he had no skill?? so he's telling me a guy who beat his #7 twice, jersey joe twice, moore, lastarza, etc etc had ZERO skill?? you dont go 49-0 and have no skill....hell, you dont become the heavyweight champion of the world with no skill. rocky was no ali or patterson in terms of skill but he more than made up for it with his ring smarts, heart, chin, stamina, and explosive fists....im not the biggest fan of the rock in the world, but it seems as if he gets no respect from anyone anymore

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

sugar's comments on marciano were completely ridiculous, to say he had no skill?? so he's telling me a guy who beat his #7 twice, jersey joe twice, moore, lastarza, etc etc had ZERO skill?? you dont go 49-0 and have no skill....hell, you dont become the heavyweight champion of the world with no skill. rocky was no ali or patterson in terms of skill but he more than made up for it with his ring smarts, heart, chin, stamina, and explosive fists....im not the biggest fan of the rock in the world, but it seems as if he gets no respect from anyone anymore

i agree



of course yes, marciano was crude and wild at times. yes of course. but like all of them, u think he is easy to hit until u get in the ring with him.


im glad u mentioned ring smarts, marciano had very good ring smarts.



but ill say this, sugars assesment was wrong of marciano. he was not just a clumsily, crude, no skilled rock with a suzy Q. he was more than that.

[Jaclem]

..charles had 32 fights against heavyweights before he fought marciano,. that would be a career today.

he looked so bad against marciano in the second fight because he took such a beating in the first one his body...at that age ..couldn't recover in time. marciano took a beating in that one too, but he was younger, stronger and didn't have so many fights behind him.plus...marciano was a good rematch fighter.

..the adams apple punch in the first one did change the fight for the later rounds. he miight have lost anyway, (I don't think so but that's just conjecture)....but he would have had more stamina in those late rounds.

right after the second fight marciano said it was the easiest fight he'd had. but...some years later he said it wasn't as easy as it looked and charles did put some hurt on him.

do not ask me who the heavyweights were in the 32 fights i listed. do your own record checking. it's all on boxrec.

enjoy the holiday season......you now have my permission.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

..charles had 32 fights against heavyweights before he fought marciano,. that would be a career today.

he looked so bad against marciano in the second fight because he took such a beating in the first one his body...at that age ..couldn't recover in time. marciano took a beating in that one too, but he was younger, stronger and didn't have so many fights behind him.plus...marciano was a good rematch fighter.

..the adams apple punch in the first one did change the fight for the later rounds. he miight have lost anyway, (I don't think so but that's just conjecture)....but he would have had more stamina in those late rounds.

right after the second fight marciano said it was the easiest fight he'd had. but...some years later he said it wasn't as easy as it looked and charles did put some hurt on him.

do not ask me who the heavyweights were in the 32 fights i listed. do your own record checking. it's all on boxrec.

enjoy the holiday season......you now have my permission.

i agree, charles also weighed in at a heavy 193lb for the rematch compared to the trim 185lb in first fight.



jaclem did u catch the ESPN classic?? i bet u were glad to see ezz rated in top 10.


- they showed walcott-charles II, it was great watching two beutfiful ring technicians go to work. that was a killer left hook charles naild walcott with in the 9th round.



jaclem,


could u tell me about charles fights with

-big 6'4 214lb johhny hayes - charles was only 178lb yet knocked the big man out in the 8th, this was right before he won the heavyweight title


- 2nd moore fight- moore though he won and this seemed to be controversial decision, who won??



did charles leave light-H because he was never going to get a title shot and decided to go for the heavyweight title, or was he having trouble making weight?

[josh576]

oh ok i didnt even know he fought that many hw's, i was under the false impression that the majority of his fights were against light heavies. I guess i need to check the record index again haha. thanks for correcting me.

[josh576]

ESPN also had tunney's career record as 61-1 i think. Boxrec has his official record as 67-1 without the newspaper decisions. Why the difference?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

jaclem did u catch the ESPN classic?? i bet u were glad to see ezz rated in top 10.


- they showed walcott-charles II, it was great watching two beutfiful ring technicians go to work. that was a killer left hook charles naild walcott with in the 9th round.



jaclem,


could u tell me about charles fights with

-big 6'4 214lb johhny hayes - charles was only 178lb yet knocked the big man out in the 8th, this was right before he won the heavyweight title


- 2nd moore fight- moore though he won and this seemed to be controversial decision, who won??



did charles leave light-H because he was never going to get a title shot and decided to go for the heavyweight title, or was he having trouble making weight?