Kalan wrote:wouter, you're full of it and don't know WTF you're talking about.. I'm in my 70's but still in great physical condition and don't take any meds... I saw every one of the those 1960's Heavyweight Championship Tournament Fights live.. I knew some of those Heavyweights personally and boxed some of them.
What happens with every generation -- fans think the fighters from their generation are better than the current crop of Heavyweights, Middleweights and what have you.. It's generational bias.. Athletes get better and better generation by generation and you see that with Olympic records falling every 4 years like clock work.. World records sometimes fall twice in a year.. Female sprinters have faster World Records than Jesse Owens set.
Bonavena was a slow, stubby, wide open, club footed swinger who was short and small. He would be nowhere today... Mildenberger was a small, light, clumsy, soft chinned southpaw who would be destroyed quickly by Luis Ortiz.. Little Jimmy Ellis prevailed in that tournament even though he fought most of his career fights at 160 up to that point -- and that's because he was a better boxer than anyone else in the tournament by far.
People who aren't smart enough to get their heads around that simple to understand information??? There's little anyone can do to remedy that.
This is all untrue isn't it Kalan.
How dare you!! Kalan saw all of those fights at the very same movie theater where he witnessed the Zale-Graziano trilogy. Just ask his dad, he drove little Kalan around.
I'm sorry yes, I've made a fool of myself. He really is a great fighter, trainer, soldier, bodybuilder, playboy, boxing expert, basketball to boxing expert, wit, raconteur and all around bon vivant. Not a delusional kid on a keyboard masquerading unconvincingly as a venerable old sage. My mistake.
klompton wrote:Ive got to laugh at some of Kalan's "facts" and question who this guy was on here before he started posting as "kalan."
Bonavena was shot trying to break into a whorehouse? No. He was murdered by one of Joe Conforte's henchmen in an ambush when Bonavena went to Conforte's brothel to confront him about a dispute they had over Conforte's wife and business related to Bonavena's career.
Spencer gave Terrell a bad beating? No. Go back and watch the fight, you obviously haven't to call it a beating. It was closer than the cards suggest because Terrell didn't get credit for a knock down and lost two rounds due to supposed low blows.
Calling Bonavena "a short, light, club footed, clumsy, wide open swinger with 2 left feet?" No. Awkward? Yes. But Bonavena was an extremely tough, incredibly strong fighter who used an awkward combination of swarming and deceptively effective counterpunching. He was a terrific talent. One of the best of the era, an era that most consider the greatest in HW history.
Mildenberger was a joke for the tournament? No. In reality Mildenberger had a far better record at HW than either Jimmy Ellis or Thad Spencer going into the tournament for starters. If Mildenberger was such a joke having lost only one fight in the past 8 years against damn good competition then what does that say about Ellis, Spencer, or even Leotis Martin, none of whom had a single worthwhile victory at HW upon entering the tournament?
I have to laugh at your ignorance klompton.. I watched that tournament live and predicted the winner of all fights except the Patterson-Quarry rematch.. Spencer gave Terrell a good beating.. He had the skinny light hitter and chronic clincher running and flagging at the end of the fight..
Quarry fought his best fight against Spencer.. He dominated and stopped Thad and was very sharp in that fight.
Leotis Martin was much better than Karl Mildenberger and destroyed the wide open German.. Mildenberger beat nobody who had any skills. He was freakin' terrible. The clumsy punching bag Bonavena beat the pathetic Mildenberger easily and decked him 4 times...
Bonavena was easily outboxed by the smaller Jimmy Ellis---who fought most of his professional fights at Middleweight previous to his Bonavena bout.
Anybody who calls that era the greatest in Heavyweight history knows nothing.. A former Middleweight who was 25-5 won the Heavyweight Championship Tournament -- by prevailing over a group of 8 Heavyweights who couldn't get jobs as sparring partners for Anthony Joshua. Every single one of them would be obliterated quickly by AJ -- and likely none of them would even take the fight.. You SAW what 6'1" X 215 Liston did for Patterson.
So are you trying to argue that youre psychic or just trying to put an exclamation point on your stupidity? You get laughed at on here daily by most posters and you want use to believe you sat through this tournament live and predicted every winner. Stop embarrassing yourself. I wont even go down the rabbit hole of pretending a roided up child with less than 20 fights whose never been the distance and whose best win was a life and death battle against a timid 41 year old coming off a loss is somehow the greatest thing since sliced bread. Keep underwhelming me, please.
klompton wrote:Ive got to laugh at some of Kalan's "facts" and question who this guy was on here before he started posting as "kalan."
Bonavena was shot trying to break into a whorehouse? No. He was murdered by one of Joe Conforte's henchmen in an ambush when Bonavena went to Conforte's brothel to confront him about a dispute they had over Conforte's wife and business related to Bonavena's career.
Spencer gave Terrell a bad beating? No. Go back and watch the fight, you obviously haven't to call it a beating. It was closer than the cards suggest because Terrell didn't get credit for a knock down and lost two rounds due to supposed low blows.
Calling Bonavena "a short, light, club footed, clumsy, wide open swinger with 2 left feet?" No. Awkward? Yes. But Bonavena was an extremely tough, incredibly strong fighter who used an awkward combination of swarming and deceptively effective counterpunching. He was a terrific talent. One of the best of the era, an era that most consider the greatest in HW history.
Mildenberger was a joke for the tournament? No. In reality Mildenberger had a far better record at HW than either Jimmy Ellis or Thad Spencer going into the tournament for starters. If Mildenberger was such a joke having lost only one fight in the past 8 years against damn good competition then what does that say about Ellis, Spencer, or even Leotis Martin, none of whom had a single worthwhile victory at HW upon entering the tournament?
I have to laugh at your ignorance klompton.. I watched that tournament live and predicted the winner of all fights except the Patterson-Quarry rematch.. Spencer gave Terrell a good beating.. He had the skinny light hitter and chronic clincher running and flagging at the end of the fight..
Quarry fought his best fight against Spencer.. He dominated and stopped Thad and was very sharp in that fight.
Leotis Martin was much better than Karl Mildenberger and destroyed the wide open German.. Mildenberger beat nobody who had any skills. He was freakin' terrible. The clumsy punching bag Bonavena beat the pathetic Mildenberger easily and decked him 4 times...
Bonavena was easily outboxed by the smaller Jimmy Ellis---who fought most of his professional fights at Middleweight previous to his Bonavena bout.
Anybody who calls that era the greatest in Heavyweight history knows nothing.. A former Middleweight who was 25-5 won the Heavyweight Championship Tournament -- by prevailing over a group of 8 Heavyweights who couldn't get jobs as sparring partners for Anthony Joshua. Every single one of them would be obliterated quickly by AJ -- and likely none of them would even take the fight.. You SAW what 6'1" X 215 Liston did for Patterson.
So are you trying to argue that youre psychic or just trying to put an exclamation point on your stupidity? You get laughed at on here daily by most posters and you want use to believe you sat through this tournament live and predicted every winner. Stop embarrassing yourself. I wont even go down the rabbit hole of pretending a roided up child with less than 20 fights whose never been the distance and whose best win was a life and death battle against a timid 41 year old coming off a loss is somehow the greatest thing since sliced bread. Keep underwhelming me, please.
Tark from Eastside forum has turned up as Kalan here on Boxrec....he's about as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool.
You're as intelligent as poop. You ignoramuses have no argument... Therefore your only resort is name calling.
Trying to make an ATG Heavyweight out of the slow, short, small, club-footed, punchable Bonavena (It's true. Bonavena was rejected for military service because of club feet) is so impossible that you need some kind of diversion.. Attacking the messenger is your whole game.
Kalan it appears that you are a sincere citizen, a model homo sapien, an observer and recognizer of letters, as well as numbers. You have demonstrated you are aware of the difference between wine, women, song, toothpaste and Shinola. You are also likely to be a first class resident, participant, and receiver of postal deliveries.
However on occasion you have been proven to be in error in your judgement when you pontificate on pugilism.
Agree with that. At their best, though, young would win. For example, the Young who lost a debatable decision against Norton would have always beaten Quarry. Young had some other fights like this as well. Overall, Quarry had the better career.
Ambling Alp II wrote:Agree with that. At their best, though, young would win. For example, the Young who lost a debatable decision against Norton would have always beaten Quarry. Young had some other fights like this as well. Overall, Quarry had the better career.
Respectfully I disagree.....between the two losers, the Quarry who lost the first match to Frazier, likely beats the Young who lost to Norton. Jimmy certainly would not be able to stop Jerry.
An interesting segway/contextual question on this would be...How do you honestly think Frazier would do against Jimmy?
BuzzBox... Quarry wouldn't stand a chance against the Young who lost to Norton. He was a counter-puncher and Young didn't give you a thing but a skilled jab right in the face -- followed by sharp combinations when he landed a very good one. Neither was inspired very often -- I'll say that.
Ambling Alp II wrote:Agree with that. At their best, though, young would win. For example, the Young who lost a debatable decision against Norton would have always beaten Quarry. Young had some other fights like this as well. Overall, Quarry had the better career.
Respectfully I disagree.....between the two losers, the Quarry who lost the first match to Frazier, likely beats the Young who lost to Norton. Jimmy certainly would not be able to stop Jerry.
An interesting segway/contextual question on this would be...How do you honestly think Frazier would do against Jimmy?
I really don't think Quarry was that impressive against Frazier. As usual, he came out strong. As usual he quickly ran out of gas and became a punching bag. He stops throwing punches and stands there taking a ton of shots until the fight is stopped. Same thing happened in the rematch. Same thing in the 2nd Ali fight. Same thing in the Norton fight.
Young didn't have enough firepower to stop Quarry; at least that early. However, he could outbox him and hit Quarry enough to win a decision.
Frazier would probably beat Young, but it would not be an easy fight.
As always appreciate your take, even when we disagree.
I think he'd be a bit too busy and Young's cuteness might backfire. And I can't take Norton Quarry too seriously as by that time Quarry had been through a few too many land mines. Norton was too happy to get his chance when it presented itself...I think they both knew what the outcome was going to be....and Norton reveled in it, while Quarry had to live with the humiliation of the poor timing. And I do believe Quarry had his way with Norton in non sanctioned moments when it was probably closer to their mutual peaks....perhaps slightly favoring Quarry at those times.
We can agree to disagree because we don't know the outcome of the fight between Jimmy Young and Jerry Quarry had they fought back then. Like I said before, Young would jab, move and counter Quarry to take the decision. In order for Quarry to win the fight against Young if he could cut the ring and working on the body to get a decision himself.
Who knows what would have happened had Jimmy Young not become discouraged & out of shape so completely after the Norton loss.
Had he beaten Ozzie Ocasio even once out of their two meetings he'd have assuredly been given a shot at Larry Holmes & it would have been fascinating to see what he could have done vs him. Such a shame that we never got to see the motivated, sharp Young again after the Norton fight.
But onto the subject at hand. I think Young either wins a close 12 round decision over Quarry or stops him on cuts late in the fight.
Jimmy is often remembered as a powder puff puncher these days but he had underrated snap in his puncher's & jolted Foreman, Lyle & Norton enough to keep all three of them honest & unable to walk him down & get to him with anything close to a finishing blow ( with the exception of a fresh Foreman in round 7 of their bout ). Therefore I think his combos would have been effective against Quarry & likely would have carved him up quite a bit over the course of several rounds.
I only saw the first Ocasio-Young fight once which was live on TV when it actually happened. It was a very close fight and I thought Young could have got the decision. The rematch was competitive but I thought Ocasio deserved it that time.
The Young who fought Norton and Foreman would have had a serious chance against Holmes.
That's what I'm thinking. Holmes often had very tough fights with opponents who could match him jab for jab & it's telling that during the course of his career that he never faced the likes of Greg Page, Michael Dokes, Tony Tubbs or Tucker. I don't think he liked facing other pure boxers. The closest we got to see was his bouts with Renaldo Snipes, Carl Williams, the two Spinks fights & later on after his comeback Mo Harris. And in none of those fights was Holmes impressive & it could be argued that he lost those last four.
sweetviolenturge wrote: ↑10 Aug 2017, 16:36
That's what I'm thinking. Holmes often had very tough fights with opponents who could match him jab for jab & it's telling that during the course of his career that he never faced the likes of Greg Page, Michael Dokes, Tony Tubbs or Tucker. I don't think he liked facing other pure boxers. The closest we got to see was his bouts with Renaldo Snipes, Carl Williams, the two Spinks fights & later on after his comeback Mo Harris. And in none of those fights was Holmes impressive & it could be argued that he lost those last four.
Quarry did better when guys came to him, allowing for him to counter. Jimmy was elusive and would likely prompt Jerry to pursue him, leading to a long tenuous boring fight with Young taking a decision.
drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑10 Nov 2019, 17:40
Quarry did better when guys came to him, allowing for him to counter. Jimmy was elusive and would likely prompt Jerry to pursue him, leading to a long tenuous boring fight with Young taking a decision.
Yes, a replay of the Quarry-Ellis fight most likely.
a disputed split dec 