I Love Tyson Prime

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Apr 2006, 17:30

evndrbsn wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Coetzee as Silov said fought some of the toughest men in his era

marciano fought the toughest men of his era

Weaver hit just as hard as Marciano and Coetzee took Weaver's best and only exhasution beat him
if he gets exhausted cause of weavers punches and workrate, i can only imagine how awful it will be for coetzee to be in the ring with marciano considering marcianos puncing abilities and workrate far exceeds weavers.
.
We both know this is a futile argument. Think about it. You are actually having to argue to someone that Marciano was better than Mike Weaver.

true,

the funniest part of it all is we got others defending him that gerrie coetzee was a top 20 heavy of all time and would beat lennx lewis

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 03 Apr 2006, 18:08

BB49 we don't always agree but I agree on this!

RazorKO · Post by **RazorKO** » 03 Apr 2006, 18:56

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
evndrbsn wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
marciano fought the toughest men of his era
if he gets exhausted cause of weavers punches and workrate, i can only imagine how awful it will be for coetzee to be in the ring with marciano considering marcianos puncing abilities and workrate far exceeds weavers.
.
We both know this is a futile argument. Think about it. You are actually having to argue to someone that Marciano was better than Mike Weaver.

true,

the funniest part of it all is we got others defending him that gerrie coetzee was a top 20 heavy of all time and would beat lennx lewis

Coetzee might not be on everyone's top 20 and Im not a least suprised if people dont put him in the top 20. But in my opinion he makes it in that list.

But the second point I disgaree very strongly. Coetzee would of beaten Lewis with no problem, absoultey no way in hell does China chin Lewis take Gerrie's right hand and Lewis would be put into a coma. If Lewis fights his usual game plan of JabnGrab like he did to Tyson or JabnRun like he did against Tua, then Coetzee would simply outbox him.

Either way Lewis would be beaten worse than we was by McCall and Rahman. Lewis is an embrassment to this sport and his arrogant behaviour makes me cringe everytime I watch him fight and I hope he stays retired because fans dont deserve to pay and watch watch his drivel fighting style which he calls boxing.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Apr 2006, 23:16

the 1952 version of jersey joe walcott was IMO prime. however even if u believe walcott was past his prime(despite beating charles), I will say to you that version of walcott is still better than anyon coetzee ever fought.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 04 Apr 2006, 03:27

Razor how can someone who was knocked down twice by big punches glass jawed? If being knocked down twice proves that then most boxers have a dodgey chin! I could name loads of great fighters who were knocked down by lesser fighters. Being knocked down proves f**k all. In his other 40 odd fights he was never close to going down. Then again if you are saying Coetzee is top 20 and compares with Marciano then I'm wasting my time.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:07

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:the 1952 version of jersey joe walcott was IMO prime. however even if u believe walcott was past his prime(despite beating charles), I will say to you that version of walcott is still better than anyon coetzee ever fought.

Well you would wouldn't you... Walcott was in his prime against Marciano yet Griffith was absolutely past it against Napoles... yeah, right!... :x

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:20

silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:the 1952 version of jersey joe walcott was IMO prime. however even if u believe walcott was past his prime(despite beating charles), I will say to you that version of walcott is still better than anyon coetzee ever fought.
Well you would wouldn't you... Walcott was in his prime against Marciano yet Griffith was absolutely past it against Napoles... yeah, right!... :x

griffith won the title and his best years were very early 1960s. known fact. however he fought napoles in 1969.

walcott on the other hand DID NOT WIN THE TITLE UNTIL less than one year before defending it against the rock. he was coming off two wins over ezzard charles when he fought the rock. its a known fact walcott got better with age.

are u telling me charles lost to a over the hill walcott twice?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:27

Decagon wrote:I'd take Pinklon Thomas over a 1952 Jersey Joe, specifically the Joe of the fourth Charles fight. The footwork he showed in 1947 against Louis was nowhere to be seen. His balance in that fight is obviously fading compared to his earlier work, and he wasn't setting up his powershots with the jab.

ill take walcott in the 1st marciano fight over pinklon thomas anyday. walcott never let his hands go or ever showed the aggresion like he showed in the first marciano fight. he showed just how good of a puncher he was in first marciano fight. never before did he throw combinations like he did in the first marciano fight. never before did he go right after his opponent knowing he was gonna knock him out. he also showed incredible ring smarts and footwork in this fight doing the walcott shuffle and confusing rock by stepping behind his right foot instead of over it. walcott showed traits in the marciano fight he NEVER showed in the louis fight. you make too much of a big deal on the footwork and not enough deal on aggresion and letting his hands go.

- walcott used the jab many times in the 1st marciano fight, and his balance seemed amazing. i dont know what ur getting at.

why do u think walcott lost the first two decisions to charles handily then suddenly won two in a row? AGRESSION. he was a better fighter in the 3rd and 4th fights.

-walcotts 2nd best fight on film is marciano I

the way walcott went out there and tried to take marcianos head off, any other heavyweight in the world would have crumpled to walcotts power that night. pinklon thomas sure would of.

walcott of the 1st marciano fight KO 8 pinklon thomas

- walcott outpointed a better boxer than pinklon thomas in ezzard charles, im sure he will get by pinklon. you make too much fuss over footwork, walcott looked very good in the 4th charles fight. he displayed other things like aggresion in that fight.

fact is, walcott did a lot of tricks in the 1st and 2nd charles fights and what did that get him? nowhere. look what happened in the 3rd and 4th charles fights when he stood there and decided to fight!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:35

walcotts prime 1947-52

walcotts three best fights on film

1. joe louis I
2. marciano I
3. charles III

griffiths welterweight prime 1960-65

griffiths peak 1962 paret III

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:35

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:the 1952 version of jersey joe walcott was IMO prime. however even if u believe walcott was past his prime(despite beating charles), I will say to you that version of walcott is still better than anyon coetzee ever fought.
Well you would wouldn't you... Walcott was in his prime against Marciano yet Griffith was absolutely past it against Napoles... yeah, right!... :x

griffith won the title and his best years were very early 1960s. known fact. however he fought napoles in 1969.

walcott on the other hand DID NOT WIN THE TITLE UNTIL less than one year before defending it against the rock. he was coming off two wins over ezzard charles when he fought the rock. its a known fact walcott got better with age.

are u telling me charles lost to a over the hill walcott twice?

If Griffith was past it when he fought Napoles how come he gave Monzon 2 of his toughest fights years later?... answer that!... are you telling me that Monzon struggled with a shot Griffith twice???.... just because Walcott didn't win the title till 1 year before the Marcinao fight doesn't mean that he was in his prime, thats a very simplistic way of looking at things...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:38

Decagon wrote:But again, Griffith showed as much prowess in his 15-round loss to Monzon as Walcott showed against Marciano. You're contradicting yourself.

was griffith coming off the best back to back wins of his career entering the monzon fight?

NO in fact griffith was coming off a draw and a loss to journeyman

was griffith champion when he fought monzon?

was griffith AT HIS BEST WEIGHT when he fought monzon?

griffiths peak weight 145

griffith vs monzon 160

walcotts peak weight 195

walcott vs marciano 197

seems walcott was closer to his peak weight

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:39

silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
silkov wrote: Well you would wouldn't you... Walcott was in his prime against Marciano yet Griffith was absolutely past it against Napoles... yeah, right!... :x

griffith won the title and his best years were very early 1960s. known fact. however he fought napoles in 1969.

walcott on the other hand DID NOT WIN THE TITLE UNTIL less than one year before defending it against the rock. he was coming off two wins over ezzard charles when he fought the rock. its a known fact walcott got better with age.

are u telling me charles lost to a over the hill walcott twice?
If Griffith was past it when he fought Napoles how come he gave Monzon 2 of his toughest fights years later?... answer that!... are you telling me that Monzon struggled with a shot Griffith twice???.... just because Walcott didn't win the title till 1 year before the Marcinao fight doesn't mean that he was in his prime, thats a very simplistic way of looking at things...

so ur telling me charles lost to a past his prime walcott?

anyone who claims walcott wasnt in his prime in 51-52 is either ignorant or just misunderstood, because the facts are there and film doesnt lie!

unless u want to tell me walcott was in his prime in 45 when he was losing to the likes of johnny allen?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:42

griffith was in his middleweight prime when he fought monzon, but his absolute prime was welterweight

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:47

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:griffith was in his middleweight prime when he fought monzon, but his absolute prime was welterweight

Have you actually seen Griffith vs Napoles?.... or Griffith vs Monzon??...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:47

Decagon wrote:Physically, Walcott was in his prime from 1941 to 1948, but until 1945, he didn't train well enough, and he was inactive. By 1952, Walcott was already showing inconsistencies in the ring, and just because he had a good, but losing showing in 1952 doesn't mean he was in his prime.

May 15, 1953: Past his physical prime, a 39-year-old Joe Walcott gives an impressive, but losing performance against Rocky Marciano.

June 2, 1973: Past his physical prime, a 35-year-old Emile Griffith gives an impressive, but losing performance against Carlos Monzon.

You're arguing that the former was in his prime, but not the latter. Walcott didn't get better with age; he simply was able to train full time instead of supporting himself with menial work. Griffith fought when the economy was good, and he could train full time from a young age.

woa woa woa, i never said the walcott of 1953. he was past his prime.

im talking the walcott of 1952 who marciano beat that night. he was prime.

walcott of the first marciano fight was in his prime 1952 coming off a knockout over ezzard charles.

are u telling me the walcott of 1951 who knocked out charles in 7 rounds was past his prime?

i dont go by that physicaly prime BULLSHIT. a fighters prime is when he is AT HIS BEST AS A FIGHTER. WALCOTT WAS AT / NEAR HIS BEST IN 51-52.

so walcott was past his prime vs joe louis too? he was 34.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:51

ok so ur saying walcott was in his prime when he lost to 8-12 johnny allen? or joey maxim?

if johnny allen and joey maxim can beat a prime walcott, then marciano easily beats a "prime" walcott according to ur logic.

once again a fighters prime is when he is at his best as a FIGHTER. its not necessairly when he is at his physical best.

- besides walcott was as physcially fit as ever entering the first marciano fght. his confidence was at its peak, his stamina was as good as ever, he was weighing the same weight as in 1947 at 196lb. his body was chizzled, literally chizzled.

"walcott was in his prime when he fought marciano" - max kellerman

marciano beat walcott in 13 rounds in 1952, not 1953.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 12:53

walcotts prime was 1947-52. end of story. he was never as good a fighter as in those years

the 1952 walcott crushes the 1945 walcott

the 1951 walcott beats the 1946 walcott

etc, etc,etc

there i win, u have nothing to say to that cause u know its true.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 13:19

Decagon wrote:"Marciano wouldn't be a top-10 fighter if he fought today." -Max Kellerman

yep he said that, but thats not the point. the point is kellerman who by no means is a marciano fan, admitted marciano beat a prime walcott.

RazorKO · Post by **RazorKO** » 04 Apr 2006, 14:51

Arsenal wrote:Razor how can someone who was knocked down twice by big punches glass jawed? If being knocked down twice proves that then most boxers have a dodgey chin! I could name loads of great fighters who were knocked down by lesser fighters. Being knocked down proves f**k all. In his other 40 odd fights he was never close to going down. Then again if you are saying Coetzee is top 20 and compares with Marciano then I'm wasting my time.

The difference is when great fighters like Ali, Holmes, Foreman etc get knocked down.....they get back up. Lewis however when he gets knocked down is KTFO. Theres nothing worse than being knocked out by a journeyman.....than by TWO journeymen! Not to mention being floored by Akwande and shook up Briggs. Vitaali Klitschko also exposed him and beat him like a dog until Lewis headbutted him causing that cut.

Lewis does not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance as real great heavyweights as Lewis does not even crack the top 25 for me.

RazorKO · Post by **RazorKO** » 04 Apr 2006, 15:20

Decagon wrote:The cut wasn't caused by a headbutt, dumbass. The footage CLEARLY showed that it was caused by glove-to-head contact. Whether it was the force of the punch or the laces against the skin is up to speculation.

And Lewis got up both times he was knocked out. You are so full of shit that you make every thread you post in stink. Please go away.

Nope, it was clearly a clash of heads which busted up Vitali's face. Lewis got up after Rahman knocked him out flush? Watch the fight again moron, its funny how you have to resort to name calling when I expose Lewis but when you call Tyson all the names in the book and blatantly lie about him - even holding Mcbrides and Williams's losses against him I have never resorted to it.

So if you dont like my opinions, tough fornicating shit, we are suffering hearing you go on about on about Tyson anyway.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 15:20

Decagon wrote:My point isn't that Marciano isn't good. My point is that Max Kellerman is a coked-up idiot.

ok u gotta point

he also picks roy jones over joe louis and marciano

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Apr 2006, 15:22

back to the question, is gerrie coetzee a top 20 heavyweight?

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 04 Apr 2006, 18:06

Caulk Rocket wrote:
Decagon wrote:Your posts are just a little uninteresting. RazorKO is a complete moron, but at least his posts are somewhat fun to read.
You give up quicker than Lennox Lewis. It took quite a while for you to personally attack me, even though we have never previously fought. I'll take that as a white flag.

KTFO'd Round 12.

Good luck with that. Decagon's wit is virtually unmatched on this forum, like him or not, so you probably just signed up for a course in humilation. Enjoy the lesson!

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 04 Apr 2006, 18:31

Caulk Rocket wrote:
evndrbsn wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote: You give up quicker than Lennox Lewis. It took quite a while for you to personally attack me, even though we have never previously fought. I'll take that as a white flag.

KTFO'd Round 12.
Good luck with that. Decagon's wit is virtually unmatched on this forum, like him or not, so you probably just signed up for a course in humilation. Enjoy the lesson!
Yes, "RazorKO is a complete moron" is the wittiest thing I have ever heard, you clap-addled troglodyte. Teabagging him won't give him any advantage at all, analface.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 04 Apr 2006, 18:55

Caulk Rocket wrote:
Decagon wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson

No more, no less. Mike Tyson's fans have no bearing on how I rank him.
I had Ali as my #1 for a long time, until watching his later bouts over and over. The rope-a-dope made me cringe.

I don't even have a top 5 anymore. I just have A 5. Lewis would barely squeeze into my top 20.

Louis
Ali
Dempsey
Johnson
Foreman or Tunney depending on my mood

If Lewis would barely squeeze into your top 20, please indulge us on who would rank above him. Better yet, provide your top 20. It doesn't have to be in order, except who is ahead of Lewis.