Boxing's biggest sacred cow

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Apr 2006, 00:28

BoxBuzz wrote:Wow Brockton...what are the chances of getting DVD copies of those? Be glad to pay in advance.

http://www.knockoutprom.com

i will try to upload a couple archie fights as well and will post them on here

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 11 Apr 2006, 03:41

Muhammad Ali as best heavyweight ever

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Apr 2006, 08:19

Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:let me tell u, me and my dad dispelled the archie myth that he was better in the 1940s. archie moore looked better in the harold johnson fight 1954 then in any of his 1940s fights. archie was just as fast, except smarter, stronger.
Based on watching two fights? Moore had his poor performances in the 1950s, remember. You're comparing his best fight of the 1950s to two random fights of the 1940s.

archie vs jimmy bivins II 1947- archie knocks out bivins. this is not a random fight. this was one of archies best fights in the 1940s.

archie vs billy smith 1946

let me tell u archie looked very good vs bivins, but archie looked just as fast in the early to mid 1950s as he did in the 1940s. difference is he was bigger and stronger and more experienced.

watching the moore-billy smith fight in 46, my dad said "archie looks good and fast, but you can tell hes a much better fighter later on."

i am now sure that archies prime was 1947-55 after watching the film

adspath · Post by **adspath** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:11

dalek wrote:some can't get over the 0 in marcianos record..

i think thats a good point. many people see Marciano's record and say wow he didnt lose a fight but not losing a fight doesnt mean your the best.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Apr 2006, 00:51

adspath wrote:
dalek wrote:some can't get over the 0 in marcianos record..
i think thats a good point. many people see Marciano's record and say wow he didnt lose a fight but not losing a fight doesnt mean your the best.

no ones saying he is the best, i never hear any intelligent boxing fan say hes the best because hes 49-0. i think he gets critisized the most because he finished 49-0.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 12 Apr 2006, 07:10

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
adspath wrote:
dalek wrote:some can't get over the 0 in marcianos record..
i think thats a good point. many people see Marciano's record and say wow he didnt lose a fight but not losing a fight doesnt mean your the best.

no ones saying he is the best, i never hear any intelligent boxing fan say hes the best because hes 49-0. i think he gets critisized the most because he finished 49-0.

No, if Marciano was 46-3 or 48-1 he'd have far less a 'myth' about him. Other fighters such as Tunney, Charles and Frazier were better than Marcinao yet seldom get mentioned as one of the 'all timers' like Marcinao does... Tunney, Charles and Frazier were imo better fighters in their primes and fought better opposition... I'd include Foreman, Liston and Holmes in there as well... and there are others.