Well Duran never hit a World Series winning homerun....silkov wrote:How about you give me two reasons why Carter is better than Duran...Decagon wrote:Oh, please. Give me THREE good reasons why Roberto Duran was better than Joe Carter:
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=10001
silkov wrote: also many of the guys Oscar has fought have been well overrated themselves... Trinidad, Mosely, Vargas!!!.... pah!... in the 80s and 70s these guys would have been struggling to make it as contenders!....
I agree with most of the names on the list. Not so much with Oscar De La Hoya and James Toney though.silkov wrote:I'm not saying that these guys aint no good, but they arent the Gods some would have us believe....
1. Roy Jones
2. Fernandoe Vargas
3. Naz Hamed
4. Rocky Marcinao
5. Jack Dempsey
6. James Toney
7. Mike Tyson
8. Hector Comatcho
9. Oscar Delahoya
10. Miguel Cotto
Views anyone!...
8)
...lets keep it clean!...
HIS ERA was not close to the best, but it was not close to the worst either. it was a good solid era IMO. those old small men ur talking about i would pick over most contenders in history.
..... but there are sever edoubts (I know, not in your mind) how good his era was compared to others. The best wins where all agasint old, small men.
What about Harry Greb. Or Kid Norfolk. They were begging for shots at Dempsey, and were much better than any fighters against who Dempsey fought title defenses.
Because none of them had the stature of Harry Wills. Not even remotely.
He did not duck Godfrey.
he still fought them unlike tunney(who never fought a black fighter). he also fought an oustanding black fellow name john lester johnson.All before he became champ.
dempsey did not duck wills. he wanted to fight wills. tunney did NOT want to fight godfrey.What is this worth if his manager and promoter didn't show wilingness? Nothing.
He would have fought Wills (and really, in contrast to Dempsey), and there was not the slightest reason to fight Godfrey.
All second- or third-rate.
A blown-up l-h. Strangely though Gibbons was in his "prime" when losing a close decision to the much heavier Dempsey; while he was "washed up" when he was knocked out by same-weight gene Tunney less than 2 years later -- with 11 fights 11-0-0 (10 ko), two HOFers included (Norfolk, Carpentier), between the two bouts...
... with a dirty trick in a fight where he was otherwise licked like a schloolboy.
Hahaha.
Dempsey was FAR past his prime whenever he lost (at age 31/32!!), and the rather dreadful opposition when he was in his prime is excused by the fact that he was allegedly prepared to take on better on the very best, but tragically never got the chance.
((In contrast, Marciano's best opponents were all in their prime even though they were nearly 40.))
I dont call being knocked out of the ring dominating...BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:HIS ERA was not close to the best, but it was not close to the worst either. it was a good solid era IMO. those old small men ur talking about i would pick over most contenders in history.
..... but there are sever edoubts (I know, not in your mind) how good his era was compared to others. The best wins where all agasint old, small men.
What about Harry Greb. Or Kid Norfolk. They were begging for shots at Dempsey, and were much better than any fighters against who Dempsey fought title defenses.
greb was a middleweight who stood absolutley no chance vs dempsey IMO. check out ketchell vs johnson or walker vs schmeling. kid norfolk should have got a chance, i agree wit that. wut about tommy gibbons? he BEAT A PRIME HARRY GREB. dempsey won 12 out of 15 rounds vs gibbons. gibbons was also on the same level as a kid norfolk.to beat dempsey, greb would have to outfight dempsey at his own game. its not gonna happen. dempseys too much of a heavyweight for greb. greb cant handle dempseys power or strength. so dont go saying harry greb and kid norfolk were much better than any fighters dempsey fought in title defenses since dempsey fought tommy gibbons. also wut about fred fulton? he knocked out sam langford in 1917. the same sam langford who destroyed kid norfolk in 3 rounds in 1917. also dempsey knocked out jack sharkey, a top 25 heavyweight of all time. u base dempsey way too much on his title reign....u forget he cleaned out most of his division pre title.
bottom line no one from that era including wills could have beaten jack dempsey at the top of his game IMO
Because none of them had the stature of Harry Wills. Not even remotely.
speak for urself. there are many historians who rate george godfrey just as high as harry wills. in fact boxing historian kevin smith picks godfrey over wills in a prime for prime matchup. godfrey was nearly just as good as wills. its too bad godfrey was in cuffs for so many of his fights.
He did not duck Godfrey.
yes he did. he wanted no part of godfrey. too much of a risk. tunney drew the color line on george godfrey. tunney said he would only fight a old harry wills, YET NOT A YOUNG PRIME BIG BLACK CONTENDER LIKE GODFREY. tunneys camp turned down offers from godfreys camp. they wanted no part of godfrey.
he still fought them unlike tunney(who never fought a black fighter). he also fought an oustanding black fellow name john lester johnson.All before he became champ.
dempsey did not duck wills. he wanted to fight wills. tunney did NOT want to fight godfrey.What is this worth if his manager and promoter didn't show wilingness? Nothing.
He would have fought Wills (and really, in contrast to Dempsey), and there was not the slightest reason to fight Godfrey.
yes there was. godfrey was a top 5 ranked contender and the most dangerous contender out there. he was young, big powerful and a skilled superheavyweight. these attributes made him a lot more dangeorus than any other contender out there. godfrey is considered by many as a top 30 heavyweight of all time, tunney could have fought him anywere from 1924-28 but he made it blatant by saying he did not want to fight godfrey.wills was old by 1925-26, godfrey was young and in his prime. wills himself ducked george godfrey in 25-26. even the black press critisized wills for this.
All second- or third-rate.
tommy gibbons was certainly first rate. fred fulton cetainly first rate. billy miske certainly first rate. willard knocked out jack johnson, so i would say hes first rate. brennan was a damm good fighter, hes first rate. firpo was certainly the most dangerous slugger out there besides dempsey.
A blown-up l-h. Strangely though Gibbons was in his "prime" when losing a close decision to the much heavier Dempsey; while he was "washed up" when he was knocked out by same-weight gene Tunney less than 2 years later -- with 11 fights 11-0-0 (10 ko), two HOFers included (Norfolk, Carpentier), between the two bouts...
funny how u like to spin things around.
when u look at it closely u will see
- carpentier was far past his prime and very battle worn when gibbons beat him in 1924
- norfolk was blind and virtually completley washed up when gibbons beat him
- the other 9 fighters were average
gibbons had declined by 1925. he was slower, he was older, his relfexes had diminished. he was still a good fighter but nowhere near his prime. tunney fight was his last fight.. funny thing is tunney avoided fighting a prime gibbons in the early 1920s waited till gibbons was declining. i also never said dempsey beat a prime gibbons. but i do believe he beat a better version of gibbons than tunney did.
... with a dirty trick in a fight where he was otherwise licked like a schloolboy.
he still found a way when far past his prime to knock out a top 25 heavyweight of all time. sharkey was at his peak that night. dempsey also knocked him out with just one left hook. sharkey has to protect himself at all times.
Hahaha.
he did. tunney was badly hurt and had the ref started the count immediately, tunney would have gotten up at 9 but been more groggy and dempsey would have had a chance to finish him off. but then again dempsey was older slower and lacked the ferociousness of a peak dempsey, so he probably wouldnt have. but he did come close to knocking tunney out. defintley!
Dempsey was FAR past his prime whenever he lost (at age 31/32!!), and the rather dreadful opposition when he was in his prime is excused by the fact that he was allegedly prepared to take on better on the very best, but tragically never got the chance.
((In contrast, Marciano's best opponents were all in their prime even though they were nearly 40.))
once again. i never said "ALL" of them were in there prime. i do believe however that both moore and walcott were at the top of there games when they fought marciano. both were great older fighters, both got better with age like hopkins. in comparison charles was only 32 but i didnt say he was in his prime when he fought marciano. whether or not walcott, moore were in there primes, both were undeniably still great fighters when they fought marciano and both would have beaten many contenders in history. walcotts preformance vs marciano would have toppled many champions in history. if u look at who walcott and moore had just beaten coming into the marciano fight....u will be impressed....
dempsey was past his prime in 1926-27. u must realize when dempsey fought tunney in 1926 he had only 3 fights in the last 6 years! that is wut u call RUSTY
- dempsey also was coming off a 3 year layoff when he fought tunney where he did nothing but party and goof around and only make himself age faster
- dempsey's timing, speed, tiger like aggresion, hunger, reflexes had diminished alot by the tunney and sharkey fights.
rather dreadful opposition? jack sharkey, tommy gibbons, gunboat smith, bill brennan, billy miske, john lester johnson, georges carpentier, fred fulton, carl morris, jess willard, battling levinskey, joe bonds.
that seems like pretty good opposition to me. also remember dempsey DOMINATED these guys, he destroyed them. he knocked out guys who had never been stopped or been down before.
silkov wrote:With an old Harry Wills, whom Dempsey still wouldnt fight...BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:u mean pushed out of the ring? dempsey floored firpo 9 times and flattened him in 2 rounds. every punch dempsey was landing firpo was going down. in comparison, luis firpo went the distance with harry wills
Lets be honest here, Dempsey could have made the fight if he'd really wanted... he was more or less managing himself by the mid-20s and could have insisted on the fight... which would have been a huge crowdpuller if it had gone ahead... I'm not saying Dempsey was 'afraid' of willis ...but he saw a fight with him as bad buisness because it would have been an awkward fight for him...BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:silkov wrote:With an old Harry Wills, whom Dempsey still wouldnt fight...BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:u mean pushed out of the ring? dempsey floored firpo 9 times and flattened him in 2 rounds. every punch dempsey was landing firpo was going down. in comparison, luis firpo went the distance with harry wills
actually i do believe dempsey signed to fight wills twice. there is a picture somewhere of dempsey SIGNING TO FIGHT WILLS . dempsey wanted to fight wills. outside forces prevented it from happening. even wills said it wasnt dempseys fault.
Gatti should top this listsilkov wrote:I'm not saying that these guys aint no good, but they arent the Gods some would have us believe....
1. Roy Jones
2. Fernandoe Vargas
3. Naz Hamed
4. Rocky Marcinao
5. Jack Dempsey
6. James Toney
7. Mike Tyson
8. Hector Comatcho
9. Oscar Delahoya
10. Miguel Cotto
Views anyone!...
...lets keep it clean!...
He would be right up there at least. Then again he did beatTerence wrote:Neo wrote:Gatti should top this listsilkov wrote:I'm not saying that these guys aint no good, but they arent the Gods some would have us believe....
1. Roy Jones
2. Fernandoe Vargas
3. Naz Hamed
4. Rocky Marcinao
5. Jack Dempsey
6. James Toney
7. Mike Tyson
8. Hector Comatcho
9. Oscar Delahoya
10. Miguel Cotto
Views anyone!...
...lets keep it clean!...
8) 
Scrambled with cheese and some brown sauce on the top... 8)Terence wrote:Saying little? I'm asking you to explain why Gatti is so highly rated by you despite the fact Oscar beat him with ease, then you don't rate Oscar.
We poach our eggs then I practise my Arabic on her, I then run my dissertation proposal by her whilst she works on her Spanish and then we watch some fights. It is a nice way to live. She has not yet been lucky enough to win my hand in marriage, we are both rather young.
I'd plump for over-easy though
Tomatoe sauce if the weathers hot.... with a bag of crisps... yum yum!...Terence wrote:So, you are answering your own non-list related question are you? Jesus, cheese and brown sauce followed by more ellipses'. You are a Philistinesilkov wrote:Scrambled with cheese and some brown sauce on the top... 8)Terence wrote:Saying little? I'm asking you to explain why Gatti is so highly rated by you despite the fact Oscar beat him with ease, then you don't rate Oscar.
We poach our eggs then I practise my Arabic on her, I then run my dissertation proposal by her whilst she works on her Spanish and then we watch some fights. It is a nice way to live. She has not yet been lucky enough to win my hand in marriage, we are both rather young.
I'd plump for over-easy though
8) 
Agree completely. While not one of my favorites, DLH has fought the best and beat almost all of them. A well managed career that can't be faulted for avoiding tough comptetion.barry wrote:There is nothing overrated about De La Hoya...not only has he beat the top competition at multiple weights, but he has fought the very best fighters of the last 20 years that were in his range and most of the time...he won. He has losses against Mosley, Trinidad and Hopkins, but in reality the only real losses he should have are the first bout withy Mosley and Hopkins. I like Trinidad better than De La Hoya, but Oscar gave him a boxing lesson and sorry, but winning the last two rounds of a fight should not diminish the first ten that Oscar arguably won with relative ease. No Oscar is worthy of and has earned all the hype he has recieved!
He certainly has had quite a few close decisions. Of course, that's because he did actually fight the best available. And there's nothing wrong with a few loses when you are consistently fighting top competition.barry wrote:>>>However, if you're going to ignore some of his official losses, then you should also consider his official win over Whittaker a loss. Sweet Pea taught DLH quite a bit that night.<<<
That's true, though I think the Whitaker bout was more like a draw, but the fight with Quartey I felt that Quartey won, though I have only watched that fight once "live" and I felt that Quartey won more rounds, but I might have a different view if I re-watched it a few times...regardless, it was a very close fight...the bout with Felix Sturm was close as well. Actually, the bout with Trinidad, I did not think it was close...I thought De La Hoya won very easily, though I can't say that I was disappointed when Trinidad won, but it was a poor decision.