Page 6 of 7
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 07:59
by theone
I'm one of those who think Marciano is overrated. I believe the best Holmes, Ali, Foreman and a few others wqould have handidly beaten the Rock.
But Coetzee? I couldnt imagine a differnet scenerio than Coetzee going down hard around the 6th or seventh. No doubt Coetzee would make it interesting from time to time, maybe even droppping the Rock at some point in the fight, but eventually and inevitably the Rock wins this ugly and entertaining fight all the time.
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 08:06
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
theone wrote:I'm one of those who think Marciano is overrated. I believe the best Holmes, Ali, Foreman and a few others wqould have handidly beaten the Rock.
But Coetzee? I couldnt imagine a differnet scenerio than Coetzee going down hard around the 6th or seventh. No doubt Coetzee would make it interesting from time to time, maybe even droppping the Rock at some point in the fight, but eventually and inevitably the Rock wins this ugly and entertaining fight all the time.
see i have no problem with that. u can make good cases other all time greats would beat rocky, but it goes overboard when someone says a guy like coetzee will. i mean , hes a good fighter but beating lewis and marciano ??/ no way!
look at who coetzee lost to
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 08:09
by The Great John L
theone wrote:I'm one of those who think Marciano is overrated. I believe the best Holmes, Ali, Foreman and a few others wqould have handidly beaten the Rock.
But Coetzee? I couldnt imagine a differnet scenerio than Coetzee going down hard around the 6th or seventh. No doubt Coetzee would make it interesting from time to time, maybe even droppping the Rock at some point in the fight, but eventually and inevitably the Rock wins this ugly and entertaining fight all the time.
Good assessment. Damn, it must be REALLY cold -- we actually agree on a boxing topic!!
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 08:18
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
The Great John L wrote:theone wrote:I'm one of those who think Marciano is overrated. I believe the best Holmes, Ali, Foreman and a few others wqould have handidly beaten the Rock.
But Coetzee? I couldnt imagine a differnet scenerio than Coetzee going down hard around the 6th or seventh. No doubt Coetzee would make it interesting from time to time, maybe even droppping the Rock at some point in the fight, but eventually and inevitably the Rock wins this ugly and entertaining fight all the time.
Good assessment. Damn, it must be REALLY cold -- we actually agree on a boxing topic!!
well when we have outragous topics like this, even theone(whos smart but shares different view on old timers) knows the only reason to pick is coetzee is there is no reason!
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 08:19
by RazorKO
Irish wrote:Oh my god. You cant be serious? Gerrie Coetzee. Are yo just trying to rile people up by saying this foolishness? OK Lewis has been KO'd by McCall and Rahman, Rahman is a much better fighter than Coatzee and McCall IMO is as well. See if you look at the David Tua fight where Lewis faught a cautious fight and won a wide decesion you would see that that theory of Coatzee catching Lewis is absurd, to beat Lewis he would have to get very very very very very lucky. As for Marciano... how can anyone seriously think Coatzee has a chance against Rocky. Gerrie was KO'd by Greg Page who 4 months before he KO's Gerrie lost to David Bey who finished his career at 18-14, so Page was coming off a loss and Coetzee just won the WBA title, so by saying Coetzee could beat Marciano your also saying Page could and also saying 18-14 David Bey could which if you actually think this you should find the nearest toilet and drown yourself. I am not gonna even argue about Waloctt, Moore, and Charles being on Rocky's resume, because I would be wasting my time. This fact that this is a question is astonishing and whoever thinks this should stop posting this absolute nonsense. I am really pissed that I had to write this long post to debate whether Gerrie Coetzee, GERRIE fornicating COETZEE, could beat Rocky Marciano or Lennox Lewis, we have a top 5 HW and top 10 HW of all-time and some of you arguing that would lose to this guy, absolutely rediculous.
What a pike of puke. Give Coetzee credit - he definetly has a chance in knocking out Lewis and he is far far better than Rahman and McCall who were both 1 punch wonders. Regarding the Page fight, Gerrie was absolutley in no condition to fight Page seeing as he was sedated from the painkillers on his right hand which was operated on a record breaking 17 times before the Page bout. Coetzee was meant to fight Holmes to unify but he broken his hand and had to make due with Page.
And saying all that....he still gave Page a heck of a fight and he was even comming back until he was knocked out where he should of been attended to by his seconds.
You should know that Tua and Coetzee have different styles, Coetzee can also box and has a far better jab than Lewis, if Lewis wanted to outbox Coetzee, Coetzee will match him jab for jab.
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 08:25
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
You should know that Tua and Coetzee have different styles, Coetzee can also box and has a far better jab than Lewis, if Lewis wanted to outbox Coetzee, Coetzee will match him jab for jab.
coetzee would not match him jab for jab . lennox is 6'5 240lb bigger stronger, MORE accurate POWERFUL JAB with longer reach.
- lennox also hit harder than coetzee with his right, plus had a knockout left hook punch while coetzee was a one armed fighter.
- honestly louis was a betterboxer and better slugger than coetzee, and bigger and stronger with equal stamina. how the hell will coetzee win unless he gets lucky with one punch?
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 13:30
by evndrbsn
This is the most ill-informed thread I have read in some while. Anyone who says Coetzee had a better jab than Lewis and great handspeed is definitely off their rocker. Coetzee was an average fighter with a good chin, good power, average handspeed, and terrible stamina. Coetzee was lucky to be in a wasted talent era where most of the best succumbed in drugs or overeating, such as Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes, and Tony Tubbs. Lewis, Rahman, McCall, Shannon Briggs, all of them would KO Coetzee.
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 13:47
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
evndrbsn wrote:This is the most ill-informed thread I have read in some while. Anyone who says Coetzee had a better jab than Lewis and great handspeed is definitely off their rocker. Coetzee was an average fighter with a good chin, good power, average handspeed, and terrible stamina. Coetzee was lucky to be in a wasted talent era where most of the best succumbed in drugs or overeating, such as Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes, and Tony Tubbs. Lewis, Rahman, McCall, Shannon Briggs, all of them would KO Coetzee.
- how could anyone that gets knocked out by weaver, page and loses to snipes and big jon tate beat marciano or lewis?
how could a guy whos best win is over a partied up possibly drugged up mike dokes as a reason he would beat a lewis or marciano?
gerries next best win after that is leon spinx or scott ledoux!
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 14:44
by Collins2000
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:evndrbsn wrote:This is the most ill-informed thread I have read in some while. Anyone who says Coetzee had a better jab than Lewis and great handspeed is definitely off their rocker. Coetzee was an average fighter with a good chin, good power, average handspeed, and terrible stamina. Coetzee was lucky to be in a wasted talent era where most of the best succumbed in drugs or overeating, such as Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes, and Tony Tubbs. Lewis, Rahman, McCall, Shannon Briggs, all of them would KO Coetzee.
- how could anyone that gets knocked out by weaver, page and loses to snipes and big jon tate beat marciano or lewis?
how could a guy whos best win is over a bloated partied up overweight mike dokes as a reason he would beat a lewis or marciano?
gerries next best win after that is leon spinx or scott ledoux!
Brocky, just when I thought you were starting to make some sense (in your own long-winded way of course) you come out with this
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: how could a guy whos best win is over a bloated partied up overweight mike dokes as a reason he would beat a lewis or marciano?
Leaving aside the fact that syntactically the "sentence" is gibberish, I think I managed to decipher some of it...
Bloated? Overweight? You make him sound like Butterbean! Did you see the fight? Dokes looked in decent shape at 217. He was a bit heavier than when he won the title but I'd hardly say "bloated". And sure, he might have been on crack (who knows, he was a mad party animal) and if you'd limited your comment to that then I would have had nothing to say but you always have to go over the top into fekkin hyperbole.
Not the actions of an aspiring historian, surely?
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 14:55
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Bloated? Overweight? You make him sound like Butterbean! Did you see the fight? Dokes looked in decent shape at 217. He was a bit heavier than when he won the title but I'd hardly say "bloated". And sure, he might have been on crack (who knows, he was a mad party animal) and if you'd limited your comment to that then I would have had nothing to say but you always have to go over the top into fekkin hyperbole.
Not the actions of an aspiring historian, surely?
ur right i made a mistake.
i dont take back the part that he was all partied and possibly drugged up.
i do take back the calling him the "overweight". i had just recentley watched dokes-weaver II and coetzee-dokes. i got the dokes mixed up.
i thought dokes came into the coetzee fight at 225, but in fact it was the reatch dokes-weaver fight where dokes showed up about 10lb overweight and looked out of shape.
i take back the overweight, u are right he was in good shape at 217lb.
but that doesnt take into account he was possibly a drug addict when they fought! im going to go search if i have an article on the fight.
ill re edit
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 15:23
by josh576
razor, maybe mccall and rahman were one punch wonders who beat lennox, but look what happened when they met again. also, those were the only fights he lost in his entire career. he beat everyone that he fought including holyfield (past his prime but he was the champ nonetheless). he cleaned up the house against pretty much every contender in the 90s and had quite a dominant run. when motivated, there aren't many people who beat a prime lewis. one of those selected few would surely not be gerrie coatzee. i was thinking along the lines of louis and ali because a decent fighter is not gonna beat a prime motivated lennox lewis
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 16:10
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
josh576 wrote:razor, maybe mccall and rahman were one punch wonders who beat lennox, but look what happened when they met again. also, those were the only fights he lost in his entire career. he beat everyone that he fought including holyfield (past his prime but he was the champ nonetheless). he cleaned up the house against pretty much every contender in the 90s and had quite a dominant run. when motivated, there aren't many people who beat a prime lewis. one of those selected few would surely not be gerrie coatzee. i was thinking along the lines of louis and ali because a decent fighter is not gonna beat a prime motivated lennox lewis
well due to razors odd presentation of coetzee, he wants us to believe his prime lasted only one fight vs a "dokes who was at his peak and a undefeated indestructable superhuman every bit as good as mike tyson."
so i guess were only allowed to evaluate ONE fight in coatzees career, KO over "coke" dokes.
we cant talk about the weaver and tate fights, because gerrie was green.
we cant talk about snipes fight because gerrie was robbed.
we cant talk about page fight, because gerrie was poisened
we cant talk about bruno fight because gerrie was 100% shot
john tate 15 unanimous gerrie coetzee
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 17:45
by josh576
and in my book, knocking out michael dokes doesnt exactly equal knocking out jersey joe walcott. my stat of the day:
marciano ko 1 walcott
maybe a little better???
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 19:06
by RazorKO
josh576 wrote:razor, maybe mccall and rahman were one punch wonders who beat lennox, but look what happened when they met again. also, those were the only fights he lost in his entire career. he beat everyone that he fought including holyfield (past his prime but he was the champ nonetheless). he cleaned up the house against pretty much every contender in the 90s and had quite a dominant run. when motivated, there aren't many people who beat a prime lewis. one of those selected few would surely not be gerrie coatzee. i was thinking along the lines of louis and ali because a decent fighter is not gonna beat a prime motivated lennox lewis
True, Lewis did beat them again. But Coetzee was a better fighter than both McCall, Rahman and Tua. All 3 were sluggers although McCall had somewhat good boxing skills as he did gave Holmes a rough fight matching jab for jab even though Holmes was past it.
If Lewis wanted to brawl, then Coetzee wins as Gerrie can take a punch while Lewis chin was average, if Lewis fought a gameplan where he would outbox his opponent, then Coetzee would match him jab for jab as Coetzee can box aswell as it showed in the Dokes fight. Lewis had a sloppy jab where he tended to paw with it so I think Coetzee can outbox him if he was prepared.
But as I said in the beginning i think a prepared Lewis wins this 5/8 times. So im not saying Coetzee will defintly win.
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 19:24
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
your using the michael dokes fight as reasons why he would beat lewis and marciano?
please, tell me who michael dokes is again?
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 20:50
by Collins2000
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:your using the michael dokes fight as reasons why he would beat lewis and marciano?
please, tell me who michael dokes is again?
Brocky, I wish you'd stop using Marciano and Lewis in the same sentence. Marciano and Louis, yes, but an undefeated legend being mentioned in the same breath as that big lumbering oxen who was KO'd with one punch by 2 rather mediocre fighters, makes me cringe...
Is this the time to ask why the only woman in Lennox' life is his mother?
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 21:03
by josh576
if snipes, tate, weaver, and page beat coetzee, then i have no doubts about lewis beating him....and theres no way coetzee matches lewis' jab.
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 23:07
by Collins2000
josh576 wrote:if snipes, tate, weaver, and page beat coetzee, then i have no doubts about lewis beating him....and theres no way coetzee matches lewis' jab.
and by the same logic if a crackhead like McCall could KO Lewis with 1 punch then I have no doubt Coetzee could do the same. Even in these days of 4 or 5 champs at every weight, McCall has to be amongst the worst. Yet one punch and Lewis went down like he'd been hit by a wrecking ball and got up, tried to assume a fighting stance and stumbled into the arms of the ref. Not very awe-inspiring was it?
Look, I have nothing but respect for Marciano........ but Lewis? Give me a break!
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 23:47
by josh576
lewis also barely trained for that fight
ok coetzee beats lewis in the first fight because lewis obviously wouldn't train at all to fight him. in the second fight lewis destroys him and clears this debate.
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 00:15
by Collins2000
josh576 wrote:lewis also barely trained for that fight
ok coetzee beats lewis in the first fight because lewis obviously wouldn't train at all to fight him. in the second fight lewis destroys him and clears this debate.
hmmmmmmmmm, would he destroy him in the rematch, though?
It's not like he went out and destroyed a blubbering wreck of a fighter in Oliver McCall in the rematch.
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 11:40
by silkov
dalek wrote:i think its plain to see your bias against marciano,silkov.you just give no credit at all yet heap praise on a very ordinary coetzee.i think noone can have a serious marciano discussion with you as you are just plain blind.walcott was in the best form of his life so yes was in his prime.37 year old walcott beats a 26 year old walcott.charles was past his best but archie moore defended his light heavy title for years after losing to rocky.hardly a shot fighter.
I never said Walcott was shot! read my post!!... but he was past his best!.
If you think a man with his career behind him that he had and aged at least 37 or 38 was in his prime then you don't know much about boxing. Just because he was champ finally doesn't make him in his physical prime!....
And you are just totally biased towards Marciano and give him superhuman powers which he frankly didn't have. I have nothing against Marciano yet believe that he is the most overrated heavyweight champion in some quarters, while a great champion such as Larry Holmes hardly gets a look in...
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 11:46
by dalek
and i never said you said walcott was shot.i was explaining how walcott was a better fighter at 37.physical and fighting prime do not always happen at the same time. the shot remark was about archie moore.for someone who was well past his best he sure went on to have some great results.for the record my list reads
1.ali
2.louis
3.holmes
4.marciano.
how you say i completely overrate him is beyond me.
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 12:17
by silkov
dalek wrote:and i never said you said walcott was shot.i was explaining how walcott was a better fighter at 37.physical and fighting prime do not always happen at the same time. the shot remark was about archie moore.for someone who was well past his best he sure went on to have some great results.for the record my list reads
1.ali
2.louis
3.holmes
4.marciano.
how you say i completely overrate him is beyond me.
Your list is very good till it gets to number 4!.
.. I don't see Marcinao beating Johnson, Liston, Foreman, Frazier, or Jeffries, and perhaps not Dempsey either. I don't recall saying Moore was shot when he fought Marciano... but he was past his best, he said himself in articles that he was past his best by the time he took the title... Walcott, Charles and Moore were all in their primes in the mid to late 40s. Reading magazines of the time this was a recognised by people at the time... experience may have made Moore and Walcott wiser but it didn't give them extra strength and speed in their legs. Charles was probably the closest to being 'shot' and gave Rocky a titanic fight due to his immense courage rather than his boxing skills which he nolonger really had by the time he fought Marciano.
I'm not saying this to run down Rocky but to put his fights with these men in perspective a bit more. I'm sure other would agree with me that Rocky got these fighters when they were all past their best...
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 12:52
by The Great John L
silkov wrote:dalek wrote:and i never said you said walcott was shot.i was explaining how walcott was a better fighter at 37.physical and fighting prime do not always happen at the same time. the shot remark was about archie moore.for someone who was well past his best he sure went on to have some great results.for the record my list reads
1.ali
2.louis
3.holmes
4.marciano.
how you say i completely overrate him is beyond me.
Your list is very good till it gets to number 4!.
.. I don't see Marcinao beating Johnson, Liston, Foreman, Frazier, or Jeffries, and perhaps not Dempsey either. I don't recall saying Moore was shot when he fought Marciano... but he was past his best, he said himself in articles that he was past his best by the time he took the title... Walcott, Charles and Moore were all in their primes in the mid to late 40s. Reading magazines of the time this was a recognised by people at the time... experience may have made Moore and Walcott wiser but it didn't give them extra strength and speed in their legs. Charles was probably the closest to being 'shot' and gave Rocky a titanic fight due to his immense courage rather than his boxing skills which he nolonger really had by the time he fought Marciano.
I'm not saying this to run down Rocky but to put his fights with these men in perspective a bit more. I'm sure other would agree with me that Rocky got these fighters when they were all past their best...
silkov, I can agree with you that the Rock got these guys past their primes, although I think a fair agrument can be made that Archie had a LONG prime and his fight against the Rock was still in his prime.
I have Holmes and Johnson ahead of the Rock in my ratings as well, but these are just opinions and dalek's list is very defensible, as is yours i'm sure. Putting Johnson, Liston, Foreman, Frazier, and Jeffries ahead of the Rock is also reasonable as well. Just don't start putting mediocre HW's from the 80's in your top ten and I think we can all get along pretty well.
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 13:41
by silkov
The Great John L wrote:silkov wrote:dalek wrote:and i never said you said walcott was shot.i was explaining how walcott was a better fighter at 37.physical and fighting prime do not always happen at the same time. the shot remark was about archie moore.for someone who was well past his best he sure went on to have some great results.for the record my list reads
1.ali
2.louis
3.holmes
4.marciano.
how you say i completely overrate him is beyond me.
Your list is very good till it gets to number 4!.
.. I don't see Marcinao beating Johnson, Liston, Foreman, Frazier, or Jeffries, and perhaps not Dempsey either. I don't recall saying Moore was shot when he fought Marciano... but he was past his best, he said himself in articles that he was past his best by the time he took the title... Walcott, Charles and Moore were all in their primes in the mid to late 40s. Reading magazines of the time this was a recognised by people at the time... experience may have made Moore and Walcott wiser but it didn't give them extra strength and speed in their legs. Charles was probably the closest to being 'shot' and gave Rocky a titanic fight due to his immense courage rather than his boxing skills which he nolonger really had by the time he fought Marciano.
I'm not saying this to run down Rocky but to put his fights with these men in perspective a bit more. I'm sure other would agree with me that Rocky got these fighters when they were all past their best...
silkov, I can agree with you that the Rock got these guys past their primes, although I think a fair agrument can be made that Archie had a LONG prime and his fight against the Rock was still in his prime.
I have Holmes and Johnson ahead of the Rock in my ratings as well, but these are just opinions and dalek's list is very defensible, as is yours i'm sure. Putting Johnson, Liston, Foreman, Frazier, and Jeffries ahead of the Rock is also reasonable as well. Just don't start putting mediocre HW's from the 80's in your top ten and I think we can all get along pretty well.
8)