BoxRec

Not you and Moldie... I was just pointing out that America isn't all bad... We've produced a lot of great people.

Including boxers... But I believe in giving recognition to non-Americans as well... There's too much bias here.

Kalan wrote: ↑02 Apr 2018, 18:44 Not you and Moldie... I was just pointing out that America isn't all bad... We've produced a lot of great people.

Including boxers... But I believe in giving recognition to non-Americans as well... There's too much bias here.

Your boxing knowledge isn't bad, but your social skills are that of a 12 year old girl with ADHD. If you want to get along, stop starting. You said I was 'stalking' you, but I was away and came back to several nasty responses to my own posts. I am convinced you are actually a child. So now I feel sorry for you...I really do.

golden oldie wrote: ↑31 Mar 2018, 19:35

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 19:47 For some of you who simply can't accept reality....please note......


If Ali would have hit Liston, and Liston went down just as Layne did, I'm afraid you'd call it bogus.

I mean he was hit......and then can't quite decide if "this is the time" or not. But utlimately does....and seems to take the time to cushion his fall....

and goes into a "nap time" position......obviously fake.

Just like the Foley KO and Liston KO's from Ali. I mean who goes to sleep in that position?


OK folks my point is that a man being KO'd or even "truly having his bell rung" can take on a million different looks.
This is one of them, Liston's second fight is one....Foley's is one.....and Trevor Berbick multiple falls is one.....as is Zab Judah's at the hands of Kostya. Which by the way is a close cousin of the Liston fall except for the fact that Liston checked the moment and took a few seconds before rising to insure he wouldn't fall back down as Zab did......Zab just wasn't very smart. How about that? Liston was a smarter fighter than Zab.

IF only Walcott had taken control and allowed the Ali Liston fight to continue.....life would be so much more boring.

The problem with smart asses is they really make themselves look fukking stupid when they don't know the difference between the ENGLISH words,,,

insure

and

ensure.

Trying to be smug is only clever if, and when it works.

Just a tip.

You are dead wrong your oldiness, I chose a politically correct and ambiguous term as not to indiscreetly bring up your prescription elixer. You know, the one that keeps you going in those twilight years of yours. I just didn't want you to be reminded. I know how sensitive you can be, and wanted to spare you needless angst. But don't imagine for a moment that you are being clever by hiding in the direct sunlight.

oogiebe wrote: ↑02 Apr 2018, 19:41

Kalan wrote: ↑02 Apr 2018, 18:44 Not you and Moldie... I was just pointing out that America isn't all bad... We've produced a lot of great people.

Including boxers... But I believe in giving recognition to non-Americans as well... There's too much bias here.

Your boxing knowledge isn't bad, but your social skills are that of a 12 year old girl with ADHD. If you want to get along, stop starting. You said I was 'stalking' you, but I was away and came back to several nasty responses to my own posts. I am convinced you are actually a child. So now I feel sorry for you...I really do.

You're a stupid little piss ant who has nothing to say... You don't have ADHD... You're suffering from Parkinson’s Disease.

FO piss ant... Bye now

golden oldie wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 21:23I am no longer allowed into your SHITHOLE country ( thank fukk )

????? --- Please please please share why, I have never known anyone ban from a country.

golden oldie wrote: ↑04 Apr 2018, 03:42

APerno wrote: ↑04 Apr 2018, 02:57

golden oldie wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 21:23I am no longer allowed into your SHITHOLE country ( thank fukk )

????? --- Please please please share why, I have never known anyone ban from a country.

Post 9 / 11 your government retrospectively barred people with criminal records. I served time for armed robbery back in the day.

Bart Simpson: "cool"

Just watching George Chuvalo interview from about a couple of years ago. Nice guy George is. Anyway, Chuvalo said that Muhammad Ali was too big and too fast for Rocky Marciano.

Wish they asked about Ellis and Marciano, but like in his boxing career, Ellis is overshadowed by Ali and the conversation about heavyweight boxing in that era inevitably turns to guys like Ali, Frazier, and Foreman.

Asked who the hardest hitter was, George said he thought Foreman was.

I think that Jimmy Ellis was the Rodney Dangerfield of boxing.

Here is a quote from George Chuvalo's book on the back flap: "Ranked among the world's top 10 boxers for much of his career, Chuvalo faced many of the best fighters of this century: Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Floyd Patterson, Ernie Terrell, Joe Frazier, Jerry Quarry, and many others." I guess that Ellis would be one of the many others.

Jimmy Ellis was not a match for Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, but other than those two, he was the best of the late 60's and part of the early 70's. He was WBA Heavyweight Champion, winning an 8 man tournament that included Ernie Terrell, Floyd Patterson, and Jerry Quarry.

Scypion wrote: ↑04 Apr 2018, 21:29 Just watching George Chuvalo interview from about a couple of years ago. Nice guy George is. Anyway, Chuvalo said that Muhammad Ali was too big and too fast for Rocky Marciano.

Wish they asked about Ellis and Marciano, but like in his boxing career, Ellis is overshadowed by Ali and the conversation about heavyweight boxing in that era inevitably turns to guys like Ali, Frazier, and Foreman.

Asked who the hardest hitter was, George said he thought Foreman was.

When I wrote that Jimmy Ellis was better than Rex Layne or Roland LaStarza, no one seemed to disagree. Chuvalo said that Ali was too big and too fast for Rocky Marciano.

This all being right, then Marciano and Ellis are both between Ali and Layne/LaStarza.

Ellis was a little bigger and faster than Rocky, but Marciano had his Susie Q. So, it probably comes down to if Jimmy Ellis can survive the fight and land more punches than Marciano. Not an easy task, but maybe prime Jimmy could pull it off.

I think most people would agree that both Ellis and Marciano are not as good as Ali but better than La Starza and Layne. There are probably 100 fighters you could say that about. There is quite a gap between Ali and LaStarza/Layne.

A better comparison to Ellis is Walcott. Walcott was better than Ellis. (Forget Walcott's age and his win/loss record. Watch the first Walcott-Marciano fight. ) Marciano's high punch volume and power would probably eventually be enough to carry him to victory.

Walcott was an old man who got beaten to trash and knocked out many times... He was no prime Jimmy Ellis in speed, skill and punching power when he was the washed up old man who faced Marciano on his last legs.

Walcott was knocked out 6 times and beaten 18 times... Ellis was never knocked out til he faced Frazier... All of Ellis's KO losses were achieved by Frazier, Shavers, and Ali... They're all known as great fighters or devastating punchers.

Walcott was knocked out by Abe Simon, Jack Fox, and Al Ettore -- not exactly the most feared hitters ever.

About the Ali-Ellis Fight.... Ali had the over-trained Ellis by 31 pounds... Angie Dundee trained Ellis for the fight... Dundee always said "Light is not right a Heavyweight needs size and strength." But he kept telling Ellis to train down finer until he was incredibly thin, which made me suspicious... I couldn't believe it when they weighed in... Ellis looked like a Light Heavy.

You must not know much about Walcott, you can explain some of that away by his life style. He was totally a blue collar fighter.....taking fights without a chance to train, and being put on the spot.....but on occasion he showed what he was really made of, and it wasn't bad. I know you can't hold this thought, due to having a such a very open/.......ok let's call it a ....porous mind......but imagine if you will, a fighter in history...who's record DOES NOT really define the fighter.

In Marciano's case, you seem to be able to grasp what I'm getting at........ that winning all his fights doesn't make him the best of all time.......( Not sure how your going to act when Joshua gets beat.....but I digress.) AND inversely....and yet ironically consistently as well.....JJW's win/loss record does not take him as far down the ladder as your judgment seems to be compelled to assess.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. It will produce much better results than whatever it is your currently putting in your pipe.

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑08 Apr 2018, 23:00 You must not know much about Walcott, you can explain some of that away by his life style. He was totally a blue collar fighter.....taking fights without a chance to train, and being put on the spot.....but on occasion he showed what he was really made of, and it wasn't bad. I know you can't hold this thought, due to having a such a very open/.......ok let's call it a ....porous mind......but imagine if you will, a fighter in history...who's record DOES NOT really define the fighter ...... your pipe.

There you go again trying to invent a history for me... This time making me a pipe smoker... I've seen enough crackheads like you---Your brain not only has cavernous holes, but it's made out of pee soaked, moth-eaten underwear... Your badly working brain has you going in the middle of your train of thought---so I would never smoke dope like you do..

I also don't go for tobacco because I've been in enough smoke filled Boxing arenas, dance halls, and bars in my 20's the second hand smoke was probably worth about 3 years of smoking a pack a day... I don't know if anyone has come up with a risk factor for that.. I think the tar has cleared my body.., though VADA has not confirmed this.

EVERY boxer is blue collar... It's not a white collar job unless you're Eddie Hearn... Even if you're a promoter, who's going to stop you from wearing a T-shirt? Dana White does.. EVERY boxer has a chance to train which takes 3 hours a day... If you have to drive for an hour each way to get to the gym it's 5 hours... That sure as Hell isn't too bad if your regular job is 8 hours.. Walcott had no excuse in the world for not being in top condition for every fight.. His record is poor as Heavyweight Champion go because he wasn't that compelling a boxer or puncher.

If there's a boxer who's better than his record it's Wladimir Klitschko... He didn't get with Steward until he was 27... If you could apply enough pressure you could knock the crap out of him up until then... Holmes was better than his record... Johnson was much better than his record... Tunney was... McCall certainly was.

Walcott was worse than his record because he lost by KO to Louis who was on his last legs... And he beat Charles who was starting a long downward slide as the slowly creeping nerve disease ALS disabled him over a period of many years.

Maybe a better comparison would be Jimmy Ellis with Floyd Patterson. Of course, Patterson apparently beat Ellis in their 1968 fight, but Ellis got the decision. Jimmy Ellis beat Jerry Quarry whereas Floyd Patterson lost one fight and drew his other with Quarry, although the results with the Patterson/Quarry fights may have been disputed.

I guess that most would put Patterson above Ellis because:

(1) Floyd is in the IBHOF.

(2) Floyd was a lineal champion whereas Jimmy was an alphabet champ (WBA).

(3) Patterson lasted longer as a champion/contender.

(4) Floyd was a great amateur, winning a gold medal in the 1952 Olympics and being national champion among other things. Jimmy Ellis was a very good amateur, but lost in the Olympic trials and never quite made it to the top as an amateur. He did beat some guy named Cassius Clay though.

One reason Patterson lasted longer is because Floyd turned pro at 17 whereas Jimmy turned pro at 21. Also, Patterson was brought along better starting as a light heavyweight whereas Ellis started out as a middleweight and fought some guys that were a little over his head considering his experience at the time, fighting guys like Hurricane Carter and Holly Mims, and struggling to make the middleweight limit.

Here is the thing that seems to make it a good comparison, at least in my opinion. Looking at the people that Floyd beat, it seems like Jimmy Ellis could have beaten the same opponents, with the possible exception of Ingemar Johansson. Not sure that Jimmy would not beat Johansson, but just not sure about it with Ingemar's big right hand. In a 3 fight series, maybe Ellis could have taken 2 out of 3 like Floyd did......maybe.

Other than that, it does look to me like Jimmy Ellis could take anyone that Patterson did. So, maybe they were close in ability, or at least closer than people think.

Patterson should be (and is) rated higher than Ellis. Not becasue of title defense or any other stats. He was simply a little better.
Patterson was a bit past his best when they fought head to head and certainly could have got the decision. He was also a little past his best vs Quarry.

They each won competitive fights against Chuvalo, but Patterson beat a much better version.

I don't know if Ellis would have beaten Moore and Machen. If he did, he probably would have a lot more trouble than Patterson did. Patterson's "victim list" is a bit better than Ellis.

Having said all of this, Ellis is underrated by many people.

I think Ellis hurt himself draining down to Middleweight well into his 20's.

Ellis had an short prime as a Heavyweight... It started with the Waqa fight and ended with Quarry....basically 8 fights... Ellis had a lot of fire and drive for the Leotis Martin fight. That was his best effort... He made a decent amount of money winning the Elimination Tournament and becoming World Champion... He relaxed and enjoyed life a bit... He also made good money fighting Patterson, Frazier and Ali, but he was far from the fiery Ellis who fought Martin for those fights.

Ellis did not have a real great financial deal going with Angelo Dundee... I don't know how much Dundee took, but it was a lot... Ellis made a much smaller cut than Ali did for their fight -- but Dundee's cut of Ellis's cut was so big that Dundee trained Ellis for the Ali fight because he did so much better financially.

The Ellis who fought Martin would have blitzed Archie Moore like Patterson did... Ellis would have easily beaten Machen... I'm sure Ellis would have beaten any 1950's Heavyweight except Sonny Liston... Sonny was too big and strong.

Wilbert McClure is the boxer that beat Jimmy Ellis in the 1960 Olympic Trials. McClure went on to win a gold medal in the 1960 Olympics. McClure really had a great amateur record. He won the National AAU championship in both 1959 and 1960 along with some golden glove championships.

Another National AAU champion in both 1960 and 1961 was Leotis Martin. As good as Leotis was, Jimmy Ellis beat him as an amateur and as a pro in the WBA heavyweight elimination tournament.

So, Jimmy Ellis was one of the top amateurs on a national level in the middleweight and light middleweight divisions.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Apr 2018, 11:46 Patterson should be (and is) rated higher than Ellis. Not becasue of title defense or any other stats. He was simply a little better.
Patterson was a bit past his best when they fought head to head and certainly could have got the decision. He was also a little past his best vs Quarry.

They each won competitive fights against Chuvalo, but Patterson beat a much better version.

I don't know if Ellis would have beaten Moore and Machen. If he did, he probably would have a lot more trouble than Patterson did. Patterson's "victim list" is a bit better than Ellis.

Having said all of this, Ellis is underrated by many people.

One thing that I definitely agree with is that Ellis is underrated. I believe that is an understatement.

I agree with much of what you say here, but I believe that Jimmy takes Moore if he fights him the same night Patterson did. Archie Moore was an ATG, but was not the boxer that he was during the 1940's. The night he lost to Patterson, his manager accused him of throwing the fight. I don't think so, but he did not look like the prime Archie Moore. Archie took a beating in the Marciano fight, and that combined with his age may have caught up with him when he fought Patterson.

As for Machen, I think that he was past his best, at about 32 when he fought Floyd. Eddie was a couple years older than Patterson. I think that he went downhill starting with his fight with Ingemar Johannson. So, I think that Jimmy Ellis takes the Eddie Machen that Floyd fought.

Chuvalo was 33 when he fought Jimmy Ellis, who was 31 at the time, and outweighed by about 27 lbs. Every loss at heavyweight that Ellis had was to a boxer that weighed over 200 lbs., although he did beat some fighters that did weigh over 200. He also may have been the victim of a couple hometown decisions to 200+ fighters, but he was past it by then anyway.

So, Floyd Patterson is in the IBHOF. If Jimmy Ellis is just a little below Patterson, and Floyd is not the bottom of the barrel in the Hall, then it could be That Jimmy Ellis belongs in the IBHOF.

I don't think head to head should determine greatness in the heavyweight division. At a certain point the size gap becomes so massive that matchups become a bit unfair. There are plenty of people who rate Marciano ahead of Lennox Lewis but virtually nobody would pick him to win an actual fight.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 04:20 I don't think head to head should determine greatness in the heavyweight division. At a certain point the size gap becomes so massive that matchups become a bit unfair. There are plenty of people who rate Marciano ahead of Lennox Lewis but virtually nobody would pick him to win an actual fight.

Why can't everyone have this rationale? It's so true.

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 09:35

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 04:20 I don't think head to head should determine greatness in the heavyweight division. At a certain point the size gap becomes so massive that matchups become a bit unfair. There are plenty of people who rate Marciano ahead of Lennox Lewis but virtually nobody would pick him to win an actual fight.

Why can't everyone have this rationale? It's so true.

Because if you're defending the Title against washed up Light Heavyweights you're not going to be ranked over somebody who fought real Heavyweights... That's the main reason Rocky isn't ranked highly... He didn't have an opponent.

I also don't think most people rank Marciano over Lennox Lewis anyway... When you ask people a question like this they the first thing they think about is... "Hmmm, could he beat him?" .... and the answer comes out "no."

Nowadays people say Marciano fought in a weak era... But back when he fought they said the era sucked gas bubbles.

Kalan wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 15:43

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 09:35

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 04:20 I don't think head to head should determine greatness in the heavyweight division. At a certain point the size gap becomes so massive that matchups become a bit unfair. There are plenty of people who rate Marciano ahead of Lennox Lewis but virtually nobody would pick him to win an actual fight.

Why can't everyone have this rationale? It's so true.

Because if you're defending the Title against washed up Light Heavyweights you're not going to be ranked over somebody who fought real Heavyweights... That's the main reason Rocky isn't ranked highly... He didn't have an opponent.

I also don't think most people rank Marciano over Lennox Lewis anyway... When you ask people a question like this they the first thing they think about is... "Hmmm, could he beat him?" .... and the answer comes out "no."

Nowadays people say Marciano fought in a weak era... But back when he fought they said the era sucked gas bubbles.

That is similar to the point of view I commented on from Cajimar. Perhaps it's better to ask, "Who WIns?" Lennox 100/100 times would beat Marciano. That method makes for more accuracy. (there are always exceptions)

Kalan wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 15:43

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 09:35

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 04:20 I don't think head to head should determine greatness in the heavyweight division. At a certain point the size gap becomes so massive that matchups become a bit unfair. There are plenty of people who rate Marciano ahead of Lennox Lewis but virtually nobody would pick him to win an actual fight.

Why can't everyone have this rationale? It's so true.

Because if you're defending the Title against washed up Light Heavyweights you're not going to be ranked over somebody who fought real Heavyweights... That's the main reason Rocky isn't ranked highly... He didn't have an opponent.

I also don't think most people rank Marciano over Lennox Lewis anyway... When you ask people a question like this they the first thing they think about is... "Hmmm, could he beat him?" .... and the answer comes out "no."

Nowadays people say Marciano fought in a weak era... But back when he fought they said the era sucked gas bubbles.

For what it's worth you are suppose to measure a man's greatness/character/morality against the values for the time he lived, not against present circumstances/conditions/beliefs. All this comparing we do, this fighter would beat that fighter, is really just nonsense; holds no historical validity. Too many factors have to be considered, which can't be. Marciano is great because he was great in his time. Same stands for Lewis, that's all there really is to say.

But by god we (me too) love showing off our supposed expertise with the mythical match-ups we conjure. But they really are meaningless.

What constitutes a heavyweight varies over time, in 100 years the top heavyweights may all be over 7 feet tall and 300 pounds or more. People are rated on what they do in their own eras.

Or it might like now where a title holder who weighed less than 215 just beat a guy who weighed 240 and has beaten a heavier fighter umpteen fights in a row.