Why Rocky Maricano is top 3 Heavyweight of all time

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Jul 2006, 17:23

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:however this was not the jack of 1918-19 and add that to the fact dempsey basically knocked tunney out in the rematch.

You keep the dumbest phrase for the end.
who was the one that was knocked down for over 10 seconds? not jack dempsey

Go play domino. You know as well as I do (and as Jack Dempsey did - he said so publicly) that Tunney wouldn't have had any trouble whatsoever getting up earlier had he needed to. He just took the time Dempsey's idiocy granted him.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 07 Jul 2006, 18:04

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tunney beat a old way out of shape jack dempsey 2x. however theres controversy since jack knocked tunney down for 14 seconds and got screwed. yes dempsey was still a very solid fighter when he fought tunney and it counts as a very good win, especially in the manner tunney dominated dempsey. however this was not the jack of 1918-19 and add that to the fact dempsey basically knocked tunney out in the rematch.

I should just stay out of this one and sit back and watch the fireworks, but I just can't.

Yes, everyone knows that Dempsey was way past his prime when he fought Tunney. But come on Brocky. Even a past his prime Dempsey is better than any HW that Moore beat. Didn't that "old way out of shape" Dempsey KO Jack Sharkey between the 2 Tunney loses? Or maybe he just got into shape for the Sharkey fight and didn't prepare for Tunney?

And you're making yourself look pretty naive by saying that Tunney basically KOd Tunney in the rematch. Or maybe you haven't actually seen Dempsey Tunney II?

Me thinks you are getting silly because you're getting a bit emotional over this discussion.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Jul 2006, 18:14

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: one thing that really gets me is tunney totally avoided black fighters. he drew the color line more than anyone of the top champions of that era. how could u not take points off tunneys legacy for doing this??

The most severe case of drawing the color line is and remains Jack Dempsey. For 7 long years Harry Wills was his most deserving challenger, and he never got a shot. Next to Johnson-Langford (at about 1912/13) and perhaps a re-fight of Corbett-Jakcson, Dempsey-Wills is THE fight heavyweight boxing missed out on.

Dempsey-Wills ranks miles - MILES - above Tunney-Godfrey. Godfrey was never even close to Wills' status, as he was only one of several contenders with a rather mixed record. And also at light-heavyweight, there was never a fighter of comparable standing to Wills' while Tunney was on top. In contrast to Dempsey, Tunney DID fight the best man and the greatest risk to his legacy - Harry Greb. A total of 5 times.

P

PS: Yeah, Dempsey signed. But it didn't mean a thing because Rickards would make sure the fight wouldn't happen.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Jul 2006, 19:23

Yes, everyone knows that Dempsey was way past his prime when he fought Tunney. But come on Brocky. Even a past his prime Dempsey is better than any HW that Moore beat. Didn't that "old way out of shape" Dempsey KO Jack Sharkey between the 2 Tunney loses? Or maybe he just got into shape for the Sharkey fight and didn't prepare for Tunney?

jack sharkey was dominating dempsey. he was the better fighter than the 1927 dempsey. only reason dempsey one cause he got dirty and hit sharkey with a cheap shot low and then caught sharkey with a deadly left hook. but dempseys only way to win was to cheat like he did. dempsey showed he still had his full power in 1927 but not much else. sharkey was on his way to a clear points win before the fouls. basically it was a controversial win. dempsey would have never landed that punch if it wasnt for the low blows. sharkey should have been the one to face tunney. still amazed that horribly rusty past his prime dempsey was able to find a way to beat a peak jack sharkey, wut a fight jack was.

dempsey was far gone. going into the tunney fight, he had only only 3 times in the past 6 years! he was coming off a 3 year layoff where he did no training and partied the whole time. he was horribly rusty, his timing was way off. he was old for a swarmer 32, and he had no hunger anymore.

this was nowhere near the 1918-1919 jack dempsey though dempsey of 1926-27 was still a powerful dangerous contender. but i think fighters like godfrey, sharkey were better than the 1927 dempsey. sharkey proved it but got screwed.

But come on Brocky. Even a past his prime Dempsey is better than any HW that Moore beat.

possibly yes.. but then again i could also see a master boxer like harold johnson outboxing and outmanuevering that version of dempsey for a win.

but thats not the point. IMO wins over jimmy bivins, harold johnson, nino valdes, bob baker, clarence henry, hatchetman sheppard, bob satterfield, alejandro lavorante, buddy walker overshadow tunneys two victories over dempsey.

all those victories over very solid depth like that deserve more praise than 2 wins(1 controversial) over jack dempsey.

part of the reason that makes larry holmes competition very good is not the quality, but quantity. he beat a lot of top dangerous contenders which more than makes up for the lack of a big name on his resume.

thats just my opinion though

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Jul 2006, 19:26

Godfrey was never even close to Wills' status, as he was only one of several contenders with a rather mixed record

woa woa woa, thats more bullshit. there are many historians who rate godfrey just as high as they do harry wills.

in fact boxing historian kevin smith picked godfrey over wills in a head to head fight

wills actually ducked godfrey in the early-mid 1920s. i will show u newspaper clippings backing up this claim. the press claimed wills was ducking godfrey. godfrey even called wills out on many occasions. EVEN THE BLACK PRESS critisized wills for not fighting godfrey.

but godfrey was certainly near the class of harry wills if not in it.

i rate wills # 17 greatest heavyweight of all time, and godfrey # 29

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 07 Jul 2006, 23:35

Wow....this convo has went everywhere from Moore to Tunney to Greb to Dempsey....

I'd like to point out that in my own thread Marciano: What If? that I examined alot of Marciano's opponents, in ways like you all did, and not getting into a tanget or anything like that, but alot of you people are seriously doubting the credibility of Marciano's opponents.

I guess I'll bring in my opinions on the fighters he faced, so that they can be analyzed, far more shorter than these long, long debates you all have.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 07 Jul 2006, 23:39

Maybe you have to take into consideration that, it was Moore' and Charles and Walcott's experience and courage and all their skills that helped keep them on their feet despite facing possibly the hardest punching Heavyweight champion in history?

Call the KO against Walcott in their first meeting a "lucky punch" all you want, but the rematch all but took one single shot to retire Walcott forever. Say that Walcott was old, but many in here could possibly agree with me Walcott fought better in age and his fight with Marciano in their first match, was by far, Walcott's best performance up until the KO.

AND...just because some was knocked out before in their careers, doesn't mean that they were bad fighters or were glass jawed to begin with. I do agree that if someone was knocked out before, the possibility is always there for someone to be knocked out again---but if the fighter is of real quality he will learn from his mistakes and be far more harder to get dropped.

What kinda men did it take to stop Walcott and Charles?

In Walcott's case it took:

Joe Louis- HE WAS DEATH IN REMATCHES
Tiger Jack Fox- One of the all time great Light Heavyweight/Heavyweights

And his two others losses by KO came early in his career, and against Abe Simon who had faced Louis for the title---Walcott probably was not in best of shape, as you have to figure the man for many years never got any serious pay days and took fights on short notice sometimes.

In Charles case it took (in fairness to Charles we are judging by his prime years):

Jersey Joe Walcott- They fought toe to toe over four times, something was bound to give.
Lloyd Marshall- Won the "Duration" World Light Heavyweight title, and was one of the most formidable contenders of the time.

That's TWO knockouts he suffered in his prime years---other than his last match with Marciano. It took HALL OF FAMERS to knock these men out by and large---that's what it takes to beat Walcott and Charles---and Moore?

He himself defied all logic with his longetivity and career KO record of 145 KO's, more than any other fighter in any weight class! His prime is so hard to judge by, because even though he lost to Marciano and later Patterson for the Heavyweight title he remained Light Heavyweight champion up until 1961 (NYSAC title) and retired as champion.

It took men like:

Muhammad Ali- Yes Moore was passed his best, but it was only the year before that he was Light Heavyweight champion and had bested contenders Pete Rademacher and Willie Pastrano.

Floyd Patterson- Call me a blasphemer, but there was rumors Archie went into the tank for this one---but nonetheless, truth or fiction, he lost to a man who was a 2x titlist and truly a HOF fighter.

Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins also knocked out Moore, as did Eddie Booker and Leonard Morrow---the latter two I suspect could only be freak occurences, as Morrow was just a fighter with a 11-2-1 record....yet blasted Moore out in one round... maybe Archie did take dives lol

But nonetheless, the point I am making is, Marciano beaten men by KO that were extremely durable and hard to knock out---it took ATG fighters to knock these men out (rarely occured)---and Marciano blasted them out with almost ease.

From Rocky Marciano: What If?

cole fontes · Post by **cole fontes** » 07 Jul 2006, 23:47

silkov wrote:I must say also that much is often said about Rockys toughness and obviously he was tough but in my opinion a tougher fighter and possibly the champ with the best chin and biggest heart ever was Ali... the guy took tremendous punches later in his career, must have had iron in his jaw in his wars with Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Liston, Shavers. Because of his speed and elusiveness early in his career Ali's toughness is often overlooked, I've never seen a fighter with a bigger heart.

Amen

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 08 Jul 2006, 00:24

I disagree with the above statement.

What if Ali took a beating for 12 solid rounds, or hell even 15, without getting in much offense, like Marciano did with Walcott? Do you think then that Ali could stand up to a Frazier? Norton?

I say no. I know Ali was passed his best when he faced Holmes, but let's get serious, if Holmes, who is not known for his "killer attitude" and punching power, could tear Ali to shreds and couldn't go on into the 11th round, that shows me yes he is a tough fighter---but that he could not take a complete onslaught of punches from round one onward; take away all his skills (mainly running backwards from his opponents) and let's see how long he could have stayed in there.

Imagine Ali not doing that, but trying to go toe to toe with the fighters he fought, he couldn't have survived---all you can pull out the defense that he took Foreman's best shots for 7 rounds---BUT---Ali was blocking the majority of those punches, he had trained in the heat, as Foreman did not, and believe me, Ali would not have survived Foreman if he had fought him any other way, and nor would he have survived Frazier.

Was it heart? Was it his toughness? No. Was alot of other things, Ali for many years used his skills, and when that wasn't enough he used mind games, or, as we saw with Foreman, use the 'rope-a-dope' when all else failed.

Roland LaStarza used the 'rope-a-dope' on Marciano, but he ended up with broken blood vessels and broken bones in his arms, it was a sight so horrible that even Joe Frazier once commented that Ali couldn't have pulled that shit on Marciano----and unlike Foreman, Marciano had greater endurance, and instead of the "one big punch...wait...another big punch" style Foreman used, Marciano would throw punches in bunches.

Ali was tough, but not tougher than Marciano.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 08 Jul 2006, 07:27

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:jack sharkey was dominating dempsey. he was the better fighter than the 1927 dempsey.

Sharkey got counted out and he was the better fighter? It looked like a pretty clear win to me, with Dempsey using his experience to KO the younger Sharkey. You seem to continually discount historical facts to suit your arguments. Don’t come from behind KOs count for boxers other than Marciano?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:…IMO wins over jimmy bivins, harold johnson, nino valdes, bob baker, clarence henry, hatchetman sheppard, bob satterfield, alejandro lavorante, buddy walker overshadow tunneys two victories over dempsey.

Not in most peoples opinion, or you would see Archie Moores name in the ATG HW lists instead of Tunney.

I can’t believe I’m even getting involved in this.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 08 Jul 2006, 12:21

..eventually this thread will end up with a fantasy match between kid chocalate and willie pep.....so i'm mulling that one over in my mind now....

theone · Post by **theone** » 08 Jul 2006, 13:27

What kinda men did it take to stop Walcott and Charles?

In Walcott's case it took:

Joe Louis- HE WAS DEATH IN REMATCHES
Tiger Jack Fox- One of the all time great Light Heavyweight/Heavyweights

Tiger Jack Fox an All-time great lightheavy and heavy? All time great?
This is a clear example of someone beinbg overated to elevate another fighter. How on earth did you come to the conclusion that Tiger Jack Fox is an all time great in any weight?

And his two others losses by KO came early in his career, and against Abe Simon who had faced Louis for the title---Walcott probably was not in best of shape, as you have to figure the man for many years never got any serious pay days and took fights on short notice sometimes.

Walcott had been in the ring long enough when he fough Simon to not be considered green. Even if he were undertrained and fighting on short notice the fact remains that the fight can be used to illustrate that Walcott had a good, but by no means iron chin. Alot of fighters were in Walcotts position, Braddock being the best example, and still displayed an amazing beard.

As for Charles and Moore, they did their best work at lightheavy. The fact that they made a dent in the heavyweight division speaks more to the overall weakness of the divison at the time.

Floyd Patterson- Call me a blasphemer, but there was rumors Archie went into the tank for this one---but nonetheless, truth or fiction, he lost to a man who was a 2x titlist and truly a HOF fighter.

Moore lost to Patterson simply because Floyd was the better HEAVYWEIGHT, period.

Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins also knocked out Moore, as did Eddie Booker and Leonard Morrow---the latter two I suspect could only be freak occurences, as Morrow was just a fighter with a 11-2-1 record....yet blasted Moore out in one round... maybe Archie did take dives lol

Freak occurences and dives are the way you excuse Moores ko losses?
If Archie was prone to taking so many dives maybe he isnt worthy of so much praise.

But nonetheless, the point I am making is, Marciano beaten men by KO that were extremely durable and hard to knock out---it took ATG fighters to knock these men out (rarely occured)---and Marciano blasted them out with almost ease.

Marciano's first fight with Walcott, both with Charles and the one with Moore sure didnt look like easy ko's to me.
Charles actually went toe to toe with Marciano in the first fight, and it took alot of punches to put out Moore. I couldnt imagine Charles going toe to toe fighters llike Foreman, Lewis and Tyson. All three would have taken out Moore, Walcott and Charles ALOT quicker and easier than the Rock did.
Now, I'm not saying Marciano couldnt punch, he obviously was very strong and heavyhanded. But I think his power is vastly overrated in comparison to fighters like Foreman, Lewis, Tyson and a few others.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 08 Jul 2006, 20:22

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I disagree with the above statement.

What if Ali took a beating for 12 solid rounds, or hell even 15, without getting in much offense, like Marciano did with Walcott? Do you think then that Ali could stand up to a Frazier? Norton?

I say no. I know Ali was passed his best when he faced Holmes, but let's get serious, if Holmes, who is not known for his "killer attitude" and punching power, could tear Ali to shreds and couldn't go on into the 11th round, that shows me yes he is a tough fighter---but that he could not take a complete onslaught of punches from round one onward; take away all his skills (mainly running backwards from his opponents) and let's see how long he could have stayed in there.

Imagine Ali not doing that, but trying to go toe to toe with the fighters he fought, he couldn't have survived---all you can pull out the defense that he took Foreman's best shots for 7 rounds---BUT---Ali was blocking the majority of those punches, he had trained in the heat, as Foreman did not, and believe me, Ali would not have survived Foreman if he had fought him any other way, and nor would he have survived Frazier.

Was it heart? Was it his toughness? No. Was alot of other things, Ali for many years used his skills, and when that wasn't enough he used mind games, or, as we saw with Foreman, use the 'rope-a-dope' when all else failed.

Roland LaStarza used the 'rope-a-dope' on Marciano, but he ended up with broken blood vessels and broken bones in his arms, it was a sight so horrible that even Joe Frazier once commented that Ali couldn't have pulled that shit on Marciano----and unlike Foreman, Marciano had greater endurance, and instead of the "one big punch...wait...another big punch" style Foreman used, Marciano would throw punches in bunches.

Ali was tough, but not tougher than Marciano.

Are you serious?
Come on, Ali took much more punishment against Frazier in their third fight (as well as some of his other fights) than Marciano did against Walcott. Marciano took some shots from Walcott over the 13 rounds but it wasn't anything exceptional. the 3rd Ali-Frazier fight was much,much more brutal than Marciano-Walcott. By the way the Marciano-Walcott fight wasn't one-sided at all, it was fairly close.

In the Ali-Foreman fight, ali did block some of the punches, but did get hit a lot. And that was against Foreman, who hit way harder than Walcott.

You that ali couldn't stand up to Frazier and Norton? Well he did.
Your opinions about Ali are absolutely ridiculaus.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 08 Jul 2006, 20:37

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:of course marciano isnt # 1 all time, i never said that. i rate him 5th all time.

moore would have beat tunney
The title of your post is "Why Rocky Marciano is top 3 heavyweight of all Time" and you rank him # 5?

check the date of this thread, it was made over a year ago. i changed my opinion on marciano. you can make a case for rocky being 3rd, but i prefer him at 5th

Ok, that's fair enough. It just seemed funny to me.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 08 Jul 2006, 21:16

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
You certainly can make the arguement that Moore was better than Tunney at lightheavy; but it's certainly a close call. Tunney was the better heavyweight.

i think tunney was the slightly better heavyweight but why? wut did tunney do at heavyweight besides beat a old jack dempsey twice??

had archie moore fought tunneys HEAVYWEIGHT opposition, he would have done the same to it as tunney did. tunney had very weak heavyweight oppposition besides an old dempsey. archie moore would have beat the 1927 dempsey IMO

archie moore cleaned out the best heavyweight contenders of his era like jimmy bivins, harold johnson, nino valdes, bob baker, clarence henry, hatchetman sheppard, alejandro lavorante

tunneys heavyweight resume consists of old jack dempsey 2x, green johnny risko, weinhart, tom heeney, old tommy gibbons.

is that honestly better than moores??? i dont know

archie moore also beat the best big men of his era, tunney never fought a big heavyweight like archie did. nino valdes and bob baker were big skilled men, the type of fighters tunney never fought. not saying tunney wouldnt beat them cause i believe he would. but tunneys refusal to meet george godfrey shows me he was scared to fight a big black contender.

tunney defintley did duck george godfrey, i will post a newspaper article further proving my point.

alp, godfrey fought a lot of his fights in handcuffs, the risko fight probably being one of them. everyone knew that era how good godfrey was when he was allowed to really fight. tunney knew it. the experts of that era clearly knew godfrey was a much better fighter than tom heeny. in fact godfrey was rated # 2 and heeney was # 9 yet HEENEY GOT THE SHOT INSTEAD OF GODFREY.

tom heeney had no business getting a title shot over george godfrey, jack sharkey, and larry gains

Heeney had no business getting the title shot over these guys? Well I have explained this to you before, but will try again.
Follow the timeline.
The Tunney-Heeney title fight was on July 26, 1928. Heeney had recently had a draw with Sharkey and beat Risko. (Heeney also recently beat Jack Delaney and Jim Maloney previously)
Sharkey had recently lost to Risko and had a the draw with Heeney. A loss and a draw shouldn't get you a title shot and it didn't.

Godfrey had lost to Risko earlier in 1928 and had several other losses in the years leading up to this.

Gains had lost to a journeyman named Bill Hartwell in june 1928, and lost to Martin Burke in July of 1927. He wasn't ranked at any time during these years. He wasn't on the radar at this point.

The 1927 Ring Rankings have Dempsey, Sharkey and Heeney in that order. These rankings came out in early 1928. Dempsey retired, and Sharkey had the loss to Risko which moved him down. By any logical way of reasoning Heeney was the # 1 contender on the day when Tunney defended the title against him.

You mentioned ion another thread that Heeney was only the #9 contender in 1928. That was after 1928 ended and Heeney had already lost badly to Tunney.

I will try to respond to your several other post regarding Archie Moore as a heavyweight.
First of all, stop trying to make Moore's win over Aljandro Lavorante a big deal. You point out that he beat Folley,which is true. However, this is more of a negative against folley than anyone else. And Folley did enough in the rest of his career to show that this was a fluke. ( Are you going to rate anyone that beat Willie Meehan ahead of Dempsey because Meehan beat Dempsey)

Lavarante wasn't anything special at all. He lost to mediocre fighters, Roy Harris, George Logan and John Riggins. There are probably several hundred fighters better than Lavarante.

Arhcie Moore could have fought better heavyweight competition. He could have fought say folley or Machen or Liston anythine from 1956-1960. Archie found the time to fight 9 heavyweights in 1956 (He beat 8 journeyman and got knocked out by Patterson.

Moore fought 4 journeyman heavyweights in 1957.
In 1958, Moore fought 7 journeyman heavweights. One of them, Howard King who barely had a winning record got a draw with Moore.

He could have been fighting much better competition, and if he had and beaten Folley, Machen, Liston etc,then he could be considered a great heavyweight. But the fact is he didn't.

Moore was a bigger name than any of these guys; they would have jumped at the chance to fight him.

As for Tunney, one thing I strongly disagree with is the dismissal of beating Dempsey as if it was no accomplishment.
Yes, in the first fight, Dempsey was coming off a long layoff. Still it was impressive that Tunney could virtually shut him out over 10 rounds.

The rustyness excuse doesn't really fly in the rematch. Dempsey had the first Tunney fight and the tuneup fight with Sharkey to prepare.
True, Dempsey was 32 in 1927 and wasn't the same fighter he was from 1918-1923. However, it's not like Tunney was in the same situation as Holmes beating up on a shot Ali or Tyson beating up on Holmes. Dempsey wasn't really an old 32. (and it's not like 32 is ancient anyway) He had 3 years off when he wasn't taking a beating. Really, he didn't take that much punishment during his title fights from 1919-1923. He weighed the same as he did in his prime and looked in good shape.
Tunney's win over Dempsey in 1927 was a very good win. It was much more impressive than anyone Moore ever beat as a heavyweight.

If someone else had Archie Moore's record as a heavyweight, with the best win being over Clarence Henry, hardly anyone would consider him an all time great heavyweight;certainly not near Tunney.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 08 Jul 2006, 21:20

Decagon wrote:Dempsey set up the Sharkey KO with a low blow. That wasn't a clean knockout.

The ref counted ten. Isn't that considered a KO? Dempsey was hardly the only ATG that occasionally bent the rules to help him win a fight? Are you saying that we should go back and ignore all fight results where there were questionable tactics used by the victor?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 09 Jul 2006, 08:14

Decagon wrote:Unlike you, I sometimes question the decisions of referees and judges when assessing fighters. If the fight had been a clean knockout loss, I wouldn't positively rank Sharkey based on it. Since it wasn't a clean knockout loss, I can.

Unlike you I actually know something about boxing and accept the fact that fighters sometimes break the rules for their advantage. And besides, had you been paying attention, the comments about the Dempsey-Sharkey fight have nothing to do with how I rank Sharkey.

Perhaps we should just ignore all fights where we think the officiating is in question?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 09 Jul 2006, 15:03

Even if he were undertrained and fighting on short notice the fact remains that the fight can be used to illustrate that Walcott had a good, but by no means iron chin.

the one,

walcott went down from exhaustion, NOT FROM PUNCHES. kind of like ali-foreman.

do u hold the foreman-ali fight against foremans chin? i bet not. so u shouldnt hold the walcotts KO loss to simon against his chin. walcott had a solid chin. its very underated considering all the huge punchers walcott faced during his career and managed to survive against.

alp,

the fact that lavorante knocked out folley shows how vunerable folley is. if fighters like lavorante, johnny summerlin, young jack johnson, LIGHT-H DOUG JONES could get to folley, surely archie moore would be able too.

only ATG heavyweights were able to get to archie moore. far less heavyweights were able to get to folley.

folley and machen avoided moore in 1956, besides the press considered moore clearly the best heavyweight in the world once marciano retired. had moore got to fight machen or folley for the vacant title in 56 instead of patterson, moore WOULD HAVE BEEN HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION.

why should moore be accused of what he did in late 50s-early 1960s when he was far past his prime?

why dont u accuse george foreman for not fighting riddick bowe, mike tyson, lennox lewis, ray mercer, etc in the 1990s. why? cause foreman was far past his prime

u judge a fighter by wut they do in there prime. in moores prime, he cleaned some of the best heavyweight contenders in the division 1947-55

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 09 Jul 2006, 15:07

He could have been fighting much better competition, and if he had and beaten Folley, Machen, Liston etc,then he could be considered a great heavyweight. But the fact is he didn't.

moore doesnt need a machen or a folley on his resume. he has better names. machen or folley however NEEDS a archie moore on there resume.

-but moore defeated jimmy bivins and harold johnson. both are better heavyweights than machen and folley. so now will u admit moore was a great heavyweight?

* 33 year old harold johnson beat a PRIME machen

-also wins over prime nino valdes, bob baker, clarence henry are just as good as wins over machen and folley. clarence henry is a hall of famer, whos just as good a heavyweight as machen or folley.

who did machen ever beat to be considered a great heavyweight?

NO ONE

who did folley ever beat besides machen???

moore beat just as good quality as these guys, except he beat a much better depth of heavyweight contenders than machen and folley

just watch film, moore was the superior fighter to machen and glass jaw folley

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 09 Jul 2006, 15:15

i will make a big deal out of folleys loss to lavorante. do u know why?? cause its a big deal to get knocked out in ur prime by lavorante, who would then go on to get pummeled by a 45 year old archie moore?

whats folleys exuse??? why did he get flattened by lavorante?? why did lavorante get pummeled by 45 year old man yet beat a prime folley?

what did folley do that would make up for him getting knocked out by 175lb doug jones, lavorante, summerlin, young jack johnson in his prime? PLEASE TELL ME. what did folley do to make up for this?

did archie in his prime ever lose to lavorante? no in fact when moore was far past his prime he DESTROYED lavorante

did moore 1952-55 ever lose to a johnny summerlin????

did moore 1952-55 ever lose to a doug jones?? no in fact moore beat a man 4 times who would go on to SHUTOUT jones in 1962

did moore 1952-55 ever lose to a young jack johnson?

how bout eddie machen...........

did archie moore 52-55 ever lose to a 33 year old harold johnson?

NO in fact moore beat a 22-25 year old harold johnson 4 times!!!!

did archie moore 52-55 ever get knocked out by a ingemar johannsen in 1 round? NO WAYY!!!!!!

did archie moore 52-55 ever lose to a zora folley???

did machen ever beat a heavyweight as good as jimmy bivins or harold johnson? NO

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 09 Jul 2006, 15:18

If someone else had Archie Moore's record as a heavyweight, with the best win being over Clarence Henry,

his best heavyweight win was jimmy bivins and harold johnson. both were better than machen and folley

* 33 year old harold johnson beat eddie machen

moore beat a prime harold johnson 4 times

theone · Post by **theone** » 09 Jul 2006, 15:32

the one,
walcott went down from exhaustion, NOT FROM PUNCHES. kind of like ali-foreman.
do u hold the foreman-ali fight against foremans chin? i bet not. so u shouldnt hold the walcotts KO loss to simon against his chin. walcott had a solid chin. its very underated considering all the huge punchers walcott faced during his career and managed to survive against.

Exhausted after six rounds of fighting a slow footed plodder like Simon? Foreman went all out for 8 rouinds against Ali in extreme heat. 12 rounds in similiar temparatures against defensive specialist Jimmy Young. Hardly the same thing.

Again Im not saying his chin was china or anything like that. But alot of people like to make him out to have a Tex Cobb like chin, just to make Marciano sound like he hit harder than he actually did.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 09 Jul 2006, 15:46

first of all alp, heeney was NEVER #1 by ring magazine. 2nd, the press and most of the people around the era thought much higher of goerge godfrey than tom heeney. the press veiwed godfrey as a much more dangerous fight for tunney then heeney. godfrey was a super heavyweight 235lb, with skills and lots of strength and power!!!!! tunney never took on a fighter like that. this was clearly a much tougher challenge for tunney than heeney. when sonny liston fought cleveland williams, williams wasnt even rated in top 10 even though williams was clearly one of the best heavyweights in the world. same with godfrey.

YOU CANNOT JUST USE BOXREC TO BACK UP UR CLAIMS. dont be a boxrec hunter. godfrey was viewed by the press as the much better and much more dangerous challenger than tom heeny. YET tunney opted for the much easier task.

take a look at boxrecs ratings of the 1927 heavyweight division

Heavyweight 1927 1737.0 George Godfrey (http://www.boxrec.com/record017618.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1718.3 Gene Tunney (http://www.boxrec.com/record009046.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1671.8 Young Stribling (http://www.boxrec.com/record012052.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1660.5 Armand Emanuel (http://www.boxrec.com/record012069.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1645.0 Jack Delaney (http://www.boxrec.com/record012049.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1638.0 Johnny Risko (http://www.boxrec.com/record012063.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1626.5 Jack Sharkey (http://www.boxrec.com/record010616.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1610.9 Clayton (Big Boy) Peterson (http://www.boxrec.com/record017620.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1554.1 Tom Heeney (http://www.boxrec.com/record013554.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1513.0 Jack Dempsey (http://www.boxrec.com/record009009.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1481.2 Martin Burke (http://www.boxrec.com/record011333.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1452.0 Chuck Wiggins (http://www.boxrec.com/record011300.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1448.9 Paolino Uzcudun (http://www.boxrec.com/record012118.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1411.7 Jack Renault (http://www.boxrec.com/record011315.html)
Heavyweight 1927 1411.0 Harry Wills (http://www.boxrec.com/record017615.html)

THEY HAD GODFREY AS # 1 OVER TUNNEY! WHY IS THIS?? WHY IS HEENEY ALL THE WAY BACK AT # 9???

- ALP, GODFREY HAD THE CUFFS ON WHEN HE LOST TO RISKO MEANING GODFREY DID NOT TRY HIS BEST.

- There are some historians who rate Godfrey among the top 20 heavyweights of all time. do any rate tom heeny as top 20 all time?? no cause godfrey was much better

"Godfrey is vastly under-rated. His record and career are somewhat mired in mystery. So many DQ's, knockouts and damn mystifying losses. I have no doubt, for instance, that he had the cuffs on against Sharkey. The high number of DQ's has more to do with him fighting to order than it does with him being sloppy.

Tunney could outbox most heavies and I don't doubt that he could outbox George Godfrey for 5 or six or even ten rounds. However, George was fast for his size, was adept at chasing men down and could hit like a team of mules. If this were a fifteen round fight, I see Godfrey having a hell of chance catching up to Gene. Remember that Tunney's heavyweight resume is not that long or overly impressive. His two best wins were against Dempsey--over 10 rounds--and it is probable that Jack was past it then. Godfrey handled Larry Gaines fairly easily and Gaines was a boxer in both the mold and style of Tunney. Gaines stated that he feared only two men in his life, his father and George Godfrey.

George was a beast--big, athletic, huge puncher and surprisingly good speed and movement for a man his size. I think in his prime, 1925-1931, he was about as good as it got. Nobody really wanted to fight George, and for good reason. Tunney avoided him like the plague. In his prime, with no handcuffs, and this is strictly my opinion, I think he could have beaten, Tunney, Sharkey, Carnera and maybe even Dempsey(certainly a post 1926 Dempsey)."- boxing historian kevin smith

- fact is when tunney fought heeny, not only was godfrey rated higher than heeney, he was also veiwed as the much better fighter and much more dangerous challenger than heeney

"Tunney wanted nothing to do with Godfrey--plain and simple--too tough a fight. I will look to see what I have for references regarding Tunney and the color line. People point to him wanting to fight Wills but that was a joke--Tunney only wanted to talk that up to push his way towards a fight with Dempsey. I think Tunney may have been a racist(which would not be surprising for the times) as well as an elitist snob."- boxing historian kevin smith

TUNNEY SPURNS GODFREY MATCH

"plans for a battle between geney tunney, former american lightheavyweight champion, and george godfrey, negro heavyweight, as the feature attraction on the annuel christmas boxing carnival in madison square garden on dec 18, today were abandoned. it was announced by the officials of the fund. billy gibson manager of gene tunney declinded the prooffered match. according the the fund officials, gibson asserted harry wills is the only negro heavyweight tunney will box." -los angeles times nov. 4 1925

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 09 Jul 2006, 15:54

theone wrote:
the one,
walcott went down from exhaustion, NOT FROM PUNCHES. kind of like ali-foreman.
do u hold the foreman-ali fight against foremans chin? i bet not. so u shouldnt hold the walcotts KO loss to simon against his chin. walcott had a solid chin. its very underated considering all the huge punchers walcott faced during his career and managed to survive against.
Exhausted after six rounds of fighting a slow footed plodder like Simon? Foreman went all out for 8 rouinds against Ali in extreme heat. 12 rounds in similiar temparatures against defensive specialist Jimmy Young. Hardly the same thing.

Again Im not saying his chin was china or anything like that. But alot of people like to make him out to have a Tex Cobb like chin, just to make Marciano sound like he hit harder than he actually did.

Exhausted after six rounds of fighting a slow footed plodder like Simon?

no,

u must understand. walcott took this fight on 24 hr notice with no training whatsoever, and he hadnt eaten anything in the past 2 days. do u know what this does to u?? he had no energy from lack of food and no stamina from lack of training. THIS WAS BEFORE WALCOTT MET FELIX BOCCHICHIO.

still, a horribly malnourished and ill prepared last minute sub walcott was able to easily outbox # 4 ranked abe simon for 5 rounds before walcottt ran out of gas and was stumbling around the ring where simon finished him off.

as u see there were clear reasons why walcott got exhausted. he should not have been allowed to fight. if this fight had taken place today, walcott would have been unable to get a liscense for this fight because of his conditions.

? Foreman went all out for 8 rouinds against Ali in extreme heat. 12 rounds in similiar temparatures against defensive specialist Jimmy Young. Hardly the same thing.

had foreman ate food in the last 2 days prior to this fight?

did foreman take the ali and young fights on 24 hr notice?

did foreman get to train for these fights??

Again Im not saying his chin was china or anything like that. But alot of people like to make him out to have a Tex Cobb like chin, just to make Marciano sound like he hit harder than he actually did

no ones implying this theone, but he had a better chin than some give him credit for. certainly a solid one. walcott faced many huge punchers during his career that he survived bombs from. in walcotts prime, only two men ATG punchers marciano and louis were able to ko walcott and this was after many rounds of walcott taking hard marciano and louis punches without going down

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 09 Jul 2006, 20:36

As for Charles and Moore, they did their best work at lightheavy. The fact that they made a dent in the heavyweight division speaks more to the overall weakness of the divison at the time.

how untrue that is. there have been many top HW contenders in the modern era who were sub 200lb.

didnt the 1960s- 1970s "golden era" have many contenders under 200lb?

195lb jimmy ellis
195lb jerry quarry
190lb floyd patterson-fought during marcianos era, yet this former light-H was able to be a top contender/champion in the 1960s-early 1970s
199lb ernie terrell
195lb eddie machen
195lb zora folley

wut about larry holmes losing his heavyweight title to a light-H??? or blown up 190lb chris bryd being a champion in the "superheavyweights era" was chris bryd better than archie moore or ezzard charles?

just cause master boxer hall of famer ATG's charles and moore were top contenders/champions during the heavyweight era doesnt mean it was weak nor does it mean they lacked skilled big men. in fact quite the contrary. there were many skilled big heavyweight contenders during ezzard charles and marcianos heavyweight era............

there was from 1949-56

6'2 215lb old joe louis
6'3 215lb nino valdes
6'2 220lb bob baker
6'3 200lb earl walls
6'1 225lb kid riveria
225lb sid peaks
6'4 220lb johnny haynes
6'3 200lb colley wallace
6'3 210lb james J parker
6'2 215lb heinz neuhas
6'5 220lb hein ten hoff
6'3 205lb tiger jones
215lb jack gardner
6'3 205lb john holman
5'11 210lb don cockell
6'5 225lb johnny arthur
6'2 210lb billy gilliam
6'4 225lb abel cestac
6'3 210lb young jack johnson
6'3 210lb willie bean
7'2 335lb ewart potgeiter- 94" reach!!

hell even 6'4 195lb hurricane jackson who had a very loong 80" reach, his height and reach are big standards in any era despite his weight.

the european heavyweight contenders during charles and marcianos era were supringingly very big. for some reason during those era the european scene produced a lot of 215lb + men