Page 2 of 5
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 09 Jan 2023, 22:10
by gilgamesh
tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 22:03
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 22:00
tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 21:57
I don't think I'm moving my goal posts on this one. Like I said I hate agreeing on this with HH.
I am an Ali fan. I just feel that though the fight was great, hell it was awesome but Frazier was past his best and that is why I would rate the quality of defense above average but not as high as you do.
It can't be any less than an 8. If you want to say it's not as big as Frazier's win over Ali because of the 4 years passed, ok fine.
I'd disagree, but at least it's reasonable to say.
But to say that it's less meaningful than Ali beating Ernie Terrell, Ron Lyle or Floyd Patterson
To say it's less meaningful than Wlad beating Haye or Povetkin?
That's just completely and absolutely ridiculous.
I never said any of those or implied them. I stand by my opinion on this.
I'd rate Frazier's win over Ali in the first fight A 9
Ali's win over Frazier in the second a 7
The third fight a 6.
Again just my opinion
If Frazier's win over Ali in the 1st fight isn't a 10 what is a 10?
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 09 Jan 2023, 22:31
by HomicideHenry
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 21:51
I wonder if anybody would really be objective enough to rate this kinda thing fairly.
For the most part this forum consists of guys moving the goalposts on arguments to fit the guy that they want to come out better
For instance. Wlad beating David Haye is better than Ali beating Joe Frazier in the Thrilla
I know it's hard people, but try to be objective. Try to apply the same criteria across the board.
I'll give an example. Duran's win over Leonard is a 10 right?
I'm sure elmersalsa would say Leonard's win in the rematch is only a 6 or 7 or something because "Duran wasn't prepared" or some such horsesh*t.
The rematch was the very next fight after the 1st one. If Duran's win is a 10, Leonard's is a 10.
You can't move the goalpost just because your guy didn't win.
It is hard to be objective and fair.
I would agree Leonard's win over Duran is also a 10. Duran being unprepared and all the other excuses just don't cut the mustard because they both were in their primes ended happened not long after the first match took place.
As far as David Haye being a "7" on my list on Vladimir's resume, while Frazier being a "5" for Manila, here's my argument:
Of all the people that Vladimir Klitschko faced in his career one can make a solid argument that David Haye is the only opponent that he faced who was all in his prime who had or has Hall of Fame credentials. In my view Haye is a top 5 all-time great cruiserweight, and he solidly proved he was the number two heavyweight in the world by winning the WBA title.
Let's face it the Klitschko brothers were never going to face each other so for all intents and purposes David Haye was the number two heavyweight. Wins over Valuev, Ruiz, Harrison, and Barrett demonstrated he was certainly not a "4" or "5" or even a "6" because if Harrison was "3", Barrett was "4", Valuev was "5" and arguably Ruiz was "6" because he was 2x WBA champion.
As I pointed out the Klitschko era level of contenders was more like a 4/10 for their average. 5/10 was average for the 70s era. Haye had the speed and the skill set to make him a cut above the rest that was out there, but was clearly over his head when taking on Vladimir Klitschko. So Klitschko himself was overall an 8 or 9 worth, maybe 10.
I've already conceded earlier that I could rate Joe Frazier as a six out of 10 because I could make the allowance that it took special fighters to bring out the best out of Joe but I do still insist that five out of 10 is fair considering how burnout and damaged Joe Frazier was by the time he fought Muhammad Ali the third time.
I think it is fair to say that David Haye is a 7 out of 10 if the Manila Frazier was 5 or 6 out of 10, because I'm not so sure that Joe Frazier could catch David Haye at that point in his career. Most of the third Muhammad Ali fight was Joe banging on a stationary target who was on the ropes. David Haye was anything but a stationary target until the Bellew fights.
I'm sure some will consider that blasphemous but let's say I reconfigure my scores a bit. Harrison is "2", Barrett is "3", Valuev is "4", Ruiz is "5," and Haye is "6" with Klitschko being "8" or potentially "9". Sounds a bit more fair eh?
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 09 Jan 2023, 22:33
by tiny_acres
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 22:10
tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 22:03
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 22:00
It can't be any less than an 8. If you want to say it's not as big as Frazier's win over Ali because of the 4 years passed, ok fine.
I'd disagree, but at least it's reasonable to say.
But to say that it's less meaningful than Ali beating Ernie Terrell, Ron Lyle or Floyd Patterson
To say it's less meaningful than Wlad beating Haye or Povetkin?
That's just completely and absolutely ridiculous.
I never said any of those or implied them. I stand by my opinion on this.
I'd rate Frazier's win over Ali in the first fight A 9
Ali's win over Frazier in the second a 7
The third fight a 6.
Again just my opinion
If Frazier's win over Ali in the 1st fight isn't a 10 what is a 10?
Next to impossible to score any fight a 10.
If Ali had not been inactive for 3 years and wasn't only in his third fight in less than 5 months in his comeback. Then it would of been a 10. But since the inactivity and only being active for less than 5 months it brings it down to 9.
Sorry just my opinion again
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 09 Jan 2023, 22:35
by gilgamesh
tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 22:33
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 22:10
tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 22:03
I never said any of those or implied them. I stand by my opinion on this.
I'd rate Frazier's win over Ali in the first fight A 9
Ali's win over Frazier in the second a 7
The third fight a 6.
Again just my opinion
If Frazier's win over Ali in the 1st fight isn't a 10 what is a 10?
Next to impossible to score any fight a 10.
If Ali had not been inactive for 3 years and wasn't only in his third fight in less than 5 months in his comeback. Then it would of been a 10. But since the inactivity and only being active for less than 5 months it brings it down to 9.
Sorry just my opinion again
That's what I'm saying though.
If Frazier beating Ali isn't a 10. What is?
What could be bigger?
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 09 Jan 2023, 23:11
by HomicideHenry
For giggles.... Larry Holmes title reign:
Alfredo Evangelista- 5/10
Ossie Ocasio- 5/10
Mike Weaver- 5/10
Earnie Shavers- 7/10
Lorenzo Zanon- 5/10
Leroy Jones- 5/10
Scott LeDoux- 5/10
Muhammad Ali- 3/10
Trevor Berbick- 5/10
Leon Spinks- 5/10
Renaldo Snipes- 5/10
Gerry Cooney- 7/10
Randall Cobb- 5/10
Lucien Rodriguez- 5/10
Tim Witherspoon- 5/10
Marvis Frazier- 2/10
Scott Frank- 3/10
David Bey- 5/10
Carl Williams- 5/10
James Smith- 5/10
Average: 4.8 overall
A lot of people might be upset with me for having James Smith and Tim Witherspoon and Trevor Berbick and Mike Weaver and Leon Spinks all being "5" in worth, but my view on it is none of these guys were all in their prime because they were still green when they fought Larry Holmes.
They did not really perform much better than a lot of the other people I have rated as "5" overall. Leon Spinks never was really all that good because his career was ruined because of drug and alcohol abuse and he only became heavyweight champion because Muhammad Ali did a terrible cherry pick with him.
Cooney and Shavers are the only people in my estimation of Larry Holmes championship title run that are deserving of "7", but it is clear that after fighting Larry Holmes that Earnie Shavers quickly went on the decline as he got stopped by Tex Cobb the following year. Cooney did not have a strong resume going into the bout with Larry Holmes but Larry has been adamant for years that had anyone else been heavyweight champion at that time that Gerry Cooney would have won the heavyweight title.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 09:28
by Ezzard
Muhammad Ali 1964-1967:
Sonny Liston - 3
Henry Cooper- 4
Brian London- 2
Floyd Patterson- 6
Zora Folley- 5
Cleveland Williams- 4
Karl Mildenberger- 4
George Chuvalo- 5
Ernie Terrell- 6
Muhammad Ali 1974-1978
Chuck Wepner- 3
Ron Lyle- 7
Jimmy Young- 7 (lucky to get the decision)
Ken Norton- 7 (lucky to get the decision)
Joe Frazier- 6
Joe Bugner- 5
Earnie Shavers- 6
Jean Pierre Coopman- 2
Richard Dunne- 2
Alfredo Evangelista- 3
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 09:30
by Ezzard
Holmes
Alfredo Evangelista- 3
Ossie Ocasio- 4
Mike Weaver- 5
Earnie Shavers- 6
Lorenzo Zanon- 2
Leroy Jones- 3
Scott LeDoux- 3
Muhammad Ali- 2
Trevor Berbick- 5
Leon Spinks- 2
Renaldo Snipes- 5
Gerry Cooney- 6
Randall Cobb- 4
Lucien Rodriguez- 3
Tim Witherspoon- 7 (lucky to get the decision)
Marvis Frazier- 2
Scott Frank- 3
David Bey- 5
Carl Williams- 4 (lucky to get the decision)
James Smith- 5
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 12:00
by Ambling Alp II
Pretty much agree with Holmes.
Would rate Rodriguez, Ledoux, and Ali a little lower.
Ocasio, Snipes, Berbick, Shavers, Marvis Frazier a little higher.
For Ali:
Liston a 3? Come on. You either have to throw it out because what happened, or give it 9 for Ali taking him on. Giving him a 3 hurts Ali which is not fair to him.
Patterson is only a 6?
Norton and Young have to be higher than a 7.
Joe Frazier is a 6? Come on. That has to be at least a 9.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 12:04
by Ambling Alp II
I do think we need to have aset system here.
A 5 should be an average title defense by historical standards. 9 or 10 has to one of the very best.
Occasionally some probably should be a zero.
A Ray Austin, Mormeck, Wach, Tony Thompson, Dunn, Coopman, should not a 2 at best.
We have to take the stage of a fighter's career into consideration. What did he have left? Rahman for example, had not been a contender for years.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 12:06
by DrDuke
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 12:00
Giving him a 3 hurts Ali which is not fair to him.
It hurts u more than Ali.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 12:14
by gilgamesh
DrDuke wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 12:06
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 12:00
Giving him a 3 hurts Ali which is not fair to him.
It hurts u more than Ali.
It's one of those things where even though I'm fully 100% convinced that Ali-Liston 2 is not legitimate. Liston DEFINITELY took a dive, as surely as the sun shines in the sky, but it still doesn't really hurt Ali's career because Ali has so much more to his credit.
It does more damage to Liston's legacy than Ali's.
For what it's worth, I don't believe Ali had anything to do with why Liston took a dive, and I think he was as mystified as everyone else. He knew he could beat Liston, but he knew damn well it wasn't that easy to beat him.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 12:18
by Ambling Alp II
OK, if you think it was a dive, then people can't give it a low number and it figure it into the average. Makes no sense for Ali to be penalized.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 12:19
by gilgamesh
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 12:18
OK, if you think it was a dive, then people can't give it a low number and it figure it into the average. Makes no sense for Ali to be penalized.
I know it was a dive.
You can rate it however you see fit.
I rated it a 2 myself.
It's just like someone else could be penalized for getting a decision they didn't deserve. Even though the controversy is beyond their control it still plays a factor in how you view the fight.
For instance I also give Ali a lower rating for Ken Norton in the 3rd fight because he lost that fight clear as sh*t. It wasn't even a close fight that could've gone either way, it was an absolute bold faced Robbery. Ken Norton beat him.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 14:32
by DrDuke
How about Lennox Lewis?
1st reign
Tony Tucker 7
Frank Bruno 7
Phil Jackson 4
Oliver McCall 6
Average 6
2nd reign
Henry Akinwande 7
Andrew Golota 8
Shannon Briggs 6
Zeljko Mavrovic 7
Evander Holyfield I 9
Evander Holyfield II 9
Michael Grant 5
Francois Botha 5
David Tua 8
Hasim Rahman 7
Average 7,1
3rd reign
Mike Tyson 6
Vitali Klitschko 8
Average 7
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 14:36
by gilgamesh
DrDuke wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:32
How about Lennox Lewis?
1st reign
Tony Tucker 7
Frank Bruno 7
Phil Jackson 4
Oliver McCall 6
Average 6
2nd reign
Henry Akinwande 7
Andrew Golota 8
Shannon Briggs 6
Zeljko Mavrovic 7
Evander Holyfield I 9
Evander Holyfield II 9
Michael Grant 5
Francois Botha 5
David Tua 8
Hasim Rahman 7
Average 7,1
3rd reign
Mike Tyson 6
Vitali Klitschko 8
Average 7
I'm assuming with McCall and Rahman you're counting his title wins in the rematch?
I'd actually give him a 10 for Vitali Klitschko considering that Klitschko has become a Hall of Famer. He was in his prime, and Lennox Lewis was past his, and in his final fight and he still managed to stop a Prime Hall of Famer.
Vitali is also arguably a Top 20 all time Heavyweight. Certainly Top 30 probably. At any rate, considering the age gap, and the fact that 9 times out of 10 the younger guy wins that matchup. I'd give Lennox a 10 for that one.
I'd also bump him up about 1 more notch for Shannon Briggs, because Briggs came to fight that night.
Other than that, I'm pretty much with ya.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 14:55
by Ambling Alp II
At that stage Holyfield was nowhere near a 9; a 7 is pushing it. Klitschko a solid 6. Frans Botha a 3.
Mavroicv is interesting. Going in, about a 4. However, he performed much better than expected.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 15:00
by Ambling Alp II
gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 12:19
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 12:18
OK, if you think it was a dive, then people can't give it a low number and it figure it into the average. Makes no sense for Ali to be penalized.
I know it was a dive.
You can rate it however you see fit.
I rated it a 2 myself.
It's just like someone else could be penalized for getting a decision they didn't deserve. Even though the controversy is beyond their control it still plays a factor in how you view the fight.
For instance I also give Ali a lower rating for Ken Norton in the 3rd fight because he lost that fight clear as sh*t. It wasn't even a close fight that could've gone either way, it was an absolute bold faced Robbery. Ken Norton beat him.
You can call it a dive. However you can't penalize Ali for it. Not if you are trying to fair and accurate.
How much credit should Lewis get for Golota who did nothing but show up? Or Akinwande who did nothing but hold? Or McCall who instead of fighting was actually crying in the ring?
Is Lewis going to be penalized for all that?
As Ali-Norton, I thought we were simply going by how good the opponent was. (The fight itself has been argued countless times.) The bottom line is that Norton was better than about 90% of the guys we have been talking about.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 15:10
by gilgamesh
It all factors in. Quality of opponent. Legitimacy of the win.
Clearly a controversy free win is better than a win riddled with doubt is it not?
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 15:15
by Ambling Alp II
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 15:41
by SteveO
gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 12:14
For what it's worth, I don't believe Ali had anything to do with why Liston took a dive, and I think he was as mystified as everyone else. He knew he could beat Liston, but he knew damn well it wasn't that easy to beat him.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 18:49
by HomicideHenry
DrDuke wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:32
How about Lennox Lewis?
1st reign
Tony Tucker 7
Frank Bruno 7
Phil Jackson 4
Oliver McCall 6
Average 6
2nd reign
Henry Akinwande 7
Andrew Golota 8
Shannon Briggs 6
Zeljko Mavrovic 7
Evander Holyfield I 9
Evander Holyfield II 9
Michael Grant 5
Francois Botha 5
David Tua 8
Hasim Rahman 7
Average 7,1
3rd reign
Mike Tyson 6
Vitali Klitschko 8
Average 7
Tucker & Bruno I'd have as a "5", Akinwande "6", Golota "7", Mavrovic "6", Holyfield (gasp I agree with Alp) "7", Tua "7", Rahman "6", Tyson "4", Klitschko "7".
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 11 Jan 2023, 01:58
by DrDuke
gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:36
DrDuke wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:32
I'm assuming with McCall and Rahman you're counting his title wins in the rematch?
Nah, it's about a quality of an opponent for a title defence.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 11 Jan 2023, 02:06
by gilgamesh
DrDuke wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 01:58
gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:36
I'm assuming with McCall and Rahman you're counting his title wins in the rematch?
Nah, it's about a quality of an opponent for a title defence.
Ahh ok.
I figure the quality of the title defense mostly goes out the window when it's not a successful title defense.
Although in some cases a guy gives a very fine effort in defeat. I can't say that was the case with Lennox's defeats.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 11 Jan 2023, 03:45
by DrDuke
gilgamesh wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 02:06
DrDuke wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 01:58
gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:36
I'm assuming with McCall and Rahman you're counting his title wins in the rematch?
Nah, it's about a quality of an opponent for a title defence.
Ahh ok.
I figure the quality of the title defense mostly goes out the window when it's not a successful title defense.
Although in some cases a guy gives a very fine effort in defeat. I can't say that was the case with Lennox's defeats.
I rated defences only by how an opponent was ready to them. For instance, I gave Ali 0 for Liston, because Liston came there to take a dive, but I gave Ali 10 against Norton despite a fact of robbery because it was a quality defence against not just rated, but also a highly credible opponent.
Re: Title Defenses: Quality on Average
Posted: 11 Jan 2023, 11:43
by Ambling Alp II
Ali didn't know that Liston was there to take a dive. He was there to defend the title against the #1 contender and a great fighter.
Either he gets a high score because he was willing to do this, or it gets thrown out.
He should not be penalized with a low score.
If he gets a low score, you are dropping any pretense of this being fair and are just scoring by who you like and don't like.
