BoxRec

enrique wrote:
Ingo was a good boxer with a very good right hand but his style lacked flash.

Knocking out the number one contender in the first round (Machen)

and knocking out the heavyweight champion in 3 rounds and winning the title

"lacks flash" ? ? ?

Yes, he lacked flash.

His style was methodical and relied almost totally on landing the big one. He could put you to sleep with the right hand but before that punch was uncorked he was rather bland in his performance.

enrique wrote:Yes, he lacked flash.

His style was methodical and relied almost totally on landing the big one. He could put you to sleep with the right hand but before that punch was uncorked he was rather bland in his performance.

Sounds like "flash" is a useless ingredient in a fighter.

Flash translates as money at the gate.

Fighters with flash draw bigger crowds and make more money. People always remember them more than the capable performers who do not thrill the crowd.

enrique wrote:Flash translates as money at the gate.

Fighters with flash draw bigger crowds and make more money. People always remember them more than the capable performers who do not thrill the crowd.

It depends on which "crowd" you are referring to.

While I dont buy the argument of Ingo being a non-person because of his pigmentation (skin color), I do find it funny that the majority of the top 10 'champions' at heavyweight are of another color than white; is it because its true or because now the blacks are being the racist ones these days [white man cant jump, fight, dance, sing, etc]?

Johansson is alot better than I had originally thought, and always took the word of 'critics' and hadn't seen much film on him, and always heard he was more or less a 'one trick pony' that all he had was a right hand and very little else...but I have to disagree, he was quite light on his feet and was bouncy in the ring, and while it seemed like he was a tad bit nervous at times [meaning looked like he was hesitant to upload a shot from time to time] he put on one helluva trilogy with Patterson and showed that he was better than anyone else on the Eastern hemisphere (Europe/Asia, etc) and while his prime was 'short'...I think his decision to retire was more based on a lack of desire and politics, than that his abilites degenerating so rapidly.

HomicideHenry wrote:While I dont buy the argument of Ingo being a non-person because of his pigmentation (skin color), I do find it funny that the majority of the top 10 'champions' at heavyweight are of another color than white; is it because its true or because now the blacks are being the racist ones these days [white man cant jump, fight, dance, sing, etc]?

ly.

FInd it funny? WHat now . . .Ingo is a top 10 HW of all time?

Most of the top 10 Heavyweights of all time happen to be black because . . badom- DOM . . .they WERE black! After Dempsey, Marciano, and arguably Jefferies, you have a fair drop off (I love Max Baer and Schmeling, but no-one could put them on an all-time list over the likes of Holmes, Frazier, Johnson, Louis, Ali, Foreman, Tyson etc.)

Race has NOTHING to do with it. That's just how history fell. I'm white, and it doesn't hurt my ego one bit that most of the great HW champions were black. Who flippin' cares? It's fornicate*&^ skin pigment.

Collins2000 wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Ali had a quicker one-two, superior footspeed (plainly) &, across the board, faster reflexes. I would give the edge in handspeed to Patterson, but it's close enough between the two that by the time they met in 1965, Ali was snappier. I agree that Patterson was the harder puncher. I feel his power is actually a little under-appreciated.

It's possible Floyd had faster hands but against Ali he couldn't make it pay. If you watch the first round (that's all you need to do) of the first fight with Ali you will see Ali standing in front of Floyd and acting the clown, purposely throwing punches over his head and at one stage even shooting them out to the side. Surely if Patterson was as fast and as lethal as some of you think he'd have made Ali pay...

Some of you claim to have boxed. If you had an opponent doing that and you were faster, don't you think you'd have been able to catch him with a straight punch?

I like Floyd. What's not to like about him? But Ali had him dancing to his tune.

And who can forget Ali rocking up to Patterson's training camp with a handful of carrots and the announcement "Henceforth you will be known as the rabbit!".

Patterson was off the diving board by the time he met Ali in '65. He wasn't the shot specimen who over-performed in their belated rematch the better part of a decade later, but things had slowed. It was not the Patterson of old & this is relevant to that fight.

As for Patterson not being able to make Ali pay --- two things...

A) Ali's reach & overall size advantage are factors you cannot discount.

B) Ali was just plain the superior fighter, not only at that time, but even if Patterson had been fresher.

In any case, it's rather moot. I only argued for Patterson's handspeed over Ali's (which I stand by), not that he was the superior fighter.

never said Johansson was a top 10 heavyweight...all I was merely referring to is that despite race, you can make the argument as much against Ali, Holmes, Frazier, Louis, Tyson, etc being in the top 10 as you could for them to stay...can you honestly say Tyson is a top 10 heavyweight, when he came around the division still was poor and Schmeling, Johansson, Baer, Carnera more than likely would have beaten the same men Tyson did.

Take Jack Johnson for example, most historians have him in the top 10, others dont...but outside of him being the first black heavyweight champion and beating three heavyweights people generally considered the best of that time [McVey, Jeanette, and Langford]...who else was there that he beat with such ease that amounted to much? Jeffries? No, he was merely a shell of what he once was, after all he came out of retirement [six years plus] and lost 110 pounds. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien? Wait...thats right, their fight was a NO CONTEST in which some newspapers felt O'Brien had the better of Johnson. How about Bob Fitzsimmons? Oh wait...Fitz was 45 or so and had a badly injured arm even before entering the ring. I know, I know! .....Stanley Ketchell, he was in his prime after all, but wait...damn...Ketchell was a middleweight.

See what I mean? Based on that alone...does it seem that Johnson should be in the top 10? Not really...but I do consider him there, because for the era he was the greatest and was a very talented fighter who could box and slug.

For all intents and purposes, outside of Frazier's 1-2-0 trilogy with Ali and 0-2-0 battles with Foreman, I cant really think of anyone he fought that captured the public's attention. Sure he beat Quarry, but then again, by the time Quarry had himself established his scar tissue had scar tissue. So what he knocked out Bob Foster, he should have in the first place, he was a Light-Heavyweight for God's sakes and hell the soft punching Ernie Terrell had knocked him out years before, it was a given. Who did Frazier beat in his prime that was actually a world beater? Mathis? Ellis? Sure they were good fighters, but they werent exactly guys who you could make the argument for to say they could have been world champ in any era, except for the shitty 1980's and the current era we have become.

Get the picture?

Difference is, in the views of many, Frazier & Tyson could beat many of the top Heavyweight champions in history, whereas Johansson (by way of opinion) could not. That's a factor in the reasoning.

Thing is you can make the argument just as much that they couldnt...for Frazier, let's take a look at his fight with the unheralded Ron Stander when Frazier was champion. What that fight showed me, for while it lasted, that if Frazier fought a man in the same style (which was his own) who was just as tough, and well conditioned and able to follow the punches up better than Stander and who had a better punch...whose to say Frazier could have beaten a Marciano or Dempsey, who falls into those criteria's?

For those who get tired of Marciano-Frazier hypotheticals, lets just say for the sake of argument since Frazier was able to bust Stander open, the same would happen to Marciano;---but Dempsey rarely cut, and he was a helluva lot faster than The Rock and he could box when necessary.

Or how about Frazier when he fought Foreman? Whose to say Frazier could have stood up to a powerful uppercut from Max Baer or Mike Tyson, when it was the uppercut that dropped Frazier in Kingston?

Tyson on the other hand, had trouble with big heavyweights and with movers. Hell he had problems with James "Not So Quick" Tillis, so what makes anyone think he could beat a mover like Ali or Corbett? Bonecrusher Smith went the distance and he was awful. Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. Tyson lost to Holyfield when he was supposedly 'washed up' then. What makes anyone think Tyson could handle an opponent who not only was tough, but could fight back with a vengence? It always seemed if someone was able to back Tyson up, get inside his head, showed he wasnt scared...Tyson was done.

Johansson if anything proved he had MORE than a punchers chance. How many people can you name who knocked Machen out cold? How many people can you name who knocked Cooper out cold? He gave the best stylist of the time (Patterson) hell three times, and at that era, Patterson was in fact just about the fastest man in the division with his hands.

I can make the case for Johansson being able to beat some of the champions of yester year and of today or of recent memory, as well as contenders...just as much as you can say he couldnt.

HomicideHenry wrote:Thing is you can make the argument just as much that they couldnt...for Frazier, let's take a look at his fight with the unheralded Ron Stander when Frazier was champion. What that fight showed me, for while it lasted, that if Frazier fought a man in the same style (which was his own) who was just as tough, and well conditioned and able to follow the punches up better than Stander and who had a better punch...whose to say Frazier could have beaten a Marciano or Dempsey, who falls into those criteria's?

For those who get tired of Marciano-Frazier hypotheticals, lets just say for the sake of argument since Frazier was able to bust Stander open, the same would happen to Marciano;---but Dempsey rarely cut, and he was a helluva lot faster than The Rock and he could box when necessary.

Or how about Frazier when he fought Foreman? Whose to say Frazier could have stood up to a powerful uppercut from Max Baer or Mike Tyson, when it was the uppercut that dropped Frazier in Kingston?

Tyson on the other hand, had trouble with big heavyweights and with movers. Hell he had problems with James "Not So Quick" Tillis, so what makes anyone think he could beat a mover like Ali or Corbett? Bonecrusher Smith went the distance and he was awful. Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. Tyson lost to Holyfield when he was supposedly 'washed up' then. What makes anyone think Tyson could handle an opponent who not only was tough, but could fight back with a vengence? It always seemed if someone was able to back Tyson up, get inside his head, showed he wasnt scared...Tyson was done.

Johansson if anything proved he had MORE than a punchers chance. How many people can you name who knocked Machen out cold? How many people can you name who knocked Cooper out cold? He gave the best stylist of the time (Patterson) hell three times, and at that era, Patterson was in fact just about the fastest man in the division with his hands.

I can make the case for Johansson being able to beat some of the champions of yester year and of today or of recent memory, as well as contenders...just as much as you can say he couldnt.

You are really nit-picking here. First off, Frazier kicked Stander's ass. Stander landed a few decent punches the first round but beyond that Joe completely outclassed him. Stander was just one durable and tough MF. And Frazier beat top contenders Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, Mathis, and someone named Ali. That' s a great reign. Johnson essentially cleaned out the division in the early 1900s (Langford, McVey, Martin, Lang, Jeannette, Burns) and yes, his title opponents wern't spectacular, but he did defend his title numerous times against solid opponents (Kaufman, Moran, Jefferies)

Now to the contrast:

Baer's successful title defenses: 0

Johansson's successful title defenses: 0

Schmeling's successful title defenses: 1 (and he won the title on a BS foul in a fight he was losing badly)

Compare that to Johnson, Frazier, or Tyson's accomplishments and it's not even close. You really have no argument to rank any of those fighters on the same level as the aformentioned.

Homocide Henry said "Thing is you can make the argument just as much that they couldnt...for Frazier, let's take a look at his fight with the unheralded Ron Stander when Frazier was champion. What that fight showed me, for while it lasted, that if Frazier fought a man in the same style (which was his own) who was just as tough, and well conditioned and able to follow the punches up better than Stander and who had a better punch...whose to say Frazier could have beaten a Marciano or Dempsey, who falls into those criteria's?

For those who get tired of Marciano-Frazier hypotheticals, lets just say for the sake of argument since Frazier was able to bust Stander open, the same would happen to Marciano;---but Dempsey rarely cut, and he was a helluva lot faster than The Rock and he could box when necessary.

Or how about Frazier when he fought Foreman? Whose to say Frazier could have stood up to a powerful uppercut from Max Baer or Mike Tyson, when it was the uppercut that dropped Frazier in Kingston?"

I guess no thread is safe from Homocide ripping Joe Frazier. :(
Frazier easily beat Stander. Fight only went 5 rounds. He was obviously the better fighter. Not exactly damming evidence against Frazier.

Frazier would probably beat Dempsey because he had better defense. He had much better defense than Marciano.

Dempsey was knocked down and hurt several times in his career. Not that hard imagining Frazier doing it. Who did Marciano fight that proves he had a great chin? No one who had nearly the power or ability of Joe Fraizer. Marciano was decked by Walcott and Moore. Not that hard imagining Frazier having Marciano in trouble.
Yes Tyson would have a chance against Frazier because of his power. However, Frazier superior overall ability would probably see him through.

Max Baer? Come on. Many fighters far inferior to Frazier managed not to be knocked out by Baer.

Homcidehenry said "For all intents and purposes, outside of Frazier's 1-2-0 trilogy with Ali and 0-2-0 battles with Foreman, I cant really think of anyone he fought that captured the public's attention. Sure he beat Quarry, but then again, by the time Quarry had himself established his scar tissue had scar tissue. So what he knocked out Bob Foster, he should have in the first place, he was a Light-Heavyweight for God's sakes and hell the soft punching Ernie Terrell had knocked him out years before, it was a given. Who did Frazier beat in his prime that was actually a world beater? Mathis? Ellis? Sure they were good fighters, but they werent exactly guys who you could make the argument for to say they could have been world champ in any era, except for the shitty 1980's and the current era we have become.

Get the picture?"

Yes I get the picture. You can spin anything anyway that you want to if you ignore inconvenient truths.

What you said about Quarry is completely bogus. He had very little trouble with cuts. His first loss to Frazier was the first time he had been stopped by cuts. Ali was only other fighter to stop Quarry on cuts.

Besides beating Quarry twice, Frazier beat Bonavena twice, Chuvalo,Machen, Bugner and yes Mathis and Ellis.

Ellis would have been a top contender in any era, certainly in Marciano and Demspey's. Assuming he got a title shot, Ellis could have been the champ during the Tommy Burns/Marvin Hart era, the Jess Willard era,the early 1930's, as well as during the 1980's or now. Frazier blew him away. That was a very impressive win for Frazier.
So yes Frazier beat some very good competition, certainly better overall than Marciano's. And of course this isn't even counting his win over Ali.

Sorry that this tread has been hijacked into a debate about Joe Frazier, but I felt that I should answer this.
Now back to your regular scheduled programming.

I agree dempsey.

The only thing I might amend is the comment about Schmeling... whether or not the DQ was BS or not, Sharkey won the title on a terrible decision that was universally criticized. I'd say Schmeling got ripped off worse. That said, I agree, Schmeling's career was not as good as Frazier's.

I don't think the case can be made at all that Johannson approaches Frazier... Johnnson beat Patterson once in three fights, Frazier beat Ali once in three fighters... Frazier beat Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Mathis while Machen's only other important win was Machen... dempsey already commented on the differences in title defenses.... there's no case for Johannson over Frazier. Plus head to head I doubt anyone believes Johannson would have much of a chance. Johannson might even hurt Joe early, but after that Joe tears him apart.

Man , reading this one had my head spinning.
I dont think its an overly complicated issue.
Ingo was a damn good fighter and deserves more consideration then he gets
He belted Eddie Machen out in 1, beat Patterson, had some nice wins.
The guy was very dangerous in there.
H.O .f ? Yep.

dempseyfire wrote:
Schmeling's successful title defenses: 1 (and he won the title on a BS foul in a fight he was losing badly)

I don't agree that Schmeling was losing badly when he fought Sharkey in 1930. He was slightly behind on points (watch the fight on youtube), yes, but he also was known to be a "late starter". And he wasn't impressed at all from Sharkeys punches.

And there was only one succesful defence, because Max was robbed badly in the rematch. If you count that fight and the Walker-Fight the same year he had virtually 3 succesful defences.

Recognizing Schmelings victory against Louis and Braddocks descision not to fight Max for the title in 1936/37 (wich he had earned) todays boxing comissions would have given Max the title an he would have added 3 more defences (Thomas, Foord, Dudas) before losing the rematch to Louis.

Sometimes it isn't enough to look at the statistics...

Friedie wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:
Schmeling's successful title defenses: 1 (and he won the title on a BS foul in a fight he was losing badly)

I don't agree that Schmeling was losing badly when he fought Sharkey in 1930. He was slightly behind on points (watch the fight on youtube), yes, but he also was known to be a "late starter". And he wasn't impressed at all from Sharkeys punches.

And there was only one succesful defence, because Max was robbed badly in the rematch. If you count that fight and the Walker-Fight the same year he had virtually 3 succesful defences.

Recognizing Schmelings victory against Louis and Braddocks descision not to fight Max for the title in 1936/37 (wich he had earned) todays boxing comissions would have given Max the title an he would have added 3 more defences (Thomas, Foord, Dudas) before losing the rematch to Louis.

Sometimes it isn't enough to look at the statistics...

THe film clearly shows Sharkey winning the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th big.

Yes, Max deserved the title shot, but you are really pushing it b/c A) You are assuming Max beats Braddock . . .I agree he would be the big favorite but it's not a complete give-in B) If Max would have won, he wouldn't have been fighting the same guys he fought (Foord, THomas) as title defenses . . his first defense probably would have been against Louis which he would have lost.

Also, people always believe the story about Schmeling being "badly robbed" in the Sharkey rematch without having seen the full fight (I'm not sure it exists) From the accounts I've read, it was a close fight, with Sharkey doing well the first 7-8 rounds, and Max taking the 2nd half of the fight. As the person who comes on late and doesn't get the nod always gets described as "robbed" and Schmeling's manager did a great job of getting his gripes in the media, fans seem to accept the notion today that it was a great robbery without having looked at the fight.

dempseyfire wrote:
THe film clearly shows Sharkey winning the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th big.

Yes, Max deserved the title shot, but you are really pushing it b/c A) You are assuming Max beats Braddock . . .I agree he would be the big favorite but it's not a complete give-in B) If Max would have won, he wouldn't have been fighting the same guys he fought (Foord, THomas) as title defenses . . his first defense probably would have been against Louis which he would have lost.

Also, people always believe the story about Schmeling being "badly robbed" in the Sharkey rematch without having seen the full fight (I'm not sure it exists) From the accounts I've read, it was a close fight, with Sharkey doing well the first 7-8 rounds, and Max taking the 2nd half of the fight. As the person who comes on late and doesn't get the nod always gets described as "robbed" and Schmeling's manager did a great job of getting his gripes in the media, fans seem to accept the notion today that it was a great robbery without having looked at the fight.

I have to disagree. No fighter won a round "big" in the first Sharkey Schmeling fight. When Sharkey hits low Max was on the offensive. For the rematch I saw it nearly complete on German television. In my eyes it was a clear robbery. 18 of 20 US-journalists, Gene Tunney and the mayor of New York saw Max far ahead on points too...

For a second title-reign all is speculativ. Why not fight Harry Thomas, Louis did that too before the second Schmeling-fight ? I suppose after taking the title Schmeling would've had 2-3 more easy defences before taking Louis again. If he would have take Louis again at all, cause if you read his autobiography you learn, that Max had the plan to retire short after regaining the title.

I haven't seen the full second fight, only select rounds, but the decision was universally decried by boxing experts at the time, Americans included.

I would agree that Sharkey was ahead at the time of the DQ, but it wasn't a total blowout and it was very early in the fight. And, regardless, that means little as to whether or not he should have been DQ'd.

And yes, in fairness Schmeling should have gotten the shot at Braddock first, but Braddock went with the fight that guaranteed him more money. I'm quite sure that Schmeling would have beaten him, though I agree with dempsey that you never know.