BoxRec

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 03:19**

Razor I'll think you'll find that when Lewis stopped Bruno, Bruno threw about 5/6 little punches in a combo and Lewis covered and threw a big left hook. As usual Bruno just crumbled. It was a very wide hook so it actually wasn't holding on. As for Akinwande did you see the fight? He was DQ for holding because he was so scared. Lewis was not in trouble. 2 judges had given him all the rounds including a 10-8 rd. The fact you or Caulk, whatever muppet, said he was knocked down by Briggs and Akinwande is testament to your stupidity!

BB49 although Ali may have been ahead my point was that it doesn't matter who's winning a fight its about who wins at the finish.

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 03:35**

Having never seen the Akinwande-Lewis fight, I heard Akinwande scored an (unofficial) knockdown.

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 03:44**

What? What does unofficial mean? Only Akinwande saw it?

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 03:47**

Probably since Akinwande was the only one awake in the stadium

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 04:35**

Lewis glove grazed the canvas after being hit by Akinwande, but the ref failed to count

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 04:52**

What Akinwande actually threw a punch? You'll probably find it was a push or grapple that put Lewis off balance.

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 06:36**

Decagon wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson

No more, no less. Mike Tyson's fans have no bearing on how I rank him.

I hate to keep this senseless post alive, but I'm curious Dec as to why you rate Frazier higher than Foreman when Foreman slaughtered him twice?

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 06:37**

Arsenal wrote:Few losses??? Thats hilarious, you officially know f**k all!

Lewis beat no one in their prime? Well I'll list 10 if you want?

Lost every rd to Bruno? Err I don't think so but it doesn't matter. Ali lost most rds to Foreman and came back to win what some people say was one of his greatest fights.

Scared of Ruiz? Well if you think so..

knocked down by Briggs? No he wasn't FACT!

Trouble with Akinwande? Knocked down by Akinwande? Then why did Akinwande get disqualified for holding? And he wasn't knocked down FACT!

Greatest win against against a past it Ruddock? Ruddock wasn't past it he just wasn't very good! But great KO. One of the best. But that was the crowd wasn't it?

Tyson humble, caring? Yeah of course the guy is who has been convicted of rape, assault etc

Bruno, Bugner, Cooper better? You really haven't a clue!

Caulk and Razor please leave this forum because its for boxing not bulls**t! You are officially the worse posters on this forum.

not to get invoved in a 400 page argument, but i do beilve you are right

to even think that Bruno, Bugner and cooper are better than Lewis is retarded. seems to me that so many people are hell bent on not giving old lennox any credit

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 06:43**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
that is the biggest crock of shit i ever heard. if u judge ur heavweight list based on "pure boxing ability" then marciano wouldnt make the top 5000 list.
It's only part of the criteria, not the only thing. Why are people so damn obsessive over one thing? Christ, get a life.

u cant critisize rocky for not have having "pure boxing skill", thats like critisizing tunney for not being a power puncher slugger

Actually Tunney was a very good puncher...

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 07:49**

silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Caulk Rocket wrote: It's only part of the criteria, not the only thing. Why are people so damn obsessive over one thing? Christ, get a life.

u cant critisize rocky for not have having "pure boxing skill", thats like critisizing tunney for not being a power puncher slugger
Alas Tunney's star has faded... I think Tunney-Marciano would be a fantastic fight.

I don't constantly write up my HW top 10 or 20 but I don't have a problem with them both being top 10. They are both all-time greats. Marciano has the historical significance and is a legend due to his heart, endurance and come from behind wins.

Actually Tunney was a very good puncher...

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 10:27**

Great argument you muppet. I back up my arguments with evidence. You and Razor come up with absolute crap and then retract it when it is shown to be false. You know nothing about boxing accept it!

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 10:53**

Caulk I totally understood what you said. You rated Tunney higher than Marciano because he had few losses. The reason I found that funny is because Marciano had none and on that basis he should be higher. I didn't think you meant Marciano. So instead of resorting to slagging people off give some decent arguments and I'll knock them down!

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 11:22**

Caulk Rocket wrote:Like I said previously, we all have our opinions but I have literacy to succeed in life with.

Hmmmm

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 13:40**

Caulk Rocket wrote:
Arsenal wrote:Caulk I totally understood what you said. You rated Tunney higher than Marciano because he had few losses. The reason I found that funny is because Marciano had none and on that basis he should be higher. I didn't think you meant Marciano. So instead of resorting to slagging people off give some decent arguments and I'll knock them down!
Even so, it's still a complete lack of comprehension. People put Marciano high on all time lists because he was undefeated. Tunney's record was just as good and nearly unblemished. Ripping that part of the statement completely out of context and comprehending it as "1 loss (+ 1 news) is better than no losses" shows utter incompetency. The word "loss" implies a negative connotation, and FEW means "next to none," whereas FEWER would imply a BETTER record and a positive connotation. But I did not saw FEWER did I? Tunney had a few losses and one of the best records ever, whereas Marciano had no losses, but Tunney had better boxing skills which is what I prefer.

17 pages of rope-a-dope. 3 wins by way of KO, no losses and no draws. Undisputed.

If you wanted to do away with a negative connotation, you would need to say "Tunney had few losses" instead of "Tunney had a few losses." The first statement praises Tunney for rarely losing a fight while the second does not.

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 14:23**

People put Marciano high on all time lists because he was undefeated.

i dont. i have many other reasons why i rate him in my top 10 heavyweights.

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 15:31**

tunney was a very good puncher

silk,

at 175 he was a good puncher, however not at heavyweight. he certainly wasnt a power punching slugger like rocky, liston, etc.

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 15:50**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
tunney was a very good puncher
silk,

at 175 he was a good puncher, however not at heavyweight. he certainly wasnt a power punching slugger like rocky, liston, etc.

He knocked out quite a few Heavies and floored Dempsey a couple of times which is often overlooked...

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 15:52**

silkov wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
tunney was a very good puncher
silk,

at 175 he was a good puncher, however not at heavyweight. he certainly wasnt a power punching slugger like rocky, liston, etc.
He knocked out quite a few Heavies and floored Dempsey a couple of times which is often overlooked...

Didn't Tunney only drop Dempsey in the rematch for a one count in the 8th?

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 15:53**

Decagon wrote:Dempsey was shot. He was inactive for two years, fought twice, and then was inactive for another three years. Evander Holyfield was coming off of wins over Mike Tyson and Michael Moorer, and in those two fights, fought as well as he did in his prime. Jack Dempsey, on the other hand, got his ass handed to him by Jack Sharkey before winning on a knockout even more illegal than Lewis's over Grant.

Holyfield was a long way from his prime against Lewis... as was Tyson... these are unavoidable facts...

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 16:40**

Decagon wrote:No, that's an opinion. Holyfield wasn't coming off three years of inactivity and Dempsey was. That is a fact.

Your telling me that after all his wars and his losses to Bowe and Moorer, Evander was still at his peak against lewis?... watch Holyfield vs Lewis 1 or 2 and then watch some of Evanders fights from the late 80s to early 90s and tell me that he hadn't slowed down a mighty lot... a peak Holyfield would have outworked Lewis... as it was both fights were mighty close... all the controversy about the 1st fight has made people forget that it was a very close fight and the 2nd fight was even closer...

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 19:41**

silk,

lately i been watching a lot of late 80s/early 90s holyfield and let me say im very impressed with evander. he looked awesome in the late 80s, a lot better than the version who fought lennox.

Posted: **06 Apr 2006, 22:46**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:silk,

lately i been watching a lot of late 80s/early 90s holyfield and let me say im very impressed with evander. he looked awesome in the late 80s, a lot better than the version who fought lennox.

A lot better than the version that fought Tyson, too. Now do you agree that Holyfield was not in his prime when he fought Tyson?

Posted: **07 Apr 2006, 00:17**

evndrbsn wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:silk,

lately i been watching a lot of late 80s/early 90s holyfield and let me say im very impressed with evander. he looked awesome in the late 80s, a lot better than the version who fought lennox.
A lot better than the version that fought Tyson, too. Now do you agree that Holyfield was not in his prime when he fought Tyson?

yes i agree,

however holyfield put on an incredible preformance vs tyson, one of the best of his career. holy looked better in tyson fight than lewis fight. i also think tyson was just as past his prime but far more mentally screwed up and more rusty than evander holyfield. i do think prime for prime, based on styles tyson wins. however prime holyfield beats lennox. holyfield looked damm good in the late 80s, i mean damm good. much faster and better boxer. i think the 200lb version of holyfield was as good as any heavyweight version of holyfield.

i was very impressed with a peak holyfield!

i havnt studied holyfield in the late 80s enough, im glad i have now.

Posted: **07 Apr 2006, 00:20**

i think tyson and holyfields best was the late 80s. not 1990s

Posted: **07 Apr 2006, 02:58**

Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i think tyson and holyfields best was the late 80s. not 1990s
Holyfield didn't beat anyone in the 1980s. How do you know he was at his best.

faded pinklon thomas, faded quick tillis, peak michael dokes, alex stewart

notice how in 89, holyfield beats stewart pretty conviningly by KO, and then in 93 holy struggled more and allows stewart to take him the distance? i think holy was a better fighter in late 80s.

i think holyfield looked much faster, quicker rexlexes in late 1980s

BoxRec

I Love Tyson Prime