BoxRec

That doesn't even make sense. Fights well before we were born couldn't have been our first life experience.
You on the other hand, seem to think the sport started when you started to get interested in it. You dismiss fighters that you don't know anything about simply because they were before your time. That is simply ignorant.

Most of us common sense and don't assume that everyone before our time was not any good. We aren't that arrogant. We don't look at birthdates and weights to determine how good a fighter was. We actually look at how good they were. Crazy concept isn't it?

Sometimes a fight from modern times is better than a fighter from way back. sometimes the old-timer was better. Depends on who we are talking a bout. It doesn't depend on the needle on the scale or era they fought in.

Ambling Alp II wrote:That doesn't even make sense. Fights well before we were born couldn't have been our first life experience.
You on the other hand, seem to think the sport started when you started to get interested in it. You dismiss fighters that you don't know anything about simply because they were before your time. That is simply ignorant.

Most of us common sense and don't assume that everyone before our time was not any good. We aren't that arrogant. We don't look at birthdates and weights to determine how good a fighter was. We actually look at how good they were. Crazy concept isn't it?

Sometimes a fight from modern times is better than a fighter from way back. sometimes the old-timer was better. Depends on who we are talking a bout. It doesn't depend on the needle on the scale or era they fought in.

Ambler... you try to put words in people's mouths that they never say -- and you don't do a genuine critique of their actual posts. My life experience includes watching Marciano and Robinson fight live on TV. I'm also am a big fan of Gene Tunney who was WAY before my time, because he was a brilliant master boxer who would rip Marciano to shreds and pound him out in a 15 round fight.

I believe this is why Dempsey cleverly insisted his fights with Tunney be limited to 10 rounds---very unusual of for a major World Title Fight.. Tunney's endurance and conditioning were less of a factor at the extremely limited distance.. This was a very good proposition for Tunney as well---because Dempsey survived to KO top contender Jack Sharkey and do a rematch with Tunney---that paid GT a million dollars.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:The 70s top 10 might be something like follows
(1)Ali
(2)Holmes
(3)Frazier
(4)Foreman
(5)Young
(6)Norton
(7)Jimmy Ellis
(8)Floyd Patterson
(9)Jerry Quarry
(10)Mike Weaver

Good list but Patterson had seen his best days and Weaver hadn't yet. I'd take Ellis off the list too as his best was the 1960s.

I'd put Bugner, Bonavena, Lyle, and Shavers in their place. I have 11. Oh well.

Kalan wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:That doesn't even make sense. Fights well before we were born couldn't have been our first life experience.
You on the other hand, seem to think the sport started when you started to get interested in it. You dismiss fighters that you don't know anything about simply because they were before your time. That is simply ignorant.

Most of us common sense and don't assume that everyone before our time was not any good. We aren't that arrogant. We don't look at birthdates and weights to determine how good a fighter was. We actually look at how good they were. Crazy concept isn't it?

Sometimes a fight from modern times is better than a fighter from way back. sometimes the old-timer was better. Depends on who we are talking a bout. It doesn't depend on the needle on the scale or era they fought in.

Ambler... you try to put words in people's mouths that they never say -- and you don't do a genuine critique of their actual posts. My life experience includes watching Marciano and Robinson fight live on TV. I'm also am a big fan of Gene Tunney who was WAY before my time, because he was a brilliant master boxer who would rip Marciano to shreds and pound him out in a 15 round fight.

I believe this is why Dempsey cleverly insisted his fights with Tunney be limited to 10 rounds---very unusual of for a major World Title Fight.. Tunney's endurance and conditioning were less of a factor at the extremely limited distance.. This was a very good proposition for Tunney as well---because Dempsey survived to KO top contender Jack Sharkey and do a rematch with Tunney---that paid GT a million dollars.

golden oldie has said many times that the old timers were not that good. He even ripped Joe Louis. You both and get all obsessed about weight. So no, I wasn't putting words in his mouth.
Don't really care about supposed "life experience" of watching Marciano and Robinson fight on live TV. There are many people on this forum who know more about boxing and boxing history than you.
The limit for title fights in Pennsylvania and Illinois were each 10 rounds at the time. There were other title fights that went 10 rounds as well. Was not unusual.

Tony1244 wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:The 70s top 10 might be something like follows
(1)Ali
(2)Holmes
(3)Frazier
(4)Foreman
(5)Young
(6)Norton
(7)Jimmy Ellis
(8)Floyd Patterson
(9)Jerry Quarry
(10)Mike Weaver

Good list but Patterson had seen his best days and Weaver hadn't yet. I'd take Ellis off the list too as his best was the 1960s.

I'd put Bugner, Bonavena, Lyle, and Shavers in their place. I have 11. Oh well.

Hard to pick just 10, isn't it?
Ellis and Patterson were fading in the early 70s, though they each had something left. Patterson did beat Bonavena, which has to count for something. A lot of close calls after about #6.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Kalan wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:That doesn't even make sense. Fights well before we were born couldn't have been our first life experience.
You on the other hand, seem to think the sport started when you started to get interested in it. You dismiss fighters that you don't know anything about simply because they were before your time. That is simply ignorant.

Most of us common sense and don't assume that everyone before our time was not any good. We aren't that arrogant. We don't look at birthdates and weights to determine how good a fighter was. We actually look at how good they were. Crazy concept isn't it?

Sometimes a fight from modern times is better than a fighter from way back. sometimes the old-timer was better. Depends on who we are talking a bout. It doesn't depend on the needle on the scale or era they fought in.

Ambler... you try to put words in people's mouths that they never say -- and you don't do a genuine critique of their actual posts. My life experience includes watching Marciano and Robinson fight live on TV. I'm also am a big fan of Gene Tunney who was WAY before my time, because he was a brilliant master boxer who would rip Marciano to shreds and pound him out in a 15 round fight.

I believe this is why Dempsey cleverly insisted his fights with Tunney be limited to 10 rounds---very unusual of for a major World Title Fight.. Tunney's endurance and conditioning were less of a factor at the extremely limited distance.. This was a very good proposition for Tunney as well---because Dempsey survived to KO top contender Jack Sharkey and do a rematch with Tunney---that paid GT a million dollars.

golden oldie has said many times that the old timers were not that good. He even ripped Joe Louis. You both and get all obsessed about weight. So no, I wasn't putting words in his mouth.
Don't really care about supposed "life experience" of watching Marciano and Robinson fight on live TV. There are many people on this forum who know more about boxing and boxing history than you.
The limit for title fights in Pennsylvania and Illinois were each 10 rounds at the time. There were other title fights that went 10 rounds as well. Was not unusual.

I'm not obsessed about weight... How much did Tunney weigh for his Dempsey fights??? I've often said he was one of the best ever Heavyweights. Dempsey often fought in the 180's at his best. He was probably the best P4P puncher in Boxing History. Wasn't much of a boxer.

How many states of the 48 limited World Title Fights to 10 rounds??? Dempsey only had 1 other Title Fight other than Tunney scheduled for 10. But Miske was suffering from Bright's disease and unlikely to go past 10 anyway right?

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Kalan wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:That doesn't even make sense. Fights well before we were born couldn't have been our first life experience.
You on the other hand, seem to think the sport started when you started to get interested in it. You dismiss fighters that you don't know anything about simply because they were before your time. That is simply ignorant.

Most of us common sense and don't assume that everyone before our time was not any good. We aren't that arrogant. We don't look at birthdates and weights to determine how good a fighter was. We actually look at how good they were. Crazy concept isn't it?

Sometimes a fight from modern times is better than a fighter from way back. sometimes the old-timer was better. Depends on who we are talking a bout. It doesn't depend on the needle on the scale or era they fought in.

Ambler... you try to put words in people's mouths that they never say -- and you don't do a genuine critique of their actual posts. My life experience includes watching Marciano and Robinson fight live on TV. I'm also am a big fan of Gene Tunney who was WAY before my time, because he was a brilliant master boxer who would rip Marciano to shreds and pound him out in a 15 round fight.

I believe this is why Dempsey cleverly insisted his fights with Tunney be limited to 10 rounds---very unusual of for a major World Title Fight.. Tunney's endurance and conditioning were less of a factor at the extremely limited distance.. This was a very good proposition for Tunney as well---because Dempsey survived to KO top contender Jack Sharkey and do a rematch with Tunney---that paid GT a million dollars.

golden oldie has said many times that the old timers were not that good. He even ripped Joe Louis. You both and get all obsessed about weight. So no, I wasn't putting words in his mouth.
Don't really care about supposed "life experience" of watching Marciano and Robinson fight on live TV. There are many people on this forum who know more about boxing and boxing history than you.
The limit for title fights in Pennsylvania and Illinois were each 10 rounds at the time. There were other title fights that went 10 rounds as well. Was not unusual.

Thank you, I try not to bother talking to that child but I was finally going to correct him on why it was 10 rounds. Little known fact, kalan saw Dempsey/Tunney live on color tv. And the guy who lists puffed up records by bums has Tunney as one of the greatest heavyweights with a handful of fights. Gene isn't top 20.

I can't see olden moldies posts since he's blocked; are he and kalan sniffing each others arses in this thread too?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: the guy who lists puffed up records by bums has Tunney as one of the greatest heavyweights with a handful of fights. Gene isn't top 20.

Tunney fought 20 fighters over the Light Heavyweight limit, ending with his last fight with challenger Tom Heeney who was 203.5... He destroyed Heeney---who drew with Jack Sharkey---and was the 1st to knock Heeney out.. Tunney twice dominated a great Heavyweight in Jack Dempsey and beat several ATG fighters. He's highly respected by ring historians, and in his particular case he deserves to be.

Tunney was one of the best pure boxers ever, was never stopped, and only floored once in his career of 85 fights -- so he deserves to be ranked.

Kalan wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: the guy who lists puffed up records by bums has Tunney as one of the greatest heavyweights with a handful of fights. Gene isn't top 20.

Tunney fought 20 fighters over the Light Heavyweight limit, ending with his last fight with challenger Tom Heeney who was 203.5... He destroyed Heeney---who drew with Jack Sharkey---and was the 1st to knock Heeney out.. Tunney twice dominated a great Heavyweight in Jack Dempsey and beat several ATG fighters. He's highly respected by ring historians, and in his particular case he deserves to be.

Tunney was one of the best pure boxers ever, was never stopped, and only floored once in his career of 85 fights -- so he deserves to be ranked.

Gene Tunney was a great boxer pound per pound top 50 ATG, kalan, but he wasn't a great all time heavyweight. He didn't fight at heavyweight for a long time. He is more considered an all time top great light-heavyweight fighter.

But Tunney is famous for being the World Heavyweight Champion and beating one of the greatest Heavyweight Champions in Fistic History twice.

Gene T was there... And if any Heavyweight of that supposedly Golden Era of Sports could match him, he was up for the challenge.

One problem with making a top 10 for a decade on a head to head basis is that the division changes and sometimes fighters in the later part of a decade do not face the ones earlier in the decade.
For the 50s the top 10 might be as follows
(1)Marciano
(2)Liston
(3)Charles
(4)Patterson
(5)Walcott
(6)Williams
(7)Moore
(8)Johnson
(9)Johannson
(10)Machen

I agree with you on that. It's not like everyone started right at the beginning of the dace and ended right at the end. The 1950s in particular seems to really have a dividing line. You have Marciano, Charles, Walcott, in the early 1950s, then Patterson, Liston, Johannson, Folley, Machen and Williams took over. There isn't much overlap. Most decades have more of an overlap, but again you will guys who were really near the top in the early part of a decade and others only near the top in the latter part.

I think your rankings are realistic; I'm sure some would have Liston over Marciano, and Patterson, Walcott, and Charles are all very close. I would have actually have Johnson ahead of Moore at heavyweight. Some people would rate Folley in the top 10. Overall, that is a legitimate rating.

The 1950's Heavyweights should rank more like this. I don't see Marciano beating any prime natural Heavyweight who's a highly skilled boxer-puncher.

1. Liston,
2. Patterson
3. Johansson
4. Machen
5. Folley
6. Marciano
7. Moore
8. Charles
9. Walcott
10. Jackson

Liston is the only 50's fighter who could stay with George Foreman. Circa 1958 Sonny might have beaten Foreman with his excellent jab.. Johansson lost only to Patterson.. He was not a good boxer, but he was a tremendous puncher. Anybody Ingo could hit he would take out -- and Marciano was a wide open target.. Machen and Folley were top-notch boxer-punchers of prime age in the late 1950's.. Walcott and Charles were well past their best in the early 1950's.. Patterson was a blizzard of hand speed and punching power.. No way the 50's versions of Marciano, Walcott or Charles could stay with the 21-year-old phenom who trounced Moore.

Archie Moore knew he was fighting Patterson in 4 months so he asked for a warm up opponent to stay in the pink. "Get me 1-round job. Nobody too good."

They got him Roy Shire, a 34-year-old fighting the one and only boxing match of his life.. Shire gave a fair account of himself until he suffered a cut in the 3rd round.. You could have those kind of match-ups in the 50's.

Kalan wrote:The 1950's Heavyweights should rank more like this. I don't see Marciano beating any prime natural Heavyweight who's a highly skilled boxer-puncher.

1. Liston,
2. Patterson
3. Johansson
4. Machen
5. Folley
6. Marciano
7. Moore
8. Charles
9. Walcott
10. Jackson

Liston is the only 50's fighter who could stay with George Foreman. Circa 1958 Sonny might have beaten Foreman with his excellent jab.. Johansson lost only to Patterson.. He was not a good boxer, but he was a tremendous puncher. Anybody Ingo could hit he would take out -- and Marciano was a wide open target.. Machen and Folley were top-notch boxer-punchers of prime age in the late 1950's.. Walcott and Charles were well past their best in the early 1950's.. Patterson was a blizzard of hand speed and punching power.. No way the 50's versions of Marciano, Walcott or Charles could stay with the 21-year-old phenom who trounced Moore.

I see you went with the "draw names out of a hat method" for your ratings.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Exactly. The Frazier fight alone has to count for an awful lot.

To answer some criticisms- His pre-title competition. Certainly some tomato cans. However Peralta was a good fighter. Foreman didn't seem to have stamina fighters against him. He also beat Boone Kirkman who was a good fighter. Jack O'Halloran wasn't bad either. Compare that to other champions. A lot of them didn't do much more before winning the title.

-Only two successful title defenses. Come on. The third was against Ali. He won the title from Joe Frazier, not some paper champion.

Foreman fought nobody who could box before he fought Frazier... Of course Frazier couldn't box either... But O'Halloran, Kirkman, and Chuvalo didn't ever even try to box.. They didn't even like boxing instruction, kind of like Max Baer didn't like it.. They just want to plow you in the mouth and get the damned fight over with...and on to the next fight.. Foreman wasn't big on boxing in his 1st career either.. After he knocked out Ken Norton he said on camera, "My fights aren't going to go 5 rounds.. Either I'm going to get knocked out or they're going be knocked out.. That's the way I want it."

A lot of fighters feel that way.. They've been very successful doing everything their own way.. if you're the Heavyweight Champion of the World, you get tired of boxing coaches telling you you're all fkkd up and need to do it this way and that way... "Hey, who's the champ? You or me?"

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Kalan wrote:The 1950's Heavyweights should rank more like this. I don't see Marciano beating any prime natural Heavyweight who's a highly skilled boxer-puncher.

1. Liston,
2. Patterson
3. Johansson
4. Machen
5. Folley
6. Marciano
7. Moore
8. Charles
9. Walcott
10. Jackson

Liston is the only 50's fighter who could stay with George Foreman. Circa 1958 Sonny might have beaten Foreman with his excellent jab.. Johansson lost only to Patterson.. He was not a good boxer, but he was a tremendous puncher. Anybody Ingo could hit he would take out -- and Marciano was a wide open target.. Machen and Folley were top-notch boxer-punchers of prime age in the late 1950's.. Walcott and Charles were well past their best in the early 1950's.. Patterson was a blizzard of hand speed and punching power.. No way the 50's versions of Marciano, Walcott or Charles could stay with the 21-year-old phenom who trounced Moore.

I see you went with the "draw names out of a hat method" for your ratings.

I legitimately wonder if kalan has ever watched a boxing match between digging through boxrec for troll fodder and creating his fictional backstory.

I'm sure olden moldie's post was made of the purest shite in keeping with his posting tradition. The quality of this forum has gone through the roof since I've blocked him.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Kalan wrote:The 1950's Heavyweights should rank more like this. I don't see Marciano beating any prime natural Heavyweight who's a highly skilled boxer-puncher.

1. Liston,
2. Patterson
3. Johansson
4. Machen
5. Folley
6. Marciano
7. Moore
8. Charles
9. Walcott
10. Jackson

Liston is the only 50's fighter who could stay with George Foreman. Circa 1958 Sonny might have beaten Foreman with his excellent jab.. Johansson lost only to Patterson.. He was not a good boxer, but he was a tremendous puncher. Anybody Ingo could hit he would take out -- and Marciano was a wide open target.. Machen and Folley were top-notch boxer-punchers of prime age in the late 1950's.. Walcott and Charles were well past their best in the early 1950's.. Patterson was a blizzard of hand speed and punching power.. No way the 50's versions of Marciano, Walcott or Charles could stay with the 21-year-old phenom who trounced Moore.

I see you went with the "draw names out of a hat method" for your ratings.

That seems to be your method. Right out of the air. My method is studious analysis backed by experience, expertise, and a deep knowledge of styles.

Liston is the obvious first choice. He already beat Patterson, Folley, and Machen so easily it was embarrassing. Johansson refused to fight Sonny because he was sane. Folley was a great boxer but his soft chin left him vulnerable to punchers who could box. Machen was a very good boxer and the kind of style that created problems for Liston. He just wasn't big, tall, or rangy enough to out-box Sonny. The bottom 5 were all guys who would fight you like Patterson tried to fight Liston twice... Nobody fights Sonny. It's a death wish.

Patterson easily vanquished anyone but Liston. His hands were so fast it was ridiculous. He already beat Machen, Johansson, Moore, and Jackson easily.

Johansson was such a big puncher you couldn't blink. He pecked away with his jab and lulled you to sleep with it. He had nothing on his jab but would try to draw a right counter from you. Most opponents bit on that. That set up his right brilliantly and it was a thunderbolt.

Machen and Folley were very close in skills. Machen had a much stronger chin and that was his edge over Folley.

Folley could outbox about anybody. He wouldn't be taking shots From RM for the duration like glass-chinned Don Cockell did.

Marciano would get stopped by brutal punchers: Liston, Patterson, and Johansson -- badly battered by Machen and Folley -- and beat the rest.

Moore would get beaten up and over-powered by everyone above him... but he aged much better than Charles and Walcott did.

Charles easily beat Walcott in their first 2 fights...the 2nd was in March 1951.. Walcott wasn't getting better---Charles was deteriorating faster.

Walcott-Jackson would be close... but Walcott I believe was the better all around fighter

How do people see the following matchups going?
(1)Marciano vs Ali
(2)Liston vs Holmes
(3)Charles vs Frazier
(4)Patterson vs Foreman
(5)Walcott vs Young
(6)Williams vs Norton
(7)Moore vs Ellis
(8)Johnson vs Quarry
(9)Johannson vs Patterson (70s version)
(10)Machen vs Lyle

I adjusted my list for the 70s a bit based on people's suggestions. Obviously we have to favor Foreman to blast out Patterson but many of these matchups look winnable for the 50s heavyweights.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:How do people see the following matchups going?
(1)Marciano vs Ali
(2)Liston vs Holmes
(3)Charles vs Frazier
(4)Patterson vs Foreman
(5)Walcott vs Young
(6)Williams vs Norton
(7)Moore vs Ellis
(8)Johnson vs Quarry
(9)Johannson vs Patterson (70s version)
(10)Machen vs Lyle

I adjusted my list for the 70s a bit based on people's suggestions. Obviously we have to favor Foreman to blast out Patterson but many of these matchups look winnable for the 50s heavyweights.

The ones I'm most certain about are 1, 3 & 4.

Ali beats Marciano on points.

Frazier walks through Charles: As great as Charles was, Frazier did not respect LHWs & tore through them. Not saying he'd KO Ezzard, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did.

Foreman monsters Patterson: Floyd was too small & would not have been able to evade nor absorb too much punishment from Big George.

The others I'm less certain about.

Totally agree with you about 1,3, and 4,
Feel almost as confident about Norton beating Williams. Homes should beat Liston, but Liston would certainly have a chance. The rest are interesting.

golden oldie wrote:The funniest part of these forums is when retards make comments on your posts, only to claim they have blocked you.

They can see that you have posted but cannot see content...

Syntax Error wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:How do people see the following matchups going?
(1)Marciano vs Ali
(2)Liston vs Holmes
(3)Charles vs Frazier
(4)Patterson vs Foreman
(5)Walcott vs Young
(6)Williams vs Norton
(7)Moore vs Ellis
(8)Johnson vs Quarry
(9)Johannson vs Patterson (70s version)
(10)Machen vs Lyle

I adjusted my list for the 70s a bit based on people's suggestions. Obviously we have to favor Foreman to blast out Patterson but many of these matchups look winnable for the 50s heavyweights.

The ones I'm most certain about are 1, 3 & 4.

Ali beats Marciano on points.

Frazier walks through Charles: As great as Charles was, Frazier did not respect LHWs & tore through them. Not saying he'd KO Ezzard, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did.

Foreman monsters Patterson: Floyd was too small & would not have been able to evade nor absorb too much punishment from Big George.

The others I'm less certain about.

If Cooper can floor Ali, Marciano KO's him.