BoxRec

gilgamesh wrote:

Kalan wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Tyson Fury, Luis Ortiz, Anthony Joshua, Ibeabuchi ranked over Ali and Tyson...pure comedy

Foreman on the same level as Brewster and Berbick?

Fury, Ortiz, Joshua, and Ibeabuchi never lost... They were bigger and stronger and better defensively... Ali and Tyson ate jabs for instance... Foreman was easily outboxed and floored by feather hitter Jimmy Young - who came into the Foreman Fight 20-5-2 and lost 3 of his next 4 fights after beating Foreman... I did rank Foreman ahead of both Brewster and Berbick...but the Brewster who smashed Golota and the Berbick who beat Greg Page for Page's 1st loss were pretty good Heavyweights... All 3 were good Heavyweights... You fail to look at the full picture.

Ibeabuchi didn't have a chance to lose he went to Prison after 20 fights for Raping a girl, and in my opinion he shouldn't have got the decision in the David Tua fight. I had Tua winning that one.

Fury, Ortiz and Joshua are still likely to lose before it's all said and done. They still have a ways to go in their careers.

Yes these great Heavyweights will lose at some point...to each other probably... But they're not going to lose to any Jimmy Young, Leon Spinks, Ken Norton, Tommy Morrison, Joe Frazier, Buster Douglas, or Danny Williams caliber fighter... Ibeabuchi had only 16 fights compared to 27 for fights for David Tua.. Ibeabuchi wasn't half developed, but he outscored Tua by a ton, controlled their fight, and won a UD.. You're a terrible at scoring Boxing matches ... as you also demonstrated with your Jermall Charlo-Austin Trout scorecard ... Ludicrous.

Kalan wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

Kalan wrote:
Fury, Ortiz, Joshua, and Ibeabuchi never lost... They were bigger and stronger and better defensively... Ali and Tyson ate jabs for instance... Foreman was easily outboxed and floored by feather hitter Jimmy Young - who came into the Foreman Fight 20-5-2 and lost 3 of his next 4 fights after beating Foreman... I did rank Foreman ahead of both Brewster and Berbick...but the Brewster who smashed Golota and the Berbick who beat Greg Page for Page's 1st loss were pretty good Heavyweights... All 3 were good Heavyweights... You fail to look at the full picture.

Ibeabuchi didn't have a chance to lose he went to Prison after 20 fights for Raping a girl, and in my opinion he shouldn't have got the decision in the David Tua fight. I had Tua winning that one.

Fury, Ortiz and Joshua are still likely to lose before it's all said and done. They still have a ways to go in their careers.

Yes these great Heavyweights will lose at some point...to each other probably... But they're not going to lose to any Jimmy Young, Leon Spinks, Ken Norton, Tommy Morrison, Joe Frazier, Buster Douglas, or Danny Williams caliber fighter... Ibeabuchi had only 16 fights compared to 27 for fights for David Tua.. Ibeabuchi wasn't half developed, but he outscored Tua by a ton, controlled their fight, and won a UD.. You're a terrible at scoring Boxing matches ... as you also demonstrated with your Jermall Charlo-Austin Trout scorecard ... Ludicrous.

Tua's punches landed harder. I felt. It was definitely a close fight, but I had Tua winning 115-113. I'm pretty good at scoring fights I'd say. I've never had a score that would be unjustifiable. I could break down why I scored any fight the way I did. There are several other Boxing fans who feel Tua got the better of the Ibeabuchi fight as well. It's not like I'm the only one.

Everybody thinks they're great at scoring fights... Especially the ones who had Castillo beating Mayweather... De La Hoya beating Mayweather... Maidana beating Mayweather... Pacquiao beating Mayweather... Hagler beating Leonard... Taylor beating Hopkins... Hopkins beating Calzaghe... Ali beating Norton... Roy Jones beating Antonio Tarver... Bradley beating Pacquiao... Whitaker beating De La Hoya... Witherspoon beating Holmes... Norton beating Holmes... Holyfield beating Lewis... Tua beating Ibeabuchi... Trout drawing with Charlo... and I could go on forever. That's 16 examples and you could probably add 100.

But every fan who thinks the above can't judge fights worth a damn... The guy they want to win always gets the close round and if the fight is close or "reasonably close" they're going to have their guy winning. They could GAF less who landed more or better punches because their lying eyes are going to filter the results. And while most judges are much better than the average fan there are some horrible judges.

Judges get some fights wrong because there's so much incompetence out there to begin with.. People who think the above.. Look at how many split decisions there are.. For every 9 split decisions the judges probably get 3 wrong.. For every dozen unanimous decision the judges probably got 1 wrong.. For every 6 majority decisions the judges probably got 1 wrong.. Diving, Gymnastics, and Figure Skating use 12 judges.. They throw out the high and low scores and average the rest -- so their results are generally pretty damned good... Their judges are generally former coaches or high level competitors anyway... In Boxing somebody who's related to a commissioner, referee, promoter, or another judge, or is a friend of somebody gets the job of Boxing Judge.. We could do better if we advertised for applicants, screened applicants, and trained judges better ... and used 5 judges for title fights. Having great vision should be one requirement for example. I would take obscure fights from 30 or 40 years ago and have applicants view them with the sound off. After each round they jot down the number of punches landed by each fighter and who landed more effectively on a scale of 1 to 10 -- and if those stats are even who was the better defender, more aggressive, and the better ring general.

We'd probably have fewer bad judges if the advertising, screening and training process was better.

Kalan wrote:

gp. wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Tyson Fury, Luis Ortiz, Anthony Joshua, Ibeabuchi ranked over Ali and Tyson...pure comedy

Foreman on the same level as Brewster and Berbick?

Did you miss Joe Frazier on the same level as Charles Martin? I would have had to have a sit down if anyone else had posted this.

Charles Martin must be one hell of a swimmer.

Frazier never faced big, tall, brutally powerful punchers... except for one (1) ... Charles Martin's only lost came to a 6'6" X 245 puncher... a guy who could also box Martin's ass clean off... Who was the greatest 6'6" X 245 boxer-puncher who Joe Frazier ever faced??? ... Could Foreman box??? Or did he just beat Frazier like a punching bag until he battered the fat little guy out in 2 rounds??? ... Frazier never impressed me other than his ability to absorb most Heavyweight's punches.. I always thought he would fare poorly versus a big, tall, strong puncher and we found out.

So your argument, if I follow it, is because the guy that beat Charles Martin was better than the guys that beat Joe Frazier (in your opinion, obviously, but let's not argue this just now), Charles Martin > Frazier.

What in the name of all gods have you seen from Charles Martin that makes you think he could last longer than Frazier against the likes of Foreman? Or anyone much with a pulse? Which of his great performances leads you to make this assumption?

Martin was doing well with Czar Glazkov... even before he blew his knee out... He's a big, tall, strong, tricky southpaw who looked okay versus Sandez, Flores and others.. No other big names obviously.. He easily beats Stander, Daniels, Zygelweitz, Ramos, and many of the other chumps Frazier fought.

Or was it only Ali who could fight the Evangelista's and Lubbers of the world?

Kalan wrote:Martin was doing well with Czar Glazkov... even before he blew his knee out... He's a big, tall, strong, tricky southpaw who looked okay versus Sandez, Flores and others.. No other big names obviously.. He easily beats Stander, Daniels, Zygelweitz, Ramos, and many of the other chumps Frazier fought.

Or was it only Ali who could fight the Evangelista's and Lubbers of the world?

Other big names? Sandez and Flores are big names?

If Ali had ONLY fought Evangelista and Lubbers, we wouldn't be talking about him. Martin has no wins against fighters with a pulse. He has no wins against anyone half as good as Evangelista or Lubbers. The Glazkov fight never even got going, stop citing it.

Kalan wrote:Martin was doing well with Czar Glazkov... even before he blew his knee out... He's a big, tall, strong, tricky southpaw who looked okay versus Sandez, Flores and others.. No other big names obviously.. He easily beats Stander, Daniels, Zygelweitz, Ramos, and many of the other chumps Frazier fought.

Or was it only Ali who could fight the Evangelista's and Lubbers of the world?

The Martin-Glazkov fight was the very definition of a fluke victory. I'm not saying Martin wouldn't have won anyway, but it only went 3 rounds, and nobody was exactly kicking anybody's ass in the first 2.

Charles Martin has been entirely unimpressive in his career. Joe Frazier's win over Jimmy Ellis trumps Martin's entire career, and that's not even Joe's best win.

The Ellis fight was Frazier's best showing... He went down hill from there... Ellis fought most of his career fights at Middleweight up to that point... and Ellis was not a very good Middleweight -- Hurricane Carter beat the crap out of Jimmy in addition to several other losses he had... Ellis's loss to Joe Frazier was he 6th against 27 wins... Martin has 1 defeat in 25 fights -- ALL at Heavyweight... i.e. BIG Heavyweight... HIs FIRST loss was to AJ.

Jimmy Ellis??? ... Kind of an little bitty...teeny weenie...miniature edition Heavyweight -- with numerous losses and defensive holes galore.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Ok, I will explain.

Tony Tubbs has beat Greg Page and Smith. He barely lost ot to Tim Witherspoon and Riddick Bowe.

Tony Tucker beat Buster Douglas and Oliver McCall. With an injured hand he gave a prime Mike Tyson a tough fight. When he was past it, he went the distance with Lennox Lewis. (Vitaly Klitschko could only last 6 rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis)

Bonecrusher Smith -Knocked out Witherspoon and Bruno.

To sum it up, Tubbs, Tucker, and smith actually have multiple wins over people that were, you know, good.

Lewis was his career heaviest, yet only 10lb heavier than when he beat Rahman in their rematch, which was the lighest and best shape he'd been in for years and only 7lb heavier than for the Tyson fight, where most considered him to be in good shape. Obese is a huge exaggeration. What's more important was he had been inactive for almost a year and his skills and reflexes appeared to be diminished.

He looked pretty solid against Rahman and Tyson. He looked pretty flabby against Klitschko. I don't think it's an exaggeration to call say that someone that weighs a soft 256 is "obese".

It is if they're 6'5" and heavily muscled. Lewis was in career-worst shape but still looked slimmer than Povetkin, Chagaev, Peter, Fury, Chambers etc do for most fights.

One of the biggest BS threads i ve read.

I will throw some common sense here even though id rather not waste too much time on it.

Marciano is not even a top 20 HW, he is not even a true heavyweight by today standars.

Wladimir Klitchsko CANNOT be ranked LOWER than top 20 in ANY HEAVYWEIGHT LIST. And much less behind Marciano, Shavers (Who Wlad would knock out in 2 rounds or less) or overrated Ray Mercer.

There is a huge sense of nostalgia here and a lot of BS going on in general.

I could go on about how this Thread Maker is so, so wrong for ages, bu i think you got the main idea.

Cheers

jezzamundo wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Lewis was his career heaviest, yet only 10lb heavier than when he beat Rahman in their rematch, which was the lighest and best shape he'd been in for years and only 7lb heavier than for the Tyson fight, where most considered him to be in good shape. Obese is a huge exaggeration. What's more important was he had been inactive for almost a year and his skills and reflexes appeared to be diminished.

He looked pretty solid against Rahman and Tyson. He looked pretty flabby against Klitschko. I don't think it's an exaggeration to call say that someone that weighs a soft 256 is "obese".

It is if they're 6'5" and heavily muscled. Lewis was in career-worst shape but still looked slimmer than Povetkin, Chagaev, Peter, Fury, Chambers etc do for most fights.

Lewis was in great shape and you could count all his ribs... He certainly wasn't fat.

pedrog60 wrote:One of the biggest BS threads i ve read.

I will throw some common sense here even though id rather not waste too much time on it.

Marciano is not even a top 20 HW, he is not even a true heavyweight by today standars.

Wladimir Klitchsko CANNOT be ranked LOWER than top 20 in ANY HEAVYWEIGHT LIST. And much less behind Marciano, Shavers (Who Wlad would knock out in 2 rounds or less) or overrated Ray Mercer.

There is a huge sense of nostalgia here and a lot of BS going on in general.

I could go on about how this Thread Maker is so, so wrong for ages, bu i think you got the main idea.

Cheers

If you're feeling the Wlad lust I suppose it's not laughable to have him 19 or 20. Vitali isn't top 40 on any reasonable list. While Wlad's resume is terrible he does have longevity. Though it's hard not to punish him for his losses to four guys that aren't even top 100 and probably zero wins over a top 100 Heavyweight in his prime. Really shallow stuff.

Right behind Anthony Joshua - Vitali Klitschko was probably the best Heavyweight who ever lived... He was beating Lennonx Lewis on all scorecards when that fight was stopped on cuts... Vitali should have won that fight on a 6-round Technical Decision because foul blows by Lewis definitely contributed to the cuts..

Vital was also beating Chris Byrd easily when his rotator cuff assembly was completely severed in a freak injury... Vitali was a mile ahead on points... In fact Vitali was never behind on points and never floored in his career...and Joshua is not likely to have either happen to him... Not a bad showing for VK because he was winning on all judges' scorecards when his only 2 lost fights were stopped -- so nobody has ever out-boxed or outpunched Vitali.

After AJ and the K Bros, Lewis and Holmes are probably the top ATG Heavyweights... Lewis has official wins over everybody he ever fought, and left with his brains intact -- and Holmes won his first 48 fights including 20 straight successful Title Defenses.. Nobody ever matched that.

Kalan wrote:Level 1: Ike Ibeabuchi...

Kalan wrote: Vitali was a mile ahead on points... In fact Vitali was never behind on points and never floored in his career...and Joshua is not likely to have either happen to him....

Best to wait until somebody with some pedigree hits him before saying that.

And no, Dillian Whyte doesn't count. Dillian Whyte's opponents make Joshua's look like Murderer's Row.

Crease wrote:

Kalan wrote:Level 1: Ike Ibeabuchi...

[/quot

Who else ever did that to a prime Chris Byrd???? ... Certainly not David Tua who lost lopsidedly... and not even W. Klitschko beat Byrd that easily

And that was an Ike who came in with 19 fights.

Kalan wrote:Martin was doing well with Czar Glazkov... even before he blew his knee out... He's a big, tall, strong, tricky southpaw who looked okay versus Sandez, Flores and others.. No other big names obviously.. He easily beats Stander, Daniels, Zygelweitz, Ramos, and many of the other chumps Frazier fought.

Or was it only Ali who could fight the Evangelista's and Lubbers of the world?

That's because Glazkov is terrible, I watch some of his fight with Rossy, still unimpressive. Glazkov shouldn't be near a heavyweight title.

But Czar easily beats He easily beats Stander, Daniels, Zygelweitz, Ramos, Bonavena, and some other chumps Frazier fought in Title Fights.

Glazkov also destroys Evangelista, Dunn, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, Williams, Coopman, and some other chumps Ali fought in Title Fights.

He also runs over the competition Marciano fought in Title Fights ... like ahhh Don Cockell??? who was previously knocked out by Middleweight Turpin

Many Challengers historically should have been nowhere near World Title shots... They got them because they were easy to beat. Glazkov is one of them

Kalan wrote:Many Challengers historically should have been nowhere near World Title shots... They got them because they were easy to beat. Glazkov is one of them

so, Glazkov didn't deserve a title shot, he was easily beaten, so really anyone praising Charles Martin is doing so on the basis of him 'beating' a bum by way of retirement through injury. which means nobody can say anything positive about Charles Martin without looking like a bit of a fool, am I getting you right here?

Crease wrote:

Kalan wrote:Level 1: Ike Ibeabuchi...

Counter-puncher wrote:

Kalan wrote:Many Challengers historically should have been nowhere near World Title shots... They got them because they were easy to beat. Glazkov is one of them

so, Glazkov didn't deserve a title shot, he was easily beaten, so really anyone praising Charles Martin is doing so on the basis of him 'beating' a bum by way of retirement through injury. which means nobody can say anything positive about Charles Martin without looking like a bit of a fool, am I getting you right here?

Glazkov was undefeated in 22 fights... You look historically and he would have iced many Heavyweight Challengers of the past.. He beat Tomasz Adamek with ease... You're calling him a bum, yet he beat Steve Cunningham and drew with Malik Scott... He's not a bad heavyweight and was never close to being stopped before he met Charles Martin -- whose only defeat came at the hands of Anthony Joshua.

Kalan wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Kalan wrote:Many Challengers historically should have been nowhere near World Title shots... They got them because they were easy to beat. Glazkov is one of them

so, Glazkov didn't deserve a title shot, he was easily beaten, so really anyone praising Charles Martin is doing so on the basis of him 'beating' a bum by way of retirement through injury. which means nobody can say anything positive about Charles Martin without looking like a bit of a fool, am I getting you right here?

Glazkov was undefeated in 22 fights... You look historically and he would have iced many Heavyweight Challengers of the past.. He beat Tomasz Adamek with ease... You're calling him a bum, yet he beat Steve Cunningham and drew with Malik Scott... He's not a bad heavyweight and was never close to being stopped before he met Charles Martin -- whose only defeat came at the hands of Anthony Joshua.

Only because of more than one gift decision, and fighting not the best opponents. Martin was fighting for the NABO title before the Glazkov fight.