BoxRec

barry wrote:If only Vitali would not have flat out quit!

Theres nothing like an unbiased viewpoint Barry, and your statement is indeed nothing like an unbaised viewpoint!...
Why dont you single out some other fighters to berate as quitters?... Duran, Tyson, Liston???.... they all quit in fights... yet seem to escape your unfeeling comments!.... :x

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Only ever beaten on injuries...

Just like Lennox Lewis. He was also only ever beaten on injuries.

I thought Lewis was knocked out twice??... I suggest some revison for you John L ... 8) Box-rec has a marvelous records department!... make it your home!...

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Only ever beaten on injuries...

Just like Lennox Lewis. He was also only ever beaten on injuries.

I thought Lewis was knocked out twice??... I suggest some revison for you John L ... 8) Box-rec has a marvelous records department!... make it your home!...

Oh forgive me. I was using your logic. Let’s see, Lewis “injured” Vitali with a hard right hand that caused the ref to stop the fight. That’s the same thing that McCall and Rahman did to Lewis, isn’t it? They both hit him with a big right hand that caused an injury to his brain that led to the fight being stopped. Is this too complicated for you to follow?

So Lewis was only ever beaten on injuries, just like Vitali. Of course, WE know the truth about Vitali’s fights. He really didn’t lose them.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Just like Lennox Lewis. He was also only ever beaten on injuries.

I thought Lewis was knocked out twice??... I suggest some revison for you John L ... 8) Box-rec has a marvelous records department!... make it your home!...

Oh forgive me. I was using your logic. Let’s see, Lewis “injured” Vitali with a hard right hand that caused the ref to stop the fight. That’s the same thing that McCall and Rahman did to Lewis, isn’t it? They both hit him with a big right hand that caused an injury to his brain that led to the fight being stopped. Is this too complicated for you to follow?

So Lewis was only ever beaten on injuries, just like Vitali. Of course, WE know the truth about Vitali’s fights. He really didn’t lose them.

Well if you dont know the difference between being knocked out or stopped on cuts I cant be bothered to tell you... perhaps you should move on to the current forum, ...might be more your level... 8)

silkov wrote:Well if you dont know the difference between being knocked out or stopped on cuts I cant be bothered to tell you... perhaps you should move on to the current forum, ...might be more your level... 8)

As I suspect, it was beyond you. You might want to study up on what happens to the brain when a fighter is KO’d. It might be a bit too hard for you to understand, but the brain can get injured. In fact, based on your logic, it’s probably happened to you a few times.

Ezzard Charles was not fighting at light heavyweight when Moore was in his prime. Charles did not show himself to be the better light heavyweight because Moore did not become consistent until after his fights with Charles. Thus there not really from the same era.

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:Walcott did tend to lose fights, though. In his last 19 bouts, he only had 10 wins. If he can lose to Rex Layne and Joey Maxim, he can lose to Archie Moore or Ingemar Johannson.

in the big title fights.......walcott always brought his A game.



* maxim loss was a bad decision. it was reported as a "very unpopular decision" by the new york times.




a peak walcott beats both moore and johannsen.

So was Walcott-Charles IV.

disagree......sources vary on who won walcott-charles IV. it appears charles simply did not do enough to take the title away from jersey joe. walcott was more aggresive and his strong finish gave him the close victory

Cojimar 1945 wrote:I believe I have read a Walcott interview from 1956 in which he claims Patterson is better than he is and also better than Marciano.

walcott also said tiger jack fox was the best fighter he ever fought. does ths mean fox was better than louis, marciano, charles?

A lot of good points made here. There is absolutely no question, based on their records and accomplishments, that Bob Fitzsimmons and Tommy Burns belong in the Hall of Fame. Fitz for his phenominal career and Burns for his time as the first undisputed WORLD champion. Joe Walcott may belong in a secondary class of Hall of Famers alongside Primo Carnera and James J. Corbett, etc. Walcott had an unspectacular career and dull reign as champion, but he did manage to beat Ezzard Charles and Joe Louis (though Louis got the sentimental decision). Schmeling likely belongs in that corps too. Then you have Braddock, Hart, (Leon) Spinks, Baer, Johannson, Liston, Norton and their ilk.

For, as someone pointed out earlier, this is the Hall of FAME we're talking about, not the hall of records.

Cap

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: in the big title fights.......walcott always brought his A game.



* maxim loss was a bad decision. it was reported as a "very unpopular decision" by the new york times.




a peak walcott beats both moore and johannsen.

So was Walcott-Charles IV.

disagree......sources vary on who won walcott-charles IV. it appears charles simply did not do enough to take the title away from jersey joe. walcott was more aggresive and his strong finish gave him the close victory

So if sources vary on who won the fight, wouldn't that mean it was in the very least a disputable decision?