BoxRec

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote:[You've given me nothing to work with here. Your arguments are very flawed.

How are my arguments flawed? Im saying that Ali beat as good a competition as Greb and Armstrong. In what way didnt he?

We'll take Armstrong as the prime comparison, seeing as I know the most about him. It's pretty simple: he beat more rated contenders than Ali, and over three full divisions. Whereas Ali was often fighting lighter opponents than himself, Armstrong was regularly fighting ones heavier.

And before you say it!: I know it's not Ali's fault he was a heavyweight and couldn't conquer higher weight classes.

Decagon wrote:

DoubleM wrote:Personally I rate Ali #13. Louis #14. As great as they were, I see heavyweights as inferior to the lower weights when it comes to 'pound-for-pound'.

Why?

I believe the lighter weights were just better, that's all there is to it. You very, very rarely, if at all, see fighters so talented and well rounded like Roberto Duran at heavyweight.

DoubleM wrote:We'll take Armstrong as the prime comparison, seeing as I know the most about him. It's pretty simple: he beat more rated contenders than Ali, and over three full divisions. Whereas Ali was often fighting lighter opponents than himself, Armstrong was regularly fighting ones heavier.

And before you say it!: I know it's not Ali's fault he was a heavyweight and couldn't conquer higher weight classes.

He beat more ranked contenders because he had more fights. Pre-war fighters tended to have more fights, probably for financial reasons.
Taking Armstrong as the example, who did he beat other than Barney Ross (who was having his last fight) that have the P4P status of Liston, Foreman and Frazier? Which other all time top 10 featherweights, lightweights or welterweights did Armstrong ever beat other than Barney Ross?

Decagon wrote:True, and I have to admit having Ali and Louis at #8 and #9, respectively. I've been toying with the idea of putting Ali somewhere between #2 and #4 for the past few months. Nowhere in the lower divisions do you see men as physically formidable as Liston, Foreman and Shavers. That sort of raw power simply doesn't exist in the lower weight classes, including the rare Jackson/Hearns-level puncher.

Also, the World Heavyweight Champion is the real champion of boxing. That means that no man in the world can beat him in a fair fight. That sort of impresses me, and it impresses the hell out of the average Joe. That's why heavyweights make so much money. I've been arguing for Ali as one of the two or three greatest fighters of all time for a little while now; I'm still mulling over the concept.

Nowhere in the lower divisions do you see men as physically formidable as Liston, Foreman and Shavers.

Are you sure? You'll find many punchers who were as formidable as those three, although usually they are just much more refined. Carlos Zarate, Alexis Arguello, Wilfredo Gomez, these men were very heavy handed but possessed the skills to make their power work for them. Ike Williams, Ruben Olivares, Marvin Hagler, more examples. There are loads. Every bit as formidable as Liston, Foreman or Shavers.

P.S. - I think Liston was the best of that trio by a considerable margin.

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote:We'll take Armstrong as the prime comparison, seeing as I know the most about him. It's pretty simple: he beat more rated contenders than Ali, and over three full divisions. Whereas Ali was often fighting lighter opponents than himself, Armstrong was regularly fighting ones heavier.

And before you say it!: I know it's not Ali's fault he was a heavyweight and couldn't conquer higher weight classes.

He beat more ranked contenders because he had more fights. Pre-war fighters tended to have more fights, probably for financial reasons.
Taking Armstrong as the example, who did he beat other than Barney Ross (who was having his last fight) that have the P4P status of Liston, Foreman and Frazier? Which other all time top 10 featherweights, lightweights or welterweights did Armstrong ever beat other than Barney Ross?

He beat more ranked contenders because he had more fights.

What's this supposed to mean? It's like saying "yea, well, he only lost because he didn't win."

In a way, you are trying to excuse Ali. Armstrong 'only' beat more contenders because he had more fights? Well, yea. Ezzard Charles 'only' accomplished more than Joe Grim because he was light years ahead in ability.

Decagon wrote:

DoubleM wrote:Are you sure? You'll find many punchers who were as formidable as those three, although usually they are just much more refined. Carlos Zarate, Alexis Arguello, Wilfredo Gomez, these men were very heavy handed but possessed the skills to make their power work for them. Ike Williams, Ruben Olivares, Marvin Hagler, more examples. There are loads. Every bit as formidable as Liston, Foreman or Shavers.

Comparing Marvin Hagler's power with that of Liston, Foreman and Shavers is the dumbest thing you've done since taking Michael Moorer's nickname as your username.

I was comparing their power?

I was saying Hagler was as formidable as Liston/Foreman/Shavers, not that he hit as hard. Duran was as formidable, Armstrong, Saddler... It's not all about power.

Now get over yourself.

DoubleM wrote: What's this supposed to mean? It's like saying "yea, well, he only lost because he didn't win."

In a way, you are trying to excuse Ali. Armstrong 'only' beat more contenders because he had more fights? Well, yea. Ezzard Charles 'only' accomplished more than Joe Grim because he was light years ahead in ability.

MM, what are you talking about? Armstrong did beat more contenders because he had more fights than Ali, thats a statistical fact. He also fought in more weight divisions so he had more competitors than Ali. This doesnt mean that the level of the competition he beat was better than Ali's.
Also you never answered my question, who did Armstrong beat thats an all time top 10 featherweight, lightweight or welterweight other than Barney Ross?

I don't rate HWs in P4P rankings. As Dec says they are the kings of boxing so for me they don't seem to fit.

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote: What's this supposed to mean? It's like saying "yea, well, he only lost because he didn't win."

In a way, you are trying to excuse Ali. Armstrong 'only' beat more contenders because he had more fights? Well, yea. Ezzard Charles 'only' accomplished more than Joe Grim because he was light years ahead in ability.

MM, what are you talking about? Armstrong did beat more contenders because he had more fights than Ali, thats a statistical fact. He also fought in more weight divisions so he had more competitors than Ali. This doesnt mean that the level of the competition he beat was better than Ali's.
Also you never answered my question, who did Armstrong beat thats an all time top 10 featherweight, lightweight or welterweight other than Barney Ross?

MM, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about your strange retort, where, in an argumentative reply, you stated: "He [Armstrong] beat more ranked contenders because he had more fights." Well, yea, we know that. I don't care if Ali fought more contenders to his number of fights, or if he potentially would have fought more of them if he was around in the '30s - the fact is, he didn't beat as many contenders as Armstrong, and that's one of the reasons Armstrong should rate higher.

This doesnt mean that the level of the competition he beat was better than Ali's.

It does. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Take this into account - Ali beats Bonavena, a solid heavyweight. Armstrong beats Garcia, a solid welterweight. However, Ali has the size advantage over Bonavena - Armstrong fights at a size disadvantage against Garcia. Clearly, Armstrong's win is more of an achievement (if we say Garcia and Bonavena are fairly equal in pound-for-pound ability).

who did Armstrong beat thats an all time top 10 featherweight, lightweight or welterweight other than Barney Ross?

A past prime Barney Ross (who was better as a lightweight) was, for my money, about as good as Ken Norton in a pound-for-pound sense.
Lou Ambers was about as good as Joe Frazier, remembering that heavyweights, at least by my own way of thinking, aren't quite as good on the pound-for-pound scale of things.
Chalky Wright, I'd probably put him on par with a '64 Sonny Liston. There's Lew Jenkins as well, probably another equal to Norton. Fritzie Zivic, the same.
There are more, but I don't want to type too much.
Bear in mind that Armstrong beat a few more contenders than Ali, and half the contenders he beat were bigger than him, which enhances the reward for beating them in my eyes. Ali beating a contender of similar weight to himself should be rated level with Armstrong beating a contender ten pounds heavier.

DoubleM wrote: I'm talking about your strange retort, where, in an argumentative reply, you stated: "He [Armstrong] beat more ranked contenders because he had more fights." Well, yea, we know that. I don't care if Ali fought more contenders to his number of fights, or if he potentially would have fought more of them if he was around in the '30s - the fact is, he didn't beat as many contenders as Armstrong, and that's one of the reasons Armstrong should rate higher.

This doesnt mean that the level of the competition he beat was better than Ali's.

It does. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Take this into account - Ali beats Bonavena, a solid heavyweight. Armstrong beats Garcia, a solid welterweight. However, Ali has the size advantage over Bonavena - Armstrong fights at a size disadvantage against Garcia. Clearly, Armstrong's win is more of an achievement (if we say Garcia and Bonavena are fairly equal in pound-for-pound ability).

A past prime Barney Ross (who was better as a lightweight) was, for my money, about as good as Ken Norton in a pound-for-pound sense.
Lou Ambers was about as good as Joe Frazier, remembering that heavyweights, at least by my own way of thinking, aren't quite as good on the pound-for-pound scale of things.
Chalky Wright, I'd probably put him on par with a '64 Sonny Liston. There's Lew Jenkins as well, probably another equal to Norton. Fritzie Zivic, the same.
There are more, but I don't want to type too much.
Bear in mind that Armstrong beat a few more contenders than Ali, and half the contenders he beat were bigger than him, which enhances the reward for beating them in my eyes. Ali beating a contender of similar weight to himself should be rated level with Armstrong beating a contender ten pounds heavier.

How is pointing out a statistical fact a strange retort?
The names you mentioned arent top 10 of all time in their weight division, Barney Ross excepted, who was past his prime as you admitted.
Liston, Foreman and Frazier are top 10 heavyweights, although Liston also probably past his prime when Ali beat him.
Therefore Armstrong's competition (that he won against) is no better than Ali's, if as good. The size argument doesnt really come into it - George Foreman was 5 pounds bigger than Ali, who did Armstrong beat that is P4P as good as the peak George Foreman (consensus top 5 or 6 heavyweight)?

dr_devious wrote:…The size argument doesnt really come into it - George Foreman was 5 pounds bigger than Ali, who did Armstrong beat that is P4P as good as the peak George Foreman (consensus top 5 or 6 heavyweight)?

Foreman is consensus top 5 or 6 HW!??! I think you can safely say that some consider him top 5 or 6, but I don’t think that’s a consensus opinion.

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote: I'm talking about your strange retort, where, in an argumentative reply, you stated: "He [Armstrong] beat more ranked contenders because he had more fights." Well, yea, we know that. I don't care if Ali fought more contenders to his number of fights, or if he potentially would have fought more of them if he was around in the '30s - the fact is, he didn't beat as many contenders as Armstrong, and that's one of the reasons Armstrong should rate higher.

This doesnt mean that the level of the competition he beat was better than Ali's.

It does. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Take this into account - Ali beats Bonavena, a solid heavyweight. Armstrong beats Garcia, a solid welterweight. However, Ali has the size advantage over Bonavena - Armstrong fights at a size disadvantage against Garcia. Clearly, Armstrong's win is more of an achievement (if we say Garcia and Bonavena are fairly equal in pound-for-pound ability).

A past prime Barney Ross (who was better as a lightweight) was, for my money, about as good as Ken Norton in a pound-for-pound sense.
Lou Ambers was about as good as Joe Frazier, remembering that heavyweights, at least by my own way of thinking, aren't quite as good on the pound-for-pound scale of things.
Chalky Wright, I'd probably put him on par with a '64 Sonny Liston. There's Lew Jenkins as well, probably another equal to Norton. Fritzie Zivic, the same.
There are more, but I don't want to type too much.
Bear in mind that Armstrong beat a few more contenders than Ali, and half the contenders he beat were bigger than him, which enhances the reward for beating them in my eyes. Ali beating a contender of similar weight to himself should be rated level with Armstrong beating a contender ten pounds heavier.

How is pointing out a statistical fact a strange retort?
The names you mentioned arent top 10 of all time in their weight division, Barney Ross excepted, who was past his prime as you admitted.
Liston, Foreman and Frazier are top 10 heavyweights, although Liston also probably past his prime when Ali beat him.
Therefore Armstrong's competition (that he won against) is no better than Ali's, if as good. The size argument doesnt really come into it - George Foreman was 5 pounds bigger than Ali, who did Armstrong beat that is P4P as good as the peak George Foreman (consensus top 5 or 6 heavyweight)?

How is pointing out a statistical fact a strange retort?

Don't worry. It seems you won't understand even if I carried on explaining. But it was like you were excusing Ali for not having more fights, or justifying why he didn't when there was no need.

The names you mentioned arent top 10 of all time in their weight division

Lou Ambers has a place in many peoples' top ten lightweights, usually around 9th or 10th. Wright, say about 15th. Zivic & Jenkins, anywhere between about 17 and 23 in their respective divisions.

Let's say Ali beat one or two better singular opponents than Armstrong did - does that mean Ali beat better opposition? No, not necessarily. Armstrong beat a greater depth of challengers.

Barney Ross excepted, who was past his prime as you admitted.

There's no 'admitting' about it. I'm trying to be as objective and open-minded as possible.

Therefore

Wait a minute - you need to actually make a solid argument before you can use that word. No offense, but you haven't given me anything yet.

The size argument doesnt really come into it - George Foreman was 5 pounds bigger than Ali

Hmm...

... I think you'll find that five pounds at heavyweight means a lot less than the same at a lower weight. You'll see Jack Dempsey beating Jess Willard, but you won't catch Ricardo Lopez beating Steve Collins.
The size argument does come into it - whereas Ali was beating challengers who he roughly equalled in weight, Armstrong beat many who significantly outweighed him. It's a greater achievement to beat someone bigger than you, I'm sure you won't deny that.

who did Armstrong beat that is P4P as good as the peak George Foreman

As I've said before, I believe heavyweights are a step behind on the pound-for-pound scale of things. I would put Lou Ambers and a past prime Barney Ross on par with George Foreman, definitely.

But again, singularly better opponents (if any) do not make up a greater resume than Armstrong's, just like Ray Leonard doesn't have a better resume than Ray Robinson.

George Foreman (consensus top 5 or 6 heavyweight)?

I'm skeptical as to whether that really is the consensus, but if it is, I vehemently disagree with it. George Foreman is terribly overrated.

The Great John L wrote: Foreman is consensus top 5 or 6 HW!??! I think you can safely say that some consider him top 5 or 6, but I don’t think that’s a consensus opinion.

Its safe to say its a consensus opinion that Foreman is in the top 5-7 amongst anybody who makes clear judgements about boxing

dr_devious wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Foreman is consensus top 5 or 6 HW!??! I think you can safely say that some consider him top 5 or 6, but I don’t think that’s a consensus opinion.

Its safe to say its a consensus opinion that Foreman is in the top 5-7 amongst anybody who makes clear judgements about boxing

I’m sorry to disagree, but this is nothing but conjecture. In the HW division, there’s Louis and Ali and then everybody else. You can shuffle them any way you want, but while Foreman was a great fighter he had some pretty obvious weaknesses. At least they’re obvious to those of us who “make clear judgments about boxing”. And those that can spell properly.

DoubleM wrote:I'm skeptical as to whether that really is the consensus, but if it is, I vehemently disagree with it. George Foreman is terribly overrated.

Thats says a lot about your judgements about the relative abiliities of fighters. Give me a laugh and tell me which heavyweights you consider to be better than Foreman

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote:I'm skeptical as to whether that really is the consensus, but if it is, I vehemently disagree with it. George Foreman is terribly overrated.

Thats says a lot about your judgements about the relative abiliities of fighters. Give me a laugh and tell me which heavyweights you consider to be better than Foreman

Because I think Foreman is overrated, my opinions are worth nothing?

Wow. That's a nuthugger (as they say) right there.

--

I think the following heavyweights would beat Foreman (in order of most convincingly):

Sonny Liston
Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Jersey Joe Walcott
Lennox Lewis

Before you start going off on one, no, I don't think Walcott was better than George Foreman. Styles.

The following I would make slight 55/45 favourites:

Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield

I think Ezzard Charles would actually have a good chance of an upset. I've picked Walcott to beat Foreman, but Charles may very well have been an even better heavyweight, though not quite as tricky.

I feel a peak Joe Frazier would do much better. Doubt he would win, but makes it closer. Rocky Marciano has all the wrong tools, and I find Dempsey hard to judge. Jeffries and Johnson I think were a bit too far behind on the skills side of things (they were skilled, Johnson in particular, but for their own ruleset - punching the biceps, catching punches with an open glove, square, flat-footed stances etc. wouldn't be as effective in the '70s).

Anything to laugh at?

DoubleM wrote:I think the following heavyweights would beat Foreman (in order of most convincingly):

Sonny Liston
Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Jersey Joe Walcott
Lennox Lewis

And don’t forget Jimmy Young!

DoubleM wrote:…they were skilled, Johnson in particular, but for their own ruleset - punching the biceps, catching punches with an open glove, square, flat-footed stances etc. wouldn't be as effective in the '70s).

Anything to laugh at?

Nope. Interestingly, the “catching punches with an open glove, square, flat-footed stances” you noted about Jack Johnson are a pretty good description of some the techniques that George used quite effectively during both of his careers. He was even known to punch his opponents biceps on occasion.

That's an interesting observation. Perhaps the reason I don't think he'd beat many of the above.

Decagon wrote:

DoubleM wrote:I was saying Hagler was as formidable as Liston/Foreman/Shavers, not that he hit as hard.

That's just as stupid.

Explain then, Sherlock.

DoubleM wrote: Anything to laugh at?

The Jersey Joe Walcott pick over Foreman is funny

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote: Anything to laugh at?

The Jersey Joe Walcott pick over Foreman is funny

how so? a peak walcott will box circles around foreman. jimmy young a less skilled, less speedy, less tricky boxer than walcott totally outboxed foreman. walcott would box circles around foreman and walcotts far superior handspeed will allow him to get land his sneaky punches at will on poor defensive foreman. , and walcott will be going in and out, in and out, so fast and unpredictable that foreman wont no wut hit him. he will make foreman look foolish. foreman's wild swings wont catch the very slippery tricky walcott. foreman will be so confused by walcotts moves, he will be lost. foreman will rush in where he will be met by explosive powerful sneaky walcott right hands that will hurt foreman. jimmy young hurt foreman with right hands, walcotts sneaky right will do more damage. foreman will tire, and walcott will finish off a dead tired foreman in the late rounds, or foreman will hang on to lose a unanimous decision.

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote: Anything to laugh at?

The Jersey Joe Walcott pick over Foreman is funny

Yea, I suppose you picked Foreman to knock Young for six as well

You are such an ass, seriously.

Decagon wrote:Walcott was inconsistent. Foreman knocks him out.

Inconsistency doesn't matter when talking prime-for-prime matchups - we take each fighter from his best night. Jimmy Carter was inconsistent, but on his best night he was magnificent.

DoubleM wrote: Yea, I suppose you picked Foreman to knock Young for six as well

You are such an ass, seriously.

No I didnt pick Young over Foreman cos I was about 5 years old at the time. I would pick a peak, focussed Foreman circa 73-74 over Jimmy Young though.
Jersey Joe was stopped on a number of occasions, so the laws of probability would say that there it is highly likely that Foreman would stop him too.

DoubleM wrote:

Decagon wrote:Walcott was inconsistent. Foreman knocks him out.

Inconsistency doesn't matter when talking prime-for-prime matchups - we take each fighter from his best night. Jimmy Carter was inconsistent, but on his best night he was magnificent.

Tricky one though. That's a hell of an advanatge for someone like Toney.