Page 4 of 5
Posted: 20 Jan 2006, 15:54
by silkov
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:silkov wrote:The Great John L wrote:
Ah yes, but Loughran was one very fine LH!!
Without a doubt but he was more or less shot by the time he fought Primo. I actually have a lot of respect for Primo the man, and theres no doubt he had a lot of heart, which he showed against Louis for instance, but to denigrate Johnsons title reign in preference for say Carnera's is ridiculous really. Why don't we talk about Dempsey not fighting Wills or an aging Langford? at all, not just during his reign....
well the only blot on dempseys title reign is not fighting wills, but fact is dempsey and wills signed to meet, but the match fell through due to the promoters. at least dempsey signed for the match. dempsey was still young in 1917 when he turned down the langford offer. i dont think dempsey reached his peak until 1918. i guess u could say dempsey should have fought kid norfolk as well but the puclic wasnt craving for the match.
Well its rather a big blot isn't it??......... Dempsey was only a year or so removed from winning the title when he avoided the already fading Langford... and he made no effort to fight him later on either. The Wills question is the biggest blot though as I'm pretty sure that Wills had the tools to beat dempsey, he was certainly much better than Firpo, and Carpenter and Gibbons who were both really light-heavies.
I'm not anti Dempsey, but I'm just showing how you can pick holes in a champions reign and competition... certainly there are more questions over Dempseys reign than there are over Johnsons... noone can really dispute that Johnson was the best of his time, but with Dempsey I'm far from certain that he would have beaten Wills....
Posted: 20 Jan 2006, 19:11
by Ambling Alp
perrycarter wrote:BB,
Let me break down Holmes' entire reign how I see it.
Undeserving bums
Alfredo Evangelista - This guy never recorded a significant win in his entire career.
Lorenzo Zanon - Terrible excuse for a heavyweight title challenger.
Leroy Jones - Beat Mike Weaver before Weaver was good then did absolutely nothing else. Yet he gets a title shot???
Scott LeDoux - Nothing more than a glorified journeyman. And an old one at that.
Leon Spinks - 10-2-2 at the time and was never turned out to be a good pro.
Tex Cobb - Another glorified journeyman. Just a tough guy with no skill. One win over a badly faded Shavers does not make you a contender.
Lucien Rodriguez - Terrible heavyweight. European cream puff.
Scott Frank - The guy never beat ANYONE
Fighters who were too green
Ossie Ocasio - 13-0 plus he was a natural Cruiserweight
Tim Witherspoon - 15-0 had never been in a 12 round fight.
Marvis Frazier - 10-0 that few of fights is a joke.
Trevor Berbick - 18-1 had never gone past 10 rounds before. The Tate fight was his only fight of note.
David Bey - 14-0 just a baby with only 14 fights.
Carl Williams - 16-0 and a very limited resume coming in.
James Bonecrusher Smith - 14-1 and turned out to be more of a trial horse than a contender.
Yes, they may have beaten a contender or two but no heavyweight is ready to fight for the heavyweight championship of the world with less than 25 fights against competitive opposition, I don't care what you say. Experience is such an important element at the championship level. All of these guys had little or no big fight experience. They are at a huge disadvantage against a wily veteran champion who was in his prime. Shame on their managers for rushing them along too soon. Homles got to these guys before they had a chance to develop into their best form. None of these guys were in their primes.
Please name me a fighter who is ready to fight the best guy in his weight class that only has 13 or 14 fights. You can't do it because there is no one. It is simply not enough time and rounds to develop and learn the things that you need to learn as a pro.
So that leaves Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Ali, Renaldo Snipes (barely), and Gerry Cooney as respectable title defenses. That is 5 out of 20 defenses overall. I would say that is a very weak list of opponents, possibly the worst of all time.
Perry,
I understand where you are coming from, but I think that's a little decieving.
First of all, even if there were 15 weren't deserving of title shots, at least Holmes was defending the title against someone. Many champions fought once a year or less. Holmes fought about 3 times a year on average. There is always some risk in every title defense. The champion could get cut, hurt his hand, etc.
Anyway as far as the guys he fought, here is my opinion.
I agree than Evangelista, Zanon, LeDoux, Rodrigues, and Frank were more or less journeyman.
However, I disagree with Jones, Cobb, and Leon Spinks being labeled as bums.
Jones was undefeated and the #1 WBC contender. He had beaten Mike Weaver. I believe that this was a mandatory defense for Holmes anyway.
Cobb had not only beaten Shavers, but had lost close decisions to Norton (albiet an over the hill Norton) and Dokes. He obviously wasn't in Holmes class, but he was at least a decent fighter.
Leon Spinks was coming off of knockouts of Evangelist and Mercado. He had yet to descend into his downhill spiral.
As for the other guys being labeled as too green, well that's not entirely accurrate. They may not have had a large number of fights, but most had been in big fights.
Berbick had already stopped John Tate.
Ocasio had beaten Jimmy Young twice. He was a very talented boxer.
Witherspoon had already beaten Snipes. He was physically in better shape than usual.
David Bey had beaten Greg Page.
James Smith had already knocked out Bruno. He would become more than just a "trial horse" later in his career.
Carl Williams had beat James Tillis. He certainly didn't look inexperienced when he fought Holmes. He fought a very good fight against holmes and should have got the decsion, but I guess that's another story.
I agree that Marvis Frazier was too inexperienced and was in over his head.
He could have fought a few more "alphabet soup boys" like Page or Thomas, but he alrerady beat several other guys that were a tleast as good as them.
Overall, he should be regarded as a "fighting champion".
re
Posted: 21 Jan 2006, 22:15
by barry
You can’t even get that right as again I did not spell the word wrong, I used the incorrect word; “your”, so quit trying to pretend like you know what you are talking about, besides, I would rather misspell, or use the incorrect word any day rather than continuously make incorrect statements!
re
Posted: 21 Jan 2006, 22:30
by barry
O-Kay genius, if you do not let things go now and move on with your life then you will get a warning...after that you'll be banned. Now as I say to anyone who cannot lets things go, that will be completely on you whether that happens, or not because as of right now you have nothing against, but continue doing as you so often do and it will be no ones fault but your own. Now put a band-aid on it and get over it, unless you want to find another board because as I have said, I am not wasting any more of my time with you, so if you are just interested in starting childish arguments then find yourself a new forum because it will not be tolerated in this one. It is up to you now, but as I said...next is a warning, then all of your posts will be gone and then you will be gone…now move on if you like this forum!
re
Posted: 21 Jan 2006, 22:39
by barry
If you want to talk boxing then talk boxing, but like I said, I'm not wasting any more time with you're little arguments and they will not be put up with! I certainly don’t want to ban you, so please, just move on!
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 02:43
by marchegiano007
floyd patterson challengers were bad and some of joe louis bum of the month club
Patterson title defences
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 11:09
by bill.lockhart
1957 Jackson #1
Rademacher- unranked
1958 Harris #3 or #4
1959 London #9
Johannson #1
1961 Johannson #2
Mc Neely # 9 or #10
1962 Liston #1
The facts are he fought 3 #1 contenders & both Harris & Johannson 111
were deserving. You may say that the era was devoid of great heavyweights, but the only real quarrel I have is D'amato should have given either Machen or Folley a shot at the title in the fall of 58.
D'amato eliminated them after they fought to a draw in April 58. IBC
connections or not, I think the real reason was too much risk for too little gain. Neither were exciting fighters & their was no real clamour for the fight. I don't think either could have won, but they were deseving at the time.
Bill Lockhart
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 13:24
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Decagon wrote:... and look what happened when he actually fought a #1 contender.
patterson KO 5 ingo
patterson KO 6 ingo
Re: Patterson title defences
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 13:37
by marchegiano007
bill.lockhart wrote:1957 Jackson #1
Rademacher- unranked
1958 Harris #3 or #4
1959 London #9
Johannson #1
1961 Johannson #2
Mc Neely # 9 or #10
1962 Liston #1
The facts are he fought 3 #1 contenders & both Harris & Johannson 111
were deserving. You may say that the era was devoid of great heavyweights, but the only real quarrel I have is D'amato should have given either Machen or Folley a shot at the title in the fall of 58.
D'amato eliminated them after they fought to a draw in April 58. IBC
connections or not, I think the real reason was too much risk for too little gain. Neither were exciting fighters & their was no real clamour for the fight. I don't think either could have won, but they were deseving at the time.well he should had give sonny liston a shot at his title in 1960, after defeating johansson men this 2 guys 3 fights in 3 years, or he should had faced cleveland williams or nino valdes and yes he avoided machen and folley for me he could had been ko by valdez by williams and maybe folley.
Bill Lockhart
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 13:39
by marchegiano007
well he should had give sonny liston a shot at his title in 1960, after defeating johansson this 2 guys 3 fights in 3 years, or he should had faced cleveland williams or nino valdes and yes he avoided machen and folley for me he could had been ko by valdez by williams and maybe folley.in the late 50's
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 13:42
by marchegiano007
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Decagon wrote:... and look what happened when he actually fought a #1 contender.
patterson KO 5 ingo
patterson KO 6 ingo
yeah right, liston ko patterson 1 and in the rematch the same ko in 1. he avoided in the late 50's valdez, williams, folley and machen. and ko moore after moore was destroyed by marciano one year earlier.
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 13:48
by dempseyfire
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:The Great John L wrote:silkov wrote:
Without a doubt but he was more or less shot by the time he fought Primo. I actually have a lot of respect for Primo the man, and theres no doubt he had a lot of heart, which he showed against Louis for instance, but to denigrate Johnsons title reign in preference for say Carnera's is ridiculous really. Why don't we talk about Dempsey not fighting Wills or an aging Langford? at all, not just during his reign....
Oh I agree with you completely. Johnson also had the added burden of not being able to set foot in the US for most of his title reign, which made it harder to fight the top challengers. I was just sticking up for Loughran, who you didn't even name. And while Tommy was on the down side of his career he still had enough to beat Sharkey, Hamas and Levinsky in the 18 months or so before the Carnera fight. So he did have something left going into the title fight.
i dont care about the big size advantage carnera had on tommy, how did he beat tommy? tommy was beating guys like max baer but losing to carnera? did tommy getting his toe broken during the fight cause him to slow down and not be able to fight his best fight?
Carnera was actually a much better boxer then Baer was, as seen in rds 4-9 of their fight when Carnera soundly outboxes Max.
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 14:20
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
marchegiano007 wrote:well he should had give sonny liston a shot at his title in 1960, after defeating johansson this 2 guys 3 fights in 3 years, or he should had faced cleveland williams or nino valdes and yes he avoided machen and folley for me he could had been ko by valdez by williams and maybe folley.in the late 50's
patterson would have utterly destroyed the glass jaw folley. valdez was past his prime in the late 50s and would have been no match for patterson. cleveland williams wasnt even a top 10 contender during pattersons reign, but i still think patterson beats williams.
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 15:46
by marchegiano007
most of his ko's were arranged by the mafia.
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 15:53
by marchegiano007
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:marchegiano007 wrote:well he should had give sonny liston a shot at his title in 1960, after defeating johansson this 2 guys 3 fights in 3 years, or he should had faced cleveland williams or nino valdes and yes he avoided machen and folley for me he could had been ko by valdez by williams and maybe folley.in the late 50's
patterson would have utterly destroyed the glass jaw folley. valdez was past his prime in the late 50s and would have been no match for patterson. cleveland williams wasnt even a top 10 contender during pattersons reign, but i still think patterson beats williams.
well rocky marciano avoided nino valdez and nino deserved more the title shot than don cockell, so i will say he should had give valdez and oportunity in 1957. valdez was 6'4 in height and more than 200 pounds he doucl had give patteron a lot of trouble.
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 16:13
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
marchegiano007 wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:marchegiano007 wrote:well he should had give sonny liston a shot at his title in 1960, after defeating johansson this 2 guys 3 fights in 3 years, or he should had faced cleveland williams or nino valdes and yes he avoided machen and folley for me he could had been ko by valdez by williams and maybe folley.in the late 50's
patterson would have utterly destroyed the glass jaw folley. valdez was past his prime in the late 50s and would have been no match for patterson. cleveland williams wasnt even a top 10 contender during pattersons reign, but i still think patterson beats williams.
well rocky marciano avoided nino valdez and nino deserved more the title shot than don cockell, so i will say he should had give valdez and oportunity in 1957. valdez was 6'4 in height and more than 200 pounds he doucl had give patteron a lot of trouble.
marciano NEVER avoided nino valdes, thats a myth. marciano was scheduled to face valdes in miami in 1955 but valdez lost to moore and moore took his place. marciano had planned to take on cockell first and then valdes. moore however smoked valdes and established himself the # 1 contender. anyway, valdes would have been tailor made for marciano. marciano sparred with nino before, and a person who witnessed it told me marciano's non stop punching and incredible pace made nino break down and gasp after every punch landed during that sparring session. he told me that people in the gyms around that era gave valdes little to no chance against marciano.
valdes was 6'3 not 6'4. patterson was far too fast, skilled, and powerful for nino valdes. patterson would have finished off valdes quickly. nino had trouble with guys with fast handspeed(baker, satterfield, moore) he lost to all of them.
both marciano and patterson would have destroyed valdes IMO
Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 23:48
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
stop hating on patterson, hes far better than u give him credit before. all those guys he supposedly "ducked" he would have whipped had he fought them.
Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 02:04
by Collins2000
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:stop hating on patterson, hes far better than u give him credit before. all those guys he supposedly "ducked" he would have whipped had he fought them.
That's the problem though Brocky, he didn't fight them. You can't rewrite history. Patterson DID avoid blokes or his manager did - which is the same. Sure he finally gave Liston his deserved shot but not before leading him quite a bit of a dance though I believe Liston was unavailabe at times due to doing a bit of time in chokey. I like Patterson. He couldn't take the big punches too well but he did have skill and a decent dig of his own. Actually, I just got a few of his fights I have never seen. The first Quarry fight I am watching now but keep getting interrupted as my 4 month old granddaughter is taking up a lot of my time (and it's time well spent, let me tell you). Patterson is in trouble early - looking forward to seeing how he gets on later. Also, Patterson vs Henry Cooper - that's a rare one.
Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 02:23
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
ya i just recentley watched patterson vs quarry I for the 1st time. i had a whole bunch of patterson tapes ordered and they finally came. guess who i got them from? the guy whos source you gave me! anyways i was dying to see patterson vs machen and what i saw was a one sided drubbing like i have never seen.
poor patterson, he was on the wrong end of many bad decisions. he should have been the first 3 time champ but he was robbed vs ellis.
i thought patterson won the following fights
joey maxim
jerry quarry I and II
jimmy ellis
yet in all these fights bar quarry I, he lost!
its too bad he didnt get that ellis decision, because then he would have got to fight joe frazier though the aging patterson would have been stopped most likely. but still interesting fight!
Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 02:42
by Expug
As far as ducking challengers, I have always thought that Floyd was an honorable champ who would fight anyone. It wasDamato who was a little skittish.
Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 02:58
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Decagon wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i thought patterson won the following fights
joey maxim
jerry quarry I and II
jimmy ellis
Have you seen the entire Maxim fight?
nope but in the rounds i saw, i scored it for patterson. almost all the ringsiders who saw the bout scored it for patterson.
Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 03:00
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
expug wrote:As far as ducking challengers, I have always thought that Floyd was an honorable champ who would fight anyone. It wasDamato who was a little skittish.
agreed. its a shame because patterson would have thrashed folley and machen, and i favor patterson over williams even though its a dangerous fight for williams. as for a past his prime nino valdes, he wouldnt have lasted long vs patterson. a prime valdes would be a better fighte but valdes was washed up in the late 50s. though patterson smokes any version of valdes. valdes had major problems with guys with fast handspeed(bob baker, bob satterfield, archie moore) all guys he lost too!
Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 03:40
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
I'm just stating facts. You should try it sometime.
u mean incorrect facts most of the time?
just because u read one book the black murders row, doesnt mean u know all about the 40s black middles or about boxing.
i will get u the lamotta-marshall source
Patterson title defences
Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 13:23
by bill.lockhart
Both Marciano's early retirement & Cus D'amatos refusal to do business with the International Boxing Club prevented Floyd Patterson from fighting a lot of guys he would surely have otherwise met & beaten, hurting his development as a fighter. Had Rocky continued to fight, D'amato would have had no choice but to fight some of Baker, Holman, Valdes, Jackson, Moore, Pastrano, Mc Murtry, even Machen or Folley preparing for a title shot against Marciano. He would have gained in both experience & prestige. A lot of these guys were IBC controlled both before & after Patterson won the title. Fights against them would have only happened if the IBC released them to fight under independent promotion. D'amato insisted on it. The IBC was dismantled in 1959 for unfair trade practices ( ie: a monopoly). Their were good reasons Patterson didn't fight some of the better contenders. A lot of fighters benefitted from the stand D'amato took. Things aren't always as they seem.
Title Defences
Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 18:09
by bill.lockhart
Decagon
Sonny Liston was not the top contender by 1958. That did not happen until September 7th 1960, when he defeated Eddie Machen in Seattle. I
agree with you, that had he gained a championship fight in 1958, he would have won it. Perhaps he would have even done it by 1955 against Rocky Marciano. The point is, D'amato moved a talented cruiser into a title shot , defied the mob with that fighter, and for 8 consecutive years involved that fighter in every world heavyweight championship fight. What's more the public adored that fighter. That fighter is in the hall of fame. That fighter was Floyd Patterson.
