BoxRec

jimglen wrote:I applaud you Barry you strike me as a very methodical researcher and use the facts to solidify your claims, unlike a lot sheep who just regurgitate the same 'old' stuff we've been told for years...

With so many modern researchers 'diggen' up the stories of 'forgotten & unknown greats', we MUST include them in! And you do Barry, a noble & honest researcher.

I myself would put Tommy Farr & Bruce Woodcock before Lewis in a heartbeat, they were simple 'tougher' and better fighters!

Jim.

i'm no fan of Lewis (trawl back over my posts and you will see) but to rate Woodcock ahead of him is , well, ridiculous. Even 'noble' barry will be struggling to agree with you on that one. Bruce Woodcock? hahhahahahhahahah

Hey, noble bazza, what say you? Woodcock ahead of Lewis? (Before you leap in with your pants around your ankles looking for a friend, remember tracey reads this crap).

>>>i'm no fan of Lewis (trawl back over my posts and you will see)<<<

I though you said that I deleted your threads...now how could that be?

Though I am glad you stuck your head in here Collins...I had forgot that it was Jim Glen that you went after and insulted when you briefly stole my name over on the CBZ...I had forgotten...glad you couldn't resist!

You see Collins---facts...you need facts! Now I don't have anything to say to you about anything else, so bug someone else because as I said in two other threads...if you bring your rant over here I will delete it. Now you can discuss boxing with someone that will debate with you, but it isn't going to be me, so do what you must!

barry wrote:>>>i'm no fan of Lewis (trawl back over my posts and you will see)<<<

I though you said that I deleted your threads...now how could that be?

Though I am glad you stuck your head in here Collins...I had forgot that it was Jim Glen that you went after and insulted when you briefly stole my name over on the CBZ...I had forgotten...glad you couldn't resist!

You see Collins---facts...you need facts! Now I don't have anything to say to you about anything else, so bug someone else because as I said in two other threads...if you bring your rant over here I will delete it. Now you can discuss boxing with someone that will debate with you, but it isn't going to be me, so do what you must!

So, can I assume you agree with Jimbo about woodcock over Lewis?

>>>So, can I assume you agree with Jimbo about woodcock over Lewis?<<<

You can assume whatever you like...I doesn't matter to me because as I said in my last post...find someone else to talk to about the issue because it's not going to be me and also, as I said, if you want to continue with your nonsense then I'm just going to delete it...no need to punish the rest of the forum for your ills by locking the thread, so instead...plain and simple...you'll just be deleted for any nonsense!

jim glen, thanx for giving bruce woodcock some respect! hes an underated heavyweight, he was a mean lookin fella.

jim glen, what happened in the BBC world title fight between him and lee savold??? why did woodcock get slaughtered like that

Both Rahman and McCall would have ko'd Woodcock and Burns on the same night. Lewis is 10 times better than Burns or Woodcock whether your speaking about accomplishments or head to head.

Forgot to mention Tommy Farr as well. Farr was a tough, but to mention him in the same sentence as Lewis when talking all time greatness is absurd.

LOL!!! The sad thing about it is that theone actually believes what he said! LOL

Barry, why is Theone being absurd? How can you be be serious about rating Burns over Lewis?
Do you really think that if Burns fought the exact same fighters who Lewis fought Lewis' career that Burns would have only lost twice?
Do you really think Lewis would have lost 5 times and had 8 draws if he fought the exact same guys that Burns fought in Burns' career?

By the way Lewis was only counted out once. In the McCall fight, Lewis got up, but the referee stopped it.

I don't like Lewis much either, but you aren't being realistic.

Well Amp its just Barry being Barry. I actually think for the most part he is one of the most knowledgable and articulate posters on this site. But sometimes he says these outrageous things to sound smarter or more "in the know" than he is. Hes something of an elitist actually; he even considers himself a peer of the worlds top boxing historians.

>>>Barry, why is Theone being absurd?<<<

Although I never said he was being absurd, I'll give you two examples though...by saying that Rahman and McCall wopuld have knocked out Burns and Woodcock on the same night, or that Lewis was ten times better...take your pick!

>>>How can you be be serious about rating Burns over Lewis?<<<

As I said earlier...because Burns was never knocked out by mediocre heavyweights while in his prime.


>>>Do you really think that if Burns fought the exact same fighters who Lewis fought Lewis' career that Burns would have only lost twice?<<<

I don't know, neither do you and neither does theone!


>>>Do you really think Lewis would have lost 5 times and had 8 draws if he fought the exact same guys that Burns fought in Burns' career?<<<

Again I don't know, but with the shaky chin that Lewis possessed, it's a very good possibility!

>>>By the way Lewis was only counted out once. In the McCall fight, Lewis got up, but the referee stopped it.<<<

But both were a result of his opponents doing and not a police interference!

>>>I don't like Lewis much either, but you aren't being realistic.<<<

Why, because Lewis is 6' 5"? Or exactly what is being realistic and what would make it realistic? I admit that I am probably overly bias toward Lewis, but the facts of his career speaks for itself and the fact that he was knocked out by two less than stellar opponents while in his prime makes Lewis vulnerable to any good heavyweight that he stepped in the ring with!

>>>Well Amp its just Barry being Barry. I actually think for the most part he is one of the most knowledgable and articulate posters on this site. But sometimes he says these outrageous things to sound smarter or more "in the know" than he is Hes something of an elitist actually<<<

No, I'm more of a perfectionist and realist when it pertains to boxing...rather than someone that would try to make claims such as Rahman, or McCall would knockout Woodcock, Burns and Farr on the same night...that kind silliness is rarely seen anywhere!

>>>he even considers himself a peer of the worlds top boxing historians.<<<

Hey, most of the top historians in the world feel the same way. Don't be jealous and bitter simply because you're not...keep working hard and maybe one day...ten, or twenty years from now you will be recognized as a peer of ours as well, though you will have to leave the outrageous claims behind!

No, I'm more of a perfectionist and realist when it pertains to boxing...rather than someone that would try to make claims such as Rahman, or McCall would knockout Woodcock, Burns and Farr on the same night...that kind silliness is rarely seen anywhere!

Actually I only said Woodcock and Burns and its a figuratve term. Although I wouldnt doubt it could happen literally. You call your self a realist, but your anything but. It is absolutely realistic to believe a fighter like Lewis would go through Tommy Burns compititon like a hot knife through melted butter.

To think that Burns would have made a dent in the rankings when Lewis was champ is totally unrealistic.

Hey, most of the top historians in the world feel the same way. Don't be jealous and bitter simply because you're not...keep working hard and maybe one day...ten, or twenty years from now you will be recognized as a peer of ours as well, though you will have to leave the outrageous claims behind!

LMAO...Now this is comedy gold!

>>>Actually I only said Woodcock and Burns and its a figuratve term. Although I wouldnt doubt it could happen literally. You call your self a realist, but your anything but. It is absolutely realistic to believe a fighter like Lewis would go through Tommy Burns compititon like a hot knife through melted butter.<<<

Yeah, just like a good right hand went through Lewis’ chin…TWICE! You so need to pick up a couple of history books!

>>>To think that Burns would have made a dent in the rankings when Lewis was champ is totally unrealistic.<<<

Especially with the John Ruiz’s, the Shannon Brigg’s and the Tye Fields in the ring today…LOL!


>>>LMAO...Now this is comedy gold!<<<

Just the facts!

I’m a loaded barrel of truth…taking aim on all imposters with bullets made of fact...motto…have gun will sling!!!

Yeah, just like a good right hand went through Lewis’ chin…TWICE! You so need to pick up a couple of history books!

Yeah, thrown by two fighter bigger tougher stronger and who punched harder than anyone Burns ever fought.

Especially with the John Ruiz’s, the Shannon Brigg’s and the Tye Fields in the ring today…LOL!

Exactly. Burns couldnt compete even with those guys.

Yeah...keep telling yourself that!

Woodcock is extremely 'underated' he could have quite easily been Britain's greatest HW!

He was Rushed along by the boxing powers of the day in a "desperate" attempt/need for the Heavyweight Championship of the World; soooo long sought after by Britain (England) the home of boxing. They wasted him!

He didn't loose to Savold he was ahead the whole fight, well ahead but then Savold opened his eye with a beautiful double jab the first causing the 'cut' then the second rapid jab right behind it.

I've got the fight, the announcer is even commentating as to the worry and concerns from the Savold corner because he was getting severly out-pointed and couldn't find a way in, with Woodcock well in command. It is a good and exciting fight for Woodcock for the full 4 rounds, right up untill the cut!

The same was true in the Mauriello fight, Ol' Bruce was well ahead again, but Mauriello capitalised on Bruce's one and only "dangerous" weekness - he lead with his Chin, Joe Louis would have pelted that target often and effectively...

But Bruce Woodcock was the real deal and the only fight he took a right proper hammerin' in was against up & coming Jack Gardner. Woodcock's heart was gone his Championship chances washed away by an over 'zealous' British boxing higherarchy!

An absolute shame they should have given Bruce even 1 more year before sending him after the World title, God they began selling him to America after his 3rd fight, that was almost unheard of in those days, most fighters served a long and ardious apprenticeship!

We have always known that the 70s HWs were the divisions greatest period followed by the Oldtimers from Johnson to Dempsey, leading right up to the Golden years the 30s & 40s the "overall" single greatest period in Boxing History, Joe Louis' time...at what point did we start comparing the Tyson-Lewis era to that bunch(?). No Contest!

Jim.

Professor X wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:My top 25 heavyweights:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. George Foreman
8. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jersey Joe Walcott
13. Mike Tyson
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Jim J. Jeffries
17. John L. Sullivan
18. Harry Wills
19. Sam Langford
20. Max Schmeling
21. Joe Jeannette
22. Ken Norton
23. Jack Sharkey
24. Sam McVeay
25. Peter Jackson

This is the most accurate list.

Liston?

jimglen wrote:Woodcock is extremely 'underated' he could have quite easily been Britain's greatest HW!

He was Rushed along by the boxing powers of the day in a "desperate" attempt/need for the Heavyweight Championship of the World; soooo long sought after by Britain (England) the home of boxing. They wasted him!

He didn't loose to Savold he was ahead the whole fight, well ahead but then Savold opened his eye with a beautiful double jab the first causing the 'cut' then the second rapid jab right behind it.

I've got the fight, the announcer is even commentating as to the worry and concerns from the Savold corner because he was getting severly out-pointed and couldn't find a way in, with Woodcock well in command. It is a good and exciting fight for Woodcock for the full 4 rounds, right up untill the cut!

The same was true in the Mauriello fight, Ol' Bruce was well ahead again, but Mauriello capitalised on Bruce's one and only "dangerous" weekness - he lead with his Chin, Joe Louis would have pelted that target often and effectively...

But Bruce Woodcock was the real deal and the only fight he took a right proper hammerin' in was against up & coming Jack Gardner. Woodcock's heart was gone his Championship chances washed away by an over 'zealous' British boxing higherarchy!

An absolute shame they should have given Bruce even 1 more year before sending him after the World title, God they began selling him to America after his 3rd fight, that was almost unheard of in those days, most fighters served a long and ardious apprenticeship!

We have always known that the 70s HWs were the divisions greatest period followed by the Oldtimers from Johnson to Dempsey, leading right up to the Golden years the 30s & 40s the "overall" single greatest period in Boxing History, Joe Louis' time...at what point did we start comparing the Tyson-Lewis era to that bunch(?). No Contest!

Jim.

Jimbo, what's the excuse for the thrashing he got from Baksi?

"Woodcock was floored three times in the first round and twice in the second. He made a comeback and the fifth was his best round, but Baksi was scoring at will when the referee stopped it in the seventh."

One thing is for sure though. Woodcock didn't have any trouble with Bert Gilroy.

Sorry Collins, your right!

I completely forgot about Baski, Joe Baski himself a great story gave up a shot at the HW title for a trip back to the homeland with his wife, a trip that I'm sure he regreted there after!

Bert Gilroy was a "middleweight".
Jim.

bigzab wrote:

Professor X wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:My top 25 heavyweights:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. George Foreman
8. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jersey Joe Walcott
13. Mike Tyson
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Jim J. Jeffries
17. John L. Sullivan
18. Harry Wills
19. Sam Langford
20. Max Schmeling
21. Joe Jeannette
22. Ken Norton
23. Jack Sharkey
24. Sam McVeay
25. Peter Jackson

This is the most accurate list.

Liston?

Right, Liston is missing and also Gene Tunney.

barry wrote:>>>Barry, why is Theone being absurd?<<<

Although I never said he was being absurd, I'll give you two examples though...by saying that Rahman and McCall wopuld have knocked out Burns and Woodcock on the same night, or that Lewis was ten times better...take your pick!

>>>How can you be be serious about rating Burns over Lewis?<<<

As I said earlier...because Burns was never knocked out by mediocre heavyweights while in his prime.


>>>Do you really think that if Burns fought the exact same fighters who Lewis fought Lewis' career that Burns would have only lost twice?<<<

I don't know, neither do you and neither does theone!


>>>Do you really think Lewis would have lost 5 times and had 8 draws if he fought the exact same guys that Burns fought in Burns' career?<<<

Again I don't know, but with the shaky chin that Lewis possessed, it's a very good possibility!

>>>By the way Lewis was only counted out once. In the McCall fight, Lewis got up, but the referee stopped it.<<<

But both were a result of his opponents doing and not a police interference!

>>>I don't like Lewis much either, but you aren't being realistic.<<<

Why, because Lewis is 6' 5"? Or exactly what is being realistic and what would make it realistic? I admit that I am probably overly bias toward Lewis, but the facts of his career speaks for itself and the fact that he was knocked out by two less than stellar opponents while in his prime makes Lewis vulnerable to any good heavyweight that he stepped in the ring with!

Barry,
I didn't ask if you knew what Burns would do against Lewis opponents, and what Lewis would do against Burns opponents; I asked what do think?
Come on, don't duck the question. Do you really think that Burns would have lost more than 2 fights against Lewis competition and would Lewis have lost 5 and had 6 draws against Burns competition ?

Are you are also implying that since the police stopped the Burns-Johnson fight, that it wasn't a legitmate loss? Burns was completely dominated by Johnson, who was the only great heavyweight that Burns ever fought.

You say that Lewis would have vulnerable to any good heavyweight he stepped in the ring with? Lewis was only down twice in his career, by McCall and Rahman. The punch landed was an awesome punch that probably would have knocked almost any heavyweight champion out.

Lewis got up against McCall. Lewis wasn't decked by anyone else, and he fought several other guys who could punch.

You don't think Burns would have been vulnerable against Holyfield, Tyson
(even at the ages that Lewis fought them at), or Mercer, Tua, Klitschko, and Ruddock?

Just because Burns didn't get knocked out by Hart, O'Brien and Flynn doesn't prove he had a great chin.

[quote="pundit"][quote="bigzab"][quote="Professor X"][quote="elmersalsa"][size=18]My top 25 heavyweights:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. George Foreman
8. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Jersey Joe Walcott
13. Mike Tyson
14. Riddick Bowe
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Jim J. Jeffries
17. John L. Sullivan
18. Harry Wills
19. Sam Langford
20. Max Schmeling
21. Joe Jeannette
22. Ken Norton
23. Jack Sharkey
24. Sam McVeay
25. Peter Jackson[/size][/quote]

This is the most accurate list.[/quote]

Liston?[/quote]

Right, Liston is missing and also Gene Tunney.[/quote]

Well, no list satisfies everybody.

Many do have those two in their top-20...but Liston did not live up to the hype...Tunney was Chris Byrd.

But an outstanding list from elmersalsa...my favorite so far. And at least he didn't do something like rank Burns over Lewis.

Professor X wrote: Many do have those two in their top-20...but Liston did not live up to the hype...Tunney was Chris Byrd.

Now this is a wacko statement.
Liston was the world's best heavyweight for at least 4 years, Tunney beat the best mauler of his generation twice.

I believe it's simply oversight that the two are missing.