BoxRec

On KO TV this week, I see that Hugh Hefner was interviewed... He spoke about his admiration for the Heavyweight division and mentioned great fights that he watched in the past... However he did go into great deatil about 4 former heavyweight champions: Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali...

Here is a quote from Hefner (which I am going to use as a basis for this thread)

"Getting to great champions in the squard circle, there can be no greater spectacle!!!"
So with that in mind; Juts how important is it for a boxer to have a NEMESIS?

By NEMESIS I mean a rival who is equally as good, and who brings out the best in a boxer... Where a boxer has to dig deep, where the rival is a real challenge, and that the balance could tip in either boxers favour...
JUST HOW IMPORTANT IS IT FOR A BOXER TO HAVE A NEMESIS?

Persoanlly I think it's very important... It's much the easit way of a boxer to show his greatness. Imena if you look down history you'll see more than a few examples:

(From the Heavyweight division alone).

Rocky Marciano's fights against Walcott... The first was a blood-bath ended by right hand, and the second was Rocky showign Walcott true power.

Ali versus Frazier... All 3 fights showed the strengths and weaknesses of both boxers.... Who's greatness both cannot be disputed.

Dempsey vs Tunney... The "long count"... The collision of styles...

Lewis vs Holyfield... Not as much of a rivallry as the others, yet, the fight was hard-fought.


Then looking down weights you immediately think of Robinson VS LaMotta, Leonard VS Duran.

In modern times: Castillo VS Corrales.

Crease wrote:Persoanlly I think it's very important... It's much the easit way of a boxer to show his greatness. Imena if you look down history you'll see more than a few examples:

(From the Heavyweight division alone).

Rocky Marciano's fights against Walcott... The first was a blood-bath ended by right hand, and the second was Rocky showign Walcott true power.

Ali versus Frazier... All 3 fights showed the strengths and weaknesses of both boxers.... Who's greatness both cannot be disputed.

Dempsey vs Tunney... The "long count"... The collision of styles...

Lewis vs Holyfield... Not as much of a rivallry as the others, yet, the fight was hard-fought.


Then looking down weights you immediately think of Robinson VS LaMotta, Leonard VS Duran.

In modern times: Castillo VS Corrales.

Or in the case of Holyfield and Tyson, Evander was able to dominate him and show his superiority...

So you think it is important?

It's important in all sports to have an opponent that pushes you...

Well, it is my opinion that there have been boxers in the past who's "greatness" hasn't been poperly examined...

It usually helps you improve if you are going against someone that is close to your ability.

Not sure that I agree with some of the examples. The second Walcott-Marciano fight wasn't about Marciano showing his power. It was about Walcott rolling over and not even trying.

I really don't consider Lewis-Holyfield to be a rivalry. Holyfield was past it by the time they fought. And neither one of these fights were "hard fought".

One of the problems in recent years is the lack of rivlaries. Because there are too many weight classes, the talent pool is divided up. You seldom see two really fighters in one weight class for long. (Barrera-Morales being an exception.) Before long, one of them will move up. It's pretty rare to have two really good fighters going at it often enough to have a rivalry.
And of course rivalries are great for capturing interest of fans.

Ambling Alp wrote:It usually helps you improve if you are going against someone that is close to your ability.

Not sure that I agree with some of the examples. The second Walcott-Marciano fight wasn't about Marciano showing his power. It was about Walcott rolling over and not even trying.

I really don't consider Lewis-Holyfield to be a rivalry. Holyfield was past it by the time they fought. And neither one of these fights were "hard fought".

One of the problems in recent years is the lack of rivlaries. Because there are too many weight classes, the talent pool is divided up. You seldom see two really fighters in one weight class for long. (Barrera-Morales being an exception.) Before long, one of them will move up. It's pretty rare to have two really good fighters going at it often enough to have a rivalry.
And of course rivalries are great for capturing interest of fans.

I have heard it suggested that Walcott at 38 was in his prime for the first fight...He certainly didn't look like a young man...I have further seen it suggested he was better at 38 than he was 28...If he was he would be the rare athlete and boxers are athletes that was better at 38 than 28...

Walcott was a rarity. He was much better when he was 38 (and the champion) than when he was 28. He didn't even make it into the Top 10 until he was 31.

Ambling Alp wrote:Walcott was a rarity. He was much better when he was 38 (and the champion) than when he was 28. He didn't even make it into the Top 10 until he was 31.

You live and learn...I am impressed by that...

That being said I think Jersey Joe was a good but not great boxer and one could name fifteen, twenty heavyweights who could have taken him...

I think Jersey Joe was a great fighter.

Crikey, I hate to think what he'd do to the current top 10 at heavyweight...

Collins2000 wrote:Crikey, I hate to think what he'd do to the current top 10 at heavyweight...

38 y/o Walcott would probably lose to half of them.

Tantum wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:Crikey, I hate to think what he'd do to the current top 10 at heavyweight...

38 y/o Walcott would probably lose to half of them.

Then why do people say he was Rocky's most difficult opponent?

And if Rocky's most difficult opponent would struggle against the Sam Peters and Wlad Klitschkos of the world what does that say about Rocky?

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Tantum wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:Crikey, I hate to think what he'd do to the current top 10 at heavyweight...

38 y/o Walcott would probably lose to half of them.

Then why do people say he was Rocky's most difficult opponent?

And if Rocky's most difficult opponent would struggle against the Sam Peters and Wlad Klitschkos of the world what does that say about Rocky?

Says more about their infatuation with Fatty Peters and Inconsistent Poor-Stamina Wlad than it does about Marciano.

Today's crop of heavyweights don't have 25% of the skill Walcott accumulated at the age of 38. How many can you name, apart from Toney, who can slip, slide, roll and parry?... while stepping to the side???... and then countering???

Corbett was more skilled too probably... Would he beat Wlad?

Tantum wrote:Corbett was more skilled too probably... Would he beat Wlad?

Dunno, never seen him fight. Have you?

Walcott would though.

Ambling Alp wrote:It usually helps you improve if you are going against someone that is close to your ability.

Not sure that I agree with some of the examples. The second Walcott-Marciano fight wasn't about Marciano showing his power. It was about Walcott rolling over and not even trying.

I really don't consider Lewis-Holyfield to be a rivalry. Holyfield was past it by the time they fought. And neither one of these fights were "hard fought".

One of the problems in recent years is the lack of rivlaries. Because there are too many weight classes, the talent pool is divided up. You seldom see two really fighters in one weight class for long. (Barrera-Morales being an exception.) Before long, one of them will move up. It's pretty rare to have two really good fighters going at it often enough to have a rivalry.
And of course rivalries are great for capturing interest of fans.

Thing about Barrera-Morales too, is the fact that all 3 fights took place in separate weight classes, 122, 126, and 130. Morales was a big weight drainer forced to move up divisions and Barrera simply followed him because he wanted nothing more than to beat the crap out of him, which Morales wanted to do equally and so he was glad when Marco shadowed him.

Nemesis' can be very important because they bring out the best qualities in both fighters involved and make for great and exciting fights where each fighter tries to utilize all of their abilities and heart in order to win.

Vazquez-Marquez is probably one of the greatest recent examples of this. Both guys are more than capable of hurting each other to the point of scoring stoppages and have skills and styles that match up to create total chaos in the ring.

Pacquiao-Marquez is another good one because their styles are so dissimilar yet they combine to make amazing fights where both try to use everything in their arsenal in order to get the edge.

Compare Joe Calzaghe's nemesis-less career all through his SM title reign as opposed to Eubanks-Watson-Benn rivalries...

Or Larry Holmes' lonesome title reign vs Ali-Frazier-Foreman-Norton...

Having a nemesis surely improves things.

Collins2000 wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Tantum wrote:
38 y/o Walcott would probably lose to half of them.

Then why do people say he was Rocky's most difficult opponent?

And if Rocky's most difficult opponent would struggle against the Sam Peters and Wlad Klitschkos of the world what does that say about Rocky?

Says more about their infatuation with Fatty Peters and Inconsistent Poor-Stamina Wlad than it does about Marciano.