Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks

First topic message reminder :

Saw this elsewhere and seemed like a good idea.

Basically you pick someone who you think would be able to upset a superior boxer. The idea is you can justify it based on styles/precedents and you should try and be as controversial as possible.

Good idea if we stick to roughly similar eras I think.

I'll start. I think Forrest gives Mayweather nightmares with his reach, jab and power.

i think tyson taking out marciano early is entirely plausible, even likely, but not a given. The longer the fight goes on, the better it gets for marciano but you can say that for any tyson opponent.

The inspired, fit and fearless buster douglas that fought tyson would take a landslide decision against rocky, and the lazy, fat buster that fought in all his other fights would get stopped by him. imo.

pryor wasn't a big light welter, he has an outside chance against the leonard that turned up for duran 1 (i.e. ego got the better of him) and very little chance against any other prime version of srl imo.

I love eubank but can't see him landing on b-hop.


my obvious but controversial pick is khan to beat mayweather. I don't actually think he'd win due to brain and chin issues, but think otherwise he has the tools and physical attributes to give him problems and could spring a shock.

[quote="coxy0001"]

azania wrote: i don't particularly like wasting my time on posters who can't be objective, reasonable or extremely biased.

keeping your options open then coxy

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:It would be a pick em as much as Spinks/Tyson was a pick em.

Rocky wouldn't come out of the first round mate. Too slow and open for everything Tyson throws at him. Easy night's work for Iron Mike. Not even close.

The only prime HW in history Rocky could stand a chance again is Patterson. All else would cheww him up and spit him out before too long.

Didn't Tyson get beaten up by a blown up cruiserweight by the way? Wasn't he stopped by one as well? Didn't he also lose to a guy that was a 40/1 underdog? How many 'prime' HOFs did he beat by the way?

Yeah, Marciano who had a chin would get dropped and stopped early doors. My god i've been forgetting the amount of times Marciano went in there and lost decisions, got stopped because he was such a poor fighter!

Give it a rest Az, you should be banned for commenting on such articles because you're biased - completely biased. You've been laughed at before for saying silly things like an average modern fighter beats pre 1960 ATGs and this time is no different.

Marciano had the resolve, heart and power to make Tyson think twice about charging in at him. Mike really liked it when people stood up to him, cough Douglas cough. It's a pick'em fight, which most others seem to allude to. I'm just going to discount your opinion on the matter and any others that crop up about pre 1960 as i don't particularly like wasting my time on posters who can't be objective, reasonable or extremely biased.

Many thanks Az

Your hypocracy is laughable. But continue playing to the galleries laddie. You could one day be a message board great.

But other than a punch which is slow to deliver he almost required pony express, what did Rocky have that could trouble Tyson. Zero. Slow that a LHW who did next to nothing whenever he stepped up gave him fits. Holy grew into a sizeable HW who had tremendous skills. The notion that Tyson would capitulate when someone stood up to him is reasonable. Many stood up to him but were Ko'd in double quick time. I'd argue that Bruno hit harder than Rocky, So did Smith. Tyson never got decked by a single punch. Rocky did. Tyson would keep him there.

Bringing in the Williams etc loss. You may as well call Leon Spiks an ATG (he'd give rocky a decent argument) and Berbick. After all they beat the No 1 ATG HW.

Come on Coxy. You're becoming like Corporal Pike with slightly more grammar.

Oh and how many fighters under 35 did Rocky beat? How old was the great Don Cockell? A man having 5 defences agaianst pensioners is suddenlt an ATG. Give me a break. You guys like to big up Rocky. Watch coming to America for a good reason why that is the case. If he were some hood rat from Compton, he would be an also ran.

You guys like to big up Rocky. Watch coming to America for a good reason why that is the case. If he were some hood rat from Compton, he would be an also ran.

Are you throwing about accusations of racism now, Az? Just out of interest, which fighters are we allowed to like? Presumably anyone born post 1940 but what other stipulations are there?

az, I'm sure your ' hood rat ' comment was tongue in cheek, but I'm also sure you will see how it might be misinterpreted and cause problems.

No harm done, and I'm not trying to be a spoilsport or a humour policeman, but could we confine this to boxing, please?

Thanks.

super

America at the time loved Rocky. He was an icon. He was bigged up. His competition was against old men who were past it. There is always some revisionism going on about his opposition. People with patchy records at best were somehow elevated to being prime and the best they ever were. Seriously laughable.

I'm a huge fan of Dempsey. I could thrwo the racism card at his direction because it is likely that the colour bar was used with him. Not the same with Rocky. I am saying that the way Rocky's exploits have been written is because he was the last American White Hope.

I'm also a fan of Benny Leonard, but keep that quiet please.

Tyson never got decked by a single punch

Lennox Lewis may disagree with that.

Slow that a LHW who did next to nothing whenever he stepped up gave him fits

Another ignorant statement. And gave him fits? Moore got taken apart. Stop twisting facts.

And you seem completely incapable of answering my questions first and feel the need to pose your own in some sort of defence.

You're renowned as a joke when it comes to pre 1960 fighters, so at this point i can be particularly bothered to discuss a subject with you because your thought process is biased and ignorant towards 99% of pre 1960 fighters. You said it yourself, an average modern fighter beats guys like Moore etc. It's not just some old fighters, it's all of them when it comes to modern vs old.

I've said my reasons for calling it a pick'em. You simply discount Marciano (and every other old generation fighter on other threads) because you're obviously not particularly intelligent and have zero respect for the older generation guys.

Marciano stands a chance because of his chin and the overwhelming heart and pressure fighting he brought to fights. Tyson was weak when he wasn't having it his own way, and i doubt very much he'd have everything his own way against Rocky, arguably one of the greatest at coming through tough times in fights.

Tyson's achilles heel was he was mentally weak if he wasn't on top, Marciano brought an huge amount of bottle and heart. If Tyson couldn't stop him early he'd be up the proverbial creek. That's why it's a pick'em for me personally based on facts and an honest assessment, i know yours isn't an honest assessment because you're biased. Thus rendering your opinion meaningless in my opinion.

This is my last comment on the matter as i'm wasting my time, as usual, with responding to someone who rivals D4 when it comes to total bias on a subject. At least he was ignorant about 2 fighters, you cover the whole board when it comes to boxing pre 1960.

I tihnk there is a valid argument that white America in the 50's deified Rocky. At a time when the majority of people cared about these sort of things, he was the first white heavyweight champion since the 30's. However, I don't for one minute think that the majority of peopl on here that praise Rocky are doing so because he was white.

As I alluded to above, I agree that Rocky had certain limitations but clearly not the extent that you do. The problem is that in any debate about Rocky you let hyperbole take over to the point that debate becomes rather meaningless. Its a bit like D4 debating about Manny - only in reverse.

Hahaha. Cox you are a funny merchant banker. I would be interested to find a post of mine where I've stated that any average fighter would beat Moore. Actually if you find it I'll leave this board permanently. I did say RJJ would beat up Moore. But he is not an average fighter.

Also I'm a huge Dempsey fan and am on record in saying that he'd KO rocky within 4. So much for your rather inane and childish assersions once again. Moreover I know much more, indeed forgotten more about boxing than you will ever know. But that's another story.

Tyson's achilled heel was his heart? On what evidence? Ear biting? He took an absolute beating against Holy (1), Douglas, and Lennox without quitting. That shows more heart that your laddish self possesses.

The guys Rocky beat are no where near the calibre of Tyson. Tyson 87 - 90 massacres Rocky inside 120 seconds. Simply no contest.

Furthermore, if you dont like what I write and it annoys you, you have the obvious option. It isn't rocket science for someone of your vast intellect. And as for calling for my banning. Grow up my little icala. Find a set of minerals.

"Tyson 87 - 90 massacres Rocky inside 120 seconds. Simply no contest"

I thought all the WUM's on here had been disposed of?

superflyweight wrote:I tihnk there is a valid argument that white America in the 50's deified Rocky. At a time when the majority of people cared about these sort of things, he was the first white heavyweight champion since the 30's. However, I don't for one minute think that the majority of peopl on here that praise Rocky are doing so because he was white.

As I alluded to above, I agree that Rocky had certain limitations but clearly not the extent that you do. The problem is that in any debate about Rocky you let hyperbole take over to the point that debate becomes rather meaningless. Its a bit like D4 debating about Manny - only in reverse.

I reckon the hype that started in the 1950s has permeated through to today. I reckon Ali got it right when the computer picked Rocky to beat him. People praise Rocky because they bought the hype. 60 years of hype is not easy to shake off.

I dont let hyerbole take over. I just think he was severely limited as a boxer. Great person as I've read. Rather have him over for lunch that Patterson anyday.

Charles
Walcott (x2)
Moore (x2)
Cockell

At the time he fought them, they were more shot than JFK.

I applaud Az for extending the Tyson danger zone beyond the usual peak period specified as the between the hours of 22:00 and 0:00 on the Autumnal equinox in the Year of our Lord 1987.

I'd even go as far as saying that the post prison Tyson beats any version of Rocky in under 4 rounds.

I reckon the hype that started in the 1950s has permeated through to today.

I don't. That computer simulation was stupid and it was done in the 60's (if I remember correctly) - hardly a period of relative enlightenment.

Walcott I was not an example of a shot fighter. Walcott was ageing but he was arguably in the the form of his life. Moore was getting on a bit by the time he fought Marciano and not operating at his best weight but he wasn't shot.

Rocky beat all relevant challengers - what's he supposed to do? Invent a time machine and prove himself in a more difficult era. Yes, he would struggle on a head to head to basis with plenty of the other greats and I think that's largely recognised but he wasn't nearly as limited as you make out.

azania wrote:I'd even go as far as saying that the post prison Tyson beats any version of Rocky in under 4 rounds.

I personally think the Tyson of June 26th 1987 an hour or two prior to teatime after missing lunch would destroy King Kong within 2 rounds.

I have no proof to back this up but rest assured it is fact.

Anyone who doesn't believe this is probably racist or something.

superflyweight wrote:

I reckon the hype that started in the 1950s has permeated through to today.

I don't. That computer simulation was stupid and it was done in the 60's (if I remember correctly) - hardly a period of relative enlightenment.

Walcott I was not an example of a shot fighter. Walcott was ageing but he was arguably in the the form of his life. Moore was getting on a bit by the time he fought Marciano and not operating at his best weight but he wasn't shot.

Rocky beat all relevant challengers - what's he supposed to do? Invent a time machine and prove himself in a more difficult era. Yes, he would struggle on a head to head to basis with plenty of the other greats and I think that's largely recognised but he wasn't nearly as limited as you make out.

Walcott was, coming into the fight, on a 50% win rate in his last 16 fights. He had won his last 2 or 3. His record at best was patchy. Form of his life? Then he promptly retired after the rematch. Urban legends is that Rocky beat him so bad he decided to retire. Reality states he knew he was passed it and retired.

Moore never did anything at HW. Never.

And then there was Cockell.

Good point you make that he beat those in front of him/ The simpleton coxy asked which ATG Tyson beat. Well he didn't have any to beat. Which prime ATG did rocky beat to be ranked so highly? In fact which decent and active HW with a pulse slightly above comatose level did Rocky beat?

Tyson wipes the floor of him in less than 120 seconds. That is not me wumming either. I actually hold that opinion. Rocky was not impervious to punches. Moore proved that. Tyson his harder and more often than Rocky. Rocky couldn't punch through walls. Moore lasted 11 rounds. Tyson was too fast, strong, big and skilled for Rocky.

Dunno why your put down was removed superfly. I thought it was funny and very apt (if it was directed at me then it wasn't and deserved to be removed)

Had to be aimed at your good self Az.

Surely wasn't talking about little old me.

It wasn't directed at you, Az and not intended as personal abuse at anyone (well maybe ONETWO) and glad to see it wasn't taken that way.

I've no problems with it being removed though and had we been on the old 606 I would have been preparing myself for the frustrations of pre-mod.

Careful what you say about OneTwo.

His a trained killer you know.

For what it's worth, fellas, three of us from the admin team were laughing our socks off at superfly's retort to az. The problem is that, had we left it, it might have set a precedent and invited similar, though less funny and more abusive, uses of the word.

Shame, though.

HumanWindmill wrote:For what it's worth, fellas, three of us from the admin team were laughing our socks off at superfly's retort to az. The problem is that, had we left it, it might have set a precedent and invited similar, though less funny and more abusive, uses of the word.

Shame, though.

Can you re-post it please?

I promise i will not get abusive, with ribbons on top. I can't account for that misfit Azania though, he's so doped up with creatine shakes he can't speak sense.

Sorry, mate. No can do.

Maybe superfly will PM it to you. It was damned funny.

No problems, Windy and I had a pretty good idea it wouldn't last long. I'm glad that it was taken in the good humour that was intended though (if you'll pardon the expression).

It certainly was, superfly. Thanks for your understanding, mate.

coxy0001 wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:For what it's worth, fellas, three of us from the admin team were laughing our socks off at superfly's retort to az. The problem is that, had we left it, it might have set a precedent and invited similar, though less funny and more abusive, uses of the word.

Shame, though.

Can you re-post it please?

I promise i will not get abusive, with ribbons on top. I can't account for that misfit Azania though, he's so doped up with creatine shakes he can't speak sense.

It was funny. Far funnier than an attention seeking laddish oik like you can muster up. No offense.....mate.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:For what it's worth, fellas, three of us from the admin team were laughing our socks off at superfly's retort to az. The problem is that, had we left it, it might have set a precedent and invited similar, though less funny and more abusive, uses of the word.

Shame, though.

Can you re-post it please?

I promise i will not get abusive, with ribbons on top. I can't account for that misfit Azania though, he's so doped up with creatine shakes he can't speak sense.

It was funny. Far funnier than an attention seeking laddish oik like you can muster up. No offense.....mate.

Azania, you're clearly a level or two below me on the intelligence levels as you just resort to petty insults which is indicative of having sweet f.a. to come back with regarding a retort.

Ta

You really are a funny attention seeking lad coxy. But a word of advise. Self praise is no praise. If you care to look at this thread and when you decided to respond to my post (despite saying several times that you wouldnt) you will see that the insults were not started by myself but by your good self.

I dunno coxy, you harassed D4 and now you turn your unwanted attention onto me. Do I turn you on or something?

Getting a bit tiresome now, chaps.

Appreciate that you two have some history but, for the sake of everybody else, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd drop it a notch or three. You're both too intelligent for the handbags stuff.

It's Friday, time to relax a bit, and I really don't want the hassle of deleting comments, so please do yourselves and an old man a favour.

Thank you.

azania wrote:Moreover I know much more, indeed forgotten more about boxing than you will ever know. But that's another story.

azania wrote:But a word of advise. Self praise is no praise.

[quote="Sir. badgerhands"]

azania wrote:Moreover I know much more, indeed forgotten more about boxing than you will ever know. But that's another story.

azania wrote:But a word of advise. Self praise is no praise.

Thanks for that badgerhands.

Game. Set. Match.

Time to trot on Az. Yet again you've said something a bit daft.

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

azania wrote:Moreover I know much more, indeed forgotten more about boxing than you will ever know. But that's another story.

azania wrote:But a word of advise. Self praise is no praise.

That's a statement of fact!

[quote="coxy0001"]

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

azania wrote:Moreover I know much more, indeed forgotten more about boxing than you will ever know. But that's another story.

azania wrote:But a word of advise. Self praise is no praise.

Thanks for that badgerhands.

Game. Set. Match.

Time to trot on Az. Yet again you've said something a bit daft.

So many times you've said you're not going to respond to me. Yes like a bad smell you wont go away. Stay alert and read my posts boy.

Just bite that tongue Az, bite it hard.

Something wrong with your eyes, fellas? Let's see if a splash of red might help :

Getting a bit tiresome now, chaps.

Appreciate that you two have some history but, for the sake of everybody else, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd drop it a notch or three. You're both too intelligent for the handbags stuff.

It's Friday, time to relax a bit, and I really don't want the hassle of deleting comments, so please do yourselves and an old man a favour.

Thank you.

Appreciate that you two have some history

I thought i'd just provide the defintion of it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

coxy0001 wrote:

Appreciate that you two have some history

I thought i'd just provide the defintion of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

I can go one better.

The other half of your previous post is history, and you will be if you don't wrap this up.

to move it along I thik a prime Foreman versus a prime Ali ends in a prime Foreman knockout, I've always thought that Ali would tyr and dance and wouldn't rope a dope and would end up engaging much more and get caught. One of the rare times I would say that a guy stands a better chance of beating another guy whilst past it.

Na - comfortable win for Ali - quick enough to get in and out and keep him on the outside - negligible reach difference because of Ali's speed - and much to comfortable at giving himself space to move.

Ali - pre ban - annihilates frazier

AlexHuckerby wrote:to move it along I thik a prime Foreman versus a prime Ali ends in a prime Foreman knockout, I've always thought that Ali would tyr and dance and wouldn't rope a dope and would end up engaging much more and get caught. One of the rare times I would say that a guy stands a better chance of beating another guy whilst past it.

I'd still pick a young Ali I think he would be to mobile and he had enough firepower to keep foreman off him, would be a completely different fight though.

ShahenshahG wrote:Na - comfortable win for Ali - quick enough to get in and out and keep him on the outside - negligible reach difference because of Ali's speed - and much to comfortable at giving himself space to move.

Ali - pre ban - annihilates frazier

I can't agree with that, Frazier would always be an absolute nightmare for Ali.

Figured nearly everyone would disagree with me!!

bellchees wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Na - comfortable win for Ali - quick enough to get in and out and keep him on the outside - negligible reach difference because of Ali's speed - and much to comfortable at giving himself space to move.

Ali - pre ban - annihilates frazier

I can't agree with that, Frazier would always be an absolute nightmare for Ali.

I don't think so - Too fast and too mobile. Will be a shutout. That jab keeps him away for the majority of the fight and several right hands land without reply. Frazaier gets him in trouble maybe once or twice but Ali dances his way out.

I was talking about Foreman by the way not Frazier :O

Yeah we know - the frazier bit is seperate

Was gonna say it's just the Frazier partcame from nowehre

perhaps its a sign you spend too much time watching american tv

I think that a pre-ban Ali beats Foreman 8 or 9 times out of ten. Liston was a similarly hard hitting monster with a long reach and a far better jab than Foreman and a relatively green Ali handled him well enough in their first fight (we'll ignore the second fight for obvious reasons). For the most part, Ali would be just too fast and able to fire off his own comiobinations while George was still setting himself and then get out again before being caught. However, Ali could be caught and if anyone'd going to keep him down, it's Foreman. That's why I give him a puncher's chance.

I don't tihnk a pre-ban Ali loses to Frazier (Ali's weakness against the left hook aside) but I don't think it's easy. Ali just simply didn't hit hard enough to deter Frazier who I think gives a tough night to almost every heavyweight apart from Foreman and possibly Liston.

Can't agree superfly - I reckon Ali takes foreman 5/6 times out of 10. Foreman, 1976/77, fighting in the States in a rematch would have had a better chance against that version of Ali.

As for Marciano - the debate has been done to death - but to put it simply:

1. Marciano's level of opposition was indubitably better than Dempsey's as champion.
2. Marciano's level of opposition was probably better than Ali's first reign as champion. Liston1 was a good win - but Cleveland Williams was nearly dead. Literally. I'll take Charles x2, Walcott x2, Cockell, LaStarza and Moore over that.
3. If Marciano's punch was so slow - why did he manage to hit a "LHW" with it so many times. No-one (other than Burley) beat Moore like that. Sure - Moore decked him - Moore himself dined out on the story for years. He records that he was under pressure, with punches coming from everywhere, so he feigned distress and caught Marciano coming forwards with a beaut of a shot. Marciano was straight up and looking for him again.

Rocky had a good chin - and one hell of a punch. You can't criticise Rocky's punch - it was outstanding.

3. The reason you don't like Rocky is race, pure and simple. Partly the fact that he's white partly the way white America warmed to him. However. That's not his fault and makes you guilty of hypocrisy in the extreme.

If point 3 is incorrect, please, pick me up immediately - but all your bitterness surrounding "white America" - leave a sour taste when debating with you.

You can't debate prejudice on logical grounds.

oxring wrote:Can't agree superfly - I reckon Ali takes foreman 5/6 times out of 10. Foreman, 1976/77, fighting in the States in a rematch would have had a better chance against that version of Ali.

As for Marciano - the debate has been done to death - but to put it simply:

1. Marciano's level of opposition was indubitably better than Dempsey's as champion.
2. Marciano's level of opposition was probably better than Ali's first reign as champion. Liston1 was a good win - but Cleveland Williams was nearly dead. Literally. I'll take Charles x2, Walcott x2, Cockell, LaStarza and Moore over that.
3. If Marciano's punch was so slow - why did he manage to hit a "LHW" with it so many times. No-one (other than Burley) beat Moore like that. Sure - Moore decked him - Moore himself dined out on the story for years. He records that he was under pressure, with punches coming from everywhere, so he feigned distress and caught Marciano coming forwards with a beaut of a shot. Marciano was straight up and looking for him again.

Rocky had a good chin - and one hell of a punch. You can't criticise Rocky's punch - it was outstanding.

3. The reason you don't like Rocky is race, pure and simple. Partly the fact that he's white partly the way white America warmed to him. However. That's not his fault and makes you guilty of hypocrisy in the extreme.

If point 3 is incorrect, please, pick me up immediately - but all your bitterness surrounding "white America" - leave a sour taste when debating with you.

You can't debate prejudice on logical grounds.

Ouch. But how is it that I'm a fan of Dempsey? And Benny Leonard (but keep that quiet).