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.

At what weight?

I mean, in fairness - Duran in his prime would have been outweighed by Benn by a good stone or 2.

Benn-Hopkins at MW is a nightmare scenario for Benn I'm afraid Waingro. Absolutely the wrong sort of fighter for Benn to come up against - think Trinidad-Hopkins.

Toney I can see. A motivated Toney has the boxing skills to beat Benn - however - remember Tibieri? Toney was prone to lapses - and had more lapses than he was entitled to. However - I'm not sure if Benn has sufficient speed to exploit Toney's laziness. This could be another Toney-Barkley scenario.

Hearns? Well Benn>Barkley>Hearns right? And Pavlik>Taylor>Hopkins so Pavlik>Hopkins?
As you are well aware - styles make fights. If Hearns doesn't get careless and get caught - he has the skills to outbox Benn. However - Benn's power, which was outstanding gives him a real chance.

As for Duran at MW - No arguments from me - a good, fun, fight, relatively close - but one that I wouldn't back Duran in if I had to bet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZtTnBo61fM

Duran defensive sparring for Benn.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:' Marciano was crap because Marciano was white.'

Think that's more what you were looking for Windy.

Haha!

How, on God's green Earth, did I forget that one?

America wanted a great white hope. They had Cooney, the Quarrys, Morrisson. All failed. So they steadily buil;t up rocky as this impregnable punchine machine who couldn't be beaten.

If the K bros were American then God help us all. They would be on cereal boxes.

Given he went 49 fights unbeaten, has one of the all time best HW KO records and has, next to Ali, one of the best records at HW - perhaps he didn't need too much building up.

Well his record on paper stacks up. It shows the best ever HW. Who can argue with that. Brian Neilson should have retired at 48-0. Drags Ali out of retirement and also have an ATG on his record. It would all be on paper.

One of the controversial picks I would suggest would be that Jack Johnson beats Ali. Its probably an unfashionable suggestion but one which carried a bit more weight in the past.

Johnson for me was the best defensive heavyweight in history. He displayed a defensive nous and subtle skills that are unusual for heavyweights and many of these skills have declined over time. I dont think any heavyweight in history had as rich a blend of parrying, slipping, feinting and countering all of which have become lost arts to a large degree (Please dear lord can we stop with Johnson having limited fundementals, absolutely crazy). Watching these modern heavyweight trying to slip a jab is often as painful as being on the receiving end of one and the suggestion that these limited oafs have better fundementals than one of the most technically gifted heavyweights of all time beggars belief.

I think this defensive set up and the skillset Johnson had to accompany it makes him a very tricky and frustrating puzzle for Ali to solve. Ali enjoyed making his opponent come to him, jabbing at distance and generallly rejected being the aggressor. Johnson would allow him no such luxuries. Ali would forced to initiate the action and when he did he would find his jab had never been so innefective. Its noteable that he fared less successfully against the likes of Young and Norton for instance, who stylewise didnt play Ali's game. Johnson almost certainly wouldnt either. He would swat, parry and slip Ali jab and take full advantage of the countering opportunities supplied by Ali who would have the discomfort of having to go to his opponent himself.

I dont envisage an easy or one sided fight by any stretch mind you, Ali's aggression and higher workrate would likely make this a close run thing. But I see him having less success or joy than in any fight before as Johnson has almost everything required to beat him. A tricky one for the judges I feel but one where Ali's inneffectiveness combined with Johnsons lower workrate but better quality defensive and countering display would see him eek out a points win.

oxring wrote:Jack Johnson v Ali.

I've said this before, I know - but Johnson counter-jabs well combined with inside fighting. He also has a decent left hook. Reports say he was always on his toes. Catching the jab and counterjabbing was the reason Ali had such trouble with Norton. For me, Johnson does all Norton does and a little bit more - so I'm picking the Galveston Giant over the Louisville Lip.

It seems you and I are of 1 mind on this Lion.

For me, given Futch based Norton's defence to Ali on what he saw done by Johnson and no-one did what Johnson did better than the Galveston Giant - Johnson's style gives Ali fits. Nightmare for the judges to score though, as for my money, Ali's activity makes scoring rounds difficult. However the cleaner, harder blows would be Johnsons - and lest we forget - Johnson has the advantage on the inside - his inside game was better than "the greatest's".

Oh and Az - I can't debate irrational prejudice - by definition it won't respond to logic. Try Windy/rowley/anyone else on the board who thinks pre-1960 fighters were good - instead.

Waingro wrote:What about Nigel Benn? Now this guys was very underrated he fought quality fighters and he was robbed against Eubank in their second fight. I reckon he would have beaten guys like Duran, Hearns, hopkins and Toney far to much power for those guys but I think Calzaghe, Hagler and Jones would have schooled him. Hagler was a beast with a iron chin and Jones and Calzaghe had too much speed and skill.

Benn would lose to all of them except Duran and that only because of the size difference.

oxring wrote:

oxring wrote:Jack Johnson v Ali.

I've said this before, I know - but Johnson counter-jabs well combined with inside fighting. He also has a decent left hook. Reports say he was always on his toes. Catching the jab and counterjabbing was the reason Ali had such trouble with Norton. For me, Johnson does all Norton does and a little bit more - so I'm picking the Galveston Giant over the Louisville Lip.

It seems you and I are of 1 mind on this Lion.

For me, given Futch based Norton's defence to Ali on what he saw done by Johnson and no-one did what Johnson did better than the Galveston Giant - Johnson's style gives Ali fits. Nightmare for the judges to score though, as for my money, Ali's activity makes scoring rounds difficult. However the cleaner, harder blows would be Johnsons - and lest we forget - Johnson has the advantage on the inside - his inside game was better than "the greatest's".

Oh and Az - I can't debate irrational prejudice - by definition it won't respond to logic. Try Windy/rowley/anyone else on the board who thinks pre-1960 fighters were good - instead.

Oxy tere is nothing illogical about my arguments. Windy agrees with me and so do most others for a change. Its simply issues people have with the way I phrase my comments. It may come across as disrespectful to the oldies, but it isn't intended.

Moreover I am a big fan of many oldies. Huge Dempsey fan, Benny Leonard, Henry Amrstrong, Beau Jack and one or two more. But they are not beyond scrutiny. Dempsey himself was sometimes flailing away like a dervish. But hs intent was to rip the opponent in half. I actually do like Johnson, but I wont for the life of me agree that if he was transported with his skills to fight in the 1930s he would actually stand a chance against the likes of Baer, Schmelling and others. Not a chance. Doesn't negate that he was an ATG, but some perspective is required.

It's not the fact you pick Tyson to beat Marciano, it's a scenario that could happen but to a large degree we would be guessing on whether Tyson could in fact knock him out because if he doesn't he would most probably get stopped late. Rather it's the way you go about putting together your argument, you don't objectively debate Marciano but you go out of your way to trash a boxer who did something no one else can claim to do. For instance Cooper wouldn't stand a hope in hell of giving him any sort of trouble but had Ali (Clay) hanging on for dear life.

As for Johnson you can make a very simple ladder of matches that brings into question where his skillset which was undoubtably sublime starts to become ineffective.

Johnson beat Flynn
Flynn beat Dempsey
Dempsey beat Sharkey
Sharkey beat Schmeling

There is of course the whole styles makes fights argument but at which point with so many crossover victories for the older fighters is Johnson no longer able to compete?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's not the fact you pick Tyson to beat Marciano, it's a scenario that could happen but to a large degree we would be guessing on whether Tyson could in fact knock him out because if he doesn't he would most probably get stopped late. Rather it's the way you go about putting together your argument, you don't objectively debate Marciano but you go out of your way to trash a boxer who did something no one else can claim to do. For instance Cooper wouldn't stand a hope in hell of giving him any sort of trouble but had Ali (Clay) hanging on for dear life.

As for Johnson you can make a very simple ladder of matches that brings into question where his skillset which was undoubtably sublime starts to become ineffective.

Johnson beat Flynn
Flynn beat Dempsey
Dempsey beat Sharkey
Sharkey beat Schmeling

There is of course the whole styles makes fights argument but at which point with so many crossover victories for the older fighters is Johnson no longer able to compete?

Why would Tyson probably get stopped late if the fight went pass the first? Its not as though Tyson hasn't knocked out guys in the later rounds.

Ali wasn't hanging on for dear life against Cooper. He got up immediately and the bell went. If he was put down in the early part of the round, he would have seen it through comfortably.

Its not as though Tyson hasn't knocked out guys in the later rounds

Don't mean to be a stickler, but i don't think he ever knocked out anyone in the championship rounds of a 12 rounder.

coxy0001 wrote:

Its not as though Tyson hasn't knocked out guys in the later rounds

Don't mean to be a stickler, but i don't think he ever knocked out anyone in the championship rounds of a 12 rounder.

He's scored 1 or 2 10th round KOs. Jose Ribalta and someone else.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Its not as though Tyson hasn't knocked out guys in the later rounds

Don't mean to be a stickler, but i don't think he ever knocked out anyone in the championship rounds of a 12 rounder.

He's scored 1 or 2 10th round KOs. Jose Ribalta and someone else.

10 rounders against mediocre opposition don't really count, and i did say 12 rounders

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Its not as though Tyson hasn't knocked out guys in the later rounds

Don't mean to be a stickler, but i don't think he ever knocked out anyone in the championship rounds of a 12 rounder.

He's scored 1 or 2 10th round KOs. Jose Ribalta and someone else.

10 rounders against mediocre opposition don't really count, and i did say 12 rounders

In that case you may as well dismiss all Rocky's wins. After all washed up former greats he beat were mediocre. And then there was Cockell who made HW only because of health reasons. Strewth!

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Its not as though Tyson hasn't knocked out guys in the later rounds

Don't mean to be a stickler, but i don't think he ever knocked out anyone in the championship rounds of a 12 rounder.

He's scored 1 or 2 10th round KOs. Jose Ribalta and someone else.

10 rounders against mediocre opposition don't really count, and i did say 12 rounders

In that case you may as well dismiss all Rocky's wins. After all washed up former greats he beat were mediocre. And then there was Cockell who made HW only because of health reasons. Strewth!

Or you can read what i stated in that he hasn't knocked guys out in 12 rounders late on in the championship rounds, which disproved your point. It's very black and white and not particularly hard to understand.

Your a pathetic human being.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Its not as though Tyson hasn't knocked out guys in the later rounds

Don't mean to be a stickler, but i don't think he ever knocked out anyone in the championship rounds of a 12 rounder.

He's scored 1 or 2 10th round KOs. Jose Ribalta and someone else.

10 rounders against mediocre opposition don't really count, and i did say 12 rounders

In that case you may as well dismiss all Rocky's wins. After all washed up former greats he beat were mediocre. And then there was Cockell who made HW only because of health reasons. Strewth!

Or you can read what i stated in that he hasn't knocked guys out in 12 rounders late on in the championship rounds, which disproved your point. It's very black and white and not particularly hard to understand.

Well the guys hung on for life or spoiled to survice. No big deal. He fought the best available who were young and in their peak. However good or bad they were, one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents. Charles et al were washed up. Rocky dealt with them in the manner you are supposed to deal with washed up fighters.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Your a pathetic human being.

Change the record for f>ck sake.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Change the record for f>ck sake.

OK. Rocky was one of the best. An unbreakable will to win. Fought and beat 4 ATG at their best. Refused to lose and to be hurt. Watta man. And saved old ladies in his spare time, solved the Red Plague also.

We get it you dont like the great white heavyweight Rocky Marciano rather than saying the same BS over and over shut the f>ck up.

one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents

I suppose that's why Rocky is rated higher than Tyson then?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:We get it you dont like the great white heavyweight Rocky Marciano rather than saying the same BS over and over shut the f>ck up.

You need to calm down mate and get some rest. You're obviously upset about something. Lack of sleep perhaps?

ESPN (ATG): Marciano 14 Tyson 50
IBRO (Heavy): Marciano 5 Tyson 13

And i can't be arrissed to go on basically

You are boring beyond belief, banging the same drum you were before, its sad and pathetic that you dislike a great heavyweight being white that you must constantly try and trash him using the most illogical of BS.

coxy0001 wrote:

one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents

I suppose that's why Rocky is rated higher than Tyson then?

Yeah well, some people are looked at with rose tinted glasses. As manos stated earlier, even in the 1960s, Rocky was not in the top 10. Ali, Holmes, Liston came after him and suddenly Rocky's stock began to rise, especially after Ali came onto the scene.

Plus his opponents began standings began to elivate.

Rock roooles ok!

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents

I suppose that's why Rocky is rated higher than Tyson then?

Yeah well, some people are looked at with rose tinted glasses. As manos stated earlier, even in the 1960s, Rocky was not in the top 10. Ali, Holmes, Liston came after him and suddenly Rocky's stock began to rise, especially after Ali came onto the scene.

Plus his opponents began standings began to elivate.

Rock roooles ok!

The Ring P4P list didn't start until the 1980s. Stop making stuff up would you?

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents

I suppose that's why Rocky is rated higher than Tyson then?

Yeah well, some people are looked at with rose tinted glasses. As manos stated earlier, even in the 1960s, Rocky was not in the top 10. Ali, Holmes, Liston came after him and suddenly Rocky's stock began to rise, especially after Ali came onto the scene.

Plus his opponents began standings began to elivate.

Rock roooles ok!

The Ring P4P list didn't start until the 1980s. Stop making stuff up would you?

Stop being such a tool. Ring is not the only body who compile lists ranking fighters. Also are you saying that Manos made that up? I have zero reason to disbelieve what he writes. Do you? Please answer.

Can't help yourself with the racial undertones can you, can't say I care much for whether a fighter is white or black, your apparent hate for some fighters based on racial prejudice is quite disturbing.

Where was Ali rated during his first incarnation? Not very highly your point being?

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents

I suppose that's why Rocky is rated higher than Tyson then?

Yeah well, some people are looked at with rose tinted glasses. As manos stated earlier, even in the 1960s, Rocky was not in the top 10. Ali, Holmes, Liston came after him and suddenly Rocky's stock began to rise, especially after Ali came onto the scene.

Plus his opponents began standings began to elivate.

Rock roooles ok!

The Ring P4P list didn't start until the 1980s. Stop making stuff up would you?

Stop being such a tool. Ring is not the only body who compile lists ranking fighters. Also are you saying that Manos made that up? I have zero reason to disbelieve what he writes. Do you? Please answer.

The Ring has only ever been the official guide for P4P lists.

To say Rocky wasn't in it when they didn't even have their P4P list is just making stuff up.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Can't help yourself with the racial undertones can you, can't say I care much for whether a fighter is white or black, your apparent hate for some fighters based on racial prejudice is quite disturbing.

What are you babbling on about now. Take a few deep breaths before you press the send button. I have no hate towards Rocky whatsoever. As a man I have stated that he appeared a very nice guy. It is his record and the manner in which people big him up as some kind of invincible force, when he patently was a very average boxer who was at the right plaxce at the right time and beat washed up greats.

Yes I believe his elevation into superhuman status has much to do with racial politics. I have read countless pieces from black academics including Cornel West who have stated that the hype of rocky gathered pace when Cassius Clay became Muhammed Ali.

But ethnicity of Rocky aside, I believe he was crap and grossly overhyped after his death.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Where was Ali rated during his first incarnation? Not very highly your point being?

ALi cemented his status in his 2nd incarnation. In short he proved it. Rocky's status went up after he proved he could beat up on washed up old men.

You look at things from one point of view that of black america, its absolute tosh that his status went up because he was white for the simple reason that the Joe Louis had long been regarded as the number heavyweight with Langford and Johnson not far behind. So to try and suggest that Marciano rating increased to combat that of Ali is disrespectful, vile and not needed on a boxing forum. Time for you to grow up.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents

I suppose that's why Rocky is rated higher than Tyson then?

Yeah well, some people are looked at with rose tinted glasses. As manos stated earlier, even in the 1960s, Rocky was not in the top 10. Ali, Holmes, Liston came after him and suddenly Rocky's stock began to rise, especially after Ali came onto the scene.

Plus his opponents began standings began to elivate.

Rock roooles ok!

The Ring P4P list didn't start until the 1980s. Stop making stuff up would you?

Stop being such a tool. Ring is not the only body who compile lists ranking fighters. Also are you saying that Manos made that up? I have zero reason to disbelieve what he writes. Do you? Please answer.

The Ring has only ever been the official guide for P4P lists.

To say Rocky wasn't in it when they didn't even have their P4P list is just making stuff up.

Agreed. Before the ring had a eureka moment to complie a p4p list, no other journalists wrote about it, discussed it or even thought about it until the ring came along. Wow.

Give it a rest Ghosty. You shouldn't tell people to shut up and bypass the swear filter. It really is silly.

Stick to debating boxing and calm down mate.

Maybe you should stick to debating boxing then rather than bringing into account your clear racial prejudice.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

oxring wrote:Jack Johnson v Ali.

I've said this before, I know - but Johnson counter-jabs well combined with inside fighting. He also has a decent left hook. Reports say he was always on his toes. Catching the jab and counterjabbing was the reason Ali had such trouble with Norton. For me, Johnson does all Norton does and a little bit more - so I'm picking the Galveston Giant over the Louisville Lip.

It seems you and I are of 1 mind on this Lion.

For me, given Futch based Norton's defence to Ali on what he saw done by Johnson and no-one did what Johnson did better than the Galveston Giant - Johnson's style gives Ali fits. Nightmare for the judges to score though, as for my money, Ali's activity makes scoring rounds difficult. However the cleaner, harder blows would be Johnsons - and lest we forget - Johnson has the advantage on the inside - his inside game was better than "the greatest's".

Oh and Az - I can't debate irrational prejudice - by definition it won't respond to logic. Try Windy/rowley/anyone else on the board who thinks pre-1960 fighters were good - instead.

Oxy tere is nothing illogical about my arguments. Windy agrees with me and so do most others for a change. Its simply issues people have with the way I phrase my comments. It may come across as disrespectful to the oldies, but it isn't intended.

Moreover I am a big fan of many oldies. Huge Dempsey fan, Benny Leonard, Henry Amrstrong, Beau Jack and one or two more. But they are not beyond scrutiny. Dempsey himself was sometimes flailing away like a dervish. But hs intent was to rip the opponent in half. I actually do like Johnson, but I wont for the life of me agree that if he was transported with his skills to fight in the 1930s he would actually stand a chance against the likes of Baer, Schmelling and others. Not a chance. Doesn't negate that he was an ATG, but some perspective is required.

I agree with you about what, exactly?

I certainly don't agree with you about Johnson's abilities. I'm in the same camp as oxy and Colonial Lion ( though I'd favour Ali's mobility to win the day over Johnson, ) that Johnson was a wonderful boxer with extraordinary skills, reflexes and instincts.

My only criticism of Johnson concerns his ruthless exploitation of the title for his own ends.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Maybe you should stick to debating boxing then rather than bringing into account your clear racial prejudice.

Ridiculous ghosty. Even by your hyped standards.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

one thing for sure is that they were better than Rocky's opponents

I suppose that's why Rocky is rated higher than Tyson then?

Yeah well, some people are looked at with rose tinted glasses. As manos stated earlier, even in the 1960s, Rocky was not in the top 10. Ali, Holmes, Liston came after him and suddenly Rocky's stock began to rise, especially after Ali came onto the scene.

Plus his opponents began standings began to elivate.

Rock roooles ok!

The Ring P4P list didn't start until the 1980s. Stop making stuff up would you?

Stop being such a tool. Ring is not the only body who compile lists ranking fighters. Also are you saying that Manos made that up? I have zero reason to disbelieve what he writes. Do you? Please answer.

The Ring has only ever been the official guide for P4P lists.

To say Rocky wasn't in it when they didn't even have their P4P list is just making stuff up.

Agreed. Before the ring had a eureka moment to complie a p4p list, no other journalists wrote about it, discussed it or even thought about it until the ring came along. Wow.

Proof?

Rocky was considered, and is still considered, a fine fine fine heavyweight. Like it or lump it.

Windy

Agreed that Tyson would have KO'd rocky. We disagree on the round and much more.

Ah, I see, az.

Yes, I'd make Tyson favourite to beat Marciano and have given my reasons. I fear that Rocky wouldn't get past the early blitz attack from Tyson. Certainly believe, though, that if he were to survive that his chances would improve with every passing round.

HumanWindmill wrote:Ah, I see, az.

Yes, I'd make Tyson favourite to beat Marciano and have given my reasons. I fear that Rocky wouldn't get past the early blitz attack from Tyson. Certainly believe, though, that if he were to survive that his chances would improve with every passing round.

Now why people are getting upset with me is beyond me.

However if the fight goes into the later rounds, I would fear for Rocky's safety. He would not be dealing with an ageing LHW of an ageing Ezzard Charles, but a human wrecking ball of a fighter who would find Rocky easy to hit with power shots. I reckon the longer the fight went on the more a fearful beating to Rocky will be delivered by Tyson. I dont buy this argument that Tyson lacked stamina or heart and weakened as the fight progressed. Those who lasted the distance in his prime held on to him like they were married to him.

There is a difference between heart and guts, az.

Tyson had guts, no doubt. He absorbed awful shellackings from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis. However, he lacked the heart and self belief to rescue a losing situation. Only once, against Botha, did he turn a fight on its head and rescue a lost cause, and that was with a punch from nowhere when Botha got careless.

Now why people are getting upset with me is beyond me.

Because you slam Rocky's opponents yet make every excuse under the sun for Holmes losing to a blown up light heavy in Spinks (twice).

And again, if it got to round 12 i'd be fearing for Tyson to be honest. The Rock came on stronger and stronger as each round passed and handed out some fearful beatings. Tyson on the other hand didn't hand out any beatings as the fight wore on. I shall highlight the case of Douglas where he simply resorted to pot shotting with loaded up haymakers as he had become frustrated that he wasn't getting things anywhere near his own way.

To say Marciano, one of the greatest at coming on strong, would take a bigger beating late on is just a complete joke. Again, you're going completely against fact, Tyson never handed out a beating in the latter rounds, never once. Stopped by Lewis, stopped by Holyfield, stopped by Douglas - all in the final third of the fight. Did Marciano rip people to shreds once he got into the 2nd half of the fight? Yup, he sure did.

And those are facts Az. You seem to twist them to suit your arguement. Actually, you just make things up.

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a difference between heart and guts, az.

Tyson had guts, no doubt. He absorbed awful shellackings from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis. However, he lacked the heart and self belief to rescue a losing situation. Only once, against Botha, did he turn a fight on its head and rescue a lost cause, and that was with a punch from nowhere when Botha got careless.

How many boxers have rescued a lost cause? Frazier is considered great but never rescued a lost cause. Neither did Ali. Even Holmes. Tyson lost to Douglas who fought out of his skin against a jaded tyson who took him lightly. But even if he took him extremely seriously, there are doubts in the back of my mind if he could have won anyway. Tyson's main weakness was against a good jab and footwork. Douglas had it all on that night.

Instead of saying he didn't rescue a lost cause I'd rather give credit to his opponent for not letting him do that. Its not as if he stopped trying to win.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a difference between heart and guts, az.

Tyson had guts, no doubt. He absorbed awful shellackings from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis. However, he lacked the heart and self belief to rescue a losing situation. Only once, against Botha, did he turn a fight on its head and rescue a lost cause, and that was with a punch from nowhere when Botha got careless.

How many boxers have rescued a lost cause? Frazier is considered great but never rescued a lost cause. Neither did Ali. Even Holmes. Tyson lost to Douglas who fought out of his skin against a jaded tyson who took him lightly. But even if he took him extremely seriously, there are doubts in the back of my mind if he could have won anyway. Tyson's main weakness was against a good jab and footwork. Douglas had it all on that night.

Instead of saying he didn't rescue a lost cause I'd rather give credit to his opponent for not letting him do that. Its not as if he stopped trying to win.

Now you are being, sorry to say, ridiculous.

Frazier v Bonavena I

Ali v Cooper

Ali v Foreman (!)

Ali v Lyle

Ali v Norton II

Holmes v Weaver

Holmes v Snipes

Holmes v Shavers (!)

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a difference between heart and guts, az.

Tyson had guts, no doubt. He absorbed awful shellackings from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis. However, he lacked the heart and self belief to rescue a losing situation. Only once, against Botha, did he turn a fight on its head and rescue a lost cause, and that was with a punch from nowhere when Botha got careless.

How many boxers have rescued a lost cause? Frazier is considered great but never rescued a lost cause. Neither did Ali. Even Holmes. Tyson lost to Douglas who fought out of his skin against a jaded tyson who took him lightly. But even if he took him extremely seriously, there are doubts in the back of my mind if he could have won anyway. Tyson's main weakness was against a good jab and footwork. Douglas had it all on that night.

Instead of saying he didn't rescue a lost cause I'd rather give credit to his opponent for not letting him do that. Its not as if he stopped trying to win.

Now you are being, sorry to say, ridiculous.

Frazier v Bonavena I

Ali v Cooper

Ali v Foreman (!)

Ali v Lyle

Ali v Norton II

Holmes v Weaver

Holmes v Snipes

Holmes v Shavers (!)

Beat me to it Windy.

I give up. He's as bad as D4 for making things up.

coxy0001 wrote:

Now why people are getting upset with me is beyond me.

Because you slam Rocky's opponents yet make every excuse under the sun for Holmes losing to a blown up light heavy in Spinks (twice).

And again, if it got to round 12 i'd be fearing for Tyson to be honest. The Rock came on stronger and stronger as each round passed and handed out some fearful beatings. Tyson on the other hand didn't hand out any beatings as the fight wore on. I shall highlight the case of Douglas where he simply resorted to pot shotting with loaded up haymakers as he had become frustrated that he wasn't getting things anywhere near his own way.

To say Marciano, one of the greatest at coming on strong, would take a bigger beating late on is just a complete joke. Again, you're going completely against fact, Tyson never handed out a beating in the latter rounds, never once. Stopped by Lewis, stopped by Holyfield, stopped by Douglas - all in the final third of the fight. Did Marciano rip people to shreds once he got into the 2nd half of the fight? Yup, he sure did.

And those are facts Az. You seem to twist them to suit your arguement. Actually, you just make things up.

By stating that Rocky's main opponents were past it? Is that slamming them or stating the facts? Is that it? It would be grossly wrong to claim they were at their best or near their best. They weren't and stop making as it they were.

I believe that a past it Holmes was robbed against Spinks. So do many others who had Holmes winning their first and second fight. How is that making excuses?

Speak to Tucker who recieved a bad beating for 12 rounds. And this issue of Rocky getting stronger as the fight wore on. No. His opponents got weaker because they were old and past their best.

Why is it a joke that Rocky could take a sustained beating as the fight wore on. He had never fought anyone as feroscious as Tyson whereas Tyson had faced arguably bigger punchers in Bruno, Smith and others witout being dropped or in any serious trouble.

Rocky on the other hand got dropped by a LHW and a former MW (who fought just above the JMW weight limit) at his peak.

azania wrote:

Rocky on the other hand got dropped by a LHW and a former MW (who fought just above the JMW weight limit) at his peak.

Who weighed exactly the same as he did on the night.

You might be on to something here though, az. I believe Moore only weighed 9lb. at birth.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a difference between heart and guts, az.

Tyson had guts, no doubt. He absorbed awful shellackings from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis. However, he lacked the heart and self belief to rescue a losing situation. Only once, against Botha, did he turn a fight on its head and rescue a lost cause, and that was with a punch from nowhere when Botha got careless.

How many boxers have rescued a lost cause? Frazier is considered great but never rescued a lost cause. Neither did Ali. Even Holmes. Tyson lost to Douglas who fought out of his skin against a jaded tyson who took him lightly. But even if he took him extremely seriously, there are doubts in the back of my mind if he could have won anyway. Tyson's main weakness was against a good jab and footwork. Douglas had it all on that night.

Instead of saying he didn't rescue a lost cause I'd rather give credit to his opponent for not letting him do that. Its not as if he stopped trying to win.

Now you are being, sorry to say, ridiculous.

Frazier v Bonavena I

Ali v Cooper

Ali v Foreman (!)

Ali v Lyle

Ali v Norton II

Holmes v Weaver

Holmes v Snipes

Holmes v Shavers (!)

The difference is windy that those guys were winning the fights up until they got rocked/dropped. Tyson on the other hand was losing from round 1 in the main fights he lost.

In the Zaire fight, I had Ali ahead. He was landing the cleaner shots throughout. Its a myth that he just layed on the ropes and let foreman punch himself out. ESPN classic show that fight often enough.