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.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I believe his rep has been hyped up to be better than he actually was. Why? Because America wanted a hero. Hauser said that Rocky symbolised the restoration of white boxing supremacy after Louis, Charles and JJW. I suppose as you say Hauser deals in contradictory stories so that is BS. All was fine then in America.

Odd, then, that nobody thought to do the same with Jess Willard.

Maybe because of the way he was dismissed by Dempsey. But Willard was a hero for dethroning JJ. His win led to the colour line and only because Louis was so damn good and could not be denied that it changed. But America still wants its very own hero. Thankfully the K bros are not yanks otherwise god help us all.

It was four years before Dempsey came along, during which time Willard defended his title once.

Willard wasn't exalted, carried on shoulders or hoisted up as an all American boy. The public at large were pretty much disinterested in him, and he was pretty much disinterested in boxing.

Ah windy, sorry to surprise you but my knowledge of the black and white era isn;t so bad. That's why I stated that he was a hero for dethroning JJ. I know he wasn't universally popular and USA was glad that Dempsey got rid of him.

My point is that nobody cared what happened to Willard once Johnson was out of the way. This, after seven years' worth ( more, actually, if we count the end of the Jeffries reign, ) of intrigues had been practised against Johnson.

America had seen eleven years of Joe Louis, who had mercilessly swept aside the German, Schmeling, and had become beloved. Granted, Charles and Walcott were a wee bit lukewarm but who wouldn't be, after Louis? In other words, Johnson was despised and Louis wasn't, whereas Charles and Walcott hardly mattered. Why did America need Marciano to be a hero more than they had needed Willard to be one?

Answer is that they didn't.

HumanWindmill wrote:My point is that nobody cared what happened to Willard once Johnson was out of the way. This, after seven years' worth ( more, actually, if we count the end of the Jeffries reign, ) of intrigues had been practised against Johnson.

America had seen eleven years of Joe Louis, who had mercilessly swept aside the German, Schmeling, and had become beloved. Granted, Charles and Walcott were a wee bit lukewarm but who wouldn't be, after Louis? In other words, Johnson was despised and Louis wasn't, whereas Charles and Walcott hardly mattered. Why did America need Marciano to be a hero more than they had needed Willard to be one?

Answer is that they didn't.

I'm aware of that. My point is that they were happy that JJ was out of the way.

The 1950s was a period of American history where apartheid was practiced by law in many states. Louis was accepted and loved because he was a genuine nice guy and also because he didn't rock the boat. He was told not to be pictured with white women and say anything other than what was accepted and acceptable for the majority. He played that role perfectly. He didn't rock the boat and was as patriotic as they come. All credit to him.

But as Hauser stated, Dempsey personified the roaring 20s with the begining of Hollywood. After the war Rocky pesonified the optimism of the 1950s. He also, for many (wrongly), exemplified the supremacy of white america at a time when everythig seem within their grasp. A small town man with small town ideals. Perfect for America and Americans who mattered.

Then the 1960s came and Ali personified a revolution in outlook and thought. Guys like Jackie Johnson and unfortunately Patterson were dragged before cameras to criticise Ali. Floyd went furthest by calling him a menace to America. He failed to see that the menace to America were those who were upholding laws deliberately holding African Americans back. By all accounts of what I have read, Patterson is an all round great guy. But for me and especially where I come from. Not a chance. He is the worse kind of man possible.

Dempsey earned that affection in the ring.

He was reviled as a draft dodger early during his reign, and the oh so patriotic Americans were rooting for the French war hero, Carpentier, in their masses when those two met.

For somebody who denies he has a racial angle on all this you sure seem to be pretty committed to the idea that Marciano was a white product for a white America. I find it simpler to think about the boxing issues but, hey, that's all I come here for.

You know, to discuss boxing.

HumanWindmill wrote:Dempsey earned that affection in the ring.

He was reviled as a draft dodger early during his reign, and the oh so patriotic Americans were rooting for the French war hero, Carpentier, in their masses when those two met.

For somebody who denies he has a racial angle on all this you sure seem to be pretty committed to the idea that Marciano was a white product for a white America. I find it simpler to think about the boxing issues but, hey, that's all I come here for.

You know, to discuss boxing.

For me personally, Rocky's ethnicity is irrelevant in the way I see him as a boxer. I'll add that the things he said about Louis after he beat him leaves me in absolutely no doubt that he was a great human being (his wife may disagree but what do women know anyway).

But the elevation of Rocky as this beast who could walk through a nuke attack to land his own punch is a hype because of his ethnicity which is a shame because it insults the man himself. It wasn't of his creation but done by others with a more sinister agenda.

OK, this is the only time you will read this from me. Rocky was better than I have given him credit for, but his opposition was weaker than is written. He would still be a contender though, which is no shame. Orlin Norris would give him a good tussle.

I never said you were consistent az. Bless you - but you're the soul of inconsistency.

A man brought up in the shadow of racism, yet uses racially charged language and opinions (none originally his own) to attack great fighters and great men. Ref Patterson, ref Marciano.

You mention Marciano's alleged love or orgies and avoidance of paying as a pejorative. You yet defend Ali for speaking to the KKK, for his racism against White people, for his treatment of his women.

Re lies - I assumed you'd understand I was talking with reference to Marciano and Patterson's lives.

You attack and criticise Marciano's career yet will allow none such criticism against Tyson or Ali1. You are the very soul of contrarianism for some fighters but fail to perform the same analysis to others.

Rhoi'r ffidil yn y to Az. This debate is done - at least as far as I can debate with you. (put the fiddle in the roof - ie - its over).

There's no debating prejudice.

Show some uniformity in your arguments and I'll accept I'm wrong in my judgement.

oxring wrote:I never said you were consistent az. Bless you - but you're the soul of inconsistency.

A man brought up in the shadow of racism, yet uses racially charged language and opinions (none originally his own) to attack great fighters and great men. Ref Patterson, ref Marciano.

You mention Marciano's alleged love or orgies and avoidance of paying as a pejorative. You yet defend Ali for speaking to the KKK, for his racism against White people, for his treatment of his women.

Re lies - I assumed you'd understand I was talking with reference to Marciano and Patterson's lives.

You attack and criticise Marciano's career yet will allow none such criticism against Tyson or Ali1. You are the very soul of contrarianism for some fighters but fail to perform the same analysis to others.

Rhoi'r ffidil yn y to Az. This debate is done - at least as far as I can debate with you. (put the fiddle in the roof - ie - its over).

There's no debating prejudice.

Show some uniformity in your arguments and I'll accept I'm wrong in my judgement.

I have never attached Rocky personally. Never will either. I have attacked Patterson for his words. Rocky didn't say anything bad. In fact quite the opposite. So old chap, if you are going to attack me, please do so with accuracy using my words and not your interpritation of my words.

So what if Rocky likes orgies. If I'm invited to one, I'll take as many condoms as possible and off I go. All power to him for that.

I will criticise Rocky as a boxer. Look at his career and criticise that as much as I would criticise anyone else who is hyped up as much as he is.

Generalisations again and without context again. Come on Oxy, you can do better than that. Dempsey and JJ?

Actually in this thread I have said that I doubt if any version of Tyson would have beaten Douglas on that night. I have said many times that Holmes and Ali would school Tyson because they had the jab to keep tyson at bay.

Ali 1 I agreed with you. He had weak opposition of shot to pieces or near crippled boxers and Cooper. Yet you throw accusations on a subject you appear to have a surface understanding of.

Think the fact so many of us consider Az to have an alterior motive with his views that it can't be a mere coincidence, case closed.

Jeff

I think that two potentially greater british boxers than Driscoll get overlooked because they lived in his shadows on these shores, namely Welsh and Moran. The latter of whom i've criminally under rated in the past, the fact all three could compete with distinction in such a talent rich era for the featherweight and lightweight divisions speaks volumes of their ability. Driscoll had the glamour of being so likeable but the other two perhaps proved it slightly more in the ring. The no decision debacle wasn't the best thing for boxing and while it gets used against Welsh in particular, when his title was on the line he proved every time to be the better man.

azania wrote: Yet you throw accusations on a subject you appear to have a surface understanding of.

May the Lord preserve you az - you always have a way of cheering me up after irritating the hell out of me. Long may it continue.

Have a good one, all. You've confirmed that Rocky was better than you gave him credit for, that'll do for me.

Heaven forbid Oxy anyone on here discussing subjects they have no clue about not that in this case it should matter if it's not a contributing factor.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote: Yet you throw accusations on a subject you appear to have a surface understanding of.

May the Lord preserve you az - you always have a way of cheering me up after irritating the hell out of me. Long may it continue.

Have a good one, all. You've confirmed that Rocky was better than you gave him credit for, that'll do for me.

Once again Oxy, you cherry pick selective parts of my posts and miss the substantive parts of it. Nice one. Peace be upon you. But I would like an answer to the Dempsey and JJ issue. I suppose I'd be waiting for Godot first.

Ghosty get yourself some pom poms and learn some routines.

Such a shame I can't read whatever eloquent genius has just been posted by our resident court jester.

Have to admit, between you 2 - the foe button is probably the best thing ever to occur.

I have explained the JJ and Dempsey issue in posts passim - its relevance to this issue needs more clarification.

You stated that JJ had flawed fundamentals which implies; nay equals a gnats understanding of the deep technical abilities that he possessed.

As for liking Dempsey - you have said in the past you appreciated his snarling, destructive style and as for disliking JJ - it was the ducking of Langford and Jeanette wasn't it? I misremember your reasons for disliking JJ - they've become too caught up in ideas like Sibson beating Greb and Ketchel, Orlin Norris beats Marciano and JJ had flawed fundamentals.

I may have missed some pearls of your wisdom, which have been fully overpowered by such awful dross - and if I have, my sincerest apologies.

As before Az - you always offer good sport old boy. Though I should know better than to debate with you on this - we only ever go round in circles.

Ah well. Ffôl pawb ar brydiau - everyone is a fool at times...

oxring wrote:Have to admit, between you 2 - the foe button is probably the best thing ever to occur.

I have explained the JJ and Dempsey issue in posts passim - its relevance to this issue needs more clarification.

You stated that JJ had flawed fundamentals which implies; nay equals a gnats understanding of the deep technical abilities that he possessed.

As for liking Dempsey - you have said in the past you appreciated his snarling, destructive style and as for disliking JJ - it was the ducking of Langford and Jeanette wasn't it? I misremember your reasons for disliking JJ - they've become too caught up in ideas like Sibson beating Greb and Ketchel, Orlin Norris beats Marciano and JJ had flawed fundamentals.

I may have missed some pearls of your wisdom, which have been fully overpowered by such awful dross - and if I have, my sincerest apologies.

As before Az - you always offer good sport old boy. Though I should know better than to debate with you on this - we only ever go round in circles.

Ah well. Ffôl pawb ar brydiau - everyone is a fool at times...

Now we're getting somewhere.

You stated that my reason for not liking Rocky is racially motivated. Yet state that for liking Dempsey its boxing related and ditto JJ. Well allow me to clarify something. My reason for not rating Rocky is purely boxing related. I would have more reason for disliking Dempsey for avoiding black fighters which would be racist. So why should I apreciate a boxer who played along with the racist game and be racist against another boxer who was far removed from anything racist?

No. My explaination for why many rank Rocky so highly is because his elevation imo (and backed up by several black academics and social commentators at the time) is because of his ethnicity and the politics of America that followed.

That Rocky took part in orgies and didn't pay for bills (allegedly) is neither here nor there.

I dont buy this nyth that Rocky walks thru everyone and delivers the KO blow when he wants to. He struggled with a washed up JJW and had that fight been today he would have lost on points. He struggled against a terribly faded Charles and was decked by Moore. Had the ref not incorrectly issues a standing 8 count, who knows what Moore would have done to him. Not Moore is a LHW. 42 at the time. If Tyson had struggled with an equally great LHW in Spinks, people would have looked closely at that and used it as a reason to question Tyson even more.

But for some reason unbeknown to many, the likes of Charles, Moore and JJW get elevated to be in prime form hen they engaged rocky. Purely a fantasy. They were no-where near their prime. In their prime, JJW and Charles would have the beating of Rocky (my opinion).

Again my reason for disliking JJ and many boxers of that era (as boxers and not as people) is because they lacked many fundermentals which are displayed by many active and good fighters today. Slipping a jad, feignting, counter punching etc are the norm and many boxers show them. Obviously some better than others.

So old chap, you accuse me of racism, you should back it up or have the decency to withdraw the accusation.

As for the foe button. I'm glad he's using it. But I bet he sneaks a peek every other minute and is itching to hurl abuse as he is doing on another thread with another poster.

Salaam

No no - when did I say you were consistent? Mr azania - please check my posts - I believe I called you the soul of inconsistency - which would correlate, therefore, with giving some individuals a "free pass" and others stick for fundamentally the same offence.

If I called you a racist, I do apologise - I intended to say that you're criticism of Marciano has racial overtones. This I will not retract, until you start retracting your white America points and your Uncle Tom for Patterson.

I have no qualms with you criticising Rocky's boxing technique - although I fully disagree with your criticisms.

Much as I disagree with your insinuation that boxers of JJ's era couldn't slip a jab, or feignt, or counter punch. 1. JJ was one of the best there has ever been at slipping a jab. 2. The film between Corbett and Fitzsimmons involves a huge amount of feignting punches. 3. Are you actually suggesting that boxers of JJ's era couldn't counterpunch? Until you definitely are, I won't break that one apart.

oxring wrote:No no - when did I say you were consistent? Mr azania - please check my posts - I believe I called you the soul of inconsistency - which would correlate, therefore, with giving some individuals a "free pass" and others stick for fundamentally the same offence.

If I called you a racist, I do apologise - I intended to say that you're criticism of Marciano has racial overtones. This I will not retract, until you start retracting your white America points and your Uncle Tom for Patterson.

I have no qualms with you criticising Rocky's boxing technique - although I fully disagree with your criticisms.

Much as I disagree with your insinuation that boxers of JJ's era couldn't slip a jab, or feignt, or counter punch. 1. JJ was one of the best there has ever been at slipping a jab. 2. The film between Corbett and Fitzsimmons involves a huge amount of feignting punches. 3. Are you actually suggesting that boxers of JJ's era couldn't counterpunch? Until you definitely are, I won't break that one apart.

Now who is slippery? My criticism of Rocky has zero racial overtones. His elevation into this indestructable fighting machine DOES have racial overtones because many believe that elevation is because of his ethnicity.

JJ was the best there was at slipping the jab and counter jabbing - when the jab was a novelty. Of course they could counterpunch. It was easier then with guys winging in wild swings leaving themselves wide open. They were just a step above UFC stand up fighters imo. More like Anderson Silva level.

azania wrote:I would have more reason for disliking Dempsey for avoiding black fighters which would be racist.

You'd have no reason whatsoever unless you can prove that he was complicit in avoiding ( one ) black fighter. I can provide reams of evidence to suggest that Dempsey was not party to the drawing of the colour line.

azania wrote:Now who is slippery? My criticism of Rocky has zero racial overtones. His elevation into this indestructable fighting machine DOES have racial overtones because many believe that elevation is because of his ethnicity.

JJ was the best there was at slipping the jab and counter jabbing - when the jab was a novelty. Of course they could counterpunch. It was easier then with guys winging in wild swings leaving themselves wide open. They were just a step above UFC stand up fighters imo. More like Anderson Silva level.

1. I didn't call you slippery, Windy did.

2. It is my opinion and the opinion of ghosty and some others that your criticisms have racial overtones. You are criticising an ideal, an image of Marciano that none of us hold and constantly bringing up white america to justify it. If it has no racial overtones, you need to trawl back through your musings on this thread (might take a couple of days) and retract some of your comments or clarify them further.

3. The jab was not a novelty in Jack Johnson's day. Footage of Corbett shows him as possessing a technically excellent jab. Jeffries, especially by the end of his career had a good jab. So the idea that the "jab was a novelty" is hogwash.

Windy it's something he's used against Tunney in the past, saying his whole career should have an asterix next to it because of the lack of fights against black fighters but when pushed on who he avoided he couldn't name one. As far as I can tell the only top level black fighter who's timeline paralleled that of Tunney was Kid Norfolk who had a tendency of losing as soon as he was in line for the big fights. Dempsey wanted the Wills fight but Kearns and Rickard did not.

Have to say it irks me when folks beat Dempsey with that particular stick, Ghosty, given the absurd irony which Jack Johnson's reign raises.

Double standards at it's worst Windy, it is most unfortunate that Wills was himself a superb heavyweight who more than deserved his shot but no more so than Langford against Johnson. Johnson made the bed that subsequent white and black fighters had to sleep in.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Now who is slippery? My criticism of Rocky has zero racial overtones. His elevation into this indestructable fighting machine DOES have racial overtones because many believe that elevation is because of his ethnicity.

JJ was the best there was at slipping the jab and counter jabbing - when the jab was a novelty. Of course they could counterpunch. It was easier then with guys winging in wild swings leaving themselves wide open. They were just a step above UFC stand up fighters imo. More like Anderson Silva level.

1. I didn't call you slippery, Windy did.

2. It is my opinion and the opinion of ghosty and some others that your criticisms have racial overtones. You are criticising an ideal, an image of Marciano that none of us hold and constantly bringing up white america to justify it. If it has no racial overtones, you need to trawl back through your musings on this thread (might take a couple of days) and retract some of your comments or clarify them further.

3. The jab was not a novelty in Jack Johnson's day. Footage of Corbett shows him as possessing a technically excellent jab. Jeffries, especially by the end of his career had a good jab. So the idea that the "jab was a novelty" is hogwash.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. And ghosty whatever that is worth. But for the love of God, and for the last time, my criticism of Rocky has zero to do with his skin colour. Its purely boxing. It is his standing in the top 10 ATG HW which I believe to have been elevated because of his shin colour. I hope you see the difference. If you dont then try harder because I will keep on reinforcing the point / Plus I have trawled back (not that I needed to) and I dont recall saying or reading he was as I described his boxing because he was white. If I did I will be wrong and I would embarassingly apologise unreservedly. So if I have said that, then please find the particular post. I will eat all the humble pie there is.

The jab was a new weapon in the bxer's arsenal. Not many knew what to do with it or even how to throw it. So it stands to reason that those who learned how to throw and evade it would have an advantage In the land of the blind etc.

Oh and tell the old lady Ghosty that I also put an asterix alongside Johnson for not fighting the best out there as he too drew the colour line. That woman has serious selectivity issues.

HumanWindmill wrote:Have to say it irks me when folks beat Dempsey with that particular stick, Ghosty, given the absurd irony which Jack Johnson's reign raises.

I agree windy. It is double standards. Something I am not guilty of (on this occassion). As Oxy will testify to, I have been critical of JJ for not fighting the best out there which included other black fighters. I believe Oxy made a post saying that.

I feel smug again.

From Oxy's post directed at me

as for disliking JJ - it was the ducking of Langford and Jeanette wasn't it?

No double standards mate. Perhaps Ghosty can muster up the minerals to admit he was wrong.......again.

azania wrote:
But for the love of God, and for the last time, my criticism of Rocky has zero to do with his skin colour.

It is his standing in the top 10 ATG HW which I believe to have been elevated because of his shin[sic] colour

Do I even have to explain how you're contradicting yourself? standing in the top 10 which you believe to have been elevated = criticism. Skin colour=skin colour. Summary, ergo - you are criticisng because of his skin colour.
-------------------------

azania wrote:The jab was a new weapon in the bxer's arsenal.

No it wasn't. That's nonsense. Bareknuckle boxers had jabs. The first punch taught in the boxing booths - was the jab.

Daniel Mendoza utilised a jab back in the 1700's did he not Oxy?

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:
But for the love of God, and for the last time, my criticism of Rocky has zero to do with his skin colour.

It is his standing in the top 10 ATG HW which I believe to have been elevated because of his shin[sic] colour

Do I even have to explain how you're contradicting yourself? standing in the top 10 which you believe to have been elevated = criticism. Skin colour=skin colour. Summary, ergo - you are criticisng because of his skin colour.
-------------------------

azania wrote:The jab was a new weapon in the bxer's arsenal.

No it wasn't. That's nonsense. Bareknuckle boxers had jabs. The first punch taught in the boxing booths - was the jab.

That is not criticising Rocky as a boxer now is it? He didn't elevate himself and write that he could walk thru walls and generally hype his record up?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Daniel Mendoza utilised a jab back in the 1700's did he not Oxy?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Daniel Mendoza utilised a jab back in the 1700's did he not Oxy?

Yep. And its almost certainly older than just him.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:
But for the love of God, and for the last time, my criticism of Rocky has zero to do with his skin colour.

It is his standing in the top 10 ATG HW which I believe to have been elevated because of his shin[sic] colour

Do I even have to explain how you're contradicting yourself? standing in the top 10 which you believe to have been elevated = criticism. Skin colour=skin colour. Summary, ergo - you are criticisng because of his skin colour.
-------------------------

azania wrote:The jab was a new weapon in the bxer's arsenal.

No it wasn't. That's nonsense. Bareknuckle boxers had jabs. The first punch taught in the boxing booths - was the jab.

That is not criticising Rocky as a boxer now is it? He didn't elevate himself and write that he could walk thru walls and generally hype his record up?

You're criticising Rocky - the whole package - and basing part of your criticism with racial overtones.

As for him as a boxer - you're also wrong on so many levels - as the testimony of those who shared the ring with him show. However - we've debated that to its inevitable conclusion - ie no conclusion - me banging my head against the wall and you still insisting you're right.

How on earth am I criticising Rocky? I am critical of those who have elevated him as a HWN ATG. Rocky had nothing to do with that. Zero, zip, nada. Rocky did his business in the ring. I am critical of what he did in the ring. Outside of that is not his issue. his problem or his doing.

What dont you understand about that? Jeez. Once again it seems that criticism of thise who praise Rocky is criticism of Rocky. Strange logic. If someone criticises Ali for his out of the ring exploits, it doesn't and shouldn't affect his in ring standing. Likewise his in ring exploits shouldn't affect his outside exploits. Two seperate issues.

In which case, I can only advise you to be clearer with your posts.

I hope to never hear further mention of White America from you Az.

Leaving us his boxing exploits and a discussion as to whether they merit top 10 inclusion.

The answer must be a resounding yes - as although crude, he was brutally effective and 49-0 remains the mythical dream - the unassailable goal of modern HW boxing. Further, he clearly established himself as the best of his generation - a generation which contained several talented fighters.

I can't see anything further to discuss.

My posts were very clear. Even when I made it clearer you still banged the same drum (with Impy acting as chief cheerleader).

Yes he was the best of his generation when the talented fighters were old and past it. Other than that we agree on everything else.

azania wrote:Other than that we agree on everything else.

We do? Then why the blazes have we been arguing for so long? If I'd known you thought he was a top 5 all time HW and a nailed on top 30-20 p4p great I wouldn't have bothered debating in the first place.

Cheers mate - that seems to be the veritable last word.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Other than that we agree on everything else.

We do? Then why the blazes have we been arguing for so long? If I'd known you thought he was a top 5 all time HW and a nailed on top 30-20 p4p great I wouldn't have bothered debating in the first place.

Cheers mate - that seems to be the veritable last word.

Dont push it.

Top 50 HW ATG no doubt. One place above Patterson and just above Sot Chitilada in the ATG P4P stakes.

But jeez, you dont half spout a load of rubbish sometimes.

azania wrote:But jeez, you dont half spout a load of rubbish sometimes.

Like saying you could see Ali was once great when he was getting beaten from pillar to post by Holmes? That kind of rubbish?

'Night az. Best wishes to you&family.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:But jeez, you dont half spout a load of rubbish sometimes.

Like saying you could see Ali was once great when he was getting beaten from pillar to post by Holmes? That kind of rubbish?

'Night az. Best wishes to you&family.

Nah. Bit like saying that Kessler was past it when he fought Ward but Charles, JJW, Moore and JLouis were beasts when they fought Rocky.