The free-for-all "Cleverly at HW/Calzaghe would beat Wlad/Rocky Marciano was Rubbish/Mimsy" Thread

[Boxtthis]

First topic message reminder :

Just read this on boxing scene:

http://www.boxingscene.com/team-cleverly-nathan-wants-fight-heavyweight--55352

Clev's dad saying that he's filling out and wants to fight as a HW one day. Could be the lightest punching HW in history! I wonder if there's any nurses in the HW division?

C'mon Nathan, how about you fight someone decent at LHW first? His record as a title holder is becoming embarrassing.

In light of Gordy's chat I've changed the title of the thread so that it gives a more accurate representation of it's content!

[Mind the windows Tino.]

I believe it was with a riding crop, tina. I originally had visions of an Indiana Jones style bull whip. Certainly not a move one can pull out on on a first date.

Chris, it's the personal touches in the book which make it for me. Not long finished the chapter setting out the struggles of certain groups of women during the war - fairly harrowing stuff.

Oh, that's fine then.

This book is a big departure from Hastings normal style. There is far more emphasis on first hand personal accounts than in his previous work. Makes for a better book in my opinion as well.

[seanmichaels]

I find it fascinating. Anyone read the book that band of brothers is about?

I have Sean

They were ridiculous. The Bastogne thing puts life in to perspective.

[Rowley]

I find it fascinating. Anyone read the book that band of brothers is about?

I have Sean

They were ridiculous. The Bastogne thing puts life in to perspective.

Totally agree, the one thing it is easy to lose sight of is they were on the whole just ordinary blokes thrown into a ridiculous situation, very few of them were soldiers by trade.

[Mind the windows Tino.]

I find it fascinating. Anyone read the book that band of brothers is about?

I have Sean

They were ridiculous. The Bastogne thing puts life in to perspective.

Totally agree, the one thing it is easy to lose sight of is they were on the whole just ordinary blokes thrown into a ridiculous situation, very few of them were soldiers by trade.

101st Airborne. Easy Company. Tough hombres.

[seanmichaels]

I find it fascinating. Anyone read the book that band of brothers is about?

I have Sean

They were ridiculous. The Bastogne thing puts life in to perspective.

Totally agree, the one thing it is easy to lose sight of is they were on the whole just ordinary blokes thrown into a ridiculous situation, very few of them were soldiers by trade.

101st Airborne. Easy Company. Tough hombres.

I don't know why we don't make a war film series like that. We must have had some solid okes.

[seanmichaels]

I find it fascinating. Anyone read the book that band of brothers is about?

I have Sean

They were ridiculous. The Bastogne thing puts life in to perspective.

Totally agree, the one thing it is easy to lose sight of is they were on the whole just ordinary blokes thrown into a ridiculous situation, very few of them were soldiers by trade.

Normal blokes but weren't they trained massively well? Currahee true?

[Mind the windows Tino.]

I don't know why we don't make a war film series like that. We must have had some solid okes.

I'm sure we did, but the harsh reality is, without the Americans entering the war, we were purely a defensive Island. We would have been crushed under Hitlers jackboots had we tried to land forces in France on our own.

At the risk of Truss getting a semi on, American forces took the brunt of both the European and Pacific campaigns.

[Lumbering_Jack]

I don't know why we don't make a war film series like that. We must have had some solid okes.

I'm sure we did, but the harsh reality is, without the Americans entering the war, we were purely a defensive Island. We would have been crushed under Hitlers jackboots had we tried to land forces in France on our own.

At the risk of Truss getting a semi on, American forces took the brunt of both the European and Pacific campaigns.

And we'd be speaking German, cant forget that old chestnut.

[seanmichaels]

I don't know why we don't make a war film series like that. We must have had some solid okes.

I'm sure we did, but the harsh reality is, without the Americans entering the war, we were purely a defensive Island. We would have been crushed under Hitlers jackboots had we tried to land forces in France on our own.

At the risk of Truss getting a semi on, American forces took the brunt of both the European and Pacific campaigns.

Aye. They did alright.

Have a young Aussie pro cricketer living with me at the moment and he loved Band of Brothers and we're just about to start Pacific. He's 22 and has no idea about the war. Aussies took a proper kicking in Darwin but no one speaks about it.

[seanmichaels]

[quote="Lumbering_Jack"]

No way......

[JabMachineMK2]

At the risk of Truss getting a semi on, American forces took the brunt of both the European and Pacific campaigns.

Tino no! Its like the Candyman that name! Say it too often and it appears out of nowhere holding a dumbbell and the music from the Avengers starts.

[Lumbering_Jack]

You haven't figured the quote button yet??

Was reading up on the Korean war a few weeks ago, and a bit about the goings on in the North. Interesting stuff, but a very strange bunch.

[Gentleman01]

'All Hell let Loose' is a fine book indeed. It's baffling to me how a columnist and journalist as banal as Hastings can produce such fantastic works of history. Armageddon is also a wonderful book.

For anyone who's interested, Antony Beevor has recently completed a single volume history of the war. Although I've heard mixed reviews I'll certainly be reading itin the future. Beevor is one of the strongest miltiary historians, 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' in particular are engrossing and Beevors book on D-Day I think is the best and most accessible book available on the subject.

Also, Calzaghe has as much chance of beating Wladimir, either now or earlier in his career, as I do. That is to say, no chance whatsoever.

I also agree with Chris and manos that Ezzard, fine fighter though he was, is not able to handle a man of Wlad's size and ability.

Incidentally, I notice a number of people referring to Wlad as 'not a great' champion. I'm somewhat surprised by this . I would consider Wlad a genuinely great HW champion. It is true that the era is poor, yet RJJ presided over a relatively poor LHW division in the 90's/00's and I don't think his status a great LHW champion can be questioned. In fact, there are many expamples of great champions dominating a weak division.

It is also worth noting that since being rocked by Peters, Wladimir has utterly dominated all his subsequent opponents. I'm not a great fan of his but Wladimir is a truly thoroughbred champion.

[seanmichaels]

You haven't figured the quote button yet??

Was reading up on the Korean war a few weeks ago, and a bit about the goings on in the North. Interesting stuff, but a very strange bunch.

Nah.

Funnily enough I was reading up on it as well. Forgotten war? The Yanks got properly smashed up at stages (when the Chinese rolled in). Think the fatalities / casualties are on par with Vietnam.

[Mind the windows Tino.]

'All Hell let Loose' is a fine book indeed. It's baffling to me how a columnist and journalist as banal as Hastings can produce such fantastic works of history. Armageddon is also a wonderful book.

For anyone who's interested, Antony Beevor has recently completed a single volume history of the war. Although I've heard mixed reviews I'll certainly be reading itin the future. Beevor is one of the strongest miltiary historians, 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' in particular are engrossing and Beevors book on D-Day I think is the best and most accessible book available on the subject.

Good shout on Beevor, Gentleman. I have his D-Day book on the shelf at home and will be buying his single volume account when I have finished AHLL.

Armageddon is a fantastic book, and I agree entirely on Hastings the journalist. The difference between his book writing and his journalistic work is crazy. Almost like they are written by two different people.

[Gentleman01]

I don't know why we don't make a war film series like that. We must have had some solid okes.

I'm sure we did, but the harsh reality is, without the Americans entering the war, we were purely a defensive Island. We would have been crushed under Hitlers jackboots had we tried to land forces in France on our own.

At the risk of Truss getting a semi on, American forces took the brunt of both the European and Pacific campaigns.

Certainly in the Pacific and Western European theatres the USA took the brunt of the fighting. Yet such campaigns make up something like only 20% of all fighting during the war. Roughly 75 - 80% of the combat took place on the Eastern Front. So, much to TRUSS' chagrin, he will have to concede that, whilst the USA's efforts were invaluable, it was Stalin's USSR that contributed the most to the salvation of Europe.

It is also worth noting that, immediately upon defeating Hitler's Germany, the USSR turned their attention to the Pacific and provided a large contribution to that theatre. This is a Soviet campaign that is often completely overlooked or forgotten.

[seanmichaels]

[quote="Gentleman01"][quote="Mind the windows Tino."]

It is also worth noting that, immediately upon defeating Hitler's Germany, the USSR turned their attention to the Pacific and provided a large contribution to that theatre. This is a Soviet campaign that is often completely overlooked or forgotten.

Really? Did the Doolittle guys get safe havens in the USSR?

[88Chris05]

Some interesting points there, Gentleman. I'm not sure what kind of place Wladimir will command in Heavyweight history by the time he's done, but there's no doubt that he is badly undersold in some quarters. Talk of men such as Charles beating him is fanciful in the extreme, I think. When you've got a 6'6", 245 lb Heavyweight with excellent boxing skills and great physical strengths (who has proved himself, albeit in an average era, in the furnace of more successful title defences than all but a very small handful of Heavyweights before him), and yet people are still talking of men the size of Charles and Fitzsimmons beating him, then there's definitely something amiss, I can assure you.

[Gentleman01]

[/quote] Almost like they are written by two different people.[/quote]

That is exactly how I feel Tino. Obviously the jingoistic overtones are there in both but it simply demonstrates how, for someone like Hastings, journalism is an exercise in lazy popularism and nothing more. I doubt he even believes two-thirds of what he writes.

[Mind the windows Tino.]

I don't know why we don't make a war film series like that. We must have had some solid okes.

I'm sure we did, but the harsh reality is, without the Americans entering the war, we were purely a defensive Island. We would have been crushed under Hitlers jackboots had we tried to land forces in France on our own.

At the risk of Truss getting a semi on, American forces took the brunt of both the European and Pacific campaigns.

Certainly in the Pacific and Western European theatres the USA took the brunt of the fighting. Yet such campaigns make up something like only 20% of all fighting during the war. Roughly 75 - 80% of the combat took place on the Eastern Front. So, much to TRUSS' chagrin, he will have to concede that, whilst the USA's efforts were invaluable, it was Stalin's USSR that contributed the most to the salvation of Europe.

It is also worth noting that, immediately upon defeating Hitler's Germany, the USSR turned their attention to the Pacific and provided a large contribution to that theatre. This is a Soviet campaign that is often completely overlooked or forgotten.

Yep, I hear you, Gentleman, and I agree. I was only really replying to Sean regarding the 'Bank of Brothers' angle and I understand just how much influence Russia had on the outcome. Reading about Stalin's utter contempt for human sacrifice is harrowing to say the least. There is a great couple of pictures in AHLL where an American family is enjoying their Thanksgiving feast at the same time as a Stalingrad resident is clutching his bread ration. Two very different experiences of the same war.

[seanmichaels]

Some interesting points there, Gentleman. I'm not sure what kind of place Wladimir will command in Heavyweight history by the time he's done, but there's no doubt that he is badly undersold in some quarters. Talk of men such as Charles beating him is fanciful in the extreme, I think. When you've got a 6'6", 245 lb Heavyweight with excellent boxing skills and great physical strengths (who has proved himself, albeit in an average era, in the furnace of more successful title defences than all but a very small handful of Heavyweights before him), and yet people are still talking of men the size of Charles and Fitzsimmons beating him, then there's definitely something amiss, I can assure you.

What would you consider his weakness?

When I think of Wlad I can't get passed what Lewis would have done to him. I think that is influential on peoples perceptions of him.

[Gentleman01]

I don't know why we don't make a war film series like that. We must have had some solid okes.

I'm sure we did, but the harsh reality is, without the Americans entering the war, we were purely a defensive Island. We would have been crushed under Hitlers jackboots had we tried to land forces in France on our own.

At the risk of Truss getting a semi on, American forces took the brunt of both the European and Pacific campaigns.

Certainly in the Pacific and Western European theatres the USA took the brunt of the fighting. Yet such campaigns make up something like only 20% of all fighting during the war. Roughly 75 - 80% of the combat took place on the Eastern Front. So, much to TRUSS' chagrin, he will have to concede that, whilst the USA's efforts were invaluable, it was Stalin's USSR that contributed the most to the salvation of Europe.

It is also worth noting that, immediately upon defeating Hitler's Germany, the USSR turned their attention to the Pacific and provided a large contribution to that theatre. This is a Soviet campaign that is often completely overlooked or forgotten.

Yep, I hear you, Gentleman, and I agree. I was only really replying to Sean regarding the 'Bank of Brothers' angle and I understand just how much influence Russia had on the outcome. Reading about Stalin's utter contempt for human sacrifice is harrowing to say the least. There is a great couple of pictures in AHLL where an American family is enjoying their Thanksgiving feast at the same time as a Stalingrad resident is clutching his bread ration. Two very different experiences of the same war.

#

Absolutely! The experiences of American and even French and British citizens throughout the war was significantly less miserable than that of your typical Soviet citizen.

Stalin's contempt for life was extreme to say the least. Yet, could the war have been won without such ruthless disregard for the lives of his comrades? And if not, did the ends justify the means?

[Gentleman01]

Some interesting points there, Gentleman. I'm not sure what kind of place Wladimir will command in Heavyweight history by the time he's done, but there's no doubt that he is badly undersold in some quarters. Talk of men such as Charles beating him is fanciful in the extreme, I think. When you've got a 6'6", 245 lb Heavyweight with excellent boxing skills and great physical strengths (who has proved himself, albeit in an average era, in the furnace of more successful title defences than all but a very small handful of Heavyweights before him), and yet people are still talking of men the size of Charles and Fitzsimmons beating him, then there's definitely something amiss, I can assure you.

I think that Wladimir will be considered a great in time. Surely he is a lock for the HoF and my feeling is that, like many others, he will be appreciated to a greater extent as time goes by.

A definite top 20 HW for me.

[88Chris05]

"End justifies the means" is exactly the term which springs to mind with regards to Stalin's casual regard to life and the loss of it, Gentleman. And as you allude to, without such single-mindedness, even in the face of astronomical losses (both civilian and military), it's doubtful that the Soviet Union and, in turn, the Allies as a whole would have been able to withstand the War without at least negotiating a peace, even if direct defeat was still avoided.

The resolve of the beseiged communities in Russia was incredible. Absolutely no way that American or British governments, even without the seas and oceans as a form of protection from the Wermacht, would have allowed their civilians to turn to cannibalism rather than accept defeat or a vote to negotiate.

[Rowley]

Am in full agreement re Wlad, he undoubtedly operates in a weak era but he is not the first to do this as a heavy but I have always felt people allow their personal distaste for his style cloud their judgement of the fighter. To operate in a division where fights have been and can be turned on their head with one shot to go seven years at the top level without a slip up is mightily impressive even more so for a guy who has proven his whiskers are not the strongest.

I have to say I also find the idea of a guy like Charles turning him over a little fanciful, to do so Ezz needs to get inside, which he may well be able to do, but once in there he is going to get leaned on and tied up, guys who are a similar size to Wlad have found how adept he is at doing this, a guy spotting him 50 pounds is going to find that draining in the extreme. Have said it numerous times but for me Wlad is a lock for the top 20, have posted the IBRO top 20 a number of times and to be honest there can be an extremely good argument made for him to replace any of the fighters occupying the spots between 16-20, solid jab, decent power, excellent conditioning, vastly underrated footwork and almost superhuman discipline and focus, add it all together and it makes for a pretty decent heavyweight to my way of thinking.

[azania]

Why am I always ahead of you guys when it comes to baxin'? I said over a year ago that Wlad was top 15 material at a push but deffo top 20. Yet again I was met with ridicule. Now all you intellectual giants (including those who use 'diss') are now singing from my hymm sheet.

Read this and pay attention. Rocky M is not top 20. Top 50 (lower end) possibly.

Thanks in advance

Az the Educator.

[88Chris05]

I'm pretty much in line with Gentleman and Jeff - a top twenty Heavyweight list without Wladimir would be silly, I feel, and a monument of stubbornness. I think he'll be universally acclaimed as a top fifteen man in years to come, perhaps.

[superflyweight]

Read this and pay attention. Rocky M is not top 20. Top 50 (lower end) possibly.

Nurse!!!

[Mind the windows Tino.]

Why am I always ahead of you guys

Because you quite often have men bearing down on you from behind?

[Rowley]

Why am I always ahead of you guys when it comes to baxin'? I said over a year ago that Wlad was top 15 material at a push but deffo top 20. Yet again I was met with ridicule. Now all you intellectual giants (including those who use 'diss') are now singing from my hymm sheet.

Read this and pay attention. Rocky M is not top 20. Top 50 (lower end) possibly.

Thanks in advance

Az the Educator.

Think you're getting a little confused Az, I have never argued too strongly against the idea Wlad could be in the top 20 and have certainly not done so in the last year. However carry on as you were as I would hate anything as trivial as facts to get in the way of the ego massaging point you were making.

[azania]

No need to praise me lads or thank me. Just ask away and I'll gladly assist you in increasing your limited knowledge.

Repeat after me. Rocky M is not top 20 material.

[seanmichaels]

Lewis V Wladimir, what happens?

[Gentleman01]

No need to praise me lads or thank me. Just ask away and I'll gladly assist you in increasing your limited knowledge.

Repeat after me. Rocky M is not top 20 material.

I'm not really a great admirer of Rocky's and often feel his achievements are somewhat overrated. As such, I wouldn't mind hearing a detailed argument as to why you feel that Marciano is not top 20 material? I mean, an argument based, at least in part, on record which makes specific reference to why he should rank above other lower top 20 guys, such as Bowe, for example. An argument which is consistent and as objective as possible and as such, not one based entirely on your own perceptions of his abilities as a boxer (i.e. 'just a crude slugger' etc. etc.)

I'd be genuinely interested to read it.

[TopHat24/7]

No need to praise me lads or thank me. Just ask away and I'll gladly assist you in increasing your limited knowledge.

Repeat after me. Rocky M is not top 20 material.

To quote Rowley, from the other day, "if you buy enough tickets, you eventually win the raffle".

[TopHat24/7]

Lewis V Wladimir, what happens?

Lewis stops him in 8.

But then I'd have Lewis in the 10-12 spots for ATG HWs, so that doesn't diminish Wlad's claim to somewhere 16 to 20.

[azania]

Lewis V Wladimir, what happens?

Lewis in 2.

[TopHat24/7]

No need to praise me lads or thank me. Just ask away and I'll gladly assist you in increasing your limited knowledge.

Repeat after me. Rocky M is not top 20 material.

I'm not really a great admirer of Rocky's and often feel his achievements are somewhat overrated. As such, I wouldn't mind hearing a detailed argument as to why you feel that Marciano is not top 20 material? I mean, an argument based, at least in part, on record which makes specific reference to why he should rank above other lower top 20 guys, such as Bowe, for example. An argument which is consistent and as objective as possible and as such, not one based entirely on your own perceptions of his abilities as a boxer (i.e. 'just a crude slugger' etc. etc.)

I'd be genuinely interested to read it.

Keep dreaming Gentleman......

[Boxtthis]

Remember this thread started with a comment about Nathan Cleverly? It's taken a fair few twists and turns since then!

[azania]

No need to praise me lads or thank me. Just ask away and I'll gladly assist you in increasing your limited knowledge.

Repeat after me. Rocky M is not top 20 material.

To quote Rowley, from the other day, "if you buy enough tickets, you eventually win the raffle".

The level of criticism I got was borderline obsessive. Even rowley (in denial and not the river either) joined with his barbs.

Repeat the mantra. Rocky M is carp.........

[88Chris05]

Marciano comfortably inside the top dozen (at the very, very least) Heavyweights of all time by whatever sensible measuring procedures you use, Az - I'll stress the word sensible there!

The only way I can possibly conceive this not being the case is if we looked solely at how Rocky would do in one-off, head to head match ups against all other Heavyweight titlists (assuming that each were in their primes), because I'd agree that this is one area where I wouldn't forsee him doing particularly well (although he'd still be nowhere near as low as the fifty mark, I might add!). However, while I don't see him being all that successful against a peak version of Louis, a snarling Tyson of circa 1988 or the quicksilver Ali of the mid sixties, this simply can't be the foremost method on which to rank fighters, as it's largely subjective, open to interpretation and, to a degree, guess work. It helps form the picture, but not a great percentage of it.

A far fairer method would surely be to examine how each fighter dealt with the challenges available to them in their own era. Marciano's opposition lacks the quality to push him in to the top half-dozen, for instance, but it still represented the best which was available at the time. He took them on and beat them, which is all you can ask from any fighter within their own time. I'm pretty sure, too, that Marciano could also have padded his record with a stream of nonames ala Holmes, Patterson etc, but he chose not to. In general, most of his title fights were against the men generally seen as the biggest threat to his title. The only name really missing from his ledger is Valdes, but given the Cuban's inability to remain consistent enough to force a title shot, this is hardly a sledgehammer blow to Rocky's legacy.

Regardless of his era being far from a great one, remaining undefeated for a whole career is a feat which deserves serious commendation. Plenty of Heavyweight greats - Lewis, Johnson, Holyfield etc - have slipped up against fighters who were certainly from a lower class than the likes of Walcott and Charles. If we're going to casually downplay Marciano's 49-0 on the basis that it was accumulated against bums and journeymen, then we'd also have to question why no other Heavyweight champion has emulated this undefeated feat - because it certainly hasn't been for a lack of poor eras and shallow talent pools in the Heavyweight division.

I've always maintained that, to a certain degree, Marciano was the right man in the right place at the right time - but a fighter can't choose his time. Like it or not, Marciano's recordstands as being unique, despite having roughly six decades of Marquees of Queensberry Heavyweight boxing either side of it.

Rocky still top ten at Heavyweight for me, albeit at the lower end.

[milkyboy]

Lewis V Wladimir, what happens?

quite an even and cagey fight until lewis knocks him out

truss is wrong on many things but probably right on the speaking german bit, we have stalin's psychotic nature, the fact that hitler thought the russians were a sub species but rather liked the british and and the japanese bombing of pearl harbour to thank for us not having angela merkel as head honcho.

both klitchkos comfortable top 20, conceivably quite a bit higher, glad i've been reminded that it was az that persuaded me, just as it was waingro who informed one was the other's brother.

[Rowley]

No need to praise me lads or thank me. Just ask away and I'll gladly assist you in increasing your limited knowledge.

Repeat after me. Rocky M is not top 20 material.

To quote Rowley, from the other day, "if you buy enough tickets, you eventually win the raffle".

The level of criticism I got was borderline obsessive. Even rowley (in denial and not the river either) joined with his barbs.

Repeat the mantra. Rocky M is carp.........

I called your stance on Marciano nonsense and still do but I have been a staunch defender of Wlad on here and if you are to say otherwise I challenge you to either provide evidence or stop saying otherwise.

[bellchees]

I think the title needs a change again.

[azania]

Those sensible measuring procedures will have him over Tyson (irrespective of the fact that Tysons runs through him in 60 seconds or less). Rocky had 5 defenses over shockingly poor opposition in 4 years. Tyson had 9 in the same time span.

Lewis et al slipped up against fighters who had genuine ability and a pulse rate.

History has elevated Rocky far higher that where his ability should place him. Fighting and beating stiffs and near dead fighters does not qualify you to be a top 10 ATG by any measuring procedure. Objectivity is lost when looking at the career of Rocky. Totally lost.

[88Chris05]

Dress it up any way you like, Az, but the fact is that Lewis had no business losing to either McCall or Rahman. Such shattering defeats just didn't happen with Marciano, despite the fact that losing to the likes of Walcott and Charles would have been a hell of a lot more understandable than the defeats which Lewis suffered.

You point blank refuse to acknowledge that Maricano did all that could be asked of him in his own era. You also swerve the point that his undefeated achievement was unique at the time and hasn't been replicated since, despite the often deplorable state of the Heavyweight division in subsequent decades.

As I said, I agree that Marciano wouldn't do all that well in comparison to other Heavyweight greats if it was based solely on a 'who beats who?' basis, but this simply isn't the fairest way of ranking a fighter across the eras.

[milkyboy]

Lewis V Wladimir, what happens?

quite an even and cagey fight until lewis knocks him out

truss is wrong on many things but probably right on the speaking german bit, we have stalin's psychotic nature, the fact that hitler thought the russians were a sub species but rather liked the british and and the japanese bombing of pearl harbour to thank for us not having angela merkel as head honcho.

both klitchkos comfortable top 20, conceivably quite a bit higher, glad i've been reminded that it was az that persuaded me, just as it was waingro who informed one was the other's brother.

[superflyweight]

Objectivity is lost when looking at the career of Rocky. Totally lost..

Indeed and you're proving the point.

As for the accustaions levelled at jeff, I would contend that he has probably bucked the trend on this forum and made more of a case for Wlad than anyone else.

Saying that, I've not seen too many sensible people on here rubbish any top 20 claims for Wlad and you're probably basing your case on some argument you had with Coxy. Still, as jeff says, you're never one to let the facts get in the way of your argument.

[milkyboy]

oops... such a good post i thought i'd make it twice

[Gentleman01]

Those sensible measuring procedures will have him over Tyson (irrespective of the fact that Tysons runs through him in 60 seconds or less). Rocky had 5 defenses over shockingly poor opposition in 4 years. Tyson had 9 in the same time span.

Lewis et al slipped up against fighters who had genuine ability and a pulse rate.

History has elevated Rocky far higher that where his ability should place him. Fighting and beating stiffs and near dead fighters does not qualify you to be a top 10 ATG by any measuring procedure. Objectivity is lost when looking at the career of Rocky. Totally lost.

Rubbish. It's completely sensible to have Tyson ranked above Rocky, I rank him so myself (I don't mean to imply that it is unsensible to have Rocky above Tyson I might add).

I'm asking why he ranks so low, not why boxers like Tyson should rank above him. Why, for example, should Marciano be considered a weaker HW, in terms of legacy not perceived ability, than Bowe? Or Liston? Or Tunney? Or Wills?

[Lumbering_Jack]

It seems there's a pattern emerging; every bloke reads a book about Nazi Germany or their subsequent military campaigns, while their significant others (and seemingly just about every single woman in the British Isles) reads, and talks about loudly in public, 'Fifty shades of frigging Grey'.

Thats just a book for women who dont have a boyfriend, or who do have a boyfriend but he's pretty useless.

[Sponsored content]