BS: The Greatest Boxer

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: kendall
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 08:56 PM

And it's all pretty much irrelevant now.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:36 PM

Paper covers rock, scissors cuts paper, rock breaks scissors.
Frasier beats Ali, Foreman beats Frasier, Ali beats Foreman.
Jack Johnson fought Langford before becomming champion and won, but it was the hardest victory of his career and he flatly refused to ever meet Langford again. Foreman punched as hard as Tyson and I believe that Foreman was a smarter fighter. Could Ali have rope-a-doped Tyson? I believe yes, but we will never know. I also believe that Larry Holmes could have used his awesome jab to hold Tyson at bay until he ran out of steam. Could Sugar Ray Robinson beat Sugar Ray Leonard in their respective prime? Marciano was tops in his day but how would he do in another era? How would he have done against a much bigger Lennox Lewis? Was George Chuvalo the toughest heavyweight ever (fought the best and never off his feet)?
It is subjective questions like this that still fire my interest in boxing, not what it has become today!

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 05:30 PM

It also depends on your definition of great. Could and undefeated, barely literate, wife beater be considered greater than a celebrated humanitarian without a criminal record?

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Tunesmith
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:28 PM

Getting back to the idea that the greatest boxing has to be a heavyweight.
To reinforce this concept, lets apply weight division to some other sports.
Take the shot-put. Say we had weight divisions in that event. Would anyone dare to say that 10st welterweight thrower is greater than a heavyweight thrower who could throw 10m further than him?
No, that would be silly.
Same thing applies to boxing.
And, of course, if a lighter-weight division boxer moves up in weight and gets defeated it does reflect on their success at the lower weight.
For example, would anybody reading this thread dream of calling Ezzard Charles the greatest boxer of all time? No, that would be silly because we know that he got flattened by Jersey Joe and Rocky Marciano.
But, wait a minute, don't a lot of polls list Ezzard as the greatest light-heavyweight ever?
Well, yes they do, and Ezzard sorted out the great Archie Moore at least twice!
But, But, BUT! those defeats at heavyweight mark him down!
Or, put another way, his "greatness" was diminished by his defeats at the higher weight.
And, if Ray Robinson had tackled Floyd Paterson( who wouldn't appear in any top 10 heavyweight lists) and been flattened, his reputation would have been seriously diminished.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: gnu
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:08 PM

Kendall... "Joe Louis was the greatest simply because he held the title longer than anyone else before or since."

Can't disagree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:06 PM

Ah, thank you. All of them much more beautiful than Tyson, that's for sure...

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:00 PM

Error-
Bentbrook

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 04:00 PM

Sorry, Q, but that link didn't work. But thanks for the thought.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 03:55 PM

A fine Boxer, MtheGM.
This one may be his equal- Bentbrook's Time to Ascend SOM. (Scroll down for portrait)
Bentbrook

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 02:25 PM

Apollo Creed wasn't too bad in his day, either. And he went on to be a damn fine trainer as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: kendall
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:51 AM

Joe Louis was the greatest simply because he held the title longer than anyone else before or since.
whether   or not he could have beaten Ali is strictly opinion.
I believe Tyson could have destroyed Ali, but that's just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: mayomick
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:32 AM

It's all subjective , depending on how old you were when you started following the sport and who your first hero was. Ali was the best . People of an older generation who think that Joe Louis could have beaten him are just showing their age.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: nager
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 08:10 PM

I favour boxers from the early part of the last century. In my opinion Jack Johnson was the best heavyweight champion. James J Jeffries, James J Corbett and Sam Langford were all up there with him too. Great fighters. But there were plenty of brilliant fighters too in that era in lower weight divisions. A tough task to choose the greatest boxer pound for pound.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 11:06 PM

If we are talking about who could "beat" other boxers, boxers in their "prime" only. I am going with Mike Tyson he was scary good.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 11:06 PM

"It seems unreasonable to call a fighter that nobody has ever heard of "the greatest" as the initial post suggests."
But pdq, I qualified that as "pound for pound". Langford was a natural middleweight fighting as a heavy. There is also a difference between forgotten and never heard of. If you read my link in its entirity you will see that he was a hall of famer, maybe forgotten but certainly not unknown. A subjective call on my part for sure, but not without statistics to back it up!

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:55 PM

Hmmm. I wonder if he (Joe Louis) was right about that? We'll never know. Ali was a tremendously sharp boxer in his youth. I still tend to favor Marciano for some reason, but I'm not that knowledgable about boxing, so I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight behind my own opinion when it comes to that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: MarkS
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:06 PM

Joe Louis - no contest.
In his prime, Louis could have beaten any of the others in his weight class.
Louis ran the "bum of the month" club.
When asked later in life if he thought he could have defeated Ali, his reply was, "He would have had his month!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:42 PM

Orangs got the reach, maybe decent welterweights. But the Gorillas dominate the upper weight classes.

Manny Pacquiao

Boxing record
Total fights         59
Wins         54
Wins by KO         38
Losses         3
Draws         2

vs Shane Mosley

Boxing record
Total fights         55
Wins         46
Wins by KO         39
Losses         7
Draws         1
No contests         1


would be the fight of this century, maybe for the last 100 years. But Mosley keeps ducking it.

Manny's record, considering the competition compares well to that of any past boxer.

For accomplishment outside the ring, only he and Ali are worthy of comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:21 PM

Yes, but...

Could he match this?

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Tunesmith
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:45 PM

Duran was fantastic and if he could have stayed at light-weight ( but I think his rich food too much for that) then he would have remained king for a very long time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: gnu
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 03:25 PM

"but who did he fight besides Leonard who cleaned his clock"

I think the refs threw a few punches too, as I mentioned above.

As for Hearns at 26 years old beating Duran at 33 years old... I think we are kinda talkin apples and oranges here.

It's all subjective... me, I know what I saw... records matter little... individual fights matter less. To me, it's all about the ability of the pugilist. Best I ever saw over a carrer was Duran. I have a tie in mind but I'll not say who. It's all subject.

BTW... that shit about allowing a man with a beard in the ring is terrible. My old man totally freaked out when Duran appeared for a match sporting a beard... I think Duran did it in protest of the piss poor refereeing. (Read "fix".)

Sorry if that throws gas on the fire, but that's the way I saw things.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 03:05 PM

It must have been Riddick Bowe who defeated Tommy Morrison. Against Ruddock, he took a terrible pounding and then suddenly produced a stunning punch, which effectively ended the contest. You can see it here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Deckman
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:54 PM

Pete Rademacher! After his brief heavyweight career, when he knocked Floyd Patterson on his britches, he spent the rest of his life as a motivational speaker for youth the world over.He introduced me to Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson, Gus L'Amato, Bing Crosby, Royal Broughmn (sp?).

When Floyd was needing a job, Pete helped to get him elected to the New York State boxing commision. bob(deckman)nelson

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:40 PM

Speaking of that other Sugar Ray (Leonard) he was 36-3-1 (2 of those losses coming at the end of his career when he stayed too long at the dance) beat Hearns, Hagler, Duran (twice) and Benitez, and held titles in 5 classes. He was a fine boxer, fast and a lot of fun to watch. Worthy of consideration.
Nowadays my interest in boxing is pre- Tommy Morrison getting beaten to a bloody mound of flesh by Riddick Bowe or Razor Rudduck, I forget which one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Tunesmith
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:09 PM

Well, Duran was beaten up and then pole-axed by Tommy Hearns! Talk about a one-sided fight! Duran was out!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 01:38 PM

Yeah, that's been around for a long time. If anyone gave Irwin Nash, a friend of mine, any grief, he would tell them to knock it off or he'd get his father to clean their clock.

He could, too. His father was a clock repairman.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 01:02 PM

In 2011 things are easy to look up.

Clean one's clock.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Tunesmith
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 11:45 AM

"cleaned his clock"? Haven't come across that one before. What the hell does it mean?

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 09:44 AM

Duran was better than average, but who did he fight besides Leonard who cleaned his clock?

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:15 AM

I find by googling that

Winuwuk Lust At First Sight

was last year's Best Of Breed among Boxers entered at Crufts Dog Show: also Irish champion, if I have interpreted the list-abbreviations correctly.

Sorry. Bye-bye ~

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 12:40 AM

Well, he wasn't a great boxer, but as a fighter and a champion he was all heart - Rocky Balboa.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 10:01 PM

The best roast beef in NYC was at his (Dempsey's) restaurant up on Broadway(?), imo.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 09:25 PM

YES, Gn-ze...

I said that a couple days ago...

Roberto Duran was pound-for-pound the baddest of the bad...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: gnu
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 09:01 PM

My vote does not count as I gave up watching boxing years ago... but... ROBERTO DURAN!

Yeah, I know, but I just like the guy.

The best in my books is Billy The Kid Owens... Takes on all comers. Boxes on King Street back to back with Tete Rouge on Friday night. Pay your money and take your chances. $5 per comer. Beer and whiskey bets welcome.

He played guitar and sang too. I miss him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:33 PM

My vote.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: kendall
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:23 PM

Right you are, I was relying on my aging memory. It was Tunney, not Firpo.

Louis held the title longer than any other heavyweight. That makes him the greatest in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:18 PM

Stanley Ketchel, "The Michigan Asassin", a middleweight who often fought above his weight class and knocked down the great heavyweight Jack Johnson in a title bout wasn't considered a great technical boxer but may have been the gamest fighter that ever stepped in a ring. Possible exception being Jack Dempsey.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: pdq
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 07:31 PM

It seems unreasonable to call a fighter that nobody has ever heard of "the greatest" as the initial post suggests.

I think Joe Louis has to be high on the list of "greatest" because of the emormity of the two Joe Louis v. Max Schmeling bouts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Tunesmith
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 09:15 AM

Well, it's simple! The greatest is the best, and Ray Robinson was ONLY best at his weight, but Ali, in his day, and Louis and Tyson, were best full stop ( or "period" as I believe Americans say).
You can't be considered the greatest boxer of all time if there were dozens of fighters around even in the same era who could have flattened that "so-called" greatest fighter.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:22 AM

Jack Johnson.

Kendall I get your point but I think you meant the "LONG count" made Tunney...

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: kendall
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 06:44 AM

Is no could have; is only is.

Without a standard it is impossible to say who was the greatest.

Cooper may well have beaten Ali except for Dundee and his knife.
The "LONG count" was what made Dempsey the winner in that fight.Firpo was a foreigner, Dempsey was an American. The ref was American.
Walcott beat Louis in the first fight but the judges robbed him. Louis even apologized to Walcott after wards.

The problem with boxing in those days was it was rigged, almost as bad as wrestling.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 06:37 AM

Honestly can't see your point, Tunesmith. I an afraid you seem utterly confused to me. It is not an 'artificial' division; it is to ensure that only those with an equal chance are matched. Otherwise the situation, e.g. to adopt your own example, whereby Paterson could be put in the ring v Robinson, would be absurd. So you cannot compare, in terms of 'greatness', fighters in different weight divisions; you can only judge by the achievements, within any division, of those fighting those who with whom are evenly matched. No rule of "greatness" demands that only the putative theoretical winner of a contest that never existed, or could have existed, can be considered ~~ otherwise, as I say, you are in an apples/oranges situation.

How you then try to adjudicate between the greatest flyweight, the greatest welterweight, the greatest heavyweight {or for that matter between the greatest miniaturist and the greatest painter of huge frescoes} then becomes the matter for fine judgment ··· or else the thread title must be made more category·within·category-specific, surely?.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Tunesmith
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 06:11 AM

Dividing fighters in to weight divisions is an artificial situation.
We don't use age as a way of determining greatest, so why weight?
For example, there is a Canadian marathon runner who ran under 3 hrs for distance - in his 70s! Now that is phenominal, but nobody is going to call him one of the greatest runners of all time.
No, pound-for-pound maybe a fun thing to talk about but the heavy-weights are the greatest fighters because they would beat all the best from other divisions.
Think of Ray Robinson in the mid-50s. Well he might have been great at middle-weight but a young Floyd Paterson would have flattened him out in no time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: grumpy al
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 05:04 AM

Henry Cooper, the first boxer to knock out Mohamed Ali! Cooperwould have won the fight if Angelo Dundee hadn't slashed Ali's glove.

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 04:44 AM

... and should I have included Tyson? Or Marciano? Or Sayers? or or or (cont p 94) (Rhyme intentional [& Ryme Intrinseca?] - mebbe!)

... As to the point that heavyweights can beat all the others: don't quite get it myself. You have different weights so that 'greatness' [however defined] isn't necessarily confined to bigness. Might as well say that Michelangelo's Last Judgment is a 'greater' painting than, say, a perfect Hillyard miniature simply because it's bigger. The fact that one can beat another doesn't necessarily make him more intrinsically skilful or gifted...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Tunesmith
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 04:18 AM

Well, heavyweight fighters are the greatest because they would beat every other weight! For example, would you fancy Paquiao's chances against Mike Tyson?

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 12:29 AM

"Greatest" ~~ one o' those words, ain't it?

Cribb? Mendoza? Jackson? Sullivan? Corbett? Dempsey? Louis? Woodcock?

In living memory, I tend to feel that Clay/Ali must have strong claim; but I can't myself pretend to have that much authority as to the sport.

But I know enough to wonder why, BTW, does it appear that only heavyweights qualify? No outstanding fly·s or feathers who might have a claim? Tarleton? Phillips? (cont p 94)

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 09:30 PM

Well never know, JtS.... Ya' have to remember that until late in Duran's career he had never been beaten... Took on all comers... I don't think anyone would wipe the floor with Duran in his prime... He was very menacing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 09:25 PM

I think Manny woulda wiped the floor with Duran. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 08:33 PM

Kinda depends on class and boxers in their prime...

Roberto Duran in his prime was a tough pound-for-pound as any...

B~