|
12 Nov 11 - 11:31 AM (#3255582) Subject: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Sandy Mc Lean I am starting this as a new thread rather than drift the Joe Frazier one. There I stated my belief that Sam Langford was tops pound for pound. Perhaps many are not familiar with him because he never became heavyweight champion. That was only because they were afraid to fight him! The Boston Tar Baby |
|
12 Nov 11 - 11:56 AM (#3255586) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: dick greenhaus Best I ever saw was Sugar Ray Robinson. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 11:57 AM (#3255588) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith My dad was a big Sam Langford fan. Of course, Sam was never a full blown heavyweight - even by 100 year old standards, and so he would have his hands full with todays giants. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 11:59 AM (#3255591) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Neil D Sugar Ray Robinson not only ruled in two weight classes when there were only half as many as now, but because the 1950s were the Decade of the Middleweight, he probably beat more great boxers than anyone in boxing history. LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Graziano to name a few. My dad said Robinson was the only fighter he ever saw knock a man out with one punch while backpedaling. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 12:22 PM (#3255611) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Rapparee Mohammad Ali -- great then and great now. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 12:28 PM (#3255620) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: GUEST,999 Marciano was no slouch, either. It's hard to pick a 'greatest', because training and diet improved over the years, and it's difficult to predict who would have beaten whom. Thing is, there have been many great boxers. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 12:30 PM (#3255623) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Jack the Sailor There is a case to made that the best boxer ever, pound for pound is at his peak today. Manny Pacquiao has certainly impressed me as being the best boxer pound for pound on the planet and a humanitarian and civil leader in the Philippines. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 12:50 PM (#3255634) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: kendall So. Define greatest. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 01:11 PM (#3255655) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp greatest - (adj.) That which most resembles a dominant chimp in the prime of his life. The best. The most superior. Ook! Ook! - Chongo |
|
12 Nov 11 - 01:12 PM (#3255661) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: olddude Manny lb for lb .. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 03:52 PM (#3255769) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith Well, they say timing is everything, and had Roy Jones Jr retired after defeating John Ruiz he would have subsequently turned up in every boxing paudits top five all-time great boxers list; indeed, at that point it would have been very easy to call him the greatest. As it is ... |
|
12 Nov 11 - 04:02 PM (#3255775) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: gnu "My dad said Robinson was the only fighter he ever saw knock a man out with one punch while backpedaling." THAT is the hardest thing to do. My old man always taught me to "get em coming in" but never on yer heels. The Greatest... who can say? |
|
12 Nov 11 - 05:04 PM (#3255815) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: alanabit I can't take much issue with Manny Pacquiao at the moment. He certainly impresses me much more than any current heavyweight. I am not old enough to remember a time when the heavyweight was so bereft of real talent as it is currently! |
|
12 Nov 11 - 07:35 PM (#3255888) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: kendall I haven't watched a fight in years. |
|
12 Nov 11 - 08:33 PM (#3255901) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Bobert Kinda depends on class and boxers in their prime... Roberto Duran in his prime was a tough pound-for-pound as any... B~ |
|
12 Nov 11 - 09:25 PM (#3255922) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Jack the Sailor I think Manny woulda wiped the floor with Duran. :-) |
|
12 Nov 11 - 09:30 PM (#3255925) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Bobert 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~ |
|
13 Nov 11 - 12:29 AM (#3255963) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: MGM·Lion "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~ |
|
13 Nov 11 - 04:18 AM (#3255998) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith Well, heavyweight fighters are the greatest because they would beat every other weight! For example, would you fancy Paquiao's chances against Mike Tyson? |
|
13 Nov 11 - 04:44 AM (#3256004) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: MGM·Lion ... 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~ |
|
13 Nov 11 - 05:04 AM (#3256015) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: grumpy al Henry Cooper, the first boxer to knock out Mohamed Ali! Cooperwould have won the fight if Angelo Dundee hadn't slashed Ali's glove. |
|
13 Nov 11 - 06:11 AM (#3256045) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith 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. |
|
13 Nov 11 - 06:37 AM (#3256057) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
13 Nov 11 - 06:44 AM (#3256061) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: kendall 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. |
|
13 Nov 11 - 08:22 AM (#3256106) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: GUEST,gillymor Jack Johnson. Kendall I get your point but I think you meant the "LONG count" made Tunney... |
|
13 Nov 11 - 09:15 AM (#3256138) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith 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. |
|
13 Nov 11 - 07:31 PM (#3256476) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: pdq 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. |
|
13 Nov 11 - 08:18 PM (#3256501) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: GUEST,gillymor 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. |
|
13 Nov 11 - 08:23 PM (#3256504) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: kendall 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. |
|
13 Nov 11 - 08:33 PM (#3256508) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Don Firth My vote. Don Firth |
|
13 Nov 11 - 09:01 PM (#3256525) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: gnu 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. |
|
13 Nov 11 - 09:25 PM (#3256532) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Bobert YES, Gn-ze... I said that a couple days ago... Roberto Duran was pound-for-pound the baddest of the bad... B~ |
|
13 Nov 11 - 10:01 PM (#3256543) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: GUEST,999 The best roast beef in NYC was at his (Dempsey's) restaurant up on Broadway(?), imo. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 12:40 AM (#3256574) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Seamus Kennedy Well, he wasn't a great boxer, but as a fighter and a champion he was all heart - Rocky Balboa. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 02:15 AM (#3256587) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
14 Nov 11 - 09:44 AM (#3256765) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: GUEST,kendall Duran was better than average, but who did he fight besides Leonard who cleaned his clock? |
|
14 Nov 11 - 11:45 AM (#3256836) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith "cleaned his clock"? Haven't come across that one before. What the hell does it mean? |
|
14 Nov 11 - 01:02 PM (#3256877) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Jack the Sailor In 2011 things are easy to look up. Clean one's clock. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 01:38 PM (#3256910) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Don Firth 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 |
|
14 Nov 11 - 02:09 PM (#3256941) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith Well, Duran was beaten up and then pole-axed by Tommy Hearns! Talk about a one-sided fight! Duran was out!!! |
|
14 Nov 11 - 02:40 PM (#3256954) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: GUEST,gillymor 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. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 02:54 PM (#3256958) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Deckman 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 |
|
14 Nov 11 - 03:05 PM (#3256964) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: alanabit 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. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 03:25 PM (#3256980) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: gnu "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. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 04:45 PM (#3257032) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith 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. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 06:21 PM (#3257087) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Little Hawk Yes, but... Could he match this? |
|
14 Nov 11 - 06:42 PM (#3257104) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 07:06 PM (#3257115) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: MarkS 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!" |
|
14 Nov 11 - 10:55 PM (#3257199) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
14 Nov 11 - 11:06 PM (#3257210) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Sandy Mc Lean "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! |
|
14 Nov 11 - 11:06 PM (#3257211) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
15 Nov 11 - 08:10 PM (#3257804) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: nager 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. |
|
16 Nov 11 - 07:32 AM (#3258002) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: mayomick 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. |
|
16 Nov 11 - 07:51 AM (#3258014) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: kendall 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. |
|
16 Nov 11 - 02:25 PM (#3258268) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: GUEST Apollo Creed wasn't too bad in his day, either. And he went on to be a damn fine trainer as well. |
|
16 Nov 11 - 03:55 PM (#3258344) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Q (Frank Staplin) A fine Boxer, MtheGM. This one may be his equal- Bentbrook's Time to Ascend SOM. (Scroll down for portrait) Bentbrook |
|
16 Nov 11 - 04:00 PM (#3258349) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: MGM·Lion Sorry, Q, but that link didn't work. But thanks for the thought. ~M~ |
|
16 Nov 11 - 04:00 PM (#3258350) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Q (Frank Staplin) Error- Bentbrook |
|
16 Nov 11 - 04:06 PM (#3258357) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: MGM·Lion Ah, thank you. All of them much more beautiful than Tyson, that's for sure... |
|
16 Nov 11 - 04:08 PM (#3258359) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: gnu Kendall... "Joe Louis was the greatest simply because he held the title longer than anyone else before or since." Can't disagree with that. |
|
16 Nov 11 - 04:28 PM (#3258370) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Tunesmith 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. |
|
16 Nov 11 - 05:30 PM (#3258407) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Jack the Sailor 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? |
|
16 Nov 11 - 06:36 PM (#3258462) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: Sandy Mc Lean 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! |
|
16 Nov 11 - 08:56 PM (#3258523) Subject: RE: BS: The Greatest Boxer From: kendall And it's all pretty much irrelevant now. |
