Who Wins, 12 rounds?

Who Wins, 12 rounds?

Seriously....are you kidding? Who has Hop beat that is even comparable to a Liston or a Louis or a Marciano? These threads are getting beyond stupid and bordering on sheer retardation. Get a grip already.

:lol1: :lol1:

Seriously....are you kidding? Who has Hop beat that is even comparable to a Liston or a Louis or a Marciano? These threads are getting beyond stupid and bordering on sheer retardation. Get a grip already.

Felix Trinidad, DLH, Winky Wright

but i agree these threads are getting a tad stupid

the marciano one was justifiable since marciano was a small HW and hopkins wouldnt have had to gain much if any weight to fight him, so his performance wouldnt be inhibited

but liston was well over 200 lbs, hop would be chubby if he went up past 200 to fight sonny

Felix Trinidad, DLH, Winky Wright

but i agree these threads are getting a tad stupid

the marciano one was justifiable since marciano was a small HW and hopkins wouldnt have had to gain much if any weight to fight him, so his performance wouldnt be inhibited

but liston was well over 200 lbs, hop would be chubby if he went up past 200 to fight sonny

My man, Im not talking p4p, but at the particular weight they would have to fight at. Does Tarver or even Calzaghe come close to presenting the theat any of the previously mentioned fighters would?

Marciano beat Ezzard Charles twice. Anybody who knows anything of boxing history will tell you Charles was superior to Hopkins at 175 and p4p. Im not knocking Hopkins, the guy is great. But he's proven nothing to even be considered formidable to the greats that people have been trying to match him against.

Fantasy match ups are fun, but lets try to at least keep it within the realm of reality. Know what I mean?

this is where the fun ends, Liston can box well and he can hit to hard. Hopkins can't beat Liston. Even if Liston hit his arms it could get ugly.

this is where the fun ends, Liston can box well and he can hit to hard. Hopkins can't beat Liston. Even if Liston hit his arms it could get ugly.

lol yeah








.........

So what's the next match up?

Hopkins-Ali
Hopkins-Tyson
Hokins-Dempsey

hhmm????

So what's the next match up?

Hopkins-Ali
Hopkins-Tyson
Hokins-Dempsey

hhmm????




lol Well according to alot of folks in the fantasy fights thread, Dempsey was a bum who would get taken by any half way decent fighter

lol Well according to alot of folks in the fantasy fights thread, Dempsey was a bum who would get taken by any half way decent fighter

:sad2: I do give one thing. Boxers today are supposed to be far superior than those of yesterday, reason being the weights, training and techniques, tactics, etc have evolved and this is a continuation so future boxers are supposed to be better then. But in this case here how some seem to think that hopkins can or could potentially beat any of these is non-sense. these guys are legends that could fight in any generation. Now as far as Dempsey; oh well, there are some people who just can't be convinced otherwise from their point of view.

lol Well according to alot of folks in the fantasy fights thread, Dempsey was a bum who would get taken by any half way decent fighter

Dempsey's resume is very lack-luster. Many people think that way of him for good reason.

If Marty Marshall, a light heavyweight journeyman, could trouble Liston so much in 3 fights then Hopkins would probably beat him.

Eddie Machen and Bert Whitehurst were only around 190-200 lbs yet they both went the distance with Liston because they were good defensive fighters. Hopkins could come in at 200-210 lbs and still keep all of his speed and stamina with increased strength because of modern nutrition.

Hopkins by UD

Hopkins neutralized Trinidad's left hook and Kelly Pavlik's right hand, he wouldn't have any trouble taking away Liston's best weapon which is the left jab. Without the jab Liston is just a wild swinging slugger who would have no chance of landing a glove on B-Hop.

If Marty Marshall, a light heavyweight journeyman, could trouble Liston so much in 3 fights then Hopkins would probably beat him.

Eddie Machen and Bert Whitehurst were only around 190-200 lbs yet they both went the distance with Liston because they were good defensive fighters. Hopkins could come in at 200-210 lbs and still keep all of his speed and stamina with increased strength because of modern nutrition.

Hopkins by UD

Hopkins neutralized Trinidad's left hook and Kelly Pavlik's right hand, he wouldn't have any trouble taking away Liston's best weapon which is the left jab. Without the jab Liston is just a wild swinging slugger who would have no chance of landing a glove on B-Hop.

Okay, who wants to start the Hopkins vs Ali thread? That's if the Ali fans would dare match their hero against the all-conquering force of nature that is B-Hop!

Dempsey's resume is very lack-luster. Many people think that way of him for good reason.


Who do you think Dempsey should have fought in his time?


Funny how alot of people don't apply that critera to Mike Tyson.


Tyson failed to fight (or lost to) all of the greats of his era: Evander Holyfield, Lennox lewis, Riddick Bowe, George Foreman. He did not prove that he was in the upper echelon of the fighters of his time.

Dempsey clearly did.

Okay, who wants to start the Hopkins vs Ali thread? That's if the Ali fans would dare match their hero against the all-conquering force of nature that is B-Hop!

Nah, apparently the theme here is that it's heavyweight fighters before the 1960's that all sucked and therefore a guy like B-Hop could take them.

yea liston would most likely KO hopkins with one clean jab. and god help him if he lands a left hook. liston by KO in round 1.

The sodomist becomes the sodomised. Liston by rape stomp.

My man, Im not talking p4p, but at the particular weight they would have to fight at. Does Tarver or even Calzaghe come close to presenting the theat any of the previously mentioned fighters would?

Marciano beat Ezzard Charles twice. Anybody who knows anything of boxing history will tell you Charles was superior to Hopkins at 175 and p4p. Im not knocking Hopkins, the guy is great. But he's proven nothing to even be considered formidable to the greats that people have been trying to match him against.

Fantasy match ups are fun, but lets try to at least keep it within the realm of reality. Know what I mean?


yeah very true, good post

My man, Im not talking p4p, but at the particular weight they would have to fight at. Does Tarver or even Calzaghe come close to presenting the theat any of the previously mentioned fighters would?

Marciano beat Ezzard Charles twice. Anybody who knows anything of boxing history will tell you Charles was superior to Hopkins at 175 and p4p. Im not knocking Hopkins, the guy is great. But he's proven nothing to even be considered formidable to the greats that people have been trying to match him against.

Fantasy match ups are fun, but lets try to at least keep it within the realm of reality. Know what I mean?

But the only thing is when Ezzard fought The Rock, he was way past his prime and it wasn't the Charles who had just stepped up from LHW, going into that fight in his last 4 he'd won 2 and lost 2, against Nino Valdes who at the time was 22-9-3, and then Harold Johnsen 41-5-0, who he had already beaten previsouly.

So even do i think these fantasy match up are getting to much comparing B-Hop with all the great heavyweights, i think if Hopkins were to move up now from LHW, he may give the Rock a better try than Ezzard, and that is saying something as Charles give Marciano really good efforts both times and at one point opened a cut on the Rocks nose that was on its way of being stopped.

Who do you think Dempsey should have fought in his time?


Funny how alot of people don't apply that critera to Mike Tyson.


Tyson failed to fight (or lost to) all of the greats of his era: Evander Holyfield, Lennox lewis, Riddick Bowe, George Foreman. He did not prove that he was in the upper echelon of the fighters of his time.

Dempsey clearly did.

Yea he did? I'ts not like I have Tyson at no.1, I have him at no.8 on my ATG hW list. Why did you even bring up Mike Tyson. He's not even my favourite heavyweight, Evander Holyfield Happens to be. Tyson didn't lose to all the greats of his Era, if you are going to put George Foreman on there, who was 40+ years old, than 38 year old Holmes counts as well since he came back and beat Mercer - went 12 with Holyfield.


Dempsey did far worse, he lost to even bigger bums than Tyson did. Even his big "wins" were against pretty sub par competition. Jess Willard? lol come on..anyone here see "Valuev"

If a Prime Holyfield fought Dempsey, he'd stop him in 2. If you are going by "during his day" then yes obviously Dempsey was one of the best.

Dempsey did far worse, he lost to even bigger bums than Tyson did. Even his big "wins" were against pretty sub par competition. Jess Willard? lol come on..anyone here see "Valuev"


Out of interest, which bums did Dempsey lose to?

Out of interest, which bums did Dempsey lose to?

go look at boxrec, he lost to a guy with 9 wins and 7 losses.

Imagine if a guy like Holmes or Foreman lost to a guy like that, we would never hear the end of it.

Jim Flynn koed him in 1 round.

go look at boxrec, he lost to a guy with 9 wins and 7 losses.

Imagine if a guy like Holmes or Foreman lost to a guy like that, we would never hear the end of it.

Jim Flynn koed him in 1 round.

What, a 4 round decision in his first year as a pro, when he was literally a hungry fighter? I think he can be forgiven that blemish.

As an aside to that, Boxrec's records of old-timers are very incomplete. A guy with a 0-0-0 record doesn't necessarily mean he'd never had a pro fight, just none on their database.

The Flynn fight is very controversial. Information about the fight is contradictory, and many believe Dempsey tanked it for the price of a meal. See this article, for instance:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_dive.html

When they met a year later, Dempsey KO'd Flynn in one round.

Boxrec is a wonderful tool, but without some context and background knowledge it proves nothing.

[QUOTE=Southpaw16bf;4764931]But the only thing is when Ezzard fought The Rock, he was way past his prime and it wasn't the Charles who had just stepped up from LHW, going into that fight in his last 4 he'd won 2 and lost 2, against Nino Valdes who at the time was 22-9-3, and then Harold Johnsen 41-5-0, who he had already beaten previsouly.

True, true. In Hopkins last 6 he's won 3 and lost 3 though. :doh:

What, a 4 round decision in his first year as a pro, when he was literally a hungry fighter? I think he can be forgiven that blemish.

As an aside to that, Boxrec's records of old-timers are very incomplete. A guy with a 0-0-0 record doesn't necessarily mean he'd never had a pro fight, just none on their database.

The Flynn fight is very controversial. Information about the fight is contradictory, and many believe Dempsey tanked it for the price of a meal. See this article, for instance:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_dive.html

When they met a year later, Dempsey KO'd Flynn in one round.

Boxrec is a wonderful tool, but without some context and background knowledge it proves nothing.


doesn't change the fact that he was koed in 1 round, he wasn't even old or past it. If he "tanked it" that shows how unproffessional of a fighter he was. That's like me saying a guy like Tyson lost to Douglas because he wasn't taking training seriously and was a drug addict.

where as a guy like Holyfield to this day always comes in shape.

doesn't change the fact that he was koed in 1 round, he wasn't even old or past it. If he "tanked it" that shows how unproffessional of a fighter he was. That's like me saying a guy like Tyson lost to Douglas because he wasn't taking training seriously and was a drug addict.

Again, you have to know the circumstances. If you hadn't eaten for days, and someone offered you twice as much money to throw a fight, what would you do? Just like when Jake LaMotta was told he'd have to throw a fight for the mob or forget about his title shot. In those circumstances, I don't hold it against them.

Again, you have to know the circumstances. If you hadn't eaten for days, and someone offered you twice as much money to throw a fight, what would you do? Just like when Jake LaMotta was told he'd have to throw a fight for the mob or forget about his title shot. In those circumstances, I don't hold it against them.

yeah alot of people give lamotta **** for throwing that fight but man so many prominent fighters threw fights back then, lamotta was just the only one who was brave enough to admit it

yeah alot of people give lamotta **** for throwing that fight but man so many prominent fighters threw fights back then, lamotta was just the only one who was brave enough to admit it

But the thing is many didn't throw the fight out of sheer greed, but to literally feed themselves and their families (Dempsey) or to get a chance they otherwise earned but would never rightfully get (LaMotta). Im sure you know this KT, but this is what Kid McCoy means when he talks about understanding the circumstances.

[QUOTE]

True, true. In Hopkins last 6 he's won 3 and lost 3 though. :doh:

But lets look at those wins and losses, two losses against Jermain Taylor(who at the time was(24-0-0) in which he definatly derserved the second one and both were very close fights in which he could of got, and going it that he was on his 22d defence of his IBFtitle.

His next loss came against undfeated 44-0 Joe Calzaghe, in another razor sharp close decision, in a fight were he dropped Calzaghe and again alot of people thought he should of got.

So when you look into these losses, he losing fights that he easily could of went his way, against world class oppostion, and he's not even getting beat up or even beat convincenly.

And then you look at his wins
.Antonio Tarver-At The Time-Ring 175 Champion, #1 LHW in the world, Hopkins beat's him rather easy, in his first fight at 175 (since his debut against Clinton Mitchell)

.Ronald ''Winky'' Wright-At the time was a top 5 P4P fighter, had not been beat in 7 years,and was coming in with a dominating win over Ike Quartey. Hopkins beats rather comfortable with scores of 112-116, 111-117,111-117.

.Kelly Pavlik- At the time was best middlweight in the world, around number 7 in the P4P rating, was undefeated with a record of 34-0-0 with 30 ko's, and was 26 years of age. Hopkens virtually wipe washes him and puts on a boxing clinic.

So by stat Bernard Hopkins has in his last 6 fights won 3 lose 3, but when you look it to them like i've just done, his losses could have all went his way as the fights were that close, and his wins were all against at the time pound for pound fighters, and world class oppostion.

And the fights that he did lose were all against unbeaten fighter at the time, and a pound for pounder.

And also going into that fight, the boxing world knew Charles was way past his best, and knew he was not near his LHW days. And if Hopkins were to of moved up to fight the Rock at the time , Hopkins would of been much more in his prime than Ezzard.

this benard ball sucking has to stop sometime, this fight would be a joke, liston would murder him.

But lets look at those wins and losses, two losses against Jermain Taylor(who at the time was(24-0-0) in which he definatly derserved the second one and both were very close fights in which he could of got, and going it that he was on his 22d defence of his IBFtitle.

His next loss came against undfeated 44-0 Joe Calzaghe, in another razor sharp close decision, in a fight were he dropped Calzaghe and again alot of people thought he should of got.

So when you look into these losses, he losing fights that he easily could of went his way, against world class oppostion, and he's not even getting beat up or even beat convincenly.


And also going into that fight, the boxing world knew Charles was way past his best, and knew he was not near his LHW days. And if Hopkins were to of moved up to fight the Rock at the time , Hopkins would of been much more in his prime than Ezzard.

Then again Ezzard Charles had only lost to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson by close decisions which could've gone his way as well. He had recent wins over Bob Satterfield, Rex Layne, Jimmy Bivins and Coley Wallace.

People thought he was past it but only because of how great he was in his prime. It's not like he had been dominated in his losses and he was still good enough to beat most of the top men, like Hopkins right now.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Je9fncDgI-s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Je9fncDgI-s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Charles vs Satterfield

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AjFq5aOYYJM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AjFq5aOYYJM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Charles vs Wallace

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n2c7WRexc6U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n2c7WRexc6U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Charles vs Layne III

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l4_qPmEqZ9U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l4_qPmEqZ9U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Charles vs Marciano

And also going into that fight, the boxing world knew Charles was way past his best, and knew he was not near his LHW days. And if Hopkins were to of moved up to fight the Rock at the time , Hopkins would of been much more in his prime than Ezzard.

Im not going to tear Hopkins down for the sake of argument. But just answer me these questions. We all know who Rocky beat and what he was capable of at heavyweight. How do we know how an aging Hopkins would do against him? After all, was he not gassed in the 11th and 12th agaist Calzaghe? Who has Hop fought that would come close to the strength or ability to bring pressure like Marciano?

Like I told Apples, my argument is based on what has actually been done, not an assumption of what I think may happen.

Im not going to tear Hopkins down for the sake of argument. But just answer me these questions. We all know who Rocky beat and what he was capable of at heavyweight. How do we know how an aging Hopkins would do against him? After all, was he not gassed in the 11th and 12th agaist Calzaghe? Who has Hop fought that would come close to the strength or ability to bring pressure like Marciano?

Like I told Apples, my argument is based on what has actually been done, not an assumption of what I think may happen.

Hopkins would of fought no one with the strength of Marcaino, But when Michael Spinks moved to take on Larry Holmes he had never fought no one as strong or as big as Larry, there was a 22 pound weight gap. Or when Spinks fought Cooney, Spinks hadn't fought no one with Cooney's strength or punching power at the time.

Hopkins like Spinks at all the other all time greats who have stepped on there first try will be taking a huge risk.

And i think it was more Hopkins trying to steal against Calzaghe in the 11th and 12th rounds, because as he proved in fights with Pavlik he was coming on pretty strong at the end, and with no signs of tire.

Then again Ezzard Charles had only lost to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson by close decisions which could've gone his way as well. He had recent wins over Bob Satterfield, Rex Layne, Jimmy Bivins and Coley Wallace.

People thought he was past it but only because of how great he was in his prime. It's not like he had been dominated in his losses and he was still good enough to beat most of the top men, like Hopkins right now.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Je9fncDgI-s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Je9fncDgI-s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Charles vs Satterfield

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AjFq5aOYYJM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AjFq5aOYYJM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Charles vs Wallace

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n2c7WRexc6U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n2c7WRexc6U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Charles vs Layne III

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l4_qPmEqZ9U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l4_qPmEqZ9U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Charles vs Marciano


The same Nino Valdes, who in his last 6 fights had lost 4,two being against Archie Moore and Harlod Johnson no shame in that, but the other 2 being against Billy Gilliam who at the time was 28-15-2, and Bill Baker who was 29-2-1 and after Baker had beat Valdes, the fight after he would go on to be Ko'd in the 1st round against Bob Satterfield 30-14-2.

So yes you could say he was past his prime, no matter how good he was at his LHW days, and i think it was more due to the fact the Marciano never had loads of compititon aorund for him, so the best about was great fighters past there prime. As many people say.`

Hopkins would of fought no one with the strength of Marcaino, But when Michael Spinks moved to take on Larry Holmes he had never fought no one as strong or as big as Larry, there was a 22 pound weight gap. Or when Spinks fought Cooney, Spinks hadn't fought no one with Cooney's strength or punching power at the time.

Cooney had 3 fights in the 5 years between Holmes and Spinks and was no longer considered a contender, only a name.

Holmes was also 36 and had been champ for 7 years and many still think he won those fights.

Hopkins would be the old man in any scenerio given and still isn't battle tested at 175 like Spinks was.

Hopkins like Spinks at all the other all time greats who have stepped on there first try will be taking a huge risk.

And i think it was more Hopkins trying to steal against Calzaghe in the 11th and 12th rounds, because as he proved in fights with Pavlik he was coming on pretty strong at the end, and with no signs of tire.

Pavlik had no resistance to offer, Joe did. Just as Rocky, Louis, Liston, Lewis and any other heavyweight great you can name would.

The same Nino Valdes, who in his last 6 fights had lost 4,two being against Archie Moore and Harlod Johnson no shame in that, but the other 2 being against Billy Gilliam who at the time was 28-15-2, and Bill Baker who was 29-2-1 and after Baker had beat Valdes, the fight after he would go on to be Ko'd in the 1st round against Bob Satterfield 30-14-2.

So yes you could say he was past his prime, no matter how good he was at his LHW days, and i think it was more due to the fact the Marciano never had loads of compititon aorund for him, so the best about was great fighters past there prime. As many people say.`

The same 6'3, 210 lb Nino Valdes who went onto become the number 1 ranked heavyweight contender for the next 2 years after beating Charles.

Bob Baker was a good fighter and a top ranked heavyweight. He got caught by Satterfield but then again a lot of people did. Satterfield was pound for pound one of the hardest hitters of all time.

I'd pick the 32 year old Ezzard Charles who fought Marciano to beat the 43 year old Hopkins who fought Calzaghe.

The same 6'3, 210 lb Nino Valdes who went onto become the number 1 ranked heavyweight contender for the next 2 years after beating Charles.

Bob Baker was a good fighter and a top ranked heavyweight. He got caught by Satterfield but then again a lot of people did. Satterfield was pound for pound one of the hardest hitters of all time.

I'd pick the 32 year old Ezzard Charles who fought Marciano to beat the 43 year old Hopkins who fought Calzaghe.

Well maybe if you go and read Rock Of His Times, it will tell you Rock wasn't round at the best of times of heavyweights and yes Charles best days were behind him, and a 43 Bernard Hopkins is more in his prime that a 32 year old Ezzard Charles was.

You thought by putting Hopkins age, its more of a advantage for Charles. But Beranrd Hopkins isn't your average 43 year old.

And yes Baker did go on to be a good fighter, but that was in the future i'am talking about that present time.

And don't you also think Chris Arreloa would outbox a prime George Foreman?
Enough Said.

Well maybe if you go and read Rock Of His Times, it will tell you Rock wasn't round at the best of times of heavyweights and yes Charles best days were behind him, and a 43 Bernard Hopkins is more in his prime that a 32 year old Ezzard Charles was.

You thought by putting Hopkins age, its more of a advantage for Charles. But Beranrd Hopkins isn't your average 43 year old.

And yes Baker did go on to be a good fighter, but that was in the future i'am talking about that present time.

I never said Marciano was around the best heavyweight era.

Hopkins isn't the average 43 year old but Ezzard Charles would've beaten him. Even a past prime version of Charles.

And don't you also think Chris Arreloa would outbox a prime George Foreman?
Enough Said.

Sure do.

I never said Marciano was around the best heavyweight era.

Hopkins isn't the average 43 year old but Ezzard Charles would've beaten him. Even a past prime version of Charles.



Sure do.

It's pretty hard to take you serious with the Foreman the comment.

It's pretty hard to take you serious with the Foreman the comment.

Maybe you shouldn't.

Yea he did? I'ts not like I have Tyson at no.1, I have him at no.8 on my ATG hW list. Why did you even bring up Mike Tyson. He's not even my favourite heavyweight, Evander Holyfield Happens to be. Tyson didn't lose to all the greats of his Era, if you are going to put George Foreman on there, who was 40+ years old, than 38 year old Holmes counts as well since he came back and beat Mercer - went 12 with Holyfield.



Dempsey proved himself against the best of his day, Tyson didn't

Foreman regardless of his age proved himself a great of that era as well. Holmes was clearly past it at that point, we all know age signifies different things for different fighters.

Dempsey proved himself against the best of his day, Tyson didn't

Foreman regardless of his age proved himself a great of that era as well. Holmes was clearly past it at that point, we all know age signifies different things for different fighters.

Foreman proved himself? I like Foreman but you are being biased. Foreman in his come back lost to his tougher opponents - Holyfield and Tommy Morrison.

Tyson would have busted up Moorer in 1 or 2 rounds even you know that.

Why are we talking about Tyson again, his resume even makes a joke out of Dempsey's.

"Proving yourself against fighters of your day" holds no water, the guy lost in the first round to a fighter who had almost 30(?) losses. If you in any way, shape or form think Dempsey is more impressive than Tyson, you need to check your boxing bias.

Also, what makes losing to Holyfield a disgrace? I have Holyfield ranked the 2nd greatest heavyweight ever to step into the ring (prime).

[QUOTE]Why are we talking about Tyson again, his resume even makes a joke out of Dempsey's.



Tyson has no resume. I keep repeating the following and it remains true. Dempsey beat the best of his day and Tyson didn't. Proving yourself against the fighters of your day is what makes you a great, it is your resume.

I picked Tyson because I see him in alot of people's top ten, and you also seemed to respect him alot.


If you in any way, shape or form think Dempsey is more impressive than Tyson, you need to check your boxing bias.

If some one thinks that Tyson is more impressive than Dempsey I believe that THEY should check themselves for Boxing bias. The only thing Tyson has over Dempsey is the fact that he would have actually beaten him one on one.

[QUOTE=them_apples;4769589]











Tyson has no resume. I keep repeating the following and it remains true. Dempsey beat the best of his day and Tyson didn't. Proving yourself against the fighters of your day is what makes you a great, it is your resume.

I picked Tyson because I see him in alot of people's top ten, and you also seemed to respect him alot.




If some one thinks that Tyson is more impressive than Dempsey I believe that THEY should check themselves for Boxing bias. The only think Tyson has over Dempsey is that he would have actually beat him one on one.

that's like saying Holmes sucks because he lost to Tyson and Holyfield, since he failed to beat fighters of his era, the 70's and 80's.

Let's get this straight, in comparison to Ali, Holmes or Holyfield and even Foreman, Tysons resume looks average, but in comparison to Dempsey's it looks great.

Dempsey lost early in his career also, and once a good boxer named Tunney came along he looked like a fool. There are only so many Jess Willards.

It's not about the greats of your era that you didn't fight, it's about the greats of your era that you did fight, that is Tyson's problem.

Also I would say that Holmes prime was the 70's and early 80's

He beat some of the greatest fighters of that era.

Dempsey beat the greats of his era.


Tyson did not, he can't be compared to either one of these two.

:smileysexIt's not about the greats of your era that you didn't fight, it's about the greats of your era that you did fight, that is Tyson's problem.

Also I would say that Holmes prime was the 70's and early 80's

He beat some of the greatest fighters of that era.

Dempsey beat the greats of his era.


Tyson did not, he can't be compared to either one of these two.

that's a complete joke what you just said. Being the unified champion of the world, the youngest champion ever and destroying opponents much better than Dempsey faced inside 3 rounds means he can't be mentioned with Dempsey. How can you look at Dempsey's record and say he is greater.

before the Willard fight he fought a slew of opponents with 0 fights, 0 wins to Hype up the Willard fight. This was at the peak of his career. Fighting nobodies with 0 fights and 0 wins.

reading your posts makes me want to remove Dempsey from my top 10 ATG hw list. Couple things why Dempsey is overrated.

- He lost to a man with 30 losses in the first round
- He fought bums with 0 fights in the middle of his career to pad his record
- His opposition was below average (the best fighters he fought had already lost multiple times, not to mention they just looked awful in the ring)
- he lost in beginning of his career against a man with multiple losses.

"the best of his generation" was Jess Willard, aka Valuev,

you also said Tyson didn't fight the best. He did fight the best. in the 80's spinks was the top dog after he beat Holmes, Holmes was the champ until he lost to Spinks. Holyfield is just to good and is probably one of the best heavyweights ever, against Lewis he was simply shot to peices.

he was 2-2 against the best of his generation.

now i'm going to get called a nut hugger for bringing this up.

:smileysex


he was 2-2 against the best of his generation.



Larry was passed his prime, everyone knows it and Tyson even said it after the fight: "that wasn't the Larry Holmes that was the legendary fighter".


To believe that this isn't true you would have to believe that Tyson basically exposed a prime Larry Holmes as a bum. He didn't only knock him out he outboxed him and then knocked him out in four rounds.

Even Tucker did better.


I don't buy that, this wasn't prime Holmes..


So in my book Tyson is 1-1 against the best of his generation (Spinks).

reading your posts makes me want to remove Dempsey from my top 10 ATG hw list. Couple things why Dempsey is overrated.

- He lost to a man with 30 losses in the first round
- He fought bums with 0 fights in the middle of his career to pad his record
- His opposition was below average (the best fighters he fought had already lost multiple times, not to mention they just looked awful in the ring)
- he lost in beginning of his career against a man with multiple losses.


You need to look further than Boxrec in order to judge Dempsey's career. Note the disclaimer at the bottom of every Boxrec page:

this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate

Sugar Ray Robinson's record has guys with 0-0-0 type records on it, as do many other old-time or non-American fighters. That doesn't mean they were padding their records with novices, just that the full records of these guys are unknown. In many cases, Boxrec doesn't even record their date of birth, so how are they supposed to acquire their full records?

Even so, a record is meaningless without knowing who they fought, the circumstances of those fights, etc. I'll take a guy with a losing record, but one with a few excellent wins on it, over the sparkling 36-1 record against nobodies that Peter McNeeley entered the Tyson fight with.

Further, I've already said that many believe the Fireman Flynn fight to be a fix, something not mentioned on Boxrec, so it at least deserves a question mark over it.

You need to look further than Boxrec in order to judge Dempsey's career. Note the disclaimer at the bottom of every Boxrec page:

this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate

Sugar Ray Robinson's record has guys with 0-0-0 type records on it, as do many other old-time or non-American fighters. That doesn't mean they were padding their records with novices, just that the full records of these guys are unknown. In many cases, Boxrec doesn't even record their date of birth, so how are they supposed to acquire their full records?

Even so, a record is meaningless without knowing who they fought, the circumstances of those fights, etc. I'll take a guy with a losing record, but one with a few excellent wins on it, over the sparkling 36-1 record against nobodies that Peter McNeeley entered the Tyson fight with.

Further, I've already said that many believe the Fireman Flynn fight to be a fix, something not mentioned on Boxrec, so it at least deserves a question mark over it.

you can't compare Dempsey with sugar ray Robinson, Robinson went some 90-0 and was actually beating legit contenders.

Larry was passed his prime, everyone knows it and Tyson even said it after the fight: "that wasn't the Larry Holmes that was the legendary fighter".


To believe that this isn't true you would have to believe that Tyson basically exposed a prime Larry Holmes as a bum. He didn't only knock him out he outboxed him and then knocked him out in four rounds.

Even Tucker did better.


I don't buy that, this wasn't prime Holmes..


So in my book Tyson is 1-1 against the best of his generation (Spinks).

That wasn't my point. I have a prime Holmes beating Tyson.

My point was, you can't say Tyson lost to all the greats of his era, when his era was the 80's. He started fighting when he was what, 19? Holyfield wasn't even a heavyweight. Lewis was still in the Olympics(or contending) Tyson lost to the next generation, just like Holmes did.

He started fighting much earlier than other heavyweights, thus his career ended earlier to. This is why a guy like Hopkins is fighting so long, he started much later.

I won't use "Tyson being hooked on crack" as an excuse for him losing, just as I don't think you can use "he was starving" as an excuse ether, it just shows how unprofessional they were.

you can't compare Dempsey with sugar ray Robinson, Robinson went some 90-0 and was actually beating legit contenders.

Dempsey went on a streak of 32-0 with 28 KOs en route to winning the title, against legit contenders.

I very much doubt the guy with the 6-23-4 record who Robinson beat during his winning streak was a legit contender. If you're going to trash Dempsey based on nothing but Boxrec, I don't see why SRR should get a pass.

A lot of boxers fought "bums" even while they were champions in between title defenses.

Pernell Whitaker whose record is certainly not padded up by any means (and who only ever had about 45 fights) fought a couple of soft opponents just to prepare for his bigger fights, for example Jim Flores (0-3), Antonio Carter (4-7), Davey Montana (15-8), Martin Galvan (7-16), Benjie Marquez (17-8), Jerry Smith (12-13), Ben Baez (7-4)...

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=000555&cat=boxer

The 5 nobodies that Dempsey fought during the span of a month were just for warm up to get him prepared for the big fight against Jess Willard. Before that he had KO'd Fred Fulton in one round, Carl Morris in 1, Battling Levinsky in 3, Gunboat Smith in 2, Bill Brennan in 6 and had won a newspaper decision over Billy Miske, and all of them were top contenders of the era.

A lot of boxers fought "bums" even while they were champions in between title defenses.


And I don't have a problem with that. Nobody should be expected to face murderers' row every week, but given the nature of boxing even tune-ups against supposed no-hopers have an element of risk. Tune-ups in between the major fights also helped keep them sharp and active, kept the money rolling in, and gave their fans a chance to see them in action.

My point was, you can't say Tyson lost to all the greats of his era, when his era was the 80's. He started fighting when he was what, 19? Holyfield wasn't even a heavyweight. Lewis was still in the Olympics(or contending) Tyson lost to the next generation, just like Holmes did.


uhh, Holyfield was pro as a heavyweight in 88, Your saying three years after Tyson went pro his era was over? If we are going to use when fighters go pro as the ruler, Larry went pro in 73'. So according to this calculus his era must have ended in 76'. Lewis went pro in 90', just 5 years after Tyson.

Listen Dempsey is the man, this comparison is crazy.

uhh, Holyfield was pro as a heavyweight in 88, Your saying three years after Tyson went pro his era was over? If we are going to use when fighters go pro as the ruler, Larry went pro in 73'. So according to this calculus his era must have ended in 76'. Lewis went pro in 90', just 5 years after Tyson.

Listen Dempsey is the man, this comparison is crazy.

Dempsey fought 6 guys with 0 wins leading up to the Willard fight.


Tyson lost to Holyfield, one of the greatest HW's of all time, Foreman lost to Ali, does that mean he's trash?

You give Dempsey a pass for losing to a guy with 30 losses in the first round, Tyson gets the pass for losing to Douglas.

Sonny Liston KO's Bernard Hopkins.

May Sonny R.I.P.

Dempsey fought 6 guys with 0 wins leading up to the Willard fight.


Tyson lost to Holyfield, one of the greatest HW's of all time, Foreman lost to Ali, does that mean he's trash?

You give Dempsey a pass for losing to a guy with 30 losses in the first round, Tyson gets the pass for losing to Douglas.

Tyson is great because he was beaten by Evander Holyfield?

Alot of people were beaten by Evander Holyfield, that dosen't make them greats.

I didn't mention Douglas, my focus was never Tyson's losses, my focus were his wins.

The reason I brought up Lewis, Holyfield, Riddick Bowe etc was to mention that he never beat them. It isn't really important whether or not he didn't beat them because he never met them in the ring, or he didn't beat them because he lost to them.

Tyson is great because he was beaten by Evander Holyfield?

Alot of people were beaten by Evander Holyfield, that dosen't make them greats.

I didn't mention Douglas, my focus was never Tyson's losses, my focus were his wins.

The reason I brought up Lewis, Holyfield, Riddick Bowe etc was to mention that he never beat them. It isn't really important whether or not he didn't beat them because he never met them in the ring, or he didn't beat them because he lost to them.

that's stupid, he fought both Lewis and holy. He was shot to pieces against Lewis.

Dempsey lost to guys that Weren't the best of his era, and he lost to Tunney, who was.

Might I ask who was the best in his era? Gunboat Smiths and Jess Willards are pretty poor fighters for being the "best of an era" any greats such as Louis, Ali, Foreman etc would have destroyed them in mere rounds.

that's stupid, he fought both Lewis and holy. He was shot to pieces against Lewis.

Dempsey lost to guys that Weren't the best of his era, and he lost to Tunney, who was.

Might I ask who was the best in his era? Gunboat Smiths and Jess Willards are pretty poor fighters for being the "best of an era" any greats such as Louis, Ali, Foreman etc would have destroyed them in mere rounds.


Beat! beat ! beat! it is who you beat in your era that makes you great. i'm not saying that anymore.



Sharkey, Firpo, Carpentier, and yes Smiths (who took out the hall of famer Sam Langford).

Yes Tunney was one of the best of his time but he made his rep as the guy that beat Dempsey; are you talking about Tunney's wins over top guys like Gibbon who Dempsey also beat?

It seems like your beef is not with Dempsey but with the older era of Boxing.

Beat! beat ! beat! it is who you beat in your era that makes you great. i'm not saying that anymore.



Sharkey, Firpo, Carpentier, and yes Smiths (who took out the hall of famer Sam Langford).

Yes Tunney was one of the best of his time but he made his rep as the guy that beat Dempsey; are you talking about Tunney's wins over top guys like Gibbon who Dempsey also beat?

It seems like your beef is not with Dempsey but with the older era of Boxing.

no my beef is with Dempsey.

I see what you are saying.

I don't agree with you that all that matters is who you beat. How would you gage how good an opponent is.

you can say Dempsey beat the best of his era, but the best of his era each had dozens of losses under their belts. So really what you are saying is, you are just assuming they are great because everyone thought they were. All of those so called amazing fighters he beat had lost brutally at some point or another.

I wish people would stop saying I hate a certain era. Because i don't. I have favourite fighters in every era. It seems like there are these overly defensive posters who by coincidence always route for the older fighter. When the older fighter isn't picked they automatically think "young blood poster who is wrong".

You must ignore my posts about fighters that I do like, who usually fought 40 years before I was even born.

My man, Im not talking p4p, but at the particular weight they would have to fight at. Does Tarver or even Calzaghe come close to presenting the theat any of the previously mentioned fighters would?

Marciano beat Ezzard Charles twice. Anybody who knows anything of boxing history will tell you Charles was superior to Hopkins at 175 and p4p. Im not knocking Hopkins, the guy is great. But he's proven nothing to even be considered formidable to the greats that people have been trying to match him against.

Fantasy match ups are fun, but lets try to at least keep it within the realm of reality. Know what


Anybody who knows boxing would tell you that you didnt know what you were talking about. Well most people here are just as clueless are you. Ezzard Charles was a natural middleweight who stayed at middleweight for nearly 10 years. Hopkins is a natural middleweight. Ezzard Charles has become so popular over these years to make it seem like Rocky Marciano fought great fighters and even then Chales was naturally 20 pounds lighter than Marciano. Charles probably one the first fight with Marcinao and Charles was on the verge of stopping Marciano in their second fight because of Marcianos busted up nose. Charle was also done as a top level figther going 10 and 14 after he fought Marciano to prove that point.

Anyway Hopkins is a middleweight and Liston is a heavyweight so Liston wins.

As I understand it, the last time Charles made the MW limit was the second Burley fight, something like 3 years in.


Hopkins has no chance against Liston.

My man, Im not talking p4p, but at the particular weight they would have to fight at. Does Tarver or even Calzaghe come close to presenting the theat any of the previously mentioned fighters would?

Marciano beat Ezzard Charles twice. Anybody who knows anything of boxing history will tell you Charles was superior to Hopkins at 175 and p4p. Im not knocking Hopkins, the guy is great. But he's proven nothing to even be considered formidable to the greats that people have been trying to match him against.

Fantasy match ups are fun, but lets try to at least keep it within the realm of reality. Know what


Anybody who knows boxing would tell you that you didnt know what you were talking about. Well most people here are just as clueless are you. Ezzard Charles was a natural middleweight who stayed at middleweight for nearly 10 years. Hopkins is a natural middleweight. Ezzard Charles has become so popular over these years to make it seem like Rocky Marciano fought great fighters and even then Chales was naturally 20 pounds lighter than Marciano. Charles probably one the first fight with Marcinao and Charles was on the verge of stopping Marciano in their second fight because of Marcianos busted up nose. Charle was also done as a top level figther going 10 and 14 after he fought Marciano to prove that point.

Anyway Hopkins is a middleweight and Liston is a heavyweight so Liston wins.

Anybody who knows boxing and its history are seriously thinking to themselves right now how foolish and misinformed you are.

By the way.......you do know you don't have to cut and paste, right? You can just hit the reply button and the post you are repling to will be quoted. Nice one Einstien!