10 greatest title reigns [Archive]

LondonRingRules

03-18-2009, 06:18 AM

Acording to "The Ring" April 2005 issue these are the 10 greatest title reigns of all time. do you agree, disagree? Why?

The 10 Greatest Title Reigns of All-Time

1.Joe Louis
2.Bernard Hopkins
3.Abe Attell
4.Carlos Monzon
5.Henry Armstrong
6.Ricardo Lopez
7.Marvin Hagler
8.Eusebio Pedroza
9.Larry Holmes
10.Archie Moore

** Of course Ring ain't really the Ring anymore, having gone through, what, a dozen editors since Fleischer passed in 70 and a couple of bankruptcies. Is 2005 is pre Golden Boy?

Joe Louis is so much head and shoulders of the rest that the rest hardly merits disagreements. Poppy's reign was pretty dire overall with the way he won the title up to Tito, but he hardly breaks through afterwards with Hakkar and the rest of that nonsense while passing on Jones and Calzaghe. His win over Pavlik trumps anything he ever did as a middleweight as far as legacy goes.

I dismiss Holmes for worse reasons, and at any rate, Calzaghe at very least matches anything Poppy and Big Lar ever had in a single division and didn't hang around to stink up the joint like they did.

Always thought JCChavez holds the record for consecutive title wins, but he was moving through the ABC ranks so I guess he don't pass the white glove and French snifter investigation.

The Ring overranks winning streaks against weak comp. Monzon, Hagler, and Duran were bulls in their day with dramatic bouts, and of course what Archie was doing on top of his age would #2 for me.

Jim Jeffries ruled with an iron hand in seminal bouts against legends in almost every bout which is always overlooked. Tyson had the most dramatic rise, reign, and fall that has ever been seen, and how about Willie Pep? Only one loss going into 150 fights and I thought it was non title, but I'll check later.

It bears remembering that Fleischer seems to have been the first to come up with a greatest list and his original heavy list was only 6 names. After being badgered incessantly it had grown to 20 by the time of his death.

Anywhoo, for me it's Louis first, Arch second, and let the rest scrap for rankings in an elimination tournament with medieval angels dancing on pinheads as judges. Judge Roy Bean as ref and the jurisdiction an island in the middle of the Rio Grande to prevent the Feds and Los Federales from spoiling the brouhahas.

-CANE-

03-18-2009, 08:33 AM

Squabbles94806

03-18-2009, 09:41 AM

only one name comes to mind...Joe Louis

Slimey Limey

03-18-2009, 09:47 AM

Chavez should be #1 on that god damn list. He isn't even on it. I'd whipe my fookin arse with that list mate. They really screwed up with this one.

Jim Jeffries

03-18-2009, 09:51 AM

JAB5239

03-18-2009, 11:37 AM

Chavez should be #1 on that god damn list. He isn't even on it. I'd whipe my fookin arse with that list mate. They really screwed up with this one.

Chavez has a claim to this list, but no way should he be rated above Louis. His 13 defenes at 140 is pretty good, but it should have only been 11, as Pernell Whitaker was robbed in their fight. I would rate his 9 defenses at 130 slightly higher, as it came against better fighters in my opinion.

JAB5239

03-18-2009, 11:42 AM

Maybe THE RING writers were overwhelmed when Hopkins surged ahead Hagler and Monzon in terms of title defenses at 160. Dela Hoya and Trinidad were huge fights financially but it isnt really any better than Monzon beating Napoles. ODLH was from 130 for crying out loud! His win over Glenn Johnson remains in my book as his best win in this weight.[/QUOTE]

I've always rated Tito as his biggest win at 160. Trinidad was coming of destructions of Reid, Vargas and Joppy as well as being the favorite going into the Hopkins fight and Nard took him to school. Very impressive performance in my opinion.

[QUOTE]Really, Finito should be up right there behind Louis if this was a contest of being the highest number of title defenses regardless of quality of opposition with 21 and Khaosai Galaxy with 19... Definitely higher than Hopkins.

agreed.

And oh yes Finito and Galaxy were undefeated in their title reigns while Hopkins got beaten by RJJ and Taylor back to back. Hagler and Monzon were not beaten back to back by the same fighter in their reigns am I correct?I believe you are my friend.

JAB5239

03-18-2009, 11:54 AM

Great Thread.

I haven't made a list but will do in the near future.

Just a couple of names that would need consideration, not saying they should be definates but worth considering all the same. Myung Woo Yuh, Kaosai Galaxy and Joe Calzaghe.

I certainly wouldn't have Hopkins that high.

I wouldn't have Hopkins that high either.

Can't say I know enough about most Asian fighters and their competition to objectively say where they may or may not belong on this type of list.

I wouldn't put Calzaghe in the top 10, though his run as a champ is impressive because of its longevity. Problem is, he didn't start making the toughest fights till the end of his career and those came against a guy who legacy has still to yet be defined (Kessler) and man more than 40 years old (Hopkins). Still, he had a good run though.

poet682006

03-18-2009, 12:57 PM

I wouldn't have Hopkins that high either.

Can't say I know enough about most Asian fighters and their competition to objectively say where they may or may not belong on this type of list.

I wouldn't put Calzaghe in the top 10, though his run as a champ is impressive because of its longevity. Problem is, he didn't start making the toughest fights till the end of his career and those came against a guy who legacy has still to yet be defined (Kessler) and man more than 40 years old (Hopkins). Still, he had a good run though.

I think that clearly Joe Louis' reign is head and shoulders above anyone else's. Not sure why they'd score Hopkins' that high. Bernard's been one of my favorites over the past 10-15 years but I never thought his reign was really comparable to say Hagler's. The Middleweight division just wasn't that deep during Hopkins' stay at the top.

Poet

wmute

03-18-2009, 01:02 PM

i know why... hopkins was ranked high bcoz GBP owns THE*RING...

I am afraid you are right. Seems like everyone agrees with us.

It's disgusting.

THE REED™

03-18-2009, 01:04 PM

No diss to hopkins... but how many elite middleweights did bernard really beat?

poet682006

03-18-2009, 01:07 PM

Chavez should be #1 on that god damn list. He isn't even on it. I'd whipe my fookin arse with that list mate. They really screwed up with this one.

Please. The dude's record has more padding than the Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man.

Poet

-CANE-

03-18-2009, 03:10 PM

I wouldn't have Hopkins that high either.

Can't say I know enough about most Asian fighters and their competition to objectively say where they may or may not belong on this type of list.

I wouldn't put Calzaghe in the top 10, though his run as a champ is impressive because of its longevity. Problem is, he didn't start making the toughest fights till the end of his career and those came against a guy who legacy has still to yet be defined (Kessler) and man more than 40 years old (Hopkins). Still, he had a good run though.

I'm not sure if I'd put Calzaghe in or not. Not until I've looked at everyones defenses but he certainly needs to be thought about.

I see what your saying about Calzaghe but the same could be said of many others with multiple title defenses.

I mean look at Joe Louis, 25 title defenses but how many were HOF'ers and great heavyweights, many criticized his opponents and called them bum of the month. (I'm not slagging J.Louis off as he is one of my favourite fighters and I'd probably have him at no.1 I'm just trying to show you that the same could be said of anyone as what your saying about Calzaghe)

When I get some time I'm really gonna try and come up with a list and also my reasons for the placings.

JAB5239

03-18-2009, 03:35 PM

I'm not sure if I'd put Calzaghe in or not. Not until I've looked at everyones defenses but he certainly needs to be thought about.

I see what your saying about Calzaghe but the same could be said of many others with multiple title defenses.

I mean look at Joe Louis, 25 title defenses but how many were HOF'ers and great heavyweights, many criticized his opponents and called them bum of the month. (I'm not slagging J.Louis off as he is one of my favourite fighters and I'd probably have him at no.1 I'm just trying to show you that the same could be said of anyone as what your saying about Calzaghe)

Louis fought like 14 HOF'ers and beat the best of the best during his time.

When I get some time I'm really gonna try and come up with a list and also my reasons for the placings.

Its gonna be tough duty making that list, but I will look forward to it as I do all your posts.

Steak

03-18-2009, 04:15 PM

Chavez has a claim to this list, but no way should he be rated above Louis. His 13 defenes at 140 is pretty good, but it should have only been 11, as Pernell Whitaker was robbed in their fight. I would rate his 9 defenses at 130 slightly higher, as it came against better fighters in my opinion.
The Whitaker fight was at 147lbs anyway, so it wouldnt have made a difference when it came to his 140 reign.

Its pretty hard to make this kind of a list,because most fighters end up changing weight classes or losing at least once during their reign.

Slimey Limey

03-18-2009, 05:11 PM

Please. The dude's record has more padding than the Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man.

Poet

Joe Louis - Bum of the month club. That's padding for ya mate.

poet682006

03-18-2009, 05:30 PM

Joe Louis - Bum of the month club. That's padding for ya mate.

You might want to go over to BoxRec and actually LOOK at who the "Bum Of The Month Club" contained. Those so-called bums were a who's who of the 1940s Heavyweight division.

PS. "Padding" is taking on an endless series of local "toughs" in Mexican bars which is what Chavez did.

Poet

JAB5239

03-18-2009, 05:38 PM

You might want to go over to BoxRec and actually LOOK at who the "Bum Of The Month Club" contained. Those so-called bums were a who's who of the 1940s Heavyweight division.

Poet

Very true. From 1934 till 1951 Louis was taking on contenders, former champs and top contenders for his title. They were only the "bum of the month club" because of the way Louis dominated them. Without Joe in the Picture the would have never been called that.

Hook

03-18-2009, 05:56 PM

I wouldn't put Calzaghe in the top 10, though his run as a champ is impressive because of its longevity. Problem is, he didn't start making the toughest fights till the end of his career and those came against a guy who legacy has still to yet be defined (Kessler) and man more than 40 years old (Hopkins). Still, he had a good run though.

The Hopkins fight wasn't for his WBO title at SM so not really part of the reign. So basically that leaves a win against Kessler - it's hardly the stuff of legends. Even Ottkes reign is more impressive - he was the recognised SMW champ by Ring and has better names in the likes of Johnson. Until Ottke retired Calzaghe was not even the recoginsed champ - how is that a great title reigh. Ottke also fought the guys Calzaghe beat, before him. Calzaghe picked up the scraps.

Also the WBO was seen as worthless and a bit of a joke back in the 90s and more or less a euro belt.

warp1432

03-18-2009, 06:04 PM

I wouldn't have Hopkins as high as two, but I think he belongs in the top 10. He may have not had a loaded division, but he had a lot of solid names on there and a couple of great fighters. I'd rank Hagler and Monzon above him, but I think he deserves a shout out.

-CANE-

03-19-2009, 05:09 PM

Joe Louis may have beaten the best of his era and fought 14 HOF'ers.

But he never beat 14 HOF'ers in his title defenses which is what we are talking about.

How great were these fighters that he beat in his reign.

I say his best wins were Schmeling and Walcott twice.

Joe Louis was a great great fighter and his reign is exceptional in terms of longevity but I don't think its as great as you and others make out in terms of quality of opposition.

Sure there were some good fighters and the odd very good fighter but not great.

Take Salvador Sanchez for instance. Now his title reign included some great fighters and who knows how long he could have reigned for but for that tragic accident.

Danny Lopez twice, Juan LaPorte, Ruben Castillo, Wilfredo Gomez and Azumah Nelson.

Slimey Limey

03-19-2009, 06:05 PM

You might want to go over to BoxRec and actually LOOK at who the "Bum Of The Month Club" contained. Those so-called bums were a who's who of the 1940s Heavyweight division.

PS. "Padding" is taking on an endless series of local "toughs" in Mexican bars which is what Chavez did.

Poet

Very true. From 1934 till 1951 Louis was taking on contenders, former champs and top contenders for his title. They were only the "bum of the month club" because of the way Louis dominated them. Without Joe in the Picture the would have never been called that.

They were called this for a reason. Plus I see a large amount of hypocrisy since you're the same type of lad who critisizes Tyson and Lewis' opposition, and don't acknowledge the same argument people use("They were made to look like bums" etc)
Unless you can elaborate on how every opponent he beat in his title reign was decent or great, it's still a padded title reign and was rightfully called Bum of the month club.
Also Jabs, mate. WIthout Louis these fighters would have been forgotten, except for Walcott, Charles, Marciano, Conn. All of these beat or almost beat Joe.

poet682006

03-19-2009, 06:13 PM

They were called this for a reason. Plus I see a large amount of hypocrisy since you're the same type of lad who critisizes Tyson and Lewis' opposition, and don't acknowledge the same argument people use("They were made to look like bums" etc)
Unless you can elaborate on how every opponent he beat in his title reign was decent or great, it's still a padded title reign and was rightfully called Bum of the month club.
Also Jabs, mate. WIthout Louis these fighters would have been forgotten, except for Walcott, Charles, Marciano, Conn. All of these beat or almost beat Joe.

Horse****. Compared to the guys Louis was fighting Tyson's opposition looks like the fvckin' Mickey Mouse Club. Come to think of it compared to damn near ANY Heavyweight titlist's opposition it looks like the fvckin' Mickey Mouse Club. Tyson won his first title from Trevor Fvcking Berbick: Damn near the worst Heavyweight to ever hold a belt.

Just because you personally have never heard of any of the guys on Louis' record doesn't mean they weren't any good. I get the distinct feeling you would be hard pressed to name ANY Heavyweight contender prior to 1980. Historical knowledge of boxing seems to be rather scanty these days especially among the younger crowd.

Poet

Slimey Limey

03-19-2009, 06:21 PM

Horse****. Compared to the guys Louis was fighting Tyson's opposition looks like the fvckin' Mickey Mouse Club. Come to think of it compared to damn near ANY Heavyweight titlist's opposition it looks like the fvckin' Mickey Mouse Club. Tyson won his first title from Trevor Fvcking Berbick: Damn near the worst Heavyweight to ever hold a belt.

Just because you personally have never heard of any of the guys on Louis' record doesn't mean they weren't any good. I get the distinct feeling you would be hard pressed to name ANY Heavyweight contender prior to 1980. Historical knowledge of boxing seems to be rather scanty these days especially among the younger crowd.

Poet

I'll be waiting for you to elaborate on Louis' opposition, unless of cource if the only thing you can say is "others are like mickey mouse club(what the fook is that mate?) compared to Joe". Bum of the month club mate, unless you can explain me otherwise.

Steak

03-19-2009, 06:38 PM

Just for the record, I think Louis's opposition is far superior to Tyson's...the guy beat a ton of good fighters and a handful of future or former lineal champs, which is a hell of a lot better than beating some alphabet belt holder...but to pretend that everyone in the division was great is pushing it.

youre trying to tell me that someone like Tony Galento was better than most of Tyson's title defences? give me a break.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i2DWswsfpmI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i2DWswsfpmI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

and Chavez fought a top ten fighter in the majority of his title defences, enough with talking about a 'padded record'

poet682006

03-19-2009, 07:00 PM

I'll be waiting for you to elaborate on Louis' opposition, unless of cource if the only thing you can say is "others are like mickey mouse club(what the fook is that mate?) compared to Joe". Bum of the month club mate, unless you can explain me otherwise.

The so-called "Bum Of The Month Club" officially refers those fighters Louis fought between December of 1940 and March of 1941. They are:

1940-12-16 Al McCoy
1941-01-31 Red Burman
1941-02-17 Gus Dorazio
1941-03-21 Abe Simon
1941-04-08 Tony Musto
1941-05-23 Buddy Baer
1941-06-18 Billy Conn

Al McCoy - 115 career wins including wins over Tommy Loughran and Nathan Mann.

Red Burman - 76 career wins including a win over Tommy Farr.

Gus Dorazio - 73 career wins including a win over Bob Pastor.

Abe Simon - Outweighed Louis by 50 pounds and had a win over Jersey Joe Walcott.

Tony Musto - The only true bum of the bunch.

Buddy Baer - Outweighed Louis by 35 pounds, 52 career wins including wins over Lee Savold, Nathan Mann, and Tony Galento.

Billy Conn - Light-Heavyweight Champion, 64 career wins including wins over Fritzie Zivic, Vince Dundee, Teddy Yarosz, Fred Apostoli, Gus Lesnevich, Melio Bettina, Bob Pastor, Lee Savold, and Tony Zale.

Poet

JAB5239

03-19-2009, 07:04 PM

JAB5239

03-19-2009, 07:05 PM

JAB5239

03-19-2009, 07:17 PM

poet682006

03-19-2009, 07:19 PM

Somebody just got owned! Nice work Poet.

Thanks! Of Louis' 65 career wins he has victories over:

King Levinsky
Max Baer
Paulino Uzcudun
Charley Rezlaff
Jack Sharkey
Al Ettore
Bob Pastor twice
James Braddock
Tommy Farr
Nathan Mann
Max Schmeling
John Henry Lewis
Tony Galento
Arturo Godoy twice
Johnny Paychek
Buddy Baer twice
Lou Nova
Billy Conn twice
Tami Mauriello
Jersey Joe Walcott twice
Cesar Brion twice
Lee Savold
Jimmy Bivins

That's 29 wins over name opponents. If someone is NOT familier with these fighters it doesn't say anything about their quality as fighters but speaks VOLUMES about the ignorance of people who couldn't be arsed to inform themselves about fighters who were active before they themselves discovered the sport.

Poet

poet682006

03-19-2009, 07:23 PM

Just for the record, I think Louis's opposition is far superior to Tyson's...the guy beat a ton of good fighters and a handful of future or former lineal champs, which is a hell of a lot better than beating some alphabet belt holder...but to pretend that everyone in the division was great is pushing it.

youre trying to tell me that someone like Tony Galento was better than most of Tyson's title defences? give me a break.

and Chavez fought a top ten fighter in the majority of his title defences, enough with talking about a 'padded record'

Tony Galento was certainly no worse than Donovan Ruddock. Both were limited fighters, both were dangerous punchers. Galento was certainly better than Trevor Berbick, Tyrell Biggs, and Carl Williams.

Poet

JAB5239

03-19-2009, 07:33 PM

[QUOTE=blackirish137;4928287]The Whitaker fight was at 147lbs anyway, so it wouldnt have made a difference when it came to his 140 reign.

Sorry my man I thought I acknowledged this yesterday. Thank you for the correction.

Boogie Nights

03-19-2009, 07:36 PM

Come to think of it compared to damn near ANY Heavyweight titlist's opposition it looks like the fvckin' Mickey Mouse Club. http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/5529/0/STFU_and_GTFO.ashx

what a sorry little man you are. But coming from a guy who never gave Tyson a single good compliment other than the one on his knowledge of boxing, i wouldnt expect anything more from you.

I rank Louis #2 on my list after Ali, but however you wanna twist it and whatever names you bring into equation listing their best wins and what not, Louis did fight cans. Louis resume is better than Tysons', but the hilite here is the number of title defenses, a record which would be hard to beat.

Please dont make it look like Louis opponents were untouchable world beaters, Tyson would go through 80% of them with relative ease. The hate you're spreading is really not needed, along with your homosexual jokes in every other post you make.

Boogie Nights

03-19-2009, 07:39 PM

Tony Galento was certainly no worse than Donovan Ruddock. Both were limited fighters, both were dangerous punchers. Galento was certainly better than Trevor Berbick, Tyrell Biggs, and Carl Williams.

Poethttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PtTKwwh_xBc/SKpS1Le_sFI/AAAAAAAAEFo/qZwI76FRDG0/s400/stupidity2zl2.jpg

poet682006

03-19-2009, 07:46 PM

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/5529/0/STFU_and_GTFO.ashx

what a sorry little man you are. But coming from a guy who never gave Tyson a single good compliment other than the one on his knowledge of boxing, i wouldnt expect anything more from you.

I rank Louis #2 on my list after Ali, but however you wanna twist it and whatever names you bring into equation listing their best wins and what not, Louis did fight cans. Louis resume is better than Tysons', but the hilite here is the number of title defenses, a record which would be hard to beat.

Please dont make it look like Louis opponents were untouchable world beaters, Tyson would go through 80% of them with relative ease. The hate you're spreading is really not needed, along with your homosexual jokes in every other post you make.

Prehaps you should change your name to "Boogie Nimrod" since you have little knowledge of boxing but plenty about bath houses. Tyson would go through 80% of Louis' opponents with relative ease? Maybe so, but since Louis would go through 100% of Tyson's opponents with relative ease that isn't saying much. Prehaps you need to get your head out of your ass Junior and actually learn something about the subject before you try fencing with me. Until then consider yourself the latest addition to my ignore list: Now go whinge to BPP about that!

Poet

Steak

03-19-2009, 07:51 PM

Tony Galento was certainly no worse than Donovan Ruddock. Both were limited fighters, both were dangerous punchers. Galento was certainly better than Trevor Berbick, Tyrell Biggs, and Carl Williams.

Poet
If you say so. I simply dont see it. and not just cause hes a chubby guy. he telegraphs his punches badly, leaves his hands low in exchanges, and often leaves his head sticking straight up when he comes in. I mean, look at 2:17. thats just about some of the worst use of head movement youll ever see.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i2DWswsfpmI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i2DWswsfpmI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I dont think he compares to these guys.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/os9QQ18MTMQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/os9QQ18MTMQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rNo8nXD3xoc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rNo8nXD3xoc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

but I will give Galento one thing. He was wonderful at fouling.

poet682006

03-19-2009, 08:05 PM

If you say so. I simply dont see it. and not just cause hes a chubby guy. he telegraphs his punches badly, leaves his hands low in exchanges, and often leaves his head sticking straight up when he comes in. I mean, look at 2:17. thats just about some of the worst use of head movement youll ever see.

I dont think he compares to these guys.

but I will give Galento one thing. He was wonderful at fouling.

Ruddock telegraphed his "smash" regularly: It's one of the reason's Tyson was able to time it so well. In any case Ruddock was a one trick pony: Once you took away his "smash" he was out of weapons. Galento, at least, could hurt you with either hand. He typically carries his left low (the better to telagraph his "smash"). Ruddock's head-movement? Negligable to non-existent. The man was a straight up and down fighter who difficulty spelling defense (ask Lennox how hard it was to get to Razor's chin).

PS. Despite those short-comings Ruddock was undoubtably a dangerous opponent for anyone: Probably the best opponent Tyson fought pre-prison and in my opinion those two fights were Tyson's most impressive wins.

Poet

Boogie Nights

03-19-2009, 08:14 PM

Prehaps you should change your name to "Boogie Nimrod" since you have little knowledge of boxing but plenty about bath houses. Tyson would go through 80% of Louis' opponents with relative ease? Maybe so, but since Louis would go through 100% of Tyson's opponents with relative ease that isn't saying much. Prehaps you need to get your head out of your ass Junior and actually learn something about the subject before you try fencing with me. Until then consider yourself the latest addition to my ignore list: Now go whinge to BPP about that!

Poetwhat i was saying was that Tyson would steamroll through about 80% of them with relative ease the other 20% would present difficulty. Walcott is the only guy on Louis' resume imo who's got a fair chance of defeating tyson.

Louis was staggered numerous times and looked to be out on his feet against a guy smaller than him and couldnt punch. There about 5 guys on tyson's resume who were legit punchers, whose power alone would keep them in the fight against Louis, with possibility of Louis getting caught and being hurt.

I dont need to be fencing with you, quite honestly you have a high opinion of yourself, and you need to get off the high horse buddy.

Thunder Lips

03-19-2009, 08:29 PM

"Galento's fight with Max Baer ended when the referee stopped the bout in the eighth round. On the day of the Baer fight, Galento decided to first stop off at his bar. There he had a big bowl of spaghetti, with meat balls, washed down with half a case of beer. After his meal, Galento became embroiled in an argument with his brother. The dispute ended when his brother threw his beer glass in Galento's face, severely cutting his lip. Galento was forced to get the cut stitched up, hours before the fight. Baer re-opened the cut in the first round, forcing Galento to swallow blood for the remainder of the fight. After the fight, Galento blamed his inability to "hook him around the head and butt him" for the loss."

Galento didn't really take boxing seriously but he was incredibly dirty, durable, and had a great hook. He actually showed up for the Louis fight and made a game effort of it. Louis was actually the first and only fighter to score a knockdown against him, one of the all time great chins. He was kind of like a fatter, lazier version of David Tua who showed up even less.

Steak

03-19-2009, 09:09 PM

Thunder Lips

03-19-2009, 09:24 PM

and he also didnt seem to have any skill at all.
sorry, but he looks wide open, slow, and easy to predict. the fact that he didnt take boxing seriously isnt anything that holds me in higher esteem, either.

I dont see him beating Ruddock or Carl Williams, unless the ref allows him to thumb, hit low and headbutt constantly.

Well, he was a really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less. At his best like in the Louis fight, he fought out of a low crouch and looked for lefts over the top. I wouldn't say he had no skills at all, however he was certainly limited; but still very dangerous. He could stand up to the best punchers, and he'd take a punch to land his hook which was a threat to anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPnb8eDNj30

Galento vs. Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKDvkcLe0K0&feature=related

Tua vs. Ruiz

poet682006

03-19-2009, 09:45 PM

Well, he was a really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less. I wouldn't say he had no skills at all, however he was certainly limited; but still very dangerous. He could stand up to the best punchers, and he'd take a punch to land his hook which was a threat to anyone.

Which was exactly my point about Ruddock: A really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less.

I think what we may have here is a generational divide. All to often I cross swords with younger posters who glance at a fight from the 1940s and say "no skills, no defense, wide open, carries his hands wrong, ect ect ect". What they fail to recognize is the same argument can be made of many of the top fighters from the last 20 years as well. Think David Tua.

Poet

Steak

03-19-2009, 10:33 PM

the difference is that David Tua actually showed defense, his head movement wasnt amazing but it was there. He could parry alright, and knew how to cover the body up well. I mean, you can see him slipping punches right away, and using one of his hands to protect the exposed side of his face while hes moving his head.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/01CCklta81g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/01CCklta81g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

when I watch Galento, I see next to no defense at all. the guy walks in with his hands down and no head movement, and leaves his chin sticking straight up.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i2DWswsfpmI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i2DWswsfpmI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

what we call crude brawlers are actually very skilled guys, but their ability is masked because theyre in there with guys who are much more skilled than them in the first place. its harder to notice their skill level because of this...but its still there if you pay attention to the little things they do. when I closely analyze Galento, I dont see any of that usually 'hidden' skill at all. I see a tough guy, with a good chin and a good punch, hoping to draw his opponent in and land one lucky punch, and otherwise just foul his way to victory.
and that doesnt get you far at all. Galento would not have beaten Tua, Ruddock, or Carl Williams.

and sorry for posting the same video about 3 times, I just prefer to analyze videos side by side.

Thunder Lips

03-19-2009, 10:40 PM

Which was exactly my point about Ruddock: A really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less.

I think what we may have here is a generational divide. All to often I cross swords with younger posters who glance at a fight from the 1940s and say "no skills, no defense, wide open, carries his hands wrong, ect ect ect". What they fail to recognize is the same argument can be made of many of the top fighters from the last 20 years as well. Think David Tua.

Poet

There is certainly a pattern of "observations" like that. I must say they are cookie cutter and without substance most of the time.

Yeah, Ruddock had a nice money punch but he was hardly a complete fighter or even that durable beyond those Tyson fights(who despite showing toughness was a real mess at that point.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/995000/images/_995011_razor_ruddock_300.jpg

http://www.maxboxing.com/media/tommymorrison_home.jpg

Thunder Lips

03-19-2009, 10:46 PM

BlackIrish:

Sorry, I really have nothing to add if your just going to point to the same Baer highlights over and over again; despite knowing the story behind it. I post a link to the Joe Louis video where Galento is showing very solid defense for a brawler that isn't unlike the stance, attacks, and movements of Tua in the early going but you ignore it. What can I say?

Clearly, Tua was a better overall fighter as I mentioned. Galento was lazier than he could ever dream of being and yes, much more willing to take punishment to dish it out.

Steak

03-19-2009, 11:04 PM

Boogie Nights

03-19-2009, 11:30 PM

of course guys like Thunder Lips and Poet will go out of their way to defend their opinion and make something little and meaningless into something more than it really is or was.

The seriousness of that is what makes it so childish and that more serious. Im talking about my concern for another fellow poster's limited mental capacity.

In reality the only sole reason why galento(is that what his name is?) is mentioned today, much less remembered, is because he put Louis on the mat. That's it, his precious little seconds of fame that Louis spent on the canvas. But because it was the very GREAT Joe Louis (booooohooooo) and Galento managed to give trouble to the very GREAT Joe Louis, everyone can get down on their knees and get their lips wet. There's not a doubt in my mind that had Joe blown Galento out of their in the first (like he should have done) these mindless ****wits wouldnt even open their yaps about this chubby beer can.

Of course since it was the very GREAT Joe Louis no one can criticise anything, because it's just too offensive to say anything that would remotely cause discomfort to the fans of the very GREAT Joe Louis.

i forgot we were kneeling in front of a Pope here, sorry guys, ill make a note on that next time.

Al McCoy - 115 career wins including wins over Tommy Loughran and Nathan Mann.

Red Burman - 76 career wins including a win over Tommy Farr.

Gus Dorazio - 73 career wins including a win over Bob Pastor.

Abe Simon - Outweighed Louis by 50 pounds and had a win over Jersey Joe Walcott.

Tony Musto - The only true bum of the bunch.

Buddy Baer - Outweighed Louis by 35 pounds, 52 career wins including wins over Lee Savold, Nathan Mann, and Tony Galento.

Billy Conn - Light-Heavyweight Champion, 64 career wins including wins over Fritzie Zivic, Vince Dundee, Teddy Yarosz, Fred Apostoli, Gus Lesnevich, Melio Bettina, Bob Pastor, Lee Savold, and Tony Zale.

Poetsexy list :cool2:that all? i cant believe it WOWOWOW

Just as easily as you went on to compliment those guys, i can pick apart that list in 2 minutes flat, but why the **** would i waste 120 seconds of my life on someone like you.

warp1432

03-19-2009, 11:38 PM

JAB5239

03-20-2009, 12:54 AM

Off topic, Billy Conn has a really good resume. His fight with Louis is one of my favorites. I can't stand watching Louis most of the time, but man that fight was awesome. Wish there was more footage of him.

Wow, there is no other fighter I enjoy watching more. His speed, precision and power are a thing of beauty.

them_apples

03-20-2009, 01:08 AM

I wouldn't put Hopkins that high ether, and I'm a huge Hopkins fan. I for sure put him on the list but not at no.2

his competition was average, his longevity good. maybe no.5

them_apples

03-20-2009, 01:13 AM

Well, he was a really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less. At his best like in the Louis fight, he fought out of a low crouch and looked for lefts over the top. I wouldn't say he had no skills at all, however he was certainly limited; but still very dangerous. He could stand up to the best punchers, and he'd take a punch to land his hook which was a threat to anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPnb8eDNj30

Galento vs. Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKDvkcLe0K0&feature=related

Tua vs. Ruiz

the guy has a middleweight frame and put on a lot of weight due to poor dieting, and fought at heavyweight. Look at the weight he comes in at the beginning of his career (and he was still overweight even then).

not saying size matters (since you hate that) just thought I'd point it out.

TheGreatA

03-20-2009, 04:23 AM

you mean this fight?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KPnb8eDNj30&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KPnb8eDNj30&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ill give you that Galento looks better, but he still has the obvious problems Ive stated above.

He aint garbage, but hes not as good as the guys Ive said before. not a chance.

I don't think Galento was that great and in fact the people around his time including Joe Louis didn't think too much of him either (atleast until Louis found himself on the canvas). He was thought to be an overweight brawler although he did have a win over the very good Lou Nova but that fight should rightfully go down as one of most disgraceful displays of "boxing" in history.

I do think he was entertaining, tough and could punch. He could also foul people as well as anybody which he probably wouldn't get away with today.

The Max Baer fight is not the best example of what Galento could or could not do since he was way overweight even by his standards at 245 lbs which made him almost immobile. Against Lou Nova he weighed in at a "trim" 225 lbs.

I wouldn't call Galento a natural middleweight. He wasn't in perfect shape by any means but he had a stocky build with almost no neck:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_666l0598_gI/SJdppsyD9qI/AAAAAAAAALg/0sa6mhR6uhI/s320/Tony_Galento.jpg

-CANE-

03-20-2009, 08:35 AM

He beat the best there were to beat during his era. It wasn't Ali's era, no. But it wasn't nearly as bad as "the bum of the month club" tag makes it sound either.

Totally agree and there were worse reigns and eras, the fact he reigned for so long is very impressive. It's easy to not be at your best and 100% focused when you feel you are fighting someone not your equal.

I feel Lennox Lewis should of gone undefeated in his career, those defeats were down to lack of focus and not the glass chin everyone suggests. He gets much credit for avenging both defeats though and wiping out the entire division. And that's why Louis should get a lot credit as he always found a way to win even when not fully focused and at his best. But I think overall Lewis fought a better level of opposition than Louis. Just my opinion, it's not ignorance on my behalf.

Poet knows full well I know my fighters and my history and while I totally respect and admire Joe Louis, through no fault of his own it wasn't the strongest of eras for the heavyweights.

poet682006

03-20-2009, 09:20 AM

Poet knows full well I know my fighters and my history and while I totally respect and admire Joe Louis, through no fault of his own it wasn't the strongest of eras for the heavyweights.

Certainly no argument there. It wasn't on par with the 1970s or 1990s which I think are the two strongest eras for the Heavyweights. My point is that people hear "Bum Of The Month Club" and actually assume they were really bums without investigating the truth. Too many posters especially younger ones assume that if they've never heard of a fighter then they must not have been any good. That wipes out 99% of pre-1980 fighters since most of the younger posters weren't even born until after 1980 and they are almost uniformly ignorant of boxing history since they couldn't be arsed to do any research on the fighters they are so glibbly dismissing (no, a 20 second clip on You Tube does NOT constitute "research").

Poet

-CANE-

03-20-2009, 03:50 PM

Certainly no argument there. It wasn't on par with the 1970s or 1990s which I think are the two strongest eras for the Heavyweights. My point is that people hear "Bum Of The Month Club" and actually assume they were really bums without investigating the truth. Too many posters especially younger ones assume that if they've never heard of a fighter then they must not have been any good. That wipes out 99% of pre-1980 fighters since most of the younger posters weren't even born until after 1980 and they are almost uniformly ignorant of boxing history since they couldn't be arsed to do any research on the fighters they are so glibbly dismissing (no, a 20 second clip on You Tube does NOT constitute "research").

Poet

Totally agree with that Poet. 70's then the 90's are the two strongest eras for the heavyweights.

40's wasn't as strong as these but it was by no means as bad as the 80's and now.

warp1432

03-20-2009, 04:45 PM

Wow, there is no other fighter I enjoy watching more. His speed, precision and power are a thing of beauty.

His footspeed is pretty slow, but his combinations and power are good, but overall I don't enjoy his style. Walcott-Louis II was probably one of the worst fights I've seen besides the KO.

them_apples

03-20-2009, 05:24 PM

andrewcuff

03-20-2009, 05:38 PM

Slimey Limey

03-20-2009, 05:53 PM

The so-called "Bum Of The Month Club" officially refers those fighters Louis fought between December of 1940 and March of 1941. They are:

1940-12-16 Al McCoy
1941-01-31 Red Burman
1941-02-17 Gus Dorazio
1941-03-21 Abe Simon
1941-04-08 Tony Musto
1941-05-23 Buddy Baer
1941-06-18 Billy Conn

Al McCoy - 115 career wins including wins over Tommy Loughran and Nathan Mann.

Red Burman - 76 career wins including a win over Tommy Farr.

Gus Dorazio - 73 career wins including a win over Bob Pastor.

Abe Simon - Outweighed Louis by 50 pounds and had a win over Jersey Joe Walcott.

Tony Musto - The only true bum of the bunch.

Buddy Baer - Outweighed Louis by 35 pounds, 52 career wins including wins over Lee Savold, Nathan Mann, and Tony Galento.

Billy Conn - Light-Heavyweight Champion, 64 career wins including wins over Fritzie Zivic, Vince Dundee, Teddy Yarosz, Fred Apostoli, Gus Lesnevich, Melio Bettina, Bob Pastor, Lee Savold, and Tony Zale.

Poet

Sorry mate but it's very very sad if that's all it is. You can't actually believe your own words if you believe this is the greatest title reign ever. That's a fookin bum of the month club alright.

Only Conn was great but he wasn't even a true heavyweight. And lets not forget, he almost had Joe(just like a few other fighters almost beat Joe). A few OK names like Simon and Bear, but that's it.

Again with the hypocrisy mate. You're doing a Boxrec here, and you're only mentioning their wins and not their losses, which I know they have a ****load of.

Somebody just got owned! Nice work Poet.

When you're done with Poet's cornhole maybe you can start actually answering my posts instead of ducking me as usual mate.

Please, why don't you tell me about MY stance on Tyson and Lewis since you think you know it?

Bottomline is tht there have been worse eras than Louis in every weight class including heavy, and nobody has made 25 defenses EXCEPT Louis. That is greatness, my friend.

I already did.

And name me which eras were worse than that of Louis', and which fighters wouldn't have had so many defences with a bum of the month club. The real Bottom line is that Tysons title reign(Tucker, Williams, Spinks, Thomas, Holmes, Tubbs, Biggs, Bruno) and Lewis (Tua, Tyson, Grant, Holyfield, Briggs, Golota) were much better. Ali's too.

-CANE-

03-20-2009, 06:05 PM

Sorry mate but it's very very sad if that's all it is. You can't actually believe your own words if you believe this is the greatest title reign ever. That's a fookin bum of the month club alright.

Only Conn was great but he wasn't even a true heavyweight. And lets not forget, he almost had Joe(just like a few other fighters almost beat Joe). A few OK names like Simon and Bear, but that's it.

Again with the hypocrisy mate. You're doing a Boxrec here, and you're only mentioning their wins and not their losses, which I know they have a ****load of.

When you're done with Poet's cornhole maybe you can start actually answering my posts instead of ducking me as usual mate.

I already did.

And name me which eras were worse than that of Louis', and which fighters wouldn't have had so many defences with a bum of the month club. The real Bottom line is that Tysons title reign(Tucker, Williams, Spinks, Thomas, Holmes, Tubbs, Biggs, Bruno) and Lewis (Tua, Tyson, Grant, Holyfield, Briggs, Golota) were much better. Ali's too.

Look Louis' era was by no means the worst, but it wasn't great either.

I think its pretty obvious that the 70's was the greatest era, only the 90's comes close to that IMO. But I do think and this is only my opinion that it has never been worse than it is now, also the 80's was ****, but could of been much better. With the exception of Tyson and Holmes they were all fat and lazy. Shame because Tubbs,Dokes and Witherspoon wasted their talent and Bruno trained the wrong way he could also of been a lot better.

Thunder Lips

03-20-2009, 06:26 PM

Ill give you that Galento looks better, but he still has the obvious problems Ive stated above.

He aint garbage, but hes not as good as the guys Ive said before. not a chance.

That is fair. But Carl Williams and Ruddock had their defensive lapses as well.

Ruddock was hurt and knocked down multiple times throughout his career, even in his biggest win against Bonecrusher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiZ6vx0L9H8

Ruddock exposing himself to Lewis' right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07E4ps4mkXw&feature=related

A wreckless Ruddock leaves himself open for Morrison's left on the inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3m7tXD-IuA&feature=related

A fresh Tyson frequently landing on Ruddock in their second fight. Ruddock, often caught standing upright with his hands down or in a lazy half assed guard.

Williams was even more knockdown prone than Ruddock, often rising off the canvas in even his better performances against fighters like Cooper and Ferguson.

They were all flawed but dangerous sluggers at their best. Galento was easily the most durable and sturdy of the three but ultimately the less successful since he really didn't take his career very seriously outside of his big upset over the well regarded favorite Nathan Mann and shocking outing against Louis.

poet682006

03-20-2009, 06:52 PM

Louis' run at HW is probably the best.

his competition was average though, not great like some people are saying.

It was better than Rocky's era but not as good as Ali's.

I'm also going to point out that Abe Simon looks like a comical giant in robin hood and probably would have been knocked out by any half decent heavyweight.

Tony Galento is also an overrated bum, leaving his face open and being 70 lbs overweight doesn't classify him as a legit HW champion.

all in all, Louis rightfully deserves to be at the top of this list, he is the epitome of a boxing champion.

My point wasn't that Louis' resume was littered with ATGs but rather that it wasn't made up of so-called "bums" that certain posters are making out.

Sorry mate but it's very very sad if that's all it is. You can't actually believe your own words if you believe this is the greatest title reign ever. That's a fookin bum of the month club alright.

Only Conn was great but he wasn't even a true heavyweight. And lets not forget, he almost had Joe(just like a few other fighters almost beat Joe). A few OK names like Simon and Bear, but that's it.

Again with the hypocrisy mate. You're doing a Boxrec here, and you're only mentioning their wins and not their losses, which I know they have a ****load of.

BoxRec is a useful tool for those who actually know what they're looking at. Sadly, it seems you've closed your mind to quality of any fighter prior to the color TV era. There isn't a whole lot I or anyone else can say that is likely to penatrate your willful ignorance toward boxing prior to your own lifetime.

I would hazzard to say that you have an agenda: That is, to make Mike Tyson's mediocre resume look better than it was by desparaging the records of others. People who actually KNOW boxing are not going to be fooled: They know the 1980s were probably the weakest era for Heavyweights on record with the possible exception of that which we are currently in. No amount of rhetorical agitprop is going to make the likes of Trevor Berbick, Tyrell Biggs, and Carl Williams anything other than jokes that were only contenders because the had the great fortune of fighting in such a weak era.

Poet

TheGreatA

03-20-2009, 07:11 PM

andrewcuff

03-20-2009, 07:19 PM

Slimey Limey

03-20-2009, 07:22 PM

Look Louis' era was by no means the worst, but it wasn't great either.

I think its pretty obvious that the 70's was the greatest era, only the 90's comes close to that IMO. But I do think and this is only my opinion that it has never been worse than it is now, also the 80's was ****, but could of been much better. With the exception of Tyson and Holmes they were all fat and lazy. Shame because Tubbs,Dokes and Witherspoon wasted their talent and Bruno trained the wrong way he could also of been a lot better.

People think the 80s fighters were **** because they wasted their careers? Yeah they started takingt crack, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they were talented, modern like fighters AT ONE POINT THAT FORMED THE DEVISION, and those would have beaten fat 10 ton Galento, and windmilling Baer, and any Bum of the month corpse.

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]BoxRec is a useful tool for those who actually know what they're looking at.[/QUOTE]

If you knew what you were looking at you would have also notified the fighters' LOSSES instead of just their WINS. So what you did was you created a biased argument that only suited your opinion and made yourself look like a hypocrite.

Sadly, it seems you've closed your mind to quality of any fighter prior to the color TV era. There isn't a whole lot I or anyone else can say that is likely to penatrate your willful ignorance toward boxing prior to your own lifetime.

Sadly, all you can do these days is just repeat the exact same garbage you spew at every poster that doesn't agree with your biased hypocritical ideolegy.

I would hazzard to say that you have an agenda: That is, to make Mike Tyson's mediocre resume look better than it was by desparaging the records of others

WHich is the exact opposite of what you're doing.

You have a thing for hypocrisy there mate.

They know the 1980s were probably the weakest era for Heavyweights on record with the possible exception of that which we are currently in.

Lets match the 80s heavyweights up against any worhtless Tony Galento fat **** from Louis' era and then we can see just how bad they were as you claim.

No amount of rhetorical agitprop is going to make the likes of Trevor Berbick, Tyrell Biggs, and Carl Williams anything other than jokes that were only contenders because the had the great fortune of fighting in such a weak era.

I mentioned a lot of others too mate. They would **** on those ancient slobs Louis beat on, and got knocked down by, and sometimes beaten by(Conn, Walcott, Charles, etc).

Slimey Limey

03-20-2009, 07:25 PM

poet682006

03-20-2009, 07:39 PM

People think the 80s fighters were **** because they wasted their careers? Yeah they started takingt crack, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they were talented, modern like fighters AT ONE POINT THAT FORMED THE DEVISION, and those would have beaten fat 10 ton Galento, and windmilling Baer, and any Bum of the month corpse.

If you knew what you were looking at you would have also notified the fighters' LOSSES instead of just their WINS. So what you did was you created a biased argument that only suited your opinion and made yourself look like a hypocrite.

Sadly, all you can do these days is just repeat the exact same garbage you spew at every poster that doesn't agree with your biased hypocritical ideolegy.

WHich is the exact opposite of what you're doing.

You have a thing for hypocrisy there mate.

Lets match the 80s heavyweights up against any worhtless Tony Galento fat **** from Louis' era and then we can see just how bad they were as you claim.

I mentioned a lot of others too mate. They would **** on those ancient slobs Louis beat on, and got knocked down by, and sometimes beaten by(Conn, Walcott, Charles, etc).

Against such willful ignorance as this what can one say? He is, it seems, convinced the lineup of overweight, crackheaded never-weres that Tyson faced was actually a murderers row of world-beaters: Very sad. The lack of any kind of knowledge of fighters from the 1940s makes it impossible to have any kind of rational discussion because, to be quite frank, you don't know what the fvck you're talking about. Since you have absolutely no knowlege of boxing prior to your own lifetime and are content to keep it so then the only honorable course would be for you to refrain from commenting on such subjects. Sadly, I doubt you'll take the honorable course as the temptation to share your ignorance must be overwelming.

PS. Your spelling is as downright awful as your ignorance.

Poet

them_apples

03-20-2009, 07:49 PM

I'm just going to leave a note and say this current HW era is years behind the advancement the lower weight classes have made.

the 70's up until today has produced some really technical, physically superior boxers in the lower weight classes.

However, the heavyweights have been on a crash course into the dump yard for the past few years. They all come in fat and 250 lbs. Fighters like washed up Holyfields and smaller Ruslan Chagaevs are still kicking around beating these bums.

the 70's was generally the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing. You had big men that didn't resemble giants with down syndrome, they came to fight at 5% body fat, rarely hitting over 230 lbs.

The 2 worst era's for me personally was Rocky's, an era consisting of old men coming from LHW to resume the role of heavyweights.

and Dempsey/pre Dempsey era, Everyone had dozens of losses and you had title holders such as Jess Willard.

Can't forget today's garbage HW division to.

After saying all that, the 80's doesn't look so bad.

Bonecrusher Smith
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tucker
Michael Spinks
Tim Witherspoon

Looks like trash compared to the 70's, but pretty much everything does.
Put them beside Sam peter, Areolla, Primo Carnera, Jess Willard, Valuev.....then it doesn't seem like the worst division after all.

1SILVA

03-20-2009, 07:55 PM

I'm just going to leave a note and say this current HW era is years behind the advancement the lower weight classes have made.

the 70's up until today has produced some really technical, physically superior boxers in the lower weight classes.

However, the heavyweights have been on a crash course into the dump yard for the past few years. They all come in fat and 250 lbs. Fighters like washed up Holyfields and smaller Ruslan Chagaevs are still kicking around beating these bums.

the 70's was generally the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing. You had big men that didn't resemble giants with down syndrome, they came to fight at 5% body fat, rarely hitting over 230 lbs.

The 2 worst era's for me personally was Rocky's, an era consisting of old men coming from LHW to resume the role of heavyweights.

and Dempsey/pre Dempsey era, Everyone had dozens of losses and you had title holders such as Jess Willard.

Can't forget today's garbage HW division to.

After saying all that, the 80's doesn't look so bad.

Bonecrusher Smith
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tucker
Michael Spinks

Looks like trash compared to the 70's, but pretty much everything does.
Put them beside Sam peter, Areolla, Primo Carnera, Jess Willard, Valuev.....then it doesn't seem like the worst division after all.

Don't forget Tim Witherspoon. The 80's Terrible Tim would be a dominating champ today with this sorry sack of filth

them_apples

03-20-2009, 07:58 PM

Don't forget Tim Witherspoon. The 80's Terrible Tim would be a dominating champ today with this sorry sack of filth

Yea just added

Steak

03-20-2009, 08:13 PM

Heavyweight ratings by Ring Magazine:

1937:

1. Max Schmeling
2. Tommy Farr
3. Nathan Mann
4. Alberto Santiago Lovell
5. Tony Galento
6. Jimmy Adamick
7. Lou Nova
8. Bob Pastor
9. Roscoe Toles
10. Andre Lenglet

1938:

1. Lou Nova
2. Max Baer
3. Bob Pastor
4. Tony Galento
5. Maxie Rosenbloom
6. Len Harvey
7. Clarence (Red) Burman
8. Roscoe Toles
9. Gus Dorazio
10. Tommy Farr

1939:

1. Tony Galento
2. Bob Pastor
3. Lou Nova
4. Tommy Farr
5. Max Schmeling
6. Johnny Paychek
7. Red Burman
8. Gunnar Barlund
9. Roscoe Toles
10. Lee Savold

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1930s

1940:

1. Max Baer
2. Arturo Godoy
3. Red Burman
4. Abe Simon
5. Buddy Walker
6. Buddy Baer
7. Pat Comiskey
8. Lee Savold
9. Otis Thomas
10. Lem Franklin

1941:

1. Billy Conn
2. Lem Franklin
3. Bob Pastor
4. Melio Bettina
5. Abe Simon
6. Turkey Thompson
7. Buddy Baer
8. Lou Nova
9. Arturo Godoy
10. Roscoe Toles

1942:

1. Jimmy Bivins
2. Tami Mauriello
3. Turkey Thompson
4. Roscoe Toles
5. Harry Bobo
6. Big Boy Brown
7. Lee Savold
8. Lou Brooks
9. Tony Musto
10. Joey Maxim

1945:

1. Billy Conn
2. Tami Mauriello
3. Jimmy Bivins
4. Elmer Ray
5. Bruce Wood****
6. Lee Oma
7. Freddie Schott
8. Arturo Godoy
9. Jersey Joe Walcott
10. Joe Baksi

1946:

1. Tami Mauriello
2. Elmer Ray
3. Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Bruce Wood****
5. Lee Q Murray
6. Curtis Sheppard
7. Melio Bettina
8. Joe Baksi
9. Joe Kahut
10. Joey Maxim

1947:

1. Jersey Joe Walcott
2. Elmer Ray
3. Lee Q Murray
4. Pat Comiskey
5. Joe Baksi
6. Tommy Gomez
7. Joey Maxim
8. Turkey Thompson
9. Bruce Wood****
10. Phil Muscato

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1940s

Those who Louis fought are boldened.
but at the same time, a few of those guys were not in the rankings UNTIL Louis fought them. most noticably Arturo Godoy. its very likely that Godoy only got in the top ten because he was able to take Louis to a controversial split decision.
which isnt necessarily a bad thing, if a fighter looks good in a fight, he should be ranked higher. but I just feel like it needed to be said, because sometimes it means more if the guy was in the top ten BEFORE a guy beats them.

and you can do the same thing for Tyson.

1985
Michael Spinks, Champion

Pinklon Thomas
Larry Holmes
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tubbs
Greg Page
Gerrie Coetzee
Trevor Berbick
Carl Williams
Mike Weaver
Michael Dokes

1986
Michael Spinks, Champion

Mike Tyson
James (Bonecrusher) Smith
Pinklon Thomas
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
James (Buster) Douglas
Tony Tucker
Frank Bruno
Tyrell Biggs

1987
Michael Spinks, Champion

Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Tony Tucker
Tim Witherspoon
Pinklon Thomas
Carl Williams
Trevor Berbick
Adilson Rodrigues
Tyrell Biggs
Mike Weaver

1988
Mike Tyson, Champion

Evander Holyfield
Carl Williams
Adilson Rodrigues
Tim Witherspoon
Michael Dokes
Razor Ruddock
Tony Tucker
Orlin Norris
James (Buster) Douglas
Francesco Damiani

The guys in bold were top ten ranked before he fought them, the underlined ones are the guys he beat during his title reign, ignoring what they were ranked when he fought them.
was it a strong era? nah. lots of potential, but most of them never really fulfilled it.

but I have to admit, I question Louis's division if Tony Galento could be ranked in the top 5 three years in a row, and be rated the #1 contender in 1939...

regardless, I find Louis's wins over Baer, Schmeling, Carnero, Walcott, etc fantastic with or without a questionable division. you jsut have to read between the lines in some of his title defences, which you have to do for all fighters.

Thunder Lips

03-20-2009, 09:04 PM

but I have to admit, I question Louis's division if Tony Galento could be ranked in the top 5 three years in a row, and be rated the #1 contender in 1939...

Because in that time he was 12-1, 12 KOs; including wins over number one Lou Nova(though obviously controversial), Nathan Mann(a well regarded Louis opponent), Al Ettore(a top 10 fighter), and of course his surprise performance against Louis.

TIME magazine Article on Galento leading into the Louis fight, he caught the public's eye and was very popular it seems so it was possible his good but not amazingly great achievements were overrated until he completely fell apart by the time of the Baer fights.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,882963,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

More on Galento: credit Maxboxing

"So, how did Galento rise from the ranks of club fighter to world title challenger? It was a confluence of events, and a vital cog was the manipulation of an eager press. Galento was not taken seriously until wily publicist Harry Mendel (a former sports writer who knew a good story when he saw one) played up Galento as the beer drinking everyman. The rough edges were smoothed over, and Mendel's memorable one-liners began to emerge from Galento's lips. Pictures of Galento boxing kangaroos and wrestling bears began to appear in the sports pages.

...............

The subplot was taking shape, and Galento did his part in the ring as well. From the summer of 1937 to the fall of 1939, Galento went undefeated, knocking out all eleven opponents. His big break was an eighth round kayo of Philadelphia's Al Ettore, the ninth rated heavyweight at the time. That win, bolstered by kayos of former title challengers Harry Thomas and Nathan Mann, turned Galento into a top ten heavyweight. Knocking out comedian Jackie Gleason, who unknowingly challenged the fat heckler, did not improve Galento's rating

......

The barroom bouncer did not possess the ring savvy to corner or lead the shaken champion into his punches. The moment was lost, and the fight turned back in Louis' favor. The Brown Bomber had escaped, and in the fourth, a straight right hand followed by a three punch combination felled Galento. The toughman regained his footing, but stumbled face first into the ropes, where the fight was stopped.

Movie and radio offers flooded in for Galento in the wake of his dramatic performance. So did offers to fight the Baer brothers, and rising prospect Lou Nova. In typical Galento fashion, he partook of both. In one of the most horrid bouts of the decade, Galento knocked Nova out, using every foul in his vast arsenal. Perhaps Karma set in, and brothers Max and Buddy Baer beat up Galento badly, and sent him into retirement."

-CANE-

03-20-2009, 09:07 PM

People think the 80s fighters were **** because they wasted their careers? Yeah they started takingt crack, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they were talented, modern like fighters AT ONE POINT THAT FORMED THE DEVISION, and those would have beaten fat 10 ton Galento, and windmilling Baer, and any Bum of the month corpse.

Not denying that there were some talented fighters, I stated as much in my last post.

I don't think it was **** just because many wasted their careers. I don't know if you remember how bad it was before Mike Tyson came along and cleaned up the division. Joe Louis would of done the same thing had he been fighting those same fighters.

The windmilling Baer as you put it was a fine specimen of a man and he had tremendous power and would of beaten the likes of Carl Williams and Tyrell Biggs. Galento wasn't a great fighter but more intelligent than I think you give him credit for.

I think it's easy to say a modern fighter would easily beat an old timer, but you have to remember these old time fighters fought for very little, which is why they fought so often and at very short notice and had so many defeats.

But they showed more heart and desire than 95% of modern fighters.

Also you have to think that boxing moves on and evolves, pit Joe Louis now with todays training methods etc against todays fighters and see how he fares. In fact Joe Louis was so far ahead of his time he wouldn't look out of place against todays fighters.

I just think your being a little unfair, either that or your here just to wind a lot of people up.

TheGreatA

03-20-2009, 09:08 PM

but I have to admit, I question Louis's division if Tony Galento could be ranked in the top 5 three years in a row, and be rated the #1 contender in 1939...

regardless, I find Louis's wins over Baer, Schmeling, Carnero, Walcott, etc fantastic with or without a questionable division. you jsut have to read between the lines in some of his title defences, which you have to do for all fighters.

Galento was ranked because of his "win" over Lou Nova.

Nova was a pretty good fighter:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PCXpLOfzb1Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PCXpLOfzb1Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
4:05 & 4:35, not exactly Floyd Mayweather or James Toney but pretty close to it. :boxing:

The longevity is a factor. As you can see, Tyson only defended his titles against the top ranked fighters for about 2 years while Louis did so for a decade.

Louis did destroy Godoy in a rematch so he should count as a top 10 ranked fighter that Louis fought.

JAB5239

03-21-2009, 05:20 AM

When you're done with Poet's cornhole maybe you can start actually answering my posts instead of ducking me as usual mate.

Duck you? You've got 67 posts, I don't even know you unless you're an alt. And If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction its because your posts haven't been worth responding to.

I already did.

You already did what?

And name me which eras were worse than that of Louis', and which fighters wouldn't have had so many defences with a bum of the month club. The real Bottom line is that Tysons title reign(Tucker, Williams, Spinks, Thomas, Holmes, Tubbs, Biggs, Bruno)

You got two hall of famers and one was well past his best. The other guys were decent, but nothing to write home about.

Louis however sports 6 hall of famers he beat AS champion....Braddock, Farr, Lewis, Schmeling, Conn and Walcott. He also has 6 other HOF'ers during his career....Charles, Baer, Sharkey, Walcott and Carnera. Its not even close.

You want another era? Marciano' reign. Another one? Holmes. Not enough? Dempsey. More? Johnson. Still want more? Jeffries, Holyfield, Patterson, Bowe, Charles. Please, don't insult me with your lack of knowledge. Please, pick any of these era's one by one and I will show any objective poster beyond a shaddow of a doubt why Louis' was better. And before you even say it, spare me with who you think would of beat who. I deal with facts, not guesswork.

and Lewis (Tua, Tyson, Grant, Holyfield, Briggs, Golota) were much better. Ali's too.

I've always admired Lewis' resume. Besides who you've named, you can add Rahman, Mercer, Ruddock, Klitschko and Morrison. He basicly cleaned out his era with the exception of Bowe, and we know what happened there.

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 08:14 AM

I've always admired Lewis' resume. Besides who you've named, you can add Rahman, Mercer, Ruddock, Klitschko and Morrison. He basicly cleaned out his era with the exception of Bowe, and we know what happened there.

Those weren't in his title reign. Good job showing what a boxing historian you are Jabbie. And yes, you should admire Lewis' title reign as much as you admire that hypocrite Poets cornhole because that's all you've been doing in this thread mate.

Duck you? You've got 67 posts, I don't even know you unless you're an alt. And If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction its because your posts haven't been worth responding to.

I have to know you and have a lot of posts or you won't debate? This is why you're ducking my posts. You're looking for excuses not to respond to my posts because you know they're true and they hurt you and your clone hypocritical Poet.

You got two hall of famers and one was well past his best. The other guys were decent, but nothing to write home about.

The one past his best was still a very live opponent. He almost beat a prime Holyfield and easily dismantled Mercer. This was all after he was raped by Tyson.
And I need you to get off the crackpipe mate. You don't even elaborate and do what you do best, ducking.

Louis however sports 6 hall of famers he beat AS champion....Braddock, Farr, Lewis, Schmeling, Conn and Walcott.

Braddock often reffered to as one of THE worst champions ever. Farr and Lewis were as you say "nothing decent or to write home about".

Now is the good part. Conn, Walcott and Schmeling all beat Louis according to most people. Conn a freaking ligt heavyweight but a great one, made Louis look like nothing before getting caught. WHat did Tyson do with a great Light Heavyweight? 90 seconds mate.
Walcott was robbed against Louis. He also made him look like nothing. Schmeling was past his best and destroyed Louis before, so that W is almost on par with Tyson-Holmes.

Fooking awesome great title reign innit? Still think this crapfest was THE greatest title reign ever?

When did Tyson get made to look like a fool in his title reign? Even when he finally lost it, he still knocked his opponent down. The rest of his title reign was pure destruction and cleaning up.

WHen Lewis was champion, he only got caught once. He was never dominated like Louis. The rest of Lennox' opposition ****s on both Louis AND Tyson.

He also has 6 other HOF'ers during his career....Charles, Baer, Sharkey, Walcott and Carnera. Its not even close.

The Baers were utter crap. All they had was a punch. You should actually watch their circus acts..I mean fights.

CARNERA?? The worst ever.

Charles beat him. So did Walcott.

And what is your fetish with the Hall of Fame mate? ATG is what matters. The HOF is full of fighters who do not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as ATGs.

You want another era? Marciano' reign. Another one? Holmes. Not enough? Dempsey. More? Johnson. Still want more? Jeffries, Holyfield, Patterson, Bowe, Charles. Please, don't insult me with your lack of knowledge. Please, pick any of these era's one by one and I will show any objective poster beyond a shaddow of a doubt why Louis' was better. And before you even say it, spare me with who you think would of beat who. I deal with facts, not guesswork.

Don't get mad Jabbie.
Marciano had wins over Walcott, CHarles, Moore and Louis himself. Most of these actually made Louis look like a fool.
Holmes had Shavers, Witherspoon, Williams, Shavers, Norton etc. ****s on windmilling Baer or Galento.
Dempsey had Willard, Tunney and a few others. This is on par.
Holyfield and Bowe? Are you retarded mate? They were in the second best era in Boing ever.

You are delusional mate. Just give up, you're nothing.

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 08:20 AM

Now lets look at Poets way of ducking. This is an emaple of what he has been repeating to every single poster for a few years now.

The lack of any kind of knowledge of fighters from the 1940s makes it impossible to have any kind of rational discussion because, to be quite frank, you don't know what the fvck you're talking about.

Since you have absolutely no knowlege of boxing prior to your own lifetime and are content to keep it so then the only honorable course would be for you to refrain from commenting on such subjects.

PS. Your spelling is as downright awful as your ignorance.

Poet[/QUOTE]

Great job mate. You just showed for the millionth time what kind of poster you have become.

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 08:29 AM

Not denying that there were some talented fighters, I stated as much in my last post.

I don't think it was **** just because many wasted their careers. I don't know if you remember how bad it was before Mike Tyson came along and cleaned up the division. Joe Louis would of done the same thing had he been fighting those same fighters.

The windmilling Baer as you put it was a fine specimen of a man and he had tremendous power and would of beaten the likes of Carl Williams and Tyrell Biggs. Galento wasn't a great fighter but more intelligent than I think you give him credit for.

I think it's easy to say a modern fighter would easily beat an old timer, but you have to remember these old time fighters fought for very little, which is why they fought so often and at very short notice and had so many defeats.

But they showed more heart and desire than 95% of modern fighters.

Also you have to think that boxing moves on and evolves, pit Joe Louis now with todays training methods etc against todays fighters and see how he fares. In fact Joe Louis was so far ahead of his time he wouldn't look out of place against todays fighters.

I just think your being a little unfair, either that or your here just to wind a lot of people up.

No mate. If Louis was much lower in the top 10 you wouldn't even see me in here. But people blindly act as if it was the greatest title reign ever in boxing.

And this is not a "old vs modern Boxing" thing for me. Not at all.

I think Marciano had a much better title reign than Louis. Liston did too. Ali had the best one, followed by Lennox.

Joe Louis should simply not get this much credit because he had a bum of the month club to pad his title reign, and beat crap fighters along the way, and also had gift decisions and was sometimes dominated. His career as a whole is better than this.

them_apples

03-21-2009, 08:47 AM

No mate. If Louis was much lower in the top 10 you wouldn't even see me in here. But people blindly act as if it was the greatest title reign ever in boxing.

And this is not a "old vs modern Boxing" thing for me. Not at all.

I think Marciano had a much better title reign than Louis. Liston did too. Ali had the best one, followed by Lennox.

Joe Louis should simply not get this much credit because he had a bum of the month club to pad his title reign, and beat crap fighters along the way, and also had gift decisions and was sometimes dominated. His career as a whole is better than this.

You can't really think Rocky had a better reign than Louis?

I agree that Carnera and the Baers were ****, a lot of the HOFer's people are talking about are really only 'known' names and weren't very good. There still were however a great deal of not-so-**** Hofer's that he fought, and the fact that he had so many title defenses. We also can't overlook the fact that Walcott was robbed against Louis.

In a legacy standpoint alone however, Louis did a lot more in his era than both Lewis and Tyson did in theirs. Who would win? well that's a different ballgame altogether.

poet682006

03-21-2009, 09:44 AM

Duck you? You've got 67 posts, I don't even know you unless you're an alt. And If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction its because your posts haven't been worth responding to.

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear this douche is an alt. He has 67 post yet claims familiarity with my posting history of the past two years. Considering he's delibrately trying to push my buttons I have no doubt his original ID was most likely permanently banned. He really contributes nothing and gives every indication of being a hopeless fan-boi.

PS. Do you know why people like him become douches? Because they'll never get anywhere near any snatch otherwise.

Poet

TheGreatA

03-21-2009, 10:30 AM

No mate. If Louis was much lower in the top 10 you wouldn't even see me in here. But people blindly act as if it was the greatest title reign ever in boxing.

And this is not a "old vs modern Boxing" thing for me. Not at all.

I think Marciano had a much better title reign than Louis. Liston did too. Ali had the best one, followed by Lennox.

Joe Louis should simply not get this much credit because he had a bum of the month club to pad his title reign, and beat crap fighters along the way, and also had gift decisions and was sometimes dominated. His career as a whole is better than this.

Marciano and Liston had better reigns than Louis?

Atleast Louis beat prime light heavyweights (not near 40 year olds) and he fought the big men of his era as well unlike Marciano (Rocky never got in the ring with Baker and Valdes who were ranked in the top 3). Marciano's best win was probably over a former Louis knockout victim Jersey Joe Walcott.

Liston had a great reign. He destroyed the smaller, glass-jawed Patterson in a rematch and was dominated by Ali in his second defense.

What was so great about Ali's reign? His best title defenses during his first reign were against George Chuvalo (coming off a loss) and Ernie Terrell.

The second reign looks good on paper, not so good after you score the Ken Norton III and Jimmy Young bouts. Chuck Wepner, Richard Dunn, Alfredo Evangelista, Jean-Pierre Coopman were great opposition as was Leon Spinks whom Ali lost to.

Basically you can discredit any fighter if you'd like to.

JAB5239

03-21-2009, 03:34 PM

Those weren't in his title reign. Good job showing what a boxing historian you are Jabbie. And yes, you should admire Lewis' title reign as much as you admire that hypocrite Poets cornhole because that's all you've been doing in this thread mate.

Lol, who said they were in his title reign? Nice job with the reading comprehension.

I have to know you and have a lot of posts or you won't debate? This is why you're ducking my posts. You're looking for excuses not to respond to my posts because you know they're true and they hurt you and your clone hypocritical Poet.

Are you really this much of an idiot, or is this for show?

The one past his best was still a very live opponent. He almost beat a prime Holyfield and easily dismantled Mercer. This was all after he was raped by Tyson.
And I need you to get off the crackpipe mate. You don't even elaborate and do what you do best, ducking.

Yeah, you're an idiot. Holmes hadn't fought in 2 years and was clearly slipping against Spinks a Williams.
Braddock often reffered to as one of THE worst champions ever. Farr and Lewis were as you say "nothing decent or to write home about".

Now is the good part. Conn, Walcott and Schmeling all beat Louis according to most people. Conn a freaking ligt heavyweight but a great one, made Louis look like nothing before getting caught. WHat did Tyson do with a great Light Heavyweight? 90 seconds mate.
Walcott was robbed against Louis. He also made him look like nothing. Schmeling was past his best and destroyed Louis before, so that W is almost on par with Tyson-Holmes.

According to MOST people Conn, Walcott and Schmeling were all put to sleep 4 out of 6 fights. Oops!!

Fooking awesome great title reign innit? Still think this crapfest was THE greatest title reign ever?

I never said it was "the greatest title reign". Where did you come up with that, or are ou just blatently lying?

When did Tyson get made to look like a fool in his title reign? Even when he finally lost it, he still knocked his opponent down. The rest of his title reign was pure destruction and cleaning up.

Tyons reign was decent, just not on par with Louis. He was also knocked cold by an underacheiver who will never even get a whiff of he HOF.

WHen Lewis was champion, he only got caught once. He was never dominated like Louis. The rest of Lennox' opposition ****s on both Louis AND Tyson.

Yeah, ok. Louis was never beaten in his prime. Get over it.

The Baers were utter crap. All they had was a punch. You should actually watch their circus acts..I mean fights.

CARNERA?? The worst ever.

Charles beat him. So did Walcott.

Your lack of knowledge is amusing!

Don't get mad Jabbie.
Marciano had wins over Walcott, CHarles, Moore and Louis himself. Most of these actually made Louis look like a fool.
Holmes had Shavers, Witherspoon, Williams, Shavers, Norton etc. ****s on windmilling Baer or Galento.
Dempsey had Willard, Tunney and a few others. This is on par.
Holyfield and Bowe? Are you retarded mate? They were in the second best era in Boing ever.

You are delusional mate. Just give up, you're nothing.

Heh, heh, heh!! Im enjoying this. Imagine you calling me nothing? Just send me a check for the education. There will be more to come when I get home from work. You do know what work is, right?

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 03:58 PM

Marciano and Liston had better reigns than Louis?

Of cource. So did everybody else I mentioned.

Atleast Louis beat prime light heavyweights (not near 40 year olds) and he fought the big men of his era as well unlike Marciano (Rocky never got in the ring with Baker and Valdes who were ranked in the top 3). Marciano's best win was probably over a former Louis knockout victim Jersey Joe Walcott.

Louis was utterly dominated by a true Light Heavyweight before getting lucky. Marciano destroyed a past prime Light Heavyweight before KOing him. Even though he was ko'd in a rematch, he outclassed and made Louis look like a fool and got robbed. Rocky again, KO'd him to make sure.

Liston had a great reign. He destroyed the smaller, glass-jawed Patterson in a rematch and was dominated by Ali in his second defense.

Lets not get started on how many glass chins Louis faced in his bum of the month club title reign. Patterson was an actual ATG.
And Liston lost against the GREATEST. Not schmeling, Conn, Walcott or Charles.

What was so great about Ali's reign? His best title defenses during his first reign were against George Chuvalo (coming off a loss) and Ernie Terrell. The second reign looks good on paper, not so good after you score the Ken Norton III and Jimmy Young bouts. Chuck Wepner, Richard Dunn, Alfredo Evangelista, Jean-Pierre Coopman were great opposition as was Leon Spinks whom Ali lost to.

Trolling

Basically you can discredit any fighter if you'd like to.

You can't blindly discredit any fighters TITLE REIGN if you'd like to. Louis and Foreman had a crappy title reign. Lewis and Ali had great ones.

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 04:07 PM

Lol, who said they were in his title reign? Nice job with the reading comprehension.

You said so mate.

Are you really this much of an idiot, or is this for show?

Don't get mad, jabbie.

Yeah, you're an idiot. Holmes hadn't fought in 2 years and was clearly slipping against Spinks a Williams.

And yet when he got older and older he almost beat a prime Holyfield and dominated Ray Mercer. How convenient that you left this out, jabbie.

According to MOST people Conn, Walcott and Schmeling were all put to sleep 4 out of 6 fights. Oops!!

And yet they also made Louis look like a fookin fool in the ring. If Louis' title reign was so great these things should have never happened.

I never said it was "the greatest title reign". Where did you come up with that, or are ou just blatently lying?

I'm glad I put some sense into you Jabbie. You are now embarassed to ever say Louis had the greatest title reign of all time, ever again.

Tyons reign was decent, just not on par with Louis. He was also knocked cold by an underacheiver who will never even get a whiff of he HOF.

Again with your HOF crap. This is what you oldies always clinch to, because you know they're no ATGs.
And let me say this, Douglass fought like an ATG that night. You know this.

Yeah, ok. Louis was never beaten in his prime. Get over it.

Conn, Walcott, Schmeling. And if yuo want to make excuses that he wasn't in his prime in these fights, then that means Louis never met the best in his prime.

Your lack of knowledge is amusing!

Everything I said is true, mate.

Heh, heh, heh!! Im enjoying this. Imagine you calling me nothing? Just send me a check for the education. There will be more to come when I get home from work. You do know what work is, right?

Yes you must be a busy man as a prostitute. I see them working overnight too so it'll take a while to see your next post.

TheGreatA

03-21-2009, 04:07 PM

Louis was utterly dominated by a true Light Heavyweight before getting lucky. Marciano destroyed a past prime Light Heavyweight before KOing him. Even though he was ko'd in a rematch, he outclassed and made Louis look like a fool and got robbed. Rocky again, KO'd him to make sure.

Dominated? I guess you buy into the myth that Conn had the fight won until the knockout.

You would be wrong since Louis could have very well won the fight on scorecards had he won the last two rounds. In the end he didn't have to because he knocked Conn out.

It was a great fight because it was a competitive fight.

Marciano was dominated by Jersey Joe Walcott (since he actually couldn't have won the fight on the scorecards) until getting "lucky".

Lets not get started on how many glass chins Louis faced in his bum of the month club title reign. Patterson was an actual ATG.
And Liston lost against the GREATEST. Not schmeling, Conn, Walcott or Charles.

Liston also lost to Marty Marshall and Leotis Martin. How can anyone say that Liston had a great reign when it only lasted a year including only one title defense?

Kid McCoy

03-21-2009, 04:10 PM

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 04:13 PM

Dominated? I guess you buy into the myth that Conn had the fight won until the knockout.

Now it's a "myth" when to everybody else it's common knowledge. How convenient.

You would be wrong since Louis could have very well won the fight on scorecards had he won the last two rounds. In the end he didn't have to because he knocked Conn out.

If he was so great he would have never let a Light Heavyweight do this to him. Look at Tyson. 90 seconds for the greatest LHW ever.

Marciano was dominated by Jersey Joe Walcott (since he actually couldn't have won the fight on the scorecards) until getting "lucky".

Walcott is an ATG Heavyweight. COnn was a small LHW at best and nowhere near as skilled as Walcott. Nice try.

Liston also lost to Marty Marshall and Leotis Martin. How can anyone say that Liston had a great reigh when it only lasted a year including only one title defense?

Notice how I barely mentioned Louis' loss to Marciano? Now you're grasping at straws mate.

TheGreatA

03-21-2009, 04:24 PM

Now it's a "myth" when to everybody else it's common knowledge. How convenient.

It's "common knowledge" because Bert Sugar says so. I'd advise you to actually WATCH the fight and check the facts.

At the time, Conn led on the scorecards 7-5 and 7-4-1 in rounds. A third judge had it six rounds each.

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/inductees/modern/conn.html

If he was so great he would have never let a Light Heavyweight do this to him. Look at Tyson. 90 seconds for the greatest LHW ever.

Spinks wasn't the greatest LHW ever. Was Holmes a bum because he actually lost to the light heavyweight twice?

Walcott is an ATG Heavyweight. COnn was a small LHW at best and nowhere near as skilled as Walcott. Nice try.

Nowhere near as skilled as Walcott? I don't think most would agree with that.

Notice how I barely mentioned Louis' loss to Marciano? Now you're grasping at straws mate.

You're mentioning his losses to Charles and Schmeling though. Louis had just turned 22 when he fought Schmeling, 36 when he fought Charles (having not fought in over two years).

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 04:41 PM

It's "common knowledge" because Bert Sugar says so. I'd advise you to actually WATCH the fight and check the facts.

Obviously I did watch the fight and it was confirmed for me. Louis looked lost, didn't quite know how to handle Conn, and Conn controlled and dominated most of the fight.

Pretty amazing that this could happen to a guy that is reffered to as the greatest Heavyweight of all time according to some idiots.

Spinks wasn't the greatest LHW ever. Was Holmes a bum because he actually lost to the light heavyweight twice?

Quite clearly he was, and at the very least top 3 without a doubt, and DEFINITELY better than Conman. And the bigger point is that Tyson needed 90 seconds for Spinks. Louis was outclassed for most of the fight untill finally getting him.
Nice try again.

Nowhere near as skilled as Walcott? I don't think most would agree with that.

Not as skilled as a Heavyweight.

You're mentioning his losses to Charles and Schmeling though. Louis had just turned 22 when he fought Schmeling, 36 when he fought Charles (having not fought in over two years)

Louis didn't look that diffirent when he first fought Schmeling. I'll remind you that he was walking through everybody before meeting a better fighter.

Louis has more excuses made for him than Tyson and Marciano. It's amazing he gets away with this.

poet682006

03-21-2009, 04:49 PM

I love it! I don't have to make a post since everyone else here is owning this pathetic troll :owned: Don't get angry mate! Just go mate your girlfriend Dolly The Sheep :rofl: Nimrods will be nimrods and alts will be trolling alts. I wonder what his old ID was? Probably someone I slapped down for terminal ignorance before no doubt.

I love the "Holmes almost beat Holyfield" crap. Sorry "mate...NOT", that fight was close only in your very teeny mind. Oh, Tyson's 90 second destruction of Spinks had far less to do with Tyson's fistic skills than with Spinks being wetting his pants scared and looking for a soft spot on the canvas from the moment he stepped in the ring. Your posts SCREAM "demented fan-boi". You should really prevail upon yourself of the classic education that Manchine and Jab are offering you. Who knows? Maybe even YOU may actually learn something for the first time in your life.

Poet

TheGreatA

03-21-2009, 04:53 PM

Obviously I did watch the fight and it was confirmed for me. Louis looked lost, didn't quite know how to handle Conn, and Conn controlled and dominated most of the fight.

Pretty amazing that this could happen to a guy that is reffered to as the greatest Heavyweight of all time according to some idiots.

Who is the greatest heavyweight then? Muhammad Ali? The man who was knocked down and almost out by a 180 lber, won a split decision against former LHW contender Doug Jones, lost in the biggest fight of his career to Joe Frazier, struggled 3 times with Ken Norton, got a gift against Jimmy Young, lost and regained the title from the "great" Leon Spinks.

There are blemishes in every record. The fact is that Louis got the job done that night after a great battle.

Quite clearly he was, and at the very least top 3 without a doubt, and DEFINITELY better than Conman. And the bigger point is that Tyson needed 90 seconds for Spinks. Louis was outclassed for most of the fight untill finally getting him.
Nice try again.

Louis didn't need many more to destroy John Henry Lewis, a great light heavyweight.

Again, is Larry Holmes a bum for losing twice to a light heavyweight?

Not as skilled as a Heavyweight.

Heavyweight or not, Conn was trendemously skilled and had several wins over top heavyweights at the time.

Louis didn't look that diffirent when he first fought Schmeling. I'll remind you that he was walking through everybody before meeting a better fighter.

A fighter he destroyed in 2 minutes in the rematch. I'd say he improved, since Schmeling did not decline considering that Max had beaten 3 good fighters in between and had not struggled with any of them.

Louis has more excuses made for him than Tyson and Marciano. It's amazing he gets away with this.

Excuses?

Making excuses for Louis would be saying that he lost 4 years of his prime for being in the army and that he did not train a day for the first Schmeling fight.

Tyson gets more excuses for the Buster Douglas fight (none from himself) than any other fighter in history.

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 04:58 PM

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I love it! I don't have to make a post since everyone else here is owning this pathetic troll :owned: Don't get angry mate! Just go mate your girlfriend Dolly The Sheep :rofl: Nimrods will be nimrods and alts will be trolling alts. I wonder what his old ID was? Probably someone I slapped down for terminal ignorance before no doubt.

Don't get mad mate.
Yes how convenient Poet. You have cornhole lickers that enable you to stay cowardly and never respond. Instead you can just spew the same old stuff you always do when someone completely makes you look like the fool you are, and just say "1-You're too stupid I won't respond2-I have so much boxing knowledge I don't have to respond-You don't lick old fighters cornholes therefor I don't have to respond" or any other excuses.

I love the "Holmes almost beat Holyfield" crap. Sorry "mate...NOT", that fight was close only in your very teeny mind. Oh, Tyson's 90 second destruction of Spinks had far less to do with Tyson's fistic skills than with Spinks being wetting his pants scared and looking for a soft spot on the canvas from the moment he stepped in the ring. Your posts SCREAM "demented fan-boi". You should really prevail upon yourself of the classic education that Manchine and Jab are offering you. Who knows? Maybe even YOU may actually learn something for the first time in your life.

Btw, check my join date. I've been here longer than you. Now you're ducking my posts, almost hurting yourself by being so angry, and becoming paranoid. Fix yourself mate, so you can grow some balls and actually debate.

Slimey Limey

03-21-2009, 05:09 PM

Who is the greatest heavyweight then? Muhammad Ali? The man who was knocked down and almost out by a 180 lber, won a split decision against former LHW contender Doug Jones, lost in the biggest fight of his career to Joe Frazier, struggled 3 times with Ken Norton, got a gift against Jimmy Young, lost and regained the title from the "great" Leon Spinks.

Trolling again.

There are blemishes in every record.

No there are not. That's just another convenient excuse to make Louis' undeniable negative aspects seem like nothing.

The fact is that Louis got the job done that night after a great battle.

He didn't get the job done like the greatest Heavyweight ever would, or one with the greatest title reign ever would do.

There are many fools who believe Louis deserves to be called both. Now, do you really have a problem with me having a major problem with this, mate?

Louis didn't need many more to destroy John Henry Lewis, a great light heavyweight.

Nothing compared to Conn or Spinks.

Again, is Larry Holmes a bum for losing twice to a light heavyweight?

No, it's a major screw like Louis'. And I never said Louis is a bum in any way. You are implying this while you don't realise that I don't believe nonsense like Louis having the greatest title reign ever or bein the best Heavyweight ever.

Heavyweight or not, Conn was trendemously skilled and had several wins over top heavyweights at the time.

That just shows what a piece of crap era it was, that a Light Heavyweight could beat the top heavyweights. And yes the 80s were a crappy era too. Just not nearly as bad as Louis'.

A fighter he destroyed in 2 minutes in the rematch. I'd say he improved, since Schmeling did not decline considering that Max had beaten 3 good fighters in between and had not struggled in any of them.

Either that's true or Schmeling became shot and old overnight.

Making excuses for Louis would be saying that he lost 4 years of his prime for being in the army and that he did not train a day for the first Schmeling fight.

Those ecuses have been made for Louis.

Tyson gets more excuses for the Buster Douglas fight (none from himself) than any other fighter in history.

Which is one of the reasons why Tyson is hated more than any other fighter.

Now why is Louis never called out on his flaws? Why is it almost a sin to do that? Clowns like Poet would rather insult their mothers instead of critisizing Joe Louis.

poet682006

03-21-2009, 05:11 PM

Don't get mad mate.
Yes how convenient Poet. You have cornhole lickers that enable you to stay cowardly and never respond. Instead you can just spew the same old stuff you always do when someone completely makes you look like the fool you are, and just say "1-You're too stupid I won't respond2-I have so much boxing knowledge I don't have to respond-You don't lick old fighters cornholes therefor I don't have to respond" or any other excuses.

First off, I'm not your "mate" so you can stow that ****e right now. Second, I'm far from angry rather I'm laughing at you. Third, I have no tolerance for ignorance especially of the willful variety. Fourth, you do NOT "debate" you mearly spout BS then dismiss any evidence exposing your foolishness. Fifth, you do not belong in the same debating ring as me as you are so far beneath me intellectually that you might as well be a worm.
Sixth, read my avatar: I believe the caption reads "Fools Are Not Suffered Gladly" hence my dismissial of you as a candidate for any type of rational discussion.

Btw, check my join date. I've been here longer than you.

That, in and of itself is meaningless. All it indicates is you've had this alt ID for a long time and like the coward you are you're hiding your true ID.

Now you're ducking my posts, almost hurting yourself by being so angry, and becoming paranoid. Fix yourself mate, so you can grow some balls and actually debate.

Ducking your posts? Far from it! I'm mearly responding to your inanities when it amuses me to do so.

PS. I think it's pretty revealing when as intelligent and mild a mannered poster as Jab can be pushed to irritation by troll such as Slime Ball.

Poet

TheGreatA

03-21-2009, 05:23 PM

Trolling again.

It's not any different from you saying that Joe Louis can't be that great for KO'ing Billy Conn, a light heavyweight, in the 13th round.

Even though many other great heavyweights have had even bigger trouble with light heavyweights, sometimes losing to them.

He didn't get the job done like the greatest Heavyweight ever would, or one with the greatest title reign ever would do.

I guess he should just KO everybody in 90 seconds then. You do know that not even Mike Tyson could do that? Certainly not Muhammad Ali who had many more close fights with even worse fighters than Conn.

There are many fools who believe Louis deserves to be called both. Now, do you really have a problem with me having a major problem with this, mate?

I have a problem with your arguments, that's all. I don't have a problem with you thinking otherwise.

I actually don't think Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever but I do think he had the greatest title reign ever.

Nothing compared to Conn or Spinks.

Perhaps not as great but great nonetheless.

No, it's a major screw like Louis'. And I never said Louis is a bum in any way. You are implying this while you don't realise that I don't believe nonsense like Louis having the greatest title reign ever or bein the best Heavyweight ever.

That just shows what a piece of crap era it was, that a Light Heavyweight could beat the top heavyweights. And yes the 80s were a crappy era too. Just not nearly as bad as Louis'.

A former middleweight was good enough to reign in the 60's (Jimmy Ellis).
A former LHW was good enough to beat the best HW in the 80's (Michael Spinks).
A former LHW was good enough to twice dominate the HW champion in the 20's (Gene Tunney).
A former amateur middleweight and light heavyweight contender was good enough to reign in the 50's (Floyd Patterson).
A former LHW was good enough to win a decision over the HW champion in the 90's (Michael Moorer).
A former amateur light middleweight was good enough to reign as title holder in this decade (Chris Byrd).

I could go on.

Either that's true or Schmeling became shot and old overnight.

He wasn't shot in his next fight when he KO'd the European champion in one round.

Which is one of the reasons why Tyson is hated more than any other fighter.

Now why is Louis never called out on his flaws? Why is it almost a sin to do that? Clowns like Poet would rather insult their mothers instead of critisizing Joe Louis.

He is criticized a lot, mostly by new fans of boxing.

JAB5239

03-22-2009, 03:27 AM

You said so mate.

Really? Quote it then, my exact words.

Don't get mad, jabbie.

Mad, lol! Im loving this. You make me look like a genius every time you respond.

And yet when he got older and older he almost beat a prime Holyfield and dominated Ray Mercer. How convenient that you left this out, jabbie.

I forget, did he actuallt beat Holyfield? And Mercer....he was tough but limited. Want proof? Francesco Damiani was taking him to school befor getting caught with a shot and having his nose rearranged. Mercer was solid, but doesn't match up with any all time greats as far as skill or legacy.

And yet they also made Louis look like a fookin fool in the ring. If Louis' title reign was so great these things should have never happened.

And who won? The truest sign of greatness is overcoming adversity.

I'm glad I put some sense into you Jabbie. You are now embarassed to ever say Louis had the greatest title reign of all time, ever again.

Lol!! Once again, quote where I ever said that.

Again with your HOF crap. This is what you oldies always clinch to, because you know they're no ATGs.
And let me say this, Douglass fought like an ATG that night. You know this.

How Douglas fought is irellevant, its how Tyson fought and was unable to overcome adversity that night or any other night he was stood up to.

Yeah I know, nobody who ever voted any of those guys knew **** about boxing. Historians of the sport don't know **** either. You however have you finger on the pulse and have magicly managed to accrue more historical knowledge than has ever been known before, right?

Conn, Walcott, Schmeling. And if yuo want to make excuses that he wasn't in his prime in these fights, then that means Louis never met the best in his prime.

How many times did Conn beat Louis? Zero. Walcott? Zero. Schmeling? Once, only to be destroyed in the rematch in one of the most brutal and one sided displays in history. Get a clue, would ya?

Everything I said is true, mate.

Yeah we all know. Thats why everybody is in agreement with you, right?

Yes you must be a busy man as a prostitute. I see them working overnight too so it'll take a while to see your next post.

Ahh, the ole internet insult. The last resort of a beaten and humiliated poster. I love it!!

JAB5239

03-22-2009, 03:41 AM

PS. I think it's pretty revealing when as intelligent and mild a mannered poster as Jab can be pushed to irritation by troll such as Slime Ball.

Poet[/COLOR]

Im not irritated my friend. In fact Im amused by his ignorance and inability to look at boxing history objectively. Im sure you noticed he had no answers to the fighter I said who's era's were not as respectively good as Louis'. Somebody get him some rea big ses d red rubber ball to put on his nose. If he's going to act like a clown he should look the part too.

JAB5239

03-22-2009, 03:44 AM

it's not any different from you saying that joe louis can't be that great for ko'ing billy conn, a light heavyweight, in the 13th round.

Even though many other great heavyweights have had even bigger trouble with light heavyweights, sometimes losing to them.

I guess he should just ko everybody in 90 seconds then. You do know that not even mike tyson could do that? Certainly not muhammad ali who had many more close fights with even worse fighters than conn.

I have a problem with your arguments, that's all. I don't have a problem with you thinking otherwise.

I actually don't think louis was the greatest heavyweight ever but i do think he had the greatest title reign ever.

Perhaps not as great but great nonetheless.

A former middleweight was good enough to reign in the 60's (jimmy ellis).
A former lhw was good enough to beat the best hw in the 80's (michael spinks).
A former lhw was good enough to twice dominate the hw champion in the 20's (gene tunney).
A former amateur middleweight and light heavyweight contender was good enough to reign in the 50's (floyd patterson).
A former lhw was good enough to win a decision over the hw champion in the 90's (michael moorer).
A former amateur light middleweight was good enough to reign as title holder in this decade (chris byrd).

I could go on.

He wasn't shot in his next fight when he ko'd the european champion in one round.

He is criticized a lot, mostly by new fans of boxing.

o-w-n-e-d!!!

JAB5239

03-22-2009, 06:32 AM

I think Marciano had a much better title reign than Louis. Liston did too.

Heh, heh heh, do tell.

poet682006

03-22-2009, 09:39 AM

Im not irritated my friend. In fact Im amused by his ignorance and inability to look at boxing history objectively. Im sure you noticed he had no answers to the fighter I said who's era's were not as respectively good as Louis'. Somebody get him some rea big ses d red rubber ball to put on his nose. If he's going to act like a clown he should look the part too.

Yeah, he thinks he's getting under our skin. I had to point out to him that I slap ignoramouses like him around for ****s and giggles. I'm convinced he's an alt though.

o-w-n-e-d!!!

He's been owned on this thread more times than a 30 year old Yugo but keeps coming back for more. Sad. God could come down and prove the bastard's wrong (Manchine come close!) and he'd STILL call the almighty a liar.

Poet

MarkScott

03-22-2009, 02:52 PM

I agree with the member who asked about Joe Gans--incredible reign
I wrote a book about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Gans-Biography-American-Champion/dp/0786439947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237747719&sr=1-1

Slimey Limey

03-22-2009, 05:51 PM

It's not any different from you saying that Joe Louis can't be that great for KO'ing Billy Conn, a light heavyweight, in the 13th round.

Even though many other great heavyweights have had even bigger trouble with light heavyweights, sometimes losing to them.

And every time that has happened, those heavyweights are critisized heavily and rightfully so. Louis on the other hand has too many man lovers who wouldn't dare to acknowledge anything negative about him.

And name those other fighters struggling with Light Heavyweights other than Louis and Holmes.
A great Heavyweight will beat the **** out of a Light Heavyweight. Tyson-Spinks, Klitschko-Byrd etc.

I guess he should just KO everybody in 90 seconds then. You do know that not even Mike Tyson could do that? Certainly not Muhammad Ali who had many more close fights with even worse fighters than Conn.

Never said he'd have to KO everybody in 90 seconds mate. If he was the greatest HW and also had the greatest title reign ever, he wouldn't have struggled so much with a Light Heavyweight like Conman, or get a gift decision against Walcott, or get knocked down by so many ****kicking bums.

I actually don't think Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever but I do think he had the greatest title reign ever.

Then you belong in the same group as Poet and Jabbie. The Joe Louis cornholelickers.

A former middleweight was good enough to reign in the 60's (Jimmy Ellis).
A former LHW was good enough to beat the best HW in the 80's (Michael Spinks).
A former LHW was good enough to twice dominate the HW champion in the 20's (Gene Tunney).
A former amateur middleweight and light heavyweight contender was good enough to reign in the 50's (Floyd Patterson).
A former LHW was good enough to win a decision over the HW champion in the 90's (Michael Moorer).
A former amateur light middleweight was good enough to reign as title holder in this decade (Chris Byrd).

1-Reigned? Strong words for a guy that was nearly decapitated in the first round against a real heavyweight.
2-Holmes is rightfully critisized for losing to Spinks. His title reign sucks almost as much as Louis'. But that's for another thread.
3-Dempsey had been inactive for years playing in movies. Past prime and shot.
4-Patterson was no god damn Light Heavyweight. And you know what happened when he faced a certain big Heavyweight twice.
5-Again not a Light Heavyweight.
6-This decade is almost as ****ty as Louis'.

Good try again mate. But you fail yet again.

He is criticized a lot, mostly by new fans of boxing

Why not by the old lads like you? Do you guys really believe there is not a single flaw about Louis?

Slimey Limey

03-22-2009, 06:31 PM

Really? Quote it then, my exact words.

Very well then. It's here
I said it
You're not worth the time mate. You know you said it.

Mad, lol! Im loving this. You make me look like a genius every time you respond.

Really mate? This is what a genius looks like to you?
o-w-n-e-d!!!

I forget, did he actuallt beat Holyfield? And Mercer....he was tough but limited. Want proof? Francesco Damiani was taking him to school befor getting caught with a shot and having his nose rearranged. Mercer was solid, but doesn't match up with any all time greats as far as skill or legacy

He almost beat PRIME Holyfield and some believe he won. That's not something anyone can do against a prime Holyfield, especially not an "old shot Holmes" years AFTER getting destroyed by Tyson.

How convenient that you left this out, Jabbie. It's pretty difficult to get this through your thick skull, innit?

And I never said Mercer was an ATG. But he was very solid. He alone would mutilate almost everybody in Louis' Bum of the month pathetic padded title reign.

And who won? The truest sign of greatness is overcoming adversity.

Overcoming adversity against a Frazier or Foreman or Bowe is respectable. Getting spanked by a Light Heavyweight for over 10 rounds aint.

Lol!! Once again, quote where I ever said that.

Are you affraid to admit it now? I'm glad I put some sence into you then. I'm sure that if I wasn't around you'd joing the circle jerk and always claim Louis' title reign was the best.
Now, before you moan again about where you said it and becoming even more paranoid, why won't you tell us how you'd rate the Bum of the month club title reign?

How Douglas fought is irellevant, its how Tyson fought and was unable to overcome adversity that night or any other night he was stood up to.

How convenient that you left out the part where while Tyson was gettin the **** beaten out of him, he KNOCKED DOUGLASS DOWN FOR OVER 10 SECONDS. There you go, I just shattered this comment.

Yeah I know, nobody who ever voted any of those guys knew **** about boxing. Historians of the sport don't know **** either. You however have you finger on the pulse and have magicly managed to accrue more historical knowledge than has ever been known before, right?

More crying.

How many times did Conn beat Louis? Zero.

He was on his way, and that's bad enough. Tell me, if a young monster George Foreman was getting destroyed by Roy Jones for 14 rounds, but THEN he KO'd roy in the last round, are you not going to critisize Foreman even though he won?

Walcott? Zero.

Watch the fight. Everyone knows Walcott was robbed.

Schmeling? Once

And what a brutal, comprehensive beating it was that Louis took. I didn't see Ali or Lewis get this kind of long spanking when they reached their prime.

Yeah we all know. Thats why everybody is in agreement with you, right?

That's ok, I wouldn't expect the Joe Louis cornhole lickers to agree with me.

Ahh, the ole internet insult. The last resort of a beaten and humiliated poster. I love it!!

Oh, so Jabbie, does this mean that YOU are beaten and humiliated? Look here

Somebody get him some rea big ses d red rubber ball to put on his nose. If he's going to act like a clown he should look the part too.

o-w-n-e-d!!!

Im not irritated my friend. In fact Im amused by his ignorance and inability to look at boxing history objectively. Im sure you noticed he had no answers to the fighter I said who's era's were not as respectively good as Louis'. Somebody get him some rea big ses d red rubber ball to put on his nose. If he's going to act like a clown he should look the part too.

I answered every silly little question you posed. It's you who is always avoiding questions by not responding at all or adding something immature like "lololol" which already shows you lost.

Yeah, he thinks he's getting under our skin. I had to point out to him that I slap ignoramouses like him around for ****s and giggles. I'm convinced he's an alt though.

He's been owned on this thread more times than a 30 year old Yugo but keeps coming back for more. Sad. God could come down and prove the bastard's wrong (Manchine come close!) and he'd STILL call the almighty a liar.

Poet

Very cute circle jerk there lads. And you're all supposed to be some know it all old farts who are boxing historians? I think you're the clowns, mates. Don't get mad.

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 06:56 PM

And name those other fighters struggling with Light Heavyweights other than Louis and Holmes.
A great Heavyweight will beat the **** out of a Light Heavyweight. Tyson-Spinks, Klitschko-Byrd etc.

Ali struggled with many smaller men. He went to a close decision against a former LHW contender (not champion) Doug Jones in a fight which many thought he had lost.

George Foreman won a close decision over Gregorio Peralta, a former unsuccessful light heavyweight title challenger.

Ken Norton was knocked out by JL Garcia, a bloated light heavyweight.

Holyfield, as I said, lost a decision to Michael Moorer and later by TKO to overweight middleweight James Toney (admittedly long past his prime).

Rocky Marciano won a close decision over former LHW Ezzard Charles and was arguably given a gift against LHW journeyman 'Tiger' Ted Lowry.

Sonny Liston lost a SD and was knocked down in the rematch against LHW contender Marty Marshall.

1-Reigned? Strong words for a guy that was nearly decapitated in the first round against a real heavyweight.

Ellis in his prime held the WBA title and beat Bonavena, Quarry, Patterson, Chuvalo, Martin, some of the divisions best at the time. I'd say he did pretty well for a former fringe middleweight contender and a past prime loss to Shavers in which he was pummeling Earnie until getting caught with an uppercut (as Shavers was holding his neck) does little to diminish that.

3-Dempsey had been inactive for years playing in movies. Past prime and shot.

Hardly shot since he flattened Sharkey with one punch in between the two fights (for which he was just over 30 years old). Tunney, light heavyweight or not, was probably the most accomplished heavyweight Dempsey ever faced with wins over former Dempsey title challengers, despite being a light heavy.

4-Patterson was no god damn Light Heavyweight. And you know what happened when he faced a certain big Heavyweight twice.

Patterson boxed as a middleweight in the amateurs and started his pro career at 165 lbs. In his prime he weighed barely over 180 lbs and trained hard to get even that big.

He was KO'd by Liston (Liston's best win) but he also had wins over 210 lbers such as Chuvalo and Bonavena while years past his prime.

5-Again not a Light Heavyweight.

Michael Moorer was the WBO light heavyweight champion for 3 years.

Slimey Limey

03-22-2009, 07:20 PM

Ali struggled with many smaller men. He went to a close decision against a former LHW contender (not champion) Doug Jones in a fight which many thought he had lost..

How convenient that you say Ali struggled with MANY smaller men yet go on to only mention ONE, in which ALi was not even close to his prime.

George Foreman won a close decision over Gregorio Peralta, a former unsuccessful light heavyweight title challenger.

Just like your pathetic Ali example, still young and not in his prime. And still, not even close to what Louis was doing against Conman. There is a diffirence between a close fight and winning, and being dominated for over 10 rounds and then catching your opponent.

Holyfield, as I said, lost a decision to Michael Moorer and later by TKO to overweight middleweight James Toney (admittedly long past his prime).

Holy himself did not start as a heavyweight just like Moorer, and it's pretty obvious that Moorer, like Holyfield, grew into a true heavyweight later on and was nothing like Conman.

And James Toney? WHen Holy was completely shot and old? Oh, are we going to play it this way?

WHy did Louis get spanked and dominated by Charles? Why did Marciano torture and brutally KO him out of the ring? It's not like Louis was already OLD and SHOT, innit? There is a reason why I never mention these losses that Louis suffered.

Rocky Marciano won a close decision over former LHW Ezzard Charles and was arguably given a gift against LHW 'Tiger' Ted Lowry.

Again, Charles was nothing like Conman. The man became a true heavyweight just like Holyfield and Moorer.
And again, it was nothing like the Louis-Conn fight where Louis looked like crap.

Ellis in his prime held the WBA title and beat Bonavena, Quarry,
Patterson, Chuvalo, Martin, some of the divisions best at the time.

Then he was just like Holyfield and Moorer, grew into a true heavyweight. Not even close to what Conman was.

I'd say he did pretty well for a former fringe middleweight contender and a past prime loss to Shavers in which he was pummeling Earnie until getting caught with an uppercut (as Shavers was holding his neck) does little to diminish that.

How convenient that you act like Louis didn't 'get lucky' against Conman but still go on to act like the Shavers-Ellis KO was 'luck'.

Hardly shot since he flattened Sharkey with one punch in between the two fights (for which he was just over 30 years old). Tunney, light heavyweight or not, was probably the most accomplished heavyweight Dempsey ever faced with wins over many former Dempsey title challengers, despite being a light heavy.

Sharkey was an ancient fossile by that time so it means nothing. Anyone with eyes can see Dempsey wasn't even close to the monster he was years before. The fact that he knocked Tunney on his ass once for half a minute shows that the only thing he had left was power, and was no longer capable of using it like before.
Furthermore, Tunney cannot be compared to Conman in terms of Heavyweigts.

Patterson boxed as a middleweight in the amateurs and started his pro career at 165 lbs. In his prime he weighed barely over 180 lbs and trained hard to get even that big.

He was KO'd by Liston (Liston's best win) but he also had wins over 210 lbers such as Chuvalo and Bonavena while years past his prime.

He was just like Marciano, two very small heavyweights able to bang with the big lads. I can't see Conman doing anything like them.

It doesn't matter which examples you can come up with, there aren't any good enough to hide Louis' flaw. The fact that Louis, the so called greatest heavyweight, with the so called greatest title reign ever struggled so much with Conman speaks volumes about his bum of the month club title reign. You fail again, mate. Maybe it's time to do the unthinkable, and admit your lad actually had flaws as well. But to you circle jerkers he is literally perfect.

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 07:20 PM

He almost beat PRIME Holyfield and some believe he won. That's not something anyone can do against a prime Holyfield, especially not an "old shot Holmes" years AFTER getting destroyed by Tyson.

How convenient that you left this out, Jabbie. It's pretty difficult to get this through your thick skull, innit?

And I never said Mercer was an ATG. But he was very solid. He alone would mutilate almost everybody in Louis' Bum of the month pathetic padded title reign.

Mercer was solid when he wanted to be. He was about as inconsistent as it gets.

Lets not forget that he was urging journeyman Jesse Ferguson to throw the fight because he was getting outboxed so badly.

How convenient that you left out the part where while Tyson was gettin the **** beaten out of him, he KNOCKED DOUGLASS DOWN FOR OVER 10 SECONDS. There you go, I just shattered this comment.

You actually believe this myth?

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

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZUJmPz4QPuM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZUJmPz4QPuM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/catO1F8S3yc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/catO1F8S3yc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

He was on his way, and that's bad enough. Tell me, if a young monster George Foreman was getting destroyed by Roy Jones for 14 rounds, but THEN he KO'd roy in the last round, are you not going to critisize Foreman even though he won?

Young monster Foreman was struggling to beat Gregorio Peralta, a LHW fringe contender, and later on lost to Jimmy Young who was certainly no big heavyweight (in shape at around 180 lbs).

Slimey Limey

03-22-2009, 07:22 PM

Ps Manrobot, I see you're still editing your post to make it seem like i'm ducking some of your comments. Well, it's not my job to edit my posts every minute you edit yours, so I will just ignore these futile attempts mate.

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 07:36 PM

How convenient that you say Ali struggled with MANY smaller men yet go on to only mention ONE, in which ALi was not even close to his prime.

He was also nearly KO'd by Henry Cooper, a 180 lber. Both of these fights were not even a year before he outboxed and beat Sonny Liston!

Just like your pathetic Ali example, still young and not in his prime. And still, not even close to what Louis was doing against Conman. There is a diffirence between a close fight and winning, and being dominated for over 10 rounds and then catching your opponent.

I've already disproved the myth about Louis being "dominated". The fight was near even on the cards with Conn having a slight lead after 12 rounds.

Foreman was so young and out of prime that he was coming off two of his career best performances against George Chuvalo and Boone Kirkman.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5P7B2lYP4Gk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5P7B2lYP4Gk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d2KRcH1N-xY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d2KRcH1N-xY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

WHy did Louis get spanked and dominated by Charles? Why did Marciano torture and brutally KO him out of the ring? It's not like Louis was already OLD and SHOT, innit? There is a reason why I never mention these losses that Louis suffered.

You did mention the loss to Charles. You also mentioned the loss to Schmeling and now you're trying to say that Ali and Foreman were "too young".

Again, Charles was nothing like Conman. The man became a true heavyweight just like Holyfield and Moorer.
And again, it was nothing like the Louis-Conn fight where Louis looked like crap.

True heavyweight who weighed 185 lbs against Marciano.

How convenient that you act like Louis didn't 'get lucky' against Conman but still go on to act like the Shavers-Ellis KO was 'luck'.

It's not that it was luck, it was illegal (holding & hitting).

Sharkey was an ancient fossile by that time so it means nothing. Anyone with eyes can see Dempsey wasn't even close to the monster he was years before. The fact that he knocked Tunney on his ass once for half a minute shows that the only thing he had left was power, and was no longer capable of using it like before.

Huh? Sharkey was young and in his prime at the time the fight was held. He later went onto win the heavyweight title from Max Schmeling.

Furthermore, Tunney cannot be compared to Conman in terms of Heavyweigts.

Conn's HW resume before facing Louis was about as good as Tunney's before he faced Dempsey with wins over top 10 ranked contenders Gunnar Bärlund (the man in my avatar), Bob Pastor and Lee Savold. He had KO'd 4 of his last five HW opponents.

Tunney's best win at HW before facing Dempsey was over Tommy Gibbons, a former LHW himself, who gave Dempsey the most trouble in all of Dempsey's title defenses until Tunney.

He was just like Marciano, two very small heavyweights able to bang with the big lads. I can't see Conman doing anything like them.

Ellis weighed around 190 and wasn't exactly solid. He was a former middleweight, not even a light heavy.

I also made up more examples about Liston and Norton:

Ken Norton was knocked out by JL Garcia, a bloated light heavyweight.

Sonny Liston lost a SD and was knocked down in the rematch against LHW contender Marty Marshall.

If they were "too young" then so was Louis against Schmeling.

Ps Manrobot, I see you're still editing your post to make it seem like i'm ducking some of your comments. Well, it's not my job to edit my posts every minute you edit yours, so I will just ignore these futile attempts mate.

Why would I do that? I'm trying to have a fair debate. I edited those comments because I didn't think you would respond as quickly.

Slimey Limey

03-22-2009, 07:37 PM

Mercer was solid when he wanted to be. He was about as inconsistent as it gets.

Lets not forget that he was urging journeyman Jesse Ferguson to throw the fight because he was getting outboxed so badly.

How convenient that you left out the fact that he took everything Morrison had to offer, one of the hardest punchers ever, and went on to almost legally murder him. He also went to war for 12 rounds with a young Lennox.

This is the way you debate. You nitpick and only posts negative or positive things just to suit your biased arguments. YOu fool morons into thinking you're a great poster with this stuff and your little youtube clips, but this is one Slimey Limey you can't fool.

You actually believe this myth?

What are you even talking about? Did you even stop and think for 1 second while you were in rage because of your Louis love, that I was talking to Jabbie and not you?

He said Tyson pretty much gave up, no heart etc against Douglass. I said Tyson knocked Douglass down for over 10 seconds, even though he was getting his ass kicked since the beginning.
Did I say Tyson should have won that fight? No. In seconds you can count that Douglass was on the canvas for more than 10 seconds, which takes heart to do while you're being beaten.

Young monster Foreman was struggling to beat Gregorio Peralta, a LHW fringe contender, and later on lost to Jimmy Young who was certainly no big heavyweight (in shape at around 180 lbs

Young was/became a true Heavyweight, a great one at that. For the 100th time, he was nothing like COnman.
When will you learn mate?

Now, go think of some more futile examples so I can shoot them into to the ground yet again tommorow. I look forward to it, youtubemachine.

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 07:42 PM

How convenient that you left out the fact that he took everything Morrison had to offer, one of the hardest punchers ever, and went on to almost legally murder him. He also went to war for 12 rounds with a young Lennox.

This is the way you debate. You nitpick and only posts negative or positive things just to suit your biased arguments. YOu fool morons into thinking you're a great poster with this stuff and your little youtube clips, but this is one Slimey Limey you can't fool.

You're doing the exact same thing.

I was only making the point that Mercer could be very inconsistent.

He said Tyson pretty much gave up, no heart etc against Douglass. I said Tyson knocked Douglass down for over 10 seconds, even though he was getting his ass kicked since the beginning.
Did I say Tyson should have won that fight? No. In seconds you can count that Douglass was on the canvas for more than 10 seconds, which takes heart to do while you're being beaten.

You have a point but I thought you were saying that Tyson was "robbed" as people often do.

Young was/became a true Heavyweight, a great one at that. For the 100th time, he was nothing like COnman.
When will you learn mate?

http://www.thesweetscience.com/images/2614/jimmy_young_240x230_030205.jpg

warp1432

03-22-2009, 07:55 PM

Ali struggled with many smaller men. He went to a close decision against a former LHW contender (not champion) Doug Jones in a fight which many thought he had lost.

Why is this? It's been a while since I've seen the fight, but Ali clearly won this fight either 7-3 or 6-4. Jones had his moments, but that was about it.

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 08:00 PM

Why is this? It's been a while since I've seen the fight, but Ali clearly won this fight either 7-3 or 6-4. Jones had his moments, but that was about it.

Jones was the aggressor throughout the fight and had the crowd behind him which no doubt influenced the viewers into thinking Jones had the fight won.

I think Ali won but he was still having a lot of trouble with a light heavyweight who was not nearly as good as Conn.

Two judges scored 5-4 with one round even for Ali from what I remember.

It's not like Ali was "green" at that point of his career since he beat Liston not even a year afterwards.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1074640/index.htm

poet682006

03-22-2009, 08:45 PM

Isn't it amazing? Manchine answers all of Putrid Pommy's charges and provides reasoned arguments and evidence (including video!) and Pommy just becomes more unhinged as a result. Clearly no amount of hard facts are going to crack through this joker's self-imposed ignorance. In his distemperate responses he reveals his true agenda: While he took pains in an earlier post to say that this wasn't about "old" versus "new" I think it pretty obvious that for him it is exactly that. He worships at the shrine of the so-called "modern" all the while showing disdain for those he labled "old-timers". The definatition of a "boxing historian"? Someone who knows a hell of a lot more about boxing than Putrid Pommy ever will.

Poet

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 08:55 PM

Conn dominating Joe Louis:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s-ZDe3yEQKY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s-ZDe3yEQKY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Not exactly.

warp1432

03-22-2009, 09:10 PM

You showed like 4 rounds of a 13 round fight. ESPN showed pretty much the whole fight and Conn was dominating him. Louis caught him, but Conn was doing a paint job on him.

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 09:12 PM

You showed like 4 rounds of a 13 round fight. ESPN showed pretty much the whole fight and Conn was dominating him. Louis caught him, but Conn was doing a paint job on him.

I can upload the whole fight on youtube. From what I remember Conn was winning but not dominating.

warp1432

03-22-2009, 09:19 PM

I can upload the whole fight on youtube. From what I remember Conn was winning but not dominating.

Oh my god please do. That's one of my favorite fights.

What is your full fight collection? Because I can't even find full fights of fights back then, only a couple of rounds like what you posted.

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 09:27 PM

Highlights of all rounds except the third:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dMrpJGndqg0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dMrpJGndqg0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

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

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 09:30 PM

Oh my god please do. That's one of my favorite fights.

What is your full fight collection? Because I can't even find full fights of fights back then, only a couple of rounds like what you posted.

It will take a while to edit and upload the fight.

I have many almost full fights which might miss a round or two. It's rare to find any full fights from those days even though they do exist.

For example I uploaded the Marciano-Louis (missing one round) and Pastor-Louis fights which most people have probably seen only a round or two of. Next I'll try to upload the controversial Armstrong-Garcia rematch which is not a full version (some rounds are only about a minute and a half or two minute highlights).

warp1432

03-22-2009, 09:46 PM

It will take a while to edit and upload the fight.

I have many almost full fights which might miss a round or two. It's rare to find any full fights from those days even though they do exist.

For example I uploaded the Marciano-Louis (missing one round) and Pastor-Louis fights which most people have probably seen only a round or two of. Next I'll try to upload the controversial Armstrong-Garcia rematch which is not a full version (some rounds are only about a minute and a half or two minute highlights).

Do you have a full copy of Joey Maxim-Sugar Ray Robinson?

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 09:57 PM

Do you have a full copy of Joey Maxim-Sugar Ray Robinson?

It's one fight that I haven't been able to find any additional footage of so far.

I have the full Ray Robinson vs Denny Moyer II fight which most people probably haven't seen but it isn't as intriguing since Sugar Ray was over 40 years old. He did look good though, considering his age.

warp1432

03-22-2009, 09:59 PM

It's one fight that I haven't been able to find any additional footage of so far.

I have the full Ray Robinson vs Denny Moyer II fight which most people probably haven't seen but it isn't as intriguing since Sugar Ray was over 40 years old. He did look good though, considering his age.

The Robinson-Maxim fight is listed in his career set on a lot of sites, so I was wondering if it was the whole footage.

How many Robinson fights are the whole fight or most of it would you say exist?

TheGreatA

03-22-2009, 10:08 PM

The Robinson-Maxim fight is listed in his career set on a lot of sites, so I was wondering if it was the whole footage.

How many Robinson fights are the whole fight or most of it would you say exist?

A lot of his past prime fights probably do but before retirement I'd say that full film of Robinson-Fusari, Robinson-Dykes, Robinson-LaMotta VI, Robinson-Olson II, Robinson vs Turpin I&II, Robinson vs Graziano can be found, atleast almost.

Some of his fights during the European tour ended so quickly that the highlights are pretty much all.

JAB5239

03-23-2009, 02:39 AM

Very well then. It's here

You're not worth the time mate. You know you said it.

I haven't seen you quote me yet. Why don't you just tell everybody the post number and we can all look for ourselves. You opened your mouth, now back it up.

Really mate? This is what a genius looks like to you?

Compared to your drivel, absolutely.

He almost beat PRIME Holyfield and some believe he won. That's not something anyone can do against a prime Holyfield, especially not an "old shot Holmes" years AFTER getting destroyed by Tyson.

How convenient that you left this out, Jabbie. It's pretty difficult to get this through your thick skull, innit?

But he didn't win, did he? And if he did so well how come you aren't critisizing Holyfield for almost losing to a ring worn old fighter who had already lost his title to a lightheavyweight?

And I never said Mercer was an ATG. But he was very solid. He alone would mutilate almost everybody in Louis' Bum of the month pathetic padded title reign.

I never said he wasn't solid, but he was certainly limited. If he wasn't why did he lose to OLD Holmes, get a boxing lesson until landing a big shot on Damiani and LOSE to Jesse Ferguson and then struggle to a split decision win in the rematch?

Overcoming adversity against a Frazier or Foreman or Bowe is respectable. Getting spanked by a Light Heavyweight for over 10 rounds aint.

Lol, but he wasn't getting spanked, still knocked him out, and ko'd him in the rematch. You lose again.

Are you affraid to admit it now? I'm glad I put some sence into you then. I'm sure that if I wasn't around you'd joing the circle jerk and always claim Louis' title reign was the best.

Actually I wouldn't. I've never believed his title reign was the best. But its very good and much better than many.

Now, before you moan again about where you said it and becoming even more paranoid, why won't you tell us how you'd rate the Bum of the month club title reign?

I'd be happy to as soon as you list all the fighters with better title reigns and why. Im still waiting on that but you've conveniently ducked that question. I can only wonder why. Scared?

How convenient that you left out the part where while Tyson was gettin the **** beaten out of him, he KNOCKED DOUGLASS DOWN FOR OVER 10 SECONDS. There you go, I just shattered this comment.

And you've conveniently not answered why Tyson was getting beat by that caliber of fighter when he was in his prime. Oh, and if Im not mistaken Douglas beat the count. It could have been 30 seconds, the refs count is the only one that matters, or are you not familiar with the rules in which the WBC held up to upon Kings unscrupulous appeal?

He was on his way, and that's bad enough. Tell me, if a young monster George Foreman was getting destroyed by Roy Jones for 14 rounds, but THEN he KO'd roy in the last round, are you not going to critisize Foreman even though he won?

A win is a win, its the bottom line no matter if you want to critisize or not. Difference is, Louis wasn't getting destroyed and removed all doubt in the rematch.

Watch the fight. Everyone knows Walcott was robbed.

Hey I thought Walcott won too. But the judges didn't see it that way and again Louis removed all doubt in the rematch.

And what a brutal, comprehensive beating it was that Louis took. I didn't see Ali or Lewis get this kind of long spanking when they reached their prime.

TheManchine has already pointed out Ali's struggles and Lewis was knocked cold by McCall and Rahman. Do I really need to go over their stellar careers?

That's ok, I wouldn't expect the Joe Louis cornhole lickers to agree with me.

Lol, is this the best insult you've got? Me not agreeing with you has nothing to do with Louis. I find it difficult to agree with anyone who is clueless about the subject at hand. If you want though, you can take a little comfort in the fact that you aren't the first moron I've torched on this subject.

Oh, so Jabbie, does this mean that YOU are beaten and humiliated? Look here

Hardly. When the overwhelming majority of knowledgable posters start agreeing with your twisted facts and warped logic you can ask me that question adain and I might change my tune. Unfortunetly for you though.......I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I answered every silly little question you posed. It's you who is always avoiding questions by not responding at all or adding something immature like "lololol" which already shows you lost.

Still waiting on those reigns that were better than Louis'. And child, if we added a poll to this thread to see who got the better of who, do you really think I would lose? Lmao!! Lol!! Lol!! Bwaaahaahaahhaaaahaa!!!

Very cute circle jerk there lads. And you're all supposed to be some know it all old farts who are boxing historians? I think you're the clowns, mates. Don't get mad.

I don't think one of us thinks we know it all. But compared to you we're experts, open minded and objective. But don't cry little man, stick around and you may learn a thing or two.

poet682006

03-23-2009, 02:43 AM

I don't think one of us thinks we know it all. But compared to you we're experts, open minded and objective. But don't cry little man, stick around and you may learn a thing or two.

OMFG! That's the post of the fvcking year!

Poet

poet682006

03-23-2009, 02:49 AM

Huh? Sharkey was young and in his prime at the time the fight was held. He later went onto win the heavyweight title from Max Schmeling.

Thank you for catching that! I almost went into shock when I read it.

Poet

JAB5239

03-23-2009, 03:11 AM

What are you even talking about? Did you even stop and think for 1 second while you were in rage because of your Louis love, that I was talking to Jabbie and not you?

He said Tyson pretty much gave up, no heart etc against Douglass.

Again with the lies. When you can't win a debate with facts, lie!! Thats gotta be your credo.

Fact is Tyson showed tremendous heart and a great chin in that fight. But it doesn't change the fact he was beaten up in his prime by an underachieving fighter who's own father quit on him because of his lack of desire and heart. Hell, he looked perfectly capable of getting up from the Holyfield ko but sat there and not only took the count but gave away the championship without a fight. You're all gung ho in trying to discredit Louis, who's reign was better than Tysons, yet have no answers to why Tyson lost IN HIS PRIME to this type of fighter.

JAB5239

03-23-2009, 03:16 AM

How convenient that you left out the fact that he took everything Morrison had to offer, one of the hardest punchers ever, and went on to almost legally murder him. He also went to war for 12 rounds with a young Lennox.

How convenient you left out Morrisons less than steller chin, Mercers struggles with Damiani, His loss to Holmes and his loss and skin of his teeth split decision with trail horse Jesse Ferguson. Hmmm!

-CANE-

03-23-2009, 07:34 AM

Again this is a great thread but I think we need more talk on the other champions and their reigns in the other weight divisions.

It's become a discussion thread about heavyweights, so maybe we can argue about that in my sticky thread.

Sorry Jab I haven't had time to compile my list yet.

Testdead

03-23-2009, 07:55 AM

JAB5239

03-23-2009, 02:19 PM

Dreadful list.

No Pep at Featherweight no Johnson at HW.

Both Pep and Johnon were incredible fighters. But neithers reign is up there with the guys listed and mentioned. Pep was 9-2 during his title reign. Solid, but not one of the best in my opinion. His longevity, record and overall resume are excellent though which is why he is considered by many one of the 10 greatest fighters ever. Johnsons reign as champion is pretty bad in my opinion. He was 6-1-2 as champion and fought decent fighters, but certainly not anyone great besides Ketchel, who was an active middleweight, and O'Brien, who he drew with. All his best work was done previous to winni9ng the title. His reign as champion was very weak in my opinion. It could have been excellent had he not frozen out the best black fighters the same way he had been frozen out while chasing the title.

JAB5239

03-23-2009, 02:22 PM

Sorry Jab I haven't had time to compile my list yet.

No hurry my friend. You'll finish it when you finish it. I'll still be here and looking foward to it.

JAB5239

03-23-2009, 10:11 PM

Galento was ranked because of his "win" over Lou Nova.

Manchine, are you aware of any film of the Galento-Nova fight? I've read it was an entertaining brawl with lots of dirty tactics.

Kid McCoy

03-23-2009, 10:32 PM

Manchine, are you aware of any film of the Galento-Nova fight? I've read it was an entertaining brawl with lots of dirty tactics.

That's a fight I'd interested to see too. By all accounts Galento's tactics would have made Greb and Zivic blush. Here's an article on it by Ted Luzzi, AmatoBoxingSite:

It was billed as the irresistible college fullback meets the immovable bartender. Clean cut college guy Lou Nova versus cigar smoking, beer swilling, Tony Galento. It was more than a clash of personality it was culture clash as well. Lou Nova was 24 years old, the pride of Alameda California.

He was a former National AAU and International world amateur heavyweight champion. Three months earlier he had stopped former heavyweight champion Max Baer. Nova was square jawed and 6' 3" and 207 pounds of beautifully conditioned heavyweight.

Tony Galento was, well, variable weights.The night of September 15th 1939 he weighted 224 1/2 pounds. September 15 is the anniversary of what Ring magazine said was "one of the most disgraceful fights since the days of barroom brawls. Referee George Blake would have retained his reputation as a great referee if he had disqualified Galento".

International Boxing Magazine called it "The bloodiest fight of modern times." Galento and Nova were opposites in many ways. They were however each top contenders. It was no "one size fits all " in the heavyweight division."I'll murder the college kid," sneered Galento and 25,000 fans packed the stadium in Philadelphia to see them battle.

Lou Nova was the favourite both with the fans and with the odds makers. He was listed as 3-1 to win. A huge cheer went up as he entered the ring dressed in a all white robe befitting his good guy image. It was not to be a night that rivalled boxing's heavyweight glory days; Louis and Schmeling,Marciano and Walcott, Ali -Frazier.

Instead it was competitive savagery on Galento's part. Nova came out boxing with startling fast punches .It was all Nova in the first two rounds. He had no difficulty beating Galento to the punch and appeared to be winning going away. Then in round three Galento leaped forward throwing his famous left hook. The wide punch arched and then landed with a conclusive thud. Down went Nova! Galento sprawled over him.

When they got up Lou Nova had blood running down his face from a cut over the eye and was all but knocked out. Nova survived the round but was never the same. The rest of the fight was fought before the fans unbelieving and horrified eyes. Galento took boxing back to the cave. He hit Nova low, thumbed his eyes, butted him, and knocked him down twice.

Years later when Mike Tyson had the famous battle of the bite, Budd Schulberg the famous boxing writer said it was the worst thing in boxing since Galento's job on Lou Nova and that had been 38 years earlier. Nova hit Galento back but Tony had a great chin. Nova had guts, he rallied and lashed at Galento with his best punches.

Tony was huffing and puffing but still landing the occasional big left hook. In round ten Nova, his eyes swelling and with big bleeding cuts over each eye and a bloody nose, cracked Galento around the blood splattered ring. That was it however for Nova. It was all Galento the last four rounds.

The end finally came in Round 14. Galento and Nova were slugging toe-to-toe when Tony landed a blurring left hook that had Nova drooping. Inert his head hanging hopelessly on his chest. Another Galento special and Nova was down and finally it was stopped. Nova had to be carried to the dressing room. Later that night Nova gave a interview.

"Yeah he said. He fouled me. He sure did. All the way. Well that's all right with me. I could have done the same thing .Only I was brought up in college athletics where they teach you manners. Tony fought his kind of fight and he won. If he wants to win that way with foul tactics that’s his business. Only I don't think he can win that way and still go to heaven."

Galento was exhausted and skipped the victory party at his bar that night. Nova was in the hospital for five days. Nova went on to fight 35 times more including getting a shot at the heavyweight title against Joe Louis. However, Nova never forgave of forgot Galento's fouls. Years after the fight Galento and Nova were at a ****tail party in a New York Restaurant and Tony rushed across the room to shake hands.

Lou ignored the hand and turned his back and walked away. Galento was upset and said ";Why is so mad still ? Why I only gave him the thumb once honest!" In the words listed by Boxing International, "The hell you did, Tony," Not one of boxing's pretty stories for sure but its all part of the quilt of our favourite sport.

JAB5239

03-23-2009, 10:49 PM

That's a fight I'd interested to see too. By all accounts Galento's tactics would have made Greb and Zivic blush. Here's an article on it by Ted Luzzi, AmatoBoxingSite:

Thanks for the re-cap Kid. Ihaven't read an account of that fight in quite awhile.

Testdead

03-25-2009, 06:53 AM

Both Pep and Johnon were incredible fighters. But neithers reign is up there with the guys listed and mentioned. Pep was 9-2 during his title reign. Solid, but not one of the best in my opinion. His longevity, record and overall resume are excellent though which is why he is considered by many one of the 10 greatest fighters ever. Johnsons reign as champion is pretty bad in my opinion. He was 6-1-2 as champion and fought decent fighters, but certainly not anyone great besides Ketchel, who was an active middleweight, and O'Brien, who he drew with. All his best work was done previous to winni9ng the title. His reign as champion was very weak in my opinion. It could have been excellent had he not frozen out the best black fighters the same way he had been frozen out while chasing the title.

Trinket reigns then maybe.

But Pep and Robinson were denied title fights but in all truth were the best in the division.

JAB5239

03-25-2009, 04:51 PM

Trinket reigns then maybe.

But Pep and Robinson were denied title fights but in all truth were the best in the division.

When was Pep denied a title fight? He fought Chalky Wright for the NYSAC world championship just before his 22'nd birthday, and Sal Bartolo for the unified title a few months before turning 24.

JAB5239

03-25-2009, 04:57 PM

Again with the lies. When you can't win a debate with facts, lie!! Thats gotta be your credo.

Fact is Tyson showed tremendous heart and a great chin in that fight. But it doesn't change the fact he was beaten up in his prime by an underachieving fighter who's own father quit on him because of his lack of desire and heart. Hell, he looked perfectly capable of getting up from the Holyfield ko but sat there and not only took the count but gave away the championship without a fight. You're all gung ho in trying to discredit Louis, who's reign was better than Tysons, yet have no answers to why Tyson lost IN HIS PRIME to this type of fighter.

How convenient you left out Morrisons less than steller chin, Mercers struggles with Damiani, His loss to Holmes and his loss and skin of his teeth split decision with trail horse Jesse Ferguson. Hmmm!

Looks like someone tucked tail and got run off! Thats what happens when you try and argue against facts and truth.

BattlingNelson

03-25-2009, 05:39 PM

Good topic.

I just read the entire thread. Excellent posts aplenty and nice educational schooling from some of boxingcene's HOF-posters.

KrisSilver

03-25-2009, 06:02 PM

I'm slightly surprised there'd stick Hopkins so high. I mean he didn't exactly beat loads more top contendors then say Calzaghe, so by that standard.

Not a bad list though.

poet682006

03-26-2009, 01:09 PM

Looks like someone tucked tail and got run off! Thats what happens when you try and argue against facts and truth.

LOL!

Poet

Slimey Limey

03-26-2009, 05:18 PM

Time to spank some more Joe Louis spunk lovers. And for your lack of info, Jabbie, some of us actually have a life and work. Your job as a male prostitute probably has night shifts and such but I don't have as much time on my hands like you and Poet and youtubemachine. But don't worry mates, I'll be glad to continue depressing and shattering your dreams about bum killer.

I haven't seen you quote me yet. Why don't you just tell everybody the post number and we can all look for ourselves. You opened your mouth, now back it up.

You are still scared to post your true feelings, because you are now too ashamed to admit that you think Louis' laughable title reign should be #1. I'm glad I set you straight child.

Compared to your drivel, absolutely.

I haven't ever posted something childish like you and Poeta. You act like you're some old boxing historian but by looking at your posts you come across as an infant angry because someone said Superman is better than Batman.

But he didn't win, did he?

But that's not the point is it?

And if he did so well how come you aren't critisizing Holyfield for almost losing to a ring worn old fighter who had already lost his title to a lightheavyweight?

If you'd like I could and I do, but HOLYFIELD's crappy work in that fight has nothing to do with it. Plus I was actually proving a point, which was that Holmes was actually a better fighter at that age than Louis spunk lovers like you give him credit for.

How convenient that you are again ducking questions and going around it. Lets count. You are able to, right Jabbie? 2 ducks already.

I never said he wasn't solid, but he was certainly limited.

Nowhere near as limited as the windmilling bums Louis was padding his record with.

If he wasn't why did he lose to OLD Holmes, get a boxing lesson until landing a big shot on Damiani and LOSE to Jesse Ferguson and then struggle to a split decision win in the rematch?

I already cleared the Holmes fight up. Damiani never gave him a boxing lesson like LHW Conn was doing to Joe, and Ferguson is another fighter MUCH better than the typical bum of the month club Louis opponent.

Another big fail there, Jabbie. Hold those tears now, there's more to come.

Lol, but he wasn't getting spanked, still knocked him out, and ko'd him in the rematch. You lose again.

He was indeed getting spanked, got lucky with the KO and indeed won the rematch. There should have never been a rematch in the first place if the GOAT #1 best ever title reign Louis took care of business the first time around. So I win again.

Guess he just wasn't as great, and he actually did have flaws? Unbelievable isn't it?

Actually I wouldn't. I've never believed his title reign was the best. But its very good and much better than many.

Still ducking it, Jabbie. That's number 3.

I'd be happy to as soon as you list all the fighters with better title reigns and why. Im still waiting on that but you've conveniently ducked that question. I can only wonder why. Scared?

Yes scared of an internet message board. My God mate, if this type of thing scares you I don't even want to know how much you failed in real life.

Quote:
How convenient that you left out the part where while Tyson was gettin the **** beaten out of him, he KNOCKED DOUGLASS DOWN FOR OVER 10 SECONDS. There you go, I just shattered this comment.

And you've conveniently not answered why Tyson was getting beat by that caliber of fighter when he was in his prime. Oh, and if Im not mistaken Douglas beat the count. It could have been 30 seconds, the refs count is the only one that matters, or are you not familiar with the rules in which the WBC held up to upon Kings unscrupulous appeal?

I actually DID answer you. I think you have a lot of problems reading, Jabbie. Because you keep accusing me of things that went over your head. But since you're so slow, I'll repeat myself again. Douglass that night fought like a HW great and better than any opponent Louis ever faced. I'd rather lose to a big heavyweight like Douglass who fights like an ATG than lose to a blown up Light Heavyweight.

And just like I shut Manmachine up about that, I never meant anything about the count controversy. So another failed attempt to start something.

A win is a win, its the bottom line no matter if you want to critisize or not. Difference is, Louis wasn't getting destroyed and removed all doubt in the rematch.

There have been fighters who got away with cheating in a fight and those fights haven't been called a NC. Win is a win? You are just trying to cover up the fact that #1 GOAT Louis got his arse spanked across the ring by a blown up Light Heavyweight.
And this guy is supposed to stand a chance in fantasy matchups against the likes of Foreman, Liston and Ali?

Hey I thought Walcott won too. But the judges didn't see it that way and again Louis removed all doubt in the rematch.

It was a blatant robbery and fighters generally don't get credit for it. But of cource, if it's Joe Louis, it's "judges thought he won. Win is a win" etc.
Quote:

TheManchine has already pointed out Ali's struggles and Lewis was knocked cold by McCall and Rahman. Do I really need to go over their stellar careers?

They never received long comprehensive beatings in their prime like Louis against Schmeling.You should have used the popular route and used Tyson-Douglass. But you're not even smart enough to do that, Jabbie.

This debating thing isn't your thing.

Lol, is this the best insult you've got? Me not agreeing with you has nothing to do with Louis. I find it difficult to agree with anyone who is clueless about the subject at hand. If you want though, you can take a little comfort in the fact that you aren't the first moron I've torched on this subject.

Looks liked you're the one getting torched here Jabbie, but your insecurity gets a break because of your butt buddy Poet always sticking up for you like a little babysitter. I guess you can't handle your own problems.

Hardly. When the overwhelming majority of knowledgable posters start agreeing with your twisted facts and warped logic you can ask me that question adain and I might change my tune. Unfortunetly for you though.......I don't see that happening anytime soon.

More crying.

Still waiting on those reigns that were better than Louis'. And child, if we added a poll to this thread to see who got the better of who, do you really think I would lose? Lmao!! Lol!! Lol!! Bwaaahaahaahhaaaahaa!!!

First you're talking about fear and now a fookin internet tough guy contest mate? Sorry but I'm not sinking down to your child-like internet shananigans. But I guess it really means a lot to you mate.

I don't think one of us thinks we know it all. But compared to you we're experts, open minded and objective. But don't cry little man, stick around and you may learn a thing or two.

I'm your teacher here kid. Lose the child like remarks, ducking of posts and general patheticness and you might be able to talk about learning something to anybody.

Again with the lies. When you can't win a debate with facts, lie!! Thats gotta be your credo.

Don't get mad, Jabbie.
I never lied to ya mate. You are too easy for me to use those kind of debating tactics. I just post and show you your own ignorance. Like when I'm making a point of Holmes still being a good fighter because he beat Mercer and almost a prime Holyfield, but you go ask me in panic why I'm not critisizing Holyfield. How convenient.

Fact is Tyson showed tremendous heart and a great chin in that fight.

Carefull now. You don't want to skyrocket your mate Poet blood pressure.

But it doesn't change the fact he was beaten up in his prime by an underachieving fighter who's own father quit on him because of his lack of desire and heart. Hell, he looked perfectly capable of getting up from the Holyfield ko but sat there and not only took the count but gave away the championship without a fight. You're all gung ho in trying to discredit Louis, who's reign was better than Tysons, yet have no answers to why Tyson lost IN HIS PRIME to this type of fighter.

Wether the fighter was underachieving or an undisputable ATG, he fought like true great.
Get this. There was a show called top 5 EXCUSES for the Tyson loss. So they're talking about excuses, and #1 on the list was: "Douglass fought a great fight".
So there I answered why Tyson lost 'this type of fighter'. You have yet to answer me a lot of things.

Did you even see the Holyfield fight? You're confusing it with Mcbride or something.

[COLOR="Navy"][FONT="Tahoma"]How convenient you left out Morrisons less than steller chin, Mercers struggles with Damiani, His loss to Holmes and his loss and skin of his teeth split decision with trail horse Jesse Ferguson. Hmmm!

I don't remember you saying anything about Morrison's chin. But very well then. What does this prove? Your idol didn't have a stellar chin either, is this supposed to discredit him as well?
Mercer vs Damiani and Holmes and Ferguson answered above.

There, answered everything and gave you a worse spanking Louis received against Conman. Now you can only disagree, which you will definitely do because you're a Joe Louis cornhole licker. Have a nice day, and good luck on your nightshifts mate.

poet682006

03-26-2009, 05:24 PM

Idiot Alert! Putrid Pommey has slithered out from under his rock. He just can't resist that masochistic urge to get slapped around like the red-headed step-child of Boxing Scene that he is.

Poet

Slimey Limey

03-26-2009, 05:38 PM

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Isn't it amazing? Manchine answers all of Putrid Pommy's charges and provides reasoned arguments and evidence (including video!) and Pommy just becomes more unhinged as a result.

Manmachine has his own cheerleader now.
What I call youtubemahcine's "reasoned arguments" is convenient nitpicking with nonsense comparisons that simply don't hold up, and I set every one of them straight.

Clearly no amount of hard facts are going to crack through this joker's self-imposed ignorance.

Clearly no amount of hard facts that Joe Louis did have atleast 1 tiny litle bit of a flaw is going to crack through your biased thick skull.

In his distemperate responses he reveals his true agenda: While he took pains in an earlier post to say that this wasn't about "old" versus "new" I think it pretty obvious that for him it is exactly that. He worships at the shrine of the so-called "modern" all the while showing disdain for those he labled "old-timers". The definatition of a "boxing historian"?

Getting paranoid again mate? Stick to your medication.
And you reveal your same agenda in every post you make, which is your 3-flames tactic.

I almost went into shock when I first read that

Yes, I bet you are foaming from the mouth every time someone actually challenges you in a debate and forces you to go back to your old 3 flames tactic(1-you hate old fighters, 2-you are not worth the response, 3-dishonest ignore button. This is Poetta in a nutshell).

You're doing the exact same thing.

I was only making the point that Mercer could be very inconsistent.

That's convenient nitpicking, just like Jabbie did and I stomped him into the ground for that.
I love how you Louis cornhole lickers always this this or that fighter is inconsistent, yet you wouldn't never in hell admit anything like this about Louis.

I have yet to see you circle jerkers say even 1 non nuthugging thing about him.

You have a point but I thought you were saying that Tyson was "robbed" as people often do.

More crying.

You showed like 4 rounds of a 13 round fight. ESPN showed pretty much the whole fight and Conn was dominating him. Louis caught him, but Conn was doing a paint job on him.

That's typical manmachine for you. Idiotic comparisons and convenient nitpicking.

TheGreatA

03-26-2009, 05:51 PM

You still haven't responded to any of my arguments.

poet682006

03-26-2009, 05:51 PM

Manmachine has his own cheerleader now.
What I call youtubemahcine's "reasoned arguments" is convenient nitpicking with nonsense comparisons that simply don't hold up, and I set every one of them straight.

Clearly no amount of hard facts that Joe Louis did have atleast 1 tiny litle bit of a flaw is going to crack through your biased thick skull.

Getting paranoid again mate? Stick to your medication.
And you reveal your same agenda in every post you make, which is your 3-flames tactic.

Yes, I bet you are foaming from the mouth every time someone actually challenges you in a debate and forces you to go back to your old 3 flames tactic(1-you hate old fighters, 2-you are not worth the response, 3-dishonest ignore button. This is Poetta in a nutshell).

That's convenient nitpicking, just like Jabbie did and I stomped him into the ground for that.
I love how you Louis cornhole lickers always this this or that fighter is inconsistent, yet you wouldn't never in hell admit anything like this about Louis.

I have yet to see you circle jerkers say even 1 non nuthugging thing about him.

More crying.

That's typical manmachine for you. Idiotic comparisons and convenient nitpicking.

Just suck on your binky :bottle: and acccept the fact you've been owned over and over again. You've been exposed by your intellectual betters as being a nitwit who knows nothing about boxing not to mention being unable to think your way out of a wet paper bag. Now run along like a good little Pommey and maybe mommy will let you have some titty-milk; leave the adult discussions to your betters. :owned:

Poet

TheGreatA

03-26-2009, 05:55 PM

I don't see how these arguments are "nonsense":

How convenient that you say Ali struggled with MANY smaller men yet go on to only mention ONE, in which ALi was not even close to his prime.

He was also nearly KO'd by Henry Cooper, a 180 lber. Both of these fights were not even a year before he outboxed and beat Sonny Liston!

Just like your pathetic Ali example, still young and not in his prime. And still, not even close to what Louis was doing against Conman. There is a diffirence between a close fight and winning, and being dominated for over 10 rounds and then catching your opponent.

I've already disproved the myth about Louis being "dominated". The fight was near even on the cards with Conn having a slight lead after 12 rounds.

Foreman was so young and out of prime that he was coming off two of his career best performances against George Chuvalo and Boone Kirkman.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5P7B2lYP4Gk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5P7B2lYP4Gk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d2KRcH1N-xY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d2KRcH1N-xY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

WHy did Louis get spanked and dominated by Charles? Why did Marciano torture and brutally KO him out of the ring? It's not like Louis was already OLD and SHOT, innit? There is a reason why I never mention these losses that Louis suffered.

You did mention the loss to Charles. You also mentioned the loss to Schmeling and now you're trying to say that Ali and Foreman were "too young".

Again, Charles was nothing like Conman. The man became a true heavyweight just like Holyfield and Moorer.
And again, it was nothing like the Louis-Conn fight where Louis looked like crap.

True heavyweight who weighed 185 lbs against Marciano.

How convenient that you act like Louis didn't 'get lucky' against Conman but still go on to act like the Shavers-Ellis KO was 'luck'.

It's not that it was luck, it was illegal (holding & hitting).

Sharkey was an ancient fossile by that time so it means nothing. Anyone with eyes can see Dempsey wasn't even close to the monster he was years before. The fact that he knocked Tunney on his ass once for half a minute shows that the only thing he had left was power, and was no longer capable of using it like before.

Huh? Sharkey was young and in his prime at the time the fight was held. He later went onto win the heavyweight title from Max Schmeling.

Furthermore, Tunney cannot be compared to Conman in terms of Heavyweigts.

Conn's HW resume before facing Louis was about as good as Tunney's before he faced Dempsey with wins over top 10 ranked contenders Gunnar Bärlund (the man in my avatar), Bob Pastor and Lee Savold. He had KO'd 4 of his last five HW opponents.

Tunney's best win at HW before facing Dempsey was over Tommy Gibbons, a former LHW himself, who gave Dempsey the most trouble in all of Dempsey's title defenses until Tunney.

He was just like Marciano, two very small heavyweights able to bang with the big lads. I can't see Conman doing anything like them.

Ellis weighed around 190 and wasn't exactly solid. He was a former middleweight, not even a light heavy.

I also made up more examples about Liston and Norton:

Ken Norton was knocked out by JL Garcia, a bloated light heavyweight.

Sonny Liston lost a SD and was knocked down in the rematch against LHW contender Marty Marshall.

If they were "too young" then so was Louis against Schmeling.

JAB5239

03-27-2009, 05:03 AM

[QUOTE=Slimey Limey;4971471]Time to spank some more Joe Louis spunk lovers. And for your lack of info, Jabbie, some of us actually have a life and work. Your job as a male prostitute probably has night shifts and such but I don't have as much time on my hands like you and Poet and youtubemachine. But don't worry mates, I'll be glad to continue depressing and shattering your dreams about bum killer.

You are still scared to post your true feelings, because you are now too ashamed to admit that you think Louis' laughable title reign should be #1. I'm glad I set you straight child.

I haven't ever posted something childish like you and Poeta. You act like you're some old boxing historian but by looking at your posts you come across as an infant angry because someone said Superman is better than Batman.

See above in red.

But that's not the point is it?

No, its exactly the point.

If you'd like I could and I do, but HOLYFIELD's crappy work in that fight has nothing to do with it. Plus I was actually proving a point, which was that Holmes was actually a better fighter at that age than Louis spunk lovers like you give him credit for.

What does this prove? Holy struggled with Cooper and tired old George his two previous fights.

How convenient that you are again ducking questions and going around it. Lets count. You are able to, right Jabbie? 2 ducks already.

Yeah, I know. Still waiting on that list of fighters with better title reigns than Louis, and why.

Nowhere near as limited as the windmilling bums Louis was padding his record with.

Do these words look familiar, they should? "Just because you have never heard of them doesn't make them bums. It just means you know nothing, Johnny boy."
I already cleared the Holmes fight up. Damiani never gave him a boxing lesson like LHW Conn was doing to Joe, and Ferguson is another fighter MUCH better than the typical bum of the month club Louis opponent.

73-79, 74-79, 74-78. Those were the scores of the Damiani fight before the stoppage.

Ferguson ended his career at 26-18, was stopped 7 times and besides beating Mercer and underacheiving Buster Douglas, lost everytime he stepped up. Nice call on how good he really was. Seems to me you've just earned your Ph.d in stupidity. Congratulations!:fest30:

Another big fail there, Jabbie. Hold those tears now, there's more to come.

Bring it on lil man.

He was indeed getting spanked, got lucky with the KO and indeed won the rematch. There should have never been a rematch in the first place if the GOAT #1 best ever title reign Louis took care of business the first time around. So I win again.

Conn is an all time great (unlike Douglas), it was a close fight, and Louis closed the show. Great fighters overcome adversity, just like Louis did.

Guess he just wasn't as great, and he actually did have flaws? Unbelievable isn't it?

Nobody said he didn't have flaws. But that can't change the fact that he is argubly the greatest heavyweight ever.

Still ducking it, Jabbie. That's number 3.

Still waiting on that list of fighters and why you think their reigns were better than Louis'.

Quote:
How convenient that you left out the part where while Tyson was gettin the **** beaten out of him, he KNOCKED DOUGLASS DOWN FOR OVER 10 SECONDS. There you go, I just shattered this comment.

Maybe you should take a minute and look up the definition of the word 'explanation'.

I actually DID answer you. I think you have a lot of problems reading, Jabbie. Because you keep accusing me of things that went over your head. But since you're so slow, I'll repeat myself again. Douglass that night fought like a HW great and better than any opponent Louis ever faced. I'd rather lose to a big heavyweight like Douglass who fights like an ATG than lose to a blown up Light Heavyweight.

Seems you don't understand the difference between being great and fighting great. Conn was great. Douglas looked great that night because Tyson fought like crap and couldn't have gotten out of the way of Busters punches if Douglas had mailed him a letter and told him what punch would be coming next round. He was beat by a 42-1 underdog. An underachiever. A guy who sat on his ass and took the count in his very next fight. A guy who lost to Jesse Ferguson. You fail yet again.

And just like I shut Manmachine up about that, I never meant anything about the count controversy. So another failed attempt to start something.

JAB5239

03-27-2009, 05:04 AM

You haven't shut anyone up. You've simply flapped your gums and refused to answer question. Lol, you're a joke.

There have been fighters who got away with cheating in a fight and those fights haven't been called a NC. Win is a win? You are just trying to cover up the fact that #1 GOAT Louis got his arse spanked across the ring by a blown up Light Heavyweight.
And this guy is supposed to stand a chance in fantasy matchups against the likes of Foreman, Liston and Ali?

Same old ignorant answer. Not even worthy of anymore of a response than this.

It was a blatant robbery and fighters generally don't get credit for it. But of cource, if it's Joe Louis, it's "judges thought he won. Win is a win" etc.
Quote:

I already said Walcott should have won. Bud did Louis, or did he not set the record straight in the rematch?

They never received long comprehensive beatings in their prime like Louis against Schmeling.You should have used the popular route and used Tyson-Douglass. But you're not even smart enough to do that, Jabbie.

22 years old and not yet champion. Set thing straight in the rematch. And if Im not mistaken we are taling about title reigns here, or have you forgotten?

This debating thing isn't your thing.

Well if you think its your thing you probably enjoy playing in traffic too. Not very bright, are you?

Looks liked you're the one getting torched here Jabbie, but your insecurity gets a break because of your butt buddy Poet always sticking up for you like a little babysitter. I guess you can't handle your own problems.

The overwhelming majority agrees with me, but Im getting torched? :haha:

More crying.

(sniffle)

First you're talking about fear and now a fookin internet tough guy contest mate? Sorry but I'm not sinking down to your child-like internet shananigans. But I guess it really means a lot to you mate.

Once again, see the highlighted section in red at the top of the page.

I'm your teacher here kid. Lose the child like remarks, ducking of posts and general patheticness and you might be able to talk about learning something to anybody.

(yawn)

Don't get mad, Jabbie.
I never lied to ya mate. You are too easy for me to use those kind of debating tactics. I just post and show you your own ignorance. Like when I'm making a point of Holmes still being a good fighter because he beat Mercer and almost a prime Holyfield, but you go ask me in panic why I'm not critisizing Holyfield. How convenient.

All I read was blah, blah, blah. And why haven't you critisized Holy? I'll tell you why.....because it would put your lame as argument right in the ****ter. FACT.

Wether the fighter was underachieving or an undisputable ATG, he fought like true great.
Get this. There was a show called top 5 EXCUSES for the Tyson loss. So they're talking about excuses, and #1 on the list was: "Douglass fought a great fight".
So there I answered why Tyson lost 'this type of fighter'. You have yet to answer me a lot of things.

A never was, fighting a great fight still doesn't explain how an all time great and 42 to 1 favorite was beaten down in his prime. Billy Conn fought a great fight, is an all time great, and still lost If you are going to critsize Louis, why not Tyson? Why not Holy, Liston, Dempsey, Lewis, Patterson, Holmes, Johnson, Ali, Foreman or any other heavyweight great? I'll tell you why....because you've got an agenda. Its the same reason you won't name the so called better title reigns than Louis' and why. You know it I'll tear it to shreds.

Did you even see the Holyfield fight? You're confusing it with Mcbride or something.

No, Im not.

I don't remember you saying anything about Morrison's chin. But very well then. What does this prove?

Proves you are overrating Mercer.

Your idol didn't have a stellar chin either, is this supposed to discredit him as well?

He was never stopped in his prime. His two stoppage losses came when he was still coming up and long after his skills had faded. Oh, and they were to two all time greats.

Mercer vs Damiani and Holmes and Ferguson answered above.

You never answer about Ferguson. You Damiani answer has been debunked and flushed down the toilet as well as your answer on Holmes. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

There, answered everything and gave you a worse spanking Louis received against Conman. Now you can only disagree, which you will definitely do because you're a Joe Louis cornhole licker. Have a nice day, and good luck on your nightshifts mate.[/QUOTE]

Weak. Very weak.