How does he do against these fighters:

Goerge Foreman
Mike Tyson
Sonny Liston

How does he do against these fighters:

Goerge Foreman
Mike Tyson
Sonny Liston

I like Louis to beat all 3, though I would give Tyson a very good chance to stop him in the first 5 round. If that didn't happen Louis would beat him up and possibly stop him late. Foreman was powerful but gassed quickly and thru wide punches which Louis would capitalize on and counter. Louis in 8. Liston was powerful with a great jab but I just think Louis is the superior fighter. Sonny was a bit plodding and very predictable in the ring. Joe would taste the canvas in this one Im sure, but he'd come back and win a decision.

How does he do against these fighters:

Goerge Foreman
Mike Tyson
Sonny Liston

Louis and George could go either way. Depends on who has a better night. If it goes into later rounds I give it to Louis. If it ends early, George wins.

Tyson is a more skilled, stronger, better puncher. Tyson wins every time, outside of a fluke night.

Sonny Liston and Louis would be an awesome fight and could go either way, depending on who has the better night. Probably go down to a SD every time.

Louis and George could go either way. Depends on who has a better night. If it goes into later rounds I give it to Louis. If it ends early, George wins.

Tyson is a more skilled, stronger, better puncher. Tyson wins every time, outside of a fluke night.

Sonny Liston and Louis would be an awesome fight and could go either way, depending on who has the better night. Probably go down to a SD every time.

I respect your opinions of the outcome of the fights but I disagree that Tyson was more skilled or a better puncher than Louis. Joe's punches were pin point accurate and he was almost always in position to throw his next combination. And I don't think there is ANY heavyweight who was as skilled as Louis. Tyson did a few thing better than Louis, but Louis did almost everything better than Mike, in my opinion.

I respect your opinions of the outcome of the fights but I disagree that Tyson was more skilled or a better puncher than Louis. Joe's punches were pin point accurate and he was almost always in position to throw his next combination. And I don't think there is ANY heavyweight who was as skilled as Louis. Tyson did a few thing better than Louis, but Louis did almost everything better than Mike, in my opinion.

I haven't watched all of Louis' fights, but from the fights that I have seen, it's apparent that he's never fought anybody on Mike's level, aside from Marciano (who was shy of Mike's talent). Mike was the most dangerous kind of fighter - an ultra evasive, quick handed combo puncher with tons of power in both hands that knew how to get inside and "open up like a son of a *****" and on top of being the most dangerous type, he was the most skilled at being the type of fighter he was, not to mention a great chin and the ability to go 10 rounds with guys that weighed 30 lb's more than he.

I'm not saying Louis wasn't great, but boxing changed a lot from the time Louis fought to when Mike was fighting, and I just don't see how judging from the style of these guys and watching them on film, anybody could believe that Louis could beat Tyson. I just don't see it happening.

I feel like Tyson in his prime was in a league all his own - a phenom that the world had never seen anything close to.

I just don't know that Louis, as quick and accurate as he was, would have the ability to hit Mike enough to hurt him, and I doubt that Louis would be able to dodge or take Mike's punches for more than 6 rounds.

Unless there is something on film that we can see that shows otherwise.

I like Louis to beat all 3, though I would give Tyson a very good chance to stop him in the first 5 round. If that didn't happen Louis would beat him up and possibly stop him late. Foreman was powerful but gassed quickly and thru wide punches which Louis would capitalize on and counter. Louis in 8. Liston was powerful with a great jab but I just think Louis is the superior fighter. Sonny was a bit plodding and very predictable in the ring. Joe would taste the canvas in this one Im sure, but he'd come back and win a decision.
Couldn't put it better myself.. :beerchug:

I haven't watched all of Louis' fights, but from the fights that I have seen, it's apparent that he's never fought anybody on Mike's level, aside from Marciano (who was shy of Mike's talent). Mike was the most dangerous kind of fighter - an ultra evasive, quick handed combo puncher with tons of power in both hands that knew how to get inside and "open up like a son of a *****" and on top of being the most dangerous type, he was the most skilled at being the type of fighter he was, not to mention a great chin and the ability to go 10 rounds with guys that weighed 30 lb's more than he.


Let me ask you something. Who on Mikes resume is as skilled or as good a puncher as a prime Louis? It works both ways. Louis was also adapt at fighting guys much bigger than himself. He also showed a mental fortitude Tyson never had. When to going got tough Mike didn't do so well. That is a fact.

I'm not saying Louis wasn't great, but boxing changed a lot from the time Louis fought to when Mike was fighting, and I just don't see how judging from the style of these guys and watching them on film, anybody could believe that Louis could beat Tyson. I just don't see it happening.

Boxing did change a lot. Fighters got slower more spoiled, threw less punches and had a hard time going less rounds.

I feel like Tyson in his prime was in a league all his own - a phenom that the world had never seen anything close to.

Dude, he lost to Buster Douglas.

I just don't know that Louis, as quick and accurate as he was, would have the ability to hit Mike enough to hurt him, and I doubt that Louis would be able to dodge or take Mike's punches for more than 6 rounds.


If Mike can't take him out early he's in serious trouble. Louis had 11 ko's after 7 rounds or more. Mike had 1. If Tyson couldn't take you out he got frustrated.

Unless there is something on film that we can see that shows otherwise.


I won't say Tyson CAN'T beat Louis, but there is certainly enough video evidence to suggest a win for Louis.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlosG815 View Post
I haven't watched all of Louis' fights, but from the fights that I have seen, it's apparent that he's never fought anybody on Mike's level, aside from Marciano (who was shy of Mike's talent). Mike was the most dangerous kind of fighter - an ultra evasive, quick handed combo puncher with tons of power in both hands that knew how to get inside and "open up like a son of a *****" and on top of being the most dangerous type, he was the most skilled at being the type of fighter he was, not to mention a great chin and the ability to go 10 rounds with guys that weighed 30 lb's more than he.

Let me ask you something.

Who on Mikes resume is as skilled or as good a puncher as a prime Louis? It works both ways. Louis was also adapt at fighting guys much bigger than himself. He also showed a mental fortitude Tyson never had. When to going got tough Mike didn't do so well. That is a fact.

Quote:
I'm not saying Louis wasn't great, but boxing changed a lot from the time Louis fought to when Mike was fighting, and I just don't see how judging from the style of these guys and watching them on film, anybody could believe that Louis could beat Tyson. I just don't see it happening.

Boxing did change a lot. Fighters got slower more spoiled, threw less punches and had a hard time going less rounds.

Quote:
I feel like Tyson in his prime was in a league all his own - a phenom that the world had never seen anything close to.
Dude, he lost to Buster Douglas.

Quote:
I just don't know that Louis, as quick and accurate as he was, would have the ability to hit Mike enough to hurt him, and I doubt that Louis would be able to dodge or take Mike's punches for more than 6 rounds.

If Mike can't take him out early he's in serious trouble. Louis had 11 ko's after 7 rounds or more. Mike had 1. If Tyson couldn't take you out he got frustrated.

Quote:
Unless there is something on film that we can see that shows otherwise.

I won't say Tyson CAN'T beat Louis, but there is certainly enough video evidence to suggest a win for Louis.

If you believe Tyson was in his prime at the time he fought Douglas, you're mistaken. It's common knowledge that he was distracted by a lot of things outside of boxing, and wasn't focused or conditioned. He thought he would KO Douglas in 5 rounds or less so that's all he was prepared for. Douglas 9 out of 10 times does not beat Tyson in his '90 condition, and Douglas loses 10/10 to a prime Tyson.

Mike had no problem going the distance. Only 2 fighters up until the time he went to Prison took him PAST 7 rounds, and yeah, he KO'd one, and Tucker went to a UD. Good observation, but it doesn't help your case when only 2 guys took him to that point.

edit: I actually just looked up Tyson's record and 4 guys took him the distance. My bad.

I like Louis to beat all 3, though I would give Tyson a very good chance to stop him in the first 5 round. If that didn't happen Louis would beat him up and possibly stop him late. Foreman was powerful but gassed quickly and thru wide punches which Louis would capitalize on and counter. Louis in 8. Liston was powerful with a great jab but I just think Louis is the superior fighter. Sonny was a bit plodding and very predictable in the ring. Joe would taste the canvas in this one Im sure, but he'd come back and win a decision.

I was going to respond, but you already wrote exactly what I was planning to add. :)

If you believe Tyson was in his prime at the time he fought Douglas, you're mistaken. It's common knowledge that he was distracted by a lot of things outside of boxing, and wasn't focused or conditioned.

He was champion for 3 years and 23 years old. I would call that prime. If he wasn't focussed on the fight that just shows he was a mentally weak champion. Louis lost to Schmelling before becoming champ because of these same reasons but never made that mistake again. Tyson knew what he had to do to prepare for this fight but choose not to. That is a mental weakness no champion should have.

He thought he would KO Douglas in 5 rounds or less so that's all he was prepared for. Douglas 9 out of 10 times does not beat Tyson in his '90 condition, and Douglas loses 10/10 to a prime Tyson.

Who's fault is that? He was still in his prime and he should have known better if you really want to stick with that line of reasoning.

Douglas is batting .1000 against Tyson, nothing can change that. Truth be told, I don't think any version of Tyson beats the version of Douglas who showed up in Tokyo that night. Right from the start he was focussed and unafraid.

Mike had no problem going the distance. Only 2 fighters up until the time he went to Prison took him PAST 7 rounds, and yeah, he KO'd one, and Tucker went to a UD. Good observation, but it doesn't help your case when only 2 guys took him to that point.

edit: I actually just looked up Tyson's record and 4 guys took him the distance. My bad.


What happened when guys didn't crumble under his power or reputation? He looked pretty ordinary and wasn't the same fighter who came out with guns blazing for the first 3 or 4 rounds. Ruddock, Smith, Tucker, Ribalta, Ruddock, Green and especially Tillis all proved this. None of them were nearly as talented or powerful as Joe Louis

By the way, thats 7.

I was going to respond, but you already wrote exactly what I was planning to add. :)

I think you should spend more time posting over here than in NSB. Its fun from time to time, but your knowledge is wasted over there. Jmo my man.

Louis/Foreman is a toss up, I know Foreman throws wide shots, and Louis threw short ones, but Foreman showed a better chin IMO...if we're talking prime Foreman, both men go down and it goes to decsion for Joe.

A prime Liston? wow, now this is a real tough call, but I'd favor Liston.

Tyson is just too fast a starter, if Joe came in the right mindset like he did against Schmeling it would be very exciting.....it could go both ways, Joe gets Ko'd in 3, or Joe Kos Mike in the later rounds. A better question would be who was the better finisher.

IMO Joe Louis takes care of all 3 fighters.. Louis matches up to all 3 of them in height and weight yet he has the better skills, Joe Louis also hits just as hard as all 3 fighters and i see Louis winning against all 3 by late KOs

What happened when guys didn't crumble under his power or reputation? He looked pretty ordinary and wasn't the same fighter who came out with guns blazing for the first 3 or 4 rounds. Ruddock, Smith, Tucker, Ribalta, Ruddock, Green and especially Tillis all proved this. None of them were nearly as talented or powerful as Joe Louis

By the way, thats 7.

Like I said, Prime Tyson. I should mention that I don't consider the Tyson that fought Ruddock to be "prime" which is why I counted 4 fights that went past 7. You can't take anything away from Mike. Ruddock wasn't going to back down. Look at his face after the fight, he can't even move his face and it looks like his jaw could fall onto the ring at any second. For him to stay in the ring after the beating he took, hats off to him, that doesn't take away from Mike.

A lot of those fights went the distance because those dudes were good at holding. Guys that are 2-5" taller than Mike with an extra 20-30 pounds, they figured that a good strategy was to lay on him. You know this is true. Watch the Tillis fight, he did a good job of holding to kill time and limit punishment.

Even at his peak Tyson was never as good as his most rabid fans make him out to be. Fighters who generate a lot of offense ALWAYS look spectacular against C level competition and given the right match-ups against B level as well. Rating Heavyweights soley by their peak years I would rate Tyson around 9th or 10th among the ATGs. While I've always stressed that it's possible for any ATG to beat any other ATG on any given night (barring a prohibitive style mis-match such as Tyson, Frazier, and Marciano against Foreman), if they all fought in a 10 fight series I would expect Tyson to a sub .500 record against those occupying the 1 through 8 spots.

Poet

Even at his peak Tyson was never as good as his most rabid fans make him out to be.

:bsflag:

That's a bull**** statement and you know it. Just because he made everybody look like a 2nd rate boxer doesn't take anything away from his greatness.

You, like most people, pick a few of Tyson's awesome qualities and forget about everything else and talk as if his other abilities are mediocre just because they may be slightly overshadowed by his other more obvious superior skills (hand speed, punching power, combination's).

Film doesn't lie, and when you watch film, you can not put together a string of supreme boxing talent with many fighters the same way you could with Iron Mike, unless you can show otherwise.

Louis is disposed of, and suffers more punishment than Marciano dished out to him.

:bsflag:

That's a bull**** statement and you know it. Just because he made everybody look like a 2nd rate boxer doesn't take anything away from his greatness.

You, like most people, pick a few of Tyson's awesome qualities and forget about everything else and talk as if his other abilities are mediocre just because they may be slightly overshadowed by his other more obvious superior skills (hand speed, punching power, combination's).

Film doesn't lie, and when you watch film, you can not put together a string of supreme boxing talent with many fighters the same way you could with Iron Mike, unless you can show otherwise.

Louis is disposed of, and suffers more punishment than Marciano dished out to him.

A nuthugger are we? Must be if you're getting all butt hurt over someone not genuflecting over Leg-Iron Mike the way you do. Film doesn't lie but the quality of opposition doesn't lie either. I've seen fighters come and I've seen them go. If there is one constant among boxing fans it's their propensity to pull their puds over fighters that get spectacular KOs over tomato cans then wonder WTF happend when they get smacked when they step up in class.

Poet

Even at his peak Tyson was never as good as his most rabid fans make him out to be. Fighters who generate a lot of offense ALWAYS look spectacular against C level competition and given the right match-ups against B level as well. Rating Heavyweights soley by their peak years I would rate Tyson around 9th or 10th among the ATGs. While I've always stressed that it's possible for any ATG to beat any other ATG on any given night (barring a prohibitive style mis-match such as Tyson, Frazier, and Marciano against Foreman), if they all fought in a 10 fight series I would expect Tyson to a sub .500 record against those occupying the 1 through 8 spots.

Poet
Typical Lennox Lewis nuthugger logic.. "if they fought in a 10 fight series".... when in the History of Boxing have any 2 fighters ever fought in a 10 fight series - answer: NEVER yet Lewis nuthuggers always come out with that same line, "if they fought 10 times Lennox wins 7" what ****ing bull...and like all Lewis nuthuggers they hate Mike Tyson, they hate Tyson and argue about when his prime was, they argue that it was not between 86-90 but that it was more like 86-02 so as to make out that Lewis never beat a zombie when he beat Tyson....

its hard to say how joe louis would do against those fighters, prime louis never faced anyone better than max schmeling and he was 34 when louis beat him in the rematch.
i give him a 50/50 chance to beat tyson and foreman, but liston would beat joe louis pretty easy.
most ppl remember liston from the ali fights, but they forget how he destroyed floyd patterson twice in the first round.
he also beat prime cleveland williams who looked even stronger than foreman in the 50s.
my prediction : liston by ko in 4
liston had a 10" reach advantage over him, thats just too much for a flat footed fighter like louis.

when in the History of Boxing have any 2 fighters ever fought in a 10 fight series - answer: NEVER

Some fought far more than ten.

Ted Lewis-Jack Britton
Sam McVea-Joe Jeanette
Sam Langford-Harry Wills
Burley and Williams fought seven
It's uncommon for such rivalries past the 30s but it has happened.

Typical Lennox Lewis nuthugger logic.. "if they fought in a 10 fight series".... when in the History of Boxing have any 2 fighters ever fought in a 10 fight series - answer: NEVER yet Lewis nuthuggers always come out with that same line, "if they fought 10 times Lennox wins 7" what ****ing bull...and like all Lewis nuthuggers they hate Mike Tyson, they hate Tyson and argue about when his prime was, they argue that it was not between 86-90 but that it was more like 86-02 so as to make out that Lewis never beat a zombie when he beat Tyson....

Didn't have to look to hard to find one of my boxing posts did you? Sorry o Lame One, but one-off fights are NOT a good way to determine how one fighter does against another as anything can happen in a one-off fight. Or is this concept too difficult for your admittedly low intellect to grasp?

Poet

Typical Lennox Lewis nuthugger logic

PS. Sonnygurl's definition of a Lewis nuthuggery is anyone who doesn't think Lennox would lose to any Heavyweight ranked in the top-100. I happen to rank Lewis #13 all-time: Hardly the ranking of a Lewis fan-boi. The utter absurdity Sonnygurl's warped views of Lennox is he'll in one post say Lennox is a top-25 Heavyweight then in the next post will name 50 Heavyweights who are better than him :rofl:

Poet

.. "if they fought in a 10 fight series".... when in the History of Boxing have any 2 fighters ever fought in a 10 fight series - answer: NEVER

Got to say Sonny I always favour the 10 fight scenario. I know its a stretch but so is transporting Fitz or Riddick Bowe through time when you think of it :)

For example ignoring the Marciano v Louis fight they actually had, and thinking along the lines of who do I think would win?
IMO I rate Louis over Marciano but one off it could well be a coin toss between the two of them, Marciano has a lot of plus factors that could get to Louis short term. Over the long term the better man win's, bit like backgammon, poker etc etc
Over ten fights i'd fancy Louis to win 6 or 7 of them.

A nuthugger are we? Must be if you're getting all butt hurt over someone not genuflecting over Leg-Iron Mike the way you do. Film doesn't lie but the quality of opposition doesn't lie either. I've seen fighters come and I've seen them go. If there is one constant among boxing fans it's their propensity to pull their puds over fighters that get spectacular KOs over tomato cans then wonder WTF happend when they get smacked when they step up in class.

Poet

Name calling is a last resort used when you have nothing else of logic or relevance to add to a conversation. What you've just posted says nothing except that you're an immature 41 year old guy that can't think of anything else to say.

If it were true, I wouldn't care. I don't believe Tyson was as great as I think he is because I'm a fan and I just "like" him. I say the things I say because that's what I see when I watch his film. The fact of the matter is Tyson didn't just KO tomato cans. He KO'd legit contenders.

Marvis Frazier was a highly touted prospect - Decimated

Berbick was champion and a contender - Decimated in hopeless fashion

Pinklon Thomas was thought by some to be the best fighter in the world, some believed he was 2 or 3 behind Tyson and Spinks - he was destroyed

Biggs was undefeated when he fought Tyson, Olympic gold medalist, a top contender at the time - he cried.

Larry Holmes was a legend and his record speaks for itself. Yeah he was older but he's the same age as Mosley is today. He could have beaten many contenders at the time - Destroyed and embarrassed by Mike.

Michael Spinks was undefeated and was a top contender. Everybody had been wanting to see a Tyson/Spinks fight because many believed Spinks might be able to do the job - He was defunk'd in no time at all.

He took out many top contenders, I'm not going to go through them all, as I'm sure you already know. You can play it off like he's an overly hyped boxer, but there is a reason he's regarded by many as possibly the GOAT. Oh, but you must know different because you can see things that others can't or are missing. Give me a beak dude.

Name calling is a last resort used when you have nothing else of logic or relevance to add to a conversation. What you've just posted says nothing except that you're an immature 41 year old guy that can't think of anything else to say.

I call it like it is: Slavish devotion to a particular fighter and gross overestimation of his abilities = nuthuggery.


If it were true, I wouldn't care. I don't believe Tyson was as great as I think he is because I'm a fan and I just "like" him. I say the things I say because that's what I see when I watch his film. The fact of the matter is Tyson didn't just KO tomato cans. He KO'd legit contenders.

I have every Mike Tyson fight in my collection with the exception of the never filmed Sims fight and I have watched them many times. I have also watched film of most of the all-time greats in most of the weight classes. I'd hazzard to say I've probably watched considerably more fights than YOU have.


Marvis Frazier was a highly touted prospect - Decimated.

Marvis may have been highly touted by his dad but by no one else. Not to mention he had already been KOed in 1 round by Larry Holmes.

Berbick was champion and a contender - Decimated in hopeless fashion.

The worst beltholder in Heaqvyweight history and the poster-boy for everything that was wrong with the Heavyweight division in the 80s.

Pinklon Thomas was thought by some to be the best fighter in the world, some believed he was 2 or 3 behind Tyson and Spinks - he was destroyed.

Fresh out of rehab for coke addiction and a shell of what he had been prior to snorting his career up his nose.

Biggs was undefeated when he fought Tyson, Olympic gold medalist, a top contender at the time - he cried.

A never was who's management jumped at a chance for a big payday because they knew it was only a matter of time before he was exposed as a pretender.

Larry Holmes was a legend and his record speaks for itself. Yeah he was older but he's the same age as Mosley is today. He could have beaten many contenders at the time - Destroyed and embarrassed by Mike.

A clearly past it Larry Holmes who hadn't fought in 2 years AND was out of shape.

Michael Spinks was undefeated and was a top contender. Everybody had been wanting to see a Tyson/Spinks fight because many believed Spinks might be able to do the job - He was defunk'd in no time at all.

Michael Spinks was an ATG LIGHT-Heavyweight but even his trainer Eddie Futch admitted he was never and outstanding Heavy. His claim to fame at Heavyweight was lifting the title off a past it, unmotivated, and out of shape Larry Holmes; getting a gift decision in a rematch with Holmes, and beating notorious head-case and big-fight choker in Gerry Cooney.

He took out many top contenders, I'm not going to go through them all, as I'm sure you already know. You can play it off like he's an overly hyped boxer, but there is a reason he's regarded by many as possibly the GOAT. Oh, but you must know different because you can see things that others can't or are missing. Give me a beak dude.

Era's are not created equal. A top-contender in the 1980s = a journeyman in an average era. BTW, the only people who regard Tyson as the GOAT are his most dementedly rabid fans. His objective fans do not regard him as the GOAT. Check with Them Apples and Iron Man on this: They are 2 Tyson fans who are actually objective in how they evaluate him.

Poet

The same could be said about a lot of fighters that big contenders faced in the past. Actually, since half of what you said is objective speculation, I could say it about every fighter.

Lets talk about era's where boxing was run by the mob and every fight was fixed. Let's throw out Marciano's accomplishments because odds are most of his fights were fixed.

We could sit here and say every guy Louis fought was fixed or tomato can, and when he fought a decent fighter from another country he got dismantled.

But we don't do that. We look at fighters in their era and judge them based on who they beat, how they beat them, and what they're strengths and weaknesses were based on film.

You've given Tyson zero credit and have actually gone out of your way to discredit his victories and legacy. How can anybody do that and legitimately believe they know anything about boxing? :duh:

The same could be said about a lot of fighters that big contenders faced in the past. Actually, since half of what you said is objective speculation, I could say it about every fighter.

Lets talk about era's where boxing was run by the mob and every fight was fixed. Let's throw out Marciano's accomplishments because odds are most of his fights were fixed.

We could sit here and say every guy Louis fought was fixed or tomato can, and when he fought a decent fighter from another country he got dismantled.

Only one problem: Allegations like that require proof, which you don't have. Evaluation of particular boxers boxing historians have always done and always will.


But we don't do that. We look at fighters in their era and judge them based on who they beat, how they beat them, and what they're strengths and weaknesses were based on film.

Maybe YOU don't do that but practically every boxing historian out there takes the strength of era into account when evaluating fighters: It's not just WHAT you do, but WHO you do it against and WHEN you do it against them.


You've given Tyson zero credit and have actually gone out of your way to discredit his victories and legacy. How can anybody do that and legitimately believe they know anything about boxing? :duh:

How can anybody hang on a fighter's nutsack the way YOU do and legitimately believe they know anything about boxing?

Poet

Even at his peak Tyson was never as good as his most rabid fans make him out to be. Fighters who generate a lot of offense ALWAYS look spectacular against C level competition and given the right match-ups against B level as well. Rating Heavyweights soley by their peak years I would rate Tyson around 9th or 10th among the ATGs. While I've always stressed that it's possible for any ATG to beat any other ATG on any given night (barring a prohibitive style mis-match such as Tyson, Frazier, and Marciano against Foreman), if they all fought in a 10 fight series I would expect Tyson to a sub .500 record against those occupying the 1 through 8 spots.

Poet

This was my orginal post. Anything intemperate or objectional in there?

This is his response that kicked over the hornet's nest:

:bsflag:

That's a bull**** statement and you know it. Just because he made everybody look like a 2nd rate boxer doesn't take anything away from his greatness.

You, like most people, pick a few of Tyson's awesome qualities and forget about everything else and talk as if his other abilities are mediocre just because they may be slightly overshadowed by his other more obvious superior skills (hand speed, punching power, combination's).

Film doesn't lie, and when you watch film, you can not put together a string of supreme boxing talent with many fighters the same way you could with Iron Mike, unless you can show otherwise.

Louis is disposed of, and suffers more punishment than Marciano dished out to him.

Now THAT is the post of someone pissed off that someone doesn't rate their favorite fighter as high as THEY do. Clearly he's taking my placement of Tyson in the 9 or 10 range all-time as a personal affront.

Poet

This was my orginal post. Anything intemperate or objectional in there?

This is his response that kicked over the hornet's nest:



Now THAT is the post of someone pissed off that someone doesn't rate their favorite fighter as high as THEY do. Clearly he's taking my placement of Tyson in the 9 or 10 range all-time as a personal affront.

Poet

No, your opinion isn't that important to me, honestly. This is what took away what little credibility you had.

Originally Posted by poet682006 View Post
Even at his peak Tyson was never as good as his most rabid fans make him out to be. Fighters who generate a lot of offense ALWAYS look spectacular against C level competition and given the right match-ups against B level as well.

That's just a ridiculous statement and makes you sound dumb.

I call it like it is: Slavish devotion to a particular fighter and gross overestimation of his abilities = nuthuggery.




I have every Mike Tyson fight in my collection with the exception of the never filmed Sims fight and I have watched them many times. I have also watched film of most of the all-time greats in most of the weight classes. I'd hazzard to say I've probably watched considerably more fights than YOU have.




Marvis may have been highly touted by his dad but by no one else. Not to mention he had already been KOed in 1 round by Larry Holmes.



The worst beltholder in Heaqvyweight history and the poster-boy for everything that was wrong with the Heavyweight division in the 80s.



Fresh out of rehab for coke addiction and a shell of what he had been prior to snorting his career up his nose.



A never was who's management jumped at a chance for a big payday because they knew it was only a matter of time before he was exposed as a pretender.



A clearly past it Larry Holmes who hadn't fought in 2 years AND was out of shape.



Michael Spinks was an ATG LIGHT-Heavyweight but even his trainer Eddie Futch admitted he was never and outstanding Heavy. His claim to fame at Heavyweight was lifting the title off a past it, unmotivated, and out of shape Larry Holmes; getting a gift decision in a rematch with Holmes, and beating notorious head-case and big-fight choker in Gerry Cooney.



Era's are not created equal. A top-contender in the 1980s = a journeyman in an average era. BTW, the only people who regard Tyson as the GOAT are his most dementedly rabid fans. His objective fans do not regard him as the GOAT. Check with Them Apples and Iron Man on this: They are 2 Tyson fans who are actually objective in how they evaluate him.

Poet

How would you possibly know if you have watched more fights than anyone else.... just another exaggeration from you which you spew-out on a daily basis.

Marvis Frazier was very highly touted and had an excellent amateur and pro record, beating world title challengers, Zouski, Bugner & Tillis as well as undefeated James Broad & Funso Banjo, former world cruiser champion Bernard"Bull"Benton, future heavyweight champion Bonecrusher Smith and rough, tough Jose Ribalta and losing to undefeated Larry Holmes..... so once again an incorrect call from you with your vivid exaggeration.

Trevor Berbick was far from the worst champion in history, that accolade goes to Hasim Rahman who only managed a close points victory over 45yr old Berbick when Rahman was in his prime.... so once again incorrect call..

Pinklon Thomas was a very decent fighter and nowhere near as bad as you are trying to make out, certainly not as bad as what Tony Tucker was when Lewis fought him in 93 and not in the same league as McCall was for the 2nd Lewis fight, only days out of the rehab....but like all Lewis nuthuggers they love to try to belittle the accomplishments of Tyson.

Biggs was the undefeated Olympic champion so far from an exposed pretender... yet Lewis still fought him 4yrs later even tho Biggs had 3 more KO defeats on his record... so once again an incorrect call from your you and again vivid exageration.

Larry Holmes was Not past it, he went on to win the WBO title and challenge twice more for the Heavyweight title going 23-3..... once again an incorrect call

Michael Spinks the first lightheavy champ to move up and win the title and against an outstanding champion in Larry Holmes.. Spinks out-jabbed & out-fought Holmes in 2 fights over 30 rounds with both fights being excellent quality boxing from undefeated fighters, Holmes was in excellent physical shape and not "out of shape" as you try to imply... Spinks defeated the European champion Tangsted the butchered 6ft 7ins former title challenger Gerry Cooney... Spinks vs Tyson was a fantastic match-up as the betting showed 4/6 & 1/1....

To claim as you repeatedly do that Mike Tyson is not an ATG is ridiculous and a typical Lennox Lewis nuthugger comment... almost every boxing correspondent and historian has Mike Tyson as one of the top 7 or 8 heavyweights in the history of the sport, legendary trainers like Johnny Tocco & Angelo Dundee say he would have been a match for any heavyweight in history, Jim Jacobs & Bill Cayton proberbly the two greatest historians of all times said Mike was one of the ATGs.... yet you make your typical Lewis nuthugger claim that Tyson was a load of bull.... once again incorrect call from a clown who knows nothing whatsoever about boxing.

Got to say Sonny I always favour the 10 fight scenario. I know its a stretch but so is transporting Fitz or Riddick Bowe through time when you think of it :)

For example ignoring the Marciano v Louis fight they actually had, and thinking along the lines of who do I think would win?
IMO I rate Louis over Marciano but one off it could well be a coin toss between the two of them, Marciano has a lot of plus factors that could get to Louis short term. Over the long term the better man win's, bit like backgammon, poker etc etc
Over ten fights i'd fancy Louis to win 6 or 7 of them.

GJC... explain your post to me because i cannot understand what you are getting at mate.... you say you favour the 10 fight senario... but name for me when did this ever happen in boxing history?....what is the logic

No, your opinion isn't that important to me, honestly. This is what took away what little credibility you had.

Originally Posted by poet682006 View Post
Even at his peak Tyson was never as good as his most rabid fans make him out to be. Fighters who generate a lot of offense ALWAYS look spectacular against C level competition and given the right match-ups against B level as well.

That's just a ridiculous statement and makes you sound dumb.

Only in the eyes of a hard-core Tyson KoolAid drinker. The fact that you DO rate Tyson as the GOAT destroys your credibility in the eyes of pretty much every intelligent objective poster on this site. Have a nice day! :)

Poet

How would you possibly know if you have watched more fights than anyone else.... just another exaggeration from you which you spew-out on a daily basis.

Marvis Frazier was very highly touted and had an excellent amateur and pro record, beating world title challengers, Zouski, Bugner & Tillis as well as undefeated James Broad & Funso Banjo, former world cruiser champion Bernard"Bull"Benton, future heavyweight champion Bonecrusher Smith and rough, tough Jose Ribalta and losing to undefeated Larry Holmes..... so once again an incorrect call from you with your vivid exaggeration.

Trevor Berbick was far from the worst champion in history, that accolade goes to Hasim Rahman who only managed a close points victory over 45yr old Berbick when Rahman was in his prime.... so once again incorrect call..

Pinklon Thomas was a very decent fighter and nowhere near as bad as you are trying to make out, certainly not as bad as what Tony Tucker was when Lewis fought him in 93 and not in the same league as McCall was for the 2nd Lewis fight, only days out of the rehab....but like all Lewis nuthuggers they love to try to belittle the accomplishments of Tyson.

Biggs was the undefeated Olympic champion so far from an exposed pretender... yet Lewis still fought him 4yrs later even tho Biggs had 3 more KO defeats on his record... so once again an incorrect call from your you and again vivid exageration.

Larry Holmes was Not past it, he went on to win the WBO title and challenge twice more for the Heavyweight title going 23-3..... once again an incorrect call

Michael Spinks the first lightheavy champ to move up and win the title and against an outstanding champion in Larry Holmes.. Spinks out-jabbed & out-fought Holmes in 2 fights over 30 rounds with both fights being excellent quality boxing from undefeated fighters, Holmes was in excellent physical shape and not "out of shape" as you try to imply... Spinks defeated the European champion Tangsted the butchered 6ft 7ins former title challenger Gerry Cooney... Spinks vs Tyson was a fantastic match-up as the betting showed 4/6 & 1/1....

:haha: More tripe from Boxing Scene's own Psycho Boi :rofl: :rofl:


To claim as you repeatedly do that Mike Tyson is not an ATG is ridiculous and a typical Lennox Lewis nuthugger comment... almost every boxing correspondent and historian has Mike Tyson as one of the top 7 or 8 heavyweights in the history of the sport, legendary trainers like Johnny Tocco & Angelo Dundee say he would have been a match for any heavyweight in history, Jim Jacobs & Bill Cayton proberbly the two greatest historians of all times said Mike was one of the ATGs.... yet you make your typical Lewis nuthugger claim that Tyson was a load of bull.... once again incorrect call from a clown who knows nothing whatsoever about boxing.

Considering I mentioned before that I rank Tyson at 9 or 10 on the ATG how does that translate into me asserting that Tyson isn't an ATG? This is either pure selective reading on your part or downright stupidity. Considering I also pointed out thank I rank Lennox at 13 (that's 3 or 4 spots BELOW Tyson since you're obviously challenged by simple arithmatic) that kind of exposes you as either a liar or a fool now doesn't it? :owned:

Poet

GJC... explain your post to me because i cannot understand what you are getting at mate.... you say you favour the 10 fight senario... but name for me when did this ever happen in boxing history?....what is the logic

:haha: :stupid: :welcome: :tool:

Louis was levels above Liston imo. Foreman wouldnt be able to get Louis out of there in their primes so I believe Joe beats him based on better skill. The only person who I could really see beating Louis is Tyson in his prime, I can just see him weaving and dodging himself in for some killer shots at Joe.

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Considering I mentioned before that I rank Tyson at 9 or 10 on the ATG how does that translate into me asserting that Tyson isn't an ATG?

Why do you rank him so high if he fought all fluffs and couldn't go into later rounds?

You don't make any sense and now you are contradicting yourself. You can't discredit everything about the guy, but then say it's ok because you rank him 9 or 10. It makes you look stupid when you contradict yourself so obviously.

I'm just happy my point of view isn't contradictory and that I can stick to my opinion so that's it's clear to everyone, regardless of whether they agree or not.

Why do you rank him so high if he fought all fluffs and couldn't go into later rounds?

You don't make any sense and now you are contradicting yourself. You can't discredit everything about the guy, but then say it's ok because you rank him 9 or 10. It makes you look stupid when you contradict yourself so obviously.

There are different levels of greatness. That's why they have ATG RANKINGS in the first place: To distinguish those levels amongst greats. Apparently to you a fighter is either the GOAT or they suck.

Marciano loses stature because of HIS lack of quality opponents but I don't see you *****ing about that; so do the Klitschkos: So don't act like factoring in strength of opposition is some unheard of concept.


I'm just happy my point of view isn't contradictory and that I can stick to my opinion so that's it's clear to everyone, regardless of whether they agree or not.

Translation: You take you views of Tyson as a tenet of faith rather than an objective view of reality.

Poet

GJC... explain your post to me because i cannot understand what you are getting at mate.... you say you favour the 10 fight senario... but name for me when did this ever happen in boxing history?....what is the logic

Like I said there is no logic to a ten fight scenario but it certainly helps me in my mind rate a match up. With these fantasy fights there is not fantastic logic behind many of them to be honest given difference in eras and some of the more ludicrous p4p match ups I see such as Pac v Ali etc.

Happy to name a couple of times it has happened in history though, Langford v Wills or McVea off the top of my head and probably a fair few permatations of those guys if you throw in Jeanette too. Probably a fair few others too.
Its still all very hypothetical as Langford and Wills had a fair few years between them so you could say the dozen odd fights they had probably still didn't establish who was the better man given the difference in primes.

reading through this interesting thread.carlosG has made it clear he is just a tyson nuthugger,thats why he got so upset when poet gave some constructive criticism to mike and presented him with the cold hard facts

sonnyboy has made it clear hes just a fu.cking idiot,once again

Name calling is a last resort used when you have nothing else of logic or relevance to add to a conversation. What you've just posted says nothing except that you're an immature 41 year old guy that can't think of anything else to say.

If it were true, I wouldn't care. I don't believe Tyson was as great as I think he is because I'm a fan and I just "like" him. I say the things I say because that's what I see when I watch his film. The fact of the matter is Tyson didn't just KO tomato cans. He KO'd legit contenders.

Marvis Frazier was a highly touted prospect - Decimated

Berbick was champion and a contender - Decimated in hopeless fashion

Pinklon Thomas was thought by some to be the best fighter in the world, some believed he was 2 or 3 behind Tyson and Spinks - he was destroyed

Biggs was undefeated when he fought Tyson, Olympic gold medalist, a top contender at the time - he cried.

Larry Holmes was a legend and his record speaks for itself. Yeah he was older but he's the same age as Mosley is today. He could have beaten many contenders at the time - Destroyed and embarrassed by Mike.

Michael Spinks was undefeated and was a top contender. Everybody had been wanting to see a Tyson/Spinks fight because many believed Spinks might be able to do the job - He was defunk'd in no time at all.

He took out many top contenders, I'm not going to go through them all, as I'm sure you already know. You can play it off like he's an overly hyped boxer, but there is a reason he's regarded by many as possibly the GOAT. Oh, but you must know different because you can see things that others can't or are missing. Give me a beak dude.

Top 10 ish ATG HW for my money.
Got to say though I would have put forward beating Bruno, Tucker and Ruddock rather than most of the guys you did to make your case for Tyson.

I haven't watched all of Louis' fights, but from the fights that I have seen, it's apparent that he's never fought anybody on Mike's level, aside from Marciano (who was shy of Mike's talent).

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354155

Joe Louis beat 8 hall of fame opponents. I'n guessing that he fought even more... (???)

Tyson's record doesn't stack up next to that. I'm trying to think of one quality opponent that he beat. He fought in one of the weaker periods of the heavyweight division. That's why he cleaned up. I'm not saying he wasn't good, but I'd have like to see him face up to other hall of fame fighters other than an over-the-hill Larry Holmes.

Marcino may have lacked Tyson's skill, but he could take a punch better than Tyson, and quite possibly hit harder. He wouldn't have frozen in front of Tyson, and personally I suspect that Rocky would have beaten Tyson.

Mike was the most dangerous kind of fighter - an ultra evasive, quick handed combo puncher with tons of power in both hands that knew how to get inside and "open up like a son of a *****" and on top of being the most dangerous type, he was the most skilled at being the type of fighter he was, not to mention a great chin and the ability to go 10 rounds with guys that weighed 30 lb's more than he.

I don't dispute any of this. But it was much easier to get inside those guys than to get inside Joe Louis.

I'm not saying Louis wasn't great, but boxing changed a lot from the time Louis fought to when Mike was fighting, and I just don't see how judging from the style of these guys and watching them on film, anybody could believe that Louis could beat Tyson. I just don't see it happening.

Boxing is much poorer now compared to when Louis reigned, it's been in decline since the 1970s. Just look at today's heavyweights. They make Willard, Carnera, and Marvin Hart look competent.

I feel like Tyson in his prime was in a league all his own - a phenom that the world had never seen anything close to.

THe same has been said about many fighters but history hasn't always been kind to them. Think Max Baer.

I just don't know that Louis, as quick and accurate as he was, would have the ability to hit Mike enough to hurt him, and I doubt that Louis would be able to dodge or take Mike's punches for more than 6 rounds.

Unless there is something on film that we can see that shows otherwise.

Louis was a harder puncher than anyone that Tyson ever faced. He was one of the most intelligent and skilful boxers ever to grace the ring. Some believe that he was the greatest ever. I believe that Louis would have beat Tyson. But I do rank Tyson in my top ten heavyweights.

Like I said there is no logic to a ten fight scenario but it certainly helps me in my mind rate a match up. With these fantasy fights there is not fantastic logic behind many of them to be honest given difference in eras and some of the more ludicrous p4p match ups I see such as Pac v Ali etc.

Happy to name a couple of times it has happened in history though, Langford v Wills or McVea off the top of my head and probably a fair few permatations of those guys if you throw in Jeanette too. Probably a fair few others too.
Its still all very hypothetical as Langford and Wills had a fair few years between them so you could say the dozen odd fights they had probably still didn't establish who was the better man given the difference in primes.

well it was obvious that you was gonna claim Langford, Jeanette, McVea etc fought each other 10 times.. but with you being such an expert on these 10 fight scenarios maybe you can tell me who wins these 10 fight series:

Ali v Foreman
Ray Leonard vs Dave`boy`Green
Tyson vs Spinks
Tyson vs Carl Williams
Pacquiao vs Hatton

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354155

Joe Louis beat 8 hall of fame opponents. I'n guessing that he fought even more... (???)

Tyson's record doesn't stack up next to that. I'm trying to think of one quality opponent that he beat. He fought in one of the weaker periods of the heavyweight division. That's why he cleaned up. I'm not saying he wasn't good, but I'd have like to see him face up to other hall of fame fighters other than an over-the-hill Larry Holmes.

Marcino may have lacked Tyson's skill, but he could take a punch better than Tyson, and quite possibly hit harder. He wouldn't have frozen in front of Tyson, and personally I suspect that Rocky would have beaten Tyson.



I don't dispute any of this. But it was much easier to get inside those guys than to get inside Joe Louis.



Boxing is much poorer now compared to when Louis reigned, it's been in decline since the 1970s. Just look at today's heavyweights. They make Willard, Carnera, and Marvin Hart look competent.



THe same has been said about many fighters but history hasn't always been kind to them. Think Max Baer.



Louis was a harder puncher than anyone that Tyson ever faced. He was one of the most intelligent and skilful boxers ever to grace the ring. Some believe that he was the greatest ever. I believe that Louis would have beat Tyson. But I do rank Tyson in my top ten heavyweights.

your having a laugh here with your perseption of Mike Tyson surely: you say`- " I'm trying to think of one quality opponent that he beat... well let me answer that for you, Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes, Seldon, Spinks, Bruno & Botha all fought their way to hold versions of the Heavyweight title... "thats 10 title holders" - Tyson also defeated undefeated Olympic champion Tyrell Biggs, top contenders Carl Williams, Golota, Savarese & Ruddock (twice)... so your ridiculous comment of trying to think of one quality opponent Tyson beat is laughable.. let me ask you to name me one quality opponent these fighters beat:

L.Lewis
Wlad Klitschko
V.Klitschko
L.Holmes

your having a laugh here with your perseption of Mike Tyson surely: you say`- " I'm trying to think of one quality opponent that he beat... well let me answer that for you, Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes, Seldon, Spinks, Bruno & Botha all fought their way to hold versions of the Heavyweight title... "thats 10 title holders" - Tyson also defeated undefeated Olympic champion Tyrell Biggs, top contenders Carl Williams, Golota, Savarese & Ruddock (twice)... so your ridiculous comment of trying to think of one quality opponent Tyson beat is laughable.. let me ask you to name me one quality opponent these fighters beat:

L.Lewis
Wlad Klitschko
V.Klitschko
L.Holmes

your having a laugh here with your perseption of Mike Tyson surely: you say`- " I'm trying to think of one quality opponent that he beat... well let me answer that for you, Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes, Seldon, Spinks, Bruno & Botha all fought their way to hold versions of the Heavyweight title... "thats 10 title holders" - Tyson also defeated undefeated Olympic champion Tyrell Biggs, top contenders Carl Williams, Golota, Savarese & Ruddock (twice)... so your ridiculous comment of trying to think of one quality opponent Tyson beat is laughable.. let me ask you to name me one quality opponent these fighters beat:

L.Lewis
Wlad Klitschko
V.Klitschko
L.Holmes

Spinks licked Holmes (twice)
Holmes was fortunate to beat Smith
Holmes avoided Thomas
Lewis very fortunate to beat Bruno
Tucker was a junkie when Lewis beat him

Spinks licked Holmes (twice)
Holmes was fortunate to beat Smith
Holmes avoided Thomas
Lewis very fortunate to beat Bruno
Tucker was a junkie when Lewis beat him
Holmes was old
Smith looked like he'd been hit with a baseball bat
True, Holmes did avoid Thomas
Lewis's plan was to let Bruno punch himself out
A lesser version of the one who faced Tyson, but not a full-blown junkie

I was just pointing out that your question kind'a contradicts itself..

Holmes was old
Smith looked like he'd been hit with a baseball bat
True, Holmes did avoid Thomas
Lewis's plan was to let Bruno punch himself out
A lesser version of the one who faced Tyson, but not a full-blown junkie

I was just pointing out that your question kind'a contradicts itself..

Lewis's plan was to let Bruno punch himself out ?

Lewis's plan was to let Bruno punch himself out ?
Indeed it was.. He'd been heavily influenced by watching tapes of Bruno's earlier defeats to Bonecrusher Smith and Tim Witherspoon where he gassed in the later rounds, and had said as much leading up to the fight.. But, Frank had other ideas, and it didn't quite go to plan in the first half of the fight, as Lewis absorbed a fair bit of punishment, but then, what do you expect?.. Both Smith and Witherspoon spent the night in hospital after defeating Bruno..

Indeed it was.. He'd been heavily influenced by watching tapes of Bruno's earlier defeats to Bonecrusher Smith and Tim Witherspoon where he gassed in the later rounds, and had said as much leading up to the fight.. But, Frank had other ideas, and it didn't quite go to plan in the first half of the fight, as Lewis absorbed a fair bit of punishment, but then, what do you expect?.. Both Smith and Witherspoon spent the night in hospital after defeating Bruno..
Lewis was beaten to the jab, beaten at every aspect of the game by Bruno and was on the verge of the referee jumping in to rescue him when in desperation he lashed out with a left-hook while looking at the floor and caught Bruno on the chin... that IMO was not letting a guy punch himself out

Lewis was beaten to the jab, beaten at every aspect of the game by Bruno and was on the verge of the referee jumping in to rescue him when in desperation he lashed out with a left-hook while looking at the floor and caught Bruno on the chin... that IMO was not letting a guy punch himself out
True, but Bruno didn't go down.. He adopted his newly learned technique of holding on for dear life.. He never did get the hang of ducking, so this was his only ploy.. But unfortunately he was too gassed to see it through..
Sure, Bruno was slightly ahead when the fight was stopped, but Lewis had taken a lot of those shots on his arms, and was beginning to take control.. I don't think it was left hook thrown in desperation, more like a perfectly timed left hand counter, and although out-boxed for most of the fight, Lewis proved he could take punishment and out-last Bruno, which is exactly what he did..

let me ask you to name me one quality opponent these fighters beat:

L.Lewis
Wlad Klitschko
V.Klitschko
L.Holmes

Larry Holmes was a great boxer. He deserves respect for his skills, particularly jab and uppercut, and also the sheer volume of his title defences. He caught the tale end of a good era then dominated in an era that wasn't as strong, but there's no doubt he would have done well against any level of competition. He's an ATG.

I'm not a fan of Lewis he was one of the first of the really big overblown heavyweights (albeit the best of a poor bunch) and epitomises a lot of what has subsequently gone wrong with the division.

As for the Russians... well I'd have to rate them behind Dolf Lungren.

reading through this interesting thread.carlosG has made it clear he is just a tyson nuthugger,thats why he got so upset when poet gave some constructive criticism to mike and presented him with the cold hard facts

sonnyboy has made it clear hes just a fu.cking idiot,once again

Because I believe Tyson would beat Louis and I stated why I believe that? That makes me a nut hugger? Give me a break. All your useless post did was show that you're a poet nuthugger. Quit cheerleading for people, regardless of how much you respect him for his post count.:tool:

Spinks licked Holmes (twice)
Holmes was fortunate to beat Smith
Holmes avoided Thomas
Lewis very fortunate to beat Bruno
Tucker was a junkie when Lewis beat him

Spinks-Holmes II was one of the worst decisions of the 80s. Using the word licked makes it questionable that you've seen the fight (unless you're just trying to get some goats).

Spinks-Holmes II was one of the worst decisions of the 80s. Using the word licked makes it questionable that you've seen the fight (unless you're just trying to get some goats).

Spinks was a clear winner of both fights
10-5rds first fight for Spinks
8-7rds second fight for Spinks

Holmes said to Spinks in the ring before the decision was announced in their 2nd fight, "You took the Fight "..

Spinks was a clear winner of both fights
10-5rds first fight for Spinks
8-7rds second fight for Spinks

Holmes said to Spinks in the ring before the decision was announced in their 2nd fight, "You took the Fight "..

You need to watch the second fight...and I think you're confusing the quote with the alleged Hagler to Leonard statement. Spinks II was the one where Holmes said the judges could kiss his "big black behind."

He should have.

Tyson loses to big strong sluggers who can push him backwards or a very slick and quick fighter with a great jab. I don't think Louis would come out victorious. His chin wasn't too good(although he'd get up) and I don't see him pushing Tyson back or out slicking him.
Against Liston I would favor Louis in a UD. He would counter punch, use his speed and so win more rounds.
Foreman is a tricky one. Louis had dealt with big strong punchers in his career, and if you look at the way Foreman just threw sloppy wide punches, I can see him getting tagged like he was against Lyle. Pick em fight imo.

well it was obvious that you was gonna claim Langford, Jeanette, McVea etc fought each other 10 times.. but with you being such an expert on these 10 fight scenarios maybe you can tell me who wins these 10 fight series:

Ali v Foreman
Ray Leonard vs Dave`boy`Green
Tyson vs Spinks
Tyson vs Carl Williams
Pacquiao vs Hatton

Whoah Sonny slow down with the agression my friend, no need for it I hope?

Obviously picked out Langford v Wills etc because they in forefront of mine and most peoples minds. Reckon there probably a fair few others too.
Don't claim to be an "expert" on 10 fight scenarios or anything else come to think of it :)
I have an opinion like anyone here and re matching up fighters 10 fight scenario's that helps me get them straight in my head
Re the fights you have picked, I'd have Leonard beat Boy Green 11 times out of 10 to be honest lol.
The rest are shut outs too except the Foreman v Ali fight is intriguing.
Got a lot of time for Foreman and I think his comeback head on the 1970's body will cause problems for any HW. Thing is whilst I don't think Foreman could possibly fall for the rope a dope thing again I can't help thinking Ali will pull another rabbit out of the hat.
Can't see Ali beating Foreman 10 out of 10 (Foreman too good) but by same token I don't know how a prime Foreman can beat a prime Ali.

Spinks was a clear winner of both fights
10-5rds first fight for Spinks
8-7rds second fight for Spinks

Holmes said to Spinks in the ring before the decision was announced in their 2nd fight, "You took the Fight "..
:footinmou :footinmou :footinmou

The second time around Holmes was a victim of one of the worst decisions in modern times. Some people claim Direll-Froch was bad. having Spinks as a winner is much, much worse IMO.

:footinmou :footinmou :footinmou

The second time around Holmes was a victim of one of the worst decisions in modern times. Some people claim Direll-Froch was bad. having Spinks as a winner is much, much worse IMO.

Spinks was a clear winner in my book..it was Holmes bitterness towards commentators, reporters & fighters and claiming to them that the judges referee fights when drunk which casts a doubt over this fight, i had Spinks the clear winner at the time.. i rewatched both fights only a couple of weeks ago and Spinks was the winner being dominant through the mid to late rounds out-jabbing Holmes and landing combinations which Holmes found hard to deal with.. the fact is that Spinks had Holmes number, Spinks herky-jerky style Holmes just could not deal with it or fathom it out and Spinks scored repeatedly round after round 8-7 Spinks

Spinks was a clear winner in my book..it was Holmes bitterness towards commentators, reporters & fighters and claiming to them that the judges referee fights when drunk which casts a doubt over this fight,

No, it was Holmes winning an easy ten rounds, hurting Spinks more than once, and having him out on his feet in the 14th which cast doubt over the fight. I'll buy the first; Spinks rarely threw punches until late in the rematch.

Spinks was a clear winner in my book..

That's because you're an idiot and wouldn't know how to score a fight if someone gave you a Dick-N-Jane book on the subject.

Poet

That's because you're an idiot and wouldn't know how to score a fight if someone gave you a Dick-N-Jane book on the subject.

Poet
The difference between me & you ****sucker is that i have seen over 100 `Live Boxing Shows where you have never seen a single one... i have my ticket for Haye vs Ruiz which you could never dream of having.. now hurry on up the stairs boy, your Daddy is waiting, he is hard...:*******:

The difference between me & you ****sucker is that i have seen over 100 `Live Boxing Shows where you have never seen a single one... i have my ticket for Haye vs Ruiz which you could never dream of having.. now hurry on up the stairs boy, your Daddy is waiting, he is hard...:*******:

Catching a little bit of the action in between your janitorial duties at the arena doesn't count :fing02: How those shock treaments working out for you btw? Have a nice day! :)

Poet

i see louis beating all of them but the one with the best chance of getting the upset is tyson, with his fast combinations and pressure. i agree with the guy who said if tyson wins he has to stop joe inside of 5 rounds, if it goes later tyson gets stopped. 70's foreman is lot like max baer, who louis beat up bad, foreman's shots are too wide and clubbing. louis was a very deadly, accurate puncher, he would take foreman apart with his combinations just like he did to baer. sonny liston was a good boxer - puncher but everything he does louis does better

let me ask you to name me one quality opponent these fighters beat:

L.Lewis
Wlad Klitschko
V.Klitschko
L.Holmes

Off the top of my head.

Lennox Lewis Quality Wins:
-Razor Ruddock
-Frank Bruno
-Tommy Morrison
-Ray Mercer
-Shannon Briggs
-Evander Holyfield
-Mike Tyson
-David Tua
-Vitali Kiltschko

Holmes Quality Wins:
-Ken Norton
-Earnie Shavers
-Gerry Cooney
-Tim Witherspoon
-Ray Mercer

Like I said there is no logic to a ten fight scenario but it certainly helps me in my mind rate a match up. With these fantasy fights there is not fantastic logic behind many of them to be honest given difference in eras and some of the more ludicrous p4p match ups I see such as Pac v Ali etc.

Happy to name a couple of times it has happened in history though, Langford v Wills or McVea off the top of my head and probably a fair few permatations of those guys if you throw in Jeanette too. Probably a fair few others too.
Its still all very hypothetical as Langford and Wills had a fair few years between them so you could say the dozen odd fights they had probably still didn't establish who was the better man given the difference in primes.
Ted kid Lewis fought Jack Britton 20 times..

Off the top of my head.

Lennox Lewis Quality Wins:
-Razor Ruddock
-Frank Bruno
-Tommy Morrison
-Ray Mercer
-Shannon Briggs
-Evander Holyfield
-Mike Tyson
-David Tua
-Vitali Kiltschko

Holmes Quality Wins:
-Ken Norton
-Earnie Shavers
-Gerry Cooney
-Tim Witherspoon
-Ray Mercer
:offtopic: Warning Don't fall for it!!..
He'll have you typing all day.. Sonny doesn't even rank Lewis in the top 3 heavyweights of the 90's, and even if this thread was about Ivan Calderon, he'd still be spoiling for a row about him..
Then, for the umpteenth time, it'll be - Ruddock was softened up by Tyson, Morrison had HIV, he lost to Mercer, Bruno out-boxed him, Tua was the fattest man to fight for a title etc, etc.. I'm afraid he'll also demand written descriptions of all the Lewis fights you've seen.. Once you've done that, he'll say, 'I was at ringside and have all the fight vids here in my collection,' and that, 'you've never seen the fights,' & demand to know what colour shorts the opponents wore.. When you can't answer that, he'll call you a liar, and use the whole thing as a base to say you know nothing about boxing..
All this after spending half the day typing out information for him..
I've leaened from my mistakes with this guy, and it simply isn't worth it..

Off the top of my head.

Lennox Lewis Quality Wins:
-Razor Ruddock
-Frank Bruno
-Tommy Morrison
-Ray Mercer
-Shannon Briggs
-Evander Holyfield
-Mike Tyson
-David Tua
-Vitali Kiltschko


I dunno if I'd call those "quality." I can see it helps support your point because those are big names, but those were not quality fighters at the time they fought Lennox.

Ted kid Lewis fought Jack Britton 20 times..
Good catch Mickey, knew there was one of our boys had a long series of fights so had a quick look at Kid Berg on boxingrec without success lol.
Age is a terrible affliction this time next year i'll probably be looking up Billy the Kid!

:offtopic: Warning Don't fall for it!!..
He'll have you typing all day.. Sonny doesn't even rank Lewis in the top 3 heavyweights of the 90's, and even if this thread was about Ivan Calderon, he'd still be spoiling for a row about him..
Then, for the umpteenth time, it'll be - Ruddock was softened up by Tyson, Morrison had HIV, he lost to Mercer, Bruno out-boxed him, Tua was the fattest man to fight for a title etc, etc.. I'm afraid he'll also demand written descriptions of all the Lewis fights you've seen.. Once you've done that, he'll say, 'I was at ringside and have all the fight vids here in my collection,' and that, 'you've never seen the fights,' & demand to know what colour shorts the opponents wore.. When you can't answer that, he'll call you a liar, and use the whole thing as a base to say you know nothing about boxing..
All this after spending half the day typing out information for him..
I've leaened from my mistakes with this guy, and it simply isn't worth it..


Just laughed so hard I almost suffocated! The "colour of shorts" line was pure class :)

Louis gets massacred by a prime tyson , decapitated at some point of the fight (inside12 , but probably much earlier , KO1 is a good guess) by a prime tua , manhandled by the toney who fought Jirov and holyfield , ends up as the plodding fool he actually was against byrd , KO'd by foreman (the opposite is possible too , but less) , with Lewis or Wlad you get two shaky chinned big punchers but i'll give lewis/wlad a little bigger chance to win because they could get to louis first because of their size.
even lesser fighters could hand louis his ass , schmelling actually did it.
and i even heard he was knocked down by billy conn , a former light welterweight , who actually began his pro career at 135 !
if he was knocked down by such fighters do you think he could ever get up from a tua's bomb ? or crack tua's chin ? or get to vitali klitschko who'd definitely stop him inside 12 ? much lesser fighters would have handed louis his ass (on a plate).

Louis gets massacred by a prime tyson , decapitated at some point of the fight (inside12 , but probably much earlier , KO1 is a good guess) by a prime tua , manhandled by the toney who fought Jirov and holyfield , ends up as the plodding fool he actually was against byrd , KO'd by foreman (the opposite is possible too , but less) , with Lewis or Wlad you get two shaky chinned big punchers but i'll give lewis/wlad a little bigger chance to win because they could get to louis first because of their size.
even lesser fighters could hand louis his ass , schmelling actually did it.
and i even heard he was knocked down by billy conn , a former light welterweight , who actually began his pro career at 135 !
if he was knocked down by such fighters do you think he could ever get up from a tua's bomb ? or crack tua's chin ? or get to vitali klitschko who'd definitely stop him inside 12 ? much lesser fighters would have handed louis his ass (on a plate).

lol you're gonna catch some flack for this. I agree with some of what you're saying. I feel that boxers back in the day weren't as well trained, well nutrioned, or as well techniqued as boxers were from the 70's on up. Therefore you will always have people that claim Louis could take any heavyweight from any era, but there are a lot of boxers from the 70's+ that I just don't see him being able to handle.

I totally agree that he is utterly destroyed by a prime Tyson. I just don't see any possible way that he could last more than a few rounds.

Louis gets massacred by a prime tyson , decapitated at some point of the fight (inside12 , but probably much earlier , KO1 is a good guess) by a prime tua , manhandled by the toney who fought Jirov and holyfield , ends up as the plodding fool he actually was against byrd , KO'd by foreman (the opposite is possible too , but less) , with Lewis or Wlad you get two shaky chinned big punchers but i'll give lewis/wlad a little bigger chance to win because they could get to louis first because of their size.
even lesser fighters could hand louis his ass , schmelling actually did it.
and i even heard he was knocked down by billy conn , a former light welterweight , who actually began his pro career at 135 !
if he was knocked down by such fighters do you think he could ever get up from a tua's bomb ? or crack tua's chin ? or get to vitali klitschko who'd definitely stop him inside 12 ? much lesser fighters would have handed louis his ass (on a plate).

You really ARE a retarded idiot aren't you?

Poet

You really ARE a retarded idiot aren't you?

Poet
at least i ain't a vegetable moron like you are and as long as we differ i'm fine.

Loius couldnt beat foreman,cuz he came towards his opponent...Foreman would destroy anyone with the style that came forward to him..

Loius couldnt beat foreman,cuz he came towards his opponent...Foreman would destroy anyone with the style that came forward to him..

Well, Ron Lyle was able to do it almost succesfully and he even backed Foreman up for a moment. Precision striking is a good way to beat him(not swarming at him like Frazier did), you can see that the knock downs against Lyle came from very hard counter right hands because of Foreman's poor defense and wild swinging style. That could easily spell disaster against Louis, who imo was the most accurate puncher you could ever find.

Ron Lyle was also a tough bastard who could take a shot....something Louis never could do even against average punchers.


Lyle would knock Louis out too.

louis is the most overrated fighter in these forums.
severely overrated. he was good for his weak era of supermiddleweights competing at heavyweight , not more than this.
and yes , there were some big guys in his era too , and before him , but they lacked in technique , training , chin , everything , they counted on their size too much , more than today's superheavies.

louis is the most overrated fighter in these forums.
severely overrated. he was good for his weak era of supermiddleweights competing at heavyweight , not more than this.
and yes , there were some big guys in his era too , and before him , but they lacked in technique , training , chin , everything , they counted on their size too much , more than today's superheavies.

:crackhead :bsflag: :tool: Seriously, I've seen some retarded posters on this forum but you're right up there with the most moronic. You're idiot meter is off the scale. :killyou:

Poet

:crackhead :bsflag: :tool: Seriously, I've seen some retarded posters on this forum but you're right up there with the most moronic. You're idiot meter is off the scale. :killyou:

Poet
sweat pee , is that you ?
i mean , how many poo heads from the US can be in a boxing history forum and disagree with me ? only one can be at your level of lunatic ignorance and idiocy.

Ron Lyle was also a tough bastard who could take a shot....something Louis never could do even against average punchers.


Lyle would knock Louis out too.
Out of 69 fights, Louis was knocked out only twice. Both of them were to good punchers in Schmeling and Marciano. He avenged the Schmeling loss. The Marciano loss came when he was old, past his prime and bald. Before the stoppages, he took some very good shots.

If you're referring to the knockdowns in his career, so what? He was able to recover and that's the spirit of a true champion.

Out of 69 fights, Louis was knocked out only twice. Both of them were to good punchers in Schmeling and Marciano. He avenged the Schmeling loss. The Marciano loss came when he was old, past his prime and bald. Before the stoppages, he took some very good shots.

If you're referring to the knockdowns in his career, so what? He was able to recover and that's the spirit of a true champion.

but against whom did he receive those knockdowns ?

but against whom did he receive those knockdowns ?
B. Baer, Walcott, Mauriello and Galento. Each of them had a good pop, in their punches. Especially (Buddy) Baer. He had 47 knockouts in 51 wins.

B. Baer, Walcott, Mauriello and Galento. Each of them had a good pop, in their punches. Especially (Buddy) Baer. He had 47 knockouts in 51 wins.

He really should have never been knocked down against most of them though. I think this is another reason why so many people don't see him doing well in these matchups because they get the idea Louis was small and fragile.

B. Baer, Walcott, Mauriello and Galento. Each of them had a good pop, in their punches. Especially (Buddy) Baer. He had 47 knockouts in 51 wins.

you forgot marciano and i think also billy conn or some other supermiddle , who knows whom else you forgot.
also : if galento knocked him down , what would tua do ?
if marciano mauled him , what would tyson do ? don't you get the pattern ? or do you just ignore.

Louis wasn't knocked down against Mauriello. Stunned but not knocked down.

you forgot marciano and i think also billy conn or some other supermiddle , who knows whom else you forgot.

I was talking about the ones in which he came back to win. And Louis wasn't down against Conn.

Louis wasn't knocked down against Mauriello. Stunned but not knocked down.
You might be right. I haven't watched that fight but read about it.

Joe Louis was the Tito Trinidad of heavyweights when it came to taking a punch. He was often knocked down early but rarely hurt in any of those knockdowns. I'd go as far as to say that he took a good punch and certainly recovered from being hurt better than almost any other boxer who ever lived.

sweat pee , is that you ?
i mean , how many poo heads from the US can be in a boxing history forum and disagree with me ? only one can be at your level of lunatic ignorance and idiocy.

I don't think you'll find it too difficult to find people who disagree with your ignorant moronic views.

Poet

but against whom did he receive those knockdowns ?

I know Wlad got the KTFO by Ross Fvcking Purrity and a washed up pro golfer.

Poet

Ron Lyle was also a tough bastard who could take a shot....something Louis never could do even against average punchers.

Getting knocked down means very little when you win in the end anyway. Getting up is what shows heart. Im just curious, in how many fights was Lyle ko'd for his career number in comparison to Louis?

Lyle would knock Louis out too.

Lyle would be another notch on Joe Louis' ko victory list.

Loius couldnt beat foreman,cuz he came towards his opponent...Foreman would destroy anyone with the style that came forward to him..

Louis didn't come forward anything like Lyle. His style was designed to take small shuffling steps in and out to gradually close distance. If anything, Foreman would be going to Louis swinging the wide shots trying to take Joe out.

Good catch Mickey, knew there was one of our boys had a long series of fights so had a quick look at Kid Berg on boxingrec without success lol.
Age is a terrible affliction this time next year i'll probably be looking up Billy the Kid!
Here's a great article about him..

Upon his ring retirement in 1929, after twenty years a fighter, the gambling, generous Kid Lewis was not well off, in spite of estimates that his ring earnings in the United States alone exceeded a half a million dollars. In 1931 Ted Lewis was introduced to Sir Oswald Mosley, thought my some a man destined to be British Prime Minister. At the time Mosley headed the" New Party', a proponent of increased government spending, protectionism and a strong anti-Communist stand. In the midst of world-wide Depression for many Mosley appeared the answer. He hired Ted Kid Lewis for 60 pounds a week to be the physical youth training instructor for the New Party. Within a few months Lewis' role had evolved into heading up Mosley's bodyguards, known as the "Biff Boys" , a group of East End toughs, recruited by Lewis.

By 1932, Mosley's seemingly populist policies had taken an ugly turn. After visiting with Mussolini, Mosley returned to England and disbanded the" New Party" and formed the "National Union of Fascists." As rumors of Mosley's anti-Semitic positions grew Ted Kid Lewis decided to pay one final visit to Mosley's headquarters, accompanied by his young son Morton. In Morton Lewis's words,

"...When we arrived there were two big men, clad not in the black shirts of Mosley's New Party, but in the brown shirts of the Nazi party. My dad momentarily froze...he mounted the stairs to Mosely's office, and without knocking, opened the door."

"...Mosley was seated...with two of his henchmen in brown shirts standing at his elbows...The two men gave dad the traditional raised arm salute. My father then said to Mosley, 'Is it true you're anti-Semitic? And I want the truth this time. Are you anti-Jewish?'

"Mosley almost smiled at TK's naivety. 'Yes'. Then he rose from his chair and told dad in measured tones; his full plans and began to explain their aims."

"My dad's face was dead white. Boxing fans who had seen him fight would have intrepreted the danger signs. ...Mosley kept on talking and then eyed dad as if to guage the effect of his words "

"Until then, he hadn't moved.. Then, like lightning, he struck with an open hand across Mosely's face, sending him and his chair crashing against the wall. The two brown-shirted men came round the desk and grappled with him.. He ducked under the man's arms and shot a short right hand to his jaw, sending him to the floor, out to the world. "

...Then he hit the second man with a left hook and he dropped to the floor like a sack of potatoes. ...He took my hand and we walked down the stairs past the two guards at the front door. About twenty yards up the street, dad told me to wait a minute. ...He walked back to the entrance, mounted the steps and postitioned himself between the two guards. He eyed them for two or three seconds, and then, like lightning, swung a left hook at one, spun around with a right hook to the other, and calmly stepped over both.. He then walked down the steps and joined me, grinning from ear to ear."

I dunno if I'd call those "quality." I can see it helps support your point because those are big names, but those were not quality fighters at the time they fought Lennox.

I read earlier in your post that you named Holmes as a quality win for Tyson. If you can't name a washed up Tyson for Lennox then why is it right to name a washed up Holmes for Tyson?

I read earlier in your post that you named Holmes as a quality win for Tyson. If you can't name a washed up Tyson for Lennox then why is it right to name a washed up Holmes for Tyson?

I said Holmes, although not prime, was still a contender at the time and could have beaten a lot of heavies. Tyson wasn't a contender when he fought Lewis, he was a bum without a chance in the world.

Tyson looked like he was on some sort of tranquilizer. He probably had enough drugs in his system to put out a horse.

I said Holmes, although not prime, was still a contender at the time and could have beaten a lot of heavies. Tyson wasn't a contender when he fought Lewis, he was a bum without a chance in the world.

Tyson looked like he was on some sort of tranquilizer. He probably had enough drugs in his system to put out a horse.

Oh here we go: The "Tyson was sedated" mantra starts :puke:

Poet

Oh here we go: The "Tyson was sedated" mantra starts :puke:

Poet

You're 41 man, time to move out of your mom's basement and find a woman. Your instigating ways are childish and make you look as pathetic online as I'm certain you are in real life.

You're 41 man, time to move out of your mom's basement and find a woman. Your instigating ways are childish and make you look as pathetic online as I'm certain you are in real life.

And you're what? 14 and spending all your time looking at Mike Tyson posters with your pants around your ankles? BTW, your nuthugging posts make you look as moronic as I'm sure you are in real life. 50 years from now when you retire from a rewarding career of asking "would you like fries with that?" I'm sure you'll look back on your life and wonder why daddy didn't smack some sense into you and you'll take another pull on your bottle of Colt 45 and look for a nice warm subway grate to go nappy on. Have a nice day! :)

Poet

And you're what? 14 and spending all your time looking at Mike Tyson posters with your pants around your ankles? BTW, your nuthugging posts make you look as moronic as I'm sure you are in real life. 50 years from now when you retire from a rewarding career of asking "would you like fries with that?" I'm sure you'll look back on your life and wonder why daddy didn't smack some sense into you and you'll take another pull on your bottle of Colt 45 and look for a nice warm subway grate to go nappy on. Have a nice day! :)

Poet

If you weren't so old I might have a little fun with this, but I honestly feel sorry for you. I'm not gonna take cheap shots at a guy who's probably suicidal as it is. I'm sorry for the hand you were dealt in life.

If you weren't so old I might have a little fun with this, but I honestly feel sorry for you. I'm not gonna take cheap shots at a guy who's probably suicidal as it is. I'm sorry for the hand you were dealt in life.

You'd be better off saving your pity for someone who actually needs it: You know, someone like yourself! Flip dem burgers Junior :rofl:

Poet

louis kos tyson and foreman and decisions liston.

louis kos tyson and foreman and decisions liston.
louis massacred by tyson , decapitated by tua (in this one or another of the two first rounds) , abused by vitali klitschko (and probably by his lil' sis too) , schooled by byrd , and given fits by oliver mccall. he against foreman , frazier , shavers or lyle is a tough question.
louis , a cruiserweight by modern means , with no speed and not a very good chin , could be a decent cruiserweight in our era , the better questions are : how he'd do against the likes of : adamek , haye , o'neil bell , johnny nelson , michael moorer , vassily jirov , juan carlos gomez , alfred cole , eddie chambers , ola afolabi , steve cunningham . remember : he was KO'd by schmelling , a real small cruiserweight in our era , 1:1 against him after all , and schmelling was shop-worn in thier rematch. a prime schmelling is p4p better than louis , and h2h at about the same level. louis is a cruiserweight , maintain that. so were most of his biggest opponents (Baer 203 vs. schmelling , could make even 190 had he needed) .

louis massacred by tyson , decapitated by tua (in this one or another of the two first rounds) , abused by vitali klitschko (and probably by his lil' sis too) , schooled by byrd , and given fits by oliver mccall. he against foreman , frazier , shavers or lyle is a tough question.
louis , a cruiserweight by modern means , with no speed and not a very good chin , could be a decent cruiserweight in our era , the better questions are : how he'd do against the likes of : adamek , haye , o'neil bell , johnny nelson , michael moorer , vassily jirov , juan carlos gomez , alfred cole , eddie chambers , ola afolabi , steve cunningham . remember : he was KO'd by schmelling , a real small cruiserweight in our era , 1:1 against him after all , and schmelling was shop-worn in thier rematch. a prime schmelling is p4p better than louis , and h2h at about the same level. louis is a cruiserweight , maintain that. so were most of his biggest opponents (Baer 203 vs. schmelling , could make even 190 had he needed) .

Sorry Bub. You don't get to go back and redefine boxing history to suit your agenda: Namely by going back and and reclassifying all pre-1960s Heavyweights as Cruisers. BTW, you're Klitschko2009 alt aren't you?

Poet

louis massacred by tyson , decapitated by tua (in this one or another of the two first rounds) , abused by vitali klitschko (and probably by his lil' sis too) , schooled by byrd , and given fits by oliver mccall. he against foreman , frazier , shavers or lyle is a tough question.
louis , a cruiserweight by modern means , with no speed and not a very good chin , could be a decent cruiserweight in our era , the better questions are : how he'd do against the likes of : adamek , haye , o'neil bell , johnny nelson , michael moorer , vassily jirov , juan carlos gomez , alfred cole , eddie chambers , ola afolabi , steve cunningham . remember : he was KO'd by schmelling , a real small cruiserweight in our era , 1:1 against him after all , and schmelling was shop-worn in thier rematch. a prime schmelling is p4p better than louis , and h2h at about the same level. louis is a cruiserweight , maintain that. so were most of his biggest opponents (Baer 203 vs. schmelling , could make even 190 had he needed) .

The problem is that you haven't seen boxing so how can you talk boxing?

You said Reggie Johnson is up there with the likes of Archie Moore and Harold Johnson while admitting that you've never seen either Moore or Johnson fight. How can you say that? How can you say anything about a fighter you've never even seen or attempted to study?

You say that Louis is a "cruiserweight" but name Chris Byrd who was a former light welterweight yet very competitive in this era of boxing.

As for Louis having no speed, I disagree:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSt7ziz_XWQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSt7ziz_XWQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Good thread and good read... just finished reading everything.

Except for the flame wars and name calling... decent debate in here.

Good thread and good read... just finished reading everything.

Except for the flame wars and name calling... decent debate in here.

I'm pretty sure frankenfank is another Klitschko2009 (aka Wlad Ownz) troll alt. He does this every few months.

Poet

The problem is that you haven't seen boxing so how can you talk boxing?

You said Reggie Johnson is up there with the likes of Archie Moore and Harold Johnson while admitting that you've never seen either Moore or Johnson fight. How can you say that? How can you say anything about a fighter you've never even seen or attempted to study?

You say that Louis is a "cruiserweight" but name Chris Byrd who was a former light welterweight yet very competitive in this era of boxing.

As for Louis having no speed, I disagree:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSt7ziz_XWQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSt7ziz_XWQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
i think you somewhat changed what i said in the past , maybe i said he was up there with harold johnson , p4p wise even better , h2h about the same , but i never considered moore and harold johnson at the same level . and how do you know i do not watch boxing ? i know a different thing. and everyone are former straweights , the question is : when was the last time one could make the straweight's limit.
charles schooled louis ? byrd could school him better.
remember that at 201+ , byrd had a very good chin and a superb defense , charles' defense at this weight was far below byrd's.
charles would not have lasted the distance with prime mccline , tua and wlad (byrd did once) .

And you're what? 14 and spending all your time looking at Mike Tyson posters with your pants around your ankles? BTW, your nuthugging posts make you look as moronic as I'm sure you are in real life. 50 years from now when you retire from a rewarding career of asking "would you like fries with that?" I'm sure you'll look back on your life and wonder why daddy didn't smack some sense into you and you'll take another pull on your bottle of Colt 45 and look for a nice warm subway grate to go nappy on. Have a nice day! :)

Poet

I'm pretty sure frankenfank is another Klitschko2009 (aka Wlad Ownz) troll alt. He does this every few months.

Poet

klit2009 is p4p the worst poster in bscene history.

I think hes a computer programmed bot actually.

klit2009 is p4p the worst poster in bscene history.

I think hes a computer programmed bot actually.

Amen to that! You may be right about him being a bot: His command of the English language is as mechanical and robotic as the Klitschkos fighting style.

Poet

Vitali by BRUTAL KO over ALI in round 3

i think you somewhat changed what i said in the past , maybe i said he was up there with harold johnson , p4p wise even better , h2h about the same , but i never considered moore and harold johnson at the same level . and how do you know i do not watch boxing ? i know a different thing. and everyone are former straweights , the question is : when was the last time one could make the straweight's limit.
charles schooled louis ? byrd could school him better.
remember that at 201+ , byrd had a very good chin and a superb defense , charles' defense at this weight was far below byrd's.
charles would not have lasted the distance with prime mccline , tua and wlad (byrd did once) .

I didn't say you don't watch boxing at all. However you've admitted to not having even seen some of the boxers that you claim weren't any good. You have made up your opinions on them based on maybe taking a brief look at their record and little else.

It's difficult to take what you say too seriously when other people here have watched and analyzed hours of footage of the likes of Louis, Charles, Moore, while you haven't even put in the effort to watch a single fight, despite being certain that they couldn't compete today.

As I said, in order to talk boxing you must watch boxing. You may have seen Byrd, McCall, Tua but you haven't seen Louis.

Charles, who was a better boxer than Byrd, schooled an ancient Joe Louis who was coming back only to pay his taxes. I guess it was a prime Byrd in there when he was crushed by an average light heavyweight in Shaun George.

BTW, you're Klitschko2009 alt aren't you?

Poet



ChucklePoet strikes again.When in doubt,accuse others of being an alt.



Brush your teeth and join a gym,ya fat f*ck.

I didn't say you don't watch boxing at all.

It's difficult to take what you say too seriously when other people here have watched and analyzed hours of footage of the likes of Louis, Charles, Moore, while you haven't even put in the effort to watch a single fight, despite being certain that they couldn't compete today.

i never said they could not compete today , they could do well today , but at lower weight classes where they belong.

As I said, in order to talk boxing you must watch boxing. You may have seen Byrd, McCall, Tua but you haven't seen Louis.

i have seen a little of schmelling ,louis , walcott , marciano and charles ,
mainly highlights and some 3-4 entire fights of them all combined .
really a little , but no one answered the question : what could louis ever do against tua or even mccall when he's on a rage.

Charles, who was a better boxer than Byrd

at 175 he was better , at any higher class he was worse.
charles was KO'd by walcott and marciano , byrd lasted the distance with McCline , Tua and even once with Wladimir Klitschko.
each one of these would have massacred charles , not because of their great talent , just because their huge physical superiority.

I guess it was a prime Byrd in there when he was crushed by an average light heavyweight in Shaun George.
a shot to death byrd , who took plenty of shots from mccline , golota , wlad (twice) , vitali (once) and many more.

also : tom sharkey and fitzsimmons competed at their time's 'HW' , so what , they could compete today at this weight ?
that's what weight classes are for , and i think that a big majority of them are necessary , probably not sufficient .
as the number of pro boxers increased , the number of really big boxers also increased , and also the average skill increased , the word was average , i do not think that glen johnson is as talented as archie moore , i guess even tarver , dawson , and reggie johnson are less talented than him , but in average today's fighters are a little more skilled , and more important more than a little more adjusted to their weight classes. vitali klitschko is in no way today's primo carnerra , this is an insult , vitali would have never been KO'd by those who KO'd carnerra , he would have destroyed them just like , or probably even worse than he did orlin norris , danny williams , sam peter , juan carlos gomez and kirk johnson.
even valuev remained unstopped , so i guess it is an insult even for him to be called 'today's primo carnerra' , and haye is a heavier hitter than anyone carnerra ever faced. haye is a bigger cruiserweight than louis , or in your words : the more natural heavyweight. maybe a slightly shorter , but trained much better and so , much more lean muscle.
and i am no fan of either klitscko : it is a real shame to be stopped 3 times by those who stopped wlad in the way they did.
and regarding both klitschkos , it does not take a genius to be a really big man destroying little midgets. but vitali at least was never KO'd or almost KO'd as a pro (yes , i know his losses : a shoulder injury and a severe cuts combination - nothing like what his brother received)

i never said they could not compete today , they could do well today , but at lower weight classes where they belong.

i have seen a little of schmelling ,louis , walcott , marciano and charles ,
mainly highlights and some 3-4 entire fights of them all combined .
really a little , but no one answered the question : what could louis ever do against tua or even mccall when he's on a rage.

What could he do against Tua or McCall? He could beat them.

Tua is dangerous but he could be outboxed easily. He barely won a majority decision against a 200 lber like Jeff Wooden. Cruiserweight-sized Chris Byrd outboxed him and hurt him to the body. Oquendo, Rahman and Maskaev were taking him to school in every round until getting caught.

McCall is a one trick pony who lost to 200 lb Mike Hunter, 200 lb Orlin Norris, smallish DaVarryl Williamson, struggled to win a split decision against the very average Sedreck Fields.


at 175 he was better , at any higher class he was worse.
charles was KO'd by walcott and marciano , byrd lasted the distance with McCline , Tua and even once with Wladimir Klitschko.
each one of these would have massacred charles , not because of their great talent , just because their huge physical superiority.

Byrd was also TKO'd by Ibeabuchi, Klitschko, Povetkin. McCline didn't even massacre Robert Calloway so what's the guarantee he would do so against Ezzard Charles?

a shot to death byrd , who took plenty of shots from mccline , golota , wlad (twice) , vitali (once) and many more.

I guess Louis was in his prime against Charles though.

What could he do against Tua or McCall? He could beat them.

Tua is dangerous but he could be outboxed easily. He barely won a majority decision against a 200 lber like Jeff Wooden. Cruiserweight-sized Chris Byrd outboxed him and hurt him to the body. Oquendo, Rahman and Maskaev were taking him to school in every round until getting caught.

McCall is a one trick pony who lost to 200 lb Mike Hunter, 200 lb Orlin Norris, smallish DaVarryl Williamson, struggled to win a split decision against the very average Sedreck Fields.



Byrd was also TKO'd by Ibeabuchi, Klitschko, Povetkin. McCline didn't even massacre Robert Calloway so what's the guarantee he would do so against Ezzard Charles?



I guess Louis was in his prime against Charles though.

Well said A...... Ezzard Charles, Walcott & Joe Louis could really punch, they could render an opponent unconscious for the full count and longer, yet todays fighters who are all over 240lbs and 6ft 6ins + can never seem to render their opponents unconscious.. i put this down to them carrying "too much weight" which makes their punches lose that split-second of speed that gives a punch the "snap" needed to really poleaxe an opponent... Charles, Walcott, & Louis had better stamina and carried their punching power throughout the full 15rds of a fight.. todays behomoths are full of steroids and PED, protein drinks, creatine etc.. IMO todays fighters are vastly inferior to the fighters pre1980... i think guys like Cleveland Williams, Joe Bugner, Ron Lyle who easily take care of the Klitschko brothers

What could he do against Tua or McCall? He could beat them.

how ? louis was a big puncher for his time , not a great boxer of his time.

Tua is dangerous but he could be outboxed easily.

until he catches you and then it really what matters.

He barely won a majority decision against a 200 lber like Jeff Wooden.

that jeff wooden also lost a SD to michael grant , starts to look like an underestimated fighter. listed as 6'3"/76" with a lowest ever weight of 209 , and a highest of 223 , he could make 200 easily but so does byrd , whose fight with him is not scored in boxrec. just UD - nothing about the depth of it.

Cruiserweight-sized Chris Byrd outboxed him and hurt him to the body.

i saw that fight , you really exaggerate about the "hurt him to the body"
tua hurt byrd worse to the body in that fight , but this is obvious , so people forget.

Oquendo, Rahman and Maskaev were taking him to school in every round until getting caught.

regarding rahman , i will go further than you and will say that tua never beat rahman , it was after the bell .
regarding oquendo and maskaev : tua finally got what he wanted , that what matters in the end , one can not even excuse both cases , or can he ?

McCall is a one trick pony who lost to 200 lb Mike Hunter, 200 lb Orlin Norris, smallish DaVarryl Williamson, struggled to win a split decision against the very average Sedreck Fields.

decisions - especially close ones when fighting excellent boxers like norris who also gave hell to tucker (twice) , Jirov (i forgot you don't regard him as good) , a still young arthur williams , stopped williams the second time , and did it much quicker than what jirov and bell achieved against a shot williams , orlin norris was a very good cw and a fine hw.
davarryl williamson was smallish ? really ? if so , so is mccall himself which helps to understand.
close decisions should be regarded as Draws / No Decisions .
otherwise they are hugely misleading.
start respect stoppages more.
and btw - mccall also took buster douglas the distance - the same one who KO'd tyson , at about the same time - no 'old'/'young' excuses.
mccall also stopped Akiwande , Darroll wilson and maskaev. and has some other fine decisions if you check.
not exactly a one trick pony.
tua , tyson , golota , michael grant and vitali klitschko could not repeat that trick.

Byrd was also TKO'd by Ibeabuchi, Klitschko, Povetkin. McCline didn't even massacre Robert Calloway so what's the guarantee he would do so against Ezzard Charles?

in the povetkin fight , the permanently undersized and outgunned byrd , very much spent this time , took on a rising talented prospect who also decisioned a prime eddie chambers around that time.
just look at povetkin's record - who can beat him today except the klitschkos ? maybe tua , maybe mccall , and that's all.

I guess Louis was in his prime against Charles though.
(1)he was the reigning champion
(2) he was prime against schmelling
(3) but was schmelling prime in their rematch ?
(4) i guess the louis of walcott1 was also not prime , a short prime he had. starts to sound like a terry norris kind of prime.

how ? louis was a big puncher for his time , not a great boxer of his time.

Louis was a great boxer as well. He could outpoint you as well as knock you out. If he knew the knockout wasn't coming, he'd simply outpoint you with the jab.

until he catches you and then it really what matters.

He didn't always catch you which is why he never held a version of the world title.

that jeff wooden also lost a SD to michael grant , starts to look like an underestimated fighter. listed as 6'3"/76" with a lowest ever weight of 209 , and a highest of 223 , he could make 200 easily but so does byrd , whose fight with him is not scored in boxrec. just UD - nothing about the depth of it

Louis was 6'2 with a 76 inch reach and at his peak weighed 208 pounds.


i saw that fight , you really exaggerate about the "hurt him to the body"
tua hurt byrd worse to the body in that fight , but this is obvious , so people forget.

A feather-fisted fighter was able to hurt Tua to the body, imagine if it was Joe Louis dealing out those blows:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qL5dqopVA0k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qL5dqopVA0k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
2:20

regarding rahman , i will go further than you and will say that tua never beat rahman , it was after the bell .
regarding oquendo and maskaev : tua finally got what he wanted , that what matters in the end , one can not even excuse both cases , or can he ?

Oquendo and Maskaev weren't great fighters though, yet they were able to outbox Tua in every round. Tua was just not a good boxer at all, he was just a puncher.

decisions - especially close ones when fighting excellent boxers like norris who also gave hell to tucker (twice) , Jirov (i forgot you don't regard him as good) , a still young arthur williams , stopped williams the second time , and did it much quicker than what jirov and bell achieved against a shot williams , orlin norris was a very good cw and a fine hw.

Norris was pretty good but he was also small. To you size seems to be everything.

davarryl williamson was smallish ? really ? if so , so is mccall himself which helps to understand.

McCall weighed as much as 250 pounds. Williamson usually fought at 210 pounds. Size doesn't always matter.

close decisions should be regarded as Draws / No Decisions .
otherwise they are hugely misleading.
start respect stoppages more.
and btw - mccall also took buster douglas the distance - the same one who KO'd tyson , at about the same time - no 'old'/'young' excuses.
mccall also stopped Akiwande , Darroll wilson and maskaev. and has some other fine decisions if you check.
not exactly a one trick pony.
tua , tyson , golota , michael grant and vitali klitschko could not repeat that trick.

McCall took Buster Douglas the distance and lost. So what, a lot of people took Buster Douglas the distance, and the really good fighters outside of Tyson beat him. Why would you praise a fighter for losing?

Oliver was a one trick pony because all of his wins were with the counter right hand, usually when he was losing. If he didn't catch you with it, he couldn't win. He was not an all-around boxer by any means, just a tough guy with a good right hand.

in the povetkin fight , the permanently undersized and outgunned byrd , very much spent this time , took on a rising talented prospect who also decisioned a prime eddie chambers around that time.
just look at povetkin's record - who can beat him today except the klitschkos ? maybe tua , maybe mccall , and that's all.

But Povetkin is not even a big puncher. Byrd is a small guy yet he has been competitive in this era. This works against your argument that the fighters of the past couldn't compete today because they were too small. Numerous fighters who are "too small" compete today. Eddie Chambers is top 5 and he weighs 209 lbs.

(1)he was the reigning champion
(2) he was prime against schmelling
(3) but was schmelling prime in their rematch ?
(4) i guess the louis of walcott1 was also not prime , a short prime he had. starts to sound like a terry norris kind of prime.

Louis had given up his title and had been retired for 2 years before taking on Charles because he needed the money.

Louis was 21 years old when he fought Schmeling, was David Tua in his prime when he was KO'd in one round by Felix Savon?

Schmeling was still a very good fighter by the time of the rematch. He scored an impressive one round KO over Heuser after the loss to Louis.

Louis was in his prime from 1938 to 1942 when he went to the war. No one is going to be the same after 4 years away from Boxing.

how ? louis was a big puncher for his time , not a great boxer of his time.

until he catches you and then it really what matters.

that jeff wooden also lost a SD to michael grant , starts to look like an underestimated fighter. listed as 6'3"/76" with a lowest ever weight of 209 , and a highest of 223 , he could make 200 easily but so does byrd , whose fight with him is not scored in boxrec. just UD - nothing about the depth of it.

i saw that fight , you really exaggerate about the "hurt him to the body"
tua hurt byrd worse to the body in that fight , but this is obvious , so people forget.

regarding rahman , i will go further than you and will say that tua never beat rahman , it was after the bell .
regarding oquendo and maskaev : tua finally got what he wanted , that what matters in the end , one can not even excuse both cases , or can he ?

decisions - especially close ones when fighting excellent boxers like norris who also gave hell to tucker (twice) , Jirov (i forgot you don't regard him as good) , a still young arthur williams , stopped williams the second time , and did it much quicker than what jirov and bell achieved against a shot williams , orlin norris was a very good cw and a fine hw.
davarryl williamson was smallish ? really ? if so , so is mccall himself which helps to understand.
close decisions should be regarded as Draws / No Decisions .
otherwise they are hugely misleading.
start respect stoppages more.
and btw - mccall also took buster douglas the distance - the same one who KO'd tyson , at about the same time - no 'old'/'young' excuses.
mccall also stopped Akiwande , Darroll wilson and maskaev. and has some other fine decisions if you check.
not exactly a one trick pony.
tua , tyson , golota , michael grant and vitali klitschko could not repeat that trick.

in the povetkin fight , the permanently undersized and outgunned byrd , very much spent this time , took on a rising talented prospect who also decisioned a prime eddie chambers around that time.
just look at povetkin's record - who can beat him today except the klitschkos ? maybe tua , maybe mccall , and that's all.

(1)he was the reigning champion
(2) he was prime against schmelling
(3) but was schmelling prime in their rematch ?
(4) i guess the louis of walcott1 was also not prime , a short prime he had. starts to sound like a terry norris kind of prime.

You are without a doubt the most ignorant poster to come to this board.:twak:

GreatA bringing his GreatA game... if you get into a debate with him you seriously better be prepared for a loss... not too mention 365 youtube videos of why you're wrong ;)

I still don't know what there is to debate about.. frankenfrank doesn't really know what he's talking about and he's most likely not going to change his mind. I mean.. he hasn't even seen any footage of some of the fighters he's debating against.

GreatA bringing his GreatA game... if you get into a debate with him you seriously better be prepared for a loss... not too mention 365 youtube videos of why you're wrong ;)

Lmao!!:lol1:

Don't take the "debate" with frankenfrank too seriously. I know him from another boxing forum and it's my version of entertainment to discuss boxing with him. He never ceases to amaze me with some of the things he says but to his credit atleast he is consistent with it. Tua and McCall are both included among his top 10 greatest heavyweights of all time.

Don't take the "debate" with frankenfrank too seriously. I know him from another boxing forum and it's my version of entertainment to discuss boxing with him. He never ceases to amaze me with some of the things he says but to his credit atleast he is consistent with it. Tua and McCall are both included among his top 10 greatest heavyweights of all time.

Tua is in his top 10 HWs?

Tua is in his top 10 HWs?

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. David Tua
5. Mike Tyson
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Oliver McCall
9. Rocky Marciano (should be considerred at 175 , 190 , 200 , not 201+)
10. Chris Byrd
if you take out Marciano , maybe Louis steps in , maybe Foreman , maybe holmes , maybe someone else.

:thinking:

:thinking:

Which win put Vitali over Ali? Was it Hide or Donald? Sanders?

LMAO

:thinking:

Wlads above Ali.

I mean the rest is ridiculous.


But Wlad.......... is above........... Ali.

Wlads above Ali.

I mean the rest is ridiculous.


But Wlad.......... is above........... Ali.

I want to know why Buster Douglas isn't on. He beat Tyson and McCall easy.

Because Tyson was shot when Buster beat him..... of course.

Because Tyson was shot when Buster beat him..... of course.

Of course.

Which win put Vitali over Ali? Was it Hide or Donald? Sanders?

LMAO

He puts them on a scale: The higher they weigh, the higher he ranks them :ugh:

Poet

all 3 get knocked out in less than 10

Louis was a great boxer as well. He could outpoint you as well as knock you out. If he knew the knockout wasn't coming, he'd simply outpoint you with the jab.

and all of tua's KO victims never heard about the jab.
ruiz and moorer should learn more about it


He didn't always catch you which is why he never held a version of the world title.

a version of the title means **** , he destroyed 3 fighters who held a version of it , one of them was even the linear holder.
two of them he destroyed quickly with ease but the bottom line is "destroyed".


Louis was 6'2 with a 76 inch reach and at his peak weighed 208 pounds.

so ? you brought it to emphasize my claim of how cruiserweight he was ?


A feather-fisted fighter was able to hurt Tua to the body, imagine if it was Joe Louis dealing out those blows:

you exaggerate.


Oquendo and Maskaev weren't great fighters though, yet they were able to outbox Tua in every round. Tua was just not a good boxer at all, he was just a puncher.

that's because of their huge height and reach advantages over him , and still he destroyed both and others with that same advantage.


Norris was pretty good but he was also small. To you size seems to be everything.

not everything but many times it is a critical factor.


McCall weighed as much as 250 pounds. Williamson usually fought at 210 pounds. Size doesn't always matter.

fat is not big. muscular is big.
and yes , mccall was also more muscular than williamson at that time but by a much smaller margin than the 250 to 210.
fat doesn't help you that much.


McCall took Buster Douglas the distance and lost. So what, a lot of people took Buster Douglas the distance, and the really good fighters outside of Tyson beat him. Why would you praise a fighter for losing?

as long as it is by lasting the distance it is much more forgiven than , say , losing by stoppage.

Oliver was a one trick pony because all of his wins were with the counter right hand, usually when he was losing. If he didn't catch you with it, he couldn't win. He was not an all-around boxer by any means, just a tough guy with a good right hand.

i do not say that he is the greatest of all time , just that whatever he was , was more than joe louis , had they fought 3 times you'd see mccall getting the better of the affair.


But Povetkin is not even a big puncher. Byrd is a small guy yet he has been competitive in this era. This works against your argument that the fighters of the past couldn't compete today because they were too small. Numerous fighters who are "too small" compete today. Eddie Chambers is top 5 and he weighs 209 lbs.

you will get the answer when his fight with wlad will end.
if he really is a top5 , it is more of an evidence about the ranking entity and the current weakness at 201+.


Louis was 21 years old when he fought Schmeling, was David Tua in his prime when he was KO'd in one round by Felix Savon?

tua was 19 then and savon was much much taller than him and also with much much more experience.
louis was 21 against a smaller opponent than himself.
and i really do not care if he was 3 lbs heavier , because he still was bigger than schmelling.
21 is not 19 , it is growth time and critical difference.

Schmeling was still a very good fighter by the time of the rematch. He scored an impressive one round KO over Heuser after the loss to Louis.

whose dat heuser ? why should i care ?
schmelling was maybe still good but damaged goods by that time.
this sport is harmful.

Frankenfrank are you making a funny about David Tua beating Joe Louis. David Tua could punch and take a punch true, but he had next to no boxing skill. If blown-up super middleweight such as Chris Byrd could beat him , clearly Joe Louis would either put him too sleep like a rabid dog or decision him in a fashion more one sided than this argument.

Frankenfrank are you making a funny about David Tua beating Joe Louis. David Tua could punch and take a punch true, but he had next to no boxing skill. If blown-up super middleweight such as Chris Byrd could beat him , clearly Joe Louis would either put him too sleep like a rabid dog or decision him in a fashion more one sided than this argument.
if tua could punch and take a punch , 2 big understatements , then how could louis put him to sleep ?the only one going to sleep is louis.
tua could be outboxed because he is a midget. how do you expect a midget to outbox someone 6" taller than him with an arm length bigger at least 3" than himself who can move as well ? he can't outbox elite fighters but he can KO them which is even better. louis would have also lost to lesser fighters of our era (of course just to the best (of our era)).
the ibeabuchi and byrd fights should have been ruled as draws.
the lewis fight was closer than the belief here , but how could a little midget either outbox or KO a big experienced and skilled hw such as lewis ?
the klitschkos and lewis are the top3 in my list because very few fighters ever could beat them , true wlad could be stopped by many but the opposite is the more realistic choice every time.
i rank on h2h basis. what can i do about the fact that height is a critical factor ? valuev is not on my top10 because for some reason , he did not achieve too much. but the rest did.

and all of tua's KO victims never heard about the jab.
ruiz and moorer should learn more about it

You're right, Moorer and Ruiz didn't use the jab against Tua. The fighters who did use the jab were usually outpointing him in every round unless they lost focus and got caught.


a version of the title means **** , he destroyed 3 fighters who held a version of it , one of them was even the linear holder.
two of them he destroyed quickly with ease but the bottom line is "destroyed".

It does mean something. Just about everyone worth anything has won a version of the title today yet David Tua couldn't. That speaks volumes about his ability, or the lack of it.


so ? you brought it to emphasize my claim of how cruiserweight he was ?

Fighters that Tua struggled with/lost to were the same size.


you exaggerate.

I think everyone can decide for themselves.

that's because of their huge height and reach advantages over him , and still he destroyed both and others with that same advantage.

Louis is as tall and as Oquendo and Maskaev and has a longer reach than Oleg, but he didn't get KO'd in every other fight of his like Maskaev did.


not everything but many times it is a critical factor.

Not against Tua who is a slow, short plodding fighter. Not exactly a Lennox Lewis.


fat is not big. muscular is big.
and yes , mccall was also more muscular than williamson at that time but by a much smaller margin than the 250 to 210.
fat doesn't help you that much.


I've never seen McCall look "fat". He was bigger than Williamson but lost. He's also bigger than Louis but would lose.


as long as it is by lasting the distance it is much more forgiven than , say , losing by stoppage.

You still lose. And McCall lost a lot.

i do not say that he is the greatest of all time , just that whatever he was , was more than joe louis , had they fought 3 times you'd see mccall getting the better of the affair.

McCall was no Joe Louis and would have lost to Louis just like he did to almost everyone who was half-decent. He upset Lennox Lewis once and cried his way out of the rematch. He was basically a lesser Buster Douglas, who was another fighter that beat him among many.


you will get the answer when his fight with wlad will end.
if he really is a top5 , it is more of an evidence about the ranking entity and the current weakness at 201+.

He'll lose to Wladimir because he is not as good as Wladimir. He could be 6'5, 250 lbs and he'd still lose. The same reason why Louis would beat the likes of McCall, Tua. They might have a weight advantage over him but they just aren't that good. Size matters when the two fighters are equally as good which is not the case here.

Evander Holyfield weighed 205 when he was the champion in the 90's, Moorer was a former light heavyweight, Byrd claimed he often weighed well below the cruiserweight limit. Not to mention Roy Jones and James Toney, or David Haye.

In that case every era is weak because cruiserweight-sized boxers have always competed at heavyweight. Cruiserweight is a bogus division that no one cares about.


tua was 19 then and savon was much much taller than him and also with much much more experience.
louis was 21 against a smaller opponent than himself.
and i really do not care if he was 3 lbs heavier , because he still was bigger than schmelling.
21 is not 19 , it is growth time and critical difference.

And David Tua at 21 was weighing around 200-210 pounds. Is he any bigger than Louis or did he just put on fat that doesn't help anything like you said?

whose dat heuser ? why should i care ?
schmelling was maybe still good but damaged goods by that time.
this sport is harmful.

Where's the proof that he was damaged goods? Because Louis beat him? Schmeling look good in his fights immediately before and after the Louis fight. He would have continued fighting if not for the Second World War.

if tua could punch and take a punch , 2 big understatements , then how could louis put him to sleep ?the only one going to sleep is louis.
tua could be outboxed because he is a midget. how do you expect a midget to outbox someone 6" taller than him with an arm length bigger at least 3" than himself who can move as well ? he can't outbox elite fighters but he can KO them which is even better. louis would have also lost to lesser fighters of our era (of course just to the best (of our era)).
the ibeabuchi and byrd fights should have been ruled as draws.
the lewis fight was closer than the belief here , but how could a little midget either outbox or KO a big experienced and skilled hw such as lewis ?
the klitschkos and lewis are the top3 in my list because very few fighters ever could beat them , true wlad could be stopped by many but the opposite is the more realistic choice every time.
i rank on h2h basis. what can i do about the fact that height is a critical factor ? valuev is not on my top10 because for some reason , he did not achieve too much. but the rest did.

Tua never fought anyone like Louis. He would be getting hit by punches thrown harder than Ibeabuchi's, more accurately and faster than Chris Byrd. With Tua's lack of defense even his chin would break.

He lost the Byrd fight clearly hence he didn't get a draw. The Ike fight was close but most fans will agree that Ike deserved the nod not a draw.

If you thought the Lewis fight was close I can't help you as Lewis won that very convincingly. Tua was taken apart and given a very one sided UD.

Height isn't all that important without reach. You rate Wlad and Vitali highly even though Ali and Holmes have the same reach and have significantly better boxing skill and talent.

Tua would get beat by Joe Louis just like every other slugger Joe Louis beat did. He doesn't bring anything to the table that Louis hasn't already fought against and beaten.

Louis was in his prime from 1938 to 1942 when he went to the war. No one is going to be the same after 4 years away from Boxing.

eh 96 expos isnt really 4 years away from boxing. though i would say that 96 expos would probably be even more detrimental to ones prime then just quitting for 4 years.

eh 96 expos isnt really 4 years away from boxing. though i would say that 96 expos would probably be even more detrimental to ones prime then just quitting for 4 years.

He had boxing exhibitions against some local soldiers who could hardly box. That doesn't count as anything other than maybe sparring experience.

When Louis came back, he wasn't the same man. That's my point. There is a huge difference between the Louis who fought Buddy Baer and Abe Simon in rematches and the Louis who fought Billy Conn in a rematch. The peak Louis of 1942 looks sharp, accurate and fast with his hands. The older Louis of 1946 looks slower, less accurate and can't pull the trigger & use combinations like he used to. He did get rid of Conn but that's because Conn was even more shot than he was.

He had boxing exhibitions against some local soldiers who could hardly box. That doesn't count as anything other than maybe sparring experience.

When Louis came back, he wasn't the same man. That's my point. There is a huge difference between the Louis who fought Buddy Baer and Abe Simon in rematches and the Louis who fought Billy Conn in a rematch. The peak Louis of 1942 looks sharp, accurate and fast with his hands. The older Louis of 1946 looks slower, less accurate and can't pull the trigger & use combinations like he used to. He did get rid of Conn but that's because Conn was even more shot than he was.

well yeah thats what i was saying fighting 96 times against people that arnt going to take advantage of your mistakes and dont hurt as much when they hit is going to make you feel comfortable like you can slack off all the time.

well yeah thats what i was saying fighting 96 times against people that arnt going to take advantage of your mistakes and dont hurt as much when they hit is going to make you feel comfortable like you can slack off all the time.

True. .

True.

i just wanted to point that out incase some one brings up well if joe was so good then why was ali's comeback so much greater if they both took a 3 or 4 year break? when its because while ali was burning to fight some one that whole time, joe was becoming complacent.

It would also has something to do with Ali being a greater fighter than Joe Louis.

It would also have something to do with Louis being 32 at the time of his comeback, the same age that Ali regained the title from George Foreman. He wouldn't have, had he started his comeback at that moment.

It would also has something to do with Ali being a greater fighter than Joe Louis.

Perhaps a better boxer but not a better fighter.

Perhaps a better boxer but not a better fighter.


Louis can be a better boxer,a better fighter,he can throw a jab better and he can do everything by the book like his nuthugging historians love him for......but he was still an inferior heavyweight to Ali.





It would also have something to do with Louis being 32 at the time of his comeback, the same age that Ali regained the title from George Foreman. He wouldn't have, had he started his comeback at that moment.





It's three years...not thirteen.Such a layoff will affect a reflex fighter worse than a puncher

You're right, Moorer and Ruiz didn't use the jab against Tua. The fighters who did use the jab were usually outpointing him in every round unless they lost focus and got caught.

both used their jabs , but it was like using a pistol against a tank.
both chin-wise and powerpunch-wise.



It does mean something. Just about everyone worth anything has won a version of the title today yet David Tua couldn't. That speaks volumes about his ability, or the lack of it.

had it been worth anything ruiz , moorer and maskaev would have ended much better against tua , wouldn't they ?
so i guess each one of them , and every world titlist ever should be ranked above tua , roy jones was also a better heavy than tua , right ?
after all he decisioned the ruiz whom tua KO'd in half a minute.
i guess tua is a serial fluker.



Louis is as tall and as Oquendo and Maskaev and has a longer reach than Oleg, but he didn't get KO'd in every other fight of his like Maskaev did.

sure louis is better than maskaev and oquendo , but with his stationarity
he'd be badly beat , you don't expect him to run for his life , do you ?
if he did , he will last longer than 1 round , if he fights he gets a goodnight kiss from canvas.


I've never seen McCall look "fat". He was bigger than Williamson but lost. He's also bigger than Louis but would lose.

not arreola fat , but he is fat. i think except tyson , holyfield , bruno and the klitschkos almost everyone were.


You still lose. And McCall lost a lot.

losing SD is nothing like being stopped , decisions are many times wrong as you know , many times decision losses are robberies and mean ****.
mccall's technique is not great but chin and power count a lot.


McCall was no Joe Louis and would have lost to Louis just like he did to almost everyone who was half-decent. He upset Lennox Lewis once and cried his way out of the rematch. He was basically a lesser Buster Douglas, who was another fighter that beat him among many.

had he been a lesser buster douglas he should have been stopped many times. but he wasn't.


He'll lose to Wladimir because he is not as good as Wladimir.

he is as good as wladimir. what in wlad's technique is better than chamber's ? his use of his huge physical advantage that chambers does not have ?

He could be 6'5, 250 lbs and he'd still lose.

and wlad is even more than that , at least on paper he is.
a 6'5" chambers has a very big chance against wlad.
wlad is no povetkin , he relies on his size more.
he does not fight like povetkin .



The same reason why Louis would beat the likes of McCall, Tua.

in a 3 fights series against each one of them , but especially tua , louis gets the worse of it.
as i used to write : tua:louis : 2(2):1(0)


They might have a weight advantage over him but they just aren't that good. Size matters when the two fighters are equally as good which is not the case here.

what won louis fights ? opportunistic shots like you say about mccall.
but like tua he created his opportunities .
but tua has the better chin and bigger power , both by far.
that would be the difference .
if louis tries to really fight , he gets KO'd , unless he turns to floyd.


Evander Holyfield weighed 205 when he was the champion in the 90's, Moorer was a former light heavyweight, Byrd claimed he often weighed well below the cruiserweight limit. Not to mention Roy Jones and James Toney, or David Haye.

of those you mentioned only byrd faced the klitschkos and you know what the lesser sister did to him.
moorer was KO'd by a slow plodding clumsy old worn foreman.
holyfield made a great use of his head , just like tyson made a great use of his elbows , and still it was not enough against bowe .
neither of those you mentioned had a chance against a klitschko/lewis.
holyfield came close against lewis , but lacked the punch to crack even lewis' chin.
why is this ? because no one of those you mentioned belonged at 201+ , that's why each one of them did not achieve much at 201+.
if anything , you should have brought tyson as example but he did use elbows didn't he ? but tua was a clean fighter .


In that case every era is weak because cruiserweight-sized boxers have always competed at heavyweight. Cruiserweight is a bogus division that no one cares about.

so lets cancel the 175 division too , who needs it ?
after all , moorer , jones , toney and byrd did move up , didn't they ?
also charles and walcott.
harold johnson would be a live underdog against vitali , after all , he was no less good , wasn't he ?



And David Tua at 21 was weighing around 200-210 pounds. Is he any bigger than Louis or did he just put on fat that doesn't help anything like you said?

tua put on more than just fat since he was 21.

both used their jabs , but it was like using a pistol against a tank.
both chin-wise and powerpunch-wise.



had it been worth anything ruiz , moorer and maskaev would have ended much better against tua , wouldn't they ?
so i guess each one of them , and every world titlist ever should be ranked above tua , roy jones was also a better heavy than tua , right ?
after all he decisioned the ruiz whom tua KO'd in half a minute.
i guess tua is a serial fluker.



sure louis is better than maskaev and oquendo , but with his stationarity
he'd be badly beat , you don't expect him to run for his life , do you ?
if he did , he will last longer than 1 round , if he fights he gets a goodnight kiss from canvas.


not arreola fat , but he is fat. i think except tyson , holyfield , bruno and the klitschkos almost everyone were.


losing SD is nothing like being stopped , decisions are many times wrong as you know , many times decision losses are robberies and mean ****.
mccall's technique is not great but chin and power count a lot.


had he been a lesser buster douglas he should have been stopped many times. but he wasn't.


he is as good as wladimir. what in wlad's technique is better than chamber's ? his use of his huge physical advantage that chambers does not have ?

and wlad is even more than that , at least on paper he is.
a 6'5" chambers has a very big chance against wlad.
wlad is no povetkin , he relies on his size more.
he does not fight like povetkin .



in a 3 fights series against each one of them , but especially tua , louis gets the worse of it.
as i used to write : tua:louis : 2(2):1(0)


what won louis fights ? opportunistic shots like you say about mccall.
but like tua he created his opportunities .
but tua has the better chin and bigger power , both by far.
that would be the difference .
if louis tries to really fight , he gets KO'd , unless he turns to floyd.


of those you mentioned only byrd faced the klitschkos and you know what the lesser sister did to him.
moorer was KO'd by a slow plodding clumsy old worn foreman.
holyfield made a great use of his head , just like tyson made a great use of his elbows , and still it was not enough against bowe .
neither of those you mentioned had a chance against a klitschko/lewis.
holyfield came close against lewis , but lacked the punch to crack even lewis' chin.
why is this ? because no one of those you mentioned belonged at 201+ , that's why each one of them did not achieve much at 201+.
if anything , you should have brought tyson as example but he did use elbows didn't he ? but tua was a clean fighter .


so lets cancel the 175 division too , who needs it ?
after all , moorer , jones , toney and byrd did move up , didn't they ?
also charles and walcott.
harold johnson would be a live underdog against vitali , after all , he was no less good , wasn't he ?



tua put on more than just fat since he was 21.

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

Take a look at this and tell me David Tua has a better chin than Joe Louis... tell me Tua does not use his elbows.. where is this BIG power of Tua you keep going on about, the only power Tua has ever shown was catching John Ruiz with the first punch of the fight by surprise and doing the same to an old Michael Moorer... which does not make him better than the great joe Louis..

Louis can be a better boxer,a better fighter,he can throw a jab better and he can do everything by the book like his nuthugging historians love him for......but he was still an inferior heavyweight to Ali.

it's three years...not thirteen.Such a layoff will affect a reflex fighter worse than a puncher

Another alt red Ked, ignored, and reported.

Poet

both used their jabs , but it was like using a pistol against a tank.
both chin-wise and powerpunch-wise.

Both Moorer and Ruiz fought stupid against Tua, they basically gave him every opportunity to land a bomb. Other fighters didn't, and Tua couldn't put them away. I notice you keep bringing up these two fights against B-level belt holders, I guess that's Tua's only claim to fame. His power still wasn't enough to beat real champions such as Lewis and Byrd, nor would it be against Louis.

had it been worth anything ruiz , moorer and maskaev would have ended much better against tua , wouldn't they ?
so i guess each one of them , and every world titlist ever should be ranked above tua , roy jones was also a better heavy than tua , right ?
after all he decisioned the ruiz whom tua KO'd in half a minute.
i guess tua is a serial fluker.

Tua beat a young Ruiz, not the near impossible to KO cautious clincher that he later became.

He beat an old Moorer who was there to collect a paycheck.

Maskaev was KO'd more impressively by Kirk Johnson and Lance Whitaker but neither of them were world championship caliber. He had a chin made of glass yet was outboxing Tua in every round until getting caught.

sure louis is better than maskaev and oquendo , but with his stationarity
he'd be badly beat , you don't expect him to run for his life , do you ?
if he did , he will last longer than 1 round , if he fights he gets a goodnight kiss from canvas.


He wouldn't be as stationary as you'd think. He wouldn't run either. He'd do to Tua what he did against Baer. Step in and out of Tua's (shorter) range and catch him with shorter, more accurate punches.

not arreola fat , but he is fat. i think except tyson , holyfield , bruno and the klitschkos almost everyone were.

http://www.fightwriter.com/files/McCall%20ready.jpg

Not what I'd call fat. And if you're saying he was "fat" then what's this argument about McCall being bigger than Louis all about? Maybe he weighed more because he was out of shape then because he sure wasn't taller and didn't have a longer reach.


losing SD is nothing like being stopped , decisions are many times wrong as you know , many times decision losses are robberies and mean ****.
mccall's technique is not great but chin and power count a lot.

McCall has also lost numerous clear decisions by wide margins. He fights like a sparring partner which is why he doesn't win in the judges' eyes.

had he been a lesser buster douglas he should have been stopped many times. but he wasn't.

He was a lesser Buster Douglas because he couldn't beat Buster Douglas.


he is as good as wladimir. what in wlad's technique is better than chamber's ? his use of his huge physical advantage that chambers does not have ?

and wlad is even more than that , at least on paper he is.
a 6'5" chambers has a very big chance against wlad.
wlad is no povetkin , he relies on his size more.
he does not fight like povetkin .


He can punch unlike Chambers. Wladimir has beaten several opponents his size, such as Tony Thompson, Jameel McCline and Derrick Jefferson. It's not just his size that wins the fights.


in a 3 fights series against each one of them , but especially tua , louis gets the worse of it.
as i used to write : tua:louis : 2(2):1(0)

what won louis fights ? opportunistic shots like you say about mccall.
but like tua he created his opportunities .
but tua has the better chin and bigger power , both by far.
that would be the difference .
if louis tries to really fight , he gets KO'd , unless he turns to floyd.

Where does all this confidence in your fight picks come from? Do you bet on fights and make money from it? From what I'm seeing your only argument for Tua is that he is "big" and can punch and take a punch.

Louis won fights because he was the greatest puncher and finisher of all time. Having a chin and a punch can win fights but not at the level Louis was competing at. Max Baer had a punch and a chin too, see how he ended up. Being a bigger puncher doesn't mean anything when you're facing a better puncher.

Louis's jab will score, as Tua is about the easiest fighter in heavyweight history to dominate with the jab, and it'll keep Tua off balance. In punching exchanges Louis's quicker, more accurate punches will score and he is a big enough puncher to gain the respect of Tua. Look at what Lewis scoring right hands early on Tua did to his mentality, Tua no longer tried to rush in and be aggressive, he was content on lasting the distance.


of those you mentioned only byrd faced the klitschkos and you know what the lesser sister did to him.
moorer was KO'd by a slow plodding clumsy old worn foreman.
holyfield made a great use of his head , just like tyson made a great use of his elbows , and still it was not enough against bowe .
neither of those you mentioned had a chance against a klitschko/lewis.
holyfield came close against lewis , but lacked the punch to crack even lewis' chin.
why is this ? because no one of those you mentioned belonged at 201+ , that's why each one of them did not achieve much at 201+.
if anything , you should have brought tyson as example but he did use elbows didn't he ? but tua was a clean fighter .

That's because Byrd and Moorer weren't great fighters. But they were still competitive, disproving your argument that "cruiserweights" can't compete today when they obviously can and do, see Haye, Chambers. Vitali couldn't put away Byrd and quit against him. Holyfield was able to beat Bowe in the rematch and gave Lewis a close fight in the rematch. He was not a puncher as you said but Louis was. Louis has the power to repeat a Brewster/Sanders/Puritty on Wladimir. And Sanders was an overweight golfer, imagine if Wladimir was fighting a full-time, peak shape power puncher.

so lets cancel the 175 division too , who needs it ?
after all , moorer , jones , toney and byrd did move up , didn't they ?
also charles and walcott.
harold johnson would be a live underdog against vitali , after all , he was no less good , wasn't he ?

The light heavyweight division is of historical significance and it's filled with competent fighters who fight at their best weight. The cruiserweight division is basically a junior heavyweight division where heavyweight hopefuls hide to beat lesser opposition until stepping up. See Adamek, Haye, basically any relevant cruiserweight ever.

tua put on more than just fat since he was 21.

"21 is not 19 , it is growth time and critical difference."

The fact is that neither Tua or Louis were at their best at the time. They went onto be better and proved it.

I have never seen a poster discredit so many fighters since I signed up to this forum.




Another alt red Ked, ignored, and reported.

Poet


We already went through this,you cretin......and you came up short,just as you have done your entire miserable life.

We already went through this,you cretin......and you came up short,just as you have done your entire miserable life.

:haha: Coming from someone who cops a ban every 4 or 5 days. BTW, you should refrain from using the term "coming up short" as it's the proper description of you popping a boner :rofl:

Poet

:haha: Coming from someone who cops a ban every 4 or 5 days. BTW, you should refrain from using the term "coming up short" as it's the proper description of you popping a boner :rofl:

Poet


Laughing at your own perverted jokes....how sad.I try not to pity you,but it's difficult not to when you have a middle aged,out of shape hermit who has been completely rejected by society.

I sometimes fear we have another Ricardo Lopez case when dealing with you.

Laughing at your own perverted jokes....how sad.I try not to pity you,but it's difficult not to when you have a middle aged,out of shape hermit who has been completely rejected by society.

I sometimes fear we have another Ricardo Lopez case when dealing with you.

Awwww boo hoo :bottle: Slimeypoophead's been owned again :owned:

Poet

I have never seen a poster discredit so many fighters since I signed up to this forum.



I'm discrediting them from top 10 all-time great status.

Another alt red Ked, ignored, and reported.

Poet
maybe he is not pee after all , pee was not that nut.

Both Moorer and Ruiz fought stupid against Tua, they basically gave him every opportunity to land a bomb. Other fighters didn't, and Tua couldn't put them away. I notice you keep bringing up these two fights against B-level belt holders, I guess that's Tua's only claim to fame. His power still wasn't enough to beat real champions such as Lewis and Byrd, nor would it be against Louis.

they were the best of his wins but there were more :
maskaev , he also was the quickest to stop gary bell (KO'd mccline) and obed sullivan who gave big problems to rahman and larry donald , david izon , darroll wilson (KO'd shannon briggs) and danel nicholson.
i really do not consider anyone of these fighters as good , but each one of them could issue problems and win against a good fighter in their prime.
winning so convincingly against them is accumulated to greatness.
he was the quickest loss on so many people's resume.


Tua beat a young Ruiz, not the near impossible to KO cautious clincher that he later became.

he was young himself at that time , just the same age .

He beat an old Moorer who was there to collect a paycheck.

that old , 35 years old moorer remained the only stoppage loss yet of vassily jirov , whom he fought 2 years later.

Maskaev was KO'd more impressively by Kirk Johnson and Lance Whitaker but neither of them were world championship caliber. He had a chin made of glass yet was outboxing Tua in every round until getting caught.

that would be exactly what people would have said of joe louis had he fought tua in his prime.
lance whitaker , kirk johnson , correy sanders , mccall , tua , had all more punching power than anyone louis ever faced.
that max baer could have been a cw in the 190 limit days.


He wouldn't be as stationary as you'd think. He wouldn't run either. He'd do to Tua what he did against Baer. Step in and out of Tua's (shorter) range and catch him with shorter, more accurate punches.

but baer is no tua , not the same chin , not the same power , not the same what you call : heart.


http://www.fightwriter.com/files/McCall%20ready.jpg
Not what I'd call fat. And if you're saying he was "fat" then what's this argument about McCall being bigger than Louis all about? Maybe he weighed more because he was out of shape then because he sure wasn't taller and didn't have a longer reach.

it is hard to argue with that pic (but still possible) , but mccall had other times than the time that pic was taken in.
maybe he was less in shape than louis but still had more muscle than louis , and not any less reach i guess , boxrec says he had more , but i really do not take boxrec seriously on reach issues. also not in height issues , but in the reach department they are even worse.


McCall has also lost numerous clear decisions by wide margins. He fights like a sparring partner which is why he doesn't win in the judges' eyes.

never been down as a pro , never really stopped as a pro , not a briliant fighter at all , but has power and chin , a very useful combination.
and unlike tua , he also has some reach and height , although not too much too.


He was a lesser Buster Douglas because he couldn't beat Buster Douglas.

great reasoning. so tyson is a lesser buster douglas too.



He can punch unlike Chambers. Wladimir has beaten several opponents his size, such as Tony Thompson, Jameel McCline and Derrick Jefferson. It's not just his size that wins the fights.

but they were not good , maybe mccline has a reasonable talent , but the other two are not any better than darroll wilson , danel nicholson , obed sullivan , gary bell , etc.
they had no top10 (at their time) skill . maybe not even top20.
chambers outpointed dimitrenko in a close fight that maybe should have been a draw too , did wlad ever faced such a size disadvantage ?
wlad can punch better than chambers merely because he has those great physical advantages of his . had chambers had them too , he would have been a better wlad. he has a better chin at least. or at least a better defense.
chamber's technique is not any inferior to wlad's he simply can't and doesn't try to do the same things b/c he's too small.

Where does all this confidence in your fight picks come from? Do you bet on fights and make money from it? From what I'm seeing your only argument for Tua is that he is "big" and can punch and take a punch.

i have yet to bet on a fight.
tua is a midget. but a very massive midget.
had he been 6'4" he'd destroyed both klitschkos , lewis , bowe , foreman , ali , holmes , byrd , ibeabuchi , anyone you choose .
and had he given a shot at ruiz/moorer/maskaev/holyfield(i saw their SPARRING) / brewster/chagaev when they held those belts you consider that much he would have been a belt holder too , he did not have the greatest promoter on his side that's all. a clear orlin norris case.

Louis won fights because he was the greatest puncher and finisher of all time. Having a chin and a punch can win fights but not at the level Louis was competing at.

what level ? schmelling and baer could have only been good contenders at cw today , not even too good. i guess they could win and lose some belt or two at some point or another , maybe even unify the WBF with the IBC.

Max Baer had a punch and a chin too, see how he ended up. Being a bigger puncher doesn't mean anything when you're facing a better puncher.

not a tua punch , not a mccall punch , not a tua chin , not a mccall chin , not even close to any one of these two in these departments at all.
he was a lesser fighter than haye. haye was better than him on both departments.

Louis's jab will score, as Tua is about the easiest fighter in heavyweight history to dominate with the jab, and it'll keep Tua off balance.

simply because tua is a midget , but when louis catches him , nothing happens , when he catches louis , louis goes out on a stretcher with an oxygen mask.

In punching exchanges Louis's quicker, more accurate punches will score and he is a big enough puncher to gain the respect of Tua.

until tua catches him and then it's all over.
don't compare tua to louis' opposition.
comparing louis to haye is very much needed.
i guess haye could destroy him as well.

Look at what Lewis scoring right hands early on Tua did to his mentality, Tua no longer tried to rush in and be aggressive, he was content on lasting the distance.

he tried but could not reach .
he even scored somehow but was just too short to fully reach , just watch how lewis trembled at the end of one of the rounds when tua scored on him.


That's because Byrd and Moorer weren't great fighters. But they were still competitive, disproving your argument that "cruiserweights" can't compete today when they obviously can and do, see Haye, Chambers. Vitali couldn't put away Byrd and quit against him. Holyfield was able to beat Bowe in the rematch and gave Lewis a close fight in the rematch. He was not a puncher as you said but Louis was. Louis has the power to repeat a Brewster/Sanders/Puritty on Wladimir. And Sanders was an overweight golfer, imagine if Wladimir was fighting a full-time, peak shape power puncher.

byrd was successful b/c he was an escapologist.
if someone close enough to tua's size ever tried to fight him , he'd have gone to sleep.
holyfield did never really beat bowe , bowe did beat him , however.
of course louis could repeat a sudden stoppage on wladimir , but the opposite is the more probable and wlad will not even need the surprise.


The light heavyweight division is of historical significance and it's filled with competent fighters who fight at their best weight. The cruiserweight division is basically a junior heavyweight division where heavyweight hopefuls hide to beat lesser opposition until stepping up. See Adamek, Haye, basically any relevant cruiserweight ever.

adamek came from 175 originally , just like moorer and spinks.
but you know how these two ended when faced the real monsters , not b/c they were not good fighters.
byrd was an escapologist , the only way for a 175 to face a natural heavyweight (shw) , with a reasonable amount of skill.
jirov , cole , ruiz , norris , hide , jeremy williams and more even came from cw , but the same can be said about them from the same reasons. they were all good fighters whom simply never understood they should fight men their own size or at least run away in fights just to last the distance.


"21 is not 19 , it is growth time and critical difference."

The fact is that neither Tua or Louis were at their best at the time. They went onto be better and proved it.[/QUOTE]
but still there is a difference. this is not like 31 and 29.
in louis' case it is harder to excuse.
and then again , tua was fighting savon For **** Sake , 5 years older than him , with much more experience and some 7" / 8" reach advantage.

I think foreman and liston could go either way, depending on how well louis can stay away.

i cant see him staying away from tyson though with his incredible speed and combinations!

they were the best of his wins but there were more :
maskaev , he also was the quickest to stop gary bell (KO'd mccline) and obed sullivan who gave big problems to rahman and larry donald , david izon , darroll wilson (KO'd shannon briggs) and danel nicholson.
i really do not consider anyone of these fighters as good , but each one of them could issue problems and win against a good fighter in their prime.
winning so convincingly against them is accumulated to greatness.
he was the quickest loss on so many people's resume.

Are you serious about those names? Hardly any of them were ranked even in the top 10. Louis won convincingly against a lot of fighters too who were better than this lot.


he was young himself at that time , just the same age .

Yes and Ruiz has been the type that gets better as he gets older while Tua got worse and worse since the Ruiz win.

that old , 35 years old moorer remained the only stoppage loss yet of vassily jirov , whom he fought 2 years later.

A comeback KO of a cruiserweight after losing just about every round on the scorecards. Much like most of Tua's wins. A prime Moorer wouldn't have needed a comeback KO to beat Jirov at heavyweight.

that would be exactly what people would have said of joe louis had he fought tua in his prime.
lance whitaker , kirk johnson , correy sanders , mccall , tua , had all more punching power than anyone louis ever faced.
that max baer could have been a cw in the 190 limit days.

And why exactly do Lance Whitaker, Corey Sanders, Kirk Johnson and Oliver McCall have more power than anyone Louis ever faced? Tua is the only notable puncher in the list. The rest were big but size doesn't mean you can punch. Otherwise 6'4, 240 lb Zuri Lawrence wouldn't have 0 knockouts in 50 fights.

"Cruiserweight" Max Baer who was in shape at 210 lbs while the likes of Johnson, Sanders, Whitaker were just fat and out of shape most of the time punched a lot harder than any of them. Abe Simon and Buddy Baer were also very big and Louis slaughtered them.

but baer is no tua , not the same chin , not the same power , not the same what you call : heart.

How many men had ever stopped Baer at the time Louis KO'd him? No one. Whose punching power had taken him to a world heavyweight title and whose did not?

Agreed about the heart. Baer never gave up after getting hit by a couple of right hands in the first round like Tua did against Lewis.

it is hard to argue with that pic (but still possible) , but mccall had other times than the time that pic was taken in.
maybe he was less in shape than louis but still had more muscle than louis , and not any less reach i guess , boxrec says he had more , but i really do not take boxrec seriously on reach issues. also not in height issues , but in the reach department they are even worse.

He had more muscles but do muscles win fights? If they did, this man would have surely won over Louis:

http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/thumb/b/b4/Carnera.LeonSee.jpg/300px-Carnera.LeonSee.jpg

This is what happened:

http://www.fighttoys.com/Carnera-Louis.JPG

never been down as a pro , never really stopped as a pro , not a briliant fighter at all , but has power and chin , a very useful combination.
and unlike tua , he also has some reach and height , although not too much too.

If he wasn't brilliant then why do you rank him among your top 10 greatest heavyweights? McCall hardly used his reach, he just plodded forward and exploded with his counter right hand every once in a while.


great reasoning. so tyson is a lesser buster douglas too.

Tyson had other claims to fame than having a fight against Douglas. For example making McCall quit in a sparring session.

I didn't know that lasting the distance against Buster Douglas makes you great.

but they were not good , maybe mccline has a reasonable talent , but the other two are not any better than darroll wilson , danel nicholson , obed sullivan , gary bell , etc.
they had no top10 (at their time) skill . maybe not even top20.
chambers outpointed dimitrenko in a close fight that maybe should have been a draw too , did wlad ever faced such a size disadvantage ?
wlad can punch better than chambers merely because he has those great physical advantages of his . had chambers had them too , he would have been a better wlad. he has a better chin at least. or at least a better defense.
chamber's technique is not any inferior to wlad's he simply can't and doesn't try to do the same things b/c he's too small.

Derrick Jefferson is equal to Wilson, Nicolson, Sullivan, Bell. Tony Thompson & Jameel McCline are better and were ranked in the top 10. Those fighters you listed weren't any good at all.

Chambers vs Dimitrenko should have been a draw? It was a near shut-out and a beatdown of Dimitrenko that some blind judge scored a draw.

The fact is that Wladimir never struggled against men his own size. Chambers has. It could be a closer match-up if the two were the same size but Wladimir would still be favoured. Chambers has not yet shown the kind of work ethic and dedication that Wladimir has. If he can put those together, he could win even if he's out-sized.

i have yet to bet on a fight.
tua is a midget. but a very massive midget.
had he been 6'4" he'd destroyed both klitschkos , lewis , bowe , foreman , ali , holmes , byrd , ibeabuchi , anyone you choose .
and had he given a shot at ruiz/moorer/maskaev/holyfield(i saw their SPARRING) / brewster/chagaev when they held those belts you consider that much he would have been a belt holder too , he did not have the greatest promoter on his side that's all. a clear orlin norris case.

You can't just say that Tua would've destroyed everyone if he were taller. First of all the reason he has such explosive power is because he's very compact, stocky and has strong legs. His bobbing & weaving makes fighters miss due to his short height and his left hook comes from the opponent's blind side. The reason he hasn't beaten every fighter he has fought is because he lacks consistent work ethic and because he is simply not as good a boxer as the likes of Byrd.

what level ? schmelling and baer could have only been good contenders at cw today , not even too good. i guess they could win and lose some belt or two at some point or another , maybe even unify the WBF with the IBC.

A focused Baer would go through today's top 10 like butter outside of the Klitschko brothers. Schmeling was better than the likes of Chagaev and Povetkin. More skilled, smarter and with a harder punch.

not a tua punch , not a mccall punch , not a tua chin , not a mccall chin , not even close to any one of these two in these departments at all.
he was a lesser fighter than haye. haye was better than him on both departments.

You don't need a Tua punch or a McCall chin to beat them, that has been proven over and over. And Baer had a very solid chin and easily a bigger punch than McCall whose power comes mostly from his ability to catch people with punches they don't see coming. Baer had raw power and could club opponents down.

Haye has a chin made of glass.


simply because tua is a midget , but when louis catches him , nothing happens , when he catches louis , louis goes out on a stretcher with an oxygen mask.

Something happened even when Byrd caught Tua, not to mention Lewis. He got discouraged. Tua is not some kind of a "terminator" even if his nickname is such, if he gets hit it'll make him think about his next move or whether he makes another move at all. No one wants to take unnecessary punishment. In fact neither McCall or Tua are like Baer who was willing to walk through punishment to land his own. They're much more defensive fighters.

until tua catches him and then it's all over.
don't compare tua to louis' opposition.
comparing louis to haye is very much needed.
i guess haye could destroy him as well.

Are you kidding me? Louis would destroy Haye worse than Carl Thompson ever could.

Tua is very comparable to Louis's opposition. He was just a contender who never won a title.


he tried but could not reach .
he even scored somehow but was just too short to fully reach , just watch how lewis trembled at the end of one of the rounds when tua scored on him.

He didn't try very aggressively at all. The reason he only reached is because he didn't try to force Lewis to fight in close unlike Frazier, Dempsey, Marciano. He was content on staying at Lewis's range and being picked apart but not knocked out.

byrd was successful b/c he was an escapologist.
if someone close enough to tua's size ever tried to fight him , he'd have gone to sleep.
holyfield did never really beat bowe , bowe did beat him , however.
of course louis could repeat a sudden stoppage on wladimir , but the opposite is the more probable and wlad will not even need the surprise.

Byrd was also able to trade punches and hurt Tua to the body. Holyfield did beat Bowe the one time he actually used his boxing and didn't brawl with Bowe. I've seen power punchers KO Wladimir far more often than I've seen tall jabbers beat Louis.

adamek came from 175 originally , just like moorer and spinks.
but you know how these two ended when faced the real monsters , not b/c they were not good fighters.
byrd was an escapologist , the only way for a 175 to face a natural heavyweight (shw) , with a reasonable amount of skill.
jirov , cole , ruiz , norris , hide , jeremy williams and more even came from cw , but the same can be said about them from the same reasons. they were all good fighters whom simply never understood they should fight men their own size or at least run away in fights just to last the distance.

You're now admitting that light heavyweights and cruiserweights have been able to compete today when a moment earlier you said that they couldn't. None of the fighters you listed were as great as the men I'm talking about. If light heavyweights and cruiserweights could beat McCall and Tua then so could Louis.


but still there is a difference. this is not like 31 and 29.
in louis' case it is harder to excuse.
and then again , tua was fighting savon For **** Sake , 5 years older than him , with much more experience and some 7" / 8" reach advantage.

Savon was adept at fighting teenagers in 4 rounders but Schmeling was an actual pro who had fought 15 round fights and had held the heavyweight championship of the world. A young Louis lost to him and avenged the loss in devastating fashion. It's far more excusable than the many losses on McCall's record.

Are you serious about those names? Hardly any of them were ranked even in the top 10. Louis won convincingly against a lot of fighters too who were better than this lot.

Yes and Ruiz has been the type that gets better as he gets older while Tua got worse and worse since the Ruiz win.

A comeback KO of a cruiserweight after losing just about every round on the scorecards. Much like most of Tua's wins. A prime Moorer wouldn't have needed a comeback KO to beat Jirov at heavyweight.

And why exactly do Lance Whitaker, Corey Sanders, Kirk Johnson and Oliver McCall have more power than anyone Louis ever faced? Tua is the only notable puncher in the list. The rest were big but size doesn't mean you can punch. Otherwise 6'4, 240 lb Zuri Lawrence wouldn't have 0 knockouts in 50 fights.

"Cruiserweight" Max Baer who was in shape at 210 lbs while the likes of Johnson, Sanders, Whitaker were just fat and out of shape most of the time punched a lot harder than any of them. Abe Simon and Buddy Baer were also very big and Louis slaughtered them.

How many men had ever stopped Baer at the time Louis KO'd him? No one. Whose punching power had taken him to a world heavyweight title and whose did not?

Agreed about the heart. Baer never gave up after getting hit by a couple of right hands in the first round like Tua did against Lewis.

He had more muscles but do muscles win fights? If they did, this man would have surely won over Louis:

http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/thumb/b/b4/Carnera.LeonSee.jpg/300px-Carnera.LeonSee.jpg

This is what happened:

http://www.fighttoys.com/Carnera-Louis.JPG

If he wasn't brilliant then why do you rank him among your top 10 greatest heavyweights? McCall hardly used his reach, he just plodded forward and exploded with his counter right hand every once in a while.

Tyson had other claims to fame than having a fight against Douglas. For example making McCall quit in a sparring session.

I didn't know that lasting the distance against Buster Douglas makes you great.

Derrick Jefferson is equal to Wilson, Nicolson, Sullivan, Bell. Tony Thompson & Jameel McCline are better and were ranked in the top 10. Those fighters you listed weren't any good at all.

Chambers vs Dimitrenko should have been a draw? It was a near shut-out and a beatdown of Dimitrenko that some blind judge scored a draw.

The fact is that Wladimir never struggled against men his own size. Chambers has. It could be a closer match-up if the two were the same size but Wladimir would still be favoured. Chambers has not yet shown the kind of work ethic and dedication that Wladimir has. If he can put those together, he could win even if he's out-sized.

You can't just say that Tua would've destroyed everyone if he were taller. First of all the reason he has such explosive power is because he's very compact, stocky and has strong legs. His bobbing & weaving makes fighters miss due to his short height and his left hook comes from the opponent's blind side. The reason he hasn't beaten every fighter he has fought is because he lacks consistent work ethic and because he is simply not as good a boxer as the likes of Byrd.

A focused Baer would go through today's top 10 like butter outside of the Klitschko brothers. Schmeling was better than the likes of Chagaev and Povetkin. More skilled, smarter and with a harder punch.

You don't need a Tua punch or a McCall chin to beat them, that has been proven over and over. And Baer had a hell of a chin and easily a bigger punch than McCall whose power comes mostly from his ability to catch people with punches they don't see coming. Baer had raw power and could club opponents down.

Haye has a chin made of glass.

Something happened even when Byrd caught Tua, not to mention Lewis. He got discouraged. Tua is not some kind of a "terminator" even if his nickname is such, if he gets hit it'll make him think about his next move or if he makes another move at all. No one wants to take unnecessary punishment. In fact neither McCall or Tua are like Baer who was willing to walk through punishment to land his own. They're much more defensive fighters.

Are you kidding me? Louis would destroy Haye worse than Carl Thompson ever could.

Tua is very comparable to Louis's opposition. He was just a contender who never won a title.

He didn't try very aggressively at all. The reason he only reached is because he didn't try to force Lewis to fight in close unlike Frazier, Dempsey, Marciano. He was content on staying at Lewis's range and being picked apart but not knocked out.

Byrd was also able to trade punches and hurt Tua to the body. Holyfield did beat Bowe the one time he actually used his boxing and didn't brawl with Bowe. I've seen power punchers KO Wladimir far more often than I've seen tall jabbers beat Louis.

You're now admitting that light heavyweights and cruiserweights have been able to compete today when a moment earlier you said that they couldn't. None of the fighters you listed were as great as the men I'm talking about. If light heavyweights and cruiserweights could beat McCall and Tua then so could Louis.

Savon was adept at fighting teenagers in 4 rounders but Schmeling was an actual pro who had fought 15 round fights and had held the heavyweight championship of the world. A young Louis lost to him and avenged the loss in devastating fashion. It's far more excusable than the many losses on McCall's record.

Game, set, and match! :boxing:

Poet

You're now admitting that light heavyweights and cruiserweights have been able to compete today when a moment earlier you said that they couldn't. None of the fighters you listed were as great as the men I'm talking about. If light heavyweights and cruiserweights could beat McCall and Tua then so could Louis.

of course they can compete today , against the likes of themselves.
but whenever they step in the ring against a technically almost decent superheavy in a fine condition they lose.
adamek can compete against chambers , haye can compete against ruiz , moorer could compete against jirov , but no one can compete against the klitschkos. sanders , puritty were almost natural heavys and brewster was quite of a fluke , and a roided one at that , and fighting a chinny wlad also helped.
louis could outpoint mccall on some occasions , i suppose (not certain) , but mccall stopping louis is about as reasonable scenario.



Savon was adept at fighting teenagers in 4 rounders but Schmeling was an actual pro who had fought 15 round fights and had held the heavyweight championship of the world. A young Louis lost to him and avenged the loss in devastating fashion. It's far more excusable than the many losses on McCall's record.
no. a stoppage loss to a smaller fighter is by far worse than a decision loss to a bigger fighter like mccall's losses to bruno , tucker and douglas.
some of mccall's losses were also too close to be considered as serious losses.

Are you serious about those names? Hardly any of them were ranked even in the top 10. Louis won convincingly against a lot of fighters too who were better than this lot.

not many of louis' wins were better than the list i gave.
schmelling and walcott were , but they were not more dangerous as they were smaller.


Yes and Ruiz has been the type that gets better as he gets older while Tua got worse and worse since the Ruiz win.

in a rematch expect tua to beat ruiz again , maybe slower but still.



A comeback KO of a cruiserweight after losing just about every round on the scorecards. Much like most of Tua's wins. A prime Moorer wouldn't have needed a comeback KO to beat Jirov at heavyweight.

but it still shows he was not that much shot at the time he fought tua , which was yet 2 years earlier.


And why exactly do Lance Whitaker, Corey Sanders, Kirk Johnson and Oliver McCall have more power than anyone Louis ever faced? Tua is the only notable puncher in the list. The rest were big but size doesn't mean you can punch. Otherwise 6'4, 240 lb Zuri Lawrence wouldn't have 0 knockouts in 50 fights.

b/c they are bigger , roider and GH'der.
in average bigger size is a bigger punch and a better chin. fact. otherwise there would not have been so many weight classes , which are almost all very much needed. and some are still missing. like the superheavyweight division for example.


"Cruiserweight" Max Baer who was in shape at 210 lbs while the likes of Johnson, Sanders, Whitaker were just fat and out of shape most of the time punched a lot harder than any of them. Abe Simon and Buddy Baer were also very big and Louis slaughtered them.

he was 203 against schmelling , and i think he was in shape that time.
whatever video/footage of him hitting a lightheavyweight / middleweight you may have , he still punches weaker than them.


How many men had ever stopped Baer at the time Louis KO'd him? No one. Whose punching power had taken him to a world heavyweight title and whose did not?

who held the titles at the respective times ?


Agreed about the heart. Baer never gave up after getting hit by a couple of right hands in the first round like Tua did against Lewis.

tua did not give up , i saw the fight , repeating a lie will not make it a truth.
it is still better than saying byrd hurt tua as seriously you claim.


He had more muscles but do muscles win fights? If they did, this man would have surely won over Louis:

http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/thumb/b/b4/Carnera.LeonSee.jpg/300px-Carnera.LeonSee.jpg

This is what happened:

http://www.fighttoys.com/Carnera-Louis.JPG

carnera was not as technically good as you try to make of him.
canera was no klitschko , not even a wlad .


If he wasn't brilliant then why do you rank him among your top 10 greatest heavyweights? McCall hardly used his reach, he just plodded forward and exploded with his counter right hand every once in a while.

b/c without being brilliant he would still beat most of the fighters in your list that are not in my list.



Tyson had other claims to fame than having a fight against Douglas. For example making McCall quit in a sparring session.

so this is another reason why tyson should be higher than mccall in my list. good to know.

I didn't know that lasting the distance against Buster Douglas makes you great.

in itself it doesn't. but i alreadt mentioned mccall's other claims to greatness.
douglas was a big dangerous heavy , ask tyson of what he can do.


Derrick Jefferson is equal to Wilson, Nicolson, Sullivan, Bell. Tony Thompson & Jameel McCline are better and were ranked in the top 10. Those fighters you listed weren't any good at all.

they were proven dangerous and tua beat them much more convincingly and quicker than anyone else did.


The fact is that Wladimir never struggled against men his own size. Chambers has. It could be a closer match-up if the two were the same size but Wladimir would still be favoured. Chambers has not yet shown the kind of work ethic and dedication that Wladimir has. If he can put those together, he could win even if he's out-sized.

had they been the same size it would have been either a draw , or close to it.

i need to go now.

The fact is that Wladimir never struggled against men his own size. Chambers has. It could be a closer match-up if the two were the same size but Wladimir would still be favoured. Chambers has not yet shown the kind of work ethic and dedication that Wladimir has. If he can put those together, he could win even if he's out-sized.

(also) wlad did struggle against thompson.


You can't just say that Tua would've destroyed everyone if he were taller. First of all the reason he has such explosive power is because he's very compact, stocky and has strong legs. His bobbing & weaving makes fighters miss due to his short height and his left hook comes from the opponent's blind side. The reason he hasn't beaten every fighter he has fought is because he lacks consistent work ethic and because he is simply not as good a boxer as the likes of Byrd.

had he been taller with the same proportions he has , he would have been even stronger. but it it not the lack of power that bothered his achievements to this point , it was his lack of reach.
even the accessibility of his chin would have been tougher for ibeabuchi , lewis and byrd had he been taller.
he is not as good as boxer as byrd because if he had the same technique as byrd he just would have been a bigger version of montell griffin.
it is impossible for such a short fighter to be considered a great "boxer" , so he never tried to be.
you can't expect him to fight like lennox lewis b/c his physique is the opposite.

A focused Baer would go through today's top 10 like butter outside of the Klitschko brothers. Schmeling was better than the likes of Chagaev and Povetkin. More skilled, smarter and with a harder punch.

and outside of ruiz , haye , chambers , adamek (maybe baer could beat them , but they could beat him too , so no "like butter") , tua , mccall so i guess
he too would not have held a belt today.


You don't need a Tua punch or a McCall chin to beat them, that has been proven over and over. And Baer had a very solid chin and easily a bigger punch than McCall whose power comes mostly from his ability to catch people with punches they don't see coming. Baer had raw power and could club opponents down.

so you made a joe louis out of mccall ?


Haye has a chin made of glass.

then so had louis , schmelling , patterson , ingemar johnson and archie moore.


Something happened even when Byrd caught Tua, not to mention Lewis. He got discouraged. Tua is not some kind of a "terminator" even if his nickname is such, if he gets hit it'll make him think about his next move or whether he makes another move at all. No one wants to take unnecessary punishment. In fact neither McCall or Tua are like Baer who was willing to walk through punishment to land his own. They're much more defensive fighters.

tua did not get discouraged against byrd whatsoever , and against lewis he just could not reach enough.
this is why they are better , at least tua .

Are you kidding me? Louis would destroy Haye worse than Carl Thompson ever could.

a realistic possibility indeed but so is the possibility of haye destroying louis worse than marciano or schmelling did.

Tua is very comparable to Louis's opposition. He was just a contender who never won a title.

not at all. he is a champion beater.
could have easily been the champion had he fought ruiz / moorer / maskaev / haye / patterson / johnson / louis / or any pre 60's champion except , maybe , the behemoth sized ones at the time each one of them held the title.


He didn't try very aggressively at all. The reason he only reached is because he didn't try to force Lewis to fight in close unlike Frazier, Dempsey, Marciano. He was content on staying at Lewis's range and being picked apart but not knocked out.

he did not find enough opportunities to land or even score because of lewis' huge range advantage. so being patient became a flaw ?


Byrd was also able to trade punches and hurt Tua to the body.

said you.

Holyfield did beat Bowe the one time he actually used his boxing and didn't brawl with Bowe. I've seen power punchers KO Wladimir far more often than I've seen tall jabbers beat Louis.
holyfield did not beat bowe , he just was able to fair reasonably well against him in one of their 3 encounters.
there were not many quality tall jabbers above lewis' height , maybe it is because there were not too many fighters above lewis' height.

(also) wlad did struggle against thompson.


had he been taller with the same proportions he has , he would have been even stronger. but it it not the lack of power that bothered his achievements to this point , it was his lack of reach.
even the accessibility of his chin would have been tougher for ibeabuchi , lewis and byrd had he been taller.
he is not as good as boxer as byrd because if he had the same technique as byrd he just would have been a bigger version of montell griffin.
it is impossible for such a short fighter to be considered a great "boxer" , so he never tried to be.
you can't expect him to fight like lennox lewis b/c his physique is the opposite.

and outside of ruiz , haye , chambers , adamek (maybe baer could beat them , but they could beat him too , so no "like butter") , tua , mccall so i guess
he too would not have held a belt today.


so you made a joe louis out of mccall ?


then so had louis , schmelling , patterson , ingemar johnson and archie moore.


tua did not get discouraged against byrd whatsoever , and against lewis he just could not reach enough.
this is why they are better , at least tua .

a realistic possibility indeed but so is the possibility of haye destroying louis worse than marciano or schmelling did.

not at all. he is a champion beater.
could have easily been the champion had he fought ruiz / moorer / maskaev / haye / patterson / johnson / louis / or any pre 60's champion except , maybe , the behemoth sized ones at the time each one of them held the title.


he did not find enough opportunities to land or even score because of lewis' huge range advantage. so being patient became a flaw ?


said you.

holyfield did not beat bowe , he just was able to fair reasonably well against him in one of their 3 encounters.
there were not many quality tall jabbers above lewis' height , maybe it is because there were not too many fighters above lewis' height.

I'm gonna let TheGreatA finish this, but you have proven yourself a much worse poster than some of the miscreants who try to spew their BS.

liston > tua
ali > tua
louis > tua
foreman > tua

liston < tua
ali ~ tua
louis < tua
foreman ~ tua

and p4p they all fall short of him

liston < tua
ali ~ tua
louis < tua
foreman ~ tua

and p4p they all fall short of him

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wWbpM99wD2M"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wWbpM99wD2M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

8:38 > tuas left hook :D

btw. tua was maybe the smaller man, but he outweighed all of them...

b/c they are bigger , roider and GH'der.
in average bigger size is a bigger punch and a better chin. fact. otherwise there would not have been so many weight classes , which are almost all very much needed. and some are still missing. like the superheavyweight division for example.


Skill and speed are much more important to the power of a punch then a persons size.

which of these guys do you think got ko'd in 3 rounds when they fought?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/JohnsonChoy.jpg

Skill and speed are much more important to the power of a punch then a persons size.

which of these guys do you think got ko'd in 3 rounds when they fought?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/JohnsonChoy.jpg

i said : in average.

of course they can compete today , against the likes of themselves.
but whenever they step in the ring against a technically almost decent superheavy in a fine condition they lose.
adamek can compete against chambers , haye can compete against ruiz , moorer could compete against jirov , but no one can compete against the klitschkos. sanders , puritty were almost natural heavys and brewster was quite of a fluke , and a roided one at that , and fighting a chinny wlad also helped.
louis could outpoint mccall on some occasions , i suppose (not certain) , but mccall stopping louis is about as reasonable scenario.

And were David Tua or Oliver McCall "technically decent superheavyweights in fine condition"? Don't change the subject here. Both have been beaten by crusierweights, light heavyweights, who is to say they wouldn't be beaten even worse by an all-time great heavyweight?

no. a stoppage loss to a smaller fighter is by far worse than a decision loss to a bigger fighter like mccall's losses to bruno , tucker and douglas.
some of mccall's losses were also too close to be considered as serious losses.

Of course losing (and actually avenging the loss) against a top 25 all-time great heavyweight and a former heavyweight champion is much worse than losing to a china-chinned DaVarryl Williamson and the great 200 lb Mike "Bounty" Hunter. And there was no question about those losses either.

And were David Tua or Oliver McCall "technically decent superheavyweights in fine condition"? Don't change the subject here. Both have been beaten by crusierweights, light heavyweights, who is to say they wouldn't be beaten even worse by an all-time great heavyweight?

tua is a midget and mccall is barely technically decent and not very big himself , i meant klitschko/dimitrenko/valuev/mccline/lewis/grant/whitaker/bowe/etc sized with a good skill. not a carnera/austin/sanders/etc skill.

tua is a midget and mccall is barely technically decent and not very big himself , i meant klitschko/dimitrenko/valuev/mccline/lewis/grant/whitaker/bowe/etc sized with a good skill. not a carnera/austin/sanders/etc skill.

Hey Gilligan, next time you might want to make sure you're in the green yourself before you try hitting me with red :rofl:

Poet

And were David Tua or Oliver McCall "technically decent superheavyweights in fine condition"? Don't change the subject here. Both have been beaten by crusierweights, light heavyweights, who is to say they wouldn't be beaten even worse by an all-time great heavyweight?

Of course losing (and actually avenging the loss) against a top 25 all-time great heavyweight and a former heavyweight champion is much worse than losing to a china-chinned DaVarryl Williamson and the great 200 lb Mike "Bounty" Hunter. And there was no question about those losses either.

And Valuev lost to Haye and Chagaev :)

Poet

How does he do against these fighters:

Goerge Foreman
Mike Tyson
Sonny Liston

I would pick all three to KO Louis inside 5 rounds.

I would pick all three to KO Louis inside 5 rounds.

:crackhead :crackhead :crackhead :crackhead

Hey Gilligan, next time you might want to make sure you're in the green yourself before you try hitting me with red :rofl:

Poet

Lol!! To funny!!

Hello,
I dont know your age, or if you have taken enough time to study fighter from the Real Days of Fighting!! And I say that because, these guys fought for peanuts, it was all about Pride. And for you to say Tyson has more Talent than Joe Louis, is Insane. The to make a response and say that Rocky Marciano was shy of Tyson's Talent, is another bad response. Rocky Marciano didn't know the meaning of the word Lose!!! And his record spoke for that! he trained like a Machine, Naturally, with no Weights, or Steroids, etc....He was fanatical about his Training, which is why, he could keep punching, even in the 15th Rounds of a Fight...while others were spent long before that. And the Rock could hit you solidly, and powerfully from ever kind of awkward angle that he may have been on. Either of them beat Tyson. You give Tyson far too much credit. it may be due to your age. Ray






I haven't watched all of Louis' fights, but from the fights that I have seen, it's apparent that he's never fought anybody on Mike's level, aside from Marciano (who was shy of Mike's talent). Mike was the most dangerous kind of fighter - an ultra evasive, quick handed combo puncher with tons of power in both hands that knew how to get inside and "open up like a son of a *****" and on top of being the most dangerous type, he was the most skilled at being the type of fighter he was, not to mention a great chin and the ability to go 10 rounds with guys that weighed 30 lb's more than he.

I'm not saying Louis wasn't great, but boxing changed a lot from the time Louis fought to when Mike was fighting, and I just don't see how judging from the style of these guys and watching them on film, anybody could believe that Louis could beat Tyson. I just don't see it happening.

I feel like Tyson in his prime was in a league all his own - a phenom that the world had never seen anything close to.

I just don't know that Louis, as quick and accurate as he was, would have the ability to hit Mike enough to hurt him, and I doubt that Louis would be able to dodge or take Mike's punches for more than 6 rounds.

Unless there is something on film that we can see that shows otherwise.

Louis being a slow starter could be deadly against Foreman and Tyson. He didn't necessarily have Ali's foot speed so im not sure if he could get out of the way of Listons jab and power. Hes one my all time favorite heavyweights but these are tough match ups.

Louis being a slow starter could be deadly against Foreman and Tyson. He didn't necessarily have Ali's foot speed so im not sure if he could get out of the way of Listons jab and power. Hes one my all time favorite heavyweights but these are tough match ups.

They are tough match-ups for everyone concerned.

Joe Louis would beat Mike Tyson and Joe Frazier, but get slugged out by George Foreman.

I like Joe Louis to Knock Foreman out in around 6 - 7 rounds, Joe was much quicker and threw the far more technically correct shots that would come inside Big Georges wide swings and thus land first. Foreman had the power to get Louis outta there but im picking the faster better boxer over the bigger stronger man

Liston? Again im going with Louis, i think this fight goes about 10 or so rounds but i like Joe to stop Sonny late. Agan he'd be the quicker man tho Liston was a better technical fighter than George. Joe might even take a count in this one

Tyson, hmmmm my two favourite fighters here. Yeah i like Tyson early, im gonna call it Mike Tyson within 4

I like Joe Louis to Knock Foreman out in around 6 - 7 rounds, Joe was much quicker and threw the far more technically correct shots that would come inside Big Georges wide swings and thus land first. Foreman had the power to get Louis outta there but im picking the faster better boxer over the bigger stronger man

Liston? Again im going with Louis, i think this fight goes about 10 or so rounds but i like Joe to stop Sonny late. Agan he'd be the quicker man tho Liston was a better technical fighter than George. Joe might even take a count in this one

Tyson, hmmmm my two favourite fighters here. Yeah i like Tyson early, im gonna call it Mike Tyson within 4
I agree with you on most everything....the one thing everyone forgets here, is giving the power automatically to the bigger guys...not always the case...not in alot of cases. Look at Primo Carnera..A big Muscle Freak...but didnt have punching power. Joe louis only needed a 4-5 inch punch, with either hand, to knock you out, square on the chin. he could do that to Tyson, Foreman, Liston, or anyone else....except maybe Rocky Marciano, and a couple of others. Its true, louis is a much better fighter than Foreman. And even Sonny Liston...Liston had all the right training, but lacked heart. Louis didn't lack any Heart. Tyson, was mean, etc...but Louis was far roo talented, and far too Big a Heart, to be scared of Him, like these guys he fought were, Spinks, and Company. All of these modern guys showed a fear of Tyson, you could see it in their eyes...You'd never see that in Rocky Marciano, or Joe Louis...or even Ali. Probably not in Joe Frazier either. But those fighter were from a different crop...much tougher guys.

Ray

I agree with you on most everything....the one thing everyone forgets here, is giving the power automatically to the bigger guys...not always the case...not in alot of cases. Look at Primo Carnera..A big Muscle Freak...but didnt have punching power. Joe louis only needed a 4-5 inch punch, with either hand, to knock you out, square on the chin. he could do that to Tyson, Foreman, Liston, or anyone else....except maybe Rocky Marciano, and a couple of others. Its true, louis is a much better fighter than Foreman. And even Sonny Liston...Liston had all the right training, but lacked heart. Louis didn't lack any Heart. Tyson, was mean, etc...but Louis was far roo talented, and far too Big a Heart, to be scared of Him, like these guys he fought were, Spinks, and Company. All of these modern guys showed a fear of Tyson, you could see it in their eyes...You'd never see that in Rocky Marciano, or Joe Louis...or even Ali. Probably not in Joe Frazier either. But those fighter were from a different crop...much tougher guys. Most of the guys Tyson beat were finnished before the bell rang, he said recently Spinks was looking for somewhere to fall down from the word go! And yeah i agree no way in hell any of the guys u mentioned would have any fear, not any that would show or harm their performance anyway but i feel a young Tyson was feared for a reason - he was That good! His ferocity speed technique and power would get him the win over Louis IMO but me saying within 4 was no disrespect to Joe its just a styles thing and the way i see it going. Ofcourse Joe could P.U.N.C.H! And his speed and technique were great too, infact these guys IMO are the two best combination punchers the division ever saw so its not like he has no chance, a Louis win at any point would not surprise me in the slightest.

OK, I think you and I are on the same page here. And this is all about our sort of magic, in creating bouts that could never truely be answered. Its basically our opinions of how things might go, if everything went Perfectly for Both Fighters, on that Particular Night. But it is Fun to Imagine these Fights, No Matter which Fighters we Match Up, in any division....I just have alot more respect for the Fighters of YesterYears.....due to the fact that They were so damn hungry, and had so much Pride at stake. I think alot of that Important Status was Lost, when the Millions of Dollars started coming in. You know...how a Fighter could Fight just One Big Fight, and Retire, and Live comfortably for the rest of His Life.....whereas, years ago, these guys didnt make crap, and needed to Fight Often, to keep money in the bank. Ray from Philly.





Most of the guys Tyson beat were finnished before the bell rang, he said recently Spinks was looking for somewhere to fall down from the word go! And yeah i agree no way in hell any of the guys u mentioned would have any fear, not any that would show or harm their performance anyway but i feel a young Tyson was feared for a reason - he was That good! His ferocity speed technique and power would get him the win over Louis IMO but me saying within 4 was no disrespect to Joe its just a styles thing and the way i see it going. Ofcourse Joe could P.U.N.C.H! And his speed and technique were great too, infact these guys IMO are the two best combination punchers the division ever saw so its not like he has no chance, a Louis win at any point would not surprise me in the slightest.

OK, I think you and I are on the same page here. And this is all about our sort of magic, in creating bouts that could never truely be answered. Its basically our opinions of how things might go, if everything went Perfectly for Both Fighters, on that Particular Night. But it is Fun to Imagine these Fights, No Matter which Fighters we Match Up, in any division....I just have alot more respect for the Fighters of YesterYears.....due to the fact that They were so damn hungry, and had so much Pride at stake. I think alot of that Important Status was Lost, when the Millions of Dollars started coming in. You know...how a Fighter could Fight just One Big Fight, and Retire, and Live comfortably for the rest of His Life.....whereas, years ago, these guys didnt make crap, and needed to Fight Often, to keep money in the bank. Ray from Philly.

Cant beat a bit of the ol' fantasy fights! :boxing:

Fighters should actually be better today, athletes in every other sport are better as shown by the continued braking of records, lap times ect. And the fighters benifit from advanced training and nutrition now, the HW's are huge too. BUT those old guys just seem like they are from different stock, tough as old boots and fitter than the new guys! How and why i dont know but u gotta respect the hell out of them and i think u might be on to something about the money playing a part



Meant to say Ray do u notice that Tyson only really started Trying to intimidate his opponents - Mad trash talk, intense staredowns ect after he was on the slide? Bar a few times when there was genuine needle

Again Surgeon.....I think we agree also. Tyson did seem to do more of the Intimidation, after he was on the Slide. I also think Tyson acted differently after his original trainer passed away. He started getting in trouble more, and making crazy out of the Ring behavior and decisions. I honestly never liked Tyson...I just hated the guy from the beginning. But even though I hated him, I would never take anything away from him, as far as his talent, and power goes. He was a mean, and very serious fighter. Unlike any of the other current fighters of the recent days of boxing.

I think that alot of the Athletes supposedly being better than the athletes of old, in every sport has its reasons also. First of all, many of the Rules, and equipment have changed, in every sport. Much of the Special Juices, and needles had alot to do with the Size, and Power barriers being beaten by the Newer Athletes. I am not saying all...but many have used the unfair advantages of the Special Juices...These things were not even thought of in the day of the older Athletes, that I apeak of the most. I remember once, Rocky Marciano was training, early in his career, amateur...and he saw a weightlifter working out, and also had a special liking, or Idolizing of Primo Carnera.....but a certain other fighter, told Rocky that he should stop with the weights, and his Arm strength will get its best, with regular Boxing Routine workouts. Rocky immediately stopped lifting weights. Rocky wanted to be the best he could at everything, and he listened very much to worthy guys that offered him advice. So the Muscle you see in many of the Old Fighters, was from shear working out on bags, etc...

As a kid, I went to Reddish Boxing Club, in Philadelphia,PA.....and Willie Reddish Sr. who at the time, had Curtis parker as his Top Middleweight, and Curtis was built great...so I started lifting weights...and Willie Reddish Sr. told me, NO..lay off the weights...they will only bulk you up, and interfere with your ability to punch properly. Willie knew his stuff, trained Sonny Liston, Gil Turner, Willie Worm Monroe, Curtis parker...and so on...So, the Hulking Fighters you now see today, you would have never seen years ago, it wasn't believed in. And You see how the Fight Game changed....they put limit on Rounds in a Fight...the Weight of the Gloves...various ways of Counting, after a Knockdown...and being saved by the bell. So, its hard to compare Apples to Apples in Sports/Athletes of today vs. yesterday....Ray




Cant beat a bit of the ol' fantasy fights! :boxing:

Fighters should actually be better today, athletes in every other sport are better as shown by the continued braking of records, lap times ect. And the fighters benifit from advanced training and nutrition now, the HW's are huge too. BUT those old guys just seem like they are from different stock, tough as old boots and fitter than the new guys! How and why i dont know but u gotta respect the hell out of them and i think u might be on to something about the money playing a part



Meant to say Ray do u notice that Tyson only really started Trying to intimidate his opponents - Mad trash talk, intense staredowns ect after he was on the slide? Bar a few times when there was genuine needle