View Full Version : Who thinks the FIRST clay-liston fight was fixed?


Dempsey 1919
02-17-2006, 04:49 PM
we all know the second one liston took a dive, but did he throw the first fight too? some fools seems to think so. so cast you vote and post what you think.

Oasis_Lad
02-17-2006, 04:51 PM
never, the second fight maybe
but the first no way
ali dominated liston and liston quit cos he knew ali was too good and he had no way to beat him

supaduck
02-17-2006, 05:06 PM
No way, it couldn't have been fixed. It that was fixed, then Ali-Foreman was fixed.

Brockton Lip
02-17-2006, 05:09 PM
I actually don't think either fight was fixed.

Southpaw Stinger
02-17-2006, 05:18 PM
Liston was desperatly trying to KO Clay and Clay was out boxing Liston with speed and technique. No way was it a fix.

WindUpMerchant
02-17-2006, 05:23 PM
Liston was desperatly trying to KO Clay and Clay was out boxing Liston with speed and technique. No way was it a fix.

These cats don't know **** about boxing history butterfly, nor are they educated to know the difference. Trust me, both fights were fixed.

LondonRingRules
02-17-2006, 05:27 PM
It seems probable that the 2nd fight was fixed. It seems possible the first fight was fixed. They were both funny fights.

WindUpMerchant
02-17-2006, 05:28 PM
It's not a probability, it's a fact.

Southpaw Stinger
02-17-2006, 05:31 PM
How was the first fight fixed?

Brockton Lip
02-17-2006, 06:02 PM
It's not a probability, it's a fact.

Anyone that says something like that ^ about something like this, is a moron.

Kid Achilles
02-17-2006, 06:42 PM
Where's your evidence, aside from Nick Toschle's terrible book?

Yaman
02-18-2006, 10:56 AM
''we all know the first fight was fixed''

Everybody? He was knocked the **** out by the weakest HW puncher ever you *****. Deal with it.

blockhead
02-18-2006, 11:15 AM
the first fight was legit, liston just gave up. the second fight was definately fixed though.

supaduck
02-18-2006, 11:22 AM
Ali wasn't a weak puncher. If Ali had a weak punch then Foreman must have had a stunningly weak chin. And Liston RTD he wasn't KOed

Yaman
02-18-2006, 11:53 AM
Liston is overrated anyway. The mob took care of his fights.

blockhead
02-18-2006, 12:05 PM
Liston is overrated anyway. The mob took care of his fights.
thats the truth.

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 01:06 PM
''we all know the first fight was fixed''

Everybody? He was knocked the **** out by the weakest HW puncher ever you *****. Deal with it.

then i guess, buster douglass and evander holyfield, whom both knocked out tyson, never existed.

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 04:33 PM
well, i'm glad to see that most people here are sensible and know that cassius clay kicked the **** out of liston that night, february 25, 1964 in miami beach, florida. :cool:

Frazier's 15th round
02-18-2006, 05:02 PM
No, it wasn't fixed. And I don't know why Liston quit on his stool. Even though everyone here says Clay was destroying him, I actually had it 4-2 for Clay. Liston wasn't doing that bad.

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 05:05 PM
No, it wasn't fixed. And I don't know why Liston quit on his stool. Even though everyone here says Clay was destroying him, I actually had it 4-2 for Clay. Liston wasn't doing that bad.

yeah, me too. liston won the 4th and 5th rounds. but i guess he gave up, when he realized even after blinding clay he was still getting rocked! :D

Yaman
02-18-2006, 05:15 PM
Liston is a *****. Blinding Ali, then quitting, then later getting knocked out in 1 round.

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 05:16 PM
Liston is a *****. Blinding Ali, then quitting, then later getting knocked out in 1 round.

he would still beat your boy tyson.

Yaman
02-18-2006, 05:21 PM
he would still beat your boy tyson.

And what does that have to do with this thread?

Dempsey 1919
02-18-2006, 05:24 PM
And what does that have to do with this thread?

cause you keep downplaying liston like he was a nobody.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-18-2006, 05:33 PM
Liston gets downplayed heavily because he lost to clay but you may be giving liston alittle too much credit i think tyson (88'-90') stand a pretty could chance against prime liston
________
The Legend Condos Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

Heckler
02-19-2006, 05:45 AM
we all know the second one liston took a dive, but did he throw the first fight too? some fools seems to think so. so cast you vote and post what you think.

Ali was a bad matchup for the slow, prodding liston. Styles make fights, Ali was too quick and too swift. You could tell it was a genuine attempt, and a genuine failure.

Yaman
02-19-2006, 09:12 AM
cause you keep downplaying liston like he was a nobody.


You downplay Marciano like he was a nobody.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-19-2006, 03:18 PM
You downplay Marciano like he was a nobody.
sry i have to agree

I do know liston was strong i accept it but i don't think he measures up to alot of fighters
________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

Burzum_666
02-19-2006, 04:02 PM
I don't believe either fight was exactly "fixed", I believe Liston took a dive in the rematch because of the rumors that someone was going to shoot either him or Ali and he just didn't want to be in the ring if someone started shooting so he took a dive to get the hell out of there. The first fight though, no, not fixed.

Dempsey 1919
02-20-2006, 04:20 PM
You downplay Marciano like he was a nobody.

because he's ovverated.

Brockton Lip
02-20-2006, 04:31 PM
Undefeated against the likes of Charles, Walcott, and Joe Louis, incredible stamina, heart, and power. Hes not overrated.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano

Southpaw Stinger
02-20-2006, 04:38 PM
Joe Louis is the only decent name on that list, and nearly all heavyweights would defeat the version Marciano fought. Walcott and Charles can not be considered all time greats. Just substancial fighters.

The Noose
02-20-2006, 05:15 PM
I think the clearest evidence that Liston wanted badly to win the first fight, but couldnt cope with Clay, was the fact that his corner put that **** on his gloves to try and blind Clay.

If it was fixed, they never would have attempted that.

Yaman
02-20-2006, 05:42 PM
because he's ovverated.


Well, Liston is overrated too then.

smasher
02-20-2006, 07:05 PM
Undefeated against the likes of Charles, Walcott, and Joe Louis, incredible stamina, heart, and power. Hes not overrated.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano

49-0. Now tell me ONE opponent Marciano fought who would have beaten Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Liston, Holyfield, Lewis or Tyson. In other words, 49-0 is no great accomplishment when you look at Marciano's weak competition. Everyone of the above mentioned fighters not to mention Ali and Louis would have been 49-0 with Marciano's competition.

Brockton Lip
02-20-2006, 09:36 PM
lol thats why I have Ali at number one :rolleyes:. He did fight better opponents than Marciano but to say the guys that Marciano fought are not that great is terribly inaccurate.

Ezzard Charles- Was 72-10 with 54 by KO in his first fight with Marciano. He is rated the best light heavyweight of all time by Ring Magazine. Plus he defeated Joey Maxim 5 times! In addition to beating Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott twice, and Archie Moore 3 times.

Archie Moore- 150-22 with 121 KOs when he fought Marciano. Has the highest number of knockouts in any weight class.

Enough said.

smasher
02-20-2006, 09:50 PM
lol thats why I have Ali at number one :rolleyes:. He did fight better opponents than Marciano but to say the guys that Marciano fought are not that great is terribly inaccurate.

Ezzard Charles- Was 72-10 with 54 by KO in his first fight with Marciano. He is rated the best light heavyweight of all time by Ring Magazine. Plus he defeated Joey Maxim 5 times! In addition to beating Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott twice, and Archie Moore 3 times.

Archie Moore- 150-22 with 121 KOs when he fought Marciano. Has the highest number of knockouts in any weight class.

Enough said.

So to answer my question which of the afformentioned heavyweight champions would have been beaten by the two light-heavyweights you just mentioned? Keep in mind when Charles fought Rocky he was 33 years old had already been KO'd and decisioned by Walcott and had recently been beaten by Nino Valdez and Harold Johnson the previous year...

Zigga
02-20-2006, 09:55 PM
first fight was no way a fix liston had too much too lose, he was clearly out boxed. The second fight i dont think so but who knows

Brockton Lip
02-20-2006, 10:01 PM
You also have to take notice how Marciano won. Most of his opponents including Charles (second time), Walcott, Moore and Joe Louis all got knocked the **** out. You make a thread in Fantasy Fights and we'll debate. I mentioned those two fighters in my previous fights because they were more skilled than Marciano and he still won.
And if you want to talk weight, Ali (at 207) fought a 185lb Henry Cooper.
LaStarza could've given the fighters you mentioned a good fight and of course Joe Louis could have as well. Rex Layne was a favorite over Marciano before they fought and was a big, powerful fighter.

Verstyle
02-20-2006, 10:07 PM
i dont i just wanted to piss off butterfly.hehe :D

smasher
02-20-2006, 10:12 PM
You also have to take notice how Marciano won. Most of his opponents including Charles (second time), Walcott, Moore and Joe Louis all got knocked the **** out.

Charles was floored 8 times by Lloyd Marshall before being KO'd and 7 times losing to Jimmy Bivins. That's 15 knockdowns in two fights by two guys alone!! How great was Ezzard Charles chin? Charles went 10-13 after the Marciano losses. How great was he at that point in his career? Louis was 37 years old, had already been floored 8 times in his career and been KO'd by Max Schmeling. Walcott was 38 & 39 years old in his 2 fights with Rocky and had already been KO'd by Abe Simon, Tiger Jack Fox, Joe Louis and Al Etore. Marciano goes life and death with Charles and Walcott before KO'ing them, big deal....

Brockton Lip
02-20-2006, 10:26 PM
Charles was floored 8 times by Lloyd Marshall before being KO'd and 7 times losing to Jimmy Bivins. That's 15 knockdowns in two fights by two guys alone!! How great was Ezzard Charles chin? Louis was 37 years old, had already been floored 8 times in his career and been KO'd by Max Schmeling. Walcott was 38 & 39 years old in his 2 fights with Rocky and had already been KO'd by Abe Simon, Tiger Jack Fox, Joe Louis and Al Etore. Marciano goes life and death with Charles and Walcott before KO'ing them, big deal....

Ali was floored by an older and lighter Henry Cooper. And Liston was 10 years older than Ali and Ali was 18 years younger than Archie Moore. And yeah Louis was older but he was on his come back having won 8 consecutive times before fighting Marciano. Louis' record was 68-2 with 54 by KO. He was KO'd by Schmeling but thats because he figured out a pattern in Joe and in their rematch, Louis fixed it and knocked out Max in the first round.

smasher
02-20-2006, 10:35 PM
Ali was floored by an older and lighter Henry Cooper. And Liston was 10 years older than Ali and Ali was 18 years younger than Archie Moore. And yeah Louis was older but he was on his come back having won 8 consecutive times before fighting Marciano. Louis' record was 68-2 with 54 by KO. He was KO'd by Schmeling but thats because he figured out a pattern in Joe and in their rematch, Louis fixed it and knocked out Max in the first round.

So what's the ****ing point of that? Did I claim Ali was great because he knocked Cooper 'the **** out' to use your terminology? Did I claim Ali was great because he knocked Moore 'the **** out'. And who had KO'd Liston or floored him prior to Ali beating him...I'll help you NOBODY....Don't give Marciano too much credit for beating Louis. That's like Tyson beating Holmes, Holmes beating Ali, McBride beating Tyson, or Donald beating Holyfield. These guys were shells. You still didn't answer my question. Which one of the previously mentioned champs would have lost to any of Marciano's opponents?

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 12:35 AM
Undefeated against the likes of Charles, Walcott, and Joe Louis, incredible stamina, heart, and power. Hes not overrated.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano

he's overrated by racist whites who say he would beat any fighter who ever lived uncluding ali, louis, foreman, and tyson combined!

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 12:36 AM
Well, Liston is overrated too then.

Well, Tyson is overrated too then. :D

dansweeney
02-21-2006, 01:11 AM
Well, Tyson is overrated too then. :D

you and smasher are the same person, stop backing up your own points with an alt. ali is the most overrated heavy ever, he got more gift decisions than anybody in history, and the Rock would have kayoed his ass. and don't bring race into it, that's so weak pal

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 01:17 AM
you and smasher are the same person, stop backing up your own points with an alt. ali is the most overrated heavy ever, he got more gift decisions than anybody in history, and the Rock would have kayoed his ass. and don't bring race into it, that's so weak pal

well, obviously you are white, so enough said.

dansweeney
02-21-2006, 01:20 AM
well, obviously you are white, so enough said.


using your logic, then you are obviously black, enough said

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 01:41 AM
using your logic, then you are obviously black, enough said

well, that has nothing to do with my opinion, that marciano is overrated. that he never fought anybody that good to be as highly regarded as he is. he barely even fought hw's. most of the people he fought were about 180+, and some were even naturally 160. so take all that and you have the greatest heavyweight of all-time rocky marciano! :rolleyes: that is the most racist piece of **** i've ever heard of.

marciano-ali: ali doesn't have the stamina to take marciano's relenless attack and would fall in the later rounds, cause marciano would break his ribs!(even though ali's midsection is the strongest in history, and he has a cast-iron chin and extraordinary stamina and speed for a guy his size)

marciano-tyson: tyson would quit cause marciano would never give up.(even though tyson is bigger, faster, stronger, more skilled, and never gave up to a fighter that was 40lbs. smaller than he is)

marciano-foreman: foreman has no stamina and the rock would take advantage and his chin could survive foreman's punches.(even though the style that marciano used is the style that would get you killed against foreman, and foreman punches harder than any fighter ever, and a middleweight dropped marciano with one punch, but foreman couldn't hurt marciano :rolleyes: )

that is some of the floatsam that i have been reading here and it's starting to make me sick. i have never thought that whites would be so stupid and bias and ride marciano's **** like no tomorrow as they've been doing. just look at that little boy. there's no way he belongs in the same breath as ali, foreman, or even tyson. marciano would be crushed by foreman and tyson, and embarrased by ali. if you take racial bias out of your decisions then you will understand what i'm talking about. i have no problem with anybody saying he was good, or even great! but to say he was the best, or even a top 5 hw is just plain retarded. i don't wan't to come across as being harsh, and maybe some of you will think i'm racist. but i'm just speaking the truth. i have nothing against marciano or whites, and i am not at all partial to black fighters, but i see things as they are. no way marciano would do the superhuman things that some of you say he would do. he had a bad style for big sluggers such as foreman, so he would be devastated instantly, that is just a fact of life. the sky is blue. one plus one equals two. marciano would be annihilated by foreman. :boxing:

smasher
02-21-2006, 08:02 AM
you and smasher are the same person, stop backing up your own points with an alt. ali is the most overrated heavy ever, he got more gift decisions than anybody in history, and the Rock would have kayoed his ass. and don't bring race into it, that's so weak pal

At least I back up my points with FACTS. What kind of ****ing useless logic do you use? "the Rock would have kayoed his ass" Based on what? Back it up or shut the **** up. FOR THE LAST ****ING TIME INBREDS, WHO DID MARCIANO DEFEAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEATEN ALI, LOUIS, FOREMAN, FRAZIER, HOLMES, HOLYFIELD, LEWIS OR TYSON???? NO TAKERS???? THEN I REST MY ****ING CASE......

Yaman
02-21-2006, 01:55 PM
Smasher and Butterfly should go to a hotellroom and have a threesome with Ali.

Dissing my boy Marciano because of his size..weak.

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 01:56 PM
Smasher and Butterfly should go to a hotellroom and have a threesome with Ali.

Dissing my boy Marciano because of his size..weak.

you and mystyal2k5 should have a threesome with tyson. :D

Yaman
02-21-2006, 01:57 PM
you and mystyal2k5 should have a threesome with tyson. :D

Can't think of anything else but to use my post huh...weak. Just like Ali would be after Rocky beats him.

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 02:00 PM
Can't think of anything else but to use my post huh...weak. Just like Ali would be after Rocky beats him.

now your getting rediculous.

smasher
02-21-2006, 02:00 PM
Smasher and Butterfly should go to a hotellroom and have a threesome with Ali.

I've noticed your wonderfully articulated put-downs ALWAYS have a homosexual theme. Is there something that is constantly on your mind of late? Whose the guy with 4 pictures of topless men on his postings?

Yaman
02-21-2006, 02:04 PM
Haha dude keeps following me in every thread i post.
Who's gay now? I guess thats why you're still an ''up and cummer''.

Now leave me alone for ones. Last time im gonna react to your child ish posts.

*waits for smasher to start *****ing*

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 02:04 PM
I've noticed your wonderfully articulated put-downs ALWAYS have a homosexual theme. Is there something that is constantly on your mind of late? Whose the guy with 4 pictures of topless men on his postings?

haha, lol! :D

smasher
02-21-2006, 02:09 PM
Haha dude keeps following me in every thread i post.
Who's gay now? I guess thats why you're still an ''up and cummer''.

Now leave me alone for ones. Last time im gonna react to your child ish posts.

*waits for smasher to start *****ing*

"Whose gay now" "up and cummer"

I rest my case. Two topless Tyson pictures and recurring homosexual themes and terminology...

Yogi
02-21-2006, 02:51 PM
Don't give Marciano too much credit for beating Louis. That's like Tyson beating Holmes, Holmes beating Ali, McBride beating Tyson, or Donald beating Holyfield.

****ing ridiculous comparisions!

Sure he was obviously past his best, but at the time Louis fought Marciano he was much better than those other fighter you mentioned in your examples...

Why the hell shouldn't Marciano get credit for defeating a guy who was ranked higher than him (#2 & #3 respectively in Ring Magazine)?

Why the hell shouldn't Marciano get credit for defeating a guy who was the betting favourite to win the fight?

Why the hell shouldn't Marciano get credit nowadays for the win, when at that time he recieved big credit for defeating Louis (including post-fight New York articles about him "climbing Mount Olympus", as well as parades in his honour)?

Why the hell shouldn't Marciano get credit when it was obvious by Louis' impressive & dominating performance against Savold just a few months that he still had plenty to offer against the top Heavyweights of that time (Louis beat the **** out of Savold in the fight, bloodied him up quite badly and finished with a one-punch left hook KO)...Louis was also VERY active leading up to the fight with Marciano, which included wins against top ten ranked contenders and recent contenders alike?

Like I said in the opening, Louis was obviously past his best by that point in his career, but it's completely & entirely wrong to take a 2005 view of that fight without going back into that time and review what was going on...

To me, no matter who it was, a fighter who defeats the higher ranked #2 contender (and Joe was #1 just before that, but Charles took over that position when he lost the title to Walcott...an agreement was in place that stipulated had Charles defeated Walcott in that fight, Louis was getting the next title shot), a fighter favoured over him, a fighter who looked very good in a then recent bout (and Joe didn't look all that bad for the first five or six rounds vs, Marciano...pretty even fight at that point), etc., is going to recive a decent amount of credit from me...especially when that fighter recieved his share of credit right after the fight was actually fought.

You can look all this stuff up for yourself if you want (rankings, fight footage of Joe's vs. Savold & Marciano, newspaper articles pre & post fight, etc., etc.).

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 03:09 PM
****ing ridiculous comparisions!

Sure he was obviously past his best, but at the time Louis fought Marciano he was much better than those other fighter you mentioned in your examples...

Why the hell shouldn't Marciano get credit for defeating a guy who was ranked higher than him (#2 & #3 respectively in Ring Magazine)?

Why the hell shouldn't Marciano get credit for defeating a guy who was the betting favourite to win the fight?

Why the hell shouldn't Marciano get credit nowadays for the win, when at that time he recieved big credit for defeating Louis (including post-fight New York articles about him "climbing Mount Olympus", as well as parades in his honour)?

Why the hell shouldn't Marciano get credit when it was obvious by Louis' impressive & dominating performance against Savold just a few months that he still had plenty to offer against the top Heavyweights of that time (Louis beat the **** out of Savold in the fight, bloodied him up quite badly and finished with a one-punch left hook KO)...Louis was also VERY active leading up to the fight with Marciano, which included wins against top ten ranked contenders and recent contenders alike?

Like I said in the opening, Louis was obviously past his best by that point in his career, but it's completely & entirely wrong to take a 2005 view of that fight without going back into that time and review what was going on...

To me, no matter who it was, a fighter who defeats the higher ranked #2 contender (and Joe was #1 just before that, but Charles took over that position when he lost the title to Walcott...an agreement was in place that stipulated had Charles defeated Walcott in that fight, Louis was getting the next title shot), a fighter favoured over him, a fighter who looked very good in a then recent bout (and Joe didn't look all that bad for the first five or six rounds vs, Marciano...pretty even fight at that point), etc., is going to recive a decent amount of credit from me...especially when that fighter recieved his share of credit right after the fight was actually fought.

You can look all this stuff up for yourself if you want (rankings, fight footage of Joe's vs. Savold & Marciano, newspaper articles pre & post fight, etc., etc.).
nice post.

Southpaw Stinger
02-21-2006, 03:09 PM
You don't need to look at rankings in ring magazine. Just watching the fight you can see that Louis is far from his best. There was time where he kept Marciano at bay with his long reach, but he didn't have the stamina to keep up any type of pace by which to win. Louis was overweight and slow by the time of the fight. Louis had no real heart by which to win either, he was fighting for money, not to win or prove himself.

Louis wins over other boxers just shows how poor the competition was at that time. Forget rankings and magazines, watch the fight and see what an ill miss match it was.

Brockton Lip
02-21-2006, 03:13 PM
Louis stated that he could never have defeated Marciano. Now I think he may have just been humble or respecting the Rock but we cannot rule this out either since its a bad matchup for Louis (for both actually).

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 03:16 PM
Louis stated that he could never have defeated Marciano. Now I think he may have just been humble or respecting the Rock but we cannot rule this out either since its a bad matchup for Louis (for both actually).

young louis would be too skilled and would have enough stamina to beat marciano.

Southpaw Stinger
02-21-2006, 03:17 PM
Louis stated that he could never have defeated Marciano. Now I think he may have just been humble or respecting the Rock but we cannot rule this out either since its a bad matchup for Louis (for both actually).

Joe Louis was a very humble man. It was what he was told to do to avoid persecution from white people. He was told to never gloat over defeating a white opponent.

And Bruce Lee said he would never defeat Ali, yet you are quick to disagree with me on that one! Bruce Lee was very humble, he was a gloating bastard sometimes!

Brockton Lip
02-21-2006, 03:18 PM
And Bruce Lee said he would never defeat Ali, yet you are quick to disagree with me on that one! Bruce Lee was very humble, he was a gloating bastard sometimes!

First this is nothing about Lee. Second, learn how to read.
"Now I think he may have just been humble or respecting the Rock..." Yeah I'm quick to disagree lol!

Southpaw Stinger
02-21-2006, 03:30 PM
You shouldn't even have mentioned it, it's an insult to Joe Louis's humbleness!

Brockton Lip
02-21-2006, 03:33 PM
So Louis not liking to be crowded and having a not-so-great chin means it shouldn't even be brought up that the powerful, crowding Marciano could win? You girls are so stubborn.

Oasis_Lad
02-21-2006, 03:34 PM
who are the 6 tyson nuthuggers ( ali haters) who voted yes on this

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 03:36 PM
who are the 6 tyson nuthuggers ( ali haters) who voted yes on this

here they are. http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2553

Southpaw Stinger
02-21-2006, 03:37 PM
You girls are so stubborn.

You want me to be a girl to justify your simultaneous wanking/reading my posts. But sadly I am male and any surgery is out of the question my friend.

Oasis_Lad
02-21-2006, 03:38 PM
here they are. http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2553

im not surprised to see mystal there
but the rest have never come across as tyson fanatics
they must hace legeitimit reasons

Brockton Lip
02-21-2006, 03:38 PM
???????? Nobody brought up wanking except you.

Southpaw Stinger
02-21-2006, 03:41 PM
Your such a charmer chum, I bet your a real hit with the ladies. And your the one who brought up wanking in all those PM's and pictures you keep sending me.

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 03:41 PM
im not surprised to see mystal there
but the rest have never come across as tyson fanatics
they must hace legeitimit reasons

what legitimate reason can they have, besides they must have clicked the wrong button?

Yaman
02-21-2006, 03:43 PM
Liston was getting beat by Ali with ease. Whats so hard to understand?

Oasis_Lad
02-21-2006, 03:44 PM
what legitimate reason can they have, besides they must have clicked the wrong button?

thats what they have done done :D

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 03:44 PM
Liston was getting beat by Ali with ease. Whats so hard to understand?

at least we both agree on something. :D

Yogi
02-21-2006, 03:45 PM
You don't need to look at rankings in ring magazine. Just watching the fight you can see that Louis is far from his best. There was time where he kept Marciano at bay with his long reach, but he didn't have the stamina to keep up any type of pace by which to win. Louis was overweight and slow by the time of the fight. Louis had no real heart by which to win either, he was fighting for money, not to win or prove himself.

Louis wins over other boxers just shows how poor the competition was at that time. Forget rankings and magazines, watch the fight and see what an ill miss match it was.

Why wouldn't you need to look at all available info surrounding the fight, whether it be newspaper article, ratings, fight footage, and whatever else?

To me, it all lends to what was going on during that particular time (both before & after the fight), and if you don't take the time to learn as much info as you can, then you're going to be prone to revising history...which is wrong, because info on historic events is MUCH better if you can get contemporary information on them, don't you think?

Before I get onto the fight, what makes you claim that "Louis had no real heart by which to win either, he was fighting for money, not to win or prove himself"?

I know, I know...you're going to bring up his financial/tax troubles as some kind of attempt to back that statement up, aren't you?

Well, how about some quotes from Louis?

Like from the New York Times from the week leading up to the fight, where he very confidently stated that not only did he think he was going to knock out Marciano (Oct 24th edition, after knocking his last sparring mate out cold...Holly Smith was that fighter's name), but also stated that he really wanted to be the first fighter to regain the Heavyweight crown (Oct 21st edition)...From Louis' own words just before the fight he sounds like he'd certainly & completely disagree with your comments...

Revisionist history, that's all you're doing.

And yeah, I've seen the Marciano/Louis fight many times and like I said in the opening, Louis wasn't at his best when he fought Marciano, and was somewhat slow/methodical with his punches at times during the fight (mostly, I guess...he could be pretty methodical at times when he was primed too)...But I also saw some spring in his step at times, as well, whether it be on defense when he was avoiding, when on the inside when landing some decent uppercuts, or when he was outside fighting behind the jab...He faded over the last couple of rounds, but up until that point he was still fighting smartly and on even terms with a pretty great fighter in his own right.

Southpaw Stinger
02-21-2006, 03:50 PM
And Louis was confident before the fight... fascinating. You'll find most old heavyweight champs on a comeback were over confident themselves. Ali genuinly believed that he was going to beat Holmes. You often don't know how badly age effects you until you are actually tested.

Why not bring up Louis tax problems? It was the only reason he was fighting at the time. Marciano was a hungry young contender looking for a title shot, Louis was a fading old former champ looking for a pay day.

Regardless of their previous performances, you can't say it was an evenly matched fight because it wasn't.

Yogi
02-21-2006, 04:05 PM
Regardless of their previous performances, you can't say it was an evenly matched fight because it wasn't.

"Louis Rated Even With Marciano for 10-Round Battle At The Garden Tonight" - New York Times' heading for Oct 26th, which was the day of the Marciano/Louis fight

Apparently those boxing writers who were actually around during that time and were in the very city that the fight would take place, would completely disagree with attempt at revisionist history.

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 04:43 PM
:hijacked:

Yogi
02-21-2006, 05:01 PM
:hijacked:

Sorry for that Butterfly, and now I'll leave you gentlemen to yet another one of your Ali-inspired, circle jerks.

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 05:03 PM
Sorry for that Butterfly, and now I'll leave you gentlemen to yet another one of your Ali-inspired, circle jerks.

can you believe that idiot WindupMerchant saying that liston threw the first fight? that's idiotic.

smasher
02-21-2006, 05:07 PM
[QUOTE=Yogi]****ing ridiculous comparisions!

I said don't give Marciano TOO much credit for beating Louis and I stand behind that. Joe had been thoroughly beaten by Charles and was only fighting because he needed the money. He retired in 1949 after Walcott because he knew his skills had eroded. As for rankings and predictions that Louis would win, that just says more about people's blind faith in him as a fighter rather than how much he had left. Obviously people were remembering how Louis once was rather than what he was, a 37 year old guy fighting for money.

Many boxing writers thought Ali would beat Holmes (the odds were 6-5) and who honestly thought McBride or even Williams was going to beat Tyson much less win by KO? You don't know until fight time and let's face it Louis was a shell of what he was at his peak. Play Marciano-Louis back to back with Louis in his prime and you'll see what I'm talking about...

Southpaw Stinger
02-21-2006, 05:50 PM
I said don't give Marciano TOO much credit for beating Louis and I stand behind that. Joe had been thoroughly beaten by Charles and was only fighting because he needed the money. He retired in 1949 after Walcott because he knew his skills had eroded. As for rankings and predictions that Louis would win, that just says more about people's blind faith in him as a fighter rather than how much he had left. Obviously people were remembering how Louis once was rather than what he was, a 37 year old guy fighting for money.

Many boxing writers thought Ali would beat Holmes (the odds were 6-5) and who honestly thought McBride or even Williams was going to beat Tyson muck less win by KO? You don't know until fight time and let's face it Louis was a shell of what he was at his peak. Play Marciano-Louis back to back with Louis in his prime and you'll see what I'm talking about...

Nice post.

Yogi
02-21-2006, 07:23 PM
I said don't give Marciano TOO much credit for beating Louis and I stand behind that. Joe had been thoroughly beaten by Charles and was only fighting because he needed the money. He retired in 1949 after Walcott because he knew his skills had eroded. As for rankings and predictions that Louis would win, that just says more about people's blind faith in him as a fighter rather than how much he had left. Obviously people were remembering how Louis once was rather than what he was, a 37 year old guy fighting for money.

Many boxing writers thought Ali would beat Holmes (the odds were 6-5) and who honestly thought McBride or even Williams was going to beat Tyson much less win by KO? You don't know until fight time and let's face it Louis was a shell of what he was at his peak. Play Marciano-Louis back to back with Louis in his prime and you'll see what I'm talking about...

I give Marciano the credit that he was getting during that time, nothing more and nothing less...and I certainly don't take a 2005 view of things when the information from back then is out there & readily available.

And yeah, I've seen the Charles fight and yeah Louis didn't look good in that fight as he was quite dominated by Charles. But with these eyes I'd certainly say that Louis looked quite a bit better when he fought Savold & Marciano and to me that could be explained because he was VERY active during that year and shook off some of the ring rust that he had when facing Charles.

And your comment about the rankings & predictions, no it isn't obvious that people were remembering how Louis was in his prime, because if you took the time to do your own research, you'd see that the boxing writers were all saying that he was obviously past his best...But they were giving Louis credit for being very active & how he looked in defeating a few ranked contenders during his unbeaten streak just before the Marciano fight (Brion and Savold were both ranked well inside the top ten, and in fact Savold even maintained a top ten spot after his fight with Louis...Aug 1951 Ring ratings)...Have you seen anything else from Louis during that streak of his Smasher (like his excellant performance against Savold), or are you going strictly on the Marciano fight?

And that "only fighting for money" comment isn't accurate, because even though his money troubles are well documented, Louis himself has stated that he was also fighting hard for the historical prestigue of regaining the title and going down in history as the first one to do so.

But let me ask you...Do you know of ANY great fighters who don't have financial gain as one of their primary goals in boxing, even when their smack dab in the middle of their primes?

Anybody, because I certainly don't know of any?

Whatever their financial gains may be, every single fighter in history has a big element of "fighting for money" included in them and every single one of them wants to get paid well for their services, because just like Louis, they want to take care of themselves to the best of their abilities and have a means to with their fists.

And your comparisions to Holmes/Ali, Williams & McBride/Tyson, Donald/Holyfield, etc...How do they compare?

Ali may have been the betting favourite, but he certainly wasn't as highly ranked as Louis was when he faced marciano, nor was he even active against other ranked contenders leading up to the fight. And unlike Marciano did after defeating Louis, Holmes certainly wasn't getting his share of credit in the press after defeating Ali (again newspaper research & articles from each time are your friends with that), and in fact Holmes himself discredited his fore-seen victory even before the fight with some of his comments.

Tyson, Holyfield...****, those guys weren't close to a top ten ranking position when they fought & lost to those guys that they did, weren't even close to being as active as Louis was, hadn't defeated a contender in years, nor did they lose to a guy who was considered a future Heavyweight champion who went on to have an all-time great type of career in the end in not losing a fight.

If you're making a comparision between those guys and the version of Louis that Marciano fought, you're not discrediting Marciano...you're discrediting Louis, who, going into the Marciano fight, had PROVEN himself against with activity against ranked contenders and still looked like & was considered one of the very best Heavyweights of that time...

Like I said, Louis was obviously past his best, but he was still considered a very solid fighter at that time and because of his sound fundamentals LOOKED like a very solid Heavyweight just previous to & during most of the Marciano.

Dempsey 1919
02-21-2006, 07:29 PM
I give Marciano the credit that he was getting during that time, nothing more and nothing less...and I certainly don't take a 2005 view of things when the information from back then is out there & readily available.

And yeah, I've seen the Charles fight and yeah Louis didn't look good in that fight as he was quite dominated by Charles. But with these eyes I'd certainly say that Louis looked quite a bit better when he fought Savold & Marciano and to me that could be explained because he was VERY active during that year and shook off some of the ring rust that he had when facing Charles.

And your comment about the rankings & predictions, no it isn't obvious that people were remembering how Louis was in his prime, because if you took the time to do your own research, you'd see that the boxing writers were all saying that he was obviously past his best...But they were giving Louis credit for being very active & how he looked in defeating a few ranked contenders during his unbeaten streak just before the Marciano fight (Brion and Savold were both ranked well inside the top ten, and in fact Savold even maintained a top ten spot after his fight with Louis...Aug 1951 Ring ratings)...Have you seen anything else from Louis during that streak of his Smasher (like his excellant performance against Savold), or are you going strictly on the Marciano fight?

And that "only fighting for money" comment isn't accurate, because even though his money troubles are well documented, Louis himself has stated that he was also fighting hard for the historical prestigue of regaining the title and going down in history as the first one to do so.

But let me ask you...Do you know of ANY great fighters who don't have financial gain as one of their primary goals in boxing, even when their smack dab in the middle of their primes?

Anybody, because I certainly don't know of any?

Whatever their financial gains may be, every single fighter in history has a big element of "fighting for money" included in them and every single one of them wants to get paid well for their services, because just like Louis, they want to take care of themselves to the best of their abilities and have a means to with their fists.

And your comparisions to Holmes/Ali, Williams & McBride/Tyson, Donald/Holyfield, etc...How do they compare?

Ali may have been the betting favourite, but he certainly wasn't as highly ranked as Louis was when he faced marciano, nor was he even active against other ranked contenders leading up to the fight. And unlike Marciano did after defeating Louis, Holmes certainly wasn't getting his share of credit in the press after defeating Ali (again newspaper research & articles from each time are your friends with that), and in fact Holmes himself discredited his fore-seen victory even before the fight with some of his comments.

Tyson, Holyfield...****, those guys weren't close to a top ten ranking position when they fought & lost to those guys that they did, weren't even close to being as active as Louis was, hadn't defeated a contender in years, nor did they lose to a guy who was considered a future Heavyweight champion who went on to have an all-time great type of career in the end in not losing a fight.

If you're making a comparision between those guys and the version of Louis that Marciano fought, you're not discrediting Marciano...you're discrediting Louis, who, going into the Marciano fight, had PROVEN himself against with activity against ranked contenders and still looked like & was considered one of the very best Heavyweights of that time...

Like I said, Louis was obviously past his best, but he was still considered a very solid fighter at that time and because of his sound fundamentals LOOKED like a very solid Heavyweight just previous to & during most of the Marciano.

a very nice post, yogi. :)

Kid Achilles
02-21-2006, 07:32 PM
I give Marciano the credit that he was getting during that time, nothing more and nothing less...and I certainly don't take a 2005 view of things when the information from back then is out there & readily available.

And yeah, I've seen the Charles fight and yeah Louis didn't look good in that fight as he was quite dominated by Charles. But with these eyes I'd certainly say that Louis looked quite a bit better when he fought Savold & Marciano and to me that could be explained because he was VERY active during that year and shook off some of the ring rust that he had when facing Charles.

And your comment about the rankings & predictions, no it isn't obvious that people were remembering how Louis was in his prime, because if you took the time to do your own research, you'd see that the boxing writers were all saying that he was obviously past his best...But they were giving Louis credit for being very active & how he looked in defeating a few ranked contenders during his unbeaten streak just before the Marciano fight (Brion and Savold were both ranked well inside the top ten, and in fact Savold even maintained a top ten spot after his fight with Louis...Aug 1951 Ring ratings)...Have you seen anything else from Louis during that streak of his Smasher (like his excellant performance against Savold), or are you going strictly on the Marciano fight?

And that "only fighting for money" comment isn't accurate, because even though his money troubles are well documented, Louis himself has stated that he was also fighting hard for the historical prestigue of regaining the title and going down in history as the first one to do so.

But let me ask you...Do you know of ANY great fighters who don't have financial gain as one of their primary goals in boxing, even when their smack dab in the middle of their primes?

Anybody, because I certainly don't know of any?

Whatever their financial gains may be, every single fighter in history has a big element of "fighting for money" included in them and every single one of them wants to get paid well for their services, because just like Louis, they want to take care of themselves to the best of their abilities and have a means to with their fists.

And your comparisions to Holmes/Ali, Williams & McBride/Tyson, Donald/Holyfield, etc...How do they compare?

Ali may have been the betting favourite, but he certainly wasn't as highly ranked as Louis was when he faced marciano, nor was he even active against other ranked contenders leading up to the fight. And unlike Marciano did after defeating Louis, Holmes certainly wasn't getting his share of credit in the press after defeating Ali (again newspaper research & articles from each time are your friends with that), and in fact Holmes himself discredited his fore-seen victory even before the fight with some of his comments.

Tyson, Holyfield...****, those guys weren't close to a top ten ranking position when they fought & lost to those guys that they did, weren't even close to being as active as Louis was, hadn't defeated a contender in years, nor did they lose to a guy who was considered a future Heavyweight champion who went on to have an all-time great type of career in the end in not losing a fight.

If you're making a comparision between those guys and the version of Louis that Marciano fought, you're not discrediting Marciano...you're discrediting Louis, who, going into the Marciano fight, had PROVEN himself against with activity against ranked contenders and still looked like & was considered one of the very best Heavyweights of that time...

Like I said, Louis was obviously past his best, but he was still considered a very solid fighter at that time and because of his sound fundamentals LOOKED like a very solid Heavyweight just previous to & during most of the Marciano.

Excellent post! I would give karma but I have to spread some around first.

smasher
02-21-2006, 08:00 PM
Savold had 37 losses when Louis defeated him so I would think Joe looked good against him. Louis had scored only 2 KO's in his 9 fights since returning to action so he had definitely slipped.

As for Joe stating he wanted to the win the title again, I'm sure he did, but his REASON for returning was due to back taxes owed, that's documented fact of which maybe you should take the time to have researched. If Louis had of been financially secure there is no way he would have returned to action after his initial retirement.

In any event we're splitting hairs. If you feel comfortable in believing that Marciano beat a good version of Joe I don't have a problem with that. My opinion is that he didn't.

Kid Achilles
02-21-2006, 08:30 PM
Well, let's put it this way. The old Louis that Marciano fought would have beaten Kevin McBride and a shot Ali on the same night. He was nowhere near his prime but he was a world class heavyweight and one of the ten best heavyweights in the world at the time.

smasher
02-21-2006, 08:54 PM
Well, let's put it this way. The old Louis that Marciano fought would have beaten Kevin McBride and a shot Ali on the same night. He was nowhere near his prime but he was a world class heavyweight and one of the ten best heavyweights in the world at the time.

Agreed, I'll give you that. Nowhere near his prime is what I was looking for....

Yogi
02-22-2006, 01:57 PM
Savold had 37 losses when Louis defeated him so I would think Joe looked good against him. Louis had scored only 2 KO's in his 9 fights since returning to action so he had definitely slipped.

As for Joe stating he wanted to the win the title again, I'm sure he did, but his REASON for returning was due to back taxes owed, that's documented fact of which maybe you should take the time to have researched. If Louis had of been financially secure there is no way he would have returned to action after his initial retirement.

In any event we're splitting hairs. If you feel comfortable in believing that Marciano beat a good version of Joe I don't have a problem with that. My opinion is that he didn't.

Believe me I'm well aware of Louis' tax problems, as you can find mentions of that in basically any short one or two page bio that's written on him and I've read that a number of times in the past...including in books like Louis' own bio, and it's even mentioned in Skeehan's bio on Marciano. The stories on him giving his purses to navy & army relief (which caused a lot of tax problems), his losing his wife over his decision to return to the ring, Kennedy eventually writing off his debt, etc., etc., aren't exactly secrets now are they?

And you can't make the assumption that there is "no way" he'd return to the ring if he didn't have those problems, because you don't know...like other great fighters who were past their primes have been very prone to do, he may have very well came back regardless of if he owed money or not.

But whether he needed money or not, I still fail to see how that has any bearing on the quality of fighter he still was at that time, because like I said previous, a big reason EVERY fighter fights for financial gain and it doesn't make them any less of a fighter for doing so. But like the documented quotes & stories from/of Louis suggest, like him they also have their other reasons for stepping into the ring...prestigue, glory, etc.

And if the "only" reason Louis was still fighting was to clear up his tax problems, why didn't he continue on with a few more fights after Marciano, because he certainly wasn't in much better shape financially than he was when he decided to make a comeback?

Since quotes & stories suggest that Louis wanted very badly to make history by regaining the title again, I think the fact that he was knocked out of the title picture had much to do with him not continueing on than anything.

Listen, I said in my very first line of this recent discussion that Louis was obviously past his best, so you trying to make comparisions between that version of himself and the prime version is pretty irrelevant...But what I did take exception to was your comparisions between Louis and a few other former great Heavyweights at the end of their careers, because at that point in his career Louis was better (or MUCH better in some cases) than every single last one of them. And you making note of Savold's losses doesn't take way from the fact that Savold was highly ranked when facing Louis...In fact he was ranked right behind Louis in the rankings and that performance by Louis "gained him another title bout" according to the newspapers from back then...and he very likely would've gotten that shot had Walcott not defeated Charles in their third fight, because that was the agreement in place (the agreement was null & void because of Walcott's winning and cause of the rematch clause in effect, which was the practice back in the day when a champion lost his title).

Whether or not Marciano beat a "good version of Joe" isn't the point I've been trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that unlike those other past their prime Heavyweights you mentioned, Louis was still considered & proved to be one of the very best Heavyweights around when he stepped in there with Marciano, which is entirely backed up by all of the ratings, newspaper articles, and footage from that very time.

Ok, this is getting reduntant, so that's enough for me on the topic.

Southpaw Stinger
02-22-2006, 02:01 PM
Yogi, do you think a prime Louis would beat Marciano?

Yogi
02-22-2006, 02:36 PM
Yogi, do you think a prime Louis would beat Marciano?

I'd lean towards Louis winning a prime vs. prime matchup, yes, but it wouldn't be easy for him I don't think.

smasher
02-22-2006, 02:41 PM
Savold was highly ranked when facing Louis...

Savold being highly ranked speaks volumes about how weak the division was at the time. With the exception of Lou Nova, Savold was beaten by most name fighters he fought including Baer, Conn, Musto, Muriello, Bivins, Baksi, Ray... not to mention lesser known fighters such as Bobo, Blunt, Hoosman, Fitzpatrick, Muscato, and Wood**** and these losses weren't in his formative years, they were in the latter half of his career. He never fought beyond his years either as he retired after the back to back Louis/Marciano losses.

My response to this thread initially was to a contributor who claimed Marciano had beaten a great fighter in Joe Louis. My response was that Louis was not great at the time Louis beat him and as stated before I stand behind that. I stated the same applied to Holmes-Ali, Donald-Holyfield and McBride-Tyson. I DID not say that these beaten fighters were equal to the 37 year old Louis, but intended to infer that each winning fighter should not claim to have beaten a great version. That is all....

LondonRingRules
02-22-2006, 04:19 PM
========My response to this thread initially was to a contributor who claimed Marciano had beaten a great fighter in Joe Louis. My response was that Louis was not great at the time Louis beat him and as stated before I stand behind that. I stated the same applied to Holmes-Ali, Donald-Holyfield and McBride-Tyson. I DID not say that these beaten fighters were equal to the 37 year old Louis, but intended to infer that each winning fighter should not claim to have beaten a great version. That is all....===========

** That's good, because I was fixin' to be all over you. Louis was still a credible top 10 fighter when Rocky beat him. He would have beat the Spinks that beat Ali, and the McBride that beat Tyson. Donald is actually a decent fighter and that would have been a fairly even match up since Joe's power was considerably reduced.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-22-2006, 05:05 PM
:hijacked:
________
MAGIC FLIGHT LAUNCH BOX VAPORIZER (http://www.vaporizers.net/)

Yogi
02-23-2006, 01:21 PM
can you believe that idiot WindupMerchant saying that liston threw the first fight? that's idiotic.

He's only believing what he reads, as he did PM me a single source a few days back. It was just conspiracy theory type of thing though, and his source did say something about Liston holding back, pulling his punches, or other stuff like that, which was suppose to be apparent when one watches that fight...

Well, I reserved full judgement until I did watch that fight again this morning (laziness, I guess), and with these eyes of mine, I do NOT see Liston holding back, pulling his punches, or whatever else...Even though he didn't have much sucess landing, he looked to be putting full force into his power shots and swinging to HURT in that fight, especially with that lead left hook of his (first 30 seconds of the fight saw Liston throwing huge left hooks that would've taken Ali's head off had they landed).

Dempsey 1919
02-23-2006, 02:02 PM
He's only believing what he reads, as he did PM me a single source a few days back. It was just conspiracy theory type of thing though, and his source did say something about Liston holding back, pulling his punches, or other stuff like that, which was suppose to be apparent when one watches that fight...

Well, I reserved full judgement until I did watch that fight again this morning (laziness, I guess), and with these eyes of mine, I do NOT see Liston holding back, pulling his punches, or whatever else...Even though he didn't have much sucess landing, he looked to be putting full force into his power shots and swinging to HURT in that fight, especially with that lead left hook of his (first 30 seconds of the fight saw Liston throwing huge left hooks that would've taken Ali's head off had they landed).

exactly. any fool would see liston was trying his best. in fact he hurt clay in the third and fourth, and he was always only a couple inches from hitting cassius in pretty much every punch he threw.