Walcott and Charles are way too high on that list. Tyson is way too low for someone who's had so much historical significance. Lewis was a great champion with consistent title runs, but he honestly didn't have much of an impact in boxing and if he never existed I don't think there'd be much of a difference in the sport today.
good points, its funny how everyone is jumping on his bandwagon, the guy fought a 100 years ago, how does anyone alive now know what he was really like, from what ive read he is a self serving ahole, now they want to honor him
Hypocrite. Why is it alright for you to criticize Jack Johnson, but it isn't alright for someone to support him when NO ONE alive knows what he was really like.
People, this is boxing. We admire boxers, not for their personal lives, but more for their ring accomplishments and legacy. Boxers aren't known to be very great role-models. WAKE UP CALL. Don't try to mask yuor racism with faux-credibility.
Even during his prime, I don't think Tyson had the stamina to be fleetfooted. No one can seriously answer your question since Tyson never really displayed much footwork. Most of his movement was upper body.
I like the swarmer style with various angle movements that can keep the opponent off track. Getting swarmed by a fighter who hits you at different angles...very tough.
I don't know about the most scandelous... A noteworthy mention is the Benn-McClellan fight. I thought Benn was allowed to punch to the back of the head way too often.
Emanual Augustus VS Courtney Burton was the worst decision of the year in my opinion- that fight was one sided in Agustus's favor no matter who was looking at it!
That's the only one I saw out of the choices above, so I'd go for that.
If he is comtemplating a fight against Johnson, it could only mean that he is looking for big paydays. Subsequently leading one to presume a fight against Taylor is one of the least likely possibilities.
Although I prefer him to fight Taylor, I think he will either give Trinidad a rematch or fight Johnson. Either of the latter two would be easy matches.
Corrie Sanders is one of the most underrated fighter in the heavyweight division. I saw him busting Wladimir Klitschko several time and couldn't believe that. He indeed got a sniper left hook who can seriously injured every fighter. A couple of years ago he faced Hasim Rahman and dominated that fight till he ran out of gas and was knocked out by Rahman. I hope he will deserve a chance to face one of the current Heavyweight champions, especially The quiet man Ruiz.
Sanders was losing that fight.
This whole "ruined a fighter's career" list should be much shorter. It's really hard to tell whether or not a fighter's career has been ruined by one fight, even in the Benn-McClellan case. Prior to that fight, G-man said in an interview that he's had migraine headaches ever since he fought Julian Jackson. Even if he never fought Benn, eventually, McClellan would have had brain damage.
Most damage from boxing is from an accumulation of punches over an accumulation of fights. But, unless you're a health expert who's tested all of these fighters, then you can't know for certain.
There should be two definitions of how a fighter's career can be looked at as "ruined". One is because of health problems and the other is by market value. Holyfield definitely didn't ruin Tyson's career healthwise, but an argument can be made that Tyson losing may have at least very slightly lowered his market value, the same can be said for other fighters after they've lost or lost in an unexpectedly bad way (e.g. Golota Ko'ed in 1 round by Lewis).
I wanted to initiate a fun discussion, and all of you came in with insulting and derogatory comments.
How do you measure punch power?
There is not an objective measure obviously, but we could try to do our best using subjective arguments (without mutual insults).
So stop your insults.
Sorry about being insulting. I edited my post, but it turns out that you replied before the edit was complete. I respectfully disagree with you, but am sorry for coming across as insulting. And thanks for the good karma.
:)
It is all subjective. DLH may have needed to beat Hopkins in order to reach greatness, in some people's eyes. Losing to trinidad, Mosely twice, and having too many close matches really are why DLH is so talked about.
Tyson, imo, needed this new comeback. He's really never beaten a great fighter and could have if he stayed on the right track this time around. Possible opponent could have been Vitali.
Freitas may be a bit soon, but I don't see him coming back from this defeat.
RJJ is a great fighter, but so many people have discredited him over the course of his career because of his opposition. Many felt tarver was the guy to beat, yet Jones lost to him.
Eric Morales...well, he's not going to be looked at as one of the best anymore.
Not a stupid argument.... I am sure if Sinam-Danny was a Championship bout, Danny would not have stayed down and got up.
Both Mike and Vitaliy tried to take out Danny in round 1, neither suceeded, but Vitaliy managed to score a KD.
One cannot accurately measure the power or the ability of two fighters by comparing their results against the same opponent. There's been many instances where a lesser fighter/puncher has knocked out or knocked down an opponent quicker than a better fighter, who fought the same opponent, has. The Sinam example is one of them.
The Trinidads have found excuses for not giving DLH a rematch. I don't think many are more deserviing of a rematch with a fighter than DLH against Trinidad. NO way DLH lost that fight. I can't even find a professional that thinks DLH lost.
The belt wouldn't promote racial segregation, more like regional opportunities. There are white africans and chinese africans in africa. It's not limited to blacks. This actually might make it easier for regional boxers to get WORLD title shots by divided the best boxers per region, then perhaps having a tourny. I think too many people are being presumptuous regarding the objective behind this regional title. I will wait a while before providing my own opinion.
You guys are naming fighters who are world-class athletes (with the exception of Johnny Louise of course), if we're going to think of overacheivers, let's think of guys who had no amateur background who have succeeded (Rahman, McCline) or guys with very little god-given athletic ability who have risen to the top (Antifuermo, Ward, and of course Louise). HOlyfield, Hagler, JCC, etc., those guys are gifted, world-class athletes who made the most with what they had, but that doesn't make them overacheivers, it just makes them great fighters. - SacTown1
Good point. Holyfield and those other guys previously mentioned always had the talent to get where they were/at during their peaks. Overachievers are guys who are consistent underdogs, yet overcome that. John Ruiz is definitely an overachiever.
I think the fight will get stopped somewhere between the 7th and 12th round. Winner Vitai. This match reminds me of Rahman vs. Meehan, where Meehan got a lucky opportunity. Seriously, if Tyson didn't fight Williams on one knee, we would have forgotten about Williams long ago.
You guys are naming fighters who are world-class athletes (with the exception of Johnny Louise of course), if we're going to think of overacheivers, let's think of guys who had no amateur background who have succeeded (Rahman, McCline) or guys with very little god-given athletic ability who have risen to the top (Antifuermo, Ward, and of course Louise). HOlyfield, Hagler, JCC, etc., those guys are gifted, world-class athletes who made the most with what they had, but that doesn't make them overacheivers, it just makes them great fighters. - SacTown1
Good point. Holyfield and those other guys previously mentioned always had the talent to get where they were/at during their peaks. Overachievers are guys who are consistent underdogs, yet overcome that.