Marciano was overrated and not an ATG.

[LondonRingRules]

All I see above my post is "blah, blah, blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah." Get some new materail. That crap has already been shredded to death. Love the use of the word "imagine". Freakin hysterical that anybody would possibly try ranking a fighter with their imagination! Ya dope.

** Hah, some great and imaginitive responses here.

Hate it when Rocky posts end up going racial, but such is the nature of the beast.

I tend to underrate Max because of the improbable nature of his first run at the title. Never really invested much time in thinking he would have been first to regain the title, but such is the case. German and Russian fighters don't get much credit today, so it's no surprise he didn't in his day. He ends up being one of the great figures in boxing history which is good enough and a testament to his overall veracity as a fighter, man, and humane citizen.

***** somehow seems to have been dragged into the debate at somepoint. I've only read this last page not wanting to bother with such an insipid thread header previously when it came up. Perhaps some should review John McCain's very gracious concession speech. Both men made a point of being seen together in a couple of public ceremonies before the real campaigning began in anticipation of the nasty racial overtones that might poison the dialogue.

Unlike some, this is the first time in recent history I was pleased with both nominees. Damn pity *****'s got more money in his campaign coffers than the country has on the black side of the ledger, but it strikes me how some would see that as a racial statement instead of a financial statement.

McCain at least has some scrappy amateur boxing background, so getting back to boxing, ***** looks to ungainly and soft to be much of a boxer. Foreign Euros and Latinos seem to have take over boxing, a barameter on our ship of state's recent decline, so it's gonna be rich when we get language translated global boxing boards and the Russians and Chinese are gonna be slating the Dempsey's, Louis's, Ali's as being soft, overrated Americans..........

[Benny Leonard]

I think Max Schmeling's performance in the first fight against Joe Louis was just as great as Louis' performance was against Schmeling in the rematch.

Schmeling looked brilliant that night, and should've gotten the shot at Braddock before Louis but it's understandable why he didn't.

He would've been the first man to ever regain the heavyweight title in my opinion.

Jack Johnson knew everything about boxing and could've been a good advisor for Louis but again, it's understandable why Blackburn and others did not want anything to do with him.

Without a doubt, Max's performance was brilliant in the first fight. Louis killed him in the second match, but Max's win over Louis was a fighter who broke down his opponent {Joe Louis} piece by peice, round by round, and then knocked him out.

I would favor Max as well to have regained the title.

For the rematch, Louis destroyed Max. But it has to be noted that Mentally (which hurts you physically), there is reason to believe that Max, like Louis in the first fight, wasn't 100%.

Circumstances are incredible to look at.

[Benny Leonard]

this To Me Doesn't Give Him An Excuse For Doing The Same Thing To Black Fighter As Was Done To Him For So Long By White Fighters. Johnson Was A Great Man. But He Was Selfish I9n That Regard.

Agree......

[Benny Leonard]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;4276975]

[/B]
With all due respect my friend, Im interested in knowing how you've come to this conclussion? Johnson lost to the likes of Marvin Hart and Joe Choynski as well as drawin with Jack O'Brien who was outweighed by a good 40lbs. Many of the great black fighters Johnson faced he fought early in their careers. Langford is a prime example, and chased Johnson around looking for a rematch after solidifying himself as one of the best challengers to the title. One time only to be turned down at gunpoint by Johnson.

I was pointing to the difference when he was the "White" title holder vs. prior: his toughest fights were prior.

For the O'Brien fight. I've read different accounts of this a while back. First, I've always thought of it as an exhibition...it was 6 rounds. Johnson's a fighter that takes his time in a fight, toys with them, wears them down, and then when he is ready, takes them apart.
And some of the accounts I read were that Jack controlled the fight, but since O'Brien didn't get his ass kicked and put on a good show, it was enough to have people give him credit because he was smaller.

I'm not sure about Marvin Hart to be honest. I'll have to do a bit of reading when I get the time. So Johnson lost the fight: how did it go?

Was this prior to winning the title or after; what stage of his career?

For Joe Choynski: Like I said, this was before Johnson learned from Joe so he wasn't at his peak either. He would become a student of the game afterwards. Johnson was KFTO. Johnson also said according to one article I read, that the fighter who hit him the hardest, was Joe. Joe was said to have been a briliant all around boxer. Jeffries also credited Joe with hitting him the hardest as well as giving him the toughest test. Little Joe and big Jeffries battled it out in a grueling tough fight. Now that would have been something to have seen. I think the fight was a draw. Do you know off the top of your head?
And you didn't have to be black to be avoided, I heard Joe was avoided as well; no rematch.

He fought both White and Black fighters prior to beating Burns and was in some tough fights...tougher than what he would face during his reign as HW Champion until he got old and fat and lost to Jess.

There was also the weight issue with Johnson. There were times when he was under-nourished for fights and fought...prior to winning the title.

I know Langford on many occassions tried to get another fight with Johnson when he held the title, but didn't get it.
I think Sam McVey tried to get a fight with Johnson as well and Johnson stayed away from him. Sam was young when he fought Johnson as well; 18 and 19 I think.

I know the Black fighters campaigned for a title shot against Johnson and didn't get it.

It's a Knock against Johnson.

[JulioCesaChavez]

All I see above my post is "blah, blah, blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah." Get some new materail. That crap has already been shredded to death. Love the use of the word "imagine". Freakin hysterical that anybody would possibly try ranking a fighter with their imagination! Ya dope.

I said imagine, but base it on what he actually did. No surprise you have no imagination and are against using it. That is the method used to compare to others and determine if he is an ATG or not. Why don't you lot offer some better EXCUSES than trying to overrate the old washed up men.

Back to the topic! I think he is underrated and attacked by purists, and overrated by mainstream media and people that don't know fuck all but have heard the name. It is the typical overrated-underrated conundrum. One thing is for sure: he ain't the Diego Maradona of his sport!

[Yogi]

[QUOTE=Benny Leonard;4280949]

I'm not sure about Marvin Hart to be honest. I'll have to do a bit of reading when I get the time. So Johnson lost the fight: how did it go?

Was this prior to winning the title or after; what stage of his career?

That took place in March of 1905, and the opinions out of San Francisco (the fight's location, and according to the SF Call, Chronicle, Bulletin, etc.) were somewhat split as to who should have gotten the decision, but each of them suggest that the fight was quite close at the end of twenty rounds, although probably not nearly the greatest action fight seen in those parts during that time. Johnson seemed to have done his best work up to the 10th round of the fight (including bloodying hart's nose quite badly, as well as his mouth to a lesser extent), with Hart only getting credit for a couple of rounds over the first half of the fight. Conversely, Hart was said to have given a good aggressive effort and said to have done his best work over the last half of it with Johnson only getting credit for one or two rounds during that portion of the fight.

Lots of rounds were considered to be "tame", though, and as such, lots of these rounds were judged to be "even" or "about even" by those viewing it and writing the reports...e.g. the SF Call had it 7-6-5 for Hart, and the Los Angeles Herald had it 6-4 in Hart's favour with 10 rounds either "even" (mostly) or not commented on as far as who had the, if any, advantage.

Lots of people nowadays like to say that Johnson was robbed in that fight for whatever reason(s), but while some ringside viewers back then thought he had the best of it, nobody that I've seen writing on it stated that his advantage was by any sort of large margin. Hart also had his supporters in the press who thought he deserved the nod given to him, and the general consensus seems that it was a close, evenly fought, but largely disappointing fight between contrasting styles (of the two, Johnson was more criticized for being overly cautious and not pressing when an opening was presented to him) that may have gone either way in the scoring.

[Benny Leonard]

[QUOTE=Yogi;4282077]

That took place in March of 1905, and the opinions out of San Francisco (the fight's location, and according to the SF Call, Chronicle, Bulletin, etc.) were somewhat split as to who should have gotten the decision, but each of them suggest that the fight was quite close at the end of twenty rounds, although probably not nearly the greatest action fight seen in those parts during that time. Johnson seemed to have done his best work up to the 10th round of the fight (including bloodying hart's nose quite badly, as well as his mouth to a lesser extent), with Hart only getting credit for a couple of rounds over the first half of the fight. Conversely, Hart was said to have given a good aggressive effort and said to have done his best work over the last half of it with Johnson only getting credit for one or two rounds during that portion of the fight.

Lots of rounds were considered to be "tame", though, and as such, lots of these rounds were judged to be "even" or "about even" by those viewing it and writing the reports...e.g. the SF Call had it 7-6-5 for Hart, and the Los Angeles Herald had it 6-4 in Hart's favour with 10 rounds either "even" (mostly) or not commented on as far as who had the, if any, advantage.

Lots of people nowadays like to say that Johnson was robbed in that fight for whatever reason(s), but while some ringside viewers back then thought he had the best of it, nobody that I've seen writing on it stated that his advantage was by any sort of large margin. Hart also had his supporters in the press who thought he deserved the nod given to him, and the general consensus seems that it was a close, evenly fought, but largely disappointing fight between contrasting styles (of the two, Johnson was more criticized for being overly cautious and not pressing when an opening was presented to him) that may have gone either way in the scoring.

Thanks Yogi.

It's times like these though, when you have to read a report of a fight, especially back then, that you wish technology came sooner and we could have had footage of this all.

I've also always considered circumstances and reasons to be a part of this all, even though people just like to say they are "excuses."
I just wonder what the fighter was like mentally and physically at the time.
If a fighter has a broken hand, has women trouble, poor, is sick and has the ****s, etc., that changes the fight.

But such is life and although there may be reasons in a win or a loss, we hush up and keep moving...but for betting purposes, I would like to know.

[JulioCesaChavez]

The main questionm JAB5890 has failed to answer is which prime ATG did Rocky dominate to become great? You cannot be an ATG if you do not have an ATG performance. Ali beat Foreman, Frazier, Norton and Liston. Walcott would be a journeyman/sparring partner in the 70's. Charles was washed up and not a natural heavyweight. Rocky fans are similar to Calslappy fans who will claim greatness if he beats a washed up RJJ this weekend. That would make Glen Johnson and Tarver legends too!

[StarshipTrooper]

The main questionm JAB5890 has failed to answer is which prime ATG did Rocky dominate to become great? You cannot be an ATG if you do not have an ATG performance. Ali beat Foreman, Frazier, Norton and Liston. Walcott would be a journeyman/sparring partner in the 70's. Charles was washed up and not a natural heavyweight. Rocky fans are similar to Calslappy fans who will claim greatness if he beats a washed up RJJ this weekend. That would make Glen Johnson and Tarver legends too!

Which prime ATG did Mike Tyson dominate to become great? How about Lennox Lewis? Or your favorite Vitali Klitschko? Which prime ATG did Jack Johnson dominate? How about Jack Dempsey? Sonny Liston? Larry Holmes?
The truth is it's RARE for 2 ATGs to be in the Heavyweight division at the same time.

Poet

[LondonRingRules]

The main questionm JAB5890 has failed to answer is which prime ATG did Rocky dominate to become great? You cannot be an ATG if you do not have an ATG performance. Ali beat Foreman, Frazier, Norton and Liston. Walcott would be a journeyman/sparring partner in the 70's.

** ****** questions have no answers.

Liston was damn near the same age as Walcott and barely takes a half dozen punches and quits and now he's prime ATG, eh?

Walcott and Moore would have been sent to back of the class for 5 yrs with back to back performances like Ali gave against Banks/Cooper and the first two Norton fights, not fast tracked to a title fight.