10 greatest title reigns

[JAB5239]

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

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

[Testdead]

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

Trinket reigns then maybe.

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

[JAB5239]

Trinket reigns then maybe.

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

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

[JAB5239]

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

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

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

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

[BattlingNelson]

Good topic.

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

[Kris Silver]

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

Not a bad list though.

[StarshipTrooper]

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

LOL!

Poet

[Slimey Limey]

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

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

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

Compared to your drivel, absolutely.

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

But he didn't win, did he?

But that's not the point is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This debating thing isn't your thing.

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

Looks liked you're the one getting torched here Jabbie, but your insecurity gets a break because of your butt buddy Poet always sticking up for you like a little babysitter. I guess you can't handle your own problems.

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

More crying.

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

First you're talking about fear and now a fookin internet tough guy contest mate? Sorry but I'm not sinking down to your child-like internet shananigans. But I guess it really means a lot to you mate.

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

I'm your teacher here kid. Lose the child like remarks, ducking of posts and general patheticness and you might be able to talk about learning something to anybody.

[COLOR="Navy"][FONT="Tahoma"]Again with the lies. When you can't win a debate with facts, lie!! Thats gotta be your credo.

Don't get mad, Jabbie.
I never lied to ya mate. You are too easy for me to use those kind of debating tactics. I just post and show you your own ignorance. Like when I'm making a point of Holmes still being a good fighter because he beat Mercer and almost a prime Holyfield, but you go ask me in panic why I'm not critisizing Holyfield. How convenient.

Fact is Tyson showed tremendous heart and a great chin in that fight.

Carefull now. You don't want to skyrocket your mate Poet blood pressure.

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

Wether the fighter was underachieving or an undisputable ATG, he fought like true great.
Get this. There was a show called top 5 EXCUSES for the Tyson loss. So they're talking about excuses, and #1 on the list was: "Douglass fought a great fight".
So there I answered why Tyson lost 'this type of fighter'. You have yet to answer me a lot of things.

Did you even see the Holyfield fight? You're confusing it with Mcbride or something.

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

I don't remember you saying anything about Morrison's chin. But very well then. What does this prove? Your idol didn't have a stellar chin either, is this supposed to discredit him as well?
Mercer vs Damiani and Holmes and Ferguson answered above.


There, answered everything and gave you a worse spanking Louis received against Conman. Now you can only disagree, which you will definitely do because you're a Joe Louis cornhole licker. Have a nice day, and good luck on your nightshifts mate.

[StarshipTrooper]

Idiot Alert! Putrid Pommey has slithered out from under his rock. He just can't resist that masochistic urge to get slapped around like the red-headed step-child of Boxing Scene that he is.

Poet

[Slimey Limey]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Isn't it amazing? Manchine answers all of Putrid Pommy's charges and provides reasoned arguments and evidence (including video!) and Pommy just becomes more unhinged as a result.

Manmachine has his own cheerleader now.
What I call youtubemahcine's "reasoned arguments" is convenient nitpicking with nonsense comparisons that simply don't hold up, and I set every one of them straight.

Clearly no amount of hard facts are going to crack through this joker's self-imposed ignorance.

Clearly no amount of hard facts that Joe Louis did have atleast 1 tiny litle bit of a flaw is going to crack through your biased thick skull.

In his distemperate responses he reveals his true agenda: While he took pains in an earlier post to say that this wasn't about "old" versus "new" I think it pretty obvious that for him it is exactly that. He worships at the shrine of the so-called "modern" all the while showing disdain for those he labled "old-timers". The definatition of a "boxing historian"?

Getting paranoid again mate? Stick to your medication.
And you reveal your same agenda in every post you make, which is your 3-flames tactic.

I almost went into shock when I first read that

Yes, I bet you are foaming from the mouth every time someone actually challenges you in a debate and forces you to go back to your old 3 flames tactic(1-you hate old fighters, 2-you are not worth the response, 3-dishonest ignore button. This is Poetta in a nutshell).

You're doing the exact same thing.

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

That's convenient nitpicking, just like Jabbie did and I stomped him into the ground for that.
I love how you Louis cornhole lickers always this this or that fighter is inconsistent, yet you wouldn't never in hell admit anything like this about Louis.

I have yet to see you circle jerkers say even 1 non nuthugging thing about him.

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

More crying.

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

That's typical manmachine for you. Idiotic comparisons and convenient nitpicking.