10 greatest title reigns

[StarshipTrooper]

what a sorry little man you are. But coming from a guy who never gave Tyson a single good compliment other than the one on his knowledge of boxing, i wouldnt expect anything more from you.

I rank Louis #2 on my list after Ali, but however you wanna twist it and whatever names you bring into equation listing their best wins and what not, Louis did fight cans. Louis resume is better than Tysons', but the hilite here is the number of title defenses, a record which would be hard to beat.

Please dont make it look like Louis opponents were untouchable world beaters, Tyson would go through 80% of them with relative ease. The hate you're spreading is really not needed, along with your ****sexual jokes in every other post you make.

Prehaps you should change your name to "Boogie Nimrod" since you have little knowledge of boxing but plenty about bath houses. Tyson would go through 80% of Louis' opponents with relative ease? Maybe so, but since Louis would go through 100% of Tyson's opponents with relative ease that isn't saying much. Prehaps you need to get your head out of your ass Junior and actually learn something about the subject before you try fencing with me. Until then consider yourself the latest addition to my ignore list: Now go whinge to BPP about that!

Poet

[Steak]

Tony Galento was certainly no worse than Donovan Ruddock. Both were limited fighters, both were dangerous punchers. Galento was certainly better than Trevor Berbick, Tyrell Biggs, and Carl Williams.

Poet

If you say so. I simply dont see it. and not just cause hes a chubby guy. he telegraphs his punches badly, leaves his hands low in exchanges, and often leaves his head sticking straight up when he comes in. I mean, look at 2:17. thats just about some of the worst use of head movement youll ever see.


I dont think he compares to these guys.



but I will give Galento one thing. He was wonderful at fouling.

[StarshipTrooper]

If you say so. I simply dont see it. and not just cause hes a chubby guy. he telegraphs his punches badly, leaves his hands low in exchanges, and often leaves his head sticking straight up when he comes in. I mean, look at 2:17. thats just about some of the worst use of head movement youll ever see.

I dont think he compares to these guys.

but I will give Galento one thing. He was wonderful at fouling.

Ruddock telegraphed his "smash" regularly: It's one of the reason's Tyson was able to time it so well. In any case Ruddock was a one trick pony: Once you took away his "smash" he was out of weapons. Galento, at least, could hurt you with either hand. He typically carries his left low (the better to telagraph his "smash"). Ruddock's head-movement? Negligable to non-existent. The man was a straight up and down fighter who difficulty spelling defense (ask Lennox how hard it was to get to Razor's chin).

PS. Despite those short-comings Ruddock was undoubtably a dangerous opponent for anyone: Probably the best opponent Tyson fought pre-prison and in my opinion those two fights were Tyson's most impressive wins.

Poet

[Boogie Nights]

Prehaps you should change your name to "Boogie Nimrod" since you have little knowledge of boxing but plenty about bath houses. Tyson would go through 80% of Louis' opponents with relative ease? Maybe so, but since Louis would go through 100% of Tyson's opponents with relative ease that isn't saying much. Prehaps you need to get your head out of your ass Junior and actually learn something about the subject before you try fencing with me. Until then consider yourself the latest addition to my ignore list: Now go whinge to BPP about that!

Poet

what i was saying was that Tyson would steamroll through about 80% of them with relative ease the other 20% would present difficulty. Walcott is the only guy on Louis' resume imo who's got a fair chance of defeating tyson.

Louis was staggered numerous times and looked to be out on his feet against a guy smaller than him and couldnt punch. There about 5 guys on tyson's resume who were legit punchers, whose power alone would keep them in the fight against Louis, with possibility of Louis getting caught and being hurt.

I dont need to be fencing with you, quite honestly you have a high opinion of yourself, and you need to get off the high horse buddy.

[Thunder Lips]

"Galento's fight with Max Baer ended when the referee stopped the bout in the eighth round. On the day of the Baer fight, Galento decided to first stop off at his bar. There he had a big bowl of spaghetti, with meat balls, washed down with half a case of beer. After his meal, Galento became embroiled in an argument with his brother. The dispute ended when his brother threw his beer glass in Galento's face, severely cutting his lip. Galento was forced to get the cut stitched up, hours before the fight. Baer re-opened the cut in the first round, forcing Galento to swallow blood for the remainder of the fight. After the fight, Galento blamed his inability to "hook him around the head and butt him" for the loss."


Galento didn't really take boxing seriously but he was incredibly dirty, durable, and had a great hook. He actually showed up for the Louis fight and made a game effort of it. Louis was actually the first and only fighter to score a knockdown against him, one of the all time great chins. He was kind of like a fatter, lazier version of David Tua who showed up even less.

[Steak]

and he also didnt seem to have any skill at all.
sorry, but he looks wide open, slow, and easy to predict. the fact that he didnt take boxing seriously isnt anything that holds me in higher esteem, either.

I dont see him beating Ruddock or Carl Williams, unless the ref allows him to thumb, hit low and headbutt constantly.

[Thunder Lips]

and he also didnt seem to have any skill at all.
sorry, but he looks wide open, slow, and easy to predict. the fact that he didnt take boxing seriously isnt anything that holds me in higher esteem, either.

I dont see him beating Ruddock or Carl Williams, unless the ref allows him to thumb, hit low and headbutt constantly.

Well, he was a really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less. At his best like in the Louis fight, he fought out of a low crouch and looked for lefts over the top. I wouldn't say he had no skills at all, however he was certainly limited; but still very dangerous. He could stand up to the best punchers, and he'd take a punch to land his hook which was a threat to anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPnb8eDNj30

Galento vs. Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKDvkcLe0K0&feature=related

Tua vs. Ruiz

[StarshipTrooper]

Well, he was a really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less. I wouldn't say he had no skills at all, however he was certainly limited; but still very dangerous. He could stand up to the best punchers, and he'd take a punch to land his hook which was a threat to anyone.

Which was exactly my point about Ruddock: A really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less.

I think what we may have here is a generational divide. All to often I cross swords with younger posters who glance at a fight from the 1940s and say "no skills, no defense, wide open, carries his hands wrong, ect ect ect". What they fail to recognize is the same argument can be made of many of the top fighters from the last 20 years as well. Think David Tua.

Poet

[Steak]

the difference is that David Tua actually showed defense, his head movement wasnt amazing but it was there. He could parry alright, and knew how to cover the body up well. I mean, you can see him slipping punches right away, and using one of his hands to protect the exposed side of his face while hes moving his head.


when I watch Galento, I see next to no defense at all. the guy walks in with his hands down and no head movement, and leaves his chin sticking straight up.


what we call crude brawlers are actually very skilled guys, but their ability is masked because theyre in there with guys who are much more skilled than them in the first place. its harder to notice their skill level because of this...but its still there if you pay attention to the little things they do. when I closely analyze Galento, I dont see any of that usually 'hidden' skill at all. I see a tough guy, with a good chin and a good punch, hoping to draw his opponent in and land one lucky punch, and otherwise just foul his way to victory.
and that doesnt get you far at all. Galento would not have beaten Tua, Ruddock, or Carl Williams.

and sorry for posting the same video about 3 times, I just prefer to analyze videos side by side.

[Thunder Lips]

Which was exactly my point about Ruddock: A really tough slugger; nothing more and nothing less.

I think what we may have here is a generational divide. All to often I cross swords with younger posters who glance at a fight from the 1940s and say "no skills, no defense, wide open, carries his hands wrong, ect ect ect". What they fail to recognize is the same argument can be made of many of the top fighters from the last 20 years as well. Think David Tua.

Poet

There is certainly a pattern of "observations" like that. I must say they are cookie cutter and without substance most of the time.

Yeah, Ruddock had a nice money punch but he was hardly a complete fighter or even that durable beyond those Tyson fights(who despite showing toughness was a real mess at that point.)