Michael Moorer dominates 6 ft 10 275 lb Mike White

[Willow The Wisp]

He is healthy enough not to have ever lost a professional fight!

....And be the most important athlete in the world.

[them_apples]

He is healthy enough not to have ever lost a professional fight!

Thats because the best guy on his resume is an old Wlad. If thats the peak of his competition then that would explain why he never lost.

[Willow The Wisp]

Thats because the best guy on his resume is an old Wlad. If thats the peak of his competition then that would explain why he never lost.

Wilder would land the one bomb that would lay Wlad out cold. So HE was Fury's best, IMCO.

Wladimir was, however, AJs best opponent; but rather than the sitting champion that Fury faced and aced, Joshua's version was returning from retirement with no tuneup.

Apparently, ALL these fighters suck, and evidently, the MMA fighters are x20 worse......till they become your cell mate.

[Willie Pep 229]

....And be the most important athlete in the world.

Do you think the HW Campion still holds that distinction?

I would like to believe it, but I don't think it is so any longer.

If we say World, it's probably some soccer player and if we say the US it's probably switches back and forth between being a basketball and American football player.

But I hope you are correct.

[Willie Pep 229]

Thats because the best guy on his resume is an old Wlad. If thats the peak of his competition then that would explain why he never lost.

I don't care for Fury because of the way he looks and his refusal to be a 'fighting champion.'

But despite my misgivings he has proven himself to be a tough man with no quit in him.That I must begrudgingly admit and admire.

[Ivich]

I don't care for Fury because of the way he looks and his refusal to be a 'fighting champion.'

But despite my misgivings he has proven himself to be a tough man with no quit in him.That I must begrudgingly admit and admire.

I'm not keen on him either, he talks a lot of garbage and contradicts himself daily,I hope Usyk beats him after all the crap he has had to put up with trying to get Fury into the ring,

The fact remains he is a hell of a problem for any heavyweight to solve,without his size ,make him say 6'3" he would be average,decent boxer, but nothing special ,decent puncher ,but nothing special.He does have a great heart,I have to give him that.

[Ivich]

Thats because the best guy on his resume is an old Wlad. If thats the peak of his competition then that would explain why he never lost.

It could just as easily be said,that if the peak of your competition is a 38 years old man with18 losses on his record and a pumped up Lhvy who was 41 years old,that would explain why you never lost!
ps Wlad never floored Fury and never looked likely to,unlike both those guys ,who floored the man they were fighting.

[them_apples]

It could just as easily be said,that if the peak of your competition is a 38 years old man with18 losses on his record and a pumped up Lhvy who was 41 years old,that would explain why you never lost!
ps Wlad never floored Fury and never looked likely to,unlike both those guys ,who floored the man they were fighting.

Yeah but he almost killed that man so you don†™t really have a point. And I think anyone who knows boxing would rate them better than Wlad. We don†™t need to get into the losses debate, there are way too many factors around that. Today we have many undefeated champions who are trash. The only reason they remain undefeated is because they never face anyone who can defeat them. An undefeated record probably ranks as the single most overated attribute a fighter could have. Even with Marciano I scarcely even think about his undefeated record. Nor will I argue that his resume is the best of all time (it isn†™t). My argument is that p4p and h2h Marciano ranks as one of the most formidable opponents to ever enter the ring.

on top of this, don’t act like Fury showed us anything special. He was winning rounds by landing the odd jab to Wlads belly.

when you say undefeated you act like there is some governing body that ensures the champion is taking on the best next in line fighters. We don’t get this though. Promoters will protect fighters to no end. Look at Canelo for example. He’s lost to everyone good on his resume, but they simply give him the W anyways. They do this by having biased commentary, fake compubox stats and of course dirty judges. If fighters actually have losses it might simply be a reflection of the competition they are facing.

don’t tell me Walcott, Moore and Charles are not good competition. The age factor seemed to only matter after Rocky beat them. The weight factor doesn’t matter at all since Marciano only weighed 186 lbs. so either Marciano is simply the greatest light heavyweight of all time by annihilating top tier light heavies (and weighing even less than some of them) or you can admit the weight factor doesn’t mean half as much as you say. How come ezzard was capable of taking Louis title while weighing even less and fighting a larger man in Louis, but got destroyed by Marciano? A smaller man. Why is Charles now spoken of as being an old light heavy when he faces Rock?

and by the way, if you knew anything about Walcott in particular - you would know his prime and best days came later in his career. He developed into a better fighter later on and said this himself. Walcott retired early and had a good job, but kept boxing on the side. Eventually he decided to have another crack at it once he realized he was pretty good and had more experience

[Willow The Wisp]

Do you think the HW Campion still holds that distinction?

I would like to believe it, but I don't think it is so any longer.

If we say World, it's probably some soccer player and if we say the US it's probably switches back and forth between being a basketball and American football player.

But I hope you are correct.

I am known to dabble in the hyperbolic.
Moreover, it is an inexact distinction to be sure.
But, I suppose that it is true, traditionally; as was universally beleived right up to Ali; but these days, it's more about how effectively a celebrity is marketed, and less about print media reflecting to the public thinking and from the public thinking.

I will say this however:
Golf and Tennis get their boost as non-professional recreations.
Baseball, Football, Basketball and (Professional) Hockey are centered in the US and exist only in pockets elsewhere, with the exception of basketball (in recent times); while Soccer, Cricket and Rugby (British empire sports) are largely ignored inside the US; and none have produced an athlete as culturally ingrained BOTH within and without the United States as an Ali or a Tyson; with apologies to Aaron, Pele, Federer, (Bobby) Jones, Ruth, (Jim) Brown, Bradman, Spitz, Samprass, Gehrig, Mantle, Tilden, Lomu, Bryant, Chamberlain, Bonds, Messi, Thorpe, Phelps, Maradona, Wagner, Puskas, Jordan, Bolt, Gretzky, DiMaggio, Owens, Mays, Ronaldo, (Ted) Williams, Cruyff, Woods, Gotch, Beckenbauer, Clemens, Wilkinson, James, Unitas, Tendulkar, Brady, Howe, McCaw, (Bo) Jackson, Sobers, Montana, Zidane, Nadal, Bird, Jeter, Ashe, Rice, Orr, Gebrselassie, Di Stéfano, Payton, Butkus, Snead, Karelin, Borg, Abdul-Jabbar, Nicklaus, Habana, Russell, Hull, etc.


I think the HWCOTW remains the IDEAL conduit to being the "Most important athlete in the world", but it's up to the fighter himself, his ability, longevity, accomplishments, excitement and personality to really see it through.

[Ivich]

Yeah but he almost killed that man so you donÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt really have a point. And I think anyone who knows boxing would rate them better than Wlad. We donÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt need to get into the losses debate, there are way too many factors around that. Today we have many undefeated champions who are trash. The only reason they remain undefeated is because they never face anyone who can defeat them. An undefeated record probably ranks as the single most overated attribute a fighter could have. Even with Marciano I scarcely even think about his undefeated record. Nor will I argue that his resume is the best of all time (it isnÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt). My argument is that p4p and h2h Marciano ranks as one of the most formidable opponents to ever enter the ring.

on top of this, donât act like Fury showed us anything special. He was winning rounds by landing the odd jab to Wlads belly.

when you say undefeated you act like there is some governing body that ensures the champion is taking on the best next in line fighters. We donâÃÂÃÂt get this though. Promoters will protect fighters to no end. Look at Canelo for example. HeâÃÂÃÂs lost to everyone good on his resume, but they simply give him the W anyways. They do this by having biased commentary, fake compubox stats and of course dirty judges. If fighters actually have losses it might simply be a reflection of the competition they are facing.

donâÃÂÃÂt tell me Walcott, Moore and Charles are not good competition. The age factor seemed to only matter after Rocky beat them. The weight factor doesnâÃÂÃÂt matter at all since Marciano only weighed 186 lbs. so either Marciano is simply the greatest light heavyweight of all time by annihilating top tier light heavies (and weighing even less than some of them) or you can admit the weight factor doesnâÃÂÃÂt mean half as much as you say. How come ezzard was capable of taking Louis title while weighing even less and fighting a larger man in Louis, but got destroyed by Marciano? A smaller man. Why is Charles now spoken of as being an old light heavy when he faces Rock?

and by the way, if you knew anything about Walcott in particular - you would know his prime and best days came later in his career. He developed into a better fighter later on and said this himself. Walcott retired early and had a good job, but kept boxing on the side. Eventually he decided to have another crack at it once he realized he was pretty good and had more experience

Marciano did not ."almost kill either Walcott of Moore,Moore in particular gave an immediate post fight press conference saying how much he had enjoyed the fight.
"Anyone who knows boxing would rate Walcott and Moore over Wlad" At heavyweight?

Show me a list made by boxing experts that does so?

Before both the Walcott and Moore fight the press were referring to both of them as both old men.

Walcott in the Ring was called "Grandpappy, and Old Man River.

Walcott did not improve in his middle thirties he just got better management,finance,a better diet, and opportunities to train regularly.

Walcott did not retire early ,38 in the 50's was old for a boxer .

Charles did NOT take Louis's title he won an eliminator against Walcott for the vacant title.

Louis had been retired for 3 years when back taxes forced him back in the ring against Charles. Louis,in his autobiography stated that, in his prime he would have taken Charles out in about 7 rounds.

Provide a quote in which Walcott says he was better when in his late 30's?

I know a hell of a lot more about Arnold Cream than you do ,including the fact that he was mobbed up!