-
-
Marciano was in the worst boxing era so i guess his reign means nothing aswell..along with Larry HolmesComment
-
I thought today was the worst heavyweight boxing era? Anyway, yes Rocky's record wouldn't have been perfect in other eras, but he had the heart to come back (unlike Tyson) from adversity. And of course Larry's reign wouldn't have been as long with primes Foreman and Ali around.Comment
-
Originally posted by Galveston Giant
I've changed my list again, and this time I'll explain why I made the changes.
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. Mike Tyson
4. Joe Louis
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Johnson
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Lennox Lewis
I used to have Foreman above Tyson because I felt Tyson's swarming style would play right into Foreman's hands. However, I feel that since Foreman had sub-par stamina, if Tyson could get past a certain number of rounds, he could beat Foreman on points. Tyson is Quicker and harder to hit than Frazier, and is more adaptable. In addition, Tyson's offensive arsenal is better than Frazier's so Foreman would have to look out for more than just a hook. Foreman left himself open for punches inside suck as uppercuts, and Tyson would use that to his advantage. I feel Tyson would beat Foreman to the punch, and survive George's early onslaught to come on later in the fight and win the unanimous decision.
I used to have Foreman above Joe Louis as well, because I felt that Louis got rocked too many times by sub-par fighters, than a guy as big and strong as Foreman would overwhelm him early. However now I think Louis' better skills and good defence would weather Foreman's onslaught. Also Foreman was a hard puncher, but he wasn't a great puncher. he might floor Louis but I doubt now he could knock him out with those thudding blows. When Joe Louis hit you you did funny little things. Those are the marks of a great puncher; maximizing the force of the blow like Louis did. Plus with Foreman's bad stamina and Louis great stamina, Louis would take over in the late rounds and win the decision. Like with Tyson, Foreman would be going against a fast accurate and most importantly hard puncher, and that would be his downfall.
I used to have George Foreman over Larry Holmes because I felt George's ability to cut off the ring would get to Holmes, and that if you had Holmes in real trouble, you could finish him off if you were a great finisher. However, now I feel differently about this scenario. Foreman could cut off the ring good, but like with Ali fight, he would be beaten to the punch. I feel that a prime Holmes' legs were a bit better than that of Zaire Ali. So Foreman would have to work harder in catching Holmes. Foreman wasn't an all-out swarmer, and Holmes was a master boxer with excellent stamina, so that would give Holmes some room to breathe, which I believe would be enough to pull out a close unanimous decision.
Fore the last of the bringing down George Foreman brigade, I used to have George above Jack Johnson as well. The reason is that frankly I underestimated Johnson in many ways. I felt Johnson had a glass chin (as with the case of Foreman vs. Louis), and that his footspeed wasn't enough to get out of Foreman's way. Since then, I have studied up on Jack Johnson and I have come to the conclusion that his chin is much better than I thought, and his footspeed and footwork is phenominal. Most of his early knockout losses was because of malnutrition and not a glass jaw. His only early knockout loss that wasn't a product of starvation was against Joe Choynski, a man that although he was a supermiddleweight, was a murderous puncher, and to which Johnson at the time only outweighed by only ten pounds. Johnson took good punches from 6'-2" 205lb. Frank Moran, who was a hard puncher, and wasn't affected by them. Johnson was also fast on his feet, as many opponents attested to his ability to avoid their punches by getting out of range very quickly. That flat-footed shuffle we all see in his films is just a trick to lead you to believe he was slow on his feet, and then you would try to rush him and all of a sudden he wasn't there. Many opponents have said this. Johnson would do the same thing to George Foreman, and it would get easier as the rounds go by. Foreman would find it hard to hit Johnson because he can block punches with speed just as well. Foreman would be out of his element against Johnson, and would lose a wide decision.
Last but not least, I used to have Joe Frazier above Jack Johnson, because again I underestimated Johnson's chin and footspeed, and I felt Frazier would overwhelm and be too much for him. However, this fight I feel would go the other way. First of all, Frazier's best punch is his left hook. Not only that it's his most potent and expected weapon. Most of the time, that's all he uses. Johnson was accustomed to watching out for left and right hands coming at him. If all he has to worry about is the left hook, then that would make it easier for him. Also Johnson is physically stronger than Frazier, so if frazier got inside, Johnson would be able most of the time to tie Joe up. Joe Fraizer's stamina would be a non-factor here, since Johnson's stamina was just as good, if not better. And Johnson new how to conserve energy when he wanted to and was very intelligent with what he was doing. In addition, Jack Johnson hits considerably harder than Muhammad Ali, so Frazier would really be busted up and worn down from the punishment he would be taking. i think Johnson wins a close but sure unanimous decision against Frazier.
So in short, I feel Joe Louis and Mike Tyson's accurate precision punching would be the difference against George Foreman and Larry Holmes and Jack Johnson's speed and boxing skill would be too much for Foreman (especially Johnson's). Finally, Johnson's complete arsenal of wit, skill, condition, speed, and intelligence would be the difference against Joe Frazier. You all can comment on my new top ten list if you want, and tell me what you think.
Thank you.
Comment
-
Honestly, I cannot fathom how anyone could have Sonny or Tyson over Joe Louis. Their accomplishments are far more inferior to anything Joe Louis did. Furthermore I think Joe would knockout Tyson. I feel he would crowd Tyson and take away the space Tyson needed to get off his most effective shots. Joe on the other hand needed very little space to deliver a knockout punch as well as devestating combinations.
I think the key in that match-up would Joe's patience and counter punching ability. Tyson had a great handspeed, but so did Joe Louis. But aside from that no one, other than Ali, has the credentials to be ranked ahead of Louis. Plus, I think ranking fighters on the basis of a who beats who is way too subjective. True all lists are subjective and the result of opinion, but lists based on accomplishments are far more credible IMO.Comment
-
No, Louis was a more than adequate infighter when he had to be. Louis got up close and personal anytime the occasion called for it. If you think Louis would just back up and let Tyson tee-off on him I think you have it twisted. Louis was way too smart for that.
He would use a gameplan much like Holyfield did in my estimation.Comment
-
Louis was good for his day but he's no match for later better fighter's. I think Galveston's list is decent IMO.
Louis wasn't all that smart ether, like most fighter's of his time he left his head open, you just don't do that with guys like, Frazier, Tyson, Liston..etcComment
Tweet
Comment