Marciano: alternate legacy

[THE REED]

My point was, my opinion, is that Marciano doesn't just drop a notch, he falls completely out of the top 20. And of course you can do this with any fighter, but Rocky creates debate on where he should be placed more than any other fighter. After this thread fizzles I plan on creating another for Larry Holmes, than Dempsey, than Tyson and others I think may spark debate. The only 3 I don't see falling out of the top 10 are Louis, Ali and Johnson, and Im sure that will cause some debate in itself. We all have our reasons why we rank fighters where we do. Take a few of those reasons away and things are viewed differently. It doesn't change history or the greatness of any fighter, it's just a fun little exercise. Some of you guys take this shit way to seriously.

On the contrary... I didn't take it seriously at all.

[Terry A]

[FONT="Tahoma"]
Since we're off topic, where and why do you rate Gene Tunney at heavyweight? You mentioned him earlier in this thread and Im still curious. To me he was a great, great fighter and would match up favorably with many past greats. But his resume at heavy simply doesn't get him in the top 20 in my opinion.

JAB,
If you ever wrote that here before, I must have missed it. But I'm real surprised you feel that way about Tunney.

I have no problem with you seeing it that way, it just kinda (shocked is too strong a word, but I can't think of anything similar)....."surprises" me.

Your Gene Tunney is my Sam Langford I guess!

It's funny how the great majority of us have a somewhat deep knowledge about fighters from the past, yet we can still see things different in almost any fighter. I for one think that's what makes it all the more fun here.

One more thing just to be a little cute...I find that it's best not to say anything bad about another historians choice of who rates where. It's akin to keeping quiet when you see one of your buddy's wives or girlfriend who is, well, let's just say "not pretty". It's best just to aknowledge her & change the subject.

[McGoorty]

If Marciano had been black he would not be ranked as high as he is with his short reign on top and would not be given such adjulation as he has been given in history..............Rockin'

Well, that has never been a factor with me, I grew up with Ali.

[McGoorty]

jab,
if you ever wrote that here before, i must have missed it. But i'm real surprised you feel that way about tunney.

I have no problem with you seeing it that way, it just kinda (shocked is too strong a word, but i can't think of anything similar)....."surprises" me.

Your gene tunney is my sam langford i guess!

it's funny how the great majority of us have a somewhat deep knowledge about fighters from the past, yet we can still see things different in almost any fighter. I for one think that's what makes it all the more fun here.

One more thing just to be a little cute...i find that it's best not to say anything bad about another historians choice of who rates where. It's akin to keeping quiet when you see one of your buddy's wives or girlfriend who is, well, let's just say "not pretty". It's best just to aknowledge her & change the subject. :d

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllll

[Greatest1942]

Yes. Savold's huge win over that killer Bruce Wood**** for the BBC title. How could I possibly overlook that? LOL!



Before you start talking about a "low IQ" you better think about how ****** you look when you make these contradicting statements in the same day. Comical.

I mentioned Savold just to expose your hypocrisy...you are the same guy who does not give Louis any credit for his victory over Savold, yet was giving Liston credit for beating Valdes in his penultimate fight, when he had lost his previous too. Atleast Savold won his previous one...Wood**** is not a great fighter...but he was not so bad either as your ignorant ass is trying to potray...he was 35-4 not a bad career. (His two loses came in his last two fights). Surely not much worse than Summerlin or Clarke or Dejohn...but I bet you heard the name first time.

He beat
1)Gus Lesnevich
2)Lee Oma.

Good fighters..overall a respectable resume, learn a bit about these guys before opening your mouth too much cr@p is coming out of it.

"Almost as good"

In all my posts I have tried to convey that Charles held a comparative resume with Liston...the top 5 guys are almost equal. But he had more depth, and had a longer title reign. I have stated this again and again, and this is in almost every post of mine..Even those two posts mention that they have a comparative resume...its not like comparing Liston's resume to Ali or Louis.

If one post fails to convey the meaning surely the rest (7 atleast ) should do. Keep it up mate , its fun talking with Mr Low IQ.

[joseph5620]

I mentioned Savold just to expose your hypocrisy...you are the same guy who does not give Louis any credit for his victory over Savold, yet was giving Liston credit for beating Valdes in his penultimate fight, when he had lost his previous too. Atleast Savold won his previous one...Wood**** is not a great fighter...but he was not so bad either as your ignorant ass is trying to potray...he was 35-4 not a bad career. (His two loses came in his last two fights). Surely not much worse than Summerlin or Clarke or Dejohn...but I bet you heard the name first time.

He beat
1)Gus Lesnevich
2)Lee Oma.

Good fighters..overall a respectable resume, learn a bit about these guys before opening your mouth too much cr@p is coming out of it.

"Almost as good"

In all my posts I have tried to convey that Charles held a comparative resume with Liston...the top 5 guys are almost equal. But he had more depth, and had a longer title reign. I have stated this again and again, and this is in almost every post of mine..Even those two posts mention that they have a comparative resume...its not like comparing Liston's resume to Ali or Louis.

If one post fails to convey the meaning surely the rest (7 atleast ) should do. Keep it up mate , its fun talking with Mr Low IQ.

Now you're just flat out lying. You're very good at changing your view in each post for whatever reason.. "Patterson could have beaten Liston with a different strategy. "I'm not saying Patterson could have beaten Liston" Charles had a better resume." "Charles didn't have the better resume." So no, you have not "conveyed the same message in every post." You don't even have a clear "message". Nice try.

And who gives a damn about Wood****'s record or BBC title? With your ridiculous logic logic Brian Neilson should be considered a big win for Tyson considering that Neilson finished at 64-3 with "titles" in his career.

You really have some problem with comprehension.My top 10 heavy's list is there in the heavyweights list thread. Check out where I have Liston. Charles is in top 20. Its because he was inconsistent at heavyweight and H2H falls short of Liston. But that does not deter from the fact that Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign.

I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't. So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough.

And you should learn how to spell "portray" before calling anybody "ignorant."

[Greatest1942]

"

"Patterson could have beaten Liston with a different strategy. "I'm not saying Patterson could have beaten Liston" Charles had a better resume."

I said this
"Besides let go of the top 5 wins. The bottom 5 of Charles have more quality than Liston's bottom 5. However you can always have DeJohn like guys shead of Elmer ray or Baksi. Ultimately its top 10 wins not top two wins like you are trying to potray. A resume is made of more than that."

Then this "I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.

But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't . So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough."

Then this :

"To reiterate so that you get it "Charles has the better resume at heavyweight"...to make up a top 10 list of Sonny Liston you have to sc**** the bottom of the Barrell (no shame you have to do that with other great heavies too), but with Charles you have to exclude (or I did) Maxim, who would be a top 6 win in Liston's resume"


Pretty consistent I see...and to the point, no wonder you don't see any though,you have to have a brain, for good comprehension.

""Patterson-Liston"
Dumbo it was not me who said this about patterson - Liston , it was Patterson who said that, I quoted him. Which you are idiot enough not to undertand. He also said that he was still learning and will do better then , than his fights with Liston...I quoted him directly. ...

My message is clear, Charles has the better resume vs Liston. I even gave the analogy with Maxim, which you did not understand due to obvious reason. liston is better H2H...having Charles in your resume is a big plus...

"Spelling"
I am pretty busy, I type hurriedly, so I often make spelling mistakes, but I read what others have to say, and think about what I am posting,

You wont find me confusing you with patterson, this made my day , though , laughed real hard...

But you learnt about Bruce Wood**** though, good for you

[Greatest1942]

This is my post in that thread,

"I have often stated Floyd's strategy against Liston was wrong , which actually made Liston's job easy.

Here is a heading of an article "In Stockholm, Floyd Patterson humbled Texan Tod Herring with the hit-and-run style he now admits he should have used against Liston".

The above quote was made in response to someone who said Liston got aggressive with Floyd, which I thought was a moot point, since Floyd himself tried to slug it out with Liston, which with his chin was suicide.

Joseph's hyper Liston mania reply

Patterson could have fought Liston with a motorcycle and a 38 pistol. He still was going to lose badly. Why do you think his manager/trainer didn't want the fight?

My reply :-

Who says Floyd would have won vs Liston? He did not have the chin...just because you know you cannot win does not win you go in with the wrong strategy and fight your opponents fight...Or you think that is Okay?

Joseph's intelligent reply :-

How can you say it was the "wrong strategy" when you have no evidence fighting differently would have been any better for Patterson? Obviously you were implying that Patterson would have done better with a different strategy or you never would have brought it up.

My response:-

In a previous post in a rebuttal to a poster I had written that Patterson fought the wrong fight...Against Liston...I just posted that to support what Patterson himself thought...a common sparring mate of Sonny and Patterson thought so too...And I can darn sure say that Sonny would KO out Patterson sure but against a good mover with good chin he will have trouble...

Later I posted the whole artcile I am posting the relevant extract here :-

"Why," asked a Swede in the audience, "didn't Floyd fight Liston that way?" Drinking tea in the dressing room and frequently blowing his nose because of a cold that had come on that day, Patterson offered his own explanation. "All the time," he said, "the whole world is learning different things. First the Wright brothers flew; now we have jets. I did not know yesterday what I know today, but if I had to fight Liston all over again I would fight a completely different style. My pride this time would not compel me to fight as I did before."

..I also quoted previously one of Patterson's sparring mate saying before the fight that if Patterson slugged it out with Liston it will be curtains, which due to his pride he could do.(he said all this before the fight). But he stayed away he will have a better chance.


The usual hysteric stuff with Joseph and Liston...in Joesphs world Liston could catch a bullet with his fists and catch the whole earth in his shoulders...even if a fighter thinks he fought the wrong way and will do better next time its a travesty...

This guy now accuses me of saying all this stuff about Patterson. (when I quoted him) ...and having bias against Liston...This is beyond funny.

[joseph5620]

This is my post in that thread,



The above quote was made in response to someone who said Liston got aggressive with Floyd, which I thought was a moot point, since Floyd himself tried to slug it out with Liston, which with his chin was suicide.

Joseph's hyper Liston mania reply

J

My reply :-



Joseph's intelligent reply :-



My response:-



Later I posted the whole artcile I am posting the relevant extract here :-

..I also quoted previously one of Patterson's sparring mate saying before the fight that if Patterson slugged it out with Liston it will be curtains, which due to his pride he could do.(he said all this before the fight). But he stayed away he will have a better chance.


The usual hysteric stuff with Joseph and Liston...in Joesphs world Liston could catch a bullet with his fists and catch the whole earth in his shoulders...even if a fighter thinks he fought the wrong way and will do better next time its a travesty...
This guy now accuses me of saying all this stuff about Patterson. (when I quoted him) ...and having bias against Liston...This is beyond funny.

In case you forgot, Patterson fought Liston twice and did not make it out of the first round in either fight. So what "next time" are you talking about LOL ? Bruce Wood**** Mafia lives!


And don't bother hurting yourself by typing a two page response to one post because I skip through most of it. You sure take a lot of time to type for a guy in a hurry

[Greatest1942]

In case you forgot, Patterson fought Liston twice and did not make it out of the first round in either fight. So what "next time" are you talking about LOL ? Bruce Wood**** Mafia lives!


And don't bother hurting yourself by typing a two page response to one post because I skip through most of it. You sure take a lot of time to type for a guy in a hurry

In case you forgot, Patterson fought Liston twice and did not make it out of the first round in either fight. So what "next time" are you talking about LOL ?

This is the stuff of unwanted drivel I am talking of pertaining to you.
You ******ed idiot its not me but Patterson who is talking of it. Go ask him,Mr LOW IQ

Bruce Wood**** Mafia lives!

If calling someone a good contender = a mafia, good I am Bruce Wood**** mafia, trying to teach the ignorant Joseph about guys pre 2000.

And don't bother hurting yourself by typing a two page response to one post because I skip through most of it. You sure take a lot of time to type for a guy in a hurry

The fact that you have a reading and comprehension problem is evident by your posts. Its worse than a nursery grade student.

"Lot of typing"

Most of it was ctrl+c and ctrl +v..which you don't know the use of..