Who thinks the FIRST clay-liston fight was fixed?

[butterfly1964]

[Yogi]

Sorry for that Butterfly, and now I'll leave you gentlemen to yet another one of your Ali-inspired, circle jerks.

[butterfly1964]

Sorry for that Butterfly, and now I'll leave you gentlemen to yet another one of your Ali-inspired, circle jerks.

can you believe that idiot WindupMerchant saying that liston threw the first fight? that's idiotic.

[smasher]

[QUOTE=Yogi]****ing ridiculous comparisions!

I said don't give Marciano TOO much credit for beating Louis and I stand behind that. Joe had been thoroughly beaten by Charles and was only fighting because he needed the money. He retired in 1949 after Walcott because he knew his skills had eroded. As for rankings and predictions that Louis would win, that just says more about people's blind faith in him as a fighter rather than how much he had left. Obviously people were remembering how Louis once was rather than what he was, a 37 year old guy fighting for money.

Many boxing writers thought Ali would beat Holmes (the odds were 6-5) and who honestly thought McBride or even Williams was going to beat Tyson much less win by KO? You don't know until fight time and let's face it Louis was a shell of what he was at his peak. Play Marciano-Louis back to back with Louis in his prime and you'll see what I'm talking about...

[Southpaw Stinger]

I said don't give Marciano TOO much credit for beating Louis and I stand behind that. Joe had been thoroughly beaten by Charles and was only fighting because he needed the money. He retired in 1949 after Walcott because he knew his skills had eroded. As for rankings and predictions that Louis would win, that just says more about people's blind faith in him as a fighter rather than how much he had left. Obviously people were remembering how Louis once was rather than what he was, a 37 year old guy fighting for money.

Many boxing writers thought Ali would beat Holmes (the odds were 6-5) and who honestly thought McBride or even Williams was going to beat Tyson muck less win by KO? You don't know until fight time and let's face it Louis was a shell of what he was at his peak. Play Marciano-Louis back to back with Louis in his prime and you'll see what I'm talking about...

Nice post.

[Yogi]

I said don't give Marciano TOO much credit for beating Louis and I stand behind that. Joe had been thoroughly beaten by Charles and was only fighting because he needed the money. He retired in 1949 after Walcott because he knew his skills had eroded. As for rankings and predictions that Louis would win, that just says more about people's blind faith in him as a fighter rather than how much he had left. Obviously people were remembering how Louis once was rather than what he was, a 37 year old guy fighting for money.

Many boxing writers thought Ali would beat Holmes (the odds were 6-5) and who honestly thought McBride or even Williams was going to beat Tyson much less win by KO? You don't know until fight time and let's face it Louis was a shell of what he was at his peak. Play Marciano-Louis back to back with Louis in his prime and you'll see what I'm talking about...

I give Marciano the credit that he was getting during that time, nothing more and nothing less...and I certainly don't take a 2005 view of things when the information from back then is out there & readily available.

And yeah, I've seen the Charles fight and yeah Louis didn't look good in that fight as he was quite dominated by Charles. But with these eyes I'd certainly say that Louis looked quite a bit better when he fought Savold & Marciano and to me that could be explained because he was VERY active during that year and shook off some of the ring rust that he had when facing Charles.

And your comment about the rankings & predictions, no it isn't obvious that people were remembering how Louis was in his prime, because if you took the time to do your own research, you'd see that the boxing writers were all saying that he was obviously past his best...But they were giving Louis credit for being very active & how he looked in defeating a few ranked contenders during his unbeaten streak just before the Marciano fight (Brion and Savold were both ranked well inside the top ten, and in fact Savold even maintained a top ten spot after his fight with Louis...Aug 1951 Ring ratings)...Have you seen anything else from Louis during that streak of his Smasher (like his excellant performance against Savold), or are you going strictly on the Marciano fight?

And that "only fighting for money" comment isn't accurate, because even though his money troubles are well documented, Louis himself has stated that he was also fighting hard for the historical prestigue of regaining the title and going down in history as the first one to do so.

But let me ask you...Do you know of ANY great fighters who don't have financial gain as one of their primary goals in boxing, even when their smack dab in the middle of their primes?

Anybody, because I certainly don't know of any?

Whatever their financial gains may be, every single fighter in history has a big element of "fighting for money" included in them and every single one of them wants to get paid well for their services, because just like Louis, they want to take care of themselves to the best of their abilities and have a means to with their fists.

And your comparisions to Holmes/Ali, Williams & McBride/Tyson, Donald/Holyfield, etc...How do they compare?

Ali may have been the betting favourite, but he certainly wasn't as highly ranked as Louis was when he faced marciano, nor was he even active against other ranked contenders leading up to the fight. And unlike Marciano did after defeating Louis, Holmes certainly wasn't getting his share of credit in the press after defeating Ali (again newspaper research & articles from each time are your friends with that), and in fact Holmes himself discredited his fore-seen victory even before the fight with some of his comments.

Tyson, Holyfield...****, those guys weren't close to a top ten ranking position when they fought & lost to those guys that they did, weren't even close to being as active as Louis was, hadn't defeated a contender in years, nor did they lose to a guy who was considered a future Heavyweight champion who went on to have an all-time great type of career in the end in not losing a fight.

If you're making a comparision between those guys and the version of Louis that Marciano fought, you're not discrediting Marciano...you're discrediting Louis, who, going into the Marciano fight, had PROVEN himself against with activity against ranked contenders and still looked like & was considered one of the very best Heavyweights of that time...

Like I said, Louis was obviously past his best, but he was still considered a very solid fighter at that time and because of his sound fundamentals LOOKED like a very solid Heavyweight just previous to & during most of the Marciano.

[butterfly1964]

I give Marciano the credit that he was getting during that time, nothing more and nothing less...and I certainly don't take a 2005 view of things when the information from back then is out there & readily available.

And yeah, I've seen the Charles fight and yeah Louis didn't look good in that fight as he was quite dominated by Charles. But with these eyes I'd certainly say that Louis looked quite a bit better when he fought Savold & Marciano and to me that could be explained because he was VERY active during that year and shook off some of the ring rust that he had when facing Charles.

And your comment about the rankings & predictions, no it isn't obvious that people were remembering how Louis was in his prime, because if you took the time to do your own research, you'd see that the boxing writers were all saying that he was obviously past his best...But they were giving Louis credit for being very active & how he looked in defeating a few ranked contenders during his unbeaten streak just before the Marciano fight (Brion and Savold were both ranked well inside the top ten, and in fact Savold even maintained a top ten spot after his fight with Louis...Aug 1951 Ring ratings)...Have you seen anything else from Louis during that streak of his Smasher (like his excellant performance against Savold), or are you going strictly on the Marciano fight?

And that "only fighting for money" comment isn't accurate, because even though his money troubles are well documented, Louis himself has stated that he was also fighting hard for the historical prestigue of regaining the title and going down in history as the first one to do so.

But let me ask you...Do you know of ANY great fighters who don't have financial gain as one of their primary goals in boxing, even when their smack dab in the middle of their primes?

Anybody, because I certainly don't know of any?

Whatever their financial gains may be, every single fighter in history has a big element of "fighting for money" included in them and every single one of them wants to get paid well for their services, because just like Louis, they want to take care of themselves to the best of their abilities and have a means to with their fists.

And your comparisions to Holmes/Ali, Williams & McBride/Tyson, Donald/Holyfield, etc...How do they compare?

Ali may have been the betting favourite, but he certainly wasn't as highly ranked as Louis was when he faced marciano, nor was he even active against other ranked contenders leading up to the fight. And unlike Marciano did after defeating Louis, Holmes certainly wasn't getting his share of credit in the press after defeating Ali (again newspaper research & articles from each time are your friends with that), and in fact Holmes himself discredited his fore-seen victory even before the fight with some of his comments.

Tyson, Holyfield...****, those guys weren't close to a top ten ranking position when they fought & lost to those guys that they did, weren't even close to being as active as Louis was, hadn't defeated a contender in years, nor did they lose to a guy who was considered a future Heavyweight champion who went on to have an all-time great type of career in the end in not losing a fight.

If you're making a comparision between those guys and the version of Louis that Marciano fought, you're not discrediting Marciano...you're discrediting Louis, who, going into the Marciano fight, had PROVEN himself against with activity against ranked contenders and still looked like & was considered one of the very best Heavyweights of that time...

Like I said, Louis was obviously past his best, but he was still considered a very solid fighter at that time and because of his sound fundamentals LOOKED like a very solid Heavyweight just previous to & during most of the Marciano.

a very nice post, yogi.

[Kid Achilles]

I give Marciano the credit that he was getting during that time, nothing more and nothing less...and I certainly don't take a 2005 view of things when the information from back then is out there & readily available.

And yeah, I've seen the Charles fight and yeah Louis didn't look good in that fight as he was quite dominated by Charles. But with these eyes I'd certainly say that Louis looked quite a bit better when he fought Savold & Marciano and to me that could be explained because he was VERY active during that year and shook off some of the ring rust that he had when facing Charles.

And your comment about the rankings & predictions, no it isn't obvious that people were remembering how Louis was in his prime, because if you took the time to do your own research, you'd see that the boxing writers were all saying that he was obviously past his best...But they were giving Louis credit for being very active & how he looked in defeating a few ranked contenders during his unbeaten streak just before the Marciano fight (Brion and Savold were both ranked well inside the top ten, and in fact Savold even maintained a top ten spot after his fight with Louis...Aug 1951 Ring ratings)...Have you seen anything else from Louis during that streak of his Smasher (like his excellant performance against Savold), or are you going strictly on the Marciano fight?

And that "only fighting for money" comment isn't accurate, because even though his money troubles are well documented, Louis himself has stated that he was also fighting hard for the historical prestigue of regaining the title and going down in history as the first one to do so.

But let me ask you...Do you know of ANY great fighters who don't have financial gain as one of their primary goals in boxing, even when their smack dab in the middle of their primes?

Anybody, because I certainly don't know of any?

Whatever their financial gains may be, every single fighter in history has a big element of "fighting for money" included in them and every single one of them wants to get paid well for their services, because just like Louis, they want to take care of themselves to the best of their abilities and have a means to with their fists.

And your comparisions to Holmes/Ali, Williams & McBride/Tyson, Donald/Holyfield, etc...How do they compare?

Ali may have been the betting favourite, but he certainly wasn't as highly ranked as Louis was when he faced marciano, nor was he even active against other ranked contenders leading up to the fight. And unlike Marciano did after defeating Louis, Holmes certainly wasn't getting his share of credit in the press after defeating Ali (again newspaper research & articles from each time are your friends with that), and in fact Holmes himself discredited his fore-seen victory even before the fight with some of his comments.

Tyson, Holyfield...****, those guys weren't close to a top ten ranking position when they fought & lost to those guys that they did, weren't even close to being as active as Louis was, hadn't defeated a contender in years, nor did they lose to a guy who was considered a future Heavyweight champion who went on to have an all-time great type of career in the end in not losing a fight.

If you're making a comparision between those guys and the version of Louis that Marciano fought, you're not discrediting Marciano...you're discrediting Louis, who, going into the Marciano fight, had PROVEN himself against with activity against ranked contenders and still looked like & was considered one of the very best Heavyweights of that time...

Like I said, Louis was obviously past his best, but he was still considered a very solid fighter at that time and because of his sound fundamentals LOOKED like a very solid Heavyweight just previous to & during most of the Marciano.

Excellent post! I would give karma but I have to spread some around first.

[smasher]

Savold had 37 losses when Louis defeated him so I would think Joe looked good against him. Louis had scored only 2 KO's in his 9 fights since returning to action so he had definitely slipped.

As for Joe stating he wanted to the win the title again, I'm sure he did, but his REASON for returning was due to back taxes owed, that's documented fact of which maybe you should take the time to have researched. If Louis had of been financially secure there is no way he would have returned to action after his initial retirement.

In any event we're splitting hairs. If you feel comfortable in believing that Marciano beat a good version of Joe I don't have a problem with that. My opinion is that he didn't.

[Kid Achilles]

Well, let's put it this way. The old Louis that Marciano fought would have beaten Kevin McBride and a shot Ali on the same night. He was nowhere near his prime but he was a world class heavyweight and one of the ten best heavyweights in the world at the time.