HW TOP 10 h2h and achievement [Archive]

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 07:47 AM

Holmes for me IS the best H2H fighter ever, followed closely (in no order) Tyson (Prime) Foreman (young version) Ali (any version up to 3rd Frazier fight)

I think your top 3 choices are a bit strange. Holmes lost to the best fighters he faced (Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield), and even though he was quite a bit past his prime on all occassions he wasn't really dominant against his best opponents even in his prime. Norton, Shavers and Witherspoon all gave him trouble.

Foreman have the perhaps most dominant perfomance against an ATG, but he obviously had a lot of trouble with skillful boxers. He met two world class defensive boxers and lost clearly to both. Not a good stat.

When it comes to Tyson it's harder to say. He annihilated a loot of good fighters, but lost to the best he faced. I'll give him a pass for the loss to Lewis, but not for the ones against Holyfield. He was past his prime, but not by that much and Holyfield was older than him.

I think Ali, Lewis and Louis must rank higher h2h.

Ali for me is nr. 1 and the case for that is quite strong I believe. He beat 3 extremely dangerous opponents in Liston, Frazier and Foreman. He showed that he could overcome just about any style, and he was probably more adaptable during a fight than any other HW champion. Add his amazing physical abilities, his toughness and will to win to this and you have a great fighter.

Lewis, when on song, looked nigh invincible. He could be distracted, but when he brought his A-game he was a class above his opponents. Because of his two KO losses his chin is always going to be in question, though. Especially when matched against the likes of prime Tyson, Louis, Liston and Fooreman.

Louis also beat every type, shape and form of fighter. The problem here is his obvious vulnerability against quick, tecnical fighters (Schmeling, Farr, Pastor, Conn and Walcott) and his self-admitted vulnerability against swarmers. But one should also note that he was a killer in rematches. In a series against him it's hard to see anyone not picking up a loss.

MrPook

03-27-2009, 08:16 AM

I think prime Holmes could outbox prime Ali. And Ali had his deal of fighters who were hardto handle also like Norton, Leon Spinks, and Lyle.

Beeston Brawler

03-27-2009, 08:33 AM

Lewis would be #2 H2H behind Ali.

Tyson is way too high in both categories.

Flea Man

03-27-2009, 08:51 AM

I think your top 3 choices are a bit strange. Holmes lost to the best fighters he faced (Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield), and even though he was quite a bit past his prime on all occassions he wasn't really dominant against his best opponents even in his prime. Norton, Shavers and Witherspoon all gave him trouble.

Foreman have the perhaps most dominant perfomance against an ATG, but he obviously had a lot of trouble with skillful boxers. He met two world class defensive boxers and lost clearly to both. Not a good stat.

When it comes to Tyson it's harder to say. He annihilated a loot of good fighters, but lost to the best he faced. I'll give him a pass for the loss to Lewis, but not for the ones against Holyfield. He was past his prime, but not by that much and Holyfield was older than him.

I think Ali, Lewis and Louis must rank higher h2h.

Ali for me is nr. 1 and the case for that is quite strong I believe. He beat 3 extremely dangerous opponents in Liston, Frazier and Foreman. He showed that he could overcome just about any style, and he was probably more adaptable during a fight than any other HW champion. Add his amazing physical abilities, his toughness and will to win to this and you have a great fighter.

Lewis, when on song, looked nigh invincible. He could be distracted, but when he brought his A-game he was a class above his opponents. Because of his two KO losses his chin is always going to be in question, though. Especially when matched against the likes of prime Tyson, Louis, Liston and Fooreman.

Louis also beat every type, shape and form of fighter. The problem here is his obvious vulnerability against quick, tecnical fighters (Schmeling, Farr, Pastor, Conn and Walcott) and his self-admitted vulnerability against swarmers. But one should also note that he was a killer in rematches. In a series against him it's hard to see anyone not picking up a loss.

Good post; Although there can be cases made that Ali lost to Norton and was also very hurt by Henry Cooper....basically with the HW's all of them have their own attributes, I just went by them on their best nights, i.e Foreman when he beat Frazier, Tyson for those couple of years, and as I said, Ali over a much bigger timescale.

Holmes for me, with his brilliant jab, chin, recovery, constant power (if not exactly on the Tyson-Foreman level) fantastic movement and tactics....I would've chose Ali but personally, I've always had a hunch that on his best day, Holmes would beat the best version of Ali, regardless of what actually happened when they fought (That was NOT Ali)

He was indeed stopped by Prime Tyson but he was never stopped again and I believe he carried on fighting until about 1994/1995 (can't be bothered to check at the moment) That not only shows how tough Holmes was, but just how good Tyson was in his day, although Holmes had been inactive.

Again, it's very debatable either way, Lennox Lewis is up their, but as you pointed out he could be hurt. Again, there are excused either way (i.e the high altitude in the first Rahman fight)

It's debatable either way. Which is why we're here :good

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:00 AM

I think prime Holmes could outbox prime Ali. And Ali had his deal of fighters who were hardto handle also like Norton, Leon Spinks, and Lyle.

Ok. Let's look at the facts.

Number of top contenders that Holmes easily beat: Mercer (even though he clearly beat for example Shavers and Cooney, they did have their moments).
Number of top 15 HW ATGs he beat: None (if one doesn't count a shot Ali)

Number of top contenders Ali easily beat: Moore (he was ancient but still a top contender), Terrell, Folley (old but still top contender), Quarry, Ellis and Bugner (he was in the rankings long enough for me to call him top contender, but I can see why some would disagree).
Number of top 15 HW ATGs he beat: Liston (easily), Foreman (clearly), Patterson (easily and Frazier (not so easily)

Now, this is close to resume actually, but it gives a clue as to how they would do against other ATGs. We can also use Norton as a reference. At 34 he almost gave a prime Holmes as much trouble as he gave a post-prime Ali when he was 29.

MrPook

03-27-2009, 09:05 AM

Ok. Let's look at the facts.

Number of top contenders that Holmes easily beat: Mercer (even though he clearly beat for example Shavers and Cooney, they did have their moments).
Number of top 15 HW ATGs he beat: None (if one doesn't count a shot Ali)

Number of top contenders Ali easily beat: Moore (he was ancient but still a top contender), Terrell, Folley (old but still top contender), Quarry, Ellis and Bugner (he was in the rankings long enough for me to call him top contender, but I can see why some would disagree).
Number of top 15 HW ATGs he beat: Liston (easily), Foreman (clearly), Patterson (easily and Frazier (not so easily)

Now, this is close to resume actually, but it gives a clue as to how they would do against other ATGs. We can also use Norton as a reference. At 34 he almost gave a prime Holmes as much trouble as he gave a post-prime Ali when he was 29.
Top

To me that is legacy, and legacy is part of achievement as I see it.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 09:07 AM

I think your top 3 choices are a bit strange. Holmes lost to the best fighters he faced (Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield)

Ali lost to Holmes and Berbick too.

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:13 AM

Good post; Although there can be cases made that Ali lost to Norton and was also very hurt by Henry Cooper....

Yeah, but there wasn't such a clear line between the opponents that gave him trouble. When he was still remotely close to his prime there were three opponents that really troubled him: Jones, Frazier and Norton (I don't count Cooper, since the only big moment he had in almost 11 rounds with Ali was when Ali's concentration slipped for a second) and they aren't that similar stylistically.

basically with the HW's all of them have their own attributes, I just went by them on their best nights, i.e Foreman when he beat Frazier, Tyson for those couple of years, and as I said, Ali over a much bigger timescale.

Foreman was probably as good in Zaire as ever was, he just met an opponent he couldn't figure out.

Holmes for me, with his brilliant jab, chin, recovery, constant power (if not exactly on the Tyson-Foreman level) fantastic movement and tactics....I would've chose Ali but personally, I've always had a hunch that on his best day, Holmes would beat the best version of Ali, regardless of what actually happened when they fought (That was NOT Ali)

He was indeed stopped by Prime Tyson but he was never stopped again and I believe he carried on fighting until about 1994/1995 (can't be bothered to check at the moment) That not only shows how tough Holmes was, but just how good Tyson was in his day, although Holmes had been inactive.

I agree that Holmes on film looks like he would be nightmare for most. It's just that he didn't look that convincing against top level opposition.

And he was badly hurt by the right enough times to really question his chances against Louis, Tyson and Lewis. Of course this can also be said of Ali and the left hook. But Ali fought one of the very best left hooker in the biz, and came out on top 2 times out of 3 when past his prime. The best right that Holmes faced (Tyson's) took him out.

MrPook

03-27-2009, 09:14 AM

Ali lost to Holmes and Berbick too.

Yes but prime Holmes beat washed up Ali

prime vs prime it would have been a different fight.

Altough I do think Holmes would have beaten prime Ali.

Ali could have won but I think their is a bigger chance Holmes would have outpointed Ali.

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:15 AM

Ali lost to Holmes and Berbick too.

Come on! I stated that Holmes was past his prime on all three occassions (which you nicely enough omitted from your quote), but he wasn't shot like Ali was against Holmes and Berbick. And Berbick wasn't one of Ali's 3 best opponents.

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:16 AM

To me that is legacy, and legacy is part of achievement as I see it.

Sure, but it's hard to ignore when speculating how they would do against other greats.

MrPook

03-27-2009, 09:17 AM

Holmes was an old man when he got beat by Tyson.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 09:20 AM

Come on! I stated that Holmes was past his prime on all three occassions (which you nicely enough omitted from your quote), but he wasn't shot like Ali was against Holmes and Berbick. And Berbick wasn't one of Ali's 3 best opponents.

ANY sort of rating of Holmes involving those 3 fights is woeful and agenda driven regardless - no if's and no but's. Even giving them a significant mention is embarrassing. I'm as hard on Holmes as anyone, but only for hard facts.

In all likelihood Holmes would have beaten Holyfield and Tyson at his greatest and Spinks need not even rate a mention given a very very poor version of Holmes came back and bested him.

Many feel Holmes possessed the stylistic gifts to beat Ali, and while i don't quite agree they make a very good debate.

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:23 AM

Holmes was an old man when he got beat by Tyson.

I'm not saying that was a prime version by any means, but since he started so late he had much more left in the tank than most others at his age. It was the same with Lewis.

But even if you look at the best he met in his prime (Norton, Shavers, Witherspoon) it's not like they were dominating wins. And Norton and Shavers were both well into their 30's and 'Spoon was still quite green.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 09:28 AM

I'm not saying that was a prime version by any means, but since he started so late he had much more left in the tank than most others at his age. It was the same with Lewis.

But even if you look at the best he met in his prime (Norton, Shavers, Witherspoon) it's not like they were dominating wins. And Norton and Shavers were both well into their 30's and 'Spoon was still quite green.

Ali lost to Frazier in his prime. Norton too. Holyfield and Tyson would have whupped the Ali ass at a comparative stage to Holmes - no doubt at all. Ali's matches with Norton and Frazier weren't "dominating" wins. Nor Young and Shavers.

You're not beating Holmes with the same stick.

MrPook

03-27-2009, 09:30 AM

I'm not saying that was a prime version by any means, but since he started so late he had much more left in the tank than most others at his age. It was the same with Lewis.

You can say the same about that break Ali took during his reign.
I should not bring it up...I know...it's lame...

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:34 AM

ANY sort of rating of Holmes involving those 3 fights is woeful and agenda driven regardless - no if's and no but's. Even giving them a significant mention is embarrassing. I'm as hard on Holmes as anyone, but only for hard facts.

It's not like that was sole basis for my argument. I think I put into context. These are the exact words:

"Holmes lost to the best fighters he faced (Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield), and even though he was quite a bit past his prime on all occassions he wasn't really dominant against his best opponents even in his prime. Norton, Shavers and Witherspoon all gave him trouble."

The fight against Holyfield is of course much more of a plus than a minus, I don't really know if any real conclusions can be drawn from the loss to Tyson, but the loss to Spinks isn't that flattering even if most agree that it was avenged.

Anyhow, the fact remains that Holmes didn't dominate many top class opponents and that puts a question mark on how he would do against top ATGs.

In all likelihood Holmes would have beaten Holyfield and Tyson at his greatest and Spinks need not even rate a mention given a very very poor version of Holmes came back and bested him.

Many feel Holmes possessed the stylistic gifts to beat Ali, and while i don't quite agree they make a very good debate.

I certainly don't agree that Holmes "in all likelihood" would have beaten Tyson. Sooner or later Tyson will proably land that right and then Holmes will have to survive against the greatest finisher since Louis. Not an easy task.

I would give Holmes a better chance against Ali. Very interesting match-up.

McGrain

03-27-2009, 09:35 AM

I always feel like; what about rulesets? Why is Johnson not on this list? Who would beat him in a fight to the finish under his own rules? If you don't like Johnson, use Jeffries.

McGrain

03-27-2009, 09:36 AM

Surely Bowe ranks above whichever Klitschko you have picked head to head?

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:38 AM

Ali lost to Frazier in his prime. Norton too. Holyfield and Tyson would have whupped the Ali ass at a comparative stage to Holmes - no doubt at all. Ali's matches with Norton and Frazier weren't "dominating" wins. Nor Young and Shavers.

You're not beating Holmes with the same stick.

Ali wasn't in his prime when facing Frazier and Norton. And I haven't said that Ali dominated either Frazier, Norton, Young or Shavers.

My basis is that Ali's prime was roughly from 1964 or 1965 to 1967 (a bit short since it got cut short) and Holmes's was roughly from about 1978-1982.

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:41 AM

You can say the same about that break Ali took during his reign.
I should not bring it up...I know...it's lame...

He lost his best years to that "break", so its benefits is questionable.

Look, it's just this simple; just as I don't compare a 25-year old Holmes with a 25-year old Ali, I don't compare a 35-year old Ali with a 35 year-old Holmes. I use their respective peaks as basis for comparison.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 09:47 AM

It's not like that was sole basis for my argument. I think I put into context. These are the exact words:

"Holmes lost to the best fighters he faced (Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield), and even though he was quite a bit past his prime on all occassions he wasn't really dominant against his best opponents even in his prime. Norton, Shavers and Witherspoon all gave him trouble."

Even trying to make the statement meaningful and notable is a terrible slant against Holmes and shows ones position with crystal clarity. Ali lost to Frazier, Holmes and Norton, 3 of the greatest, say, 5 fighters he faced.

Holmes should not have even been boxing.

Louis lost to the greatest he faced, Marciano, no? I prefer to use Ali tho, for obvious reasons.

but the loss to Spinks isn't that flattering even if most agree that it was avenged.

It's not detrimental either, because this was a pathetic version of Holmes. Like the Louis who fought Charles. Nither fight means frig all when talking about these guys anywhere near the top of their game.

Anyhow, the fact remains that Holmes didn't dominate many top class opponents and the puts a question mark on how he would do against top ATGs.

What he did do was win, again, and again, and again ad infitum. Astute observers will note that Holmes often fought down to his level and supposed danger of opposition, and he's sure not alone in that. Against the Cooney's and Shavers he put on pure boxing exhibitions. No doubt at all he'd rise and fire vs the greats.

I certainly don't agree that Holmes "in all likelihood" would have beaten Tyson. Sooner or later Tyson will proably land that right and then Holmes will have to survive against the greatest finisher since Louis. Not an easy task.

I respect people's opinions picking Tyson as it's debatable either way. The trouble with making it sound like Holmes likely gets finished the minute he swallows Tyson's big right hand is that even over the hill he swallowed plenty before finally succumbing. At his best we would see a much much different match.

I would give Holmes a better chance against Ali. Very interesting match-up.

I respectfully disagree. I feel Holmes would drag Tyson into deep mental and physical water and drown him.

McGrain

03-27-2009, 09:51 AM

Holmes-Tyson is a fascinating fight peak for peak. Maybe the most fascinating. My guess is that Holmes would win.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 09:57 AM

Ali wasn't in his prime when facing Frazier and Norton. And I haven't said that Ali dominated either Frazier, Norton, Young or Shavers.

My basis is that Ali's prime was roughly from 1964 or 1965 to 1967 (a bit short since it got cut short) and Holmes's was roughly from about 1978-1982.

That's just plain biased. You claim Holmes was in his prime vs Witherspoon but Ali wasn't vs Frazier?

Holmes had 42 fights going into Witherspoon. Ali had 31 going into Frazier. Holmes had been boxing 10 years and Ali 11, but Ali did have a 3 year break. Ali was 29 odd, Holmes was 33 odd.

It just doesn't add up for me. You would have been better off comparing opposition, but you didn't, you nominated primes. Did you not realise Holmes fought Witherspoon outside your nominated primes?

Incidentally i mostly agree with your nominated primes. I think Ali would have absolutely peaked just after exile started.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 09:59 AM

Holmes-Tyson is a fascinating fight peak for peak. Maybe the most fascinating. My guess is that Holmes would win.

Fascinating indeed. Holmes had just enough rough spots to make a Tyson win quite feasible.

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 10:00 AM

Even trying to make the statement meaningful and notable is a terrible slant against Holmes and shows ones position with crystal clarity. Ali lost to Frazier, Holmes and Norton, 3 of the greatest, say, 5 fighters he faced.

Holmes should not have even been boxing.

Louis lost to the greatest he faced, Marciano, no? I prefer to use Ali tho, for obvious reasons.

Oh, god. The "position" thing again. Hey, let's just cut this short: I agree that those losses isn't really a mark on Holmes - the quality of his perfomance against Holyfield actually outweighs the losses against Spinks and Tyson.

I just said in the opening sentence as a reply to a post that I found a little bit befuddling - and I qualified it by saying that he was "quite a bit past his prime" for all his losses. You put way more in it than I actually meant by it, but now I hope I've made my position clear.

What he did do was win, again, and again, and again ad infitum. Astute observers will note that Holmes often fought down to his level and supposed danger of opposition, and he's sure not alone in that. Against the Cooney's and Shavers he put on pure boxing exhibitions. No doubt at all he'd rise and fire vs the greats.

But especially Shavers had him in bad trouble. Personally, I actually rate Holmes quite highly h2h (probably top 5 or top 6), but I just can't look past the fact that he had problem with nearly all his top opponents.

I respect people's opinions picking Tyson as it's debatable either way. The trouble with making it sound like Holmes likely gets finished the minute he swallows Tyson's big right hand is that even over the hill he swallowed plenty before finally succumbing. At his best we would see a much much different match.

I hope you don't mean I implied that, because I didn't. I think that Tyson would get to him with the right more often than not at some point, and when he did Holmes would have a job surviving. But it's certainly not a given that he would be finished off, since his recuperative powers and survival isntincts perhaps were on par even with Tysons' finishing.

I respectfully disagree. I feel Holmes would drag Tyson into deep mental and physical water and drown him.

Sure. That's certainly not impossible. I just objected to how emphatically you put it.

McGrain

03-27-2009, 10:08 AM

Fascinating indeed. Holmes had just enough rough spots to make a Tyson win quite feasible.

Tyson is in a lot of these 50.50 fight with greats on my list. I don't know if this speaks of my weakness as an analyst or his strength as a fighter.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 10:11 AM

Oh, god. The "position" thing again. Hey, let's just cut this short: I agree that those losses isn't really a mark on Holmes - the quality of his perfomance against Holyfield actually outweighs the losses against Spinks and Tyson.

You made a significant point of it, and used it as a slight against Holmes.

I just said in the opening sentence as a reply to a post that I found a little bit befuddling - and I qualified it by saying that he was "quite a bit past his prime" for all his losses. You put way more in it than I actually meant by it, but now I hope I've made my position clear.

Others can make up their own mind :good

But especially Shavers had him in bad trouble. Personally, I actually rate Holmes quite highly h2h (probably top 5 or top 6), but I just can't look past the fact that he had problem with nearly all his top opponents.

Shavers had him in bad trouble for 1/2 a round in 20+ or whatever it was. Granted it was BIG trouble but the fact that Holmes dominated almost every other second AND took such an awesome punch and came back to dominate is incredible. Shavers also had Ali close to out tho not as openly obvious as Holmes.

I respect Holmes had probs with many opponents, and accept it as a criticism. One's own perception will be pertinent here, but i see it as fighting down as i stated.

I hope you don't mean I implied that, because I didn't.

Here is EXACTLY what you said.

I certainly don't agree that Holmes "in all likelihood" would have beaten Tyson. Sooner or later Tyson will proably land that right and then Holmes will have to survive against the greatest finisher since Louis.

I totally stand by my original take, because you have definitely deviated from your original statement.

Sure. That's certainly not impossible. I just objected to how emphatically you put it.

Whilst i accept the contrary, i stand by what i said as i personally think he would have in all likelihood have beaten him. That's how highly i rate the man.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 10:13 AM

Tyson is in a lot of these 50.50 fight with greats on my list. I don't know if this speaks of my weakness as an analyst or his strength as a fighter.

I'm with ya. I think he could blow some of them out. His overwhelming early firepower would be hell for some.

Bummy Davis

03-27-2009, 10:22 AM

Louis
Marciano
Ali
Foreman
Lewis
Dempsey
Frazier
Walcott
Holyfield
Tyson
Charles
Holmes
Jeffries
Johnson
Liston
Tunney
Baer
Schmeling

Flea Man

03-27-2009, 10:30 AM

Didn't realise I'd spark a war :good

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 10:31 AM

Didn't realise I'd spark a war :good

That's no war

:lol:

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 10:31 AM

Shavers had him in bad trouble for 1/2 a round in 20+ or whatever it was. Granted it was BIG trouble but the fact that Holmes dominated almost every other second AND took such an awesome punch and came back to dominate is incredible. Shavers also had Ali close to out tho not as openly obvious as Holmes.

He had him in trouble in both fights.

I totally stand by my original take, because you have definitely deviated from your original statement.

First: "I certainly don't agree that Holmes "in all likelihood" would have beaten Tyson. Sooner or later Tyson will proably land that right and then Holmes will have to survive against the greatest finisher since Louis. Not an easy task."

Second: "I think that Tyson would get to him with the right more often than not at some point, and when he did Holmes would have a job surviving."
... with added clarification: "But it's certainly not a given that he would be finished off, since his recuperative powers and survival isntincts perhaps were on par even with Tysons' finishing."

I don't see any "definite deviation" between these two. Saying that it's not an "easy task" to survive against Tyson when hurt, is not meant as Holmes wouldn't stand a chance doing it - rather it's aimed at that Holmes "in all likelihood" would beat Tyson.

JohnThomas1

03-27-2009, 10:35 AM

He had him in trouble in both fights.

When did he have him in trouble in the initial encounter? The shutout.

McGrain

03-27-2009, 10:44 AM

That's no war

:lol:

:lol:

It's true Fleaman. This place has been really cool for the best part of a year now...but in the past there have been PAGES and PAGES of savegry. Mostly good stuff though.

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 10:48 AM

When did he have him in trouble in the initial encounter? The shutout.

In round 2.

Flea Man

03-27-2009, 10:55 AM

:lol:

It's true Fleaman. This place has been really cool for the best part of a year now...but in the past there have been PAGES and PAGES of savegry. Mostly good stuff though.

I know.....I meant in difference of opinion, I come here for a nice debate, unlike the General Forum :lol:

As I previously said though, 'that's what we're here for' and this has been a good one.

Ponysmallhorse

03-27-2009, 12:07 PM

Surely Bowe ranks above whichever Klitschko you have picked head to head?
I RELAY DOUBT that bowe ranked higher than any Klitschko H2H or not:)

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 12:12 PM

I RELAY DOUBT that bowe ranked higher than any Klitschko H2H or not:)

I can surely see an argument for rating Bowe over the Klits H2H. He was more skilled than Vitaly and had a better chin than Wlad.

SuzieQ49

03-27-2009, 12:25 PM

not to mention bowe never quit on his stool while champion with 2 rounds to go

McGrain

03-27-2009, 12:27 PM

I would rank Bowe above both, but there is no way he should be below Wlad head to head if we are talking peak for peak.

SuzieQ49

03-27-2009, 12:29 PM

Well Wlad is a much better and more talented fighter than vitali. more heart too. So if hes ahead of wlad, then hes defintley ahead of vitali.

McGrain

03-27-2009, 12:31 PM

Q, you have Wlad ahead of Vitali head to head prime for prime?

jaffay

03-27-2009, 12:51 PM

h2h

#1 Muhammad Ali
#2 Lennox Lewis
#3 Larry Holmes
#4 Joe Louis
#5 Joe Frazier - Frazier vs. Ali I - greatest performance by a heavyweight ever
#6 Sonny Liston
#7 Jack Johnson
#8 Mike Tyson
#9 Riddick Bowe
#10 Evander Holyfield

teeto

03-27-2009, 01:35 PM

Im late on this thread, read it through the 3 pages prior to this one though. Im no major fan of Ali, some who know me well know (or have bothered to read my rants!) will know that i finally changed my 1 and 2 all time heavys from originally 1.-Louis 2.-Ali, to the other way around. There's no bias, that is just the way it is for me.

And i firly believe Ali is number 1 h2h. Think, yes it should be Holmes in a certain light, fast, durable, has the heart, boxing skills may be the best, but i feel the biggest element in h2h terms is effectiveness, and the bottom line is that man is Muhammad Ali.

I understand people can argue points that i cant fire back at, because how can i back up that Joe Louis wouldnt have caught him cold? I cannot, but this is my firmly established opinion. I am not saying noone beats him prime for prime, i am saying that in the grand scheme of analysis, this man has the better chance if all are pitted against one another.

Bing

03-27-2009, 01:51 PM

teeto

03-27-2009, 01:52 PM

I agree 100%
Didnt see that one coming!!

Bing

03-27-2009, 02:03 PM

Didnt see that one coming!!

H2H definitely Ali imo. Achievement wise I like Louis but you can go either way.

teeto

03-27-2009, 02:05 PM

H2H definitely Ali imo. Achievement wise I like Louis but you can go either way.

:good

Muchmoore

03-27-2009, 05:19 PM

Muchmoore

03-27-2009, 05:22 PM

In all likelihood Holmes would have beaten Holyfield and Tyson at his greatest and Spinks need not even rate a mention given a very very poor version of Holmes came back and bested him.

Many feel Holmes possessed the stylistic gifts to beat Ali, and while i don't quite agree they make a very good debate.

I'd pick a prime Holmes over Holyfield without hesitation. Stylewise Holyfield couldn't deal with Holmes movement and jab. I'd pick a prime Tyson over him but it would be a good fight.

Holmes is one of the tougher matchups for Ali stylewise, but Holmes himself struggled against guys who could match his jab, and Ali would be able to.

SuzieQ49

03-27-2009, 06:34 PM

I rank Tyson the highest head to head out of these three but Lewis and Holmes have him on overall resume a bit

slightly disagree. Tysons body of work 1986-88 IMO is more accomplishing than anything those guys ever did. Tyson unified all 3 belts in a span of one year, something holmes could not do in 7 years. Tyson all faced many holmes opponents who gave larry problems, and tyson demolished these guys in devastating fashion when they have never been knocked down/out before. Not to mention he beat some of the most talented big men in history along the way like thomas, tubbs, tucker, williams, bruno, holmes, etc

I do really appreciate your list and opinion though, and I know your a big tyson fan

I'd pick a prime Holmes over Holyfield without hesitation. Stylewise Holyfield couldn't deal with Holmes movement and jab. I'd pick a prime Tyson over him but it would be a good fight.

agreed, I defintley pick tyson over holmes. that right hand would always be a huge problem for holmes even on his best day, and tyson has the finishing abilities obviousely to keep even a younger holmes down for the count.

MrMarvel

03-27-2009, 06:35 PM

I think your top 3 choices are a bit strange. Holmes lost to the best fighters he faced (Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield), and even though he was quite a bit past his prime on all occassions he wasn't really dominant against his best opponents even in his prime. Norton, Shavers and Witherspoon all gave him trouble.

Holmes beat Spinks in the rematch and the first match was damned close. Holmes was at the end of a long career (phase one, as we found out later). Spinks was an exceptionally smart and talented big light heavyweight at the peak of his. Spinks would have been trouble for many fine heavyweights in that situation. Shaver's didn't really give Holmes that much trouble. They fought twice, once Holmes stopped him inside the distance. True, Shavers caught him with a big one, but that Holmes got up and went on to win is to Holmes' credit. For the rest of the rounds it was pretty much all Holmes. Neither Lewis or Louis would have likely survived the shot Shavers laid on Holmes. In his prime, Holmes had amazing recuperative powers and the defensive skill to survive. The fight with Norton wasn't close until Holmes got tired. It still wasn't as close at the scores indicate. Holmes is a lot more than you give him credit for.

Foreman have the perhaps most dominant perfomance against an ATG, but he obviously had a lot of trouble with skillful boxers. He met two world class defensive boxers and lost clearly to both. Not a good stat.

Foreman was losing spirit by the point of the Young fight. He needed to get away and get his head together. The Young fight is significant for Foreman's career for this reason, but not a good indicator of how he would do against other boxers. And who in anybody's top ten had the defensive skill to pull an Ali on Foreman? Tyson? Lewis? Louis? Maybe Holmes. But Foreman is no Norton, Shavers, or Witherspoon.

When it comes to Tyson it's harder to say. He annihilated a loot of good fighters, but lost to the best he faced. I'll give him a pass for the loss to Lewis, but not for the ones against Holyfield. He was past his prime, but not by that much and Holyfield was older than him.

What about Douglas? The losses to Douglas and Holyfield dramatically alter Tyson's reputation.

I think Ali, Lewis and Louis must rank higher h2h.

I disagree. Not about Ali. He's number one, for all the reasons you stated. Lewis, is a different story and not necessarily because of the knockout. (The McCall loss is not actually a knockout. Maybe Lewis could have continued. We don't know. We never will thanks to an over-eager referee. But he beat the count.) I say this because I don't believe Lewis could hang with Ali, Foreman, Liston, or Holmes. I say the same thing about Louis. If Lewis' chin is a problem, then Louis' is without question. In fact, Lewis took biggers shots from bigger fighters and didn't go down. Louis could never have stood up under the thunder that Lewis took in his career, and Louis would definitely been hit as often as Lewis. And, as you mention, Louis had a lot of trouble with boxers, even ones who were under the light heavyweight limit.

Bokaj

03-27-2009, 09:32 PM

Holmes beat Spinks in the rematch and the first match was damned close. Holmes was at the end of a long career (phase one, as we found out later). Spinks was an exceptionally smart and talented big light heavyweight at the peak of his. Spinks would have been trouble for many fine heavyweights in that situation. Shaver's didn't really give Holmes that much trouble. They fought twice, once Holmes stopped him inside the distance. True, Shavers caught him with a big one, but that Holmes got up and went on to win is to Holmes' credit. For the rest of the rounds it was pretty much all Holmes. Neither Lewis or Louis would have likely survived the shot Shavers laid on Holmes. In his prime, Holmes had amazing recuperative powers and the defensive skill to survive. The fight with Norton wasn't close until Holmes got tired. It still wasn't as close at the scores indicate. Holmes is a lot more than you give him credit for.

Aaah, in a way that's why I love this site I suppose - I flung Holme's losses out there without much intent; it wasn't really the core of my argument.

So, for a final time: His losses aren't really bad at all - he showed his vulnerability to the right against Tyson, but that's perhaps all more or less. His showing against Holy was hugely impressive.

I do think his fight against Norton was close but clear, though.

Foreman was losing spirit by the point of the Young fight. He needed to get away and get his head together. The Young fight is significant for Foreman's career for this reason, but not a good indicator of how he would do against other boxers. And who in anybody's top ten had the defensive skill to pull an Ali on Foreman? Tyson? Lewis? Louis? Maybe Holmes. But Foreman is no Norton, Shavers, or Witherspoon.

Perhaps, but it's only speculation. What we know for sure is that Foreman met two world class skilled boxers in his first career and lost clearly to both. End of story.

What about Douglas? The losses to Douglas and Holyfield dramatically alter Tyson's reputation.

Ha, ha. I usually argue this from the other side. Tyson's a hard one - he switched from being extremely dominant to looking like a punching bag. As enigmatic as Liston. But just like Liston, when he looked good he looked GOOD. But they both puzzle me.

I disagree. Not about Ali. He's number one, for all the reasons you stated. Lewis, is a different story and not necessarily because of the knockout. (The McCall loss is not actually a knockout. Maybe Lewis could have continued. We don't know. We never will thanks to an over-eager referee. But he beat the count.) I say this because I don't believe Lewis could hang with Ali, Foreman, Liston, or Holmes. I say the same thing about Louis. If Lewis' chin is a problem, then Louis' is without question. In fact, Lewis took biggers shots from bigger fighters and didn't go down. Louis could never have stood up under the thunder that Lewis took in his career, and Louis would definitely been hit as often as Lewis. And, as you mention, Louis had a lot of trouble with boxers, even ones who were under the light heavyweight limit.

Louis and Lewis both had weaknesses. For me they're very close. They were both awesome avenging defeats for one thing.

Would Louis done as well among the behemots in the 90's? Perhaps he would have been overpowered and outpunched several times, who knows. But just think how these pretty stationary men with their pretty open defenses would present a beautiful target for probably THE sharpest puncher in boxing history. Man, could he punch.

ripcity

03-27-2009, 11:23 PM

H2H (who would win prime vs prime)
1. Tyson
2. Lewis
3. Louis
4. Ali
5. Liston
6. Bowe
7. Holmes
8. Marciano
9. Johnson
10. Dempsey

achievement
1. Marciano 49-0
2. Louis longest regin as heavyweight champion
3. Lewis held tittle 3 times beat everyone he faced
4. Holmes only Louis held a heavyweight tittle for longer and only Marciano had a longer wining streek
5. Ali 3 time champion best of what many consedre the best eara in heavyweight history made comeback after 4 year layoff to regain tittles.
6. Tyson unified the tittles came back from 4 year lay off to win tittles again
7. Foreman 2 time champion proved age is just a number
8. Holyfield 4 time champion
9. Johnson first Black man to win heavyweight championship don't under estamate the importanace of this.
10. Patterson first 2 time champion

Bokaj

03-28-2009, 11:01 AM

Doing h2h rankings is of course extremely speculative, but here's my take. I place them in tiers:

Tier 1
Ali is alone here. First of all because he showed he could beat just about every different type. He beat one of the best and most dangerous boxer punchers ever (Liston), the probably most powerful and dangerous slugger ever (Foreman), one of the best and most dangerous swarmers ever (Frazier) and one of the most skilled speedsters (Patterson). That he had tremendous physical and mental assets as well doesn't hurt

The cink in his armor here is his vulnerability against Norton. As showed against Bonavena as well, he definitely had trouble with awkward fighters, and that's why I think Marciano perhaps could prove to be his most dangerous opponent.

Tier 2 (in no particular order)
Louis: Very complete, but showed vulnerability against technical boxers/movers

Lewis: Also very complete. I don't think his losses makes as much difference here as for his legacy. The losses was probably mostly down to carelessnes and overconfidence, but in these scenarios everyone brings their A game and Lewis's A game was pretty damn good. The losses showed that his chin could be cracked, though, and that does count for something.

Liston: Was also vulnerable to technical movers. Showed a lack of heart in his fights against Ali. But otherwise he had pretty much everything.

Holmes: Been over this earlier.

Tyson: Formidable in many ways, but showed a lack of adabtibility and heart (not that he was weak, but compared to the likes of Holmes, Ali, Marciano, Holyfield and Frazier his intangibles fall well short)

Tier 3 (in no particular order)
Frazier, Marciano, Holyfield, Bowe and Foreman

Frazier and Marciano would too often fall short against the modern skilled giants I feel. Bowe and Foreman both had such clear flaws that I don't feel comfortable placing them in tier 2. I can see why some would want to see at least Bowe there, though. Perhaps Holy is too low as well, but he's 1-2 against Bowe arguably 0-2 against Lewis and had some trouble with ancient versions of Holmes and Foreman. I think he belongs in tier 3.

Ps. I suppose the absence of Dempsey and Johnson can seem strange. But I feel the modern era started in 1930-1940 and therefore haven't included earlier fighters. I feel a bit tempted to include Tunney, but he didn't have that many different HW opponents to really get a clear picture.

SuzieQ49

03-28-2009, 11:35 AM

Q, you have Wlad ahead of Vitali head to head prime for prime?

yes defintley. in terms of offense and boxing skill level, wladimir klitschko in his prime ranks up there with bowe and lennox as the greatest giants of all time. vitali klitschko does not belong on the list.

MrPook

03-28-2009, 12:33 PM

Maybe a better way to rank fighters H2H is this way?

Level 1: Ali, Holmes, Lewis

Level 2: Foreman, Louis

Level 3: Frazier, Holyfield, Liston, Tyson

Level 4: Bowe, Klitschko

McGrain

03-28-2009, 12:36 PM

yes defintley. in terms of offense and boxing skill level, wladimir klitschko in his prime ranks up there with bowe and lennox as the greatest giants of all time. vitali klitschko does not belong on the list.

I feel like it's pretty close between them, but I do feel that if you started a poll in general you would tend to see people favouring Vitali over Wlad. And I have sympathy with that point of view also. I'd have more concern over Wlad's percieved chin and stamina problems than I would over Vitali's percieved heart problem if they were both being matched with top fighters, to be honest.

teeto

03-28-2009, 12:41 PM

In terms of h2h, i like Vitali over Wladimir so much inthe grand scheme of things. If i put them against any if the better guys in history i defo think Vitali does better. Why does effectiveness get overlooked and tangibles take priority here? This guy Wladimir gets overrated so much imo. Great fighter no doubt, but h2h i have no problem liking his bro over him.

Dont take my post out of context, got a hangova, cba.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 02:28 PM

Here's my top ten, a combination of head to head and achievements,

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Tyson
5. Holmes
6. Liston
7. Marciano
8. Foreman
9. Johnson
10. Frazier

1 and 2 are a cut above the rest overall, can't see Ali or Louis out of the top two. 3-5 is completely interchangable for me, I rank Tyson the highest head to head out of these three but Lewis and Holmes have him on overall resume a bit. Liston and Marciano are a slight step up from the others below them and I can see Foreman, Johnson, and Frazier in any order and wouldn't complain.

Our lists are quite similar, and mine is also a combination of achievement and head-to-head. If I went back past the 1930s, Johnson would certainly displace Patterson, making the content of our lists identical, if not the exact order.

It's rare to see a poster on here with your perspicacity and insight into the sport !

From an earlier post:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis / Foreman

5. Marciano / Holmes

7. Liston
8. Tyson
9. Frazier
10. Patterson

(This list only goes back as far as the Joe Louis era.
If we go back too far, The game is too different and the info too incomparable.

I'm always amused when I see Sam Langford compared to Vitali Klitschko or Lennox Lewis.

Why not John L ? Or Jack Broughton ? )

If I went back to to ww1 days, I would probably make it a list of 12 and slot in a pair of Jacks somewhere

MrPook

03-28-2009, 02:53 PM

I think Marciano was a great fighter. But simply to small to be top 10 H2H. As a cruiser he would be competing for the #1 spot with dempsey in my opinion.

jaffay

03-28-2009, 04:03 PM

Maybe a better way to rank fighters H2H is this way?

Level 1: Ali, Holmes, Lewis

Level 2: Foreman, Louis

Level 3: Frazier, Holyfield, Liston, Tyson

Level 4: Bowe, Klitschko

No Liston?

spittle8

03-28-2009, 04:24 PM

not to mention bowe never quit on his stool while champion with 2 rounds to go
What the fock!

He blew his shoulder out. Have you ever blown out a shoulder? I have. He could have ruined his career if he'd continued, shoulder injuries are no joke, not to mention they hurt like Hell.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 05:01 PM

yes defintley. in terms of offense and boxing skill level, wladimir klitschko in his prime ranks up there with bowe and lennox as the greatest giants of all time. vitali klitschko does not belong on the list.

Lad, for someone who's been on here for a while and has followed boxing for some years, you appear to know very little about the Klitschkos.

While Wlad has an edge in the skills department AND the overall achievement (largely due to the injury-plagued nature of Vitali's second career- he was a kick-boxer first), there was never a day in Wlad's life where he could have hoped to defeat his older, bigger, tougher brother.

And this goes not just for the two brothers because of Vitali's psychological edge, being the big brother.

It also holds true of third parties. Ask Sanders, Purity or Peter which is the tougher dude, head to head.

(And Chris Byrd doesn't feature here. Vitali's ONLY defeat came at the hands of an alltime top 3 or 4, who was better than anyone Wlad has faced so far.

Pulling out of an assured victory with two rounds to go seems prudent when you hold a doctorate in Phys. Ed. and understand that to continue would probably be a career-ending move.)

While Vitali ranks higher in terms of overall greatness, this is because he has been more injury-free.

Head to head, with both guys in earnest and pissed off at each other, Vitali takes this one in four or under.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 05:08 PM

What the fock!

He blew his shoulder out. Have you ever blown out a shoulder? I have. He could have ruined his career if he'd continued, shoulder injuries are no joke, not to mention they hurt like Hell.

You're right of course, but great-hearted fighters have boxed one handed carrying similair injuries.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 05:17 PM

You're right of course, but great-hearted fighters have boxed one handed carrying similair injuries.

You're starting to sound like Teddy Atlas.

It had fuck all to do with heart, and much to do with prudence.

As in:

Do you want to continue and win this fight with near certainty, but perhaps never box again ?

Or do you want to retire from a bout everyone knows you had in the bag and almost certainly continue your career ?

McGrain

03-28-2009, 05:19 PM

You're starting to sound like Teddy Atlas.

It had fuck all to do with heart, and much to do with prudence.

As in:

Do you want to continue and win this fight with near certainty, but perhaps never box again ?

Or do you want to retire from a bout everyone knows you had in the bag and almost certainly continue your career ?

Right, but other fighters have been asked if they want to continue in similiar, if not identical circumstances and answered with a yes.

Bokaj

03-28-2009, 05:23 PM

You're right of course, but great-hearted fighters have boxed one handed carrying similair injuries.

True, but is it a difference in heart or merely in attitude? In boxing there has often been the thinking that you have to go out on your shield, but that's not always so smart.

To finish a fight with high risk of being crippled is in a way just as dum as it is brave, especially if you got no chance of winning (which Vitaly of course had, though). One could argue that a fighter that quits to avoid a permanent injury and thus having the chance "to fight another day" isn't necissarily less brave, just smarter.

I think this might apply to Vitaly. He certainly didn't look chicken against Lewis.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 05:25 PM

True, but is it a difference in heart or merely in attitude? In boxing there has often been the thinking that you have to go out on your shield, but that's not always so smart.

Well OK, but what is the difference between the two?

MrPook

03-28-2009, 05:29 PM

I don't think there is anything wrong with Vitali's heart.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 05:30 PM

Right, but other fighters have been asked if they want to continue in similiar, if not identical circumstances and answered with a yes.

Quite probably, but what is your point here ?

Implicitly, you appear to be endorsing the choice to continue. Or could I be mistaken ?

IMO, 'YES' was the wrong answer.

Now I'll agree that no two sets of circumstances are ever identical and that each person must decide for themselves what is 'doable' and what is the wisest course.

I don't believe that heart had anything to do with Vitali's decision to retire from that fight, nor do I count it as a defeat, any more than I would count a tennis player on their way to an easy victory who goes over on his ankle and has to withdraw, as having been 'defeated.

I don't consider Griffin to have defeated Jones when Roy was DQ.

Both Roy and Vitali suffered a 'loss' in these fights, but I don't consider them as having been defeated.

I realize its somewhat semantical, but to list them as losses without a footnote as to circumstances is misleading.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 05:37 PM

Quite probably, but what is your point here ?

Implicitly, you appear to be endorsing the choice to continue. Or could I be mistaken?.

I'm connecting the decision to continue to box whilst suffering great pain and distress fimly to the attribute "heart".

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 05:43 PM

I'm connecting the decision to continue to box whilst suffering great pain and distress fimly to the attribute "heart".

That's what I thought.

And, as I've already argued, the decision

"...to continue to box whilst suffering great pain and distress..." i

is not always one that is governed solely by heart.

Prudence plays a role too. And in the case that prompted this discussion, I believe prudence took pre-eminence over heart as the quality or attribute most utilized in this decision.

Bokaj

03-28-2009, 05:47 PM

Well OK, but what is the difference between the two?

Well, if you quit spontanously because of fear or because you want to end the pain then its down to heart (or rather lack there of). But if you take a calculated decision to quit based on perceived pro and cons (suffering a loss compared to risk of serious injury) then it's not down heart but prudence.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 05:56 PM

That's what I thought.

And, as I've already argued, the decision

"...to continue to box whilst suffering great pain and distress..." i

is not always one that is governed solely by heart.

Prudence plays a role too. And in the case that prompted this discussion, I believe prudence took pre-eminence over heart as the quality or attribute most utilized in this decision.

I disagree entirely.

Heart is a way of describing warrior intensity.

At the extreme end we have guys like Gatti and Corrales who would never, ever, ever have quit due to Vitali's injury. You might say they were stupid, I would contend that they were just different.

At the other end of the scale are all the guys we have never heard of because they have no heart for fighting and so never progress.

In between we have every other fighter that has ever fought. Vital's decision is absolutley measurable on this scale.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 05:59 PM

Well, if you quit spontanously because of fear or because you want to end the pain then its down to heart (or rather lack there of). But if you take a calculated decision to quit based on perceived pro and cons (suffering a loss compared to risk of serious injury) then it's not down heart but prudence.

Heart isn't about fear or cowardice. Nobody is saying Vitali is a coward. Maybe this is why this is so contentious, this issue, this mis-understanding? For me, heart is just about intensity, the desire to carry on regardless. Many top fighters test their referees and cornermen in this situation. I absolutley disagree that "prudence" becomes a factor.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 06:42 PM

I disagree entirely.

Heart is a way of describing warrior intensity.

To some degree. It is most commonly used as a synonym for COURAGE or BRAVERY and as such, usually means strength or perseverance in the face of pain or adversity.

And courage (Heart) is usually seen as a virtue.

But the virtue of courage does not derive as an absolute from the forgoing definition. There is a sliding scale continuum of 'perseverance in the face of pain/danger/adversity.'

At one end of that scale lies cowardice. Little or no pain/danger/adversity is required to dissuade.

This , clearly, is not a virtue.

Moving further along the scale, we have less cowardice and more bravery/heart. As we leave the cowardice zone we enter the bravery zone. There is no exact end point for one or entry point for the other.

At some point, we come to the pinnacle of heart/bravery/ courage.

Definitely a virtue.

However, if we continue to persevere or press onwards, WITHOUT ANY REGARD to the degree of danger/pain/adversity, we leave the zone of courage/heart and enter the zone of foolhardiness and recklessness.

This is NOT a virtue.

So, if we take heart to mean bravery and courage, then prudence most definitely plays a role in determining whether a given behaviour is a demonstration of heart or recklessness.

It comes down then to definitions.

If heart is synonymous with bravery, then prudence plays a role. That role is to determine when a behaviour ceases to be BRAVE and moves in to the realm of RECKLESS.

If you mean something else by the word, then it could conceivably encompass RECKLESSNESS as well.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 06:45 PM

To some degree. It is most commonly used as a synonym for COURAGE or BRAVERY and as such, usually means strength or perseverance in the face of pain or adversity.

See I don't mean to interupt (your post) but we are talking about different things. I am talking about a fighter's ability to fight on for the win regardless of circumstance. That's all i'm interested in when comparing fighters head to head (Why would I be interested in anything else in all honesty?).

Vitali is more likely to quit in a fight than Gatti. Yes? Now that doesn't make him a coward, but it is a stone cold concrete fact. What it means is something else alltogether. But i'm not interested in debating it in anything other than relative boxing terms.

Bokaj

03-28-2009, 06:51 PM

Heart isn't about fear or cowardice. Nobody is saying Vitali is a coward. Maybe this is why this is so contentious, this issue, this mis-understanding? For me, heart is just about intensity, the desire to carry on regardless. Many top fighters test their referees and cornermen in this situation. I absolutley disagree that "prudence" becomes a factor.

Well, we seem to have somewhat differing definitions then. Anyhow, if someone quits because of a calculated decision I won't necissarily fault him. But if he quits based on pure emotion it's another thing entirely.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 06:54 PM

Well, we seem to have somewhat differing definitions then. Anyhow, if someone quits because of a calculated decision I won't necissarily fault him. But if he quits based on pure emotion it's another thing entirely.

Why?!?!

It adds up to the same thing in judging a fighter head to head.

We're using heart to attribute the likelyhood of a fighter quiting in a boxing match. Who gives a shit if it's emotional or cold calculation?

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 06:55 PM

To take an extreme example as an illustration.

Suppose you put Pavlik in with an opponent in an enclosed 20 ft x 20 ft room where he would spend three minutes in unarmed single combat with his opponent.

He starts out with (1) Valero

The next day its (2) Pacman

Next day, (3) Abraham.

Next day, (4) Adamek

Next day, Wlad.(5)

Next day a big starving wolf. (6)

Next day, a starved-for-a-week full grown male lion. (7)

1 and 2, no big deal.

If he advances to 3, he shows some heart.

4. Definitely more heart.

At 5, is it still heart, or are we into the realm of recklessness ?

By 7, I don't think we need to ask the question.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 07:03 PM

That's why there are weight classes/class issues. IN THE RING, trying to discern who will win head to head, we should only be interested in how likely a fighter is to quit.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 07:09 PM

Why?!?!

It adds up to the same thing in judging a fighter head to head.

We're using heart to attribute the likelyhood of a fighter quiting in a boxing match. Who gives a shit if it's emotional or cold calculation?

See I don't mean to interupt (your post) but we are talking about different things. I am talking about a fighter's ability to fight on for the win regardless of circumstance. That's all i'm interested in when comparing fighters head to head (Why would I be interested in anything else in all honesty?).

Vitali is more likely to quit in a fight than Gatti. Yes? Now that doesn't make him a coward, but it is a stone cold concrete fact. What it means is something else alltogether. But i'm not interested in debating it in anything other than relative boxing terms.

If I get run over and killed by a careful driver whose brakes failed due to a manufacturing defect, the courts will view that in a certain light.

If the bastard was coming home from the pub after 20 lagavulins and could barely see the road, the courts will take a different view.

Functionally, it doesn't matter a damn to me. I got run over and killed either way.

So I understand what your saying as far as the functionality of the result being the same in either case. There's no getting away from that.

But when you use a word like heart, which I went to some length to define earlier, as the descriptor of what went on in Vitali's consideration ( or what might have gone on had it been Gatti), then I believe you

a) are in error, as that is not what is commonly meant by heart.

or

b) You hold to a different definition of the word from what the dictionaries do, and that's fair enough.

Just so long as we all understand that your use of the word in some other sense takes it out of the realm of virtue.

BTW: I believe Gatti quit against Mayweather. At a minimum it was a corner decision, similar to Vitali/Byrd.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 07:14 PM

That's why there are weight classes/class issues. IN THE RING, trying to discern who will win head to head, we should only be interested in how likely a fighter is to quit.

My point here was to distinguish what constitutes HEART and what constitutes RECKLESSNESS.

Would my hypothetical Pavlik be showing more heart if he went to step 5 than 4 ?

How about if he went to step 7 ?

Is that showing more heart ?

If he didn't go to 7 (as he almost certainly wouldn't) and I found a substitute who would, (as I almost certainly could), would that substitute have more heart ?

McGrain

03-28-2009, 07:16 PM

If I get run over and killed by a careful driver whose brakes failed due to a manufacturing defect, the courts will view that in a certain light.

See, fair enough if you are interested in all this shit. But I really don't care about being run over, or the allegorical example it contains.

SONNY LISTON - Has quit (probably) when totally outclassed by an opponent, supposedly carrying an injury.

ROBERTO DURAN - Has quit in murky circumstances whilst being out-classed by a (then) pure-boxer/slickster

VITALI KLITSCHKO - Quit on his stool against an opponent who he had beaten.

I'm taking these things into account when juding the fighters ability head to head and there is NO argument in exsistance that can disuade me from this! The only thing that is up for debate is the degree to which it can be considered. But I don't think losing "sensibly" should make any difference to determining a fighter's chances of losing.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 07:36 PM

See, fair enough if you are interested in all this shit. But I really don't care about being run over, or the allegorical example it contains.

The example of being run over was used to show that I understand YOUR point, about the whys and wherefores of the 'quit' being less significant than the fact that there was a 'quit.'

SONNY LISTON - Has quit (probably) when totally outclassed by an opponent, supposedly carrying an injury.

ROBERTO DURAN - Has quit in murky circumstances whilst being out-classed by a (then) pure-boxer/slickster

VITALI KLITSCHKO - Quit on his stool against an opponent who he had beaten.

I'm taking these things into account when juding the fighters ability head to head and there is NO argument in exsistance that can disuade me from this!

Nor is there any attempt to dissuade you from taking all relevant factors into account when making head-to-head judgments, including the liklihood of someone quitting.

The only thing that is up for debate is the degree to which it can be considered.

Even there, I would have no position on that issue. It can be considered as little or as much as one arbitrarily chooses.

But I don't think losing "sensibly" should make any difference to determining a fighter's chances of losing.

Again, if the business you are in is determining the probability of a fighter quitting, for whatever reason, as part of a larger business of measuring fighters on a head-to-head scale, then the issue of prudence or 'quitting sensibly' doesn't enter into things.

IF however, you describe a fighters propensity to quit as being a function of his heart, then I have to disagree with you, as I've already, I believe, amply demonstrated that sometimes heart has nothing to do with it.

That is, unless you take heart to mean RECKLESSNESS as well as BRAVERY.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 07:39 PM

Yes, I do.

Recklessness wins fights all the time.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 07:46 PM

Yes, I do.

Recklessness wins fights all the time.

Not even Teddy Atlas Would counsel his fighters towards recklessness.

And since you're smarter than Teddy, I'll take it that's tongue in cheek.:yep

McGrain

03-28-2009, 07:55 PM

Not even Teddy Atlas Would counsel his fighters towards recklessness.

Why would i care what a trainer would advise when trying to decipher a given fighter's attributes?

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 08:02 PM

Why would i care what a trainer would advise when trying to decipher a given fighter's attributes?

I couldn't imagine.

I was looking at your statement:

Recklessness wins fights all the time.

and trying to determine what to make of it, when it occurred to me that you intended it to mean something other than what it actually says.

Or am I missing your point here?

McGrain

03-28-2009, 08:19 PM

The cornerman's responsibility is:

to win the fight
to take care of his charge

The fighter's responsibility is:

to win the fight.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 08:24 PM

The cornerman's responsibility is:

to win the fight
to take care of his charge

The fighter's responsibility is:

to win the fight.

This is moving away in some new direction.

Yes, I do.

We were all done at this point.

In response to

That is, unless you take heart to mean RECKLESSNESS as well as BRAVERY.

you came back with

Yes, I do.

confirming that much of our difference stemmed from a difference in our understanding of the term HEART.

But then you tossed out:

Recklessness wins fights all the time.

which seems to open a new can of....something!

Again, unless I'm missing some connection, I'd prefer to leave the distinction between the responsibilities of the fighter and his cornerman as the focus of some future excitiement on here.

I believe that HEART and its intended meaning were at the crux of our exchange.

And that crux has been resolved.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 08:32 PM

McGrain

03-28-2009, 08:36 PM

This is moving away in some new direction.

When you said, "I couldn't imagine" in response to my comment, "why would I care what a trainer would advise when trying to decipher a fighter's given atribute", I presumed that you were being sarcastic. This was because I assumed you were capable of imagining what reason would give me pause for thought in this regard.

Now when I get caught explainin my reaction to another posters posts, I always take a pause - what? What is it that got so hard here?

You -

a - can't imagine why a trainer's input would be irrelevant when trying to decipher a fighter's given attribute

b - were being sarcastic

?

We were all done at this point.

In response to

you came back with

confirming that much of our difference stemmed from a difference in our understanding of the term HEART.

But then you tossed out:

which seems to open a new can of....something!

It is very simple: wrecklessness with ones own safety brings wins in boxing all the time. That, too, is concrete fact. See Hagler-Hearns for an example, where both men commited health in the ring.

Again, unless I'm missing some connection, I'd prefer to leave the distinction between the responsibilities of the fighter and his cornerman as the focus of some future excitiement on here.

I believe that HEART and its intended meaning were at the crux of our exchange.

And that crux has been resolved.

Yes; a fighter's ability to continue fighting in the face of great odds.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 08:38 PM

BTW, do you have an alltime top ten heavywt list ?

Using a blend of H2H and achievement, I rank them

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis / Foreman

5. Marciano / Holmes

7. Liston
8. Tyson
9. Frazier
10. Patterson

(Going back to the Joe Louis era only).

ME:

01 - Ali
02 - Louis
03 - Liston
04 - Lewis
05 - Frazier
06 - Johnson
07 - Holmes
08 - Tyson
09 - Marciano
10 - Wills

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 08:53 PM

When you said, "I couldn't imagine" in response to my comment, "why would I care what a trainer would advise when trying to decipher a fighter's given atribute", I presumed that you were being sarcastic. This was because I assumed you were capable of imagining what reason would give me pause for thought in this regard.

Now when I get caught explainin my reaction to another posters posts, I always take a pause - what? What is it that got so hard here?

You -

a - can't imagine why a trainer's input would be irrelevant when trying to decipher a fighter's given attribute

b - were being sarcastic

?

No sarcasm intended anywhere so far in this thread on my part.

Not that I don't resort to it from time to time, but not today.

It is very simple: wrecklessness with ones own safety brings wins in boxing all the time. That, too, is concrete fact. See Hagler-Hearns for an example, where both men commited health in the ring.

Again, a communication problem.

When you posted

"Recklessness wins fights all the time"
a statement that, if taken literally, is patently false, I was at a loss as to where you were going.

From your example above and from re-reading the last piece of the thread, it is apparent that your use of "all the time" is intended to mean SOME of the time or OCCASSIONALLY, or something short of 'in every single instance.'

But here again, while recklessness DOES undoubtedly win some fights, my guess is that, in general, it would cause a fighter to lose, more times than it would lat him win.

(I would say the same thing about recklessness in any other endeavour as well. It wouldn't be my first avenue. Even though I've often behaved recklessly in many different ways.)

And , IMO, Hagler would probably have prevailed over Tommy even if he'd NOT been reckless. It would just have taken him a bit longer.

Yes; a fighter's ability to continue fighting in the face of great odds.

What I meant by resolving the crux was that we each realized that the other was using the term heart in a different sense.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 08:57 PM

No sarcasm intended anywhere so far in this thread on my part.

Not that I don't resort to it from time to time, but not today.

Then you genuinely can't understand what a trainer's input might do with my perception of a fighter's attribute - basically, before and after a fight, modern trainers, especially, are paid to lie. They will mislead the public and press as to the given reason for a certain action if they feel it benifits their man. And, as far as it can ever go, quite right.

Again, a communication problem.

When you posted

"Recklessness wins fights all the time"
a statement that, if taken literally, is patently false, I was at a loss as to where you were going.

No, it is entirely true.

As an example, if Vitali Klitschko had finished his fight with Byrd he would have won. Undeniably.

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 08:59 PM

ME:

01 - Ali
02 - Louis
03 - Liston
04 - Lewis
05 - Frazier
06 - Johnson
07 - Holmes
08 - Tyson
09 - Marciano
10 - Wills

Reasonable similarities.

If we take out Wills and Johnson (my list only went back to the 30s) the remaining eight are on mine ?

You don't have Foreman ?

(Some do, some don't).

McGrain

03-28-2009, 09:04 PM

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 09:14 PM

Then you genuinely can't understand what a trainer's input might do with my perception of a fighter's attribute - basically, before and after a fight, modern trainers, especially, are paid to lie. They will mislead the public and press as to the given reason for a certain action if they feel it benifits their man. And, as far as it can ever go, quite right.

I understand the part about trainers and their economy with the truth.

When I wrote :"I can't imagine" I meant that I didn't see where that line of questioning was going relative to our discussion.

No, it is entirely true.

As an example, if Vitali Klitschko had finished his fight with Byrd he would have won. Undeniably.

Again, what I'm saying is that when I first read your statement:

"Recklessness wins fights all the time" I read it literally.

If you meant (literally) that if one is reckless, they will win every fight, then I don't believe we have to go far to see the falsity of the statement.

The example of vitali doesn't prove an ALL-THE-TIME PROPOSITION.

All that's needed to disprove it is one counter-example. And you have provided it in Hearns Hagler. Hearns was reckless and he didn't win.

The sense I believe you meant it was 'lots of times' or "it's not uncommon", rather than 'every single time.'

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 09:24 PM

01 - Muhammad Ali
02 - Joe Louis
03 - Lennox Lewis
04 - Sonny Listn
05 - Joe Frazier
06 - Jack Johnson
07 - Mike Tyson
08 - Larry Holmes
09 - Rocky Marciano
10 - Harry Wills
11 - Jim Jeffries
12 - George Foreman
13 - Evander Holyfield
14 - Jack Dempsey
15 - Max Schmeling
16 - Joe Walcott
17 - Floyd Patterson
18 - Ezzard Charles
19 - Wlad Klistschko
20 - Peter Jackson
21 - Riddick Bowe
22 - Sam Langford
23 - Ken Norton
24 - Gene Tunney
25 - Max Baer
26 - Vitali Klitschko
27 - Bob Fitzsimmons
28 - James J Corbett
29 - Joe Jeannette
30 - Sam McVey

So Foreman is in there, just down a bit.

I realize that there's a fair degree of arbitrariness and subjectivity in these kinds of compilations, but how do you draw comparisons between guys so far removed from each other in era as Sam Langford and Wlad ?

I know that there are the records to be consulted, but I have difficulty going back past Louis largely because of the dearth of decent footage, the reliance on reporters of the day's accounts, the differences in the rules and the enforcement of the rules, etc.

My own era of following the sport live began in the mid sixties, and I have a hard time getting a good sense of the relative merits of guys between Louis and Ali, as they were always part of history for me.

But at least I could watch them on old tapes.

I gave up trying to make judgments about the first three decades of the last century.

Senya13 on the classic forum takes the whole subject very seriously.

And I always marvel!

SuzieQ49

03-28-2009, 09:48 PM

cuchulain

03-28-2009, 09:56 PM

On closer inspection, McGrain, I notice that Lewis leaped ahead of Liston and Tyson leaped ahead of Holmes between your top ten list and your top thirty list.

McGrain

03-28-2009, 10:08 PM

nice list mcgrain. i dont know if i can ever get around to see lennox as a top 3 heavyweight of all time(where do you rate rahman and mccall?), but maybe someday. If you swap Frazier and Marciano you and my top 10 list is nearly identical, me and you flip flop opinions on frazier and rock.

Well he is three or four for me depending how i am weighing him and Liston. Marciano...i say he has the broadest rating of any HW, 3-11 seems reasonable to me.

On closer inspection, McGrain, I notice that Lewis leaped ahead of Liston and Tyson leaped ahead of Holmes between your top ten list and your top thirty list.

Yes. Liston and Lewis are in permenant flux, Larry and Mike is more permenant.

Bokaj

03-29-2009, 07:11 AM

Why?!?!

It adds up to the same thing in judging a fighter head to head.

We're using heart to attribute the likelyhood of a fighter quiting in a boxing match. Who gives a shit if it's emotional or cold calculation?

I see what you mean, but there is a reason to separate them for h2h reasons. A cold, calculated decision always takes circumstances into the equation. For that reason the decision can turn out differently in a fight for the undisputed crown than it would in just any other fight, since the pros is bigger in the former case than in the latter but the cons are the same.

A spontanous decision based purely on emotion makes no such distinctions.

There is still merit to your argument that the one who never quits will of course run lesser risk of losing, though.

jaffay

03-29-2009, 04:15 PM

H2H ranking based on fights between all 15 fighters
My h2h ranking looks different and that one below isn't something for real. But decided to make that point chart cause I was curious of the results.
2 points - win
1 point - 50/50 (to close to call)
0- lose
so here it goes:

Muhammad Ali – 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 = 25
Mike Tyson – 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 = 10
Sonny Liston – 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1 = 15
George Foreman – 0, 2, 1, 0, 2, 2, 2, 0, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 0 = 17
Larry Holmes – 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1 = 25
Joe Frazier – 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0 = 13
Jack Johnson – 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0 = 5
Rocky Marciano – 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0 = 9
Evander Holyfield – 1, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0 - 16
Wladimir Klitschko – 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0 = 12
Vitaliy Klitschko – 0, 2, 2, 1, 0, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1 = 20
Riddick Bowe – 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0 = 14
Joe Louis - 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0 = 8
Jack Dempsey – 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0 = 7
Lennox Lewis – 0, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2 = 23

Results:

1 Ali/Holmes
3 Lennox Lewis
4 Vitaliy Klitschko
5 George Foreman
6 Evander Holyfield
7 Sonny Liston
8 Riddick Bowe
9 Joe Frazier
10 Wladimir Klitschko
11 Mike Tyson
12 Joe Louis
13 Rocky Marciano
14 Jack Dempsey

15 Jack Johnson

There could be some mistakes in scoring, it's just a project ;)