Greatest Fighter of All Time?

Training
141

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
This is actually one of the points I would hold against Marciano. He didn’t care whether his punches got blocked or not because if he was hitting skin he was wearing down his opponent. Did it work against the overage or undertalented guys he fought? Yes. Is it the ideal way to fight? Absolutely not.
[/quote]

Marciano won every single fight in his professional career. Who else, using any style has ever duplicated that feat? Might it not be the popular method of boxing, and might it only work for someone who had natural incredible punching power? Yes. But how can you argue that it’s not the “ideal” way to fight, when Marciano has one of the highest KO% in boxing history, and is the only HW champion to ever go undefeated.

How can you say that a style that resulted in perfection was inferior?

Also, if you’ve ever worked with someone who could do this right, you’d realize just how effective it is. It’s not just about wildly throwing punches and not caring where you land them. There are specific targets on the arms to target.

True that a good body shot will fatigue you more. But if you’ve ever been hit by someone who knows what they’re doing (and hits really hard) you’d realize that it opens up your head pretty quickly (if the first punch doesn’t, then the cumulative effect will) and a punch to the head will KO someone faster than punching the body.

The arms protect/shield the body and head from punches; break down the arms/defense and hitting the real target becomes a lot easier.

[quote]
I can’t think of a single boxer worth his salt other than Marciano who used the “If I hit somethin’, it’s a good punch” methodology. And that suggests to me that it’s best left to its place in the annals of history.[/quote]

Once again, can you name any other HW boxer other than Marciano who went undefeated for their whole professional career? If not, then maybe it’s not all that obsolete of a style. Marciano was a freakishly hard hitter, and his style would only work for someone with his natural gifts, but that doesn’t make it ineffective.

142

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
This is actually one of the points I would hold against Marciano. He didn’t care whether his punches got blocked or not because if he was hitting skin he was wearing down his opponent. Did it work against the overage or undertalented guys he fought? Yes. Is it the ideal way to fight? Absolutely not.

Marciano won every single fight in his professional career. Who else, using any style has ever duplicated that feat? Might it not be the popular method of boxing, and might it only work for someone who had natural incredible punching power? Yes. But how can you argue that it’s not the “ideal” way to fight, when Marciano has one of the highest KO% in boxing history, and is the only HW champion to ever go undefeated.

How can you say that a style that resulted in perfection was inferior?

Also, if you’ve ever worked with someone who could do this right, you’d realize just how effective it is. It’s not just about wildly throwing punches and not caring where you land them. There are specific targets on the arms to target.

A shot that lands on the body fatigues you much more than one that lands on the arm. If you land a shot on an opponent’s arm you are open to a counter. You also increase the channce of breaking your fist or wrist.

True that a good body shot will fatigue you more. But if you’ve ever been hit by someone who knows what they’re doing (and hits really hard) you’d realize that it opens up your head pretty quickly (if the first punch doesn’t, then the cumulative effect will) and a punch to the head will KO someone faster than punching the body.

The arms protect/shield the body and head from punches; break down the arms/defense and hitting the real target becomes a lot easier.

I can’t think of a single boxer worth his salt other than Marciano who used the “If I hit somethin’, it’s a good punch” methodology. And that suggests to me that it’s best left to its place in the annals of history.

Once again, can you name any other HW boxer other than Marciano who went undefeated for their whole professional career? If not, then maybe it’s not all that obsolete of a style. Marciano was a freakishly hard hitter, and his style would only work for someone with his natural gifts, but that doesn’t make it ineffective. [/quote]

Excellent post.

People forget this about boxing or fighting in general: It’s probably the most individualized sport in the world.

There’s a couple different ways to hit a golf ball. There’s maybe two to sink a free throw, there’s a couple to throw a football or make a tackle.

However, there’s a plethora of ways and angles you can throw a punch from, hence why the greatest fighters on anyone’s lists generally are very different from each other. Not to mention, everyone’s style is going to specifically be tailored to their body type and athletic attributes.

RJJ could never fight like Rocky. Rocky could never fight like Lewis. Foreman could never move like Ali. Frazier could never hit as hard as Foreman.

Lighter weight guys are the same way. There’s something in Micky Ward that makes him love that high hook/body hook combo. There’s something in Floyd that always makes him throw that lead right, uppercut, lead right that NOBODY else throws. There’s something in DLH that makes him dress like a woman.

Because the styles are so radically different, there can be no unifying thread in fighting like, “This works, but this doesn’t.”

Hence, the only unifying thing in all the champions is heart… which is why boxing is far more dependent on one’s state of mind then the size of their muscles or their techniques.

This is why Rock would beat Tyson- he had all the heart, an iron chin, and he’d break you down. Tyson would catch a couple of those wicked, looping overhand rights and get shook. Then, that fight is over.

143

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
This is actually one of the points I would hold against Marciano. He didn’t care whether his punches got blocked or not because if he was hitting skin he was wearing down his opponent. Did it work against the overage or undertalented guys he fought? Yes. Is it the ideal way to fight? Absolutely not.

Marciano won every single fight in his professional career. Who else, using any style has ever duplicated that feat? Might it not be the popular method of boxing, and might it only work for someone who had natural incredible punching power? Yes. But how can you argue that it’s not the “ideal” way to fight, when Marciano has one of the highest KO% in boxing history, and is the only HW champion to ever go undefeated.

How can you say that a style that resulted in perfection was inferior?

Also, if you’ve ever worked with someone who could do this right, you’d realize just how effective it is. It’s not just about wildly throwing punches and not caring where you land them. There are specific targets on the arms to target.

A shot that lands on the body fatigues you much more than one that lands on the arm. If you land a shot on an opponent’s arm you are open to a counter. You also increase the channce of breaking your fist or wrist.

True that a good body shot will fatigue you more. But if you’ve ever been hit by someone who knows what they’re doing (and hits really hard) you’d realize that it opens up your head pretty quickly (if the first punch doesn’t, then the cumulative effect will) and a punch to the head will KO someone faster than punching the body.

The arms protect/shield the body and head from punches; break down the arms/defense and hitting the real target becomes a lot easier.

I can’t think of a single boxer worth his salt other than Marciano who used the “If I hit somethin’, it’s a good punch” methodology. And that suggests to me that it’s best left to its place in the annals of history.

Once again, can you name any other HW boxer other than Marciano who went undefeated for their whole professional career? If not, then maybe it’s not all that obsolete of a style. Marciano was a freakishly hard hitter, and his style would only work for someone with his natural gifts, but that doesn’t make it ineffective. [/quote]

Here goes…

Please do not quote Ko percentages and Marciano’s undefeated record. Greatness is measured by level of competition, which I say was rubbish. Rocky was undefeated because he didn’t fight on too long. Most boxers do. Can anyone argue with perfection? No. But it is only his record that is perfect. I can argue by virtue of watching his matches and evaluating the skill of his opponents.

It is about wildly throwing punches. Marciano said so himself. He wasn’t “aiming” for targets.

The technique of hitting the hand to open up the head is an old one (Hopkins was a big fan of it)… but not the one Rocky was using. He was hitting the forearm, and hitting to hurt. This is actually less effective at opening up the head than a body-shot (speaking only from personal experience).

This will be my last post on the Marciano issue. After this we can all just “agree to disagree”. I have said everything I have to say on this issue and I believe everyone else has as well. There is no point recycling arguments. In the end, it does not matter if Marciano is your the top ten and not in mine. Personal is no less prevalent in boxing than it is in food, drink and fitness models.

144

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
This is actually one of the points I would hold against Marciano. He didn’t care whether his punches got blocked or not because if he was hitting skin he was wearing down his opponent. Did it work against the overage or undertalented guys he fought? Yes. Is it the ideal way to fight? Absolutely not.

Marciano won every single fight in his professional career. Who else, using any style has ever duplicated that feat? Might it not be the popular method of boxing, and might it only work for someone who had natural incredible punching power? Yes. But how can you argue that it’s not the “ideal” way to fight, when Marciano has one of the highest KO% in boxing history, and is the only HW champion to ever go undefeated.

How can you say that a style that resulted in perfection was inferior?

Also, if you’ve ever worked with someone who could do this right, you’d realize just how effective it is. It’s not just about wildly throwing punches and not caring where you land them. There are specific targets on the arms to target.

A shot that lands on the body fatigues you much more than one that lands on the arm. If you land a shot on an opponent’s arm you are open to a counter. You also increase the channce of breaking your fist or wrist.

True that a good body shot will fatigue you more. But if you’ve ever been hit by someone who knows what they’re doing (and hits really hard) you’d realize that it opens up your head pretty quickly (if the first punch doesn’t, then the cumulative effect will) and a punch to the head will KO someone faster than punching the body.

The arms protect/shield the body and head from punches; break down the arms/defense and hitting the real target becomes a lot easier.

I can’t think of a single boxer worth his salt other than Marciano who used the “If I hit somethin’, it’s a good punch” methodology. And that suggests to me that it’s best left to its place in the annals of history.

Once again, can you name any other HW boxer other than Marciano who went undefeated for their whole professional career? If not, then maybe it’s not all that obsolete of a style. Marciano was a freakishly hard hitter, and his style would only work for someone with his natural gifts, but that doesn’t make it ineffective.

Here goes…

Please do not quote Ko percentages and Marciano’s undefeated recorded. Greatness is measured by level of competition, which I say was rubbish. Rocky was undefeated because he didn’t fight on too long. Most boxers do. Can anyone argue with perfection? No. But it is only his record that is perfect. I can argue by virtue of watching his matches and evaluating the skill of his opponents.

It is about wildly throwing punches. Marciano said so himself. He wasn’t “aiming” for targets.

The technique of hitting the hand to open up the head is an old one (Hopkins was a big fan of it)… but not the one Rocky was using. He was hitting the forearm, and hitting to hurt. This is actually less effective at opening up the head than a body-shot (speaking only from personal experience).

This will be my last post on the Marciano issue. After this we can all just “agree to disagree”. I have said everything I have to say on this issue and I believe everyone else has as well. There is no point recycling arguments. In the end, it does not matter if Marciano is your the top ten and not in mine. Personal is no less prevalent in boxing than it is in food, drink and fitness models.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

145

I think I just wrote one of the great thread killing posts.

146

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Xeneize wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Xeneize wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
I agree with this

I disagree. Marciano was small for a heavyweight, but Jack Dempsey fought and knocked out men that were much larger. Like that article someone posted said- the difference between a born puncher at 187 and 215 is not that big of a deal.
…
[/quote]

Very good, if long post. Can’t really disagree with you too much.

Dempsey and Marciano did possess freakish power and would no doubt be able to wobble anyone with a serious shot, especially Dempsey, who had massive one-punch power.

But in boxing, in general, a good big man with power will defeat a good smaller man with power. That scenario has played out time and time again. Jack and the Rock could not have fought at much higher weights, and against 230, 250 pound SKILLED heavyweights, they would not be favored to win. But that’s what’s great about power … you just never know.

I gotta defend my fellow Argentine Firpo a little and say but for a little help from ringside, he would have been given a KO win over Dempsey.

Great thread, by the way.

147

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
TheG wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
TheG wrote:
I can’t believe no one’s mentioned possibly the best boxer of all time who is Joe Calzaghe. he has over 30 knockouts to his name and in a career spanning 15 years he is undefeated.

he’s the undisputed super middleweight champion with nearly twenty successful title defenses and recently moved up a weight class and beat the light heavyweight champion bernard hopkins. what other fighter has surpassed that record in his career? not Tyson for sure.

I give no respect to slappers who beat up old men.

hopkins may have been older than him but what about every other fighter he’s beaten and if IF he beats roy jones jr then you really can’t make that statement.

Why not? Roy is far passed his prime. IF anything, it lends more credibility to that statement.

Calzaghe’s only fought bums and old men. He’s a decent fighter but nowhere near an all time great because at 36 he’s still untested.
[/quote]

Still untested, that’s exactly why despite his stellar record, Calzaghe isn’t considered in the conversation. He fought the prime of his career in his European comfort zone, he turned down a fight with RJJ when Roy was still unbeaten and he never would have fought Hopkins 5 or 6 years ago.

He’s carefully crafted his career and you can’t fault him for that, it’s been very successful, but NOW he wants to fight the ghost of Roy Jones? He can do better than that. I’d rather see him fight Pavlik or Chad Dawson.

Now for an unbeaten fighter with a remarkable career, who gets little love because he fought in flyweight, not because he ducked anyone, there’s Ricardo “El Finito” Lopez. 51-0-1, 38 KOs over a 15-year career.

148

[quote]Xeneize wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
TheG wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
TheG wrote:
I can’t believe no one’s mentioned possibly the best boxer of all time who is Joe Calzaghe. he has over 30 knockouts to his name and in a career spanning 15 years he is undefeated.

he’s the undisputed super middleweight champion with nearly twenty successful title defenses and recently moved up a weight class and beat the light heavyweight champion bernard hopkins. what other fighter has surpassed that record in his career? not Tyson for sure.

I give no respect to slappers who beat up old men.

hopkins may have been older than him but what about every other fighter he’s beaten and if IF he beats roy jones jr then you really can’t make that statement.

Why not? Roy is far passed his prime. IF anything, it lends more credibility to that statement.

Calzaghe’s only fought bums and old men. He’s a decent fighter but nowhere near an all time great because at 36 he’s still untested.

Still untested, that’s exactly why despite his stellar record, Calzaghe isn’t considered in the conversation. He fought the prime of his career in his European comfort zone, he turned down a fight with RJJ when Roy was still unbeaten and he never would have fought Hopkins 5 or 6 years ago.

He’s carefully crafted his career and you can’t fault him for that, it’s been very successful, but NOW he wants to fight the ghost of Roy Jones? He can do better than that. I’d rather see him fight Pavlik or Chad Dawson.

Now for an unbeaten fighter with a remarkable career, who gets little love because he fought in flyweight, not because he ducked anyone, there’s Ricardo “El Finito” Lopez. 51-0-1, 38 KOs over a 15-year career.
[/quote]

I agree completely. And it will kill him that even though he has a perfect record, none will consider him great.

Hell, no one even calls him the best RIGHT NOW- that’s gone to Pacman.

He will end fighting Kelly Pavlik, because he wants to be known… and he’ll get beaten to a bloody pulp.

I love Bernard Hopkins- he’s one of my favorite fighters… but I’m scared for what is going to happen to him when he fights Kelly.

Now, if we give Pavlik another ten years… I think we could be watching the beginnings of the next great American fighter.

149

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

He will end fighting Kelly Pavlik, because he wants to be known… and he’ll get beaten to a bloody pulp.

I love Bernard Hopkins- he’s one of my favorite fighters… but I’m scared for what is going to happen to him when he fights Kelly.

Now, if we give Pavlik another ten years… I think we could be watching the beginnings of the next great American fighter.[/quote]

Agree on all counts. I’m a big B-Hop fan and I’d rather seen him retire than fight Pavlik. It’s gonna take a beating to push Bernard into retirement, and I’m afraid this might be the one.

150

Sugar Ray Robinson (1) and Henry Armstrong (2) would be my choices.

I’ve always idolized Dempsey and have watched all of his recorded fights (many times) and collected books and newspaper articles on his career/life.

He was one of the greats, but he never plowed through any other fighters considered all-time greats. It’s hard to gauge how great he was. The one truly great (and underrated) fighter he faced, Gene Tunney, beat him. Twice. He didn’t plow throw 171 lb. Georges Carpentier. I have a hard time believing he’d plow through Lennox Lewis.

A few more successful tests in his career – Harry Wills comes to mind – and I would consider him top 2 or 3.

151

[quote]Agree on all counts. I’m a big B-Hop fan and I’d rather seen him retire than fight Pavlik. It’s gonna take a beating to push Bernard into retirement, and I’m afraid this might be the one.
[/quote]

I think Pavlik’s gonna beat Hopkins but I don’t think he’s going to lay a beating on him. Hopkins is a nasty fight for any boxer. He may be getting on, and he is certainly well past his best… but he is as smart as anyone and always fights in top shape.

Neither Taylor nor Calzaghe turned in truly convincing wins against him. And while I believe that Pavlik is a superior fighter to the aforementioned duo I think Hopkins will be pushin’ fifty before anyone really kicks his ass.

152

[quote]Agree on all counts. I’m a big B-Hop fan and I’d rather seen him retire than fight Pavlik. It’s gonna take a beating to push Bernard into retirement, and I’m afraid this might be the one.
[/quote]

Just double postin’… no hatin’…

153

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Sugar Ray Robinson (1) and Henry Armstrong (2) would be my choices.

I’ve always idolized Dempsey and have watched all of his recorded fights (many times) and collected books and newspaper articles on his career/life.

He was one of the greats, but he never plowed through any other fighters considered all-time greats. It’s hard to gauge how great he was. The one truly great (and underrated) fighter he faced, Gene Tunney, beat him. Twice. He didn’t plow throw 171 lb. Georges Carpentier. I have a hard time believing he’d plow through Lennox Lewis.

A few more successful tests in his career – Harry Wills comes to mind – and I would consider him top 2 or 3. [/quote]

Excuse me… Long Count?

Dempsey beat Tunney the first time! Legitimately! Although I do agree Tunney is underrated in boxing history.

154

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Agree on all counts. I’m a big B-Hop fan and I’d rather seen him retire than fight Pavlik. It’s gonna take a beating to push Bernard into retirement, and I’m afraid this might be the one.

I think Pavlik’s gonna beat Hopkins but I don’t think he’s going to lay a beating on him. Hopkins is a nasty fight for any boxer. He may be getting on, and he is certainly well past his best… but he is as smart as anyone and always fights in top shape.

Neither Taylor nor Calzaghe turned in truly convincing wins against him. And while I believe that Pavlik is a superior fighter to the aforementioned duo I think Hopkins will be pushin’ fifty before anyone really kicks his ass.[/quote]

I see your point. The man is a defensive mastermind, no doubt. There’s certainly a chance that BHop will neutralize Kelly’s heavy blows…but with someone like Pavlik, all he needs is that one fuckin’ 1-2 and he puts your head in the clouds.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a cat with his kind of freakish power.

I wish Bhop would retire already… I don’t want to see him take beatings.

155

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Sugar Ray Robinson (1) and Henry Armstrong (2) would be my choices.

I’ve always idolized Dempsey and have watched all of his recorded fights (many times) and collected books and newspaper articles on his career/life.

He was one of the greats, but he never plowed through any other fighters considered all-time greats. It’s hard to gauge how great he was. The one truly great (and underrated) fighter he faced, Gene Tunney, beat him. Twice. He didn’t plow throw 171 lb. Georges Carpentier. I have a hard time believing he’d plow through Lennox Lewis.

A few more successful tests in his career – Harry Wills comes to mind – and I would consider him top 2 or 3.

Excuse me… Long Count?

Dempsey beat Tunney the first time! Legitimately! Although I do agree Tunney is underrated in boxing history.[/quote]

You could reasonably debate that point, as people have been doing since 1927.

In my opinion, Tunney seemed to recover quickly from the knockdown and was on his knees, looking up at the ref. Like any seasoned vet, he waited until a count of 8 before he stood up.

Yes, the ref screwed up. Yes, Tunney was on the canvas for 13 or 14 seconds. Down, but not out. I think Gene was clear-headed and knew exactly what he was doing. In my opinion, Tunney would have stood up earlier if the ref had herded Dempsey off to a neutral corner earlier and performed a legit count.

This is how Shirley Povich saw the fight:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/general/povich/tunney.htm

156

It will be interesting to watch. I think Pavilk has quite a way to go before he reaches his potential. You look at the fighter that went up against Taylor… and you look at the fighter that came out. Two different people. How moving up in weight affects him will also pique my curiosity.

Anyway whether he is America’s next great or not, he certainly the most exciting new kid on the block.

157

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Sugar Ray Robinson (1) and Henry Armstrong (2) would be my choices.

I’ve always idolized Dempsey and have watched all of his recorded fights (many times) and collected books and newspaper articles on his career/life.

He was one of the greats, but he never plowed through any other fighters considered all-time greats. It’s hard to gauge how great he was. The one truly great (and underrated) fighter he faced, Gene Tunney, beat him. Twice. He didn’t plow throw 171 lb. Georges Carpentier. I have a hard time believing he’d plow through Lennox Lewis.

A few more successful tests in his career – Harry Wills comes to mind – and I would consider him top 2 or 3. [/quote]

Henry Armstrong was an unbelievable fighter. He had unreal power for his size and held 3 titles in 3 different weight classes at the same time. A real accomplishment back when there were only 10 weight classes. There is a strong case for him at No. 2

158

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Agree on all counts. I’m a big B-Hop fan and I’d rather seen him retire than fight Pavlik. It’s gonna take a beating to push Bernard into retirement, and I’m afraid this might be the one.

I think Pavlik’s gonna beat Hopkins but I don’t think he’s going to lay a beating on him. Hopkins is a nasty fight for any boxer. He may be getting on, and he is certainly well past his best… but he is as smart as anyone and always fights in top shape.

Neither Taylor nor Calzaghe turned in truly convincing wins against him. And while I believe that Pavlik is a superior fighter to the aforementioned duo I think Hopkins will be pushin’ fifty before anyone really kicks his ass.[/quote]

I hope you’re right, but when an aging fighter, even a wily one like B-Hop, faces a young, strong puncher, it often turns ugly pretty quickly.

160

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Sugar Ray Robinson (1) and Henry Armstrong (2) would be my choices.

I’ve always idolized Dempsey and have watched all of his recorded fights (many times) and collected books and newspaper articles on his career/life.

He was one of the greats, but he never plowed through any other fighters considered all-time greats. It’s hard to gauge how great he was. The one truly great (and underrated) fighter he faced, Gene Tunney, beat him. Twice. He didn’t plow throw 171 lb. Georges Carpentier. I have a hard time believing he’d plow through Lennox Lewis.

A few more successful tests in his career – Harry Wills comes to mind – and I would consider him top 2 or 3.

Excuse me… Long Count?

Dempsey beat Tunney the first time! Legitimately! Although I do agree Tunney is underrated in boxing history.

You could reasonably debate that point, as people have been doing since 1927.

In my opinion, Tunney seemed to recover quickly from the knockdown and was on his knees, looking up at the ref. Like any seasoned vet, he waited until a count of 8 before he stood up.

Yes, the ref screwed up. Yes, Tunney was on the canvas for 13 or 14 seconds. Down, but not out. I think Gene was clear-headed and knew exactly what he was doing. In my opinion, Tunney would have stood up earlier if the ref had herded Dempsey off to a neutral corner earlier and performed a legit count.

This is how Shirley Povich saw the fight:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/general/povich/tunney.htm[/quote]

I’ve always loved Dempsey but I totally agree with your opinion on the long count. I think it would have been very intersting if the two had met earlier when Dempsey was in his prime.