Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Sat Jun 14, 2003 12:16 pm

Here is ESPN's Greatest Athletes of the Century. Track had 3 athletes in the Top 10 and 12 overall. Remember, this is exclusive to US & Canada so no Nurmis, Bubkas or Zatopeks. What do you think?

1. Jordan
2. Ruth
3. Ali
4. Brown
5. Gretzky
6. Owens (track)
7. Thorpe (track and football)
8. Mays
9. Nicklaus
10. Didrikson (track and golf)

Others:
12. Lewis
23. Joyner-Kersee
41. Rudolph
57. Moses
53. Rafer Johnson
68. Oerter
78. Mathias
91. Beamon
96. Michael Johnson

Beamon over MJ?; Nicklaus over Lewis? No Way!!

By Sport
Baseball (23)
Football (20)
Track/Field (12)
Basketball (11)
Tennis (8)
Boxing (7)
Hockey (6)
Golf (6)
Horse Racing (5)
Auto Racing (3)
Swimming/Diving (2)
Speed Skating (2)

Not bad representation for track!(we can thank the Olympics for that). Any other opinions out there??
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Sat Jun 14, 2003 3:33 pm

>Here is ESPN's Greatest Athletes of the Century.
>Track had 3 athletes in the Top 10 and 12
>overall. Remember, this is exclusive to US &
>Canada so no Nurmis, Bubkas or Zatopeks. What do
>you think?

1. Jordan
2. Ruth
3. Ali
4.
>Brown
5. Gretzky
6. Owens (track)
7. Thorpe
>(track and football)
8. Mays
9. Nicklaus
10.
>Didrikson (track and golf)

Others:
12.
>Lewis
23. Joyner-Kersee
41. Rudolph
57.
>Moses
53. Rafer Johnson
68. Oerter
78.
>Mathias
91. Beamon
96. Michael
>Johnson

Beamon over MJ?; Nicklaus over Lewis?
>No Way!!

By Sport
Baseball (23)
Football
>(20)
Track/Field (12)
Basketball (11)
Tennis
>(8)
Boxing (7)
Hockey (6)
Golf (6)
Horse
>Racing (5)
Auto Racing (3)
Swimming/Diving
>(2)
Speed Skating (2)

Not bad representation
>for track!(we can thank the Olympics for that).
>Any other opinions out there??

If it weren't for the Olympics, we'd probably never see a track athlete on any of these lists. Ignorance is why Beamon is over MJ. "... well, his record lasted so long," you can hear the reasoning echoing in their hollow skulls. I'm still amazed three track reps made it into the top slots. Ali is a myth though. Talk about fixed fights, and a sport that needed a saviour at the time ...
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Sat Jun 14, 2003 3:49 pm

Do you have any evidence of his fights being fixed?
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Sat Jun 14, 2003 5:15 pm

Besides actually watching most of his fights? Have you ever actually watched his fights with Liston? His fights against Ken Norton (1 loss, 2 decisions in Ali's favor when he was battered in all 3)? His getting hammered by Henry Cooper, so Angelo Dundee cut Ali's glove to stall for time, to let Ali's head clear. The same Dundee who ADMITS Ali was out on his feet, and would have been KO's if he hadn't found a way to stall. The same Dundee who admits he knew there were no extra gloves, and who also admits he told Ali to use the tear in the glove to cut Cooper, which Ali did, so the fight was stopped on cuts. The same Ali who got battered around by Ron Lyle, yet got the decision? The same Ali who got battered by Jimmy Young, and then ... you guessed it, got the decision? Ali came along when boxing was dying, he was a draw. He personally brought it back from the grave with his antics. Unfortunately, most of the public is as knowledgeable about boxing as they are about track. Watch some of the above mentioned fights on ESPN Classic. You'll wonder what all the excitement was about. Most underrated champ? Probably the hated Larry Holmes.

Back to track, I'm still amazed there are as many track guys are on the list as there are.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby jhc68 » Sat Jun 14, 2003 6:29 pm

Fun, but pretty silly comparing sports.

It seems to me that there are great athletes and, also, people with great skills. On the top 10 list it seems like 9 are great athletes WITH great skills. Nicklaus would be the exception. I'd say he is a very good (but not great) athlete with great skills. Any of the track people are better athletes, in my opinion. Only the Babe could have shot par, but they were all superior athletes.

Also, I'd put Jackie J-K at least on a level with Babe D-Z, and Carl L and Rafer J on at least the same levels with Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens. A lot of deserving track (and other sport) figures are obviously missing. My own prejudice is that Karch Kiraly, 3 time oly gold medalist volleyball player is one of those great athletes with great skills who ought to be on the list. In the mid-1980's Karch was on one of those lame TV SuperAthlete competitions and ran an 800 meters in v-ball shoes with no real competition and no idea what he was doing and ran well under 2:10. So far as I know, it is the only footrace he ever ran! I'm doubting Jack Nicklaus, despite all his unquestioned skills, could have done that.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Sat Jun 14, 2003 7:25 pm

I couldn't agree more with Kiraly - without question, the greatest volleyball player of all-time!
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Sun Jun 15, 2003 5:37 am

>Besides actually watching most of his fights?
>Have you ever actually watched his fights with
>Liston? His fights against Ken Norton (1 loss,
>2 decisions in Ali's favor when he was battered
>in all 3)? His getting hammered by Henry
>Cooper, so Angelo Dundee cut Ali's glove to
>stall for time, to let Ali's head clear. The
>same Dundee who ADMITS Ali was out on his feet,
>and would have been KO's if he hadn't found a
>way to stall. The same Dundee who admits he
>knew there were no extra gloves, and who also
>admits he told Ali to use the tear in the glove
>to cut Cooper, which Ali did, so the fight was
>stopped on cuts. The same Ali who got battered
>around by Ron Lyle, yet got the decision? The
>same Ali who got battered by Jimmy Young, and
>then ... you guessed it, got the decision? Ali
>came along when boxing was dying, he was a draw.
>He personally brought it back from the grave
>e with his antics. Unfortunately, most of the
>public is as knowledgeable about boxing as they
>are about track. Watch some of the above
>mentioned fights on ESPN Classic. You'll wonder
>what all the excitement was about. Most
>underrated champ? Probably the hated Larry
>Holmes.

What a Re-TaRd!!!!!!!
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:28 pm

>>Besides actually watching most of his
>fights?
>Have you ever actually watched his
>fights with
>Liston? His fights against Ken
>Norton (1 loss,
>2 decisions in Ali's favor when
>he was battered
>in all 3)? His getting
>hammered by Henry
>Cooper, so Angelo Dundee cut
>Ali's glove to
>stall for time, to let Ali's
>head clear. The
>same Dundee who ADMITS Ali was
>out on his feet,
>and would have been KO's if he
>hadn't found a
>way to stall. The same Dundee
>who admits he
>knew there were no extra gloves,
>and who also
>admits he told Ali to use the tear
>in the glove
>to cut Cooper, which Ali did, so
>the fight was
>stopped on cuts. The same Ali who
>got battered
>around by Ron Lyle, yet got the
>decision? The
>same Ali who got battered by
>Jimmy Young, and
>then ... you guessed it, got
>the decision? Ali
>came along when boxing was
>dying, he was a draw.
>He personally brought it
>back from the grave
>e with his antics.
>Unfortunately, most of the
>public is as
>knowledgeable about boxing as they
>are about
>track. Watch some of the above
>mentioned
>fights on ESPN Classic. You'll wonder
>what
>all the excitement was about. Most
>underrated
>champ? Probably the hated Larry
>Holmes.
>

What a Re-TaRd!!!!!!!

I thought the guy made some good points. Only a PC retard would counter his examples with name calling and nothing else. Ali was a heavyweight that fought some tough fights against competition that isn't considered all that great by boxing historians, "biographical" movies and fawning ignorant or duplicitous press aside. The rumours of fixed fights have always been around, and even Dundee can't give a straight answer when questioned about the stories. Ali was a media creation.

Greatest athletes of the century? We all know if life were fair, the list would be track and field athletes top to bottom. Ever see NBA guys try to do anything besides their own sports? The NBA players and boxers were the worst athletes of the bunch outside of their specialties.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:41 am

>>>Besides actually watching most of
>his
>fights?
>Have you ever actually watched
>his
>fights with
>Liston? His fights against
>Ken
>Norton (1 loss,
>2 decisions in Ali's
>favor when
>he was battered
>in all 3)? His
>getting
>hammered by Henry
>Cooper, so Angelo
>Dundee cut
>Ali's glove to
>stall for time, to
>let Ali's
>head clear. The
>same Dundee who
>ADMITS Ali was
>out on his feet,
>and would
>have been KO's if he
>hadn't found a
>way to
>stall. The same Dundee
>who admits he
>knew
>there were no extra gloves,
>and who
>also
>admits he told Ali to use the tear
>in
>the glove
>to cut Cooper, which Ali did,
>so
>the fight was
>stopped on cuts. The same
>Ali who
>got battered
>around by Ron Lyle, yet
>got the
>decision? The
>same Ali who got
>battered by
>Jimmy Young, and
>then ... you
>guessed it, got
>the decision? Ali
>came
>along when boxing was
>dying, he was a
>draw.
>He personally brought it
>back from the
>grave
>e with his antics.
>Unfortunately, most
>of the
>public is as
>knowledgeable about
>boxing as they
>are about
>track. Watch some
>of the above
>mentioned
>fights on ESPN
>Classic. You'll wonder
>what
>all the
>excitement was about. Most
>underrated
>champ?
>Probably the hated Larry
>Holmes.
>

What a
>Re-TaRd!!!!!!!

I thought the guy made some
>good points. Only a PC retard would counter his
>examples with name calling and nothing else. Ali
>was a heavyweight that fought some tough fights
>against competition that isn't considered all
>that great by boxing historians, "biographical"
>movies and fawning ignorant or duplicitous press
>aside. The rumours of fixed fights have always
>been around, and even Dundee can't give a
>straight answer when questioned about the
>stories. Ali was a media creation.



Why do I even bother?????Ali was a media creation,hmmmmmmm,tell that to Liston's & Frazier's swollen head.

Ali was the prefect fighting machine.He was tall,long arms,thick skin resistant to cuts,
very fast,had ther ability to move away from punches,plus an iron jaw when he did get hit.

The most over rated heavyweight was Rocky Maricano.He was 5 ft.10 in. 185 lb with paper thin skin and fought old washed up fighters that gave him tough fights.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:51 am

Don't dog out the Rock. He had the heart of a champion - he beat several good fighters: Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott (All the best of his time). He was the best conditioned fighter of all-time. He also had an excellent chin, a great KO punch and an incredible heart.
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2003 5:23 am

>Don't dog out the Rock. He had the heart of a
>champion - he beat several good fighters: Archie
>Moore, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe
>Walcott (All the best of his time). He was the
>best conditioned fighter of all-time. He also had
>an excellent chin, a great KO punch and an
>incredible heart.

He did have heart...As far as the best conditoned,hogwash...The heavyweights of old could fight 50,60 even 100 rounds.I read J.J.Jeffries pre-fight training and was in awe.He did beat the fighters of his day...All old washed up hasbeens that took him to the limit and some were beefed up lightheavyweights.To say "The Rock"beat Lewis is like saying Larry Holmes and Trevor Berbick beat Ali.I think every fighter you named was forty when they fought "The Rock."
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2003 5:32 am

>>Don't dog out the Rock. He had the heart of
>a
>champion - he beat several good fighters:
>Archie
>Moore, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles and
>Jersey Joe
>Walcott (All the best of his time).
>He was the
>best conditioned fighter of
>all-time. He also had
>an excellent chin, a
>great KO punch and an
>incredible heart.

"The Rock"never faced a liston,foreman or Tyson so the excellent chin is ?????able...He wasn't a one punch KO artist, his punches usually took its tool in the mid to late rounds.Do you really think "The Rock" at 5ft 10in,68 in.reach the shortest of any heavyweight champ, and 185 lbs could stand up to Liston at 6ft 2in 218lbs and 82in. a reach...or Foreman....Ali would cut him to ribbons before "The Rock" could land a punch.....Need I go on....Don't think SSSSooooooo!!!!!!!!!
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:30 am

Many of his best opponents were in their late 30's, yes but so are Lewis & Tyson. Holyfield was very good into his late 30's as well. You can't compare the Rock at 185 with Lewis at 260..times change. Just like you can't compare Dempsey or Louis with Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis. But Marciano beat all the best boxers of his era. Let me ask you this..what more could Rocky have done in his career??
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby tandfman » Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:54 am

Sorry, I must have wandered onto the wrong Board. Can someone please re-direct me from the boxing Board to the T&F Board.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:04 am

I love boxing and T&F...can't wait until Saturday! Stanford meet then Lennox (hopefully) flattening Klichko (sp?). It's a shame it took beating Tyson for Lennox to gets the props he deserves in this country.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:36 am

>Many of his best opponents were in their late
>30's, yes but so are Lewis & Tyson. Holyfield was
>very good into his late 30's as well. You can't
>compare the Rock at 185 with Lewis at 260..times
>change. Just like you can't compare Dempsey or
>Louis with Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis. But
>Marciano beat all the best boxers of his era.


>me ask you this..what more could Rocky have done



I'm not comparing Marciano to the heavyweights of today....Liston was champ in 1962, Marciano in 1956....Ali was champ in 1964...Alot of people consider Marciano the greatest HW of all,I don't even consider him a heavyweight.I think he was below average as a fighter that got very lucky being in the weakest era in the 20th century.I don't think he would have been champ in any other era much less undefeated.
>in his career??
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2003 2:15 pm

Why do I even
>bother?????Ali was a media creation,hmmmmmmm,tell
>that to Liston's & Frazier's swollen head.

Ali
>was the prefect fighting machine.He was tall,long
>arms,thick skin resistant to cuts,
very fast,had
>ther ability to move away from punches,plus an
>iron jaw when he did get hit.

The most over
>rated heavyweight was Rocky Maricano.He was 5
>ft.10 in. 185 lb with paper thin skin and fought
>old washed up fighters that gave him tough
>fights.

Liston wasn't even hurt by "Clay". He was fast, with very little power. Most overrated champ is Joe Louis - 25 defenses, almost all of them against old fighters or fighters 25 lbs. LIGHTER. Max Schmeling (38 in the rematch), talk about old fighters. Oh that's right, Joe won his title from an old man too. Bum of the month is right. The OWI was behind the media pushing Joe, because if you are really a boxing guru, you would know that they wanted to keep blacks in a good mood, and have Joe a positive figure as he went into the service. That way they could keep up black morale as they drafted them into the service to handle most of the non-combat grunt and grind work. Louis, definitely the most overrated until Ali.

Marciano? Could take punishment like few others. And as Eddie Murphy and crew joked in Coming to America, "... he beat Joe Louis's ass ..." Joe was always open to overhand rights. That's how old Schmeling beat him the first time, Marciano beat him, and how Jersey Joe kicked his arse all over the ring, even though they gave the fight to Shufflin' Joe. Like it's written above, watch the fights on ESPN classic or elsewhere. Ali couldn't hang with any top heavyweight of today. Speed or no speed. Marciano would be fighting cruiserweight. And Liston would be the media guy now. Because thugs sell. (Liston also died under mysterious circumstances, just before a scheduled interview in which he was going to talk about what really went on in his fights)

Klitschko sucks. Or I shoud say, both of them do. So does Lewis, just not as much. As weak as the division is today, they're still better than runty Ali, who at his peak would crumple under the strength of any of today's top 20.

Yeah, watch the Clay/Liston fights. Watch the Clay/Cooper fights. Yeah, as realistic as the decision in say, the De La Hoya / Trinidad fight.

Maybe you should stick to track.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2003 2:46 pm

Lennox does not suck. Why do americans always diss him? Because he's a nice guy with a modicum of intelligence? Or because he's not american? When he's prepared (unlike against McCall and that other bum who decked him...name presently escapes me)he's easily the best of his generation. Remember, Tyson at his PRIME paid him $5m. not to fight him. Just because he has a good ring sense and also the desire not to get wacked doesn't diminish him at all. Defense is 50% of boxing. And, he hasn't avoided anybody. No top american would fight him when he should have been at his best, they all avoided him.

Agree with you about Oscar and Trinidad, Oscar won easily. Oscar decking that mouthy thug Vargas was one of the most pleasurable fights I've seen.

Other things: I hope Grant retires; hope never to see Gatti-Ward 4; the biggest bum and fraud of all time was The Prince, he made me embarrased to be English!
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2003 7:42 pm

>



Why do I even
>bother?????Ali was a
>media creation,hmmmmmmm,tell
>that to Liston's &
>Frazier's swollen head.

Ali
>was the prefect
>fighting machine.He was tall,long
>arms,thick
>skin resistant to cuts,
very fast,had
>ther
>ability to move away from punches,plus an
>iron
>jaw when he did get hit.

The most over
>rated
>heavyweight was Rocky Maricano.He was 5
>ft.10
>in. 185 lb with paper thin skin and fought
>old
>washed up fighters that gave him
>tough
>fights.

Liston wasn't even hurt by
>"Clay". He was fast, with very little power.
>Most overrated champ is Joe Louis - 25 defenses,
>almost all of them against old fighters or
>fighters 25 lbs. LIGHTER. Max Schmeling (38 in
>the rematch), talk about old fighters. Oh
>that's right, Joe won his title from an old
>man too. Bum of the month is right. The OWI
>was behind the media pushing Joe, because if you
>are really a boxing guru, you would know that
>they wanted to keep blacks in a good mood, and
>have Joe a positive figure as he went into the
>service. That way they could keep up black
>morale as they drafted them into the service to
>handle most of the non-combat grunt and grind
>work. Louis, definitely the most overrated
>until Ali.

Marciano? Could take punishment
>like few others. And as Eddie Murphy and crew
>joked in Coming to America, "... he beat Joe
>Louis's ass ..." Joe was always open to
>overhand rights. That's how old Schmeling beat
>him the first time, Marciano beat him, and how
>Jersey Joe kicked his arse all over the ring,
>even though they gave the fight to Shufflin'
>Joe. Like it's written above, watch the fights
>on ESPN classic or elsewhere. Ali couldn't hang
>with any top heavyweight of today. Speed or no
>speed. Marciano would be fighting
>cruiserweight. And Liston would be the media
>guy now. Because thugs sell. (Liston also died
>under mysterious circumstances, just before a
>scheduled interview in which he was going to
>talk about what really went on in his
>fights)

Klitschko sucks. Or I shoud say,
>both of them do. So does Lewis, just not as
>much. As weak as the division is today, they're
>still better than runty Ali, who at his peak
>would crumple under the strength of any of
>today's top 20.

Yeah, watch the Clay/Liston
>fights. Watch the Clay/Cooper fights. Yeah, as
>realistic as the decision in say, the De La Hoya
>/ Trinidad fight.

Maybe you should stick to
>track.


I have those Ali fights on VHS,and I totally disagree.He beat Copper's face to a pulp, and no onetold Liston to give up in the corner.Maricano was a total joke that had trouble with hasbeens.Walcott was outpointing Rocky before the lucky punch.I think Moore floored Rocky and there was some sort of delay for Rocky to clear his head.You have your opinion and I have mine.I personally don't think you can carry on a intelligent conversation, so go back to your cave.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:53 am

"I had a bad weakness I kept hid throughout my career. I didn't like to be crowded, and Marciano always crowded his opponents. That's why I say I could never have beaten him." Joe Louis, May, 1990 issue of Boxing Illustrated

There you go..straight from Joe Louis
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 17, 2003 7:32 am

>"I had a bad weakness I kept hid throughout my
>career. I didn't like to be crowded, and Marciano
>always crowded his opponents. That's why I say I
>could never have beaten him." Joe Louis, May,
>1990 issue of Boxing Illustrated

There you
>go..straight from Joe Louis


Listen, you think what you like....Marciano was a joke...He had no boxing skills.He was slow,short,small,no reach,cut easily,fought either bums or old men,never fought a big puncher(so how knows about his chin),was losing to Wlacott bofore a lucky punch,was hurt by Light HW Archie Moore,and was in probably the weakest era in the history on heavyweights.I think Louis was being modest.

If Marciano would have stayed around a few more years Liston would have KOed him within 3 rds.A short,slow fighter that always moved straight foward would've made a easy fight for Liston or Foreman.Also Louis fought Marciano even ,before his shell of a body gave out in the middle rounds.I have that fight on tape as well as most Marcaino's big fights.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:16 pm

He wasn't graceful or artistic but Marciano got it done! Moore was a very underrated fighter; he's one of the all-time bests. I don't think Louis would say something like that unless he meant it. Marciano beat every great fighter in his era. I ask the question again - what more could have Marciano done?
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:49 pm

>He wasn't graceful or artistic but Marciano got
>it done! Moore was a very underrated fighter;
>he's one of the all-time bests. I don't think
>Louis would say something like that unless he
>meant it. Marciano beat every great fighter in
>his era. I ask the question again - what more
>could have Marciano done?

And I will answer it again....He won every fight in his weak era...So he couldn't have done more..I will repeat, he wouldn't have been champ in any other era...He "got the job done" against old men and hasbeens....I'm not trying to smash your idol but just stating facts...5 ft 10, 185 lbs,68 in reach,paper thin skin,slow and akward,no boxing skills,not a one punch KO artist..Those are his disadvantages...Now for the advantages..Big heart...In shape,15 rds no problem...Strong body puncher and very aggressive..His aggression would have gotten him KOd against Liston,Foreman,Jeffries,Tyson..Have you ever seen the Marciano vs Clay(what a joke)computer fight of 1969?I have it on tape and Ali towered over Marciano..Like I said,believe what you want,Maricano would lose hands down to Louis prime to prime..It was a even fight when Louis was a TOTAL SHELL but he ran out of gas in the middle rounds.Archie Moore was a great Light heavyweight not a great heavyweight...He took everthing Marciano had until the mid-rounds and even knocked down(and hurt)Marciano...A light HW and old man took Marciano's best punches and hurt hurt him...makes me really ???? his chin..

I have respect for Marciano in some aspects..He took care of his money and didn't try a ill-fated comeback like most boxers do.He presented a strong image for the youth...But I don't think (and my mind's made up)he was a good much less great fighter...if your looking for quotes I could probably find some where Marciano says he could never have beat Louis prime to prime...I know Jeffries said he could never have beat Johnson, and Johnson said Jeffries was the greatest Heavyweight in history(including himself)when he was in his prime...EX punch drunk fighters making quotes mean nothing to me and prove nothing.I seen every big and most fights Marciano ever had and I"M NOT IMPRESSED !!!
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 17, 2003 6:29 pm

You have the fights on tape? Then watch them.

Yeah, the Cooper fight. Ali was on queer street, and Dundee ADMITS he sliced the glove to grab some time. He then told Ali to use the cut in the glove to slice Cooper's face. Cooper wasn't the greatest fighter by any means, he just revealed Ali to be much less than he was portrayed, as did lousy ol' Karl Mildenburger, whose left hand baffled Ali. He couldn't handle left hooks, or left handed fighters very well.

Marciano was the best of his time. Too small to fight Liston, but more than enough strength and skills to easily handle Patterson (who was among the worst of all time). He's underrated simply because he's white. Take a look at Louis' record - almost all fights against mediocre and/or small opponents. The "legacy" of almost every heavyweight champ has been exaggerated. Louis was susceptable to overhand rights. That's how an old Louis got whacked by Marciano, and how a young Louis was KO'd by an old Schmelling in their first fight. Since you are a guru, you should also be aware of the fact that Marciano was fighting blind for much of his first bout with Walcott, and people suspect Walcott's handlers were rubbing linement into his gloves. Marciano wanted the fight halted because his eyes were stinging like mad, and he couldn't see. Archie Moore was a bit old, but a bit weak. He said his mistake was trying to stand toe to toe, as he didn't think anyone tweny pounds either side of Marciano could stand and trade punches toe to toe with him. He said that a "runner" would be the guy to beat him, stick and move, etc. He's probably right. The way boxing rules were enforced was changed somewhat with the arrival of Ali, as in earlier years, he would have been penalized for running away from opponents in a manner that he made the norm. If you've ever boxed, you know it's very, very hard to chase someone, you burn up a lot of energy, which is what Ali's opponents did. That said, he still lost the fights listed above, because those guys didn't get tired, and they did outpoint him. The worst decisions he ever got over fighters were the two wins against Ken Norton (Norton did get the decision in the first fight, when he broke Ali's jaw), Ali wasn't even close to winning either fight. He ran for his life in the second and third fight, probably thinking about the broken jaw. Watch them. His fight against Lyle was a joke, Lyle whipped Ali and was jobbed. Of course. Too many people making money off Ali, stealing it is a better term.

The most underrated fighters period are Latin fighters, who win most of their fights against Americans, but receive little publicity. Look at the records if you don't think that's true.

Marciano was good with his money, much like Sugar Ray Leonard was - but Leonard was in a different era earning incredible money at the time. He was smart to stick with Mike Trainer, and to let ABC TV turn him into a superstar with their crafted exposure. Most of Leonard's career moves were just right. Great career.

Greatest ever heavyweight? Certainly not Louis, nor Ali. Hell, Larry Holmes' record is better than both of them, even with some of the clowning he was involved in late in his boxing life. And he had a stronger jab than both of them.

Now as to track ... who are the greatest 100 meter men, and greatest milers ever to lace them up?
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 17, 2003 9:01 pm

>You have the fights on tape? Then watch them.
>

Yeah, the Cooper fight. Ali was on queer
>street, and Dundee ADMITS he sliced the glove to
>grab some time. He then told Ali to use the cut
>in the glove to slice Cooper's face. Cooper
>wasn't the greatest fighter by any means, he
>just revealed Ali to be much less than he was
>portrayed, as did lousy ol' Karl Mildenburger,
>whose left hand baffled Ali. He couldn't handle
>left hooks, or left handed fighters very
>well.

Marciano was the best of his time. Too
>small to fight Liston, but more than enough
>strength and skills to easily handle Patterson
>(who was among the worst of all time). He's
>underrated simply because he's white. Take a
>look at Louis' record - almost all fights
>against mediocre and/or small opponents. The
>"legacy" of almost every heavyweight champ has
>been exaggerated. Louis was susceptable to
>overhand rights. That's how an old Louis got
>whacked by Marciano, and how a young Louis was
>KO'd by an old Schmelling in their first fight.
>Since you are a guru, you should also be aware
>e of the fact that Marciano was fighting blind
>for much of his first bout with Walcott, and
>people suspect Walcott's handlers were rubbing
>linement into his gloves. Marciano wanted the
>fight halted because his eyes were stinging like
>mad, and he couldn't see. Archie Moore was a bit
>old, but a bit weak. He said his mistake was
>trying to stand toe to toe, as he didn't think
>anyone tweny pounds either side of Marciano could
>stand and trade punches toe to toe with him. He
>said that a "runner" would be the guy to beat
>him, stick and move, etc. He's probably right.
>The way boxing rules were enforced was changed
>somewhat with the arrival of Ali, as in earlier
>years, he would have been penalized for running
>away from opponents in a manner that he made the
>norm. If you've ever boxed, you know it's very,
>very hard to chase someone, you burn up a lot of
>energy, which is what Ali's opponents did. That
>said, he still lost the fights listed above,
>because those guys didn't get tired, and they
>did outpoint him. The worst decisions he ever
>got over fighters were the two wins against Ken
>Norton (Norton did get the decision in the first
>fight, when he broke Ali's jaw), Ali wasn't even
>close to winning either fight. He ran for his
>life in the second and third fight, probably
>thinking about the broken jaw. Watch them. His
>fight against Lyle was a joke, Lyle whipped Ali
>and was jobbed. Of course. Too many people
>making money off Ali, stealing it is a better
>term.

The most underrated fighters period
>are Latin fighters, who win most of their fights
>against Americans, but receive little publicity.
>Look at the records if you don't think that's
>true.

Marciano was good with his money, much
>like Sugar Ray Leonard was - but Leonard was in
>a different era earning incredible money at the
>time. He was smart to stick with Mike Trainer,
>and to let ABC TV turn him into a superstar with
>their crafted exposure. Most of Leonard's
>career moves were just right. Great career.
>

Greatest ever heavyweight? Certainly not
>Louis, nor Ali. Hell, Larry Holmes' record is
>better than both of them, even with some of the
>clowning he was involved in late in his boxing
>life. And he had a stronger jab than both of
>them.

Now as to track ... who are the
>greatest 100 meter men, and greatest milers ever
>to lace them up?
\


Go back to your cave.....Listen caveman,Ali was simply the greatest...He beat two supposely two unbeatables, Liston and Foreman..Ali never really hurt Liston but Liston sure as heck didn't hurt Ali, even when his blinding salve got into ALI'S
eyes and Liston still didn't get many good shots on Ali and the ones he did had no effect...That's when Liston gave up, he couldn't even beat Ali when he couldn't see...I'II admit the second fight was fixed but I think liston knew what the outcome was going to be so he laid down..Cooper got in one good punch in two fights and his face was a bloodied mess.Dundee did cut Clay's glove and Clay was hurt but its very doubtful if Cooper would have KOed Clay.I have looked at that fight several times and he looked alert after the minute was up...If you saying Cooper was superior to Clay because of one lucky punch in two fights,go back to your cave.
Lefthanded fighters made Ali look bad but he beat them all just didn't look flashy doing it.I think ali won the second Norton fight the third I haven't watched that closely.Ali clowned alot late in his career and won some close boring fights.Lyle and Young had to take the champ's title and they didn't do that..Hell he was a shell that was in the Holmes fight for the money with no energy or offensive and Holmes never really hurt him or could put him down.Holmes had alot of close fights(Snipes,Weaver are two) where he looked like crap..He lost twice too a beefed up lightweight...Didn't Marciano have a split decision against Charles..Marcaino was tough for a 5 ft 10 in 185 lb guy with a 68 in reach..But when your willing to take three to land one it wouldn't be a pretty site against Liston,Foreman,Lyle,Shavers and Tyson.He couldn't catch the Ali's and Holmes's.He beat eveyone in an very weak era..I'II agree Patterson was even weaker than Marcaino...I have some of JJ Jeffries fights on tape and he was one tough guy..6 ft.1 in 220lbs, iron chin and the stamina to go 50 rds.

AS far the greatest 100 meter sprinter I would pick Hayes or greene...Jayes more potential Greene more accomplishments.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 17, 2003 9:30 pm

Back to the cave after you crawl back under your rock!

Again, watch the fights.

Cooper lucky? Ali could never see good left hooks coming. Problems with left hands and lefties his whole career.

Sounds like you're about ready to admit Ali was thumped by Norton and Lyle. You're coming along. Ali is one of the biggest media creations/frauds in boxing history. Scatch that. He is the biggest, bar none. Beat Liston? Watch the fights. Liston should have gone to The Actor's Studio beforehand, maybe he could have done a better job taking a dive.

Marciano, tough small man. Not big enough to handle the giants that came along later, but big enough to handle puffed up "legends" like Louis. (I've honestly felt a lot of sports were a bit weak for 10 - 15 years after WWII for obvious reasons) Ali would have run and run and run, getting a decision against the Rock.

At least we agree on Patterson. Man, who was pushing him? Never mind, we know.

In the 100 - would be great to see Greene, Hayes, Johnson square off in their primes - although Hayes might need to be souped up with "ergogenic" aids like the men that followed him in order to be on level ground. If all three were clean, well, considering the work Hayes put in compared to later runners, Hayes hands down. As it stands now, with nothing being equal, Greene and Johnson. Johnson's problem was he got caught, he probably didn't do anything more than anyone else.

Greatest athlete of the century? Man, I don't think it's Jordan.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:43 am

When I say Ali was the greatest I mean the Ali on 1964-1967 and 1971-1975....not the Ali of 1975-1978...I think Ali under estimated, unknown Norton in the first fight,the second fight Ali won...the third fight was when Ali was a media promotion and I lost interest...The Lyle,Shavers,Norton 3, were fights I didn't care about...Ali lost most of his skills by then...I bet on Holmes in 1980, when I was 18 yrs old...As far as the Cooper fight,they fought 2 times, Cooper got in a few punches(good)in two fights..don't see where you coming from...His face looked like a haloween mask...Are you saying the fights shouldnt have been stopped ???? Do you think LISTON won the first fight with his swollen head?????Granted, Ali didn't hurt Liston(he has a iron jaw)but Liston didn't hurt him either..Liston was losing every round and looked slow and clumsy against Ali..I think that hurt Liston historically..When you quit on a stool and take a dive, you never recover..if it wasn't for the Ali fights I think Liston would be remembered as one of the greatest..He underestimated Clay in the first fight and didn't train for 15 rds and took a dive in the second..A young in shape Liston would have been a interesting fight for Ali and was a prue fighting machine in my opinion...The only time I ever saw him hurt was against Leotis Martin and was hit with a wicked combanation that KOd him for minutes..That combo would have KOd probably anybody..

I would go with Hayes..Greene a pro that trains yr round..Hayes never ran at altitute or a syntheic track..Trained around his football schedule and still has the record for the fastest 4x1 leg.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 12:31 pm

Ali was the fastest heavyweight ever. Bar none. But that's it. As far as the Cooper fight - I'm referring to the first one. Cooper wasn't cut until after Ali used the glove sliced by Dundee. Ali was out on his feet, barely made it back to his corner. Watch the fight, read Dundee's remarks about it. Next time, Ali ran and threw every punch at the scar tissue. But, that's enough on Ali. This board is for track. Then again, we could argue about middleweights ... nah. That would go on forever.

Hayes had otherwordly talent. He's one of those guys from the 60's, along with Snell and Ryun who could compete with today's stars. That can't be said about most other stars from the past.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby BillVol » Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:08 pm

I'm not sure Wilt Chamberlain couldn't have knocked them both out -- at the same time!
BillVol
 
Posts: 3758
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:45 pm

>I'm not sure Wilt Chamberlain couldn't have
>knocked them both out -- at the same time!

Yeah, but could he kick with Snell or Ryun? :)
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:26 pm

Most of the great fighters that Marciano beat were on the down side of their career..but how does that differ from Lennox Lewis. Lewis beat Tyson & Holyfield on the down side of their careers. Has Lewis beat any great (or even very good) fighters in their prime? I don't think McCall, Rahman, Grant, Briggs or Tua qualify as a great fighter! In fact, one of the better fighters he fought was Ray Mercer and most insiders feel that Mercer got robbed in a very close decision!
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Fri Jun 20, 2003 5:22 pm

Somewhere in the top ten greatest athletes I'd put Fred Astaire. He had it all: great speed, quickness, agility, and grace.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Fri Jun 20, 2003 7:01 pm

>Somewhere in the top ten greatest athletes I'd
>put Fred Astaire. He had it all: great speed,
>quickness, agility, and grace.

Ted Bundy qualifies then - he had agility, grace, strong grip, endurance, great performance under pressure.

Jesse Owens - number one!
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Sat Jun 21, 2003 12:07 am

>Most of the great fighters that Marciano beat
>were on the down side of their career..but how
>does that differ from Lennox Lewis. Lewis beat
>Tyson & Holyfield on the down side of their
>careers. Has Lewis beat any great (or even very
>good) fighters in their prime? I don't think
>McCall, Rahman, Grant, Briggs or Tua qualify as a
>great fighter! In fact, one of the better
>fighters he fought was Ray Mercer and most
>insiders feel that Mercer got robbed in a very
>close decision!



Never said Lewis was a alltime great.... but ,he would have an easy night against Marciano.Marciano really needs to be compared to cruiserweights not heavyweights.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Sat Jun 21, 2003 6:35 am

In his era he was a heavy; if you are doing this on an all-time basis, none of the older heavyweights (Dempsey, Louis, Tunney, Marciano, etc) would be considered heavyweights nowadays. According to that statement, you would be pretty much (save Carnero and a couple more) looking at heavys from the 60s - now.
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:21 am

who is forgotten possibly because he never went to the olympics due to world war 2 is cornelius warmerdam. he was possibly the greatest pole vaulter of all time. the first to break the 15' barrier. he did it on bamboo and did it 43 times and had raised the world record to 15-9 before anyone else jumped 15' even once. it took untill the steal pole came out for his record to fall. he was dominant for a long time and if he vaulted today he would show bubka what was up.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:58 am

>In his era he was a heavy; if you are doing this
>on an all-time basis, none of the older
>heavyweights (Dempsey, Louis, Tunney, Marciano,
>etc) would be considered heavyweights nowadays.
>According to that statement, you would be pretty
>much (save Carnero and a couple more) looking at
>heavys from the 60s - now.

Over 190 lbs is a heavyweight....Louis,Dempsey, and Tunney were over 190lbs a good portion of their career's.Not Shorty,don't think he ever weighed 190lbs..If you want to keep arguing about this how about going somewhere else to do it.This is T&F,remember.
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Sun Jun 22, 2003 5:56 pm

You call yourself the boxing guru..maybe you oughta take this somewhere else
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:16 am

>You call yourself the boxing guru..maybe you
>oughta take this somewhere else

Don't get angry because Marciano was a cream puff...
Guest
 

Re: Greatest Athletes of the Century....your thoughts??

Postby parkerclay » Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:35 am

Say what you want..he's still the only undefeated heavyweight champion in boxing history!!
parkerclay
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dadme and 6 guests