The GOATs of Sport

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I think careful is a good word. I suppose one of the points I was making, is that we are so far removed from boxing in the late 60s and 70s that we wouldn't know if there were any comparable shenanigans back then. Boxing is a corrupt sport now but I don't think you could argue it is more corrupt now than it was in the past when they were far less scrutinised. Had Mayweather existed in the 60s we might not know about his demands. Liston was widely rumoured to have taken a dive in the 1st round against Ali because of the mob.

I think it's unfair to rule out lower weight classes purely because they would lose to heavier fighters. The nature of any discussion about the best ever or the best team takes into account the reality that Bradman probably wouldn't last 2 overs against modern cricketers, or that England in 1966 would lose 15-0 to England 2021 or that Australia RL in 1982 would lose heavily against Australia RL in 2021. It sort of assumes a kind of level playing field, one where those players were given the same advantages as modern sportsmen were given. This is essentially what happens with P4P in boxing and IMO any discussion of the GOAT in boxing has to be P4P. Otherwise, you end up with the absurd situation where you could argue that Tyson Fury is better than Ali because he would stand a very good chance of winning purely on size.

Ruiz in some ways proves my point. He looks like a short fat guy, but he is the same height as Trevor Berbick and Michael Spinks. 

I actually agree about coaching methods in a limited sport like boxing compared to team sports but it is still hard to truly compare. If you look at something like track and field, where coaching can only increase so much, you can see that in some areas standards haven't improved very much if at all over the last 30 years. If you look at the 400m hurdles final in 1988 and 2016, the times are very comparable, probably being slightly better in 1988 overall.

On the flip side, if they weren't able to record times, how often would we hear remarks like the current 100m crop couldn't hold a candle to Carl Lewis? When in reality he's not even in the top 15 for fastest 100m times.

The issue with Ruiz physicue was his obesity. But, being able to box a little took him to the top.

I do agree there is a factor with players from our youth now being touted as the greatest. It is no co-incidence that the stock of Carl Lewis, Tyson and Maradona is so high; it is middle aged men who decide.

For boxing, you ideally want to be punching up with long arms I suggest. With a long 7' reach and modest 6'1" height, Liston has not been bettered in that regard.

1 hour ago, Maximus Decimus said:

To go back to Tyson, I grew up throughout Tysonmania and in many ways bought into the myth about him as this unstoppable superhero who only lost because he lost motivation after Gus died, and then was never the same on his return in 1995.

As someone who as watched nearly all of his fights, I'm not so sure he was ever the unstoppable potentially best ever heavyweight. He had an electric streak where he was terrifying fighters and was a true cultural icon, but consider who he actually beat that was truly impressive. The best names that he beat in that spell were probably Spinks and Holmes, both of whom were at the end of their careers, with Holmes coming two years out of retirement. None of the other names he beat ever went on to become big names in the HW decision. There were also a couple of fighters who managed to survive the onslaught with some success during this period. I think there are enough doubts about whether he would have dominated during the emergence of Holyfield, Lewis and Bowe and even the Klitschkos towards the end of his career.

There is an interesting observation by Teddy Atlas who trained him during his peak years. He suggests that he was great when he was in control, and would knock out sparring partners at will but when he met someone he couldn't knock out he would easily lose heart. At first he thought it was youthful inexperience but that he didn't grow out of it during his time with him and is essentially what happened whenever he lost throughout the later part of his career.

I think his dominance has undermined the era. In particular that he went off the rails and younger people see him as the man easily beaten by Lewis and Holyfield. His style is comparable to Marciano, but required a fitness level that needed a monk lifestyle and retire at 30, it was far from what happened. Clearly, he was not invulnerable and Bruno catching him is significant in hindsight.

A big difference was that Marciano would often win by ko in late rounds.

Had he met a young Lewis when they were 22, I suspect Lewis would have been soundly beaten and suggesting Lewis as a great would be laughable. He made his opponents look terrible. The emergence of the three great fighters needed (perhaps) the fading of the Atlas-Rooney trained Tyson.

[Futtocks]

Marciano might not even qualify as a heavyweight by modern standards. I think he'd be quite a few kg short of the current stipulation. Same with Jack Dempsey. Jack Johnson would have just about scraped in, and he'd be an interesting time-machine opponent for the greats of other eras.

[Wiltshire Rhino]

18 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I’m a massive Larry Bird fan, but it has to be mentioned that a young Jordan broke the playoff record for points in a game against the Celtics in 1986 with 62 (Sixty Two).

Yep, incredible performance... 

...and still lost! 

 

When you take into account shooting, rebounding, passing, unselfishness and "clutch" play, Larry is the GOAT. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 hour ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

Yep, incredible performance... 

...and still lost! 

 

When you take into account shooting, rebounding, passing, unselfishness and "clutch" play, Larry is the GOAT. 

Yes, the 1986 Boston Celtics were a better team than the 1986 Chicago Bulls.

Larry is an all time great in basketball terms taking everything into account you say.

But he also had weaknesses which meant as basketball itself evolved in America (with Jordan at the forefront of evolving it), he and the Celtics were less and less able to compete.

(I’m a Boston Celtics fan who saw both players careers and I say that Michael Jordan is the GOAT here.)

 

[Maximus Decimus]

18 hours ago, Bob8 said:

The issue with Ruiz physicue was his obesity. But, being able to box a little took him to the top.

I do agree there is a factor with players from our youth now being touted as the greatest. It is no co-incidence that the stock of Carl Lewis, Tyson and Maradona is so high; it is middle aged men who decide.

For boxing, you ideally want to be punching up with long arms I suggest. With a long 7' reach and modest 6'1" height, Liston has not been bettered in that regard.

I think his dominance has undermined the era. In particular that he went off the rails and younger people see him as the man easily beaten by Lewis and Holyfield. His style is comparable to Marciano, but required a fitness level that needed a monk lifestyle and retire at 30, it was far from what happened. Clearly, he was not invulnerable and Bruno catching him is significant in hindsight.

A big difference was that Marciano would often win by ko in late rounds.

Had he met a young Lewis when they were 22, I suspect Lewis would have been soundly beaten and suggesting Lewis as a great would be laughable. He made his opponents look terrible. The emergence of the three great fighters needed (perhaps) the fading of the Atlas-Rooney trained Tyson.

I get the point about Ruiz, but my point was he was laughed at for being short and fat when by old standards he wasn't short. I'm not for one second arguing that we are in a golden age of heavyweights, but even so Ruiz is very much an exception for a top heavyweight even in this era. IMO he beat AJ because of a lucky shot. Not much different than when Lewis got caught by the very limited McCall or Rahman.

As for Tyson, I don't subscribe to the idea that he beat guys so badly that it stopped them having a career after he finished. After all, it didn't stop Bruno achieving a title (whilst still never being a top top boxer) so why did none of the others ever win a title despite having long careers after fighting him? Had he beat Lewis when he was 22, is still think Lewis would've become a dominant champion if Tyson suddenly disappeared. 

I watched the Tyson-Bruno fight recently and a few things struck me. Firstly, I'd forgotten how quickly Bruno was knocked down, but secondly how ineffective Tyson was from about round 2 until the KO. I honestly think he'd have met a fighter he couldn't KO (like he did with Smith, Tucker and Ruddock) but that could fight back. Actually like what happened with Buster Douglas and Holyfield. 

 

 

[Bob8]

13 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I get the point about Ruiz, but my point was he was laughed at for being short and fat when by old standards he wasn't short. I'm not for one second arguing that we are in a golden age of heavyweights, but even so Ruiz is very much an exception for a top heavyweight even in this era. IMO he beat AJ because of a lucky shot. Not much different than when Lewis got caught by the very limited McCall or Rahman.

As for Tyson, I don't subscribe to the idea that he beat guys so badly that it stopped them having a career after he finished. After all, it didn't stop Bruno achieving a title (whilst still never being a top top boxer) so why did none of the others ever win a title despite having long careers after fighting him? Had he beat Lewis when he was 22, is still think Lewis would've become a dominant champion if Tyson suddenly disappeared. 

I watched the Tyson-Bruno fight recently and a few things struck me. Firstly, I'd forgotten how quickly Bruno was knocked down, but secondly how ineffective Tyson was from about round 2 until the KO. I honestly think he'd have met a fighter he couldn't KO (like he did with Smith, Tucker and Ruddock) but that could fight back. Actually like what happened with Buster Douglas and Holyfield.

I do not think we are far apart.

My point was that he made everyone look bad, without him, we would be talking about a golden age in which Berbick took over from the greats of Holmes and Spinks.

I also mention the Bruno fight in the context of the beginning of the end. That Bruno looked good in that fight, it was a shock. It shows that era of Tyson's career was over.

Even if Tyson had trained like a warrior monk, there is only so much the body can take and he would finish before Lennox, Bowe or Holyfield peaked.

[Bleep1673]

On 13/02/2021 at 15:40, Damien said:

How can you have 4? It kind of misses the point.

Different positions. Dur!

[Wiltshire Rhino]

3 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Yes, the 1986 Boston Celtics were a better team than the 1986 Chicago Bulls.

Larry is an all time great in basketball terms taking everything into account you say.

But he also had weaknesses which meant as basketball itself evolved in America (with Jordan at the forefront of evolving it), he and the Celtics were less and less able to compete.

(I’m a Boston Celtics fan who saw both players careers and I say that Michael Jordan is the GOAT here.)

 

If I was coaching a team, who was down by one with less than 10secs on the clock, and I had to choose one player to have that responsibility of the game winning shot I'd choose Larry Bird every single time. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

8 minutes ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

If I was coaching a team, who was down by one with less than 10secs on the clock, and I had to choose one player to have that responsibility of the game winning shot I'd choose Larry Bird every single time. 

But Michael Jordan also had many clutch game winning moments.

It’s nice to recognise Larry’s greatness, but I think it’s a step too far to call him the GOAT now.

I think had Jordan’s phenomenal career and impact on basketball not happened then you might be able to argue Larry against Magic or Chamberlain.

[Shadow]

2 hours ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

If I was coaching a team, who was down by one with less than 10secs on the clock, and I had to choose one player to have that responsibility of the game winning shot I'd choose Larry Bird every single time. 

But by having Michael Jordan or Meadowlark Lemon in your team you may not be in a position to be one point down with 10 seconds left on the clock.

[Shadow]

12 minutes ago, Shadow said:

But by having Michael Jordan or Meadowlark Lemon in your team you may not be in a position to be one point down with 10 seconds left on the clock.

And I don't know much about Basketball but Meadowlark Lemon would be first name on my teamsheet, just like Gordon Banks followed by George Best would on my football team sheet and Viv Richards on my cricket team sheet.

They may not be the absolute best ever but I am reminded of an interview with Will Greenwood about the England RU team leading up to the 2003 RUWC, he said words to the effect of "You'd be in the changing room feeling nervous and then you'd look around and see Jonny WIlkinson lacing up his boots, Lawrence Dallaglio, Richard Hill and Neil Back punching each other to get wound up, Jason Robinson would be sat in the corner composing his thoughts and there in the middle of it all was Martin Johnson looking huge and you just had a feeling of belief"

I would want my star players to get the best out of their team mates, I'd want a Gareth Bale or a David Becckham not a Maradonna. A Mike Brierley not an Ian Botham

[Maximus Decimus]

7 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I do not think we are far apart.

My point was that he made everyone look bad, without him, we would be talking about a golden age in which Berbick took over from the greats of Holmes and Spinks.

I also mention the Bruno fight in the context of the beginning of the end. That Bruno looked good in that fight, it was a shock. It shows that era of Tyson's career was over.

Even if Tyson had trained like a warrior monk, there is only so much the body can take and he would finish before Lennox, Bowe or Holyfield peaked.

I agree with much of this and it's nice to speculate but we'll never truly know. I suppose the larger point I'm making with both Tyson and Ali is that the mythology surrounding the nature of their careers has as much to do with their standing as does their actual results.

As I said some time ago, if Tyson Fury beats AJ and then manages to retire undefeated, his record in 50 years will be defined by the Klitschko victory in his backyard, being out of the ring for 3 years, rising from the canvas in the 12th and KOing the 'greatest puncher in history.' Long forgotten will be the reality of how boring his fights were pre-Klitschko, or how overrated Wilder was etc.

The mythology around the Bruno fight from our side of the pond has always been about how he rocked Tyson, and I'd seen clips of that many times. What is less remembered is how he was on the canvas within 30 seconds, that the rocking wasn't as big as it is made out to be, and how Tyson basically says that Bruno has primitive skills afterwards!

Must say though, I'm looking forward to the Sky Documentary in a couple of weeks.

 

[Bob8]

49 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:I agree with much of this and it's nice to speculate but we'll never truly know. I suppose the larger point I'm making with both Tyson and Ali is that the mythology surrounding the nature of their careers has as much to do with their standing as does their actual results.

As I said some time ago, if Tyson Fury beats AJ and then manages to retire undefeated, his record in 50 years will be defined by the Klitschko victory in his backyard, being out of the ring for 3 years, rising from the canvas in the 12th and KOing the 'greatest puncher in history.' Long forgotten will be the reality of how boring his fights were pre-Klitschko, or how overrated Wilder was etc.

The mythology around the Bruno fight from our side of the pond has always been about how he rocked Tyson, and I'd seen clips of that many times. What is less remembered is how he was on the canvas within 30 seconds, that the rocking wasn't as big as it is made out to be, and how Tyson basically says that Bruno has primitive skills afterwards!

Must say though, I'm looking forward to the Sky Documentary in a couple of weeks.

Even as kids, we knew it was Bruno’s big day, not the start of his reign. 

I thing there a lot who saw Tyson in the mid-90’s and just think he was always rubbish. They are as bad as those who mythologies him. 

I agree with the myth making very much. Ten years ago, I was protesting that Vitali K was a great champion, whereas Americans in particular did not respect him. Now that seems to have changed. Ten years ago, I also predicted Tyson Fury would be champion one day and it seemed a bold prediction!

[Maximus Decimus]

15 hours ago, Bob8 said:

Even as kids, we knew it was Bruno’s big day, not the start of his reign. 

I thing there a lot who saw Tyson in the mid-90’s and just think he was always rubbish. They are as bad as those who mythologies him. 

I agree with the myth making very much. Ten years ago, I was protesting that Vitali K was a great champion, whereas Americans in particular did not respect him. Now that seems to have changed. Ten years ago, I also predicted Tyson Fury would be champion one day and it seemed a bold prediction!

I see that a lot about Wladimir now. During his reign, he was seen as the death of heavyweight boxing, what with his boring style and how he often fought very limited fighters much smaller than him. Nowadays, he is just automatically talked about as a great champion.

It probably demonstrates how poor the HW division was during that period that Vitali's greatest achievement is still seen as his moral victory against Lewis.