# The Sugars Group C Final: Flea Man v BBallCHump11



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

*@Flea Man v @bballchump11*

The Question:

Who was the GREATEST puncher of all time P4P?

@*bballchump11* to go first. There is a week time limit so the thread is suspended on Wednesday the 22nd October at 12:20pm GMT.

600 word limit on posts. 3 post maxim limit.

Pictures, gifs and videos are encouraged. Please use stats and evidence to back up any claims.

:ibutt

@Bogotazo can you administer a 3 day ban for those getting involved in the discussion before the debate is over?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Good luck @bballchump11 :good


----------



## AndyPaterson (May 26, 2014)

I missed this, any links to the previous rounds?


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Gonna keep my mouth shut but this could make for a great one.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Good luck @bballchump11 :good


good luck to you too. I'll have my post tomorrow night by the latest, but most likely later today


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> good luck to you too. I'll have my post tomorrow night by the latest, but most likely later today


No worries mate :good


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea,you know I consider you a P4P monster here,but I'm sad you and @Luf came up against each other at that stage.
This should be a belter again.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Flea,you know I consider you a P4P monster here,but I'm sad you and @Luf came up against each other at that stage.
> This should be a belter again.


As I said, all about the luck of the draw with the questions! I've conceded many times there's a lot I don't know!

Let's hope Bball doesn't take my pick


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Flea,you know I consider you a P4P monster here,but I'm sad you and @Luf came up against each other at that stage.
> This should be a belter again.


Nah he was a worthy winner and it was well deserved. Merit should trump fame.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> Nah he was a worthy winner and it was well deserved. Merit should trump fame.


I can't lie Luf.Nothing at all meant in disrespect to Flea and I'd make the same pick,but even after some very close and enjoyable debates,that was the first where I had to rely on personal preference on the question,which is a desperate last resort.
I felt bad! Ok? I said it!ops


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> I can't lie Luf.Nothing at all meant in disrespect to Flea and I'd make the same pick,but even after some very close and enjoyable debates,that was the first where I had to rely on personal preference on the question,which is a desperate last resort.
> I felt bad! Ok? I said it!ops


As I said, if I'd gone out to Luf I'd have been happy. Sad that I had to eliminate him.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> As I said, if I'd gone out to Luf I'd have been happy. Sad that I had to eliminate him.


It was just too early.Like Real-Bayern getting drawn in the last 16.
I need closure.Need to move on :sad5


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

:lol: I had a feeling it would come to that.

Flea couldn't have argued any better that Marcel achieved greater things. I don't think I could have argued any better that Naz contributed more to the sport. I knew it would come down to what people preferred.

Happy to lose to a gent and scholar such as @Flea Man


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Luf said:


> :lol: I had a feeling it would come to that.
> 
> Flea couldn't have argued any better that Marcel achieved greater things. I don't think I could have argued any better that Naz contributed more to the sport. I knew it would come down to what people preferred.
> 
> Happy to lose to a gent and scholar such as @Flea Man


Love you man!!!!!


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

We ready to roll on this on @bballchump11


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Chatty said:


> We ready to roll on this on @bballchump11


my bad, I haven't much time to really sit down and write something up. I got my fighter picked already though


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> my bad, I haven't much time to really sit down and write something up. I got my fighter picked already though


Well your group is ahead of the other two so you have a bit more time to play with. Just putting reminders out on the threads that are going still.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Well your group is ahead of the other two so you have a bit more time to play with. Just putting reminders out on the threads that are going still.


I got ya and I appreciate the reminder


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> my bad, I haven't much time to really sit down and write something up. I got my fighter picked already though


No worries though mate. I'm busy this weekend writing (paid) so I might be able to fit it in towards the end or on Monday, but no rush!


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> No worries though mate. I'm busy this weekend writing (paid) so I might be able to fit it in towards the end or on Monday, but no rush!


aight sounds good. I expect we'll finish before everybody else anyways


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> aight sounds good. I expect we'll finish before everybody else anyways


Yeah, took a while for me and Luf to get going but was quick abd painless as soon as we did :good


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Who is the greatest puncher p4p of all time? When answering this question, one must understand what a puncher truly is and what makes a great puncher. First and foremost, devastating power is the number one ingredient in making a puncher and if I was asked who is the hardest puncher of all time, I may have gone with an Earnie Shavers. Shavers is highly regarded by many heavyweights in the golden era to be the hardest puncher they've faced. That list includes the likes of Ron Lyle, Muhammed Ali and Larry Holmes. They credited to Shavers to be the hardest puncher they've faced despite facing opponents like Mike Tyson, George Foreman, Joe Fraizer, Sonny Liston, etc. But I'm not picking Earnie Shavers as the GREATEST PUNCHER EVER.

The greatest puncher ever is undoubtedly the "Brown Bomber", Joe Louis. Like I was eluding to previously, there's more to being a great puncher than punching hard. What makes Joe Louis such a great puncher was of course his own frightening power, but also his accuracy, technique and how he was able to set up his power. Here's an example of what I mean.

Joe Louis kept himself low and shot two jabs to the chest of his opponent to draw his attention lower. Those two jabs allow him to also measure his distance and eventually get full leverage for his right cross. He then explodes from that crouched position to land that killer right hand. Plenty of fighters have awesome power, especially at heavyweight, but Joe Louis was one of a kind when it came to landing that power. 









P4P Joe's case is even stronger because he was still racking up knock outs over men significantly bigger than him. He beat fighters like Buddy Baer who should be called "Bear" who was about 6'6 and weighed at least 230lbs while Louis would typically come in around 200lbs and weighing 198 when he fought Max Schmeling in the rematch.










As you can see Baer is much bigger than Louis, but that doesn't deter Louis. The first fight resulted in a DQ win for Louis. In the final round, Louis dropped Baer 3 times, but he wasn't able to get a proper stoppage. The rematch would solve the issue right away as Joe Louis mercilessly drops Baer 3 times and knocks him out in the first round.






Buddy Baer wasn't the only giant victim of Joe's also. You can add 6'5 and 266lb Primo Carnera (lost by TKO6), 6'4 and 250lb Abe Simon (lost by TKO6) to the list as well. When you consider this, there's no question that Joe Louis is P4P the greatest puncher ever
@Flea Man


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Nice punch bball. It hit me flush.

Let me consider my counter and I'll get back to you :good


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Tremendous post, and I tend to agree wholeheartedly.

While Louis is one of the greatest punchers of all time and knocked out men of all shapes and sizes, a man of his size is also able to generate power a lot more naturally than a tiny one. Heavyweights knocking out larger heavyweights is not unprecedented.

A man weighing in _naturally_ lighter than the modern straw weight limit knocking out featherweights, who outweigh him by around 20lbs, _is._

My choice would be Jimmy Wilde.

Not only did Wilde knock out the best fighters of his own size in his day, men up to 105lbs (in his day commonly billed as 'gnat weights') he also knocked out flyweights, bantamweights, and perhaps most impressively, one of the best featherweights in Britain at the time.

Like Louis, it was technique rather than sheer force that brought about Wilde's knockouts. Wilde said himself that it was speed and accuracy that saw him hurt, drop and knockout so many fighters (99 knockouts in 132 wins as per boxrec) but that doesn't mean he wasn't a _great_ puncher.

Check out the knockout here against the world class Joe Symonds, who was clearly a large flyweight for his day, and much larger than Wilde. Symonds has a lot of stoppage defeats on his record, but 11 of these came prior to Wilde stopping him. His only stoppage losses beforehand were retirements, once against undefeated future champion Percy Jones.

The defeat to Wilde, who Symonds had previously gone the distance with, seems to have ruined him, but Symonds still picked up victories at world level afterwards (knockout at 10:29 onwards; look how Wilde stiffens Symonds and bludgeons him with brutal combinations)






Perhaps Wilde's greatest P4P punching achievement is against the British featherweight champion Joe Conn. Wilde weighed around 105lbs (allegedly, he sometimes put coins in his pockets to give the appearance of greater weight though there's no evidence he did this here) and Conn 125lbs. Conn had only been stopped at the beginning of his career, when he was a bantamweight growing into his physique.

Wilde dropped him 13 times. Look at the size difference in the images. I have footage of them in an exhibition a year later, and the size difference in staggering.























































Joe Louis a tremendous choice, he really is. And it's true he knocked out fighters with a bigger size difference to him than Wilde did.

But there is no other example of anyone doing what Wilde did. For that reason alone, he is the definition of a great pound-for-pound puncher. Greatest? I would argue that the answer is yes.

@bballchump11


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Good pick in Wilde who like Louis can stop many men larger than himself. I believe Joe Louis was a different breed of puncher than Wilde though. To quote the great George Foreman



George Foreman said:


> There's never been a boxer better than Joe Louis. You'd take one shot from him and you were sure he'd have seven or eight more coming for you. Certainly Muhammad Ali was the greatest man ever to fight, but not the greatest boxer.


Louis's ability to string the perfect combination together to finish his opponent was on another level. Lets take the Max Schmeling rematch as an example. 





Louis came into this fight trying to avenge his only loss as a professional. Most fighters would be cautious after getting stopped in the first fight, but Joe still had his relentless streak in him. At the 8:02 mark is where Louis first hurts Max with a right right cross. Just like Foreman eluded to earlier, once Louis landed that first right hand, more punches were sure to follow up. Louis then reaches his arm out to measure Max to throw two hooks at the opening Max gives him on his body. Both punches land accurately to the left kidney and the the solar plexus. Louis then measures again in order to land another right hook to the kidney and another left hook to the solar plexus.

Whenever you're finishing an opponent, it's always important to go to the body. This brings your opponents hand down lower, sucks the air out of them and will weaken their legs. A lot of power punchers will hurt an opponent and then look to head hunt afterward knowing they have their opponent hurt. Then a lot of them will get over zealous and just throw punches not caring whether they land or not. Louis was the opposite of this.

Lets skip forward and examine the finishing blow in the Max Schemling rematch. At 8:35 after getting up from two KDs, Max meets his demise. Joe sticks his jab out there again to measure and throw the right hook to the body that he loved to throw. He then throws the left hook behind it to realign himself up and reestablish his stance. Now Louis can deliver his right hand over Max's left. Also notice how in that last combination that Louis was able to change the speed on all his punches. Max wasn't able to anticipate the rhythm of the punches and couldn't brace for the final blow.

What also separates Louis from Wilde wasn't just the tools he used to dispose of his opponents, but it was also the level of competition he was able to do it against. To quote another boxer


Andre Ward said:


> We all look like KO artist against C level opposition


. Of course, I'm not saying Wilde was fighting C level fighters but not on the level of Louis. Louis stopped Hall of Famers Max Schmeling, Max Baer, Jersey Joe Walcott, Billy Conn, James Braddock, Jack Sharkey, and John Henry Lewis. That's a list of 7 hall of famers that Louis stopped. The opposition Wilde has fought can not compete with the number of great fighters that Louis has destroyed. Louis is 10-3 (8KOs) against fighters in the IBHOF, with 6 of those fights taking place after he returned from serving in the military for WWII going 4-2 (2KO) after his return.

Nobody could pull off highlight reel KOs like Joe Louis could at that level of competition

@Flea Man


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@bballchump11 Nice post, will get back to you within 24 hours. Sorry for the hold up mate.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> @bballchump11 Nice post, will get back to you within 24 hours. Sorry for the hold up mate.


thanks man and you have plenty of time


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

AndyPaterson said:


> I missed this, any links to the previous rounds?


The super thread is here
http://checkhookboxing.com/showthread.php?45563-The-Sugars-2014-CHB-Most-Knowledgeable-Poster

I wrote out the bracket here. http://checkhookboxing.com/showthre...eable-Poster&p=1544499&viewfull=1#post1544499
I'll put hyperlinks in there if you want me to to each debate


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

I could watch joe Louis all day


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Keep it coming guys, I'm really happy with these interesting choices (there could've been many many great answers).

Edit : Great video quality in that Wilde fight !


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Brownies said:


> Keep it coming guys, I'm really happy with these interesting choices (there could've been many many great answers).
> 
> Edit : Great video quality in that Wilde fight !


Check out my channel for more 'rare' footage :good


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Hardest puncher in my time following the sport is probably Julian Jackson. Unnatural power.


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Stone Rose said:


> Hardest puncher in my time following the sport is probably Julian Jackson. Unnatural power.


His speed and accuracy too. I would have picked Jackson.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Chacal said:


> His speed and accuracy too. I would have picked Jackson.


How much weight did he punch to though? When you're talking P4P, you need to knock out opponents in a larger span than six pounds. And it's not P4P hardest puncher either, the question being posed.

Jackson is the hardest hitter we have on film though IMO

Anyway, @bballchump11 sorry for the delay, will 100% respond tomorrow.


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> How much weight did he punch to though? When you're talking P4P, you need to knock out opponents in a larger span than six pounds. And it's not P4P hardest puncher either, the question being posed.
> 
> Jackson is the hardest hitter we have on film though IMO
> 
> Anyway, @bballchump11 sorry for the delay, will 100% respond tomorrow.


I'm not going to get you into a second debate but his accuracy and speed were also excellent and why I consider him the greatest puncher, he could KO people from anywhere with either hand if he landed cleanly. And if you look at Jackson's first 3 defenses of his 160 strap after Herol Graham, they had all contested at 168 in their previous fight.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Chacal said:


> I'm not going to get you into a second debate but his accuracy and speed were also excellent and why I consider him the greatest puncher, he could KO people from anywhere with either hand if he landed cleanly. And if you look at Jackson's first 3 defenses of his 160 strap after Herol Graham, they had all contested at 168 in their previous fight.


Where they weight drained? :hey


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Chacal said:


> His speed and accuracy too. I would have picked Jackson.


I was going to pick Jackson actually, but I felt Louis did it on a higher level.

I'll wait til after the debate is over though to elaborate


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

@Flea Man your up next.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

I'm here @Chatty


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> Good pick in Wilde who like Louis can stop many men larger than himself. I believe Joe Louis was a different breed of puncher than Wilde though. To quote the great George Foreman
> 
> Louis's ability to string the perfect combination together to finish his opponent was on another level. Lets take the Max Schmeling rematch as an example.
> 
> ...


Using the HOF as a measuring stick for a fighters ability is a flawed process in my opinion, especially when considering that the heavyweights, the matinee division, will always be more famous and more recognised for their body of work.

Consider that Wilde beat Johnny Rosner and Young Zulu Kid, both by KO.

Rosner is ranked as the no.6 all-time flyweight by prominent historian Charley Rose. Boxrec says 'Rose's "All-Time Greatest" lists are frequently cited to this day'. He was a boxing insider, who worked and managed many fighters, and saw many in the flesh. Whilst I do not agree that Rosner is a top ten all-time flyweight, even nearly fifty years after Wilde beat him he was thought of as such.

Young Zulu Kid was the best flyweight in America, and the fighter Wilde had to beat to get international recognition as the World's best flyweight. Zulu is rated no.10 by Rose.

Bear in mind also that boxing historians, even those that vote on the HOF ballot each year, have not done a massive amount of research into Wilde's opponents. I have, and it really does turn victories that look insignificant at first glance into quality wins.

Case in point; Wilde beat a Frenchman, Eugene Husson, for the European flyweight crown.

Take a look at his Boxrec page. http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=13787&cat=boxer

*One fight before Wilde beat him down?* Clearly not a very experienced fighter, or even a victory of any note.

That's what you might think.

I cannot elaborate too much on my research, as my findings will be revealed in a book I am working on, but I have discovered many more bouts for Husson than Boxrec has, even some with former/future World champions.

Wilde's pound-for-pound punching ability was on display against Husson, as per 'Boxing' (weekly newspaper that is now known as 'Boxing News') reported the week of the fight:

'_*Jimmy Wilde surely had the experience of his life when he faced the tiny Eugene Husson. Never before has he had to face a smaller boy than himself, and a boy so much smaller.'*_

Okay, so Wilde beating up a small guy with hardly any fights? That sure doesn't sound impressive, right?

That's why a quick glance at Boxrec to get an idea about the quality of an opponent never works. More, from the same fight report:

_*'Moreover, he has surely never faced such an extraordinary speedy, clever, and skillful antagonist.'*_

So again, a fighters record does not tell the whole story. In fact, Husson 'pirouetted' around Wilde and outboxed him, before Wilde broke down the slick Frenchman with body shots. _*'The coup de grace was admonished with a left to the mark, before which Husson went helplessly to the boards'.*_

Bigger, smaller, Wilde gained the respect of everyone he fought. Not many were given the chance to show their respect, for they went out to his painful blows.

Of the seven hall-of-famers you noted for Louis, two were light heavyweights at their best. They were not hall-of-fame heavyweights, and at heavyweight that means a lot.

Again, heavyweights knocking out opponents larger and smaller is not uncommon, no matter how incredible and once-in-a-lifetime Joe Louis' prowess was.

A straw weight knocking out fellow straws, flys, bantams and larger than that still is not just unprecedented, it is _absurd._ Wilde was a freak of nature, and for that reason deserves to be seen as the greatest pound-for-pound puncher of all time.

@bballchump11


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Ok I get that some of Wilde's opposition was better than boxrec indicated, but after a certain point, you have to question it. You gave an example of how 2-6 Eugene Husson is better than his record indicates on boxrec. But isn't there a bounds of reason? Even if they're missing fights of his, why is that small sample of his fights so bad? And why is this a common trend with the majority of Jimmy Wilde's opponents. By the time Jimmy Wilde reached his 45th fight, he only fought two opponents with winning records. One had the record of 9-2 at the time and the other was 2-1-1. I ask everybody to take a look at Jimmy Wilde's record (link). 

Like you mentioned before, maybe some of these opponent's were better than their records indicate, but I'm finding extremely hard to believe that's the case with the 30 opponents Wilde had fought who didn't have a single win by the time they fought. Let me repeat that. *30 of Wilde's opponents had won no fights.* 27 opponents had only won 1-3 fights before facing Wilde. Can you explain why those 57 opponent's records were so abysmal? Boxrec just happened to screw up all 57 of their records to make them appear like absolute bums? I'm sure Timothy Bradley would look like a KO artist if he fought opposition like that. On the otherhand Joe Louis won his pro debut by first round KO against a fighter who's record was 27-7-3. Louis only fought 3 fighters in his career with a losing record. All 3 fights took place within his first year as a professional fighter.

I don't want to boxrec my way through the rest of this debate, but these statistics are astonishing when you compare Wilde to Louis. Wilde is still a great fighter of course, but it's difficult for him to measure up to Joe Louis, the greatest puncher in boxing history. Louis is the epitome of a great puncher and always had his puncher's chance in fights. He fought hall of famers Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott and was losing on the cards against both (Conn in the first fight and Walcott in the rematch). Both were outboxing Louis with their movement and had Louis hurt multiple times with Walcott dropping Louis. Louis came back of course and displayed why you should never count a puncher out.

Walcott was still doing very well in the 11th round where he got knocked out in. Unfortunately just one right hand from Louis was enough to wobble him. Once Louis had you wobbled, it was a wrap. It'd be foolish to ever count a puncher like Louis out even if he was down on all cards in the 15th round. If you were betting against Louis, you would be sweating the entire fight no matter how the fight is unraveling.

Louis had everything you could want from a puncher. Patience, finishing ability, accuracy, balance, stamina, etc. He could slaughter you in a round (12 first round KOs) and he can carry his power late into a fight (6 KOs past the 10th round). He can knock you out with one well placed counter punch










or a perfect combination like the one he used to finish Billy Conn.








An accurate uppercut to pop Conn's head up out of his guard leaving him open for the left hook to put him out. He always seemed to throw the right punches as the right times.

There's levels to this and Jimmy Wilde is a great puncher. *Joe Louis is the greatest puncher of all time*










@Flea Man


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> Ok I get that some of Wilde's opposition was better than boxrec indicated, but after a certain point, you have to question it. You gave an example of how 2-6 Eugene Husson is better than his record indicates on boxrec. But isn't there a bounds of reason? Even if they're missing fights of his, why is that small sample of his fights so bad? And why is this a common trend with the majority of Jimmy Wilde's opponents. By the time Jimmy Wilde reached his 45th fight, he only fought two opponents with winning records. One had the record of 9-2 at the time and the other was 2-1-1. I ask everybody to take a look at Jimmy Wilde's record (link).


Consider that Husson fought future World featherweight champion Routis, who ended up beating a fighter no less a great than Tony Canzoneri. If he wasn't a quality fighter he wouldn't still be getting fights against fighters well regarded in their own country like Routis. He also fought Holtzer, French, European and World (IBU) featherweight champion, who had notable wins over Frankie Klick (future super featherweight champion who beat HOFer Kid Chocolate for the title) and former World bantamweight champion 'Bud Taylor (HOFer).

They couldn't stop Husson, despite being much naturally larger than Wilde.

It's clear to see that Husson mixed in high class. This wouldn't have been the case if he was a relative novice with only two wins.

And as I say, Boxrec doesn't have bouts that Husson had with _other_ former/future World champions.

I ask everyone to read on in this post and see just _why_ Wilde's opponents appear to be novices. In fact, they were probably all very experienced seeing as how in England and Wales at the turn of the century there were hundreds of shows being put on every week.



bballchump11 said:


> Like you mentioned before, maybe some of these opponent's were better than their records indicate, but I'm finding extremely hard to believe that's the case with the 30 opponents Wilde had fought who didn't have a single win by the time they fought. Let me repeat that. *30 of Wilde's opponents had won no fights.* 27 opponents had only won 1-3 fights before facing Wilde. Can you explain why those 57 opponent's records were so abysmal? Boxrec just happened to screw up all 57 of their records to make them appear like absolute bums?


I'm not sure you know how Boxrec compile their records. They don't just input them, they have to be researched. 'Screw up'? No, they just haven't done the research. There are glaring omissions all over boxrec, so much so that they have one of Wilde's opponents in under two different names with different records for both. The fact they haven't realised this and rectified it should show that the research they have done isn't infallible.

And yes, I can explain the early opponents of Wilde having such bad records. As anybody who has researched early 20th century boxing in Britain knows, the Welsh hierarchy at the time (religious) disapproved of boxing. They also controlled the papers, and boxing received very little coverage. This is a fact which cannot be ignored when taking a look at Wilde's early opposition. Many of Wilde's bouts from this time do not have a source attributed to them, they are simply on boxrec due to the record submitted by his manager to the record books of the time. This is not exclusive to Wilde's opponents, but to Wilde himself.

Not knowing why this is a 'common trend' shows not only naivety on your part, but complete ignorance. Of course it is a common trend! All these fighters suffer from the same lack of research due to extenuating factors of the era they fought in and lack of coverage.



bballchump11 said:


> I'm sure Timothy Bradley would look like a KO artist if he fought opposition like that.


Whether or not you think Wilde was a great puncher, this is a bad point of reference considering that Wilde knocked out a lot of the best opponents he fought as well. Bradley hasn't.

This is what the American press said of Young Zulu Kid:

*The Brooklyn Italian is not the best bantam in this country, but he is easily the best 112lb pounder. He has often conceded six or eight pounds to the best bantamweights in the division and never failed to hold his own. He was so tough and so enduring that he shook off the hardest wallops without ever being in serious trouble. Yet Wilde, twelve pounds lighter, made him look foolish all the way, and when the time came ended the battle with a few well-placed left hooks. *

Seeing as Young Zulu Kid went the 15 round distance and an accumulated 25 rounds with Pete Herman (top 5 ATG bantam, and HOFer), an accumulated 18 rounds with Memphis Pal Moore (top 10-15 bantam, HOFer), 10 with Johnny Ertle (bantamweight champion), and multiple distance fights with Johnny Rosner, it should surely show how brilliant a puncher Wilde was that even conceding weight he knocked out Young Zulu Kid in eleven rounds.

This is what they said of Rosner:

_*'Rosner is not only a first rater, but a tough lad to beat'*_

The American press also said Wilde *Wilde has beaten every flyweight of prominence in England'*

Those at the time knew of the quality of Wilde's opposition, even if up until now it has been lost to history.



bballchump11 said:


> I don't want to boxrec my way through the rest of this debate, but these statistics are astonishing when you compare Wilde to Louis.


The statistics are astonishing to someone who doesn't know the factors that need to be taken into account when quantifying early 20th Century British boxing records, yes.

Again, you referenced 'Hall of Famers' when I have already said that this is a questionable method of determining a fighters quality.



bballchump11 said:


> Louis had everything you could want from a puncher. Patience, finishing ability, accuracy, balance, stamina, etc. He could slaughter you in a round (12 first round KOs) and he can carry his power late into a fight (6 KOs past the 10th round). He can knock you out with one well placed counter punch


You have just described Wilde here. Gene Tunney said Wilde was the best fighter he'd ever seen.

@Chatty we are done here.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

I know about Smokin' Joe Louis but never heard of that Jimmy Wilde boy.
Matt Hamilton doesn't rank him and actually didn't even mention him in his list of mathematicalâ„¢ greatest fighters.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

dyna said:


> I know about Smokin' Joe Louis but never heard of that Jimmy Wilde boy.
> Matt Hamilton doesn't rank him and actually didn't even mention him in his list of mathematical™ greatest fighters.


Hamilton, who is ridiculed by every serious boxing historian, actually used the same criteria Bball did when discussing Wilde!


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Hamilton, who is ridiculed by every serious boxing historian, actually used the same criteria Bball did when discussing Wilde!


That's the big problem with pre 20s fighters, boxrec is very incomplete for that time period.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

dyna said:


> That's the big problem with pre 20s fighters, boxrec is very incomplete for that time period.


EXACTLY mate.


----------



## megavolt (Jun 5, 2013)

Is discussion open now? don't wanna spoil judging as continued conversation can be additional bullet points for either finalist


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

megavolt said:


> Is discussion open now? don't wanna spoil judging as continued conversation can be additional bullet points for either finalist


Let's wait until it's all said and done. Bball and I both commented on Jackson, which makes it fair IMO, but let's wait until the judging is finished please.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

@PityTheFool @Juiceboxbiotch @JeffJoiner can we get this one judged.

I'll do mine this afternoon when I get back from a meeting.


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Good job guys. I always love me some Louis and the thread revived my interest for Wilde who I had seen fighting a bit on youtube, but never researched thoroughly.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

I'll do my judging on this one later this evening. @Chatty @Flea Man @bballchump11


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Chatty said:


> @PityTheFool @Juiceboxbiotch @JeffJoiner can we get this one judged.
> 
> I'll do mine this afternoon when I get back from a meeting.


Hmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## TSOL (Dec 15, 2013)

ballsy pick to go with Wilde


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmm.


My meeting ended up lasting four hours and when I got home I had to do some painting so never got round to it. I will today though, I'll read through once I've had a shower.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

TSOL said:


> ballsy pick to go with Wilde


You think?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Tough debate. I though BBall picked the better choice in Louis just due to information and footage available and thought he was edging it out. But then he got embroiled in a Boxrec debate and for me that cost him as Flea had superior knowledge in the department of early 20th century boxing and used that to his favour bringing facts to the table that aren't available at a glance on Boxrec. Picking a small flyweight who beat guys a lot bigger than him and compiling a huge list of KO's over quality opposition.

@*Flea Man* edged it and took the win in overtime.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

This isn't getting any easier and this has been a fucker to judge,so we'll done again guys.

Have to say at two posts each I had bball in front even though I hoped no one would pick a heavyweight when the question went up.This was a contest where the last post would be the decider and it's come down to those two for me. @bballchump11 ;I thought you countered your way to victory superbly in the last round,but Flea had the advantage of going second(usually a disadvantage) and I think he countered the final post just that little bit better and my dislike of boxrec at times also went in his favour.
Another one that required several readings,and I thought bball was in it all the way,but Flea's last post got him over the line for me.Tough,tough call and we lose another P4P monster,but I liked the Wilde argument by a whisker,and I admit I liked that as a choice but this was a real close call.Louis would have been on my shortlist for this question.
And I cannot believe how often you hear about Greb and Pep around here but so little about Wilde.Boxrec isn't helping that.(I'm even posting on the third page so I could keep re-reading the last posts)


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Ok this was very difficult.
@bballchump11 had an argument that is easier to back up and verify, while @Flea Man had one that comes from a more obscure era, which is more difficult to present.

While boxrec is a great tool, Flea Man has exposed it's weaknesses in this debate. The problem though, is that in my eyes, he failed to site any more sources other than the Gene Tunney and Charley Rose quotes... don't get me wrong, great quotes.. but perhaps if we were able to see some of that research to be revealed in Flea Man's forthcoming book, I would have been swayed a little easier.

At this point, I'm convinced that Jimmy Wilde is ONE of the greatest punchers of all time. THE greatest? I don't think so. I'd love to give this debate to Flea Man for the quality of his pick and the balls it took to take that stance, but Bball's pick was Joe Louis. And Joe Louis is Joe Louis.

Bball gets my vote.
Like I said, very difficult this one was. Impressively debated by both guys.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Looks like a spit decision for Flea Man in a debate that could have gone either way. Hopefully the commission doesn't want to investigate my scorecard :lol:


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Looks like a spit decision for Flea Man in a debate that could have gone either way. Hopefully the commission doesn't want to investigate my scorecard :lol:


Still @JeffJoiner to go. If its a draw it goes to @Jay as a decider.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Still @*JeffJoiner* to go. If its a draw it goes to @*Jay* as a decider.


Shit I didn't realize Jeff was supposed to chime in as well.

Don't mind me.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Ok this was very difficult.
> @bballchump11 had an argument that is easier to back up and verify, while @Flea Man had one that comes from a more obscure era, which is more difficult to present.
> 
> While boxrec is a great tool, Flea Man has exposed it's weaknesses in this debate. The problem though, is that in my eyes, he failed to site any more sources other than the Gene Tunney and Charley Rose quotes... don't get me wrong, great quotes.. but perhaps if we were able to see some of that research to be revealed in Flea Man's forthcoming book, I would have been swayed a little easier.
> ...


This was how I felt two posts in.Wilde was a brave pick and one I was impressed by,but I had that same "It's Joe Louis"
But Wilde is the greatest British boxer ever IMO,and I liked the last post from Flea because it's the type of post that's been serving bball well throughout.
My sometime disdain for boxrec played a part as well and the way it can distort people's views,but it was in no way a deciding factor.
I've been at this one since last night and really struggled with it.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Shit I didn't realize Jeff was supposed to chime in as well.
> 
> Don't mind me.


I did cite newspaper reports showing that Wilde'sWilde's opponents were more highly regarded though, although I definitely think bball put up a great argument and deserves your vote. No qualms from me on your reasoning at all mate.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Still @*JeffJoiner* to go. If its a draw it goes to @*Jay* as a decider.


I'll judge this today. Meant to get to it yesterday but work is insane right now and I don't have set hours/breaks at my job.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

shit how come my opponents always seem to make their best posts last when I can't counter


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> shit how come my opponents always seem to make their best posts last when I can't counter


For reasons we'll reveal when this is all over you fortunate to get the first post  :good


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

It's nearly impossible to compare level of opposition between fighters in the modern era. Trying to compare them between guys whose careers were decades, continents, and several weight classes apart is a fool's errand, IMO. Although I did love @*Flea Man* tearing boxrec apart it is clear both fighters faced good opposition.

That said, I thought @*bballchump11* did a better job explaining his actual fighter: the combinations used, the ability to end fights early or late, the technique applied to the natural gifts that made Louis such a feared puncher. I didn't learn if Wilde was a combination puncher, a wear them out guy, or a one punch KO artist.

So, I narrowly give my vote to @*bballchump11*


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Oh snap. @Jay we have a tie-break situation.


----------



## Jay (May 31, 2012)

Just seen the notification, will read tonight.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Oh snap. @*Jay* we have a tie-break situation.


Between these two posters, I'm not surprised.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> Between these two posters, I'm not surprised.


Me neither.It's almost a fitting result and I'm quite happy with the SD.
No one really deserves to lose this one.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Deciding vote made by someone who knows fuck all about Boxing. Great.


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Wallet said:


> Deciding vote made by someone who knows fuck all about Boxing. Great.


this


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

I would've gone with Stanley Ketchel, honestly. He was outweighed by Jack Johnson by like 30+ lbs. and managed to make him taste canvas.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Mexi-Box said:


> I would've gone with Stanley Ketchel, honestly. He was outweighed by Jack Johnson by like 30+ lbs. and managed to make him taste canvas.


That knockdown isn't really legit at all.

Ketchel was definitely a phenomenal puncher though.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Wallet said:


> Deciding vote made by someone who knows fuck all about Boxing. Great.


He'll probably do a better job as its about who debated better, in effect he doesn't need to know a lot because the other four judges have done the fact checking.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Wallet said:


> Deciding vote made by someone who knows fuck all about Boxing. Great.


He knows enough to set up a boxing website surely ?


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Stone Rose said:


> He knows enough to set up a boxing website surely ?


Nah, he knows fuck all.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Wallet said:


> Nah, he knows fuck all.


:lol: Fair enough


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> That knockdown isn't really legit at all.
> 
> Ketchel was definitely a phenomenal puncher though.


Looks legit to me:



Spoiler















Punch looks to have hit the ear, with Johnson slowly getting up. Additionally, Ketchel definitely was putting his whole weight into the punch. You can also see Ketchel going into a bit of "stalker-mode," bending at the knees and creeping forward a bit, which is showing he wanted to go for the "kill" in a way.

Are you talking about the agreement to where they would fight to a draw? According to boxing writer Daniel Somrack, "By the 11th, Ketchel, bruised and bleeding from Johnson's rough tactics, felt that their prefight agreement had been violated. After a series of give-and-take exchanges in round 12, Ketchel suddenly exploded with a right hand causing Johnson to crash to the canvas."

This is when Ketchel threw that massive right and dropped Johnson. Plus, you can definitely see it in the YouTube 10 minute snippet they have. Johnson wasn't holding up the deal and throwing some hard jabs towards the later rounds. It also looked like Ketchel started bleeding from his nose. Johnson also didn't get straight back up and looked hurt; although, he recovered quickly.

If it wasn't legit, I'm not sure why Johnson would've retaliated by breaking Ketchel's face.

The New York Times states, "...he had knocked Johnson flat with one of those terrific swings which made his fighting style so spectacular." They also write, in an earlier issue, "Johnson ducked, and the blow landed behind his ear." In the same issue, they go on to write, after Johnson knocked-out Ketchel, "Johnson, who leaned against the ropes, half dazed by his own fall a moment before, did not seem to know what had happened."

I don't agree with you saying it wasn't legit at all.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

@Jay knows enough to be able to read the debates and see which one convinces him better on who was the greatest puncher ever :thumbsup


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Mexi-Box said:


> Looks legit to me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Think he's directing more to that it was a sucker punch in a supposed fixed fight, if they had both been having a proper scrap he probably wouldn't have got the chance to land that shot.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

I think this one had a lot of possibilities:

Robinson
Hearns
Moore
Langford
Gomez
Saddler

I would have probably have went with Robinson tbh.


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Think he's directing more to that it was a sucker punch in a supposed fixed fight, if they had both been having a proper scrap he probably wouldn't have got the chance to land that shot.


As I said, it looked like Johnson was actually starting to get serious throughout the fight. During the first half, yeah, Johnson looked like he was playing around. Once that half is over, he was throwing some very hard jabs. Ketchel looked like (that black and white doesn't do it justice) he was bleeding all over the place. He then goes on to throw that punch.

Not only that, as the article writes and the YouTube video shows, Johnson was defensively responsible by trying to duck that over-hand that Ketchel threw. It would've landed regardless. The only way you can really say it is if Johnson didn't even try to block/duck the shot. I can understand if Johnson was standing their like a fucking retard with his chin in the air, but he actually tried to duck the shot. Plus, Ketchel was known to have a fantastic chin and a strong punch.

(It's good that you cleared it up because I thought he said it wasn't legit because Johnson was faking he was hurt or he wasn't really hurt)


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> @Jay knows enough to be able to read the debates and see which one convinces him better on who was the greatest puncher ever :thumbsup


Hey! Don't ass kiss in the hope he'll give you more favour 
@Jay knows I love him more than you


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Mexi-Box said:


> As I said, it looked like Johnson was actually starting to get serious throughout the fight. During the first half, yeah, Johnson looked like he was playing around. Once that half is over, he was throwing some very hard jabs. Ketchel looked like (that black and white doesn't do it justice) he was bleeding all over the place. He then goes on to throw that punch.
> 
> Not only that, as the article writes and the YouTube video shows, Johnson was defensively responsible by trying to duck that over-hand that Ketchel threw. It would've landed regardless. The only way you can really say it is if Johnson didn't even try to block/duck the shot. I can understand if Johnson was standing their like a fucking retard with his chin in the air, but he actually tried to duck the shot. Plus, Ketchel was known to have a fantastic chin and a strong punch.
> 
> (It's good that you cleared it up because I thought he said it wasn't legit because Johnson was faking he was hurt or he wasn't really hurt)


 @Klompton has it in HD and has done much more researxh than I so I bow to his analysis of clearer footage showing Johnson wasn't legitimately knocked down.

Knocked over, but not actually hurt or anything. He sparked Ketchel out of embarrassment at losing his footing from what I can gather.

Ketchel would be a good pick for this though.


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> @Klompton has it in HD and has done much more researxh than I so I bow to his analysis of clearer footage showing Johnson wasn't legitimately knocked down.
> 
> Knocked over, but not actually hurt or anything. He sparked Ketchel out of embarrassment at losing his footing from what I can gather.
> 
> Ketchel would be a good pick for this though.


I'd like to see what your guy has to say. He's going against what the New York Times reported. I mean you can see that Johnson struggles a bit to get up even.

Oh, this also might've been a good pick because it would've been a back and forth about the legitimacy of the punch, if I was debating you. Just like how you got bball into your trap arguing about the legitimacy of boxrec. You would've fallen into that where the debate would've been centered around my pick rather than yours.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Mexi-Box said:


> I'd like to see what your guy has to say. He's going against what the New York Times reported. I mean you can see that Johnson struggles a bit to get up even.
> 
> Oh, this also might've been a good pick because it would've been a back and forth about the legitimacy of the punch, if I was debating you. Just like how you got bball into your trap arguing about the legitimacy of boxrec. You would've fallen into that where the debate would've been centered around my pick rather than yours.


Agreed. I like the tangential nature of these debates :good


----------



## Ivan Drago (Jun 3, 2013)

That Ketchell knock down always looks like Johnson means to go down, he's already falling over and the punch looks like it goes over his head maybe clipping him on the back of it. Either balance or showmanship but doubt the punch actually hurt him if at all landed clean.


----------



## Jay (May 31, 2012)

Sorry guys, been a busy day (fuck off @Lunny). Read the first 3 posts on the debate, will finish it shortly and post my response. @Wallet stfu.


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Ivan Drago said:


> That Ketchell knock down always looks like Johnson means to go down, he's already falling over and the punch looks like it goes over his head maybe clipping him on the back of it. Either balance or showmanship but doubt the punch actually hurt him if at all landed clean.


That black and white stuff doesn't do it justice, honestly. The New York Times stated that Johnson was hurt and that the punch landed behind the ear. We've seen guys go down hard with some weak ass punches that don't look like it'll hurt anyone.

For example, Kovalev looked like he barely touched Capallero's body which lead to Capallero taking a knee. Povetkin's left-hook (I think it was) it didn't look all that hard just seeing it. Same with Wlad Klitschko knocking down Povetkin with his hook. I mean someone posted a .gif and I still can't believe it make Povetkin do that dance.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Yeah, but Wlad is a huge punching heavyweight. Ketchel was not, although Johnson is massively overrated IMO.

Where The New York Times even there? The bout was in California.


----------



## Ivan Drago (Jun 3, 2013)

Mexi-Box said:


> That black and white stuff doesn't do it justice, honestly. The New York Times stated that Johnson was hurt and that the punch landed behind the ear. We've seen guys go down hard with some weak ass punches that don't look like it'll hurt anyone.
> 
> For example, Kovalev looked like he barely touched Capallero's body which lead to Capallero taking a knee. Povetkin's left-hook (I think it was) it didn't look all that hard just seeing it. Same with Wlad Klitschko knocking down Povetkin with his hook. I mean someone posted a .gif and I still can't believe it make Povetkin do that dance.


I get that but every time I watch it I see a punch that doesn't/barely lands and Johnson getting up steady as a rock and demolishing Ketchell with one shot. I'll accept it was a legit knock down as there appears to be perhaps some contact and Johnson goes down which would constitute a legit knockdown. Don't think it's a result of a damaging blow however.


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Jay said:


> Sorry guys, been a busy day (fuck off @Lunny). Read the first 3 posts on the debate, will finish it shortly and post my response. @Wallet stfu.


Jay has spent 89.9 hours on DOTA in the past 2 weeks and is in game now.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Mexi-Box said:


> That black and white stuff doesn't do it justice, honestly. The New York Times stated that Johnson was hurt and that the punch landed behind the ear. We've seen guys go down hard with some weak ass punches that don't look like it'll hurt anyone.
> 
> For example, Kovalev looked like he barely touched Capallero's body which lead to Capallero taking a knee. Povetkin's left-hook (I think it was) it didn't look all that hard just seeing it. Same with Wlad Klitschko knocking down Povetkin with his hook. I mean someone posted a .gif and I still can't believe it make Povetkin do that dance.


Wlad's left hook is one of the hardest punches all time.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

I'm curious to see who wins this one.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> I'm curious to see who wins this one.


It's like election night or something and we're waiting to hear the final results from the swing states :yep


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

No doubt in my mind Johnson faked the KD. The ringside reports for the fight state that at the very least it looked suspicious and most thought it looked like acting. When the films were released for public consumption shortly thereafter those who thought they would clear up any confusion stated that the knockdown still looked suspicious. You can clearly see in the film that before the very telegraphed punch even "lands" Johnson is falling forward. I use "" because the punch doesnt even land. It curls around behind Johnson's neck. I know Ketchel was a hard puncher but lets get real, he wasnt THAT hard of a puncher. Especially not against heavyweights. Plenty of guys made it into the late rounds with him and weighed 40 pounds less than Johnson who was carved out of stone for that fight. Early in the fight Johnson knocks Ketchel down with a relatively glancing blow and from that point on realises that he needs to ease up. He had a percentage of the motion picture take meaning that if the motion pictures were exciting and drew an audience he stood to make more than if it was a one sided quick KO. He eases up on Ketchel and systematically beats him up, dominating him at every aspect of the game. At one point Johnson hits Ketchel who starts to fall and Johnson literally grabs him under the armpits and lifts him like a child to keep Ketchel on his feet. In short he was LITERALLY carrying Ketchel. By the midway point of the fight Ketchel is bleeding profusely, huffing and puffing, and you can see the frustration on his face. Then comes the bogus knockdown after which Johnson immediately knocks Ketchel deader than a doornail removing several of his teeth in the process. You want to argue that it was legit? I dont think so. Johnson could have murdered Ketchel as early as the second round but knew that he stood to make more on the movies if he made it look good. A year later Ketchel admitted that he couldnt beat Johnson (and didnt believe anyone could). He stated he suffered severe headaches from the knockout and never felt like he had completely recovered. This was shortly before his death.

Below is an older assessment I did of the fight with screen caps:

http://checkhookboxing.com/showthread.php?26100-Just-watched-Jack-Johnson-Vs-Stanley-Ketchel-again


----------



## Jay (May 31, 2012)

Enjoyable read. Interesting choices from both.

Bball argued well for Louis, and raised fair questions about Wilde's quality of opposition. Flea countered and (for lack of better expression) excused and explained the reasons why.

I've gone back and forth on this quite a bit, and changed my mind a few times. I was ready to go with Bball after his breakdown of the opposition, but Flea's final post clarifying the reasons, and citing statements that suggests that the 'shitty' opposition (that you'd assume from the boxrec records) aren't quite as shitty. I'm also a huge Pep fan, and his record is often questioned due to a large number of not so great fighters, so I'm naturally inclined towards Wilde as a result (also a smaller guy).

That being said, like JeffJoiner said, Bball gave me examples and reasons as to why Louis was the best puncher. I can see it for myself. I can see the names, their achievements etc. I get that due to the eras, Flea may be at a disadvantage for providing the evidence that Bball can, but I can't go with choosing someone just based on what newspapers etc. all say, I'm a fan of seeing it for myself.
@bballchump11 gets my vote, but there is literally nothing in it, the only thing that stops me going with Flea and Wilde are the lack of irrefutable evidence and examples that Bball can provide for Louis.

Good read Bball and @Flea Man, I may have lost most of my interest for boxing lately, but I still enjoyed reading it all. 
@Chatty, we have our winner. (Sorry Flea)


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

:hammerarty Thank you judges and thank you head judge( @Jay ) for taking time out of your busy day to read our debate and give a verdict. Great job Flea Man :cheers and I legit got worried after your last post. I feel like you had the response ready for me beforehand and tried to bait me into talking about Wilde's opponents on boxrec :smile. Good tactic if that's what you were doing


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Klompton said:


> No doubt in my mind Johnson faked the KD. The ringside reports for the fight state that at the very least it looked suspicious and most thought it looked like acting. When the films were released for public consumption shortly thereafter those who thought they would clear up any confusion stated that the knockdown still looked suspicious. You can clearly see in the film that before the very telegraphed punch even "lands" Johnson is falling forward. I use "" because the punch doesnt even land. It curls around behind Johnson's neck. I know Ketchel was a hard puncher but lets get real, he wasnt THAT hard of a puncher. Especially not against heavyweights. Plenty of guys made it into the late rounds with him and weighed 40 pounds less than Johnson who was carved out of stone for that fight. Early in the fight Johnson knocks Ketchel down with a relatively glancing blow and from that point on realises that he needs to ease up. He had a percentage of the motion picture take meaning that if the motion pictures were exciting and drew an audience he stood to make more than if it was a one sided quick KO. He eases up on Ketchel and systematically beats him up, dominating him at every aspect of the game. At one point Johnson hits Ketchel who starts to fall and Johnson literally grabs him under the armpits and lifts him like a child to keep Ketchel on his feet. In short he was LITERALLY carrying Ketchel. By the midway point of the fight Ketchel is bleeding profusely, huffing and puffing, and you can see the frustration on his face. Then comes the bogus knockdown after which Johnson immediately knocks Ketchel deader than a doornail removing several of his teeth in the process. You want to argue that it was legit? I dont think so. Johnson could have murdered Ketchel as early as the second round but knew that he stood to make more on the movies if he made it look good. A year later Ketchel admitted that he couldnt beat Johnson (and didnt believe anyone could). He stated he suffered severe headaches from the knockout and never felt like he had completely recovered. This was shortly before his death.
> 
> Below is an older assessment I did of the fight with screen caps:
> 
> http://checkhookboxing.com/showthread.php?26100-Just-watched-Jack-Johnson-Vs-Stanley-Ketchel-again


I'm not at all saying Ketchel had a chance, but the clip is very hard to determine exactly what happened. The frame-skipping doesn't do it much justice, and the punch looked to have landed on the back of the ear even before I read the New York Times report (says San Franscisco before the article begins--I'm assuming they had reporters there).

Even Bert Sugar writes "... looking as if it hit him on the ear... Ketchel raced in to put the finishing touches..." Yeah, Sugar doesn't think it landed either, but I'm not sure how you can make a punch "look as if it hit him in the ear" when, as Sugar writes, the punch "serpentined around the back of Johnson's neck." If so, Johnson is a damn good actor especially when he breaks character by holding up Ketchel.

Plus, 2 things about Johnson: he gets up slowly and he holds himself up at the ropes. Both those show signs that he was at least dazed.

I also doubt that Ketchel would go into "stalker mode" if he really felt that the punch didn't land at all. As I point out, Ketchel bends at the knees and looks to try to finish off Johnson after the punch lands.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Well done @bballchump. We now have two semi finalists, a further one only a couple of posts away and the last group final will go up on Saturday regardless of whether the debates are finished or not. 

Closing in, this was a quality debate, one of the best ones so far. Gonna have to cook up some big questions for the final three matches.


----------



## Hook! (Jun 8, 2012)

nice one lads


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Mexi-Box said:


> I'm not at all saying Ketchel had a chance, but the clip is very hard to determine exactly what happened. The frame-skipping doesn't do it much justice, and the punch looked to have landed on the back of the ear even before I read the New York Times report (says San Franscisco before the article begins--I'm assuming they had reporters there).
> 
> Even Bert Sugar writes "... looking as if it hit him on the ear... Ketchel raced in to put the finishing touches..." Yeah, Sugar doesn't think it landed either, but I'm not sure how you can make a punch "look as if it hit him in the ear" when, as Sugar writes, the punch "serpentined around the back of Johnson's neck." If so, Johnson is a damn good actor especially when he breaks character by holding up Ketchel.
> 
> ...


What frame skipping? The copy I have doesnt skip a frame, the punch loops around behind Johnson's head and if anything makes contact its Ketchel's wrist with the back of Johnson's neck. This is a crappy copy and even it doesnt have a frame jump on the knockdown:





If the New York Times report doesnt have a byline then they didnt have a writer on hand in which case there is no way to verify the validity of its report. My sources are the SF Chronicle and SF Examiner. Both ringside and both call into question the knockdown.

I dont care what Bert Sugar says. Sugar was no expert despite how he portrayed himself and he wasnt ringside for the fight. He wasnt watching it any better quality than my copy and likely was watching it in less quality.

When does he hold himself up at the ropes? He goes down before the punch even lands. Ketchel apologists never seem to want to even address that fact. He gets up and damn near kills Ketchel with his first punch and then walks over calmly and stands relaxed with one hand on his hip and another on the rope. If you are seriously trying to characterize that as him holding himself up on the ropes because he was weakened by that punch then methinks you have an agenda.

Who said Ketchel didnt think he hurt Johnson? Ketchel threw a punch, Johnson went down, and Ketchel followed up. Talk to any knockout puncher and they will tell you you often dont feel the punch. Mike Tyson once made the point that landing a knockout is the same as a home run hitter landing a home run. You dont even feel it. There was nothing unnatural about Ketchel's actions. But Johnson's, throughout the entire fight, illustrate that he was acting and his likely motivation (surmised by many today and many more at that time) was to make the fight more interesting for the motion pictures which he had a percentage of.

The bottom line is that MOST people looking at that knockdown would think it looks fishy, especially under the circumstances. Those that think it was legitimate typically have an agenda or at best WANT it to be legitimate. Maybe the are Ketchel fans and want him to have some saving grace. Maybe they hate Johnson for one reason or another and think that being knocked down by a white fighter or a MW or both is a stain on his record. Whatever the case may be that knockdown is just what it looks like and thats phony.


----------



## TSOL (Dec 15, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> You think?


yea i was a little shocked. was a fun read though.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> :hammerarty Thank you judges and thank you head judge( @Jay ) for taking time out of your busy day to read our debate and give a verdict. Great job Flea Man :cheers and I legit got worried after your last post. I feel like you had the response ready for me beforehand and tried to bait me into talking about Wilde's opponents on boxrec :smile. Good tactic if that's what you were doing


Now we can reveal our PM correapondence!

Louis is far and away my choice for the greatest P4P puncher. I told bball this as the debate was progressing, so he knew I waa up against it.

And yes, I picked a fighter that I knew I would have an advantage of in terms of area of knowledge, rather thaj say, Tommy Hearns, who bball would be able to hold his own with.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

And no, I didn't have my last post ready or anything, just had a hunch that you may have particular gripes with my choice that I would have the answer to.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Mexi-Box said:


> I'm not at all saying Ketchel had a chance, but the clip is very hard to determine exactly what happened. The frame-skipping doesn't do it much justice, and the punch looked to have landed on the back of the ear even before I read the New York Times report (says San Franscisco before the article begins--I'm assuming they had reporters there).
> 
> Even Bert Sugar writes "... looking as if it hit him on the ear... Ketchel raced in to put the finishing touches..." Yeah, Sugar doesn't think it landed either, but I'm not sure how you can make a punch "look as if it hit him in the ear" when, as Sugar writes, the punch "serpentined around the back of Johnson's neck." If so, Johnson is a damn good actor especially when he breaks character by holding up Ketchel.
> 
> ...


Come on man, Sugar was a hack and not to be taken seriously on anything.


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Julian Jackson.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Chacal said:


> Julian Jackson.


I'm nowhere near the expert a lot are on here but he's the hardest puncher I've ever seen. Freakish power, even with what looked fairly innocuous punches. Very hurtful puncher.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bare in mind it was for greatest puncher and not hardest puncher P4P. I'm sure Jackson is a contender but theres more to think about that just punch power.

Its why I would have chose Robinson, guy had everything, KO power in both hands, great finisher, great use of punch selection, very high KO ratio and knocked some very tough guys out.

La Motta, first to stop him legitimately.
Fulmer, first to stop him, only person after was Dick Tiger in his final fight.
Olson, only him and Arche stopped him in his prime - Robnson did it three times.
Graziano - only stopped by Robinson and Zale
Villemain - only person to stop him.
Basora - only ever stopped by top guys.
Levine - first to ever stop him.
Janazzo - a lot of legends couldn't put Janazzo down, Robinson did twice.
Zivic - only a small list of people stopped Zivic and Robinson did it when he was still fairly green.

Thats just the worthy stoppages. Plus you have a canny list of highlight reel Ko's to put up.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Great picks here and a Good close debate by two great posters.
It's hard to pick against Louis imo but Fleas research into Wilde's resume made this interesting.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Stone Rose said:


> I'm nowhere near the expert a lot are on here but he's the hardest puncher I've ever seen. Freakish power, even with what looked fairly innocuous punches. Very hurtful puncher.


yeah I think he's the hardest p4p I've seen also. Just scary power. The KO's you'd see for knockout of the year, he would have a plethora of them. Guys would be defending, keeping their hands up and even see the punch and still get KO'd


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> yeah I think he's the hardest p4p I've seen also. Just scary power. The KO's you'd see for knockout of the year, he would have a plethora of them. Guys would be defending, keeping their hands up and even see the punch and still get KO'd


Hardest I've seen too. The fact he consistently knocked people clean out is an indication that he had freakish power.

What he's underrated for is his technique; decent boxer-puncher and pressure fighting ability, but superb timing, punch placement and shot selection.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Hardest I've seen too. The fact he consistently knocked people clean out is an indication that he had freakish power.
> 
> What he's underrated for is his technique; decent boxer-puncher and pressure fighting ability, but superb timing, punch placement and shot selection.


He did a decent job of switch hitting in the Baek fight, too.


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

Dont forget Langford.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Wilde probably isn't in my top 5. I just felt I'd be able to answer bball's criticisms and counter arguments well with that pick.


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

Chacal said:


> Julian Jackson.


It's pretty crazy just how hard he hit guys. And sometimes with punches that didn't look like they'd have the other guy on rubbery legs!


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Jackson had put to sleep power. Who was the greatest puncher in terms of putting opponents out cold with one punch? I mean out cold not just put down.


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

Langford was the best pure puncher across divisions. P4p means just who was the best for Their weight class. People have p4p confused.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

I would have had Foreman on my shortlist if I was going second here.Haven't checked Boxrec to see if it would have stood up to scrutiny but if I had to come up with 5 names quickly,I'd probably find George coming to mind fairly quickly.
I'm quite glad this was so hard to sort out.Both guys deserved it to go right to the wire.


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

I always felt Johnson faked the KD by Ketchel. My thought was confirmed when I read an interview with Gunboat Smith who was at ringside for this fight. Smith stated the KD was faked. Regarding hardest puncher of all time...its prime Foreman. The guy was a human wrecking machine. I watched him train back in the early 70s at the great gorge resort, then called the Playboy club resort. The sound of his punches hitting the heavy bag were seriously frightening. The best puncher of all time was Louis. I do not believe he hit as hard with one punch as Dempsey. Marciano. Foreman etc but with his precision combo punching he was just as lethal. For many years I always read that Sharkey never chose the better puncher between Louis and Dempsey (since he was the only man to have fought both). However recently I heard an audio clip of Sharkey where he stated that Dempsey was the harder puncher. "When Dempsey hit you in the shoulder he breaks your shoulder. If he hits you in the stomach it felt as if it came out your back. If he his you on the hip he dislocated your hip"


----------



## The Kraken (Apr 19, 2014)

Some really interesting stuff on Jimmy Wilde here who I was always curious about as a fighter, very very unlucky for @Flea Man (I don't know how to tag) I thought, despite the great job Bball did. some of those paper clippings about Wildes opposition were fantastic insight, what is this book you're writing?

Incidentally Julian Jackson was apparently a close family friend who used to visit my great aunts house a lot and even came to her wedding, apparently they were among the crazy Jackson fans who started going wild after he sparked out Herol Graham. They live in America though so I never got the chance to meet him.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

The Kraken said:


> Some really interesting stuff on Jimmy Wilde here who I was always curious about as a fighter, very very unlucky for @Flea Man (I don't know how to tag) I thought, despite the great job Bball did. some of those paper clippings about Wildes opposition were fantastic insight, what is this book you're writing?
> 
> Incidentally Julian Jackson was apparently a close family friend who used to visit my great aunts house a lot and even came to her wedding, apparently they were among the crazy Jackson fans who started going wild after he sparked out Herol Graham. They live in America though so I never got the chance to meet him.


Thanks mate, I'm working on a series of books about the history of the flyweight division, Wilde is the subject of the second book.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

It's obviously Rocky Marciano.
Second comes Wlad
:hey


----------

