View Single Post
#23
Old 01-30-2013, 11:44 AM
House of Stone
BigDaddy
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,082
Rep Power: 15 House of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond reputeHouse of Stone has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 214,050,093,093.86
Bank: 35,945,601,072.30
Total Points: 249,995,694,166.16
Prospect of the Year! - Barnburner Pretend Its Klitsckos and sit on it... LOL - afiln Kick this keyboard warrior. - Weltschmerz One of Boxingscene's best!! - JAB5239 atg poster! - jas 
knows his boxing - jas 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugarj View Post
The second Schmelling fight was the most significant historically, certainly better known and most one sided. But thats it.....

Your quote in bold has no relevance here. A best win is surely a win over the best opponent a fighter faces when the opponent is also at their best.

Thats why for example Sugar Ray Leonard's win over Thomas Hearns would be considered a better win than Leonard's win over Hagler.

Not only was 1948 Walcott most likely a better heavyweight than any version of Schmelling. He was also probably better at that point than any fighter Joe Louis had ever met previously. It stands to reason that Walcott is therefore the better win. It was a huge event at the time too.

For a different example ask yourself, what was the better win for Duran? The rematch with DeJesus or the first match with Leonard? Duran was more prime for DeJesus, arguably more dominant. But Leonard would have been counted as the better win
agree with bold and kinda agreed on the following line too
Reply With Quote
House of Stone is offline