Do you think Jack Dempsey is overrated?

[them_apples]

poet I thought you had a different list then that..it seems you changed it all around.

[StarshipTrooper]

poet I thought you had a different list then that..it seems you changed it all around.

I haven't changed it in a few months and then only the bottom four. You aren't thinking of the results of the computer tournament are you?

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

why do you have dempsey higher than holmes, foreman, and marcaino? holmes was a much more dominant champion at heavyweight making 20 defences.

marcaino was never beaten at heavyweight and never lost his title and proably beat better fighters than dempsey.

and foreman beat better fighters than dempsey and avoided virtually no one.

AND WERE THE HELL IS LENNOX LEWIS?

explain?

Precisely who should be dropped so Lennox could get in?

Explain?

Poet

[Gettin Jiggy]

Precisely who should be dropped so Lennox could get in?

Explain?

Poet

Lewis was a better heavyweight than Willis and a more dominant one. his reign was also more dominated than tyson's and listons. do he may be a better fighter, lewis also had a more dominat reign than dempsey aswell.

he deserves at least a top 12 spot!

[StarshipTrooper]

Lewis was a better heavyweight than Willis and a more dominant one. his reign was also more dominated than tyson's and listons. do he may be a better fighter, lewis also had a more dominat reign than dempsey aswell.

he deserves at least a top 12 spot!

My lists are based on who I perceive has better in-ring ability not who accomplished more or had a more distinguished reign. While those things may very well be an indicator of in-ring ability they are only part of a number of factors. Ultimately my rankings are based on how I see things shaking out if they all fought each other.....ie. what the final standings would look like. For me, ranking resume and achievements are a different discussion.

Poet

[Gettin Jiggy]

My lists are based on who I perceive has better in-ring ability not who accomplished more or had a more distinguished reign. While those things may very well be an indicator of in-ring ability they are only part of a number of factors. Ultimately my rankings are based on how I see things shaking out if they all fought each other.....ie. what the final standings would look like. For me, ranking resume and achievements are a different discussion.

Poet

so you only judge on ability? and no matter how good the accomplishments were, you only look at ability. i think the main thing you have to look at is accomplishments.

[StarshipTrooper]

i think the main thing you have to look at is accomplishments.

Which for me is a separate discussion entirely.

Poet

[Gettin Jiggy]

Which for me is a separate discussion entirely.

Poet

but shoundt you judge everything when doing a list. or is your HW list only judged on ability? something which you never mentioned!

[StarshipTrooper]

but shoundt you judge everything when doing a list. or is your HW list only judged on ability? something which you never mentioned!

PRIMARILY ability. As I said before there are a number of factors. Some people make their lists based only on accomplishments; some only on resume: Are they obligated to mention that?

Poet

[Gettin Jiggy]

PRIMARILY ability. As I said before there are a number of factors. Some people make their lists based only on accomplishments; some only on resume: Are they obligated to mention that?

Poet

i think when doing a lis everything should be considered. and the main thing should be ACCOMPLISHMENTS! and for me demspey is just to high!