were max baer and joe walcott all time greats

well this settles it, ive clearly proved my point. you brought nothing to the discussion except for your ideal views, and the redicilous opinion that walcott is an all time great thanks for at least agreeing with me, and finally getting it. my advice to you is to educate yourself more on the louis era, and practice the meaning of greatness. you're not a bad poster, but you show your biase, double standards, and sometimes go overboard with your statements. however after this discussion i seriously doubt your knowledge

In real life, he'd be too big. Pound for pound, I'd give Lewis the edge but it's not as dominating as you make it out to be. you still dont want to break your double standard regarding glen johnson, or just admit that walcott was a fine journeyman, to label him an all time great is extreme.

laugh all you want, lennox lewis would have beaten walcott, and charles on the same night In real life, he'd be too big. Pound for pound, I'd give Lewis the edge but it's not as dominating as you make it out to be.

:rofl::nonono: laugh all you want, lennox lewis would have beaten walcott, and charles on the same night

rahman beating Lennox Lewis outruns everything walcott did in his entire career and then gets multiplied by a hundred :rofl::nonono:

Rahman then got knocked senseless by Lewis in the rematch. Walcott beat Charles twice. rahman beating Lennox Lewis outruns everything walcott did in his entire career and then gets multiplied by a hundred

hell, hasim rahman turned pro at 22 with only a dozen amateur fights, beat some solid contenders and became one of the 2 men in history to wax out lenox lewis. i guess that makes him into an all time great too. Hell everyone is an all time great. what does it mean anyway? all time great...childish right Rahman then got knocked senseless by Lewis in the rematch. Walcott beat Charles twice.

His style was part of what made him great, same with Jack Johnson. They both had styles that transcended their times. As I said, Walcott had to learn a lot of things when he turned pro, he had no amateur experience that I know of and I already admitted that he was a journeyman for some time, he became great towards the end of his career. His style plus the fact that he beat a fellow ATG and beating top contenders of the time make him great. hell, hasim rahman turned pro at 22 with only a dozen amateur fights, beat some solid contenders and became one of the 2 men in history to wax out lenox lewis. i guess that makes him into an all time great too. Hell everyone is an all time great. what does it mean anyway? all time great...childish right

now you're saying the same thing slicksouthpaw is saying. style doesnt make you into a great. if it does than floyd patterson is an all time great too because mike tyson used his style too, and people loved him for it ill put it in more simpler terms for you, a fighter who loses to an opponent with 11-15 record, and get knocked out against other unknown opponents is not an all time great again ill say the same thing, ezzard charles was a great light heavyweight. i could match a lot of heavyweigths who could beat him. i can not say the same to a guy like louis who could handle most heavyweights i really dont know where you're going with this His style was part of what made him great, same with Jack Johnson. They both had styles that transcended their times. As I said, Walcott had to learn a lot of things when he turned pro, he had no amateur experience that I know of and I already admitted that he was a journeyman for some time, he became great towards the end of his career. His style plus the fact that he beat a fellow ATG and beating top contenders of the time make him great.

Maxie was fucking awesome though. I mean get real I'm not talking shit......love the guy. However it's not possible for dickfaces to be including him on top 10 ATG HW lists. 20 perhaps. And he was a much, much, much better fighter than Walcott. (Who was Fodder in a way). there are some people on here who make a really good journeyman, and the biggest clown in boxing, literally, into all time greats i just dont get that

In a related story I love Edison Miranda. The Columbian bastard is severely overrated though. Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

Maxie was fucking awesome though. I mean get real I'm not talking shit......love the guy. However it's not possible for dickfaces to be including him on top 10 ATG HW lists. 20 perhaps. And he was a much, much, much better fighter than Walcott. (Who was Fodder in a way). Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

You can say it's a double standard all you want, there isn't. And it was also Walcott's style that made him great, he was doing some things in there that some fighters are still doing to this day. Johnson's win over Jones is impressive but Jones had just come off a brutal knockout loss to Tarver 4 months prior and I don't think Jones is back or anything like that now. Walcott's win over Charles when Charles was at or near his prime was far more impressive. Especially considering he was 38 years old at the time. now you're saying the same thing slicksouthpaw is saying. style doesnt make you into a great. if it does than floyd patterson is an all time great too because mike tyson used his style too, and people loved him for it ill put it in more simpler terms for you, a fighter who loses to an opponent with 11-15 record, and get knocked out against other unknown opponents is not an all time great again ill say the same thing, ezzard charles was a great light heavyweight. i could match a lot of heavyweigths who could beat him. i can not say the same to a guy like louis who could handle most heavyweights i really dont know where you're going with this

i understand, but it's hard for me to grasp that you making him into an all time great because of his 2 hilite wins over a guy who was a natural light heavyweight. and then toss in a few contenders and throw the word great around as if it's a candy you wont give another fighter of this era the same recognition, even though their records can be compared in terms of who beat whom in their eras. there's a double standard and you refuse to see it You can say it's a double standard all you want, there isn't. And it was also Walcott's style that made him great, he was doing some things in there that some fighters are still doing to this day. Johnson's win over Jones is impressive but Jones had just come off a brutal knockout loss to Tarver 4 months prior and I don't think Jones is back or anything like that now. Walcott's win over Charles when Charles was at or near his prime was far more impressive. Especially considering he was 38 years old at the time. You've made valid points but this debate is just going around in circles now.

We can go on about this all day, all night and it won't get us anywhere. I was impressed with his skills and I always said, he can be great. Whether he is great, is debatable. i understand, but it's hard for me to grasp that you making him into an all time great because of his 2 hilite wins over a guy who was a natural light heavyweight. and then toss in a few contenders and throw the word great around as if it's a candy you wont give another fighter of this era the same recognition, even though their records can be compared in terms of who beat whom in their eras. there's a double standard and you refuse to see it

i cant agree with something as absurd as this. i mean calling walcott great is extreme, calling him an all time great, i mean......it's just inapropriate to question another person's knowledge which you did after making a statement like that We can go on about this all day, all night and it won't get us anywhere. alot of people were saying different I was impressed with his skills and I always said, he can be great. Whether he is great, is debatable.

I was saying that in the 90's. alot of people were saying different

We'll just agree to disagree. i cant agree with something as absurd as this. i mean calling walcott great is extreme, calling him an all time great, i mean......it's just inapropriate to question another person's knowledge which you did after making a statement like that

for you it is, doesnt count for the majority of people. you wouldnt have said that in the 90s. I was saying that in the 90's.

As I said, Jones being great is debatable. for you it is, doesnt count for the majority of people. you wouldnt have said that in the 90s.