brownpimp88

Bingo....That's Chavez-Camacho in a nutshell. So ur shitting on camacho cuz he lost to trinidad and oscar when he was out of his prime. Why dont we try and remember the hector that dominated from 1983-1992. Thats 10 solid years as a mainstream boxer, yet its not good enough to convince you to put him in the hall of fame, get real man. You knew he was a washed up crack head when he fought tito and oscar.

he schooled foreman, that was hilarious.

The "joe frazier is not a great fighter" article was way better.

Pimp, if you don't care for Frazier and like Whitaker and Mayweather as much as you do, you are the most boring person I've ever met. I take it you order a plain cheese pizza, maybe extra mozzerella when you're feeling adventurous? Ha ha, but seriously, what do you have against all the exciting fighters? Why do you reserve so much love for the defense oriented, fuck the fans I want to make as much money as I can while I'm here, fighters. The exciting fighters are the ones who put everything on the line and give their blood and braincells for the enjoyment of the people. They are the lifeblood of the sport, and without them it wouldn't exist. I'm not saying I only like fighters who are human punching bags but a guy like Ali, who is defensive in his approach but still willing to trade shots if he sees a weakness in the opponent, is completely different than a Floyd Mayweather Jr type who can't be bothered to kick it up a notch, and then tries to talk like a tough guy. What is it that attracts you to fighters who dont fight at 100% of their and are content to sit back and merely win a decision, when they have the ability to do better? I don't see the allure. I love highly skilled fighters as well but the lack of aggression and love for combat makes it impossible for me to root for a Floyd Mayweather. Don't ever mention joe frazier in the same breath as pernell whitaker, ok. If i hate exciting fighters, then why am i a big fan of matthew saad muhammad? Why do i like julio cesar chavez so much? Floyd Mayweather is fuckin awesome, there is no other way to it. He has substance, something cotto, hatton and margarito lack. I have both of joe fraziers' books, he's so fuckin classless and cocky, its not even funny. Muhammad ali is better than you, live with it, grumpy old man. I'm glad my hero foreman exposed him as a 1 dimensional fighter and completely destroyed him.

So you dislike him more for the things he said outside of boxing? Funny because that's why most people dislike Mayweather and Whitaker, who was also pretty cocky. Maybe you can see where I'm coming from a little now. ;) Also, I think if anyone deserves to talk smack about Ali, it's Frazier. Frazier stood behind Ali and supported him when he was trying to get his license back (the two were friends) and Ali in return went over the top with the trash talk. He took it to a level beyond what was professional and really hurt Frazier with those remarks. It's not justification for the shitty things Frazier has said since then, but I can see where the resentment stems from. Joe Frazier had one of the most protected title runs i have ever seen, he would never fight a big hitter, cuz he knew his shaky chin would do him in. The guy didnt want to fight old ass liston, he didnt want to fight mac foster, he ducked ron lyle, he didnt want to fight earnie shavers. Then he fights my hero and gets decapitated in 5 minutes and his career is ruined. Praise be to George Foreman, he was the hired gun and he got the fuckin job done.:owned: Pernell Whitaker is a man you grew up watching and you know how great he is. Admit it pal, he would beat benny leonard in a head to head matchup, you know he is superior. The sweet pea from virginia is the best fighter of the last 20 years, no fuckin doubt about it. When he beat my hero, julio cesar chavez, the guy turned into mythical status.

Lol yogi just believes the hype of how many hall of famers amrstrong beat. You do realize that the standards of making the hall of fame in the 1930's was much lower. Pryor did enough to be an all time great, he was on top for a good 5 years. Pryor is one of the greats, then again yogi bashes spinks, so why the hell would i take him seriously.

Julio Cesar Vasquez would have beaten terry norris and terrible terry knows it too.

He did enough in his career, dont listen to what yogi says. I never hear yogi call an old school fighter "overrated", why not yogi, you cant diss them in any way. He's just a typical arm chair warrior that bashes modern fighters, dont listen to this guy. Besides ross and ambers, who did armstrong really beat that was a truly elite fighter? Yeah thats what i thought pal. Back then people just got into the hall of fame, if they were a title holder. Baer is a hall of famer, does that mean he is elite, fuck no he isnt.

Will vazquez be a hall of famer? Besides azumah nelson and ramirez, who else did whitaker beat thats good enough to make hall of fame. IMO, buddy mcgirt did more than ken norton and he has a decent record against top level fighters. We all know whitaker beat chavez, at least 1 judge gave it to whitaker. None of them gave it to the king of fixed fights.

My memory of that fight was its a come from behind KO by Vasquez over Carl Daniels, yes that right after he lost to sweet pea, I wonder why Terry Norris never considered fighting Vasquez. Cuz terry norris is bad against punchers with power, vazquez has beat like 5 or 6 good fighters, he only lost twice in his prime. I say he is better than hall of famers like cuevas, norton and antuofermo.

Whatever my own thoughts are as to your questions (including the p4p rankings from that time, which I have), apparently you missed my comment a couple of days ago where I stated I didn't want to have anything to do with you on here...boxing related or otherwise. That still stands and will continue to stand, you know, as I certainly am not going to waste even another second of my time on you after this here post goes through. Oh yeah ur dempsey's bitch nevermind old guy.

They have totally different styles. Jones was "sweet", Greb "The Human Windmill". Greb did what he did best and it worked. It worked well. What Roy did was what Roy was good at. And for a while-- a long, long while-- it worked. As for making sweeping statements such as today's fighters are better than those of the past, I am not the type who makes grand assertions such as that. Suffice it for me to ask these: are all-time greats not really "all time" because they were only good for their own time? If that is so, what's the point of a Hall of FAme when the greats of the past cannot even compete with average fighters of today? Shouldn't we therefore limit the Hall to people of the current crop? What's the point of a Joe Louis and a Marciano if the game has so evolved that what they used to do spectacularly cannot compare anymore to what ordinary fighters do today? Its harder to make hall of fame nowdays, no doubt about it. Tony tucker and riddick bowe will not make the hall of fame, if they boxed in the 20's, no doubt they would be in. Dude you have to watch footage and see the difference in techniques, if you can't then i cant help you anymore. Guys like carnera, walcott, jack johnson, sharkey, baer would have all gotten thier asses kicked by riddick bowe, i could guarantee it. Norton is in the hall of fame, bowe would have knocked him out in round 2 or 3. Jones was faster than greb, he had the better footwork and head movement. Greb was a guy with power, his technique isnt anything to brag about. There is footage of him training, then watch footage of roy training. Big difference.

Your words: "...he didn't accomplish much." The fight game is about accomplishments. There are many who think Emmanuel Augustus is one huge talent. But not even his most avid fans would dream of talking about his accomplishments. It may be true that Bowe can beat many of those in the Hall. But because he did not meet them, nor shall ever meet them, everyone's guess can only be as good as the next guy. As such, all guesses should be respected. I remember the three Bowe-Holy fights, though. I also recall how he dumped his belt after the first meeting and refused to face mandatory challenger Lennox Lewis. Lewis-Bowe has been consigned, it seems, to eternal guesswork, also. I do not know too many idiots, so I am afraid that nobody can tell me with certainty that Bert Sugar "has a bias." All I can say is that each person has his/her own biases. And that's as obvious a fact as any. Bert Sugar is a person, as far as I can tell, so I assume he should be entitled to his own bias. As far as I can recall, this thread is not about who beats who. It is about how good Michael Spinks was. My first post was in response to that question. Spinks is top 5 easily, he beat everyone at 175 and they pressured him to move up, he did and won the heavyweight strap.

I'm close to where you're at. I have him at 7th. Yeah i can see that, he didnt stay at 175 long enough to be ahead of foster or a few others like conn but he's still one of my favs. By the way, bert disses spinks cuz he lost to tyson and doesnt consider him top 100 of all time. Thats why i say bert proly has hate towards certain fighters.

Michael Spinks is in my short list, but not at the top. My list reads: 1. Gene Tunney 2. Sam Langford 3. Tommy Loughran 4. Ezzard Charles 5. Archie Moore 6. Bob Foster 7. Michael Spinks 8. Harry Greb 9. Philladelphia Jack O'Brein 10. Billy Conn ========= 11. Roy Jones, Jr. 12. Jack Dillon 13. Michael Moorer also 13. George Carpentier Yep just pick all the old guys, roy loses and he aint top 10 anymore, lmfao. Harry Greb top 10, wow fuckin wow.

Nobody is proposing homecide much less murder. To you, losing to Tunney three times obviously is equal to losing to a Tarver twice. I'm sorry but I cannot see the parity. Funny that I cannot, hard as I try, see Tarver as a Tunney. I may be the only one who cannotg see a Tunney in Tarver. I cannot also see how it is that Greb not having been taken out by Tunney in the fashion that Roy was by Tarver makes the two comparable. Funny too is I cannot at the moment see why a victory over Clinton Woods can be taken as the same as any one of those victories by Greb over Tommy Loughran, for example. As far as understanding concepts, I confess that I cannot comprehend why lists of those people are biased while your obvious loyalty to Roy must not be see as such. That's a concept that truly speeds by me. If you count roy losing out of his prime, why dont i count the 20+ losses many of the old greats had out of thier prime. Roy has beat b-hop, toney, mccallum, hill, griffen, gonzalez, woods, tarver, johnson, harding and several other fighters. The old guys padded thier records on guys with losing records, roy didnt. When you talk about boxing, longevity matters. Roy was invincable till he was 35 years old. Many of those old guys start losing to complete nobodies when they reach 30.

As a LightHeavy Roy has victories over Montell Griffin, Mike McCallum, Virgil Hill and Otis Grant. These were the only former champions on his LightHeavy resume and only Mike McCallum is in the Hall of Fame. I don't know if you think that Grant, Hill and Griffin shall be. Greb won over the great Gene Tunney in their first meeting, held Tunney to a draw once, and lost 4 times, one of them controversially (ringside reporters saw the fight differently and argued over the official results.) He has multiple victories over Hall of Famers such as Battling Levinsky, Tommy Loughran, Jack Dillon and Maxie Rosenbloom. That's as a LightHeavyweight. At middleweight he victimized even more Hall of Famers, and beat Hall of Famer Tommy Burns twice at Heavyweight (non title fights). Burns was not a John Ruiz: for a while he held the record for the most number of successful heavyweight title defenses via KO. Greb fought a good number of his fightgs with one good eye. Would levinsky be a hall of famer if he fought today? The guy lost like 54 fuckin times. Virgil Hill will make the hall of fame, just watch. He also beat guys like tarver and woods, beleive it or not they are better than many of those old guys. Roy was a special fighter with loads of talent. The fact that he was fighter of the decade should tell u something, shouldnt it? At 160 and 168 roy has beat future hall of famers like b-hop and toney. He dominated from 93-2003, how long did greb actually dominate.

I'm not the only one who puts Roy lower than Greb. There are many highly respected boxing writers who rank Carpentier, Jack Delaney, Kid McCoy and Tommy Gibbons higher than Jones. And they don't even have to cuss to prove their point. Yeah guys like burt sugar rank old guys ahead cuz they grew up watching those guys, they have a bias. For god sakes he ranks pernell 48 of all time, when an intelligent, unbiased person would rank pernell top 30 at minimum. Roy was fighter of the decade, and he was #1 pound for pound for 5 years, how many guys from your list can brag about that, lol not too many right.

I like B Hop to, but I think Tarver will win the rematch. I think Tarver would win casue he's hungry, he really wants it. I think b Hop should give him the rematch. If you notice, B Hop has said lately he isnt interested in a rematch. I think it's because he has more to lose then to gain. Cause Tarver is undefeated in rematches and he really wants this fight. Tarver can make an excuse for all his losses. He was beating eric harding till he broke his jaw, then won the rematch. Arguably beat roy and glen first time, beat roy twice in rematches and beat glen. He had to cut too much weight against b-hop and got tired easily, lets see what happens in a re-match.

Tarver will lose again to B Hop because he is not fast enough nor is he smart enough. Tarver has a chance against anyone, sure, but that can be said for any boxer. The point is, neither Tarver's skills or accomplishments warrant him being considered the best 175 lbs fighter ever. We both know the best is either foster, roy or spinks. It aint those old overrated farts.

It means something, being fighter of the decade. That's why he's in my list. He had loads of talent, no one is saying he did not. Yes at the lower weight he beat Toney and Hop, and that speaks volumes. But Greb also beat many Middleweight Hall of Famers. Besides, the list is about LightHeavies. As for Levinsky being in the Hall and why, the question is best addressed to those who has him there. Last I heard, there has not been too much protest over it. Not as loud as a number of others. If you say Hill shall be in the Hall, okay, I'm waiting. As for having beaten Tarver, have we forgotten what Tarver did to him twice? And he beat Woods? Two others managed the same feat and Clinton had been beaten by someone named David Starrie in England before meeting Roy. I have Roy at 11th on my list. That has displeased you. It may even displease you more if you learn that Mike Casey has Roy at 16th in his top 20 All-Time LightHeavy greats. The International Boxing Research Organization also does not have Roy at the top on its list. It has ARchie Moore. Jim Amato picks Ezzard Charles. Strangely, Curtis Narimatsu thinks it's Floyd Patterson. Yeah when roy is out of his prime and losses the rematches to tarver its a bad thing, but when greb losses to tunney 3 times its okay lol. So what if clinton woods lost two other times, the guys in the old days lost 20 times and fought to many draws. Roy had everything except knockout power, u name it. Footwork, head movement, speed, combos. He was fighter of the decade, answer that buddy. How many of ur favourite light heavyweights got that honour. I dont care what those guys say, they favour the old guys.Its not a hard concept to understand. If we see a guy 30 years from now completely domiante, are we gonna say he would kill floyd mayweather, no cuz he have a bias towards him.

Simply because his victories over Harry Greb are more much impressive than any wins on Spinks' Light Heavyweight resume. Then if you throw in Tunney's Light Heavyweight wins over the likes of Battling Levinsky, Georges Carpentier, Jeff Smith, and maybe even Tommy Loughran (that fight depends on the source), and to my eyes that's a Light Heavyweight record/resume that looks quite a bit more impressive than what's on Spinks' ledger. So beating a middleweight is more impressive than beating the top 175ers of the 80's, haha good one. Do u have something against spinks? You act like his heavyweight accomplishments aren't jack shit when its actually very good if you look at it in an unbiased way. Why dont u post the p4p rankings in 85, 86 and 87? I'm sure spinks is top 5.

With all those names that are there that you think should not be there, don't you think you'll be doing the sport a favor if you propose the abolition of such Hall? If it serves no purpose other than be a mockery of greatness, then, it should be closed. As for watching films, a lot of people-- well known and highly respected boxing writers-- list old fighters higher than many of those recently retired. Are you saying then that they, just like me, have not watched films and are therefore ignorant of what they are talking about? If they are ignorant, then, thanks for putting me in good company. I have never said Greb had the superior technique. But technique is only one way to skin the cat. Greb got things done doing things his way. And getting things done is the bottom line. Dude riddick bowe is fuckin awesome man, he wont make it cuz he didnt accomplish much. However, when it comes to head to head matchups, he's a nightmare for many former champs. I am gonna name the guys he would knock out badly. jack johnson floyd patterson joe walcott ezzard charles- hes way too small for big daddy ernie terrell jimmy ellis ken norton primo carnera jack sharkey schmeling baer jeffries leon Hell bowe would have beat 85% of the champs from the 20th century. If you are a hall of famer, it doesnt mean you would beat the other guy. Get my point. If i become a sports writer 20 years from now, am i gonna say the new cat in town would have killed b-hop or roy, hell no. I would be up thier cocks, cuz thats who i grew up watching. Any idiot can tell u bert sugar has a bias, its so fuckin obvious.

The fighters are much more talented these days than compared to the 20's, its not even a comparison.The game has evolved greatly since those days. Have you even seen greb in sparring and witnessed his shitty footwork and technique before u think to compare him with roy. Or do you just go on sites and look up people that he beat in an era where promoters wouldnt let black people hold the world titles.

Boxing has been around for longer than the 1970's to now. Foster's resume was not all that great but he challenged himself often at heavyweight. Plenty of the old timers I am sure deserve mention but it is hard to judge them because they fought so long ago. When spinks was champ, the division was good and he beat everyone available, then he goes up to heavyweight and became linear champ for 3 years, he is great. Roy Jones had the footwork, head movement and combos, the guy was invincible for like 11 years. He loses and thats an excuse that writers make to rank old timers ahead of him,lol.

Antonio Tarver is maby the greatest with Roy Jones at # 2. Maby Moore at #3. Spinks at #4. I know, people underestimate tarver big time. He has beat 7 good/decent fighters man. All he has to do is fight 4 more decent fighters at 175 or 200 and i see him making the HOF.

He HAS to be top 5 because of the way he won. He slipped and dodged and weaved. He was graceful. He famously won a round without throwing a single punch. Who else could do that? He could brawl and he could box. He could fight dirty and beat you at your own game. He has got to be one of the greatest fighters of all time, even if he never fought a good fighter in his entire life. Its the impressive way he got to victory that really impressed pernell whitaker was very similar to him, why doesnt he get that kind of respect? I mean he did beat azumah nelson and chavez. Pep just gets ranked in the top 5 cuz hes an old guy and we show more love towards them.

Willie Pep, Top 3 P4P all time which opponents did he really beat to earn that recognition? Leonard beat hagler, hearns, duran and benitez. Pep sure as hell didnt beat guys on that level, o wait he fought an elite like saddler and got knocked the fuck out.

Liston would have tooled marciano and frazier. He is a pimp.

If they gave hagler the decision or at least a draw against leonard, he would get more respect for sure. The guy was robbed, he easily took 6 rounds at least.