your best of all time is..

[K-DOGG]

ezzard beat archie 3 times, walcott twice, burley twice, maxim 5 times, bivins 3 times, he smashed ur boy joe louis, hes a natural middleweight that won the heavyweight title and defended it 9 times, he also beat gus lisnivich.

By the way k-dogg;s list is a laughing joke. You can tell he doesnt have an opinion, he just bows down to turn of the century fighters, i'm not even going to argue with him, his list is that bad. Ali and Ezzard beat like 8-10 hall of famers in thier primes on numerous occasions, yet he is gonna choose guys that are entirely built on rep.

You can't be that ****ing dumb. Time and again you have proven you don't have the slightest hint of a clue as to anything...and I mean anything that isn't in boxrec about any fighter prior to 1975 or so and you've got the nerve to tell me I don't have an opinion.

Boy, I've forgotten more about boxing history than you'll ever take the time to learn.

[brownpimp88]

You can't be that ****ing dumb. Time and again you have proven you don't have the slightest hint of a clue as to anything...and I mean anything that isn't in boxrec about any fighter prior to 1975 or so and you've got the nerve to tell me I don't have an opinion.

Boy, I've forgotten more about boxing history than you'll ever take the time to learn.

7 of your top 10 are turn of the century, nuff said. Ali did enought to prove hes better than good ole greb.

[joelouisbarrow]

good ole greb as you elequently put it fought 300 fights and lost only 8...he was the best middleweight ever ( imo ) and beat tunney at light heavy

[brownpimp88]

Calling him the best middleweight even though u never seen him fight, yeah thats fair to monzon and hagler. By the way he lost 21 times and had 19 draws. Half these guys boxed when the sport wasnt even technical, it was brawling.


There is a boxing historian sabbath mentioned before, this historian basically exposes those old guys as "bums" with no talent, i forget the guys name. Those old guys are not the best, i dont know when people will get it.

You cant rank greb if you never seen him fight, thats why ring magazine doesnt include old guys in thier lists cuz there is no footage of him. Boxing evloves just like every other sport, the way people boxed in the 1910's is not the same as how they boxed in the 60's and onwards, they improved the technique. Idiots will never get it.

[joelouisbarrow]

idiots ?...i hope your not calling me that...i come on here to discuss my love of the sport..im 41 and been an avid fight fan for over 20 years..im far from an idiot...how old are you ?...by the sounds of it your presumeably not much older than my son..please refrain from calling me an idiot and we`ll get along just fine

[brownpimp88]

I dont refer to anyone in particular as an idiot.

[K-DOGG]

The reason Ring or ESPN don't rank "old fighters" is because either...

(a.) They are ignorant themselves of them....unlikely.


or

(b.) they are only ranking the "current" perceived top ten in their pages.

or

(c.) They're catoriing to a by and large wholly ignorant and gullable pop-culture audience to appease their advertisers because those are the dumbasses who buy the product and who will believe any damn thing you tell 'em.

[joelouisbarrow]

I dont refer to anyone in particular as an idiot.

then i must have misinterpreted your quote of "idiots will never get it "...if so i apologise

[Kid Achilles]

We dont have footage of Greb but we do of guys like Loughran, Walker, and Tunney and we can see they were all highly skilled guys with heart, speed, and power (except in Loughran's case) and that anyone who could beat these men repeatedly would have to be as good as they say.

Greb's resume is tops. You can't argue against that. Just looking at it objectively, he beat so many greats who were bigger than him that you'd have to be completely biased to not have Greb in your top ten. Even then, I think he deserves a top five spot for his record alone.

[brownpimp88]

The reason Ring or ESPN don't rank "old fighters" is because either

a. They are ignorant themselves of them....or they are only ranking the "current" perceived top ten in their pages.

or

b. They're catoriing to a by and large wholly ignorant and gullable pop-culture audience to appease their advertisers because those are the dumbasses who buy the product and who will believe any damn thing you tell 'em.

ring magazine considers the greb, tunney and dempsey era as thier first time frame in which boxing became technical.

****, i cant remember that guy's name but there is a historian that is 70 years old and he flat out says those guys like gans, etc are NOT GOOD, they suck. he says benny loenard sucks, philly jack o'brien is a bum, etc.