BP is entitled to his opinions. It's an open forum and agree or disagree his points generate discussion. There is nothing wrong with questioning what we've been repeatedly told ie: so and so was the greatest this or that. Maybe some of the older fighters and the 'gospel' surrounding them need to be re-examined.
I generally do not like to debate the comparing of eras that are too far apart because times have changed. The rules of the ring, equipment, fighting styles, frequency of fights and the tendancy to overly scrutinize the modern fighters down to the minute detail, while making general concessions for older fighters where the resource material is far less and more difficult to evaluate.
Since Dempsey keeps popping up I would ask some of these questions.
Would Dempsey have held the heavyweight title as long as he did if he was forced to make mandatory defences each year?
On these threads a modern guy like Tyson gets jumped on for backing out of fights with Ruddock, Holyfield (alleged sickness and injury) even though he fought these same guys twice later on. What about Dempsey not defending Wills, or Johnson not defending against Langford? Those are more blatant to me.
Would Dempsey have destroyed Willard in the same fashion with 10 oz gloves, and a mandatory 8 count and neutral corner rule? Maybe under today's rules Willard gets up from the first knockdown recovers and the fight goes the full 12 rounds and one slice of Dempsey's aura is signifigantly reduced.
Would Dempsey have been stopped by Tunney over 15 or 20 rounds instead of 10 or taken a more sustantial beating (knocked down, staggered etc...?How would it affect each guy's legacy.
If the FOTC was 10 rounds, Ali never gets hurt in the 11th or floored in the 15th and possibly wins a decision. Frazier legacy goes down a few notches and Ali's is cemented even further. All based on rounds 11-15.
im new to this forum so im presuming this question has been posed umpteen times previously but im interested to read your views on these matters...mine would be
1..henry armstrong
2..sugar ray robinson
3..joe louis
4..julio cesar chavez
5..willie pep
6..harry greb
welcome aboard!
here's my list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Willie Pep
5. Joe Louis
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Sam Langford
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Sugar Ray Leonard
I have no knowledge at all in boxing history besides the heavyweights, so I listed only heavies because if I put another fighter in another weight class, I wouldn't be able to back it up
1. Sonny Liston
2. Joe Frazier
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe Louis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Evander Holyfield
10. John L. Sullivan
You briefly mentioned the Dempsey/Wills situation, and as one of the guys on this site whose thoughts & opinions I value (and also because I've never read them on this particular subject, I don't believe), what are your views on that whole situation?
You briefly mentioned the Dempsey/Wills situation, and as one of the guys on this site whose thoughts & opinions I value (and also because I've never read them on this particular subject, I don't believe), what are your views on that whole situation?
Well yeah, that is true, and even Wills would agree with you as he always maintained that "it's not Jack's fault" that the fight didn't happen, but that "more blatant" comment of yours regarding that whole situation stuck out with me, so am I interpretating that the wrong way or something?
I have no knowledge at all in boxing history besides the heavyweights, so I listed only heavies because if I put another fighter in another weight class, I wouldn't be able to back it up
1. Sonny Liston
2. Joe Frazier
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe Louis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Evander Holyfield
10. John L. Sullivan
Don't know about your ranking, but I do like the quote in your sig from he who possessed a mere 78 IQ, though.
Comment