Tweet
Originally posted by capt_sam
View Post
-
Because after discarding Bugner, you won't discuss Norton, who in my opinion wins this debate hands down.. I've given you more facts than any other poster & all you've replied to, is a couple of comments on Rahman, who isn't anywhere near as worthy..... -
I neither discarded Bugner or refused to talk Norton. Sometimes, I'm away from the keyboard, away from the forum.
I have huge respect for Kenny. Is he the best 2nd tier, maybe.
It would have to be decided p4p/who beats who in terms of rating these guys.Comment
-
Bugner has been eliminated, but that was my misrepresentation of the question..
Even Norton could fall into this criteria, as he didn't win his title in the ring (awarded when Spinks got stripped)
Do you have Patterson at no1?
Only reason I ask, is that it's a good choice... Not sure about his chin though.. He was almost a 'poor mans' Ali, regards style & nowhere near as big.. Look what Norton did with Ali & Holmes.. Could Patterson have done the same? This is taking into account, that Ali (Clay) whooped an OLD Patterson.. Prime 4 prime, must admit, Patterson Vs Norton would be a classic.. Now we have a tourney final, wad'ya think? peace MMComment
-
Its hard to put Floyd in the top 20 ATG HW, he had the skills, he was a 2 time champ, but they'd all without exception I feel stop him. Too small, too fragile.
Is he the best of the rest? By achievements, probably. first 2 time king is a major feather, as is youngest champ (then). but he wouldnt beat any of them. i suppose first we had better decide in the tier 1 HW are being chosen by p4p greatness, or on a who beats who list.
I will say that as long as there are guys who have been world champion, even multiple champions, a non WC cannot be the best of tier 2.
As for h-2-h, I feel Norton beats Floyd. Just too rugged, too tough. He'd KO Floyd late.Comment
-
Not sure that is fair to guys like Sam Langford and Harry Wills. We could throw Peter Jackson in there as well. Jmo.Originally posted by capt_sam View PostComment
-
norton would be a good choice.myself I'm 34 & have an amazing heavyweight collection but I started mostly in the present & 90's & have steadily increased my collection of 80's fighters like James smith,witherspoon,tubbs,etc.I'm now starting to purchase fighters from the 70's & 60's next.I got most of the 80's & 90's top boxers careers.well all the fights off the Internet.I got 4 websites I purchase from.I got all the klits,lewis,Tyson,Holyfield,ruddock,Bruno,foreman, tua,Byrd,Rahman,etc.I could go on.my point is I'm not as familiar with the 60's & 70's as I am with 80's,90's-present.my eastern European collections are a little weak as well.dimitrenko,boytsov,etc.they are harder for me to get.I do have valuev,chagaev,ibragimov,liahkovich available fights.Rahman is my choice for tier 2 because of my lack of knowledge before the 80'sComment
-
Norton was a better fighter than Rahman.. I'm not one of them, but many people believe, Noton should'a got 3 wins in his fights with Ali.. I thought he won 2 of em 4 sure.. The fight with Holmes was for the title.. I'm not sure what the age difference was, but Norton was considerably older.. It went to the wire & Holmes was awarded a SD over 15...Originally posted by joe strong View Post
Note the comments of Jab5239, with which I agree.. 2nd tier, should include good fighters who didn't get their shot cos of politics at the time..
Larry Middleton was another one...Comment
-
Mike Tyson?Comment
-
[QUOTE]Age difference was roughly 5 years for Holmes-Norton, and I to had Norton winning 2 of the 3 with Ali.Originally posted by mickey malone View PostComment
-
[QUOTE=JAB5239;5637557]Cos you know you're stuff!
Age difference was roughly 5 years for Holmes-Norton, and I to had Norton winning 2 of the 3 with Ali.Comment
Comment