The moment somebody makes a stop heavyweight list and they mention 170-180 pound guys like Rocky Marciano, Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles ect. you can't take that person's boxing knowledge seriously. Also when a person mentions a boxer from the late 1800's/early 1900's are all time greats you realize how clueless so many boxing fans are. Boxing has evolved since those times. Those guys were good for their era. That doesn't equate to all time greats,
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Top 20 Heavyweight of all time list agree or disagree
Collapse
-
-
Yet another expert speaking in "absolutes" has arrived. Must we go through this period of arrogance with every new poster?
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View PostYet another expert speaking in "absolutes" has arrived. Must we go through this period of arrogance with every new poster?Slugfester
Willie Pep 229 like this.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by JAB5239 View Post
Something tells me they're not new, only a new name. Been here since July of last year, yet only starts posting today and it's all flaming and argumentative.Slugfester likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by WillieWild114 View Post
How is Rocky too high he was undefeated and defeated notable heavyweight greats.
Originally posted by WillieWild114 View Post
He literally defeated Joe Louis and got alot of HW wins that alone should put him there.
Joe Louis was WAYYYY past his prime by the time Marciano got to him.Slugfester likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by shawnkemp804 View PostThe moment somebody makes a stop heavyweight list and they mention 170-180 pound guys like Rocky Marciano, Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles ect. you can't take that person's boxing knowledge seriously. Also when a person mentions a boxer from the late 1800's/early 1900's are all time greats you realize how clueless so many boxing fans are. Boxing has evolved since those times. Those guys were good for their era. That doesn't equate to all time greats,
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeeMoney View Post
So then my next question is how do you quantify these things, and to what extent does each matter.
For example, "determination", since you listed it first I am assuming it is your most highly rated criteria. But how do you measure it? Is this just an eye test thing? How do you account for a fighter who is extremely determined but lacks athletic ability or boxing skills to make anything out of said determination? Then, once you have some sort of measure for 'determination' to what extent does it count towards your overall ranking compared to other criteria? 10%, 15%?
Similarly, when you sight "notable opponents", what specifically does that mean? Is it just name recognition, is it top 10 in the rankings? Do we create an arbitrary line that we give credence to a certain opponent but not another? For example, if we just give recognition to beating a top 10 opponent why draw the line at that arbitrary point? Wouldn't beating a #11 opponent be relatively strong as well. As the saying goes, "be ware of arbitrarily round numbers."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View PostYet another expert speaking in "absolutes" has arrived. Must we go through this period of arrogance with every new poster?
Comment
Comment