SRR the goat?

[Ivich]

Armstrong is an odd one. He did so many amazing things in a short space of time but then he was beaten twice by zivic and then lost to Reuben shank? He falls just behind the big 3 on longevity. He shined brightly but for a few years.

His activity level was off the charts and his style ,all action swarmer,did not make for a long career.

[Slugfester]

Armstrong has a case to be included in the top 4/5 P4P.

In no order
SRR
Charles
Greb
Langford
Armstrong

Benny Leonard and Mickey Walker could easily be on there or very close to it. The big problem with that was they were not black, hence the blackout on their greatness. If they were black you would never hear the end of their greatness same as Langford whom no one has seen fight more than a few seconds. What's a matta? You put Langford in the top 5 easily, don't you? Is it based on him chasing a fat slob around the ring in a clip of a few minutes?

You can complain all you want about opinions on Louis/Walcott 1, but the people with those opinions at least saw 15-20 minutes of the fight--more than you will ever see of Langford. Like me, those people do not believe that Louis won all the parts they did not show but got his ass beat up in the sections that were shown.

[them_apples]

Benny Leonard and Mickey Walker could easily be on there or very close to it. The big problem with that was they were not black, hence the blackout on their greatness. If they were black you would never hear the end of their greatness same as Langford whom no one has seen fight more than a few seconds. What's a matta? You put Langford in the top 5 easily, don't you? Is it based on him chasing a fat slob around the ring in a clip of a few minutes?

You can complain all you want about opinions on Louis/Walcott 1, but the people with those opinions at least saw 15-20 minutes of the fight--more than you will ever see of Langford. Like me, those people do not believe that Louis won all the parts they did not show but got his ass beat up in the sections that were shown.

Even in the parts that were shown Louis is actually showing great ability to ride / slide shots off. Not all of them land that well. Due to this skill it leads me to believe Walcott landed some flashy shots that looked great, but probably was largely ineffective for much of the fight outside of these. Its more so when a guy gets dropped hard a few times the fight seems onesided.

if I never saw these 2 fight, just based on styles - I would personally pick Louis. His jab would make Walcott work too hard to stay ahead, and then Walcott gets koed later as he tires and gets lazy. I think by Walcott making it to the finish he probably viewed that as a victory.

[Slugfester]

Even in the parts that were shown Louis is actually showing great ability to ride / slide shots off. Not all of them land that well. Due to this skill it leads me to believe Walcott landed some flashy shots that looked great, but probably was largely ineffective for much of the fight outside of these. Its more so when a guy gets dropped hard a few times the fight seems onesided.

if I never saw these 2 fight, just based on styles - I would personally pick Louis. His jab would make Walcott work too hard to stay ahead, and then Walcott gets koed later as he tires and gets lazy. I think by Walcott making it to the finish he probably viewed that as a victory.

Those other rounds were likely not shown because nothing happened there. Walcott must have contributed all of the fight's action. I guess he played it safe a little too much for the taste of the judges against their pet idol.

Yesterday's scoring system was plainly deficient to any modern fan, and just as dirty then as now. A knockdown was not even awarded an extra point. What? Some system. Crude, lowly evolved. Deficient. Nonsensical.

But the fight was scored under the old deficient rules, so no argument about that, though I thought it deserved a comment.

Today's scoring system is better than at any time in the history of boxing. Modern boxing has that going for it--it at least attempts to score with fine discrimination. You don't expect a chimpanzee to thread a needle effectively, so don't give it one.

No one seems to actually know--maybe the whole fight is not available--so they base their arguments on any piece of circumstantial evidence like the crowd did not boo or Louis was slipping some of the punches, he didn't look all bad. Meh. It takes a better circumstantial case than that to convert me. As a matter of fact there was a momentary audible gasp of disapproval from the crowd when the decision was announced. But people just didn't boo the great Joe Louis, proven patriot and idol, in those days that I know of, so they let it go. They were willing to give one to old Joe.

My intuition is that it is better than 50% that Wally got sexually assaulted, if not gang ****d. That is an intuition not a calculation. Big difference. Still, it is the way I would bet before ever seeing the whole fight, and I believe, the way you and Ivich would bet too if I had a truth drug to force it out of you and the fight were available.

You are not saying Wally was for sure not screwed. I realize that. You want some balance and some acknowledgement it is no cinch. I gave that. I merely said I felt the chance was better than 50%.

This is no friendly bet. The stake is $50,000, with you on a truth serum judging the fight. Or you can have 1,000,000 boxing fans on truth serum judge the fight and accept their decision. The criterion is: who won this fight? The ancillary question is: was Walcott jobbed?"

[QueensburyRules]

Those other rounds were likely not shown because nothing happened there. Walcott must have contributed all of the fight's action. I guess he played it safe a little too much for the taste of the judges against their pet idol.

Yesterday's scoring system was plainly deficient to any modern fan, and just as dirty then as now. A knockdown was not even awarded an extra point. What? Some system. Crude, lowly evolved. Deficient. Nonsensical.

But the fight was scored under the old deficient rules, so no argument about that, though I thought it deserved a comment.

Today's scoring system is better than at any time in the history of boxing. Modern boxing has that going for it--it at least attempts to score with fine discrimination. You don't expect a chimpanzee to thread a needle effectively, so don't give it one.

No one seems to actually know--maybe the whole fight is not available--so they base their arguments on any piece of circumstantial evidence like the crowd did not boo or Louis was slipping some of the punches, he didn't look all bad. Meh. It takes a better circumstantial case than that to convert me. As a matter of fact there was a momentary audible gasp of disapproval from the crowd when the decision was announced. But people just didn't boo the great Joe Louis, proven patriot and idol, in those days that I know of, so they let it go. They were willing to give one to old Joe.

My intuition is that it is better than 50% that Wally got sexually assaulted, if not gang ****d. That is an intuition not a calculation. Big difference. Still, it is the way I would bet before ever seeing the whole fight, and I believe, the way you and Ivich would bet too if I had a truth drug to force it out of you and the fight were available.

You are not saying Wally was for sure not screwed. I realize that. You want some balance and some acknowledgement it is no cinch. I gave that. I merely said I felt the chance was better than 50%.

This is no friendly bet. The stake is $50,000, with you on a truth serum judging the fight. Or you can have 1,000,000 boxing fans on truth serum judge the fight and accept their decision. The criterion is: who won this fight? The ancillary question is: was Walcott jobbed?"

- - No, Jersey got a quick rematch and KTFO…duh…

[Ivich]

Those other rounds were likely not shown because nothing happened there. Walcott must have contributed all of the fight's action. I guess he played it safe a little too much for the taste of the judges against their pet idol.

Yesterday's scoring system was plainly deficient to any modern fan, and just as dirty then as now. A knockdown was not even awarded an extra point. What? Some system. Crude, lowly evolved. Deficient. Nonsensical.

But the fight was scored under the old deficient rules, so no argument about that, though I thought it deserved a comment.

Today's scoring system is better than at any time in the history of boxing. Modern boxing has that going for it--it at least attempts to score with fine discrimination. You don't expect a chimpanzee to thread a needle effectively, so don't give it one.

No one seems to actually know--maybe the whole fight is not available--so they base their arguments on any piece of circumstantial evidence like the crowd did not boo or Louis was slipping some of the punches, he didn't look all bad. Meh. It takes a better circumstantial case than that to convert me. As a matter of fact there was a momentary audible gasp of disapproval from the crowd when the decision was announced. But people just didn't boo the great Joe Louis, proven patriot and idol, in those days that I know of, so they let it go. They were willing to give one to old Joe.

My intuition is that it is better than 50% that Wally got sexually assaulted, if not gang ****d. That is an intuition not a calculation. Big difference. Still, it is the way I would bet before ever seeing the whole fight, and I believe, the way you and Ivich would bet too if I had a truth drug to force it out of you and the fight were available.

You are not saying Wally was for sure not screwed. I realize that. You want some balance and some acknowledgement it is no cinch. I gave that. I merely said I felt the chance was better than 50%.

This is no friendly bet. The stake is $50,000, with you on a truth serum judging the fight. Or you can have 1,000,000 boxing fans on truth serum judge the fight and accept their decision. The criterion is: who won this fight? The ancillary question is: was Walcott jobbed?"

You have no solid basis for stating Walcott won this fight,you have only seen edited highlights.

I have never said who won the fight,I like to think I've got enough common sense not to judge a fight on a few edited highlights which add up to about 7 minutes at most!

My contention has always been that, no fight so close can be a robbery.just as Leonard beating Hagler was not a robbery.

Louis was boxing under the same rules as Walcott so the fight was judged on an equal basis for both men.For the record the complete fight is NOT AVAILABLE.
"likely not"" must have"
Your intuition? What is that worth?

Judging the fight on "circumstantial evidence ."is precisely what you are doing!

[markusmod]

You have no solid basis for stating Walcott won this fight,you have only seen edited highlights.

I have never said who won the fight,I like to think I've got enough common sense not to judge a fight on a few edited highlights which add up to about 7 minutes at most!

My contention has always been that, no fight so close can be a robbery.just as Leonard beating Hagler was not a robbery.

Louis was boxing under the same rules as Walcott so the fight was judged on an equal basis for both men.For the record the complete fight is NOT AVAILABLE.
"likely not"" must have"
Your intuition? What is that worth?

Judging the fight on "circumstantial evidence ."is precisely what you are doing!

Time to get Queen in here to give us his scorecard!

[QueensburyRules]

You have no solid basis for stating Walcott won this fight,you have only seen edited highlights.

I have never said who won the fight,I like to think I've got enough common sense not to judge a fight on a few edited highlights which add up to about 7 minutes at most!

My contention has always been that, no fight so close can be a robbery.just as Leonard beating Hagler was not a robbery.

Louis was boxing under the same rules as Walcott so the fight was judged on an equal basis for both men.For the record the complete fight is NOT AVAILABLE.
"likely not"" must have"
Your intuition? What is that worth?

Judging the fight on "circumstantial evidence ."is precisely what you are doing!

- - The single near shutout Leonard scorecard for that fight gave robbery a legit use of language that best describes boxing for that fight and boxing in general.

[ijudge]

It should probably be GOATs, since the issue can never rest at just 1. But if you said: "In no order, it is Langford, Greb and Robinson," there would likely be less to dispute. Another way is divisional GOATs.

It's just easier to say there is no GOAT.

I believe there is no such thing as GOAT.

I never really liked the term.

Greatest of All Time implies Past, Present, and Future.

That's like submitting your work in school and after seeing results of the highest GPA in your batch, you closed down the school and say you're the Greatest of All Time, disregarding any potential of future students.

We should just stick with ATG to separate from other hall of famers.

In my understanding, HOF means being one of the best in his generation. Meanwhile, All-Time Great have met the HOF criteria but also have non-repeatable accomplishments (all-time accomplishments that is yet to be repeated)


Sugar Ray Robinson is an all-time great.
Henry Armstrong is an all-time great.
Harry Greb is an all-time great.

etc. etc.

[Marchegiano]

I have grown into using GOAT as like a rating, and only took notice of this habit when I read this thread.

SRR as GOAT will get no argument out of me

Nor would Floyd

I won't argue with a fellow who says Armstrong or RJJ.

There's plenty of men I believe have made a good enough argument for GOAT status that I wouldn't argue with their fans who call them GOAT, and so when you say things like that, like for example " Pac may have had quite a few stumbles but he makes a good argument for GOAT all the same" You're really using GOAT as a status above ATG and never pinning down a single greatest of all time.



That said ... Aaron Pryor ain't nothing to **** with himself.