[QUOTE=joseph5620;n32514228]
Okay, so you don't factor in losses, draws.. to non elite fighters. That figures. Nor do you dig down to examine the ages of the fighters, when the fight happened, DQ's for and against .....and you mainly ignore bad decisions.... like Flowers had over Greb! Shame on that. Smart fans or historians ignore these bogus decisions when factoring in their ratings. I do.
GGG was the #1 pound for pound fighter in the world. Has Flowers achieved that? No he was only #1 for one year in the ranking 1604
GGGs record is immaculate only " losing " to a HOF fighter to be " with crooked judging at a past his prime age.
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Middleweight--1920s
At least you admit that Ketchel may not belong in the top ten @ 160
Okay, so you don't factor in losses, draws.. to non elite fighters. That figures. Nor do you dig down to examine the ages of the fighters, when the fight happened, DQ's for and against .....and you mainly ignore bad decisions.... like Flowers had over Greb! Shame on that. Smart fans or historians ignore these bogus decisions when factoring in their ratings. I do.
GGG was the #1 pound for pound fighter in the world. Has Flowers achieved that? No he was only #1 for one year in the ranking 1604
GGGs record is immaculate only " losing " to a HOF fighter to be " with crooked judging at a past his prime age.
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Middleweight--1920s
At least you admit that Ketchel may not belong in the top ten @ 160
Comment