Dwight Muhamed Qawi called Marvin Hagler out

[r.burgundy]

Foreman improved as a boxer during his comeback although he wasn't physically the same. He proved a lot with his comeback but if we were to forget for a moment that he was 40+ years old then his comeback doesn't look overly impressive as he struggled with mediocre fighters that he would have KO'd in his prime.

I tend to think that Foreman could have been the greatest puncher ever had the physical ability of his young self been combined with the smarts of the 40+ year old Foreman, but it never truly happened.

When he was younger, he was too wild and reckless to be considered the best. When he was old, he no longer had the explosiveness and reflexes that he used to have. He was a brute force in his prime but he could be outsmarted. As an old man he struggled to pull the trigger at times and found it difficult to cut off the ring against younger, faster men.

yeah but his limitations still dont change the fact the he was succesful.oldest champ in history is something for the books.what has gavilan done that could be considered so great?

[TheGreatA]

yeah but his limitations still dont change the fact the he was succesful.oldest champ in history is something for the books.what has gavilan done that could be considered so great?

Then again not too many fighters in history can claim to be the oldest champion, actually none can't other than Foreman. Doesn't mean he's anywhere near the greatest. Gavilan fought and beat more top opponents than Foreman, whose opposition outside of the top names he fought are nothing to write home about. He beat less than ten top 10 ranked contenders.

[r.burgundy]

Then again not too many fighters in history can claim to be the oldest champion, actually none can't other than Foreman. Doesn't mean he's anywhere near the greatest. Gavilan fought and beat more top opponents than Foreman, whose opposition outside of the top names he fought are nothing to write home about. He beat less than ten top 10 ranked contenders.

i wont say his resume is the greatest but he fought absolutely everybody his 1st go round,his 2nd run is where the comp gets dicey.gavilan had more opponents to choose from being multi-divisional but if were using that standard,there isnt really any heavy who could hold up to the lighter weights.they shouldnt be crticized for that

[JAB5239]

only greb foes ive seen are walker,gibbons and tunney.who have you seen?i found gibbons the most impressive but i use that word for lack of a better 1.tthese guys are supposedly some top flight opposition.if greb beat these guys with 1 eye,they obviously aint top flight.

I've seen Tunney, Heeney, Tommy Gibbons, Walker, Loughran, Norfolk and Miske.

Joe Frazier beat Ali with one eye. Ali wasn't top flight either than, "obviously", right?

an unpopular opinion is any opinion that goes against the normal opinion.the pop opinion is greb is a top 10 atg and fought world class comp.i strongly disagree.from the video ive seen,there isnt anything world class about some of the guys he fought.or would you like to keep ducking the ? of is video better than a book?

I've already answered this in another thread and you chose to ignore it. You cannot rely on grainy film taken from a distance, at one angle, in black and white and in flicker speed. If you could one would have to believe Charlie Chaplin actually walked the was he did in his films, or baseball players actually ran the bases the way they show them in highlight reels from that day. You absolutely need first hand accounts to describe the action and movements of the fighters. There are thousands and thousands of these accounts from varying fights of the era. ALL agree Greb was amazing and that the fighters I mentioned were very highly thought of and still considered great today.

since your such the historian,if he beat champs,i ask again,who on earth are these guys beating to be considered great lol.simple.

It wouldn't matter if I told you, you don't know anything about them nor the era and are to close minded to learn.

please tell me what makes these guys experts lol.

could be because they look at the finer details that you just dismiss, Could be because they've been around the sport forever. Could be its because its what they do for a living. Could be because they have actually fought or trained fighters.

stop hiding behind others opinions for petes sake.ive followed boxing closely for a good 15 years.i guess i can say im an expert.

Trust me you're not and nobody is going to mistake you for one. Experts aren't biased and close minded.

bert sugar is an expert right?he said mosley would murder floyd.so what good is his expertise if he cant see that shane is gonna get his ass kicked

Lol, you're using one opinion, why not use what the majority of experts thought? And thats irrelevant anyway. It is much easier to judge in hindsight than it is to predict the future.

why should i take those ****** possibilities sserious.its you coming to defend your legend.we could say anybody might have been injured.if he was injured,he shouldnt've been in the ring.

See, you simply don't understand the era. Fighters had to fight injured, they didn't make the money they do now. Im not saying that is the case here, but it could have been a possibility. Really doesn't matter since Greb won though, does it?

since when does more = better lol.its usually the opposite.but since you wish to that game,being as there are more divisions and more champions wouldnt that make for greater fighters?

Lmao!!! How so? Less fighters today with more titles and weight classes make it much, much easier to become a paper titlist and avoid the other paper titlists because of ABC politics. You're kidding, right?

of course they'll agree with your take.especially in this section.and i counter that with this.lets post a thread in nsb and ask some guys who arent into history what they think of fighters like walker,gibbons,tunney,and whoever else i can dig up on youtube.lets ask them to look at the video and give an opinion on the fighter.i'll bet 70% say those guys suck.

NSB is full of little kids who know nothing of boxing or its history. If people agree with me in this section its because Im right. I'll tell you what. I'll put this poll on another site in their history section. Will give it a 10 day period. Whoever wins gets the points. Fair?

[prinzemanspopa]

Joe Frazier beat Ali with one eye. Ali wasn't top flight either than, "obviously", right??

Which eye was missing? Most photographs and video footage that I've seen of that fight have frazier with both eye's intact.


A glass eye to go with that jaw of his perhaps?

[r.burgundy]

NSB is full of little kids who know nothing of boxing or its history. If people agree with me in this section its because Im right. I'll tell you what. I'll put this poll on another site in their history section. Will give it a 10 day period. Whoever wins gets the points. Fair?

is not about knowing boxxing or the history.its about assesing video of grebs competition

[DeepSleep]

of course they'll agree with your take.especially in this section.and i counter that with this.lets post a thread in nsb and ask some guys who arent into history what they think of fighters like walker,gibbons,tunney,and whoever else i can dig up on youtube.lets ask them to look at the video and give an opinion on the fighter.i'll bet 70% say those guys suck.

I'd imagine a good 70% of the people on that board have never laced up the gloves before given the silliness of some of their topics.

[JAB5239]

is not about knowing boxxing or the history.its about assesing video of grebs competition

How can you properly assess old, grainy, shot from one angles at a distance flicker speed film and make an accurate analysis? You will not take the word of people who saw these fighters live, but you will trust film that you know corrupts movements and detail because of its shortcomings, not the fighters. I gotta say, that is just a brilliant way to come to a logical conclusion.

[JAB5239]

I'd imagine a good 70% of the people on that board have never laced up the gloves before given the silliness of some of their topics.

Laced em up? I bet most of them don't even watch boxing except for Pac and Floyd.

[r.burgundy]

How can you properly assess old, grainy, shot from one angles at a distance flicker speed film and make an accurate analysis? You will not take the word of people who saw these fighters live, but you will trust film that you know corrupts movements and detail because of its shortcomings, not the fighters. I gotta say, that is just a brilliant way to come to a logical conclusion.

lmao what the fizzle.hell yeah i trust video and my own 2 eyes more than somebody elses.stop ducking the challenge.you are the only guy ive eva heard say they would rather have a book than a video lol.give it up man

thats not grainy at all lol