Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest Light-Heavyweights?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

    Time period in the abstract is a possible bias, unless we can make a case for some causal factor...or even correlation as to why a time period produces a superior fighter. I happen to think one can have a list with different times represented. Light heavies..cruisers whatever they are called usually are there to either rule the division, grab low hanging fruit in the heavy weight division, or just challenge when the division is weak.
    And I get that, and I am sure there are factors within a specific time period that do contribute to fighters as a whole being superior. I guess I should have been more clear in my initial post. If you are making a top ('X' number list) and the majority are from within a given period, then you may have some bias.

    Even if that was the single greatest era for that division (which is feasible), boxing has been around long enough, developed a great enough sample size, and grown and evolved long enough, that the majority shouldnt be from one small time frame. Save for, unless you are someone who believes athletes now are vastly superior due to advancements in training that those pre modern could not compete. I don't believe that, but that would be the only argument I could see.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by DeeMoney View Post

      Thats a hard one for me to figure as well. At what point do we count someone as having had enough work in a specific division to be counted among that division? Then why that arbitrary point?
      I am ok with giving a fighter the benefit if they make it work, and not counting it against a fighter when it does not... Hopkins... Made it work exceptional "rolling stone"... Jones, horrid. Lost a lot going back and fourth and accomplished little beating Ruiz at heavy... a man who had a manager/trainer that threw more punches than he did lol!

      Also, was it an effort to be a rolling stone? A deliberate attempt? like broner? or was it a natural fit, something where a fighter really showcased skill and ability like James Toney fighting heavyweights.

      I think we can give the category a lot of lattitude because inevitably most fighters will have some home base. but when a fighter is, for example, ducking his own guys to try another division... that should be considered.

      I didn't mention Andre Ware because he could easily be a great Middle weight, but hes an example of someone who gets the "Rolling Stone" benefit IMO. he cleaned his division out and then went on to Light heavy. But like Tunney I can't legit call him a rolling stone fighter. Tunney likewise was a great heavyweight, but an ATG Light Heavy. both Guys had a solid division where they took care of business and should get benefitts without being labelled Rolling Stones to me.

      It is really subjective. I think that is ok unless we hold it against a fighter. then we have to qualify it more... "Roy Jones was not great because he started losing after Ruiz." To me? that is a statement I disagree with. Just means Jones was greatest/great at Middle weight.

      LOL thats about as far as I have gotten.

      Comment


      • #63
        Added a few v to my list

        Choyinsky and Montell griffith this is how I am looking,

        1. Tunney.
        2. Spinks, Archie Moore Ezzard Charles
        3. Rosenbloom, Michael Moore,
        4. Foster Montell Griffin
        5. Choyinsky/ Usyk
        Last edited by billeau2; 07-04-2021, 03:24 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

          I didn't mention Andre Ware because he could easily be a great Middle weight, but hes an example of someone who gets the "Rolling Stone" benefit IMO. he cleaned his division out and then went on to Light heavy. But like Tunney I can't legit call him a rolling stone fighter. Tunney likewise was a great heavyweight, but an ATG Light Heavy. both Guys had a solid division where they took care of business and should get benefitts without being labelled Rolling Stones to me.

          It is really subjective. I think that is ok unless we hold it against a fighter. then we have to qualify it more... "Roy Jones was not great because he started losing after Ruiz." To me? that is a statement I disagree with. Just means Jones was greatest/great at Middle weight.

          LOL thats about as far as I have gotten.
          - -Deeandre ducked his biggest purse and fight, the undefeated southpaw, Lucien Bute in Montreal, to fight a dustcloth of journeymen trying to buy bravery at LH.

          Comment

          Working...
          X
          TOP