Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who do you have as you No3 HW and why?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post
    Resume not too shabby either in my book.

    Strangely, It doesn't seem to be the consensus in here, though.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Barnburner View Post


      I'm still enraged you suggested Johnson is argubally not a Top 10 Heavyweight even after you admitted you were exaggerating

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post


        I'm still enraged you suggested Johnson is argubally not a Top 10 Heavyweight even after you admitted you were exaggerating
        Yeah, that was ludacris. Exaggerations always help draw people who are opininated on a subject into a debate.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post
          Resume not too shabby either in my book.

          Strangely, It doesn't seem to be the consensus in here, though.
          Mostly because his resume is viewed primarily through the prism of his title reign rather than his career as a whole. Title reins hold a whole lot more weight now than it did then and people don't adjust their thinking when looking at the era.

          Poet

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by poet682006 View Post
            Mostly because his resume is viewed primarily through the prism of his title reign rather than his career as a whole. Title reins hold a whole lot more weight now than it did then and people don't adjust their thinking when looking at the era.

            Poet
            Absolutely.

            I did highlight that in the thread about Jack Johnson recently. His resume outside his Title reign is excellent IMO and add his reign ontop of that which is atleast decent aswell IMO.

            Comment


            • #16
              how is Johnson's resume excellent when his 3 best wins were pre prime?

              even if Jeannete McVea and Langford were prime, do you actually think they are better wins than beating say Ken Norton or Evander Holyfield?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by poet682006 View Post
                Mostly because his resume is viewed primarily through the prism of his title reign rather than his career as a whole. Title reins hold a whole lot more weight now than it did then and people don't adjust their thinking when looking at the era.

                Poet
                I thought it was mostly because he ducked Sam Langford that everybody wants to ***** on him so much.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Honestly, I like to rate in tiers. Individual rankings are too hard and fluctuate too much. But for me, there's the Ali/Louis tier, then there's the next three (Holmes, Johnson, Foreman), then the next tier (Dempsey, Lewis, Liston, Frazier, Marciano), etc. etc. They still switch around some (Dempsey jumps back and forth from 2 to 3, for example) but I think it's easier and less artificial.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Barnburner View Post
                    It seems Ali and Louis are just leagues above everyone else and from then on, a mad scramble ensues for the remaining places in the Top 10 with almost any order being regarded as acceptable.

                    I'm hoping to stir up an insightful debate here, so people can have references when compling their own Top 10 Heavyweight lists.





                    After 1 and 2 it becomes a lot more difficult and subjective.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Larry Holmes, I can't believe anyone would have Foreman as high as #3!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP