My Personal top 10 rankings of middleweights, what do you think?

[Welsh Jon]

No Charley Burley?

How come?

In all honesty it comes from lack of knowledge. I love researching boxing history and looking up old school champs, but have big gaps in my knowledge when it comes to guys like Burley and Sam Langford who never won offical world titles.

I see that his name always crops up on lists like these, but since I don't personally know that much about him I decided it would be hypocritical to put him in.

[IronDanHamza]

In all honesty it comes from lack of knowledge. I love researching boxing history and looking up old school champs, but have big gaps in my knowledge when it comes to guys like Burley and Sam Langford who never won offical world titles.

I see that his name always crops up on lists like these, but since I don't personally know that much about him I decided it would be hypocritical to put him in.

That's fair enough, my man.

Can't really make a judgement on a fighter that you don't know about, right?

Alot of people tend to have that problem on here.

I would recommend you have a look over Charley Burley's career, it's exceptional.

Long list of exceptional wins across his resume. And of course, was a very feared man in his time.

Definitely a Top 10 Middleweight, IMO.

[Pastrano]

Except, were not talking P4P value, are we?

We're talking about greatness at HW, something, only someone either very misinformed are outright senseless would have Floyd Patterson and Ezzard Charles above George Foreman in terms of HW greatness.

I guess you fit both those catergories, Mr. Oscar is ranked #6 at WW.

Without his power, Foreman would get OWNED by both Frazier and Norton, wally. Christ, he almost got owned by LYLE!

[NChristo]

Without his power, Foreman would get OWNED by both Frazier and Norton, wally. Christ, he almost got owned by LYLE!

Is that really your argument for having Charles and Patterson above George ?, because if George didn't have the power that he did have you think he would of got ''owned'' ?.



Yep lets not rate people on what actually happened and resume, lets rate on fantasy things like how far would a boxer go if they didn't have a certain attribute.

Also let's just pretend that if he did have no power he would fight exactly the same as he did.

[Pastrano]

Is that really your argument for having Charles and Patterson above George ?, because if George didn't have the power that he did have you think he would of got ''owned'' ?.



Yep lets not rate people on what actually happened and resume, lets rate on fantasy things like how far would a boxer go if they didn't have a certain attribute.

Also let's just pretend that if he did have no power he would fight exactly the same as he did.

BOY, you guys really are thick, arent you? It says everything about their comparative SKILL LEVEL fool! Foreman was all about power, he had no defence, no skills, nothing! He was a crude puncher, a lumbering bear.

[JAB5239]

BOY, you guys really are thick, arent you? It says everything about their comparative SKILL LEVEL fool! Foreman was all about power, he had no defence, no skills, nothing! He was a crude puncher, a lumbering bear.

Actually he had a good jab and was great at cutting off the ring, two much needed attributes for a fighter looking for the ko more often than not. I would say his speed was deceiving and underrated also.

[IronDanHamza]

Without his power, Foreman would get OWNED by both Frazier and Norton, wally. Christ, he almost got owned by LYLE!

Right. Without power Foreman would most probably lost to Fraizer and Norton. What's your point?

Pretty much the same as saying; 'Without reflexes, Pep would be a bum' or 'Without a good chin, Lamotta would be a bum'

Problem with this is; they DO have these attributes. Which in turn, makes your statment quite literally worthless.

BOY, you guys really are thick, arent you? It says everything about their comparative SKILL LEVEL fool! Foreman was all about power, he had no defence, no skills, nothing! He was a crude puncher, a lumbering bear.

What does skill level have to do with greatness?

Who cares if he was a 'lumbering bear' as you put it?

It was effective. Allowing him to dismantle ATG fighters, hense, his HW greatness.

[Pastrano]

Actually he had a good jab and was great at cutting off the ring, two much needed attributes for a fighter looking for the ko more often than not. I would say his speed was deceiving and underrated also.

A good jab??! Is that why Dundee always had to remind him to jab during the Holyfield fight?! LOL! The words Foreman and jab don't hang together. I think you are mixing up his pushing away of opponents with jabbing.

[NChristo]

BOY, you guys really are thick, arent you? It says everything about their comparative SKILL LEVEL fool! Foreman was all about power, he had no defence, no skills, nothing! He was a crude puncher, a lumbering bear.

Yeah I'm thick, forget everything that Foreman achieved and his resume, you don't like his style so he wasn't all that.








This is quite hilarious.

No one with just power gets a gold medal and beats who George beat, of course he had skills you dunce, pre Ali-Foreman in particular used his jab to a great extent and was pretty damn good at cutting the ring and could control the distance.

But however, Paulie Malignaggi with a better resume, better skills and power could be the GOAT, so **** everything else.

[Scott9945]

Without his power, Foreman would get OWNED by both Frazier and Norton, wally. Christ, he almost got owned by LYLE!

Without his height, Klitschko would have been too small for David Haye.

You're really circling the drain at this point.