top 10 boxers in history

[JAB5239]

Sugar Ray Robinson has more than 4 fights filmed

Ok so link me to all of his FULL fights if you have at least 8 I'll watch.

Don't bother, they're in black and white. And what if their were only 5 full fights, does that mean he wasn't any good? That his comp wasn't good?

[SCtrojansbaby]

Why would you need a full fight?

Anyways just head to the Video Trading Block and find a thread on Ray, ***** has a good one with all filmed stuff on him.

Why do you I need a full fight? What kind of question is that? How the hell can you judge a fight or fighter based on highlight?

[SCtrojansbaby]

Don't bother, they're in black and white. And what if their were only 5 full fights, does that mean he wasn't any good? That his comp wasn't good?

It doesn't mean he was good or not good it means that you don't know because you haven't seen them.

[SCtrojansbaby]

I have bucko,..... you just never listen do you ?????........ How many ****ing times do I have to repeat myself... are you trying to get me to paste another Pepe Le Pew cartoon ??????

If jab was lying then can you post links to all these full fights you allege that watched?

[JAB5239]

It doesn't mean he was good or not good it means that you don't know because you haven't seen them.

No, I've seen just about everything available. That is irrelevant though. Even if there were no film of him I can still judge his greatness based on film of his opponents, their testimony and newspaper articles of the day as well as what today's trainers and fighters think. There is not, I repeat, THERE IS NOT a conspiracy to make fighters from era's past bigger than life. Their accomplishments and resume's can simply not be denied by the rational mind and it doesn't matter how they look or would have looked on film. The bottom line is winning.

[Barn]

Why do you I need a full fight? What kind of question is that? How the hell can you judge a fight or fighter based on highlight?

Nah, I mean there is a few fights on youtube where they only have about 4 or so rounds and stuff lol... If you had searched for some footage you would know that, so you obviously haven't even tried.

[JAB5239]

If jab was lying then can you post links to all these full fights you allege that watched?

Or you could go search them yourself. The problem with you is you don't want to learn, you want everyone else to do the legwork and than you continue to live in denial. I just don't get it, you won't even make an effort if it goes against your already preconceived opinion.

[SCtrojansbaby]

No, I've seen just about everything available. That is irrelevant though. Even if there were no film of him I can still judge his greatness based on film of his opponents, their testimony and newspaper articles of the day as well as what today's trainers and fighters think. There is not, I repeat, THERE IS NOT a conspiracy to make fighters from era's past bigger than life. Their accomplishments and resume's can simply not be denied by the rational mind and it doesn't matter how they look or would have looked on film. The bottom line is winning.

You can't judge a fighter based on film of opponents fighters change all the time and not all wins are equal.

Heck all of you people are so adamant about Whitaker beating Chavez you would have no idea you would just accept it as a draw if you didn't see the fight. Or a fight like Wlad vs Brewster 1, clearly Wlad had food poisoning or something he was out on his feet before Brewster even landed a decent punch in the 5th round. You would think Brewster had 1 punch KO power if you just looked at the result.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Or you could go search them yourself. The problem with you is you don't want to learn, you want everyone else to do the legwork and than you continue to live in denial. I just don't get it, you won't even make an effort if it goes against your already preconceived opinion.

Its the same story for all fighters before the 60s or 70s. Not much footage I already know this.

Also as I told you before I don't have an opinion on fighters that don't have sufficient footage(at very least 8 full fights for a guy who fought 100+ times)

I don't rank them, I don't discuss them, I don't care about them unless their fights unless there is enough footage. For some reason you people just have a hard time accepting that. You guys can discuss the newspaper articles from 100 years ago, I'll discuss the fights I have watched .

[JAB5239]

You can't judge a fighter based on film of opponents fighters change all the time and not all wins are equal.

How much did say Gene Tunney or Tommy Loughran change? Mickey Walker? You have no clue and are only assuming this. All these guys were beating the best around them at the time they fought Greb and we can see footage of them from around that general time. There is no footage of Greb, but we can certainly see how good his opposition was.

Heck all of you people are so adamant about Whitaker beating Chavez you would have no idea you would just accept it as a draw if you didn't see the fight. Or a fight like Wlad vs Brewster 1, clearly Wlad had food poisoning or something he was out on his feet before Brewster even landed a decent punch in the 5th round. You would think Brewster had 1 punch KO power if you just looked at the result.

You're wrong again because we'd have newspaper reports telling us how Whitaker handled Chavez pretty easily and how ringsiders were aghast by the decision. They'd tell us how Wlad ran out of gas trying to knock Brewster out and that it wasn't the first time his stamina had cost him a fight.