Who is Greater: Evander Holyfield or Barney Ross?

[Bolo Punch]

Mccalrin,, the same irish mob connections,, same thing as ross,,,

Garcia,, I already knew you would bring that up,,, A traveling journeymen

Great Ross has fights with his stablemate, and a travelling journeymen that scored big years later at middleweight,,,,

much like how JLC, mayorga, baldomir all had alot of losses early, then went on to win titles as they got better as a pro,,,
Garcia was not a legit contender at the time he fought Ross,, he was a cherrypick, that went on to win a title later on,, but at the time he wasnt considered to be a serious contender,,, You have to know the context
But i love how in hindsight you can say he fought Garcia like it was a legit serious fight, and not a travelling journeymen who would be considered much like a glen johnson is today

Arent you the same guy that thought GANS was a good win,,,, lol

Please think for yourself and not just what people tell you

So you're saying that Ross' resume suffers because he never fought any regional champs or continental guys, but when I mention McLarnin it becomes "the only reason he got to the top was because the mob gave him a helping hand" and when I mention Ceferino Garcia, who was Oriental Champion, suddenly he's not up to standard (even though he holds multiple wins over Baby Joe Gans and Kid Azteca and went on to win a world title)? Also, I don't know when the last time a journeyman was ranked in the top 10 for 7 consecutive years like Garcia was between '32 and '38. The only reason he wasn't in the welterweight rankings in 1939 is because he moved up to Middleweight and became the #1 guy in that division.

And no, I'm not the same person that said that Ross' win over Gans was good.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

So you're saying that Ross' resume suffers because he never fought any regional champs or continental guys, but when I mention McLarnin it becomes "the only reason he got to the top was because the mob gave him a helping hand" and when I mention Ceferino Garcia, who was Oriental Champion, suddenly he's not up to standard (even though he holds multiple wins over Baby Joe Gans and Kid Azteca and went on to win a world title)? Also, I don't know when the last time a journeyman was ranked in the top 10 for 7 consecutive years like Garcia was between '32 and '38. The only reason he wasn't in the welterweight rankings in 1939 is because he moved up to Middleweight and became the #1 guy in that division.

And no, I'm not the same person that said that Ross' win over Gans was good.

I respect your knowledge of the game,,, I think your a good poster and we agree on alot especially newer stuff thats on NSB

But in this case, i seem to be all by myself in my opinion,,, but thats cool, im just happy to discuss boxing with such great minds like yourself and irondan,,, I truely respect you guys,, there is literally nobody to talk boxing with where im from.. (peoria, il)

Look, Im not trying to bring down ross, mcclarin, canzori,, They fought who was put in front of them,,, Im not trying to run them down because i think holyfield is better,,,
I just think that from the mid 60s to present day, the sport has been more encompassing, where in the early days circa 1900-1960s the sport and matchmaking was corrupt and and very clique-ish...
It was closed off to many,,,
back then a guy like GGG may never get his chance..
Today with the internet, and tv, guys cant be hidden or blacklisted like they were in the mafia era....
Nearly every top level fighter has earned their spot,, and yes today's game isnt perfect,, there is still alot of corruption and "playing favorites" going on,, but for the most part,,, especially in the 60s-90s the fight game was running on all cylinders and i believe was the pinnacle of the sports history...

I find it hard or impossible to judge the pre-60's fighters vs guys from 60's/present because their is so many variables,,,,

Like i have said earlier in this thread,, I always break down boxing into era's
1900s-1960's- old school era,, controlled by the mob, mostly segregated and highly nationalized

1960s-1990's the TV era,, this is what i consider the pinnacle of the sport,, so many great fights and fighters and from all nationalities, nearly all the fights that people wanted to see happened,,,

1990s-present the ppv era,, This i consider the down turn of boxing,,, especially in america,, too many great fights got ruined by politics, promoters, rival networks, etc... Still some great boxing and fighters, but nowhere near what it could be....

I find it very hard to compare guys from 1930's to a guy from the 1990's...
the game has changed so much for better or worse,, I just get highly peeved when people claim guys they never saw fight, nor know the context of the fights and claim to be well read make claims like this fighter is so much better than this fighter,, etc.....

I hope this clears up my opinion and where i stand,,,, And i hope this opens some eyes when considering how to rank fighters, especially the condition of the sport in the old school day,,, I find it a nearly impossible task to rank fighters that are 80 years apart,,, You may not agree with me, but hopefully you can understand where im coming from, and why i think the way i do, and maybe, just maybe you may reconsider how you think about the history of the sport

[Bolo Punch]

I respect your knowledge of the game,,, I think your a good poster and we agree on alot especially newer stuff thats on NSB

But in this case, i seem to be all by myself in my opinion,,, but thats cool, im just happy to discuss boxing with such great minds like yourself and irondan,,, I truely respect you guys,, there is literally nobody to talk boxing with where im from.. (peoria, il)

Thanks, man. I also agree with some of your other views. This is nothing personal, I just strongly disagree with some of the views you have on this particular matter.

Oh, and I'm in the same boat as you. Where I'm from isn't exactly a boxing hotspot so I always enjoy these kind of debates on here, especially in the history section where you get to say your piece and have it heard rather than your opinions getting lost amogst some of the idiotic ramblings that occur on NSB.

Look, Im not trying to bring down ross, mcclarin, canzori,, They fought who was put in front of them,,, Im not trying to run them down because i think holyfield is better,,,
I just think that from the mid 60s to present day, the sport has been more encompassing, where in the early days circa 1900-1960s the sport and matchmaking was corrupt and and very clique-ish...
It was closed off to many,,,
back then a guy like GGG may never get his chance..
Today with the internet, and tv, guys cant be hidden or blacklisted like they were in the mafia era....
Nearly every top level fighter has earned their spot,, and yes today's game isnt perfect,, there is still alot of corruption and "playing favorites" going on,, but for the most part,,, especially in the 60s-90s the fight game was running on all cylinders and i believe was the pinnacle of the sports history...

I understand what you're getting at and I kind of agree to a point, actually. The sport has been a lot more universal for the past 50 years or so, so we're truly getting to see all of the greatest fighters in the world, no matter where they originate. What I disagree with is to put someone's record from the past down just because they didn't fight a certain 'type' of person, if you want to put it that way. The greats of yesteryear such as Ross, etc. shouldn't be penalised for not fighting people of African or South American origin. After all, boxing as we know it today started out as a predominantly white person's sport in England, before spreading throughout Europe and across the Atlantic to the east coast of America, so it's only natural that the bulk of Ross' career was made up of Americans and people of Italian heritage. The sport was still developing at the time of his career, which isn't Ross' fault and as a result, he shouldn't have his achievements handicapped because of that.

I find it very hard to compare guys from 1930's to a guy from the 1990's...
the game has changed so much for better or worse,, I just get highly peeved when people claim guys they never saw fight, nor know the context of the fights and claim to be well read make claims like this fighter is so much better than this fighter,, etc.....

I think I can relate to that feeling. It just doesn't sit right with me that some people can have a fighter like Harry Greb for example in their top 10 p4p lists, considering they've never seen him or most of the fighters he fought. While his record and resume is (seemingly) outstanding, I don't think that you can truly judge a fighter without seeing them, or at the very least even seeing some of their opposition to know that they must have been good enough to beat them, or whatever.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

thanks, man. I also agree with some of your other views. This is nothing personal, i just strongly disagree with some of the views you have on this particular matter.

Oh, and i'm in the same boat as you. Where i'm from isn't exactly a boxing hotspot so i always enjoy these kind of debates on here, especially in the history section where you get to say your piece and have it heard rather than your opinions getting lost amogst some of the idiotic ramblings that occur on nsb.



I understand what you're getting at and i kind of agree to a point, actually. The sport has been a lot more universal for the past 50 years or so, so we're truly getting to see all of the greatest fighters in the world, no matter where they originate. What i disagree with is to put someone's record from the past down just because they didn't fight a certain 'type' of person, if you want to put it that way. The greats of yesteryear such as ross, etc. Shouldn't be penalised for not fighting people of african or south american origin. After all, boxing as we know it today started out as a predominantly white person's sport in england, before spreading throughout europe and across the atlantic to the east coast of america, so it's only natural that the bulk of ross' career was made up of americans and people of italian heritage. The sport was still developing at the time of his career, which isn't ross' fault and as a result, he shouldn't have his achievements handicapped because of that.



I think i can relate to that feeling. It just doesn't sit right with me that some people can have a fighter like harry greb for example in their top 10 p4p lists, considering they've never seen him or most of the fighters he fought. While his record and resume is (seemingly) outstanding, i don't think that you can truly judge a fighter without seeing them, or at the very least even seeing some of their opposition to know that they must have been good enough to beat them, or whatever.

thank you for being a really good poster