Ranking justifications

[JAB5239]

First off I wasnt even referring to you in particular when I posted that to the other post.
I was literally referring to a few select posts I've read in the last couple weeks. Matter of fact I am 1 to agree that anyone who ranks Holyfield that low is the one off their meds but seeing as how you took it personal I'm taking a guess you are off your for jumping to conclusions.

Chill out professor I'm not needing a history lesson nor was I shooting to offend a sensitive type.

How do you figure I'm sensitive? You made a comment in a thread I started and I responded to it. My apologies if you think I jumped the gun. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of how Queenie ranks Holyfield and Holmes so low on his yet to be seen list.

[Get em up]

How do you figure I'm sensitive? You made a comment in a thread I started and I responded to it. My apologies if you think I jumped the gun. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of how Queenie ranks Holyfield and Holmes so low on his yet to be seen list.

Point taken my apologies too. I jumped the gun and posted something I took as a public posting not realizing it was or should have been a 1 on 1 conversation. I do agree that Holyfield or Holmes should be way higher on even a newcomer to sports list.

[JAB5239]

Point taken my apologies too. I jumped the gun and posted something I took as a public posting not realizing it was or should have been a 1 on 1 conversation. I do agree that Holyfield or Holmes should be way higher on even a newcomer to sports list.

Its all good. No hard feelings. Sometimes we have to create new threads to get answers that have been ducked in other threads. It is what it is.

[DeeMoney]

I'm not referencing your specific complaint, because I don't know the specifics about it. But I will let you know that there is a hipster mentality that goes around any history forum for any sports message board-but especially boxing.

Hipsters like to choose obscure bands to claim as their favorite because it gives them a sense of esoteric superiority. They can put down the generally popular band and in turn hold an air of superiority over all those that like them. And in turn show off their knowledge by claiming to like an obscure band (wow they know obscure bands they must have a vast amount of knowledge). Then they can act as if that band isn't even that obscure to them, further impressing with their faux knowledge.

Now I am not writing thats the case with everyone, but there are plenty of boxing fans who do the same. Everyone knows Holmes and Holyfield, most of us watch them fight live. To rank them highly doesnt give one a chance to show off their knowledge of history. But if I were come out and say I rank Gus Ruhlin above them both, well then I get some esoteric knowledge cred- wow he must really know a lot about boxing because he doesn't give the mainstream answers.

Also, many old school fans will default to the idea that fighters were better in the good ol days. Growing up in the Depression or during WWI made a man tougher, and more fit as a boxer. So anyone who came of age later on is inherently spoiled and weaker.

[QueensburyRules]

So who are the others? All you need to do is post a list. You keep Maki g this claim but refuse to show a list. Why would I run in circles looking for something you can simply provide if you truly believed your own BS?

- -U need U steak pureed too?

I already change u snotty bib.

[JAB5239]

- -U need U steak pureed too?

I already change u snotty bib.

Sure you did!! 😆

Do you know what's really funny? You've never even posted a top 10 list in Canes thread. Not under your current account or your LRR account. Why would ANYONE believe you have EVER done a top 20 list to have Holyfield and Holmes where you have them?

[JAB5239]

I'm not referencing your specific complaint, because I don't know the specifics about it. But I will let you know that there is a hipster mentality that goes around any history forum for any sports message board-but especially boxing.

Hipsters like to choose obscure bands to claim as their favorite because it gives them a sense of esoteric superiority. They can put down the generally popular band and in turn hold an air of superiority over all those that like them. And in turn show off their knowledge by claiming to like an obscure band (wow they know obscure bands they must have a vast amount of knowledge). Then they can act as if that band isn't even that obscure to them, further impressing with their faux knowledge.

Now I am not writing thats the case with everyone, but there are plenty of boxing fans who do the same. Everyone knows Holmes and Holyfield, most of us watch them fight live. To rank them highly doesnt give one a chance to show off their knowledge of history. But if I were come out and say I rank Gus Ruhlin above them both, well then I get some esoteric knowledge cred- wow he must really know a lot about boxing because he doesn't give the mainstream answers.

Also, many old school fans will default to the idea that fighters were better in the good ol days. Growing up in the Depression or during WWI made a man tougher, and more fit as a boxer. So anyone who came of age later on is inherently spoiled and weaker.

I hear you. I know exactly what you're talking about. I've seen it on various boxing forums for more than 20 years now. I got no problem with a difference of opinion. But if you're going to come at me with such outlandish claim, at least provide SOMETHING so we can gauge where you're coming from.

[QueensburyRules]

Sure you did!! 😆

Do you know what's really funny? You've never even posted a top 10 list in Canes thread. Not under your current account or your LRR account. Why would ANYONE believe you have EVER done a top 20 list to have Holyfield and Holmes where you have them?

- -Can't fix U DUM for U.

U priceless comedy sorta like a punch dummy.

[JAB5239]

- -Can't fix U DUM for U.

U priceless comedy sorta like a punch dummy.

Lol, keep talking high and mighty from your soapbox. We'll keep waiting on that list. 😆

[Bundana]

Also, many old school fans will default to the idea that fighters were better in the good ol days. Growing up in the Depression or during WWI made a man tougher, and more fit as a boxer. So anyone who came of age later on is inherently spoiled and weaker.

This is so true!

And we can also add claims such as: The forgotten art of feinting, the forgotten art of body punching, the good trainers are dying out and with them knowledge that is forever disappearing into thin air, today's boxers wouldn't be able to go 15 rounds, etc.

There's no end to the unsubstantiated claims that are being put forward by posters to denigrate the present - in an attempt to make themselves look like knowledgeable "experts".