were max baer and joe walcott all time greats

[warp1432]

all those guys were legetimate light heavyweights, every single one. i want to know what heavyweight names he beat, and what makes his an all time great?

fighting marciano and loosing good does not make you great

he was a journeyman who lost won some and lost some. greats dont do that

Then what the hell is Tyson? An ATG? I could easily say that an ATG doesn't lose to a 42-1 underdog, but **** happens.

[Boogie Nights]

Because Ezzard Charles actually won the heavyweight title convincingly. Spinks arugably lost to Holmes twice when Holmes was past his prime. Charles was a greater Light Heavy (how he never won a title there is something I don't know) then Spinks anyway.

Contenders are as followed:

-Harold Johnson
-Joe Baksi
-Lee Q. Murray
-Curtis Sheppard
-Jimmy Bevins
-Elmar Ray (who he lost to the first time, but avenged the loss)

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing isn't it? Oh that and many felt he was robbed against Louis the first time which is a statement within itself.

and may i ask politely, who the **** were they?

[Boogie Nights]

Then what the hell is Tyson? An ATG? I could easily say that an ATG doesn't lose to a 42-1 underdog, but **** happens.

buster douglas was easily as good as anyone on walcott's record, and more legit fighter than (an actual heavyweight with physical tools) than anyone Joe Louis ever beat. you can quote me on that ****

[Silencers]

all those guys were legetimate light heavyweights, every single one. i want to know what heavyweight names he beat, and what makes his an all time great?

fighting marciano and loosing good does not make you great

he was a journeyman who lost won some and lost some. greats dont do that

Fighting at that time was different, Walcott didn't have much amateur experience so when he turned pro, he had to learn a lot of things, that's why he lost so many fights early in his career.

Ezzard Charles was a legitimate heavyweight at the time, what's you basis for saying he wasn't? A lot of fighters start at lower weight classes but eventually outgrow them.

As I said, he should have beaten Louis the first time, and beat Charles twice.

[warp1432]

Wow...I'm speechless....

[Boogie Nights]

Fighting at that time was different, Walcott didn't have much amateur experience so when he turned pro, he had to learn a lot of things, that's why he lost so many fights early in his career.

Ezzard Charles was a legitimate heavyweight at the time, what's you basis for saying he wasn't? A lot of fighters start at lower weight classes but eventually outgrow them.

As I said, he should have beaten Louis the first time, and beat Charles twice.

i understand that he was a late bloomer and wasnt groomed for becoming a contender in the first place, but what you're saying is that because he beat ezzard twice (and also lost twice to him) and should have won a fight against already faded joe louis, it makes him an all time great? i strongly, and respectfully disagree.

[Silencers]

buster douglas was easily as good as anyone on walcott's record, and more legit fighter than (an actual heavyweight with physical tools) than anyone Joe Louis ever beat. you can quote me on that ****

I honestly don't think you know much about the history of boxing. Heavyweights were smaller back then, a legit heavyweight weighed around 190-200 pounds.

Joe Louis beat Max Baer, Jack Sharkey, Paolino Uzcudun, Max Schmeling, Bob Pastor, John Henry Lewis, Tony Galento (I saw you say he was a bum in you thread in the other forum, that's wrong, he was actually a top contender), Arturo Godoy, Billy Conn, Joe Walcott, Lee Savold among others.

Just because you don't know who they are doesn't make them bums.

[Boogie Nights]

Wow...I'm speechless....

i was speechless at the way a fat butterball tony galento with the most stuffed record was able to drop the great Joe Louis

im was speechless at the way 174 pound Billy Conn with feather duster for a punch was able to toss joe around the ring like a ragdoll for 12 rounds. yeah, i was speechless

im speechless at how people have the audacity to claim that a fighter like rocky marciano would walk right through someone like 245 pound Wladimir Klitschko

[Dan...]

im speechless at how people have the audacity to claim that a fighter like rocky marciano would walk right through someone like 245 pound Wladimir Klitschko

Does anyone actually claim this though?

[Boogie Nights]

I honestly don't think you know much about the history of boxing. Heavyweights were smaller back then, a legit heavyweight weighed around 190-200 pounds.

Joe Louis beat Max Baer, Jack Sharkey, Paolino Uzcudun, Max Schmeling, Bob Pastor, John Henry Lewis, Tony Galento (I saw you say he was a bum in you thread in the other forum, that's wrong, he was actually a top contender), Arturo Godoy, Billy Conn, Joe Walcott, Lee Savold among others.

Just because you don't know who they are doesn't make them bums.

just to make it clear ive seen every available fight of joe louis. not just espn ****, but i have a collection of his films. i follow that era very well

and you dont have to tell me how much the heavyweight used to weigh back in 50s

i would never favor any fighter over someone like robinson, or armstrong (another one of my favourites), and i consider an old school fighter like duran to be the best light weight in the history of boxing

what bothers me though is the fact that people try to compare heavyweigths like marciano, jack dempsey, to fighters we have today above 200 pounds...it's a little extreme