were max baer and joe walcott all time greats

[KnockoutTheFat]

fair enough, i just wanted to ask you one more question silencers

do you consider glen johnson an all time great? just wondering

That guy has had so many razor-thin decisions.

[Silencers]

fair enough, i just wanted to ask you one more question silencers

do you consider glen johnson an all time great? just wondering

Different circumstances, Johnson hasn't beaten any ATGs.

[Boogie Nights]

Different circumstances, Johnson hasn't beaten any ATGs.

do you consider ezzard charles to be better than roy jones?

[Boogie Nights]

That guy has had so many razor-thin decisions.

he did, more like robberies. but he had his moments. he's actually one of my favourite fighters in the game today

i love his attitude, the road warrior

[Silencers]

do you consider ezzard charles to be better than roy jones?

Yes, I do pound for pound.

[Boogie Nights]

Yes, I do pound for pound.

okay, that's fair again. do you also consider that beating one 'truly great' fighter is enough to get you an all time great status? because arguably i can make the case that that's the only 'great fighter' (charles) over whom walcott holds the victory, not counting the 'unofficial' robbery in the louis fight

[KnockoutTheFat]

he did, more like robberies. but he had his moments. he's actually one of my favourite fighters in the game today

i love his attitude, the road warrior

Yeah but I haven't watched the fights he lost except for the Dawson one so I can't really call all of them robberies. However, I'm like completely sure that he was robbed against Ottke (after all, who hasn't?, save for Mundine of course LOL).

[Boogie Nights]

Yeah but I haven't watched the fights he lost except for the Dawson one so I can't really call all of them robberies. However, I'm like completely sure that he was robbed against Ottke (after all, who hasn't?, save for Mundine of course LOL).

he had those 'hometown' decision losses. the draw and the third loss to clinton woods were pretty bad. but again you can see that even in the dawson fight all the close rounds were given to the other guy. in other words he goes into the fight and if he doesnt perform above 100% it will automatically be scored in the other guy's favor. he has to do something extraordinary for the judges, while the other guy scan simply be ordinary

[Silencers]

okay, that's fair again. do you also consider that beating one 'truly great' fighter is enough to get you an all time great status? because arguably i can make the case that that's the only 'great fighter' (charles) over whom walcott holds the victory, not counting the 'unofficial' robbery in the louis fight

He also beat a lot of top ten contenders at the time and become the oldest heavyweight champion of all time until Foreman came along. 38 years old was ancient at that time.

Props to Johnson though, I respect him.

[Boogie Nights]

He also beat a lot of top ten contenders at the time and become the oldest heavyweight champion of all time until Foreman came along. 38 years old was ancient at that time.

Props to Johnson though, I respect him.

a guy like johnson beat top contenders too, of his era of course, roy jones was considered P4P the best fighter of his generation. johnson beat him and the guy who beat him twice too. he also beat another guy who had DQ win over roy, montell griffin. clinton woods was also a tough fighter.
like walcott lost to marciano, johnson also lost to hopkins. he beat huge names (in his era, which were considered elite fighters) how come he doesnt get an all time great status? i see a double standard here