Pound-for-Pound: The Fifty Greatest Boxers Of All-Time

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • intoccabile
    Undisputed Champion
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Sep 2006
    • 3038
    • 110
    • 0
    • 10,249

    #41
    Originally posted by americanbot
    how is reberto duran the top 4 greatest fighter of all time.
    He is widely argued by MANY MANY MANY boxing enthusiasts to be top 5 p4p of all time. Only Boxingscene disapproves.

    Comment

    • Oxn
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Dec 2009
      • 2478
      • 92
      • 35
      • 18,682

      #42
      Originally posted by americanbot
      reberto duran is also too high..........top 4 fighter of ALL TIME?
      He is rediculously too high, as is the author.

      Comment

      • IronDanHamza
        Banned
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • Oct 2009
        • 48371
        • 4,778
        • 266
        • 104,043

        #43
        Originally posted by Mr. Fantastic
        How is it bad logic? It's not bad logic at all. It's only natural people would select a higher number is it not?
        Because just because you have more Title defenses than someone else doesn't mean you're greater than them.

        That is terrible logic to base it off that.

        You can't judge fighters like that, it's just plain ****** to do so.

        By your logic, Virgil Hill would be the greatest Light Heavyweight of all time.

        Do you think he is the greatest Light Heavyweight of all time?

        He has 20+ Title defences at LHW. Is he greater than Ezzard Charles? Is he greater than Harold Johnson? Is he greater than Billy Conn?

        No, obviously he is not.

        That, is why it's painfully bad logic to base a ranking off number of title defences.

        Comment

        • americanbot
          Banned
          • Aug 2010
          • 4002
          • 179
          • 29
          • 4,267

          #44
          Originally posted by intoccabile
          He is widely argued by MANY MANY MANY boxing enthusiasts to be top 5 p4p of all time. Only Boxingscene disapproves.
          which boxing enthusiast argues that reberto duran is the 4th greatest fighter of all time??????????

          please show & tell.

          Comment

          • IronDanHamza
            Banned
            Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
            • Oct 2009
            • 48371
            • 4,778
            • 266
            • 104,043

            #45
            Originally posted by Rassclot
            lol @ gene tunney


            only win is over a completely over the hill Jack Dempsey.

            Comment

            • IronDanHamza
              Banned
              Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
              • Oct 2009
              • 48371
              • 4,778
              • 266
              • 104,043

              #46
              Originally posted by americanbot
              which boxing enthusiast argues that reberto duran is the 4th greatest fighter of all time??????????

              please show & tell.
              Plenty.

              I don't rate Duran in the Top 5, but he has an argument.

              He's a consensus Top 10 ATG.

              Comment

              • Mr. Fantastic
                Banned
                Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
                • May 2008
                • 19036
                • 527
                • 1,328
                • 20,027

                #47
                Originally posted by IronDanHamza
                Because just because you have more Title defenses than someone else doesn't mean you're greater than them.

                That is terrible logic to base it off that.

                You can't judge fighters like that, it's just plain ****** to do so.

                By your logic, Virgil Hill would be the greatest Light Heavyweight of all time.

                Do you think he is the greatest Light Heavyweight of all time?

                He has 20+ Title defences at LHW. Is he greater than Ezzard Charles? Is he greater than Harold Johnson? Is he greater than Billy Conn?

                No, obviously he is not.

                That, is why it's painfully bad logic to base a ranking off number of title defences.
                Well he should have major props for defending the title that many times. But you're twisting my shit. I'm talking more about being a champion in weight divisions.

                But see I'm not saying Oscar is greater than Hopkins. What I said was true, a guy with belts in 6 divisions is going to look better than a guy with 3 in general. There is nothing wrong with that one bit and it's not terrible logic.

                Comment

                • IronDanHamza
                  Banned
                  Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                  • Oct 2009
                  • 48371
                  • 4,778
                  • 266
                  • 104,043

                  #48
                  Originally posted by Mr. Fantastic
                  Well he should have major props for defending the title that many times. But you're twisting my shit. I'm talking more about being a champion in weight divisions.

                  But see I'm not saying Oscar is greater than Hopkins. What I said was true, a guy with belts in 6 divisions is going to look better than a guy with 3 in general. There is nothing wrong with that one bit and it's not terrible logic.
                  What am I twisting?

                  I said - "Saying more Title defenses automatically >>>>> Less title defences is painfully bad logic"

                  And you replied - "How is it bad logic?"

                  So, you are in result refuting that that blatant terrible logic infact isn't bad logic.

                  But, by that logic, Virgill Hill would be the greatest LHW of all time. When in actual fact, he's a boarderline HOF'er.

                  Title defences don't necessarily determine anything at all. Guy's like Calderon, Ottke, John, Sturm and Calzaghe and the list goes on have a huge number of title defences, more than the greatest fighters of all time, yet, they aren't even in their stratohsphere in terms of greatness.

                  Look at Sven Ottke, he's not a HOF'er and never will be yet he has some of the most title defences in the history of the sport.

                  That alone comletely debunks the ****** theory of more title defences automatically being better than less title defenses.

                  As for being Champion in more divisons automatically being better or greater than being champions in less divisons - That's equally as ******.

                  That would make Oscar De La Hoya the greatest Champion of all time. And just the thought of that is laugh out loud funny.

                  Comment

                  • Mr. Fantastic
                    Banned
                    Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
                    • May 2008
                    • 19036
                    • 527
                    • 1,328
                    • 20,027

                    #49
                    Originally posted by IronDanHamza
                    What am I twisting?

                    I said - "Saying more Title defenses automatically >>>>> Less title defences is painfully bad logic"

                    And you replied - "How is it bad logic?"

                    So, you are in result refuting that that blatant terrible logic infact isn't bad logic.

                    But, by that logic, Virgill Hill would be the greatest LHW of all time. When in actual fact, he's a boarderline HOF'er.

                    Title defences don't necessarily determine anything at all. Guy's like Calderon, Ottke, John, Sturm and Calzaghe and the list goes on have a huge number of title defences, more than the greatest fighters of all time, yet, they aren't even in their stratohsphere in terms of greatness.

                    Look at Sven Ottke, he's not a HOF'er and never will be yet he has some of the most title defences in the history of the sport.

                    That alone comletely debunks the ****** theory of more title defences automatically being better than less title defenses.

                    As for being Champion in more divisons automatically being better or greater than being champions in less divisons - That's equally as ******.

                    That would make Oscar De La Hoya the greatest Champion of all time. And just the thought of that is laugh out loud funny.

                    Sure I see what you mean but they should get props as well for their title defenses considering it's not an easy task to do for several years. Some may have better defenses than others and I understand that.

                    See that's where you're twisting it. You're coming off as if I'm saying Oscar is better than Hopkins because of it. But logic is that not many have been able to accomplish that feat even today. Am I right or wrong there? He's not the greatest champion of all time but he deserves to be an ATG.

                    Comment

                    • JAB5239
                      Dallas Cowboys
                      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                      • Dec 2007
                      • 27708
                      • 5,034
                      • 4,436
                      • 73,018

                      #50
                      Originally posted by Rassclot
                      lol @ gene tunney


                      only win is over a completely over the hill Jack Dempsey.
                      Greg? Gibbons? Laughran?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP