Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boxrec has Ezzard Charles as #1 heavyweight of all time.

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by butterfly1964 View Post
    I thought fighters from 50 years ago was inferior to taday's heavyweights.
    nope, fighters from the 20s and below are inferior.

    Comment


    • #32
      Wasn't Jimmy Bivins a Middle/light-heavy as well?

      Comment


      • #33
        Charles is strangely underrated by many, but of course he is not a #1 heavy.

        Comment


        • #34
          Charles may be deserving of this ranking at 175, but not HW.

          Comment


          • #35
            I was telling you people to screw boxrec but you won't listen.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by psychopath View Post
              I was telling you people to screw boxrec but you won't listen.
              We all use boxrec as a laughing stock, when you are down and need a good giggle, boxrec is to the rescue

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by BrooklynBomber View Post
                We all use boxrec as a laughing stock, when you are down and need a good giggle, boxrec is to the rescue
                That's right buddy.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Yogi View Post
                  No pay no attention to BoxRec's all-time rankings because they are flawed to say the least.

                  But one thing they do is carry over what a fighter did at a lower weight into the higher weight division, in which case it becomes more of a P4P computerized divisional ranking...In terms of P4P greatness, yes, one could make the case that Ezzard Charles was the single greatest fighter to have ever fought in the Heavyweight division.

                  BULL****, by that criteria Holyfield is thirty times better that Charles.

                  That ranking is the most rediculous bull**** ever.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    BULL****, by that criteria Holyfield is thirty times better that Charles.

                    That ranking is the most rediculous bull**** ever.
                    WTF are you talking about? Charles accomplished so much more than Holyfield did beneath heavyweight.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by brownpimp88 View Post
                      nope, fighters from the 20s and below are inferior.
                      You probably never seen any footage from that time period, so you are not fit to talk about that era.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP