It is INTELLECTUALLY & ANALYTICALLY DISHONEST to rank fighters with NO FIGHT FOOTAGE

[Larry the boss]

Jake Lamotta,Jack Dempsey fighters are ranked so high yet today they would be journymen

[Felixtito]

Jake Lamotta,Jack Dempsey fighters are ranked so high yet today they would be journymen

Wrong. Dempsey will be a gatekeeper today.

During the Lennox Era 90's to early 2000's, he would have been a journeyman.

Today I see him as a solid gatekeeper.

[Young Money]

If there is no fight footage then you go off their resume.

[boxing is alive]

But it's not just a race thing.
It's also a nationality thing.

Let me explain. The rankings done by a variety of sources in terms of heavyweights usually goes like this.


1-Muhammad Ali
2-Joe Louis
3
4
5- 7 Lennox Lewis


There are a bunch of posters from various 'classics' sections of boxing sites that also seem to believe the likes of Jack Johnson could do well against Lewis.

Lennox at 6'5-6'6 is the greatest of the super heavies and would have brutally and harilously destroyed Jack Johnson to the point where Johnson dies in the ring.


Lewis would also have brutally knocked out Joe Louis, yet morons will say **** like 'WELL Louis got that KO POWER and is such a ruthless finisher.'

So it's not just hyping the American White fighters of the very distant past. It's the hyping of Americans period.

All fighters prior to 60's footage era should have asterisks next to their names.

What the **** justification is there in ranking Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano over Lennox? Lennox would have walked down both their combined resume in 3 years time.

The Golota VERSION of Lennox Lewis would have knocked off Rocky Marciano's head into the 10th row.

For the most part I agree with this, but you have to take into account that at least SOME of those old time fighters would have an extra 20-30 lbs muscle on their frame with modern day nutrition and training, making it much more competitive.

[Felixtito]

For the most part I agree with this, but you have to take into account that at least SOME of those old time fighters would have an extra 20-30 lbs muscle on their frame with modern day nutrition and training, making it much more competitive.

I agree with this post. I was referring more to the REALLY old fighters like the Johnson and Dempsey days.

I know that a Prime 60's Ali even without the extra 15 pounds of muscles will be a favorite against any HW in history.

I know that a Young Foreman will still walk through Kubrat Puluv. The skills of Ali,70's Foreman, etc were caught on film and can be extensively studied.

Guys like Jack Johnson had some blurry fast motion picture and is inconclusive in terms of skill determination.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Yes it is. This is why you can't really make an exact ATG list.

A lot of boxing articles from past are extremely exaggerated. Some of them look like Ronnie Nathaniels wrote them.

[boxing is alive]

I agree with this post. I was referring more to the REALLY old fighters like the Johnson and Dempsey days.

I know that a Prime 60's Ali even without the extra 15 pounds of muscles will be a favorite against any HW in history.

I know that a Young Foreman will still walk through Kubrat Puluv. The skills of Ali,70's Foreman, etc were caught on film and can be extensively studied.

Guys like Jack Johnson had some blurry fast motion picture and is inconclusive in terms of skill determination.

Good point. I think the key word is inconclusive. In baseball, you can at least look at numbers, stats, etc. and get a decent analysis. With boxing, we don't have that luxury. I love the way some commentators and analysts admire these guys' greatness as if they've actually seen them fight. I can't say they're as great as people say or just hype, because the only thing I can go by are freaking words on a page!

[Mule Deer]

So now we have people calling ATG's gatekeepers and journeymen. Interesting.

You complain about people ranking them without visual evidence, yet you rank them badly without evidence.

What you idiots don't understand is that the record books, rankings, bouts, championships, accomplishments, etc. Anything you can think of. It was all written down and observed by someone. Just like everything today is being observed, albeit with greater technology. What happened in the past is set in stone. That **** is carved deep. Just because you didn't see it doesn't make it irrelevant or lesser. It happened and it's part of the history. You random idiots can't come in an take it away because you didn't see it and you think everyone is a mega athlete in your generation.

What someone did in their own generation within the means of what they had is what matters.

Now quit talking about boxing. You all sound very dumb.

[Larry the boss]

Imagine Floyd fighting in the 1920's..he would be 235-0

[Tom Cruise]

ive never bought the whole "old timey fighters get crushed in this era argument" Since we are talking about facts inthis thread, the only facts we know in relation to this is that the old timeyfighters dominated in their eras. there is literally nothing more they could do.

Also you need to take into account the improved training and nutrition in the modern era for the extra size and weight... its no coincidence that as nutrition has improved people have been able to grow to their full potential size. Also the sport science revolution has allowed people to put on more muscle without losing performance.

Hence you can only judge fighters by what they achieved in their own eras and saying 'Lennox wouldve beaten all 'black and white' fighters' is a pointless statement...