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

[I Love Jesus!]

The reason you cannot rank fighters by H2H or skills is because the sport has changed.

Yes, Lennox Lewis and both Klitschko brothers would destroy Jack Dempsey...

But that's no fun is it, there needs to be a universal way to rank them and you do this with their accomplishments.

The whole "Floyd Mayweather would own in the 1920's" is ******ed because he wouldn't be like he is in the 1920's, and trying to assume what Mayweather would be like had he been brought up in the '20's is ******ed.

That's why you judge from accomplishments and resume relative to their era.

Also T-S is a dumbass who has clearly shown he has no idea what he's talking about.

this is part of it plus there are other factors. You don't know for a fact that Mayweather wouldn't get his azz handed to him in the 1920's the way he is now with mittens and 15 rounds. Guys in the 20's were basically the same as now. We know more about training and nutrition but thier food was better uncontaminated. They fought and sparred which is still the most important thing. A guy back then could punch just as hard if not harder since there was so much more competition.

The worst part is the smug ts who had a thought now thinks it is infallible and he can't be wrong in any way. I guess we have to rank peter mcneelly over every heavyweight in the 20's and Gatti over every lightweight.

Never mind the fact that boxing then was bigger then baseball is now and there were 100x more fighters back then. According to the ts we are a different species now. Ignorance is bliss and this lazy internet know it all generation has twice the balls of the guys who stormed omaha beach.

[Barn]

This man is smoking the Scottish good stuff. He ranks Andre ward and his short career with only 1 linear title and zero obvious names that would make the HOF over Manny and floyd with their multiple linear titles and numerous likely HOF elite fighters they have wins over on their resumes.

This list is clearly an attempt at humor.

I have to admit, I'm extracting the urine a bit now. I'll try to stop.

[I Love Jesus!]

That's ******.

If RJJ was the greatest fighter to ever live and most likely win all of his H2H matchups, then that's what it is, regardless of time frame.

Essentially, you're saying a fighter can only be as great as who's alive to fight him.

RJJ destroyed everyone in his prime, but because he wasn't born in a certain era or because certain fighters from a certain era weren't present when RJJ was fighting, let's put RJJ in this room with a glass ceiling thus only allowing him to go so high because "the available competition at the time wasn't worthy".

F outta here with that ******ness.

Thats not what he's saying. You cant prove that roy would win all head to head match ups. That is fantasy. He's saying you have to rate guys by what they accomplished in there era.Roy and Lewis could get KTFO by a punch in any era same goes for everyone else.

[lparm]

I have to admit, I'm extracting the urine a bit now. I'll try to stop.

Good man.

But Joe can stay on that list. He's a legend.

[Barn]

Good man.

But Joe can stay on that list. He's a legend.

Are you being serious?

Joe Calzaghe?

Are you now the one taking the piss?

[FrenchDeLaHoya]

like this thread

but wonder why all them old school fighters fought were their fists but palms facing them. weird ****

[croz]

and were they right? especially if ali - frazier 1 is considered the biggest fight ever ( for which an argument can certainly be made.)

dempsey used to fight in front of 100k people.

louis - schmeling 2 had 75 k spectators and was one of the biggest radio broadcasts of all time

do you really think boxing is bigger or better than it used to be, when there were more fighters and it was a more widely watched sport.?

What do you mean were they right? Explain yourself better. Former Champs and news papers from the era saying boxing was in a horrible state in the 1940s tops you on an internet forum in 2012 saying boxing was the biggest sport. It wasn't. Super fights might have been the biggest thing in the world but that's no different from how things are today.

I've talked about this with you before and you clearly don't give a **** what anyone says back to you. You can't pick super fights and try use them as if they represent the entire sport. That'd be like people in 50 years time saying boxing was the biggest in the world because Manny vs Mayweather sold a 150k seat stadium, and the Klits sold stadiums in Europe. Popular fighters sell fights, that's how it was then how it is now. Your logic makes zero sense.

More boxers? Nobody knows if there were more boxers back then. All we really know is that boxrec lists the number of total fights in a year back then as being less than the number today, and that's saying something since boxers back then fought more. Boxing didn't even have ground outside the US and UK back then. If there were so many boxers then why was Rocky Marcianno fighting guys with zero wins at the height of his career?

[Barn]

What do you mean were they right? Explain yourself better. Former Champs and news papers from the era saying boxing was in a horrible state in the 1940s tops you on an internet forum in 2012 saying boxing was the biggest sport. It wasn't. Super fights might have been the biggest thing in the world but that's no different from how things are today.

I've talked about this with you before and you clearly don't give a **** what anyone says back to you. You can't pick super fights and try use them as if they represent the entire sport. That'd be like people in 50 years time saying boxing was the biggest in the world because Manny vs Mayweather sold a 150k seat stadium, and the Klits sold stadiums in Europe. Popular fighters sell fights, that's how it was then how it is now. Your logic makes zero sense.

More boxers? Nobody knows if there were more boxers back then. Boxing didn't even have ground outside the US and UK back then. If boxing was bloody big then why was Rocky Marcianno fighting guys with zero wins in world title fights?

That would be because he wasn't doing that...

[croz]

That would be because he wasn't doing that...

It was an exaggeration but his competition was horrible. If boxing was so huge back then he wouldn't have had to rely on faded champs and the likes of 11 wins 14 losses Willis Applegate to pad his record.

[Barn]

It was an exaggeration but his competition was horrible

During his title run it was actually the best he good get, still not outstanding by any means though.

For his first 30 or so fights though, yeah it was atrocious.