Originally posted by JAB5239
View Post
so? it means nothing at all, what a ****** poster!
how does any of this prove that one era is better then another?
lol
According to your logic Lous' and Tyson's eras are the strongest, when most boxing experts agree that they are the weakest.
Why would an era be strong if mediocre fighters are ranked in top 10 by ring ****zine and lightweight Sphinks is HW champ. Wouldn't it mean that the era is weak? lol
Some of the fighter Holmes fought were ranked in top 10 but were awful, for example Snipes. The guy even lost to Norris, who was later KOed by Vitaly's jab in 1st round lol
The only thing this list shows is that Tyson and Luis fought higher ranked contenders then other champs, but not by much. And you can't prove that the fighters they fought are better then modern fighters.
numbers on the list are probably made up. You didn't post any links to support your argument, which does not prove anything anyway.
Where's Lennox on that list? the numbers didn't fit your agenda?
Where's Marciano? Ali? Foreman? Johnson? Patterson
you are not a very logical person, just a hater or a troll
Also, before major fights, fighters appear on top of the Ring's ratings all of a sudden, it just shows how corrupt the ring is in the first place.
There's no way you can legitimately prove that one era is better then another.
You can only have a subjective opinion.
Comment