Comments Thread For: Hagler: Marciano's 49-0 is Better Than Mayweather's 50-0
Collapse
-
-
Lol I know more about the history than u do. I assure u of this. And I'm jot the most knowledgeable around here. Dan def knows more than me but I can tell u this, u have no idea what u are talking about 90% of the timeComment
-
He most certainly was.Lol no he wasn't. P4p was created by journalists to distinguish sugar ray from joe Louis who was the king. Sure the smaller guys have more skill but to be the best shouldn't you be able to beat the other guy? The whole conversation you're having is abstract and would be laughed at by anyone outside of boxing. The whole point of it was/is to generate newspaper sales,web hits, conversation, etc. think in terms of reality and this isn't a question. I'm done with this, you guys are legit ******ed.
Also, Ray Robinson wasn't the first fighter to be considered "Pound for Pound" so you are incorrect there also.
"You guys are legit ******ed"
Why is that because we don't only rank Heavyweights as the greatest fighters because they win would in a head to head battle due to size? And you think the opposing argument is ******ed? You can't make this up.
So you consider every boxing historian that had ever lived and still living as ******ed? Forget that, any boxing journalist, you consider ******ed?
Out of curiousity who would be higher on your list Tyson Fury or Ray Robinson? Safe to assume Fury right? Because H2H Fury would win. It would honestly boggle my mind if you can't see the glaring flaw in that logic.Comment
-
you got some "good" points up there...Why do you think it is? Plus, heavyweights were considered "P4P" also, like Joe Louis for example.
It's your criteria you can rank guys how you want, flawed or not. But you'd be in a small minority if you rank only Heavyweights as the greatest on your ATG list, then Crusierweights, then Lightheavyweights. And it's pretty incredible of you to be calling others out for not thinking that same crazy line of thinking.
I mean, it's completely backward. Where would you stop ranking Heavyweights or would the whole Top 100 be Heavyweights? I can't imagine a Crusierweight or lower beating a prime Donovon Razor Ruddock for example. Maybe a handful of Crusierweights? Not sure. And there has to be atleast 40-50 heavyweights above Razor.
but that is to take out of context what marvin, i think, is trying to say. Looking at achievements of fighters like floyd and rocky and comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges...both are good and you just have to consider they fought at a much different weight class with all the varied attendant factors ..and stop at that...
in my other post, i mentioned jcc....and some posters seemed to downgrade jcc's wins as 85 wins being against nobodies or something to that effect...
the point being that as one fighter takes on a lot more fights, then he is taking far more risks of losing than another fighter taking only about half much less fights...Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
Comment