Robbery!!

[butterfly1964]

if you watched classic ringside: bert suger's top ten heavyweights, you have just witnessed the biggest robbery in the history of boxing! why, do you ask? well, here's the list.

10. larry holmes
9. joe frazier
8. george foreman
7. ezzard charles
6. rocky marciano
5. gene tunney
4. jack johnson
3. jack dempsey
2. muhammad ali
1. joe louis

they actually put thee greatest at #2! bert sugar is the closest thing to john dilinger that i know, thanks to this list. this is an outrage! ali is the greatest, was the greatest, and always be the greatest! joe louis would get destroyed by ali, even sugar admitted this, but the criteria he judged this on was the biggest bull i ever heard. i'm furious! aren't you?

[random guy]

I'm going to have to agree with bert on this one. just because he says he's the best doesnt make it true.

[butterfly1964]

I'm going to have to agree with bert on this one. just because he says he's the best doesnt make it true.

you want to hear the criterion that he used? he judged it on who had the bigger accomplishments! what kind of logic is that. because of extenuating circumstances ali was not allowed to accomplish more than louis, so that doesn't mean louis is better. and why was tunney on the list? he accomplished nothing, except the he beat a washed up dempsey and robbed dempsey the second time, had one title defense and retired, big friggin deal! in that case, jess willard did no worse than he did. or buster douglass, or jimmy ellis, or primo carnera, or jack sharkey, or tommy burns, or max schmeling, or jersey joe walcott, or even someone like trevor berbick! someone like mike tyson deserved to be on the list more than tunney or charles or marciano! sonny liston was robbed of being on this list. and if tunney was on here, then floyd patterson should have been on! this is a bogus list.

[Rockin1@sisters]

I have no problem with Louis being #1. He was a huge part of americas moral strength during world war II. He did have the most title defenses of any heavyweight champion and besides Ray Robinson, was boxing well ahead of his time. Joe Louis, as opposed to Muhammad Ali, brought the blacks and whites together where as Ali was a seperatist. Louis is fine with me.

Rockin'

[butterfly1964]

I have no problem with Louis being #1. He was a huge part of americas moral strength during world war II. He did have the most title defenses of any heavyweight champion and besides Ray Robinson, was boxing well ahead of his time. Joe Louis, as opposed to Muhammad Ali, brought the blacks and whites together where as Ali was a seperatist. Louis is fine with me.

Rockin'

ok, now what does that have to do with boxing? louis was beloved. big deal! that doesn't mean he was a better boxer than ali.

[Rockin1@sisters]

Boxers are written in the history books for more than their boxing ability.

I still would go with Louis over Ali. If a man could box, as could Louis, Ali was not as good. Louis power was superior to Alis as well. While Ali was more flashy in the ring, I believe that Louis was more technically sound. Aswell, I believe Louis' jab to be superior to Ali. But hey, thats just my opinion.

Rockin'

[butterfly1964]

Boxers are written in the history books for more than their boxing ability.

I still would go with Louis over Ali. If a man could box, as could Louis, Ali was not as good. Louis power was superior to Alis as well. While Ali was more flashy in the ring, I believe that Louis was more technically sound. Aswell, I believe Louis' jab to be superior to Ali. But hey, thats just my opinion.

Rockin'

that is the biggest piece of crap i ever heard. first of all if a fighter is better than another, than he should be higher on an all-time list, no matter what either did outside of the ring.

ali was not as good? the only way for louis to use flurries on ali is if ali got close enough. watch louis fight, he couldn't throw flurries at guys far away from him, and he always had trouble with fast movers, watch both billy conn fights. ali would never dare be anywhere near louis' range, he would stay away and use his jab.

louis' jab superior to ali's? don't make me laugh! just because it was harder doesn't mean it was better, 'cause that's about all it was, harder. ali's was faster, and he has the reach advantage, which means he can hit louis with his, but louis wouldn't be close enough to land his, while their standing at the same distance! ali is physically stronger than louis, and is taller and bigger, and faster, and better! ali also has a superior chin than louis, so if by some lucky chance ali gets hit by louis, it wouldn't bother him. he took frazier's best, and liston's best, and shavers' best, and lyle's best, and foreman's best, and norton's best, and bonavena's best, so he could definetely take louis' punches well, if he got hit by them. louis on the other hand has a weak chin. proof is the fact that he was floored by billy conn in his prime. so i'm sure ali punches hard than a light heavyweight, so if conn could knock louis down, then muhammad would ko him, cause he would land so many punches.

[random guy]

ali was something new something crazy he is known more for his mouth and crazy stunts and being a black muslim than anything else. joe louis is known for his fighting along with other things that are not so great(bum of the mounth club).

[Skydog]

I was just furious that Charles and Tunney were in the top 10. I don't mind that Louis was ahead of Ali, hell, I made 5 bucks off my dad cause I said that Ali would be #2.

[random guy]

and why put your know how of boxing vs bert sugar. the man knows almost everything he knows fights down the round what minute and what second it happend in.