|
|
#42
05-12-2007, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers
[ QUOTE ]
They got LaMotta way too high on that list. I wonder if his exposure through Raging Bull gave him an edge. Marciano should be easily in the top 10, not 14th. And I am very happy to see Tyson only ranked 50th. I was afraid he'd end up cracking the top ten. IMO, he doesn't even deserve to be on the list. Though his position in boxing history is highly debatable. Jersey Joe Walcott is missing from this list as well. I feel that it is highly unlikely that he'd be in the top 10. But he should definitely be somewhere in the middle of that list. So, by process of elimination, who's in the top 10? The obvious are: Muhammad Ali Sugar Ray Robinson Joe Louis Jack Johnson Jack Dempsey Sonny Liston Who else? Other names not yet on the list that are possibilities: Lennox Lewis Jersey Joe Walcott Willie Pep Floyd Patterson Rocky Graziano Max Baer Max Schmeling Jess Willard John Sullivan [/ QUOTE ] Harry Greb is easily one of the 10 best fighters of all time. 
|
|
#43
05-12-2007, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers
[ QUOTE ]
It's been said many times that it's very hard to compare heavyweights in a pound-for-pound, due to the size & power differences. [/ QUOTE ] They're also tough because it's hard to compare eras. Many times some champs had weak divisions when they reigned. Marciano is an example of that. So is Larry Holmes. Though one thing that benefits them is they fought everyone so it's not their fault the division was weak when they reigned. Think of it today, who's a great heavyweight that everyone is fearing/revering now? No one is really going to be known at the moment. I just saw that big russian fight(I think he had the WBC belt) for the first time. I was thinking, ok, this guy is 7'1 3/4 and 301 pounds. He should be a monster. He sure looked monstrous in the ring compared to the guy he was fighting. He friggin' lost in a decision in a fight that looked like the champ(skillwise) wasn't even hardly ranked in the top 10. God, if he ever learned how to use his jab with near a foot reach advantage he'd be near unstoppable. b
|
|
#44
05-12-2007, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers
I tend to overrate Holmes & I probably underrate Marciano. Very difficult fighters to rank properly; Holmes' jab was one of the most devastating weapons in boxing history & he had a great chin, and no one was tougher or better-conditioned than Rocky.
Holmes' competition was horrid aside from Norton (what a war that was), Shavers (how did Larry get up from that punch?), and Mike Spinks. Rocky fought Louis, Walcott, Charles, & Moore long past their primes and had serious trouble w/all four. Speaking of Charles, I gotta give credit to ESPN for ranking him. Ring magazine has always loved him; Nat Fleischer considered him the greatest lightheavy ever even tho he was never champ. He beat Joey Maxim for the vacant heavy crown, and beat Moore 5 out of 5! One of my favorite fighters, and IMO the most underrated athlete in any sport (tho I guess Ring ranking him #13 isn't underrated [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]; let's say unappreciated [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) The Ring list is much better, but one will always find quibbles. I think Foster is way too low at 55. He utterly destroyed the lightheavys for 6 years before retiring as champ in disgust over the WBA & WBC, and he fought gallantly against both Frazier & Ali. And WTF is Mason in this thread? He's a big boxing fan. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#46
05-12-2007, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers
Roy Jones was absolutely dominating every time I watched him save his last few fights. The only knock on him, as I see it, is the level of competition he faced, which to a large extent he could do nothing about.
I loved watching Barrera fight, but to have him above Roy Jones is blasphemy, IMO.
|
|
#47
05-12-2007, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers
I think Lewis should be on the list considering he bat Tyson and Holyfield, but eventhough he beat Tyson, Tyson in his prime was better than Lewis ever was, too bad Tyson's prime ended at the age of 22.
I think modern day boxers get punished for the end of their careers moreso than boxers who fought before most voters on this list were even born. I mean the last memories we have of Roy Jones is him getting knocked out by Tarver and a bum named Glen Johnson. Nobody holds an old Ali getting destroyed by Larry Holmes against Ali because that was nearly 30 years ago. About Tyson being so low, remember when he dominated the divsion, the division was very very weak. He was akso 0-3 against the other great heavyweights of his team, Holyfield and Lewis. I also don't understand how Duran is so high. He went 1-3 against Hagler, Hearns and Leonard and all are ranked below him. I guess technically Chavez beat Whitaker but anybody who is unbiased says Whitaker should've easily won that fight. Jones Jr. and Pernell are my two favorite fighters ever so obviously I think they both should be higher than they are. Also everybody calling the list terrible, I don't think that's fair at all it would be impossible for anybody to make a top 50 list for a sport that is over 100 years old without looking bad to the vast majority of people.
|
|
#49
05-12-2007, 10:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers
[ QUOTE ]
Roy Jones was absolutely dominating every time I watched him save his last few fights. The only knock on him, as I see it, is the level of competition he faced [/ QUOTE ] True [ QUOTE ] , which to a large extent he could do nothing about. [/ QUOTE ] False - he ducked a lot of good fighters when he started to slip and took a fought mandatory tomato cans to make himself look good.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
