Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Sporting Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-11-2007, 01:11 PM
gusmahler gusmahler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,799
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

[ QUOTE ]
It seems this list is all about "boxers", (which the title implies) and not "fighters" or "brawlers", thus the brawlers so low and the boxers so high.

It is just one take on the definition of what makes a pugilist great.

Their top 50 fighters or brawlers list would look completely different, LDO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just a casual fan, so maybe I'm mistaken. But I thought both Duran and Dempsey were brawlers as opposed to "boxers".

They also title the list "50 greatest fighters" on another page. http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...ory?id=2815643

I think they just use "boxers" to mean people who box for a living, not necessarily a style of boxing.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-11-2007, 01:55 PM
EvanJC EvanJC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: way down deep
Posts: 4,175
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

does anyone have a resonable explaination as to why tyson is 50th? i'm genuinely curious b/c i know nothing about boxing. i just figured dominating the heavy weight division for four years or whatever would be enough to put him a little higher.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-11-2007, 02:02 PM
zer0 zer0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 973
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone have a resonable explaination as to why tyson is 50th?

[/ QUOTE ]
because his 2 biggest wins were vs. a light heavyweight well out of his league (spinks), and a washed up larry holmes @ 40. the rest of his wins came against has beens/never were's. if he hadn't gone to jail, lewis/holyfield would have exposed him 5 years earlier than they did. not good news when your career is basically nothing after 24 y.o.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-11-2007, 02:04 PM
Hoya Hoya is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: See God Cole
Posts: 1,610
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

[ QUOTE ]
It seems this list is all about "boxers", (which the title implies) and not "fighters" or "brawlers", thus the brawlers so low and the boxers so high.

It is just one take on the definition of what makes a pugilist great.

Their top 50 fighters or brawlers list would look completely different, LDO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally inaccurate. The most overrated fighter on the list is a brawler (LaMotta), while, as pointed out, a pure boxer like Whitaker is underrated. It's a bad list but that has nothing to do with them valuing technique over aggression.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-11-2007, 02:12 PM
prohornblower prohornblower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: learning the hockey-stop.
Posts: 8,016
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems this list is all about "boxers", (which the title implies) and not "fighters" or "brawlers", thus the brawlers so low and the boxers so high.

It is just one take on the definition of what makes a pugilist great.

Their top 50 fighters or brawlers list would look completely different, LDO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally inaccurate. The most overrated fighter on the list is a brawler (LaMotta), while, as pointed out, a pure boxer like Whitaker is underrated. It's a bad list but that has nothing to do with them valuing technique over aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-11-2007, 02:24 PM
brettbrettr brettbrettr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Spewing since 2004.
Posts: 7,453
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

[ QUOTE ]
Tyson = 50
Mayweather = 48

I stopped right there. Am I insane in thinking that's way, way ofF?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mayweather's never lost. I don't understand.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-11-2007, 02:26 PM
dupree dupree is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 101
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

[ QUOTE ]

I am very surprised that Sonny Liston isn't on that list.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would he be? Sure hes back to back 1 round knockouts of Pattersen were impressive, but other than that?
Just think of hes fights with Ali, giving up between rounds in the first without any injury, and then a 1 round knockout loss in the second.
Rocky Marciano is WAY to high on the list, I know hes the only heavyweight champ to stay undefeated through hes career, but that was by ingeniering winning sessions, also he was spoonfeed over the hill fighters through hes intire career.
Of you´re "Notables omitted from list" only Walcott is deserving.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-11-2007, 05:22 PM
Bill Murphy Bill Murphy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,253
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

Can't decide which is worse, Foreman at 20 or Monzon at 45.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-11-2007, 05:48 PM
 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In Rainbows
Posts: 580
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

20 is a little too high for Foreman but I agree with ranking him ahead of Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis and obviously Frazier who he absolutely destroyed. As flukish as it might have been, coming back at his advanced age knocking out Moorer, linear champion at the time, was monumental.

Monzon I agree is ridicously low. So is Eder jofre and so of course is Whitaker. They're all as high as top in the top 20 imo.

Lamotta is too high. As is Frazie.

I would rank Robinson and Armstrong 1. and 2. followed by Ali and Louis.

Dempsey and Johnson I also think are too high but I guess that all depend on how much you weigh in the whole mythical factor.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-11-2007, 06:26 PM
bernie bernie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Muckleshoot! Usually rebuying.
Posts: 15,163
Default Re: ESPN top 50 Boxers

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you think tyson is a top 20 boxer, espn isn't the joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say where I'd put him. The fact they have him at #50, it is an absolute joke.

Note: Big difference between #50 and #20.

You might also want to explain how Jones Jr is so low. Another great joke by ESPN.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

instead of saying the list sucks, explain where these people should be ranked. what is wrong with jones at 46?

on a list that has pernell whitaker 5 spots behind de la hoya and 20 spots behind chavez, some people sure have weird complaints

[/ QUOTE ]

Jones was one of the most dominant fighters of the time. Over a few weight classes. He could've ruled a couple weight classes indefinitely. Him at #46 is alot more glaring than Whitakers spot behind chavez.

Chavez should be above Whitaker and DLH. He ruled for how many years? I'd easily put Jones Jr up around Chavez.

b
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.