Big Bad John wrote:When Zora Folley beat Bob Foster, who was the better fighter, the guy who won every round, or the guy who was more "skilled"?
Not a very good example as Folley was the technically more savvy fighter along with being bigger.
Big Bad John wrote:When Zora Folley beat Bob Foster, who was the better fighter, the guy who won every round, or the guy who was more "skilled"?
I'm saying he was as technically proficient, and arguably more, than Foster.Big Bad John wrote:So, you'd say that Zora Folley was a better fighter, pound-for-pound, than Bob Foster?
Wrong. And right.Cap wrote:The whole idea of pound for pound lists was the result of a bored publicist/sportswriter back in the late 50s who wanted to promote Sugar Ray Robinson as the best fighter in the world. In the real world, it's meaningless because the heavyweight champion is still Number One and can usually whip any of the champs of the other seven weight classes.
'nuff said.
Do you have support for the assertion that the "pound-for-pound" concept was in common usage before Sugar Ray Robinson came on the scene?Big Bad John wrote:Wrong. And right.Cap wrote:The whole idea of pound for pound lists was the result of a bored publicist/sportswriter back in the late 50s who wanted to promote Sugar Ray Robinson as the best fighter in the world. In the real world, it's meaningless because the heavyweight champion is still Number One and can usually whip any of the champs of the other seven weight classes.
'nuff said.
The concept of "pound-for-pound" probably dates back to the ancient Greeks, or at least to the creation of weight divisions. But you're right that ultimately, the heavyweight champion is #1. That's why John Ruiz has probably made more money in his career than Shane Mosley.
so why dont you ask your heavy weight fighter to drop into a lower weight class two to three times so that he can whoop those other fighter. huh?Cap wrote:The whole idea of pound for pound lists was the result of a bored publicist/sportswriter back in the late 50s who wanted to promote Sugar Ray Robinson as the best fighter in the world. In the real world, it's meaningless because the heavyweight champion is still Number One and can usually whip any of the champs of the other seven weight classes.
'nuff said.
Big Bad John wrote:Wrong. And right.Cap wrote:The whole idea of pound for pound lists was the result of a bored publicist/sportswriter back in the late 50s who wanted to promote Sugar Ray Robinson as the best fighter in the world. In the real world, it's meaningless because the heavyweight champion is still Number One and can usually whip any of the champs of the other seven weight classes.
'nuff said.
The concept of "pound-for-pound" probably dates back to the ancient Greeks, or at least to the creation of weight divisions. But you're right that ultimately, the heavyweight champion is #1. That's why John Ruiz has probably made more money in his career than Shane Mosley.
SO DONT TRY TO GENERALIZED THAT THE HEAVYWEIGHT FIGHTERS ARE BETTER THAN ANY OTHER WEIGHTCLASS BOXER.... UR PRETTY SLOW HUH...Borinken25 wrote:According to some in here John Ruiz is a better fighter than Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, and many others simply because he is a heavyweight.
TRY TO READ THE COMMENTS OF THE OTHER IMPLYING THAT THE HEAVYWEIGHT BOXERS ARE #1, BEFORE YOU MAKE A COMMENT.. WHAT YOU VE JUST POST AWHILE AGO IS NONE SENSE AT ALL.Borinken25 wrote:According to some in here John Ruiz is a better fighter than Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, and many others simply because he is a heavyweight.
Ezzard Charles was the #1 contender at both middleweight and heavyweight, but couldn't get a title shot because of him being in the armed forces, the titles being frozen and the politics of boxing being racist against black men. John Ruiz, Evander Holyfield, lots of heavyweights could have fought at 190 or 200 their whole respective careers, but being the best cruiserweight doesn't get you as much money as being the 20th best heavyweight.japoginf wrote:so why dont you ask your heavy weight fighter to drop into a lower weight class two to three times so that he can whoop those other fighter. huh?Cap wrote:The whole idea of pound for pound lists was the result of a bored publicist/sportswriter back in the late 50s who wanted to promote Sugar Ray Robinson as the best fighter in the world. In the real world, it's meaningless because the heavyweight champion is still Number One and can usually whip any of the champs of the other seven weight classes.
'nuff said.
before he done that, your heavyweight fighter will die to dehydration
I'd give Robinson a shot at beating him.Borinken25 wrote:According to some in here John Ruiz is a better fighter than Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, and many others simply because he is a heavyweight.
I would not be surprise if Robinsod defeated John Ruiz. How about Armstrong, Duran, Wilde, Pep, Lopez and many others?Big Bad John wrote:I'd give Robinson a shot at beating him.Borinken25 wrote:According to some in here John Ruiz is a better fighter than Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, and many others simply because he is a heavyweight.