Serious TBE Discussion

[gilgamesh]

The 5 best fighters of all time are...

Sugar Ray Robinson
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Sam Langford
Henry Armstrong

Put 'em in whatever order you wish, but those are the Top 5 all time guys in my opinion.

Floyd would be somewhere in the all time Top 20. He's certainly the best of his particular era, and would be among the 5 or 6 best of the last 50 years I'd think.

[PredatorHayds]

The 5 best fighters of all time are...

Sugar Ray Robinson
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Sam Langford
Henry Armstrong

Put 'em in whatever order you wish, but those are the Top 5 all time guys in my opinion.

Floyd would be somewhere in the all time Top 20. He's certainly the best of his particular era, and would be among the 5 or 6 best of the last 50 years I'd think.

Where would you have Archie Moore?

[gilgamesh]

The 5 best fighters of all time are...

Sugar Ray Robinson
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Sam Langford
Henry Armstrong

Put 'em in whatever order you wish, but those are the Top 5 all time guys in my opinion.

Floyd would be somewhere in the all time Top 20. He's certainly the best of his particular era, and would be among the 5 or 6 best of the last 50 years I'd think.

Where would you have Archie Moore?

Somewhere in my Top 20.

[Ezzard]

Moore is top 10 for me. And he's the guy I think of when someone says top 5...did they achieve as much as Archie?

You obviously can't have him above Ezzard Charles.

[gilgamesh]

Moore is top 10 for me. And he's the guy I think of when someone says top 5...did they achieve as much as Archie?

You obviously can't have him above Ezzard Charles.

Yeah he'd probably be in my Top 10 as well.

[koolkc107]

I agree with anyone who feels the Mongoose is top 5 all time.

And, just my opinion, any discussion of TBE which doesn't include a prime Roy Jones is lacking.

Roy is the best I ever saw live as it happened.

[gilgamesh]

I agree with anyone who feels the Mongoose is top 5 all time.

And, just my opinion, any discussion of TBE which doesn't include a prime Roy Jones is lacking.

Roy is the best I ever saw live as it happened.

He was definitely one of the most phenomenal talents to behold in his prime, I can't see him being anywhere near The Best Ever as far as accomplishment though. He just doesn't have the names on his record to make that argument, but he was indeed dazzlingly brilliant in his prime.

[Crease]

And during that spell Moore was good at light- heavy but had no wins at heavy against decent opposition.

Another flawed misconception, you're really reaching for something here, aren't you?



If you care to look at this link: http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_R ... ght--1950s

Moore beat:
Bob Baker in 1954 (who was ranked 4th in that year)
Nino Valdes in 1955 (who was the top ranked contender that year)

So there's two rightaway.

[PredatorHayds]

And during that spell Moore was good at light- heavy but had no wins at heavy against decent opposition.

Another flawed misconception, you're really reaching so something here, aren't you?



If you care to look at this link: http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_R ... ght--1950s

Moore beat:
Bob Baker in 1954 (who was ranked 4th in that year)
Nino Valdes in 1955 (who was the top ranked contender that year)

So there's two rightaway.

Wow reading really isn't your strong point.

I think you will find that these two wins came before his fight with Marciano.

You can stop clutching at straws now

[Crease]

I think you will find that these two wins came before his fight with Marciano.

Obviously they did, how else do you think he earned his shot at Marciano? It's really not that difficult to work out.
The Valdes fight was May 1955 - yes, that's four months - FOR WHOLE MONTHS before he fought Marciano, I guess he wasn't in such great form after all.


And the Baker fight was the year before it, March 1954 - so what's that? About 18 months out... The truth is Moore was on terrific form around that time, check out his record, there's just no disputing that.

[PredatorHayds]

I think you will find that these two wins came before his fight with Marciano.

Obviously they did, how else do you think he earned his shot at Marciano? It's really not that difficult to work out.
The Valdes fight was May 1955 - yes, that's four months - FOR WHOLE MONTHS before he fought Marciano, I guess he wasn't in such great form after all.


And the Baker fight was the year before it, March 1954 - so what's that? About 18 months out... The truth is Moore was on terrific form around that time, check out his record, there's just no disputing that.

The entire topic of conversation was regarding heavyweight opponents between his fights with Rocky and Ali.
Neither of the fights you mentioned fall into that category.
You can't start a debate then change the goalposts to suit your argument and agenda.

Are you a politician by any chance?

[Crease]

The entire topic of conversation was regarding heavyweight opponents between his fights with Rocky and Ali.

Initially it was. But then you said and I quote:

And during that spell Moore was good at light- heavy but had no wins at heavy against decent opposition.

And so I pointed out his two victories over top 10 ranked contenders in the Heavyweight division, going in to the Marciano fight and discussing his form during 1954/55.

[PredatorHayds]

The entire topic of conversation was regarding heavyweight opponents between his fights with Rocky and Ali.

Initially it was. But then you said and I quote:

And during that spell Moore was good at light- heavy but had no wins at heavy against decent opposition.

And so I pointed out his two victories over top 10 ranked contenders in the Heavyweight division, going in to the Marciano fight and discussing his form during 1954/55.

Sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

Out of curiosity how highly do you rate Marciano as a all time heavyweight.

Personally I have him at 5.

[Crease]

Out of curiosity how highly do you rate Marciano as a all time heavyweight. Personally I have him at 5.

He's in my top 3/4 alongside Louis, Ali & Foreman.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

If Marciano is a top 5 heavyweight of all time, then Floyd is top 5 p4p all time.
There is no logical argument that ranks Rocky so high that wouldn't also result in Floyd being ranked highly also.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

I think Floyd is top 5 p4p all time. Maybe even higher.
My all-time p4p ranking is not based on fantasy head to head match ups.
I think that is the dumbest shit any sports fan ever argues.
Rocky Marciano would have gotten bullied around by Jean Marc Mormeck.
And let's not even talk about what Tyson, Wlad, Foreman, Ali, Lewis, etc would have done to a 5' 10" 187 pound man.

So that's foolish imo.
Instead, I rank fighters based on how they dominated their era.
Then, I give consideration to how long their reign lasted.

Therefore,
Floyd dominated his era like almost no one else in boxing history.
This doesn't mean that Floyd would beat the welterweight gods of the 80's (75% truth 25% era worshiping imo)
But it does say that he beat his opponents more soundly and convincingly throughout his career
than SRR, Haggler, Hearns and Duran.

In terms of opponent choice ... once again, isn't Floyd's opponent choice (overly scrutinized imo) a reflection of his era?
Boxing politics blocking fights and "ducking" were already rampant before Floyd's rise.
Also, a forgotten time is when Floyd was the avoided one. But whatever ...

Please don't read this as some pro-Floyd rant.
I would like to hear what's wrong with my logic.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- TUE 49-0, TBE TUE, #1 TUE is still a TUE by any other name...Billy Shakespeare.

[Crease]

If Marciano is a top 5 heavyweight of all time, then Floyd is top 5 p4p all time.

They are not comparable, I rate Marciano as a top five of a single particular weight division...

Floyd's conversation is all-encompassing because we are talking about every single boxer who has ever lived, through every weight class.

Those are completely different discussions...

[Crease]

Rocky Marciano would have gotten bullied around by Jean Marc Mormeck.

You don't think that Marciano has beaten better (and more dangerous) fighters than Mormeck?

And let's not even talk about what Tyson, Wlad, Foreman, Ali, Lewis, etc would have done to a 5' 10" 187 pound man.

Yours is a flawed logic... If we are to base physicality, size & mass as a major determining factor... Then surely by that logic, the greatest Heavyweight who ever lived was Nikolai Valuev- because he is the biggest and heaviest.... You really must believe that, going by your logic, since he is soo much bigger than the other guys.

Instead, I rank fighters based on how they dominated their era. Then, I give consideration to how long their reign lasted.

Is that really so significant? A guy can be a Champion for 2/3 years, yet only have a couple of defenses to his name... Whereas an active champion might defeat 4 challengers in a calendar year.

For me, the most important thing is the quality of their challengers & after that comes how many times they put their belt on the line against credible contenders.

[lillywhite14]

I always end up saying 'yep' he has to be top 5 for me' about so many fighters that my actual top 5 ends up with about 15 fighters in it!

[BAD INTENTIONS]

If Marciano is a top 5 heavyweight of all time, then Floyd is top 5 p4p all time.

They are not comparable, I rate Marciano as a top five of a single particular weight division...

Floyd's conversation is all-encompassing because we are talking about every single boxer who has ever lived, through every weight class.

Those are completely different discussions...

Enlighten me. What is your rationale for Marciano being top 5 all-time?

[BAD INTENTIONS]

And let's not even talk about what Tyson, Wlad, Foreman, Ali, Lewis, etc would have done to a 5' 10" 187 pound man.

Yours is a flawed logic... If we are to base physicality, size & mass as a major determining factor... Then surely by that logic, the greatest Heavyweight who ever lived was Nikolai Valuev- because he is the biggest and heaviest.... You really must believe that, going by your logic, since he is soo much bigger than the other guys.

Instead, I rank fighters based on how they dominated their era. Then, I give consideration to how long their reign lasted.

Is that really so significant? A guy can be a Champion for 2/3 years, yet only have a couple of defenses to his name... Whereas an active champion might defeat 4 challengers in a calendar year.

For me, the most important thing is the quality of their challengers & after that comes how many times they put their belt on the line against credible contenders.

I was not only mentioning size. Look at the names I listed. There's a reason I didn't say Fury, Thompson, Valuev, etc.
Physicality is why we have weight classes. If you think Marciano lands a punch on Wlad or Vitali you're crazy.
If you think Marciano can take a punch from a 240 pound Wlad after fighting small cruiserweights ... whatever.

Length of reign is significant to me because it shows that your success wasn't just a hot streak.

[Crease]

Enlighten me. What is your rationale for Marciano being top 5 all-time?

Because he was dominant in his era and he beat every good Heavyweight of his day. That's pretty much it really, what more could Marciano do in his own time?

[Batley18]

Enlighten me. What is your rationale for Marciano being top 5 all-time?

Because he was dominant in his era and he beat every good Heavyweight of his day. That's pretty much it really, what more could Marciano do in his own time?

Would you rate Wladamir Klitschko in the top 5 all time?

[Crease]

If you think Marciano lands a punch on Wlad or Vitali you're crazy.
If you think Marciano can take a punch from a 240 pound Wlad after fighting small cruiserweights ... whatever.

And yet we have seen David Haye & Evander Holyfield (who you would classify as Cruiserweights) have resounding success against naturally bigger man (who you would classify as Heavyweights).

Length of reign is significant to me because it shows that your success wasn't just a hot streak.

No it doesn't - it just measure how long you were a champion by calendar time, it doesn't take in to account how many defenses a Champion has, nor the caliber of his challengers. This is a VERY flawed concept.