greatest resume ever

Awesom-O · Post by **Awesom-O** » 02 Nov 2007, 18:10

harry greb?

Tunney · Post by **Tunney** » 02 Nov 2007, 18:21

Gene Tunney
Harry Greb
Sugar Ray Robinson

Tunney · Post by **Tunney** » 02 Nov 2007, 18:31

Decagon wrote:
Tunney wrote:Gene Tunney
He never fought a single black man in his entire career. He ducked Kid Norfolk, George Godfrey and a lot of top black fighters. His career at heavyweight is pathetic. An old Dempsey, Risko and Hamas. Plus, he had his shit pushed in by a middleweight.

Why do you always bring race into it?

So you think he sucked - 82-1 record, the only man that ever beat him he avenged by defeating him three times.

You like John Ruiz, Decagon, and he was a much bigger man than Tunney (who fought MOSTLY at about 175) and yet Ruiz was defeated by TWO middleweights - Jones and Toney - and never avenged the losses. Tunney was a light heavyweight by todays weight classes.

Tunney · Post by **Tunney** » 02 Nov 2007, 18:42

Decagon wrote:Tunney's resume is by definition suspect because he never fought a black fighter. He doesn't have a bad resume, but saying that he has one of the best resumes of all time is retarded.

No, but to always bring race into these discussions may be, though...

Race has nothing to do with boxing ability. It has to do with training, diet, will to win, fitness, natural talent, etc. There are excellent boxers and mediocre ones of all races.

lights-out · Post by **lights-out** » 02 Nov 2007, 19:01

Tunney wrote:
Decagon wrote:Tunney's resume is by definition suspect because he never fought a black fighter. He doesn't have a bad resume, but saying that he has one of the best resumes of all time is retarded.
No, but to always bring race into these discussions may be, though...

Race has nothing to do with boxing ability. It has to do with training, diet, will to win, fitness, natural talent, etc. There are excellent boxers and mediocre ones of all races.

So you really don't understand the fact that he didn't fight any black fighters means he didn't beat the best out there? Ok then. Of course his record is good, but definitely not the best.

GAVILAN · Post by **GAVILAN** » 02 Nov 2007, 19:11

Awesom-O wrote:harry greb?

You should have started the thread specifying what you mean about resume. Does it means best record or the best quality of opposition no matter if the fighter win or loose the fight (it would be better if they win those fights).

Fighters can have great record and no quality of opposition and other can have a good record with a couple of losses but great quality of fighters.

wsbuf · Post by **wsbuf** » 02 Nov 2007, 19:16

Greb
Robinson
Armstrong

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 02 Nov 2007, 19:38

Decagon wrote:I don't rank Robinson up with the elite because he did tend to draw the color line, and because the quality of a lot of his best opponents - who usually beat him half the time - is overrated. How good were Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio and even Jake LaMotta?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Nov 2007, 19:41

mrbassie wrote:
Decagon wrote:I don't rank Robinson up with the elite because he did tend to draw the color line, and because the quality of a lot of his best opponents - who usually beat him half the time - is overrated. How good were Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio and even Jake LaMotta?

Bunch of Tomato Cans right Decagon?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Nov 2007, 19:58

Decagon wrote:No, but people talk about them like they're all among the top 10 middleweights of all time. They weren't, aside from LaMotta.

....but you included Lamotta in your statement.....are you sippin the bubbly tonight?

fallout37 · Post by **fallout37** » 02 Nov 2007, 20:09

I dunno Touch of Sleep does have a MBA, but if Diaz gets into law school he may have him beat.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 02 Nov 2007, 20:33

fallout37 wrote:I dunno Touch of Sleep does have a MBA, but if Diaz gets into law school he may have him beat.

you can add calvin brock-vitali and wladimir klitschko.all have spectacular resumes and if running a business they would looked at seriously.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 02 Nov 2007, 20:36

Decagon wrote:I don't rank Robinson up with the elite because he did tend to draw the color line, and because the quality of a lot of his best opponents - who usually beat him half the time - is overrated. How good were Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio and even Jake LaMotta?

You back on the crystal meth again, Zack?

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 02 Nov 2007, 20:45

Decagon wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
Decagon wrote:No, but people talk about them like they're all among the top 10 middleweights of all time. They weren't, aside from LaMotta.

....but you included Lamotta in your statement.....are you sippin the bubbly tonight?
Ring magazine recently ranked him something like #6 of all time, ignoring Lloyd Marshall, who had a better resume and clearly beat LaMotta.

I am sensing something here, Zack.

Can we expect an announcement before Christmas that you are now a boxing historian?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 02 Nov 2007, 22:23

Decagon wrote:I don't rank Robinson up with the elite because he did tend to draw the color line, and because the quality of a lot of his best opponents - who usually beat him half the time - is overrated. How good were Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio and even Jake LaMotta?

What the hell? You know better than that.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 02 Nov 2007, 22:51

Still don't entirely agree but that's a lot clearer.

wsbuf · Post by **wsbuf** » 03 Nov 2007, 10:18

Greb didn't fight Dempsey! even though Greb challenged him many times. :P

Minotauro · Post by **Minotauro** » 03 Nov 2007, 12:33

1. Langford
2. Greb
3. Charles
4. Barbados Joe Walcott
5. Archie Moore

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 03 Nov 2007, 13:04

Decagon wrote:
wsbuf wrote:Greb didn't fight Dempsey! even though Greb challenged him many times. :P
Who said he did?

Are you implying he didnt decagon? greb challenged Dempsey continuosly from 1919 until 1926. Anyone who is ignorant of this fact hasnt been reading his newspaper clippings.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 03 Nov 2007, 14:11

Anyone want to indicate how they see that fight panning out? It can be any time between 1919 & 1926.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Nov 2007, 16:38

I'm not sure. But Ezzard Charles is certainly up there. It's sort of hard to fathom how he was able to beat that many great fighters. He even lost a couple of questionable decisions that to my understanding should have gone his way, like Walcott in the fourth fight (which would have won him the series, and would have made him the first 2x Heavyweight champion) or against Harold Johnson. He went undefeated against Burley, Moore and Maxim. Beat a few other top fighters, defended his Heavyweight title nine times. Louis was rusty/shot, but that was also somewhat impressive.

I would go with either him, Greb or Robinson.

As for Dempsey-Greb... I think I read something about how Greb and Dempsey sparred and how Greb gave Dempsey a lot of trouble.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 03 Nov 2007, 17:15

Ray Leonard - love him or loathe him - has a great resume - Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez. He fought all the greats of the 80s era, and won. Cant think of anyone with a better resume over the last 30 years

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 03 Nov 2007, 19:20

Jimmy McLarnin

barry · Post by **barry** » 03 Nov 2007, 22:33

Greb and Slapsie Maxie have two of the best resumes, quite possibly the two best in history in terms of quality opposition.

wsbuf · Post by **wsbuf** » 04 Nov 2007, 12:57

Decagon wrote:With Greb, Armstrong, Ali and Rosenbloom, there's practically no one they could have fought that they didn't; there's no Charley Burley, no Lloyd Marshall, no Eddie Booker.

DE, I was implying (tongue in cheek) that Greb could have fought Dempsey! But was Jack who would not comply.

greatest resume ever

greatest resume ever

Re: greatest resume ever

??

re