BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't rate fighters on whom I think would win a fight. As for Roy, play with kalan. You know the divisions, I'm not indulging you

....you don't know the difference between a challenging question, and an information seeking question.

If you don't see that their is some subjectivity in this, then by all means, simply enlighten us all as to the absolutes.


anyway... I"m Sorry I asked, please forgive. Won't happen again.

If you don't rate boxers on who they would beat -- what would you rate them on??? On who other people think they would beat??? Makes no sense.

I rate boxers on their size, strength, toughness, speed, power, overall athleticism, intelligence, dedication, emotional maturity, and the completeness of their game -- their mastery of the varied skills of both offense and defense. You try to remove bias from your mind and likes and dislikes. Then it's a matter of determining who would beat who. Ranking somebody because they were extremely popular, or because know-nothing "experts" say they were great, is not the way to do it.

Most of the time when you look at the defeats of extremely popular boxers like Tyson, Ali, Robinson, De La Hoya, Frazier, Armstrong, Louis, etc. you see major upsets in their careers. Matchups that had all the experts fooled. Often several defeats by the same very popular boxer were significant upsets.. It's something to keep in mind when ranking boxers. Don't rank fighters according to likability, popularity, charisma, general public acclaim, or where the odds and the clueless experts put them.. You need to separate yourself from the hype, legend, myth, and BS and get away from fantasy scenarios.. What's real is what happens during the fight and who wins -- and who is ready and willing to fight who.

Kalan wrote:If you don't rate boxers on who they would beat -- what would you rate them on??? On who other people think they would beat??? Makes no sense.

I rate boxers on their size, strength, toughness, speed, power, overall athleticism, intelligence, dedication, emotional maturity, and the completeness of their game -- their mastery of the varied skills of both offense and defense. You try to remove bias from your mind and likes and dislikes. Then it's a matter of determining who would beat who. Ranking somebody because they were extremely popular, or because know-nothing "experts" say they were great, is not the way to do it.

Most of the time when you look at the defeats of extremely popular boxers like Tyson, Ali, Robinson, De La Hoya, Frazier, Armstrong, Louis, etc. you see major upsets in their careers. Matchups that had all the experts fooled. Often several defeats by the same very popular boxer were significant upsets.. It's something to keep in mind when ranking boxers. Don't rank fighters according to likability, popularity, charisma, general public acclaim, or where the odds and the clueless experts put them.. You need to separate yourself from the hype, legend, myth, and BS and get away from fantasy scenarios.. What's real is what happens during the fight and who wins -- and who is ready and willing to fight who.

1. So you rate Ali higher than Wilt?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kalan wrote:If you don't rate boxers on who they would beat -- what would you rate them on??? On who other people think they would beat??? Makes no sense.

I rate boxers on their size, strength, toughness, speed, power, overall athleticism, intelligence, dedication, emotional maturity, and the completeness of their game -- their mastery of the varied skills of both offense and defense. You try to remove bias from your mind and likes and dislikes. Then it's a matter of determining who would beat who. Ranking somebody because they were extremely popular, or because know-nothing "experts" say they were great, is not the way to do it.

Most of the time when you look at the defeats of extremely popular boxers like Tyson, Ali, Robinson, De La Hoya, Frazier, Armstrong, Louis, etc. you see major upsets in their careers. Matchups that had all the experts fooled. Often several defeats by the same very popular boxer were significant upsets.. It's something to keep in mind when ranking boxers. Don't rank fighters according to likability, popularity, charisma, general public acclaim, or where the odds and the clueless experts put them.. You need to separate yourself from the hype, legend, myth, and BS and get away from fantasy scenarios.. What's real is what happens during the fight and who wins -- and who is ready and willing to fight who.

1. So you rate Ali higher than Wilt?

Did he just mention "hype, legend, myth and fantasy scenarios" but directed at other posters?

Mans a raving lunatic.

Tomasino wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kalan wrote:If you don't rate boxers on who they would beat -- what would you rate them on??? On who other people think they would beat??? Makes no sense.

I rate boxers on their size, strength, toughness, speed, power, overall athleticism, intelligence, dedication, emotional maturity, and the completeness of their game -- their mastery of the varied skills of both offense and defense. You try to remove bias from your mind and likes and dislikes. Then it's a matter of determining who would beat who. Ranking somebody because they were extremely popular, or because know-nothing "experts" say they were great, is not the way to do it.

Most of the time when you look at the defeats of extremely popular boxers like Tyson, Ali, Robinson, De La Hoya, Frazier, Armstrong, Louis, etc. you see major upsets in their careers. Matchups that had all the experts fooled. Often several defeats by the same very popular boxer were significant upsets.. It's something to keep in mind when ranking boxers. Don't rank fighters according to likability, popularity, charisma, general public acclaim, or where the odds and the clueless experts put them.. You need to separate yourself from the hype, legend, myth, and BS and get away from fantasy scenarios.. What's real is what happens during the fight and who wins -- and who is ready and willing to fight who.

1. So you rate Ali higher than Wilt?

Did he just mention "hype, legend, myth and fantasy scenarios" but directed at other posters?

Mans a raving lunatic.

I used to work in a mental hospital. #justsaying

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kalan wrote:If you don't rate boxers on who they would beat -- what would you rate them on??? On who other people think they would beat??? Makes no sense.

I rate boxers on their size, strength, toughness, speed, power, overall athleticism, intelligence, dedication, emotional maturity, and the completeness of their game -- their mastery of the varied skills of both offense and defense. You try to remove bias from your mind and likes and dislikes. Then it's a matter of determining who would beat who. Ranking somebody because they were extremely popular, or because know-nothing "experts" say they were great, is not the way to do it.

Most of the time when you look at the defeats of extremely popular boxers like Tyson, Ali, Robinson, De La Hoya, Frazier, Armstrong, Louis, etc. you see major upsets in their careers. Matchups that had all the experts fooled. Often several defeats by the same very popular boxer were significant upsets.. It's something to keep in mind when ranking boxers. Don't rank fighters according to likability, popularity, charisma, general public acclaim, or where the odds and the clueless experts put them.. You need to separate yourself from the hype, legend, myth, and BS and get away from fantasy scenarios.. What's real is what happens during the fight and who wins -- and who is ready and willing to fight who.

1. So you rate Ali higher than Wilt?

Well Kalan?

Wilt wasn't granted the opportunity to fight Ali.. So therefore he can't be ranked.. But I know what would have happened and why Ali refused to fight him

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
1. So you rate Ali higher than Wilt?

Did he just mention "hype, legend, myth and fantasy scenarios" but directed at other posters?

Mans a raving lunatic.

I used to work in a mental hospital. #justsaying

Interesting

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
1. So you rate Ali higher than Wilt?

Did he just mention "hype, legend, myth and fantasy scenarios" but directed at other posters?

Mans a raving lunatic.

I used to work in a mental hospital. #justsaying

You sure belong in a mental hospital... You had a fantasy you worked there... You were really a patient and you must have escaped. Everybody wanted to see the Chamberlain-Ali fight except Ali you idiot... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF57P1uUG0s

I really do not see how Jones Jr so high?
It has a victory over Hopkins but there are no big wins on 160lb.

He won Toney at 168 lb but that's another category and does not see near the top 10th
It is really a surprise in this category.

Kalan wrote:[Everybody wanted to see the Chamberlain-Ali fight except Ali you idiot...

Everyone? Are you sure about that? Saying everyone except me, means that every person everywhere wanted to see the fight. Have you travelled back in time and canvassed the opinion of everyone?

Strange that following Boxing for 4 decades I never ran into anyone that wanted to see Ali/Wilt.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Strange that following Boxing for 4 decades I never ran into anyone that wanted to see Ali/Wilt.

For the record Wilts dad sure was happy it never happened And wilt appeared to kinda sorta be in agreement with his dear old dad at day's end.

[quote="Kalan"]Wilt wasn't granted the opportunity to fight Ali.. So therefore he can't be ranked.. But I know what would have happened and why Ali refused to fight him[/quote


Honestly it's a goofy concept. He could have raised a lot of eyebrows by simply fighting and beating one contender if he really wanted such a fight. Would have put some pressure on to get it signed.

What he wanted was a big fat paycheck for being flattened in public. Easy pay for taking a knee.

I can't see how can any pro athlete would want to step into the ring with a real professional boxer?

Boxing is one of the hardest sports to make a living. These men are accustomed to take one good shot after another. I am talking about the real pro boxers. Not the goofy journeymen.

And for someone to come to challenge one of the best fighters ever and think he could win is bollocks! Wilt Chamberlain will be susceptible for a good shot. Can he endure 15 rounds of throwing punches? Can he pace himself? Does he would have had the stamina to overcome a terrific pace? What would he do when he receives the first shot to chin or the ribs? Would he take it or quit right there?

Remember, he is fighting a guy that went 145-5 in the amateurs. That is a lot of wins and blows. That is a lot years of training. Plus, he won the National Golden Gloves, the AAU boxing titles, the gold medal in the Olympics and became world champion as a professional. That is a hell of a resume. I can't see a guy that has never been into a boxing ring and beat someone with that kind of resume. I don't care how big and strong you are. If you have never been into a ring, You are not beating that individual.

elmersalsa wrote:I can't see how can any pro athlete would want to step into the ring with a real professional boxer?

Boxing is one of the hardest sports to make a living. These men are accustomed to take one good shot after another. I am talking about the real pro boxers. Not the goofy journeymen.

No way and no chance.
It's amazing that someone is thinking about it.
Professional boxer at this level is a different world.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Strange that following Boxing for 4 decades I never ran into anyone that wanted to see Ali/Wilt.

We must have met the exact same people, because I never met anyone either. By late father always said it was a joke and a publicity stunt. I tend to agree.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Strange that following Boxing for 4 decades I never ran into anyone that wanted to see Ali/Wilt.

We must have met the exact same people, because I never met anyone either. By late father always said it was a joke and a publicity stunt. I tend to agree.

Not even on message boards.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Strange that following Boxing for 4 decades I never ran into anyone that wanted to see Ali/Wilt.

We must have met the exact same people, because I never met anyone either. By late father always said it was a joke and a publicity stunt. I tend to agree.

Not even on message boards.

Message boards filled with boxing fans, who love boxing.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kalan wrote:If you don't rate boxers on who they would beat -- what would you rate them on??? On who other people think they would beat??? Makes no sense.

I rate boxers on their size, strength, toughness, speed, power, overall athleticism, intelligence, dedication, emotional maturity, and the completeness of their game -- their mastery of the varied skills of both offense and defense. You try to remove bias from your mind and likes and dislikes. Then it's a matter of determining who would beat who. Ranking somebody because they were extremely popular, or because know-nothing "experts" say they were great, is not the way to do it.

Most of the time when you look at the defeats of extremely popular boxers like Tyson, Ali, Robinson, De La Hoya, Frazier, Armstrong, Louis, etc. you see major upsets in their careers. Matchups that had all the experts fooled. Often several defeats by the same very popular boxer were significant upsets.. It's something to keep in mind when ranking boxers. Don't rank fighters according to likability, popularity, charisma, general public acclaim, or where the odds and the clueless experts put them.. You need to separate yourself from the hype, legend, myth, and BS and get away from fantasy scenarios.. What's real is what happens during the fight and who wins -- and who is ready and willing to fight who.

1. So you rate Ali higher than Wilt?

Well Kalan?

Can you please answer this.

Wilt was never a Heavyweight Boxer because Ali didn't sign the negotiated contract to fight him -- because he knew he'd get killed. If you're kept out of a contest you can't win it... And you can't be ranked... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF57P1uUG0s

Will you guys STFU with this stupid ass Wilt Chamberlain crap that's inundating the forum. It wasn't funny the first day it was up, and now it's in a thread about greatest Middleweight boxers of alltime.

Seamus wrote:Will you guys STFU with this stupid ass Wilt Chamberlain crap that's inundating the forum. It wasn't funny the first day it was up, and now it's in a thread about greatest Middleweight boxers of alltime.

Seamus, I'm a pretty tolerant sort of fella, but if your implying.... for even a moment that Wilt could not have sweated it off and competed and beaten every MW that every walked.

The you and I have little to discuss on this subject.


Good day to you sir.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Strange that following Boxing for 4 decades I never ran into anyone that wanted to see Ali/Wilt.

We must have met the exact same people, because I never met anyone either. By late father always said it was a joke and a publicity stunt. I tend to agree.

Wilt v. Ali - I remember it as a kid, we talked about it for a week then it went away. Amazed it gets so much attention here.

APerno wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Strange that following Boxing for 4 decades I never ran into anyone that wanted to see Ali/Wilt.

We must have met the exact same people, because I never met anyone either. By late father always said it was a joke and a publicity stunt. I tend to agree.

Wilt v. Ali - I remember it as a kid, we talked about it for a week then it went away. Amazed it gets so much attention here.

It's one lunatic and Boxbuzz against the whole forum on this subject. Just when Kalan stops posting about it, Boxbuzz brings it back up. On completely unrelated threads.