BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:La motta and barkley i cant see, rest are reasonable

I dont care to join in the noob talk, but c'mon Adam

Chris has taken one too many I fear.

if i gave same list with greb and armstrong instead of lamotta and barkley, it would be questionable but no-one you wouldnt hang around the top 10

Adamj1987 wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:La motta and barkley i cant see, rest are reasonable

I dont care to join in the noob talk, but c'mon Adam

Chris has taken one too many I fear.

if i gave same list with greb and armstrong instead of lamotta and barkley, it would be questionable but no-one you wouldnt hang around the top 10

McCallum isn't anywhere near the top 10. Robinson and Duran are the only guys in mine, but Ali, Louis & Whitaker are definitely in my top 20. Hearns and Hagler might be, if not they are top 30.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: if you think I read that novel.

I dont think you read much if anything boxing related.

You were born with a 10 out of 10 knowledge though

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: if you think I read that novel.

I dont think you read much if anything boxing related.

You were born with a 10 out of 10 knowledge though

Hardly, that was acquired over the years. I'm far from a 10 in Robinson's time.

Boilermaker wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Boilermaker wrote: There is nothing too wrong with Ali over Robinson.

In a pound for pound sense, Ali was definitely faster than Robinson, had a better chin and better heart.
.

Umm . . . no.

Umm .... no what?

Do you dispute that Ali, who was allegedly timed as delivering an out and out faster jab than Sugar Ray Robinson was not a faster fighter on a pound for pound level?

To talk about speed in a lb for lb sense doesn't make sense. Smaller fighters aren't neccesarily faster. Jones Jr had faster hands than many featherweights. Margarito's shots would be slow in any weight class.

Robinson was able to put together faster combinations than Ali could with much more power behind the shots. As for heart and chin, they both had it in abundance but there is certainly no logical argument for claiming Ali had greater durability or heart than Robinson.

coghaugen11 wrote:http://www.nowboxing.com/2012/05/the-eu ... ist/24217/

#1 Muhammad Ali

#2 Sugar Ray Robinson

#3 Jake LaMotta

#4 Mike McCallum

#5 Iran Barkley

#6 Marvin Hagler

#7 Roberto Duran

#8 Pernell Whitaker

#9 Thomas Hearns

#10 Joe Louis

The clown likes to talk shit now and than to get attention. Iran Barkley and Mccallum at nos 4 and 5 but their conqueror Sumbu Kalambay not at no 3 the shame of it!

Adamj1987 wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:La motta and barkley i cant see, rest are reasonable

I dont care to join in the noob talk, but c'mon Adam

Chris has taken one too many I fear.

if i gave same list with greb and armstrong instead of lamotta and barkley, it would be questionable but no-one you wouldnt hang around the top 10

The list is altogether indefensible. If we werent ripping on LaMotta and Barkley's inclusion, we'd be shaking our head at McCallum at 4, or Hagler at 6, and so on.

No Charles, Greb, Armstrong, Langford? The entire list is alarmingly ignorant.

Though I disagree with the list, I find the lack of acknowledgment regarding the profound depth of just how SUBJECTIVE such a list is, is a far more intellectually indefensible crime.

In a world where Braddock beats Baer, Douglas beats Tyson, and....well too many to mention. Subjectivity should be given great leeway. Sort of like "On any given Sunday".

In boxing anything can happen and usually does. I SURE did not see the Calzaghe/Lacy affair with good vision, and more recently though I called it right, I found much Bute money floating around, which I was happy to take. I had learned from my Calzaster prediction, and went to the tapes and saw something in Froch that I did not see in Bute. Yet most of the "pros" seemed to favor Bute.

I would note that every fighter on Chris' list CAN be viewed.....so I assume he has seen at least a video of each of his selected fighters which appears on his list. Perhaps the eye of a trained fighter catches some things the fans eye may miss? Just a something to chew on.

Those who list Greb, Rosenbloom and Burley, Bivens and some older fighters probably don't have that luxury....yet they will appear on some lists...on faith that the writers were honest and competent. Faith PROBABLY well placed.

I'm not sure I will list fighters I can't view on my top ten list (without providing an asterisk)...lol.

And I imagine actually facing some of these fighters might influence your list as well....which may skew your subjectivity/objectivity balance a bit....

Hell Reggie Strickland might look a lot like Joe Louis, if your thrown into the ring with him tomorrow....lol.

Barkley isn't among the top 100 fighters that I've viewed.

coghaugen11 wrote:http://www.nowboxing.com/2012/05/the-eu ... ist/24217/

#1 Muhammad Ali

#2 Sugar Ray Robinson

#3 Jake LaMotta

#4 Mike McCallum

#5 Iran Barkley

#6 Marvin Hagler

#7 Roberto Duran

#8 Pernell Whitaker

#9 Thomas Hearns

#10 Joe Louis

Kalambay should be no.1 of that list.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Barkley isn't among the top 100 fighters that I've viewed.

Agreed.

But you think he'd move up on our list, if we were "viewing" him coming at us from across the ring? He's not a pretty sight...and that alone might put him up a notch or two....

I'm just sayin'

BoxBuzz wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Barkley isn't among the top 100 fighters that I've viewed.

Agreed.

But you think he'd move up on our list, if we were "viewing" him coming at us from across the ring? He's not a pretty sight...and that alone might put him up a notch or two....

I'm just sayin'

Chris never fought him, and thousands of guys I'd rank behind him would knock me out in seconds.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Never used one of those smilies....what's it like?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Barkley isn't among the top 100 fighters that I've viewed.

Agreed.

But you think he'd move up on our list, if we were "viewing" him coming at us from across the ring? He's not a pretty sight...and that alone might put him up a notch or two....

I'm just sayin'

Chris never fought him, and thousands of guys I'd rank behind him would knock me out in seconds.

No argument. Like I say, it's an exotic opinion. Definitely cut from odd cloth.

Hard to explain his wins over a guy like Tommy Hearns, who some have in their top ten. Maybe he's given a very weighted boost for that accomplishment by Chris. Just my imagination at work....cuz I can't explain it myself. Don't think is trolling though.

As a whole I think Barkley is underrated. This is probably the most absurd position I've seen on a highly subjective Boxing list. I understand your Devil's Advocate position, but that is burned in hell fire when Iran is placed above Hagler. Really? How? Barkley would laugh at that. I think Hagler beat Hearns too.

BoxBuzz wrote:Though I disagree with the list, I find the lack of acknowledgment regarding the profound depth of just how SUBJECTIVE such a list is, is a far more intellectually indefensible crime.

In a world where Braddock beats Baer, Douglas beats Tyson, and....well too many to mention. Subjectivity should be given great leeway. Sort of like "On any given Sunday".

In boxing anything can happen and usually does. I SURE did not see the Calzaghe/Lacy affair with good vision, and more recently though I called it right, I found much Bute money floating around, which I was happy to take. I had learned from my Calzaster prediction, and went to the tapes and saw something in Froch that I did not see in Bute. Yet most of the "pros" seemed to favor Bute.

I would note that every fighter on Chris' list CAN be viewed.....so I assume he has seen at least a video of each of his selected fighters which appears on his list. Perhaps the eye of a trained fighter catches some things the fans eye may miss? Just a something to chew on.

Those who list Greb, Rosenbloom and Burley, Bivens and some older fighters probably don't have that luxury....yet they will appear on some lists...on faith that the writers were honest and competent. Faith PROBABLY well placed.



And I imagine actually facing some of these fighters might influence your list as well....which may skew your subjectivity/objectivity balance a bit....

Hell Reggie Strickland might look a lot like Joe Louis, if your thrown into the ring with him tomorrow....lol.

A good point that a fighter often sees things the ordinary fan doesnt whilst at the same time the ordinary fan relies on a writer or experts word that something or someone was good. Eubanks like the much maligned George Foreman has in the past been an expert on such things picking out those things the ordinary fan or tv pundit wouldnt. But lately he has transgressed to just saying ridiculous things to get attention and publicity and this pathetic list is one such further act of stupidity in order to get attention. We must not forget this is a first time celebrity big brother pick. A man who once tried to park a public bus to get himself in the papers.
I saw Froch beating Bute like he did from the beggining my previous posts prove that and I was confident Calzaghe would do what he did with Lacy....but that's neither here nor there like you say often we are shocked at events in the ring like for me Hopkins taking Calzaghe out of his career long strategy of needing both arms up close to do his influrries....BHOP simply tangled his left arm and shut the man out for 6 rounds doing that before he faded.......I think Joe too realised this flaw had been exposed and went into retirement.

On the subject of Iran Barkley I certainly think his talent was grossly underrated. He could move and box as he showed in spurts against Duran. He was unable to be intimidated and as Tommy Hearns and Duran learned he could fight very well in close

BoxBuzz wrote:Though I disagree with the list, I find the lack of acknowledgment regarding the profound depth of just how SUBJECTIVE such a list is, is a far more intellectually indefensible crime.

In a world where Braddock beats Baer, Douglas beats Tyson, and....well too many to mention. Subjectivity should be given great leeway. Sort of like "On any given Sunday".

In boxing anything can happen and usually does. I SURE did not see the Calzaghe/Lacy affair with good vision, and more recently though I called it right, I found much Bute money floating around, which I was happy to take. I had learned from my Calzaster prediction, and went to the tapes and saw something in Froch that I did not see in Bute. Yet most of the "pros" seemed to favor Bute.

I would note that every fighter on Chris' list CAN be viewed.....so I assume he has seen at least a video of each of his selected fighters which appears on his list. Perhaps the eye of a trained fighter catches some things the fans eye may miss? Just a something to chew on.

Those who list Greb, Rosenbloom and Burley, Bivens and some older fighters probably don't have that luxury....yet they will appear on some lists...on faith that the writers were honest and competent. Faith PROBABLY well placed.

I'm not sure I will list fighters I can't view on my top ten list (without providing an asterisk)...lol.

And I imagine actually facing some of these fighters might influence your list as well....which may skew your subjectivity/objectivity balance a bit....

Hell Reggie Strickland might look a lot like Joe Louis, if your thrown into the ring with him tomorrow....lol.

There is a fight film of Burley and several of Bivins.

We know you hold it sacred that if you've seen a fighter on film, even if you've seen lots of film of guys he beat. Most don't share your opinion.

Dempsey, I appreciate your point. And I would probably be tempted to rate many fighters I have not seen quite high on my list. However I would also issue a disclaimer that I (nor anyone else living) has ever actually seen them fight.


I don't think it makes rating them impossible, just more subjective.

Can the Burley or Bivins tapes be accessed by the common man? Internet access that is?

pretty sure the only burley fight that exists is actually loaded on youtube

BoxBuzz wrote:Dempsey, I appreciate your point. And I would probably be tempted to rate many fighters I have not seen quite high on my list. However I would also issue a disclaimer that I (nor anyone else living) has ever actually seen them fight.


I don't think it makes rating them impossible, just more subjective.

Can the Burley or Bivins tapes be accessed by the common man? Internet access that is?

I agree. Newspapers have always been rabble-rousing comics designed to sell things, so to hold to their opinion on even sporting matters as gospel seems strange to me; as if in 2067 (after the Internet melts & all videotapes are wiped) people will be digging out Doug Fischer's articles for Maxboxing &, upon seeing his praise of Edwin Valero, declare that the Venezuelan was the greatest fighter of his day.

People tell me: "It's only now that journalists cannot be trusted, & in our prelapsarian Golden Age they were sage deliverers of truth".

To which I reply: "HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA. I assume someone fifty years older than yourself would happily tell me that your sage writers were drunken sensationalist hacks & that the hacks of his day were sage arbiters of etc etc."

I was saying this the other day to beau jack, who took offence that I would not hold the words of others as gospel when compared to the evidence of my own eyes. Though he was loath to concede the point (being too busy making a straw man to defend his preconceptions rather than admit my point), I offered that I have seen footage of Ross, Pep, Leonard & (to a lesser extent) Burley, & therefore (because I have seen them) I can say with as much confidence as I can say of anything else I've seen with my own two eyes "Jesus Christ, they were bad men".

But I still refuse to come out & nail my colours to the mast of other fighters when reliant on the words of hacks & professional cheerleaders rather than on my own eyes, no matter how aged those hacks were.

Anyway, Burley:

vs Oakland Billy Smith, part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp9lkBqm6bQ
ditto, part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYFu7s37md4

& a little something Counter-puncher of this parish put me on to, a short documentary called analyzing genius (only about ten minutes), which was my introduction to him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqT7DGAFMDs

“One must adjust for the natural variants that come with larger body size – it’s impossible to assume a 5’5″ boxer would be physically identical if he were, for instance, a foot taller. So the criteria is, or should be – ‘how good is a particular fighter in his particular weight division and can he compete above..?’, while greatness is something measured at the end of a career on how much adversity has been overcome throughout and ‘has he taken his beatings?’.”


Sr also pointed out, “I don’t know my boxing history all that well.”