Page 2 of 2
Re: Historians' Lists
Posted: 26 Nov 2024, 00:19
by p4p1
Ezzard wrote: ↑13 Nov 2024, 07:36
They almost always only consider champions. Not that this is wrong. But in the multi-belt era this is tricky.
When I became a big fan in the early 1980s the lineal title was a big deal. Now fans don't seem to care. Or even try to undermine the idea, which always seems odd.
If you don't care for the lineal then Holmes's reign isn't quite the same.
And neither is Foreman's second win. They were great achievements still. But they were title holders rather than champions in the old sense.
I do still think there is merit to the lineal.
Moorer was the lineal champion when Foreman beat him.
Re: Historians' Lists
Posted: 26 Nov 2024, 01:35
by gilgamesh
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Nov 2024, 17:32
pound per pound wrote: ↑01 Nov 2024, 08:38
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024, 19:21
yeah it was odd. Some of the others were almost as bad.
I hate the word "evolved". It implies better. I don't think the sport is better. This is not like technology where you can just build on what came before and should always get better and better.
I think when a sport first starts, there is going to naturally be a lot of improvement for awhile. New techniques and strategies are going to be developed. But then after a while, the progress naturally slows down and eventually stops. Specific weight classes go up and down as far as quality goes.
If a guy was great, he was great Doesn't matter if he is fighting now or 120 years ago.
you do have to take into consideration when the poll was made; obviously you can't rate someone that has not come along yet.
It is interesting to see what people come up with. Noticed that Sonny Liston seemed to get rated higher as the years went on.
You don't have to like or dislike it. Heavyweights around today are in fact much bigger, taller, heavier, longer, and more powerful than the were 100, 75, 50 , of even 35 years ago in general.
They are in fact a different weight class.
Not more powerful, much slower, less stamina. i.e. they suck.
I think the Heavyweight division today is better than most Heavyweight eras throughout Boxing history. It's behind the very best eras, but better than almost all others.
Anthony Joshua is at best the 3rd or 4th best Heavyweight of his era, and his record is superior to or on par with lots of former World Champions.
Re: Historians' Lists
Posted: 26 Nov 2024, 20:52
by Ambling Alp II
Nope. Not all. It sucks and Joshua would not have been the 3rd or 4th best in most eras. Almost all of the lineal champions had better wins than him.
Re: Historians' Lists
Posted: 27 Nov 2024, 15:04
by gilgamesh
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑26 Nov 2024, 20:52
Nope. Not all. It sucks and Joshua would not have been the 3rd or 4th best in most eras. Almost all of the lineal champions had better wins than him.
Think of Anthony Joshua vs the likes of Chris Byrd, John Ruiz, Lamon Brewster, Shannon Briggs, Oleg Maskaev, Tony Tucker, Pinklon Thomas, Floyd Patterson, Ingemar Johansson, Max Baer, Jim Braddock, Michael Moorer.
These are all Heavyweight Titleholders some of 'em are Hall of Famers. You think Anthony Joshua couldn't have been dominant in the era of some of these guys?
I think in the 90's he would've had about as much success as Moorer had ultimately at the top level, but the 90's is one of the few Heavyweight eras that doesn't take a backseat to the current one.
Re: Historians' Lists
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 12:45
by Ambling Alp II
First, most of these guys were not lineal champions.
Second, hell no, Joshua would not have been dominaint in aof these guys eras.
Anyway, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker Max Baer, Floyd Patterson, were clearly better than Joshua. Not even close.
It's closer, but I would rate Byrd and Johannson higher than Joshua.
A few are arguable, but I would still not pick Joshua.
Sure I guess you pick him over Maskeav, Ruiz, or Briggs. So what.
Most of the time (certainly not all of the time) a lineal champion is better than a fighter who was just a WBS champion. Most lineal champions were far better than Joshua.
Yes, all of these guys had faults. Yes, you can point to a specific fight and ay they weren't that good. However, you can also point to fights where they scored much bigger wins than anything Joshua ever did.