Re: The great non champions
Posted: 22 Apr 2021, 09:44
"We".
"We".
BoxRec
The great non champions
Page 13 of 17
"We".
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 22 Apr 2021, 10:40
What a fuckin clown. Unreal.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 22 Apr 2021, 12:17
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 22 Apr 2021, 12:18
Have you been looking at Jack Carroll's record?
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 22 Apr 2021, 12:59
Graham, I love your mention of Jack Carroll. An outstanding contender. But if talking about the Aussies, I always gravitate towards Hector Thompson. I followed him diligently throughout the 70s and I just feel he was the best in a very long line of great Aussies. Hector beat Alfonso Frazer, Pedro Adigue, Carlos Gimenez (3 times), Jimmy Heair, Shinichi Kadota, Johnny Gant, Nani Marrero and Lion Furuyama. All top-flight fighters back in the day at 140. The only guys stopping Thompson were two massive guys named Duran and Cervantes.graham middleton wrote: ↑21 Apr 2021, 20:00 I suggest that Australian welterweight champion of the 1930's, Jack Carrol who was undefeated for the last 6 years of his career and who defeated many top liners including Bep Van Klavernan , Jimmy Leto, Izzy Janazzo, Ron Richards and others should be in the list of great boxers who did not get an opportunity to fight for a world title. I invite others to check his record and his high ring rating.
Unforetunatly during the Great Depression the money was not available to Australian promoters to bring a world champion to Australia for a title defence.
Graham Middleton
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 22 Apr 2021, 13:04
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 22 Apr 2021, 15:27
What i, or anyone but you, thinks is irrelevant.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 22 Apr 2021, 17:48
So if we are only counting actual decision fights as the clown elmersalsa would wish Tommy Gibbons record against HOFers is only 2-4 A Dq loss to Miske (who doesnt deserve to be in the hall in any way shape or form), one sided losses to Dempsey and Greb, a decision over Miske shortly before Miske died, a stoppage of a blind Kid Norfolk that Tommy ducked for the better part of a decade, and a KO loss to Tunney. Ill take Mikes resume over Tommys any day of the week. He had more fights against better fighters closer to their prime more often snd had better results.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:24
Non decisions don't count. Either you won or you lost or you drew. Thanksklompton wrote: ↑22 Apr 2021, 17:48 So if we are only counting actual decision fights as the clown elmersalsa would wish Tommy Gibbons record against HOFers is only 2-4 A Dq loss to Miske (who doesnt deserve to be in the hall in any way shape or form), one sided losses to Dempsey and Greb, a decision over Miske shortly before Miske died, a stoppage of a blind Kid Norfolk that Tommy ducked for the better part of a decade, and a KO loss to Tunney. Ill take Mikes resume over Tommys any day of the week. He had more fights against better fighters closer to their prime more often snd had better results.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:25
You think he should be in?Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Apr 2021, 15:27What i, or anyone but you, thinks is irrelevant.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:36
Thats why fighters died in ND bouts, fighters were banned and/or lost their purses for poor performances in ND bouts, fighters were given title shots based on their records and performances in ND bouts, thats why fighters in that era carried around big scrapbooks full of newspapers decisions for their bouts to show reporters, promoters, and managers and to illustrate their record in an era before TV... because they didnt matter and werent real bouts... dumbass.elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:24Non decisions don't count. Either you won or you lost or you drew. Thanksklompton wrote: ↑22 Apr 2021, 17:48 So if we are only counting actual decision fights as the clown elmersalsa would wish Tommy Gibbons record against HOFers is only 2-4 A Dq loss to Miske (who doesnt deserve to be in the hall in any way shape or form), one sided losses to Dempsey and Greb, a decision over Miske shortly before Miske died, a stoppage of a blind Kid Norfolk that Tommy ducked for the better part of a decade, and a KO loss to Tunney. Ill take Mikes resume over Tommys any day of the week. He had more fights against better fighters closer to their prime more often snd had better results.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 10:53
Fuuck you, scumbag!klompton wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:36Thats why fighters died in ND bouts, fighters were banned and/or lost their purses for poor performances in ND bouts, fighters were given title shots based on their records and performances in ND bouts, thats why fighters in that era carried around big scrapbooks full of newspapers decisions for their bouts to show reporters, promoters, and managers and to illustrate their record in an era before TV... because they didnt matter and werent real bouts... dumbass.elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:24Non decisions don't count. Either you won or you lost or you drew. Thanksklompton wrote: ↑22 Apr 2021, 17:48 So if we are only counting actual decision fights as the clown elmersalsa would wish Tommy Gibbons record against HOFers is only 2-4 A Dq loss to Miske (who doesnt deserve to be in the hall in any way shape or form), one sided losses to Dempsey and Greb, a decision over Miske shortly before Miske died, a stoppage of a blind Kid Norfolk that Tommy ducked for the better part of a decade, and a KO loss to Tunney. Ill take Mikes resume over Tommys any day of the week. He had more fights against better fighters closer to their prime more often snd had better results.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 11:14
elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:53Fuuck you, scumbag!klompton wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:36Thats why fighters died in ND bouts, fighters were banned and/or lost their purses for poor performances in ND bouts, fighters were given title shots based on their records and performances in ND bouts, thats why fighters in that era carried around big scrapbooks full of newspapers decisions for their bouts to show reporters, promoters, and managers and to illustrate their record in an era before TV... because they didnt matter and werent real bouts... dumbass.elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:24
Non decisions don't count. Either you won or you lost or you drew. Thanks
Way to intelligently state your case. LOL. You should go back to watching Deontay Wilder and quit dabbling in subjects you have no clue about.Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 12:41
I think Mike gibbons should switch places with Peter Jackson.elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:25You think he should be in?
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 14:43
Man, Get the fuuck out of here! Scumbag!klompton wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 11:14elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:53Fuuck you, scumbag!klompton wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 10:36
Thats why fighters died in ND bouts, fighters were banned and/or lost their purses for poor performances in ND bouts, fighters were given title shots based on their records and performances in ND bouts, thats why fighters in that era carried around big scrapbooks full of newspapers decisions for their bouts to show reporters, promoters, and managers and to illustrate their record in an era before TV... because they didnt matter and werent real bouts... dumbass.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 14:45
No. No way. Peter Jackson was probably the best fighter of the 1880s decade behind the great Bob Fitzsimmons of England.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 12:41I think Mike gibbons should switch places with Peter Jackson.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 15:11
Your tears taste delicious little man.elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 14:43Man, Get the fuuck out of here! Scumbag!
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 15:31
So obviously he should be rated higher than someone of a different decade.....elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 14:45No. No way. Peter Jackson was probably the best fighter of the 1880s decade behind the great Bob Fitzsimmons of England.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 12:41I think Mike gibbons should switch places with Peter Jackson.
Bob Fitzsimmons? Why would Bob Fitzsimmons be considered the best fighter of the 1880s? Who did he beat that makes him number 1?
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 18:55
Fuuck you! Bye bye, mother fuucker!klompton wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 15:11Your tears taste delicious little man.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 23 Apr 2021, 18:57
Actually speaking, the great Peter Jackson was the best pound per pound fighter of the 1880s decade.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 15:31So obviously he should be rated higher than someone of a different decade.....elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 14:45No. No way. Peter Jackson was probably the best fighter of the 1880s decade behind the great Bob Fitzsimmons of England.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 12:41
I think Mike gibbons should switch places with Peter Jackson.
Bob Fitzsimmons? Why would Bob Fitzsimmons be considered the best fighter of the 1880s? Who did he beat that makes him number 1?
Bob Fitzsimmons was the greatest fighter of the 1890s decade.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 24 Apr 2021, 01:29
elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 14:45No. No way. Peter Jackson was probably the best fighter of the 1880s decade behind the great Bob Fitzsimmons of England.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 12:41I think Mike gibbons should switch places with Peter Jackson.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 24 Apr 2021, 11:34
You are the one crying, butthurtklompton wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 15:11Your tears taste delicious little man.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 24 Apr 2021, 11:36
Peter Jackson was the best fighter of the 1880s. Just ask about him to any ring fistic historianOnetimeonly wrote: ↑24 Apr 2021, 01:29elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 14:45No. No way. Peter Jackson was probably the best fighter of the 1880s decade behind the great Bob Fitzsimmons of England.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑23 Apr 2021, 12:41
I think Mike gibbons should switch places with Peter Jackson.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 24 Apr 2021, 17:05
Most would probably have Dempsey first. Many would have Sullivan ahead of Jackson. Don't think many ring historians have him as high as you do.
Regardless, it doesn't make him better than Mike Gibbons and some of the others that you have him above.
Regardless, it doesn't make him better than Mike Gibbons and some of the others that you have him above.
Re: The great non champions
Posted: 24 Apr 2021, 19:05
Peter Jackson was even better than John L. Sullivan. Peter Jackson by the boxing historians ranked him as the best fighter of the 1880s decade pound per pound.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑24 Apr 2021, 17:05 Most would probably have Dempsey first. Many would have Sullivan ahead of Jackson. Don't think many ring historians have him as high as you do.
Regardless, it doesn't make him better than Mike Gibbons and some of the others that you have him above.