BoxRec

Fine then. I would consider my points valid, and regardless of outside response or lack thereof, it doesn't make your arguments any more valid than mine.

I'm sure your points are valid to you or you wouldn't make them. That doesn't mean it's true. The best post you made was when you said you were done. But that appears to have been nothing more than an empty promise.

All you've done is belittle great fighters with words and assertions of dominance in regards to a mythical fight with Lopez. That and some nonsensical & vague comments. It adds up to a poorly put together argument that I have simply responded too.

I hardly belittled anyone. I never called anyone a bum or anything like that. If simply considering a certain fighter and his accomplishments superior to another's is belittling than I guess I am simply disrespectful toward 99.9% of every fighter who's ever lived.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Well I see there's no convincing you otherwise, but I'm done. Fact is he was a very complete fighter, and I could very easily show how a number of fighters ranked ahead of him by many shouldn't be.

You haven't made a legitimate point. I would stop too.

Edit: For the record, I never said he wasn't a complete fighter. He was.

How about you ask somebody who isn't yourself whether my points are legitimate.

They're not. There you go.

Diamond WEAPON wrote: I hardly belittled anyone. I never called anyone a bum or anything like that. If simply considering a certain fighter and his accomplishments superior to another's is belittling than I guess I am simply disrespectful toward 99.9% of every fighter who's ever lived.

You said Lopez was better than all of them in every aspect of the sport. That is as insulting as it is wrong.

As for accomplishments, he destroyed Sorjaturong. That's the only specific you have mentioned. Just stating he Ko'd more people and beat fighters in more dominant fashion isn't really going over anything.

We should just agree that you're wrong and move on.

I'm not wrong, but I'd rather not hijack this thread any further. We can debate this another time if you wish.

You are wrong, debate is the proper word. Those fighters are tightly grouped together whether you want to admit it or not. I have no issue with someone rating Lopez over all of them, it's the matter of fact nature in the way it's done that is silly. It's quite debatable, but you and the majority of todays fans act like it isn't.

Perhaps you're just not familiar with them. No shame in that, many people are not. I'll tell you one thing, Yoko Gushiken was absolutely a complete fighter.

Anyway, I hope you have better luck being done this time.

Badhusker wrote:Well, some of you may laugh at this, but I think Gene Tunney is worth mentioning. In this tribute, they say SSR and Ali adapted their styles based on the guy that revolutionized the sport bringing it in boxing. Agree or disagree, I believe he was 66-1 with 48 KO's, and avenged his only loss to Harry Greb 2 or 3 times. I think Ali got more fighting style from Jack Johnson and SRR.

He was a very smart fighter, and possessed good enough defense and boxing skills I think to be mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-9gW3lJmVM&feature=fvsr

Tunney also had a draw on his record, an early draw against Tommy Gavigan.

Greb beat him in the first fight but Tunney subsequently went on to beat him 4 times in return, the last of which by all accounts was an absolute belting. Worth noting that Tunney significantly outweight Greb in all 5 fights.

Grimm wrote:

Martin Sosa Cameron wrote:Henry Armstrong

I respect Henry Armstrong as one of the best fighters of all time but I wouldn't say he was the most complete.

Thanks, Grimm!
May be you had the reason, too!

Ray Robinson and Benny Leonard were the two who immediately came to mind for me. From the old-timers, Fitzsimmons or George Dixon.

Langford?
Benny Leonard? Gans?

One I want to know more about it Sanstol...

Well hate to be cliche but I go with Robinson.