BoxRec

Following on from another thread. A poster devised a list of Heavyweights from this time period and described them as "top 10 contenders".

I responded by typing out my estimation of the top 10 fighters from those particular years.

Which list is more realistic?
(Please note Rocky Marciano & Nino Valdes have been excluded)

List 1:
Jersey Joe Walcott
Ezzard Charles
Bob Baker
Bob Satterfield
Don Cockell
Rex Layne
Hurricane Jackson
Clarence Henry
Roland LaStarza
Kid Matthews

List 2:
Heinz Neuhaus
Karel Sys
Pat McMurtry
Brian London
Joe Erskine
Mike DeJohn
Johnny Summerlin
Wayne Bethea


I think it's fairly obvious, but the public will decide.

The second list is not complete, but the other poster hasn't decided to fill his version of the top 10 of that time period.

My vote goes to List 1.

There are some underestimated fighters in list two but def list one...

Btw the inclusion of Brian London is ludicrous ; he turned pro in 1955!!!

This is why people have stopped coming to this board.

I listed some guys who were actually ranked in the top 10 in the ratings when Nino Valdes beat them. And you started this thread and told people it was my list of the top 10 heavyweights from 1950-1955.

What utter bullsh*t.

Should I start a poll saying "Crease said Martin Rogan could beat Wladimir Klitschko, isn't he a tool?"

Because that's essentially what you've done to me in this thread.

I thought this site was about facts?

I should have known better than to try to have a concrete boxing discussion with someone who wasn't even born when Tyson beat Berbick. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you blew it.

I'm out of here.

Dubblechin wrote:This is why people have stopped coming to this board.

People have stopped commenting in this thread because it's not even a debate. The poll is obscenely easy to answer. There's no life in this conversation, and maybe now you have realized that there is no credibility to your points.

Dubblechin wrote:I listed some guys who were actually ranked in the top 10 in the ratings when Nino Valdes beat them. And you started this thread and told people it was my list of the top 10 heavyweights from 1950-1955. What utter bullsh*t.

You and I both know that you are being misleading here. You tried to pass off the second list as valid top-10 contenders of that time period and I suggested that they weren't and that there were better fighters out there at that time.

But seeing as you keep talking about facts - let me indulge you with a quote of your own:

Dubblechin wrote:Valdes had already beaten half the top 10 heavyweights – Ezzard Charles, the reigning European Heavyweight champ Heinz Neuhaus, “Hurricane” Jackson, Larel Sys and a handful of fringe contenders waiting for his turn. He was the legit number-one contender. Nothing was preventing the fight from taking place BUT AL WEILL.

Plus, you still haven't provided a link where these guys are ranked in the top 10 of the Heavyweight Division, which you claimed that they were.

Dubblechin wrote:Should I start a poll saying "Crease said Martin Rogan could beat Wladimir Klitschko, isn't he a tool?"

You can if you so wish, there's no one to stop you. But just to be clear - I never once said that Rogie would beat Wlad. In fact the only time I mentioned a fight between was:

Crease wrote:Just because you are bringing Jimmy Young in to the conversation doesn't prove anything. Young and Valdes are different fighters who fought in different eras.

I can't just throw up an upset like Rahman beating Lewis as proof that Martin Rogan would beat Wlad Klitschsko - it's just not credible. And frankly it doesn't make sense.

Hard to argue with that. Where exactly did I categorically state that Rogie would have beaten Wlad?

Crease wrote:I thought this site was about facts?

Are you sure? You've baked up your own half arsed opinions with endless speculation that you can't even back up. Then when you get called on it, you just repeat the same statement, expecting people to accept your word as gold.

Crease wrote:I should have known better than to try to have a concrete boxing discussion with someone who wasn't even born when Tyson beat Berbick. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you blew it.

I'm out of here.[/quote]
What does my age have to do with anything? I've watched Muhammad Ali fights, I've seen the Tyson KO of Berbick.... There's a thing called Youtube - get with the program, pal - before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

And for heaven's sake, stop pretending that fringe contenders of the past were the top fighters of their time, there's some smart guys on here who know their stuff and they'll cut you down in a heartbeat.

Dubblechin wrote:This is why people have stopped coming to this board.

People have stopped commenting in this thread because it's not even a debate. The poll is obscenely easy to answer. There's no life in this conversation, and maybe now you have realized that there is no credibility to your points.

Dubblechin wrote:I listed some guys who were actually ranked in the top 10 in the ratings when Nino Valdes beat them. And you started this thread and told people it was my list of the top 10 heavyweights from 1950-1955. What utter bullsh*t.

You and I both know that you are being misleading here. You tried to pass off the second list as valid top-10 contenders of that time period and I suggested that they weren't and that there were better fighters out there at that time.

But seeing as you keep talking about facts - let me indulge you with a quote of your own:

Dubblechin wrote:Valdes had already beaten half the top 10 heavyweights – Ezzard Charles, the reigning European Heavyweight champ Heinz Neuhaus, “Hurricane” Jackson, Larel Sys and a handful of fringe contenders waiting for his turn. He was the legit number-one contender. Nothing was preventing the fight from taking place BUT AL WEILL.

Plus, you still haven't provided a link where these guys are ranked in the top 10 of the Heavyweight Division, which you claimed that they were.

Dubblechin wrote:Should I start a poll saying "Crease said Martin Rogan could beat Wladimir Klitschko, isn't he a tool?"

You can if you so wish, there's no one to stop you. But just to be clear - I never once said that Rogie would beat Wlad. In fact the only time I mentioned a fight between was:

Crease wrote:Just because you are bringing Jimmy Young in to the conversation doesn't prove anything. Young and Valdes are different fighters who fought in different eras.

I can't just throw up an upset like Rahman beating Lewis as proof that Martin Rogan would beat Wlad Klitschsko - it's just not credible. And frankly it doesn't make sense.

Hard to argue with that. Where exactly did I categorically state that Rogie would have beaten Wlad?

Crease wrote:I thought this site was about facts?

Are you sure? You've baked up your own half arsed opinions with endless speculation that you can't even back up. Then when you get called on it, you just repeat the same statement, expecting people to accept your word as gold.

Dubblechin wrote:I should have known better than to try to have a concrete boxing discussion with someone who wasn't even born when Tyson beat Berbick. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you blew it.

What does my age have to do with anything? I've watched Muhammad Ali fights, I've seen the Tyson KO of Berbick.... There's a thing called Youtube - get with the program, pal - before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

And for heaven's sake, stop pretending that fringe contenders of the past were the top fighters of their time, there's some smart guys on here who know their stuff and they'll cut you down in a heartbeat.