A head-to-head ranking has to be about the studiest way of ranking fighters out there, and if you ask me it is nothing more than a simple copout to cover up a lack of knowledge (****, my wife can see two fighters and pick who she sees as the winner of a fantasy fight, and she rarely ever watches any of my fights...doesn't mean she has a clue as to who the "greater" fighter was though).
Personally, I think fighters should be ranked on what they actually did in the ring during their respective eras, not what they may or may not be able to do with others of different times.
c'mon, so louis should get more credit than holmes, just because louis fought small bums?
A head-to-head ranking has to be about the studiest way of ranking fighters out there, and if you ask me it is nothing more than a simple copout to cover up a lack of knowledge (****, my wife can see two fighters and pick who she sees as the winner of a fantasy fight, and she rarely ever watches any of my fights...doesn't mean she has a clue as to who the "greater" fighter was though).
Personally, I think fighters should be ranked on what they actually did in the ring during their respective eras, not what they may or may not be able to do with others of different times.
Yogi is 100% correct. These fantasy fights are mired in bias but comparing the careers of these fighters is a more objective way to assess and compare the greatness of these champions. Who knows, maybe Marciano KO's Foreman early and maybe Tyson sends Ali into a coma in the first round. These fantasy matchups are a lot of fun but it's just what the name suggests, fantasy. We'll never know for sure.
Hey, we have our hands full just trying to predict fights that occur in the current era and no one can say for certain what would happen in any of these fights. We can make educated guesses, and swear by them, but please don't think for a second that anything in boxing, or life, is set in stone.
look, the fighters holmes fought were better than the fighters louis fought when he was champ.
Sure, nothing says greatness like defeating a washed-up & china chinned Earnie Shavers (who almost KO'd Holmes), a human punching bag Muhammad Ali, and a bunch of complete "bums" like Scott Ledoux, Lorenzon Zanon, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank, Lucien Rodriguez, Renaldo Snipes (almost KO'd Holmes), Ossie Ocasio, etc., etc.
Says a lot when your signature title defenses is against someone like the much overhyped Gerry Cooney, who on film & with these eyes, doesn't look any better than does a Buddy Baer (who could at least avoid taking a punch with his chin tucked into his shoulder, unlike Cooney who you couldn't miss with a punch if you tried).
Sure, nothing says greatness like defeating a washed-up & china chinned Earnie Shavers (who almost KO'd Holmes), a human punching bag Muhammad Ali, and a bunch of complete "bums" like Scott Ledoux, Lorenzon Zanon, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank, Lucien Rodriguez, Renaldo Snipes (almost KO'd Holmes), Ossie Ocasio, etc., etc.
Says a lot when your signature title defenses is against someone like the much overhyped Gerry Cooney, who on film & with these eyes, doesn't look any better than does a Buddy Baer (who could at least avoid taking a punch with his chin tucked into his shoulder, unlike Cooney who you couldn't miss with a punch if you tried).
c'mon, so louis should get more credit than holmes, just because louis fought small bums?
Johnson must be well overrated since very few are talking about him on his own thread.
Yeah, kid, I thought you were slowly coming along, but you've regressed lately. Louis fought far bigger guys than did Holmes, and he fought a couple of smaller guys than did Holmes. Louis didn't discriminate, unlike Holmes who failed to meet almost a dozen of the best in his era.
Comment