View Single Post
Old 08-03-2012, 06:13 PM   #20
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 685
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
you are pretty crazy today pal and not one your posts has made sense.

I'm saying for me the weight of the fighter has to be reflective of the times and/or divisions.

a man weighin 180lb fighting a man weighing 170 lb is a fight more relevant to the weight division.

when greb fights at 160 vs say walker at 160, I class it as a Mw victory. when greb fights at 160 vs say tunney at 175, I class it as a lhw victory.

why would a fighter not be great if he weighs above 175? are you saying Joe Louis isn't a great fighter?

Frank has a h2h based system.

I mean this in the best possible way, are you high or something because every post I've seen of yours today is way off the subject at hand.

If Langford weighs slight over the light heavyweight limit, this is okay?

If Langford weighs in as light heavy but his opponent is over the heavyweight limit that is not okay? This is the most ridiculous part of the criteria, imo. The rest are just little inconsistencies which dont really matter too much one way or the other.

Although it is a moot point anyway. because Langford was never really a light heavy, even under your criteria. At best he has a handful of wins, against some good but nothing overly special opponents. Yet this is going to place him in the top 20 of all time without relying overly on head to head abilities.

By the way, i hadnt realised that Jim Flynn was fighting at such a low weight after the Johnson fight where he weighed over 175. Quite interesting actually.
Boilermaker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote