Rate your heavyweights on a pound-for-pound basis, too

" "

This content is protected

 

I've decided anyways I'm gonna start ranking everything h2h.

 

I am having this post tattooed on my ****

 

Then you have decided that you are going to rank everything under the least reliable criteria avaqilable to you.

You could not devise a better policy for producing error.

 

That's the thing though, there is no real error.

All lists are subjective, ive made plenty based on resume and achievement and I'm bored of them now. Rather than trawl boxrec and study resumes and defences, I'd prefer to watch two fighters and ask myself who the better one was.

My lists don't mean anything to anyone else so it's of no consequence really, just a change of scenery :good

 

anyways manassa, in terms of the thread I see what you're saying and I think my solution is rather than rank p4p in the division, just rank them against those of similar weight. So rocky, Dempsey , patterson, can be evaluated against cw, tunney, charles, langford and fitz can be evaluated against lhw.

 

The circumstances during each era are different. Inside those circumstances, one does what he can, and one rises to be best of all. Best of all in thriving in those circumstances.

 

it shut up both Boxed Ears and BoxedEars :smoke

 

that being said though, dempsey and rocky are a bit different.

rocky's entire career could have been fought as a cw. dempsey genuinely fought in a hw division.

not sure how that changes things yet but it gives me food for thought.

 

They're both lineal champions, in my book.

 

I also follow this precept. I have for many years now, actually. I find that it's the most fun and educational.

 

But Holyfield is a different kind of beast.

Was he even human?

 

Delete