Honestly Debating Greatness vs. Pure Slander

It seems to me there are two sides in a boxing conversation here at ESB.

Those who want to engage in good ol' fashion debate to learn something new and interesting about boxing and then there are those who want to run them out and destroy a good conversation just for the point of destroying it.

I would like to know what is the best way to approach a conversation on the topic of greatness? I feel that too many people weigh in on the topic when they have not done little or sometimes any research. When I see a thread titled "A vs. B" and the response is simply, "A is more ruthless than B." that makes me wonder what was thier point of weighing in at all if you do not give any tangible reason for your oppinion. The experienced reader knows that there is no point pressing further because that is usually all the person has, besides a whole lot of sarcasm. Neither of which is helpful.

Now, when discussing, "How great is A?" I like to see at least a paragraph stating your thoughts laid out after some kind of reasonable research. When I see, "A is not great because today's fighters are bigger etc", it should not be taken seriously because, greatness always transends weight, height, and reach. Maricano and Dempsey are my first two examples of how this is true. But, even if the opposite is true there are always exceptions. I never see these detractor site any exceptions. It makes you wonder if they just want to be right instead of learned.

Speaking of Maricano and Dempsey, why do I always see these two men in ESB court? I do not get it. They were in great shape and KO'ed all contenders. Between them they have over 11 years as champion 114 wins, 94KO's against 6 loses, 1 by KO. Yes, like all champions there are "what if's" but, the reality of what they accomplished is much more impressive than all the "what ifs" thrown at them. Whoever your favorite fighter is, he is going to have some glaring "what ifs" on the resume. All of a sudden should we now throw their entire career out? Should we also throw out all of the opponents and people who were there and said they were great? In the case of Jack Johnson why do you use such narrow views on all-time greatness? No one looks at that great on 1900 film. I hope that those who do not do research and trust only in thier oppinions other than there own would do more reading and less typing of those who have.

Now, I am just fine with testing ones resume for the sake of a more sophisticated conversation. "Was Durans' reign more impresive that Benny Leonards'?" is a fine question. But an incorrect answer is "No, because Duran fought bums" or "Yes, because Duran had better defense" and leave it at that. I think we need much more thought put into our oppinion to raise the level of the debate and the debators knowledge. That makes a place much more enjoyable and less a hangout for people who are more into themselves but only glance at boxing history.

The End.

Thoughts?

 

Thank you Burt. You know I respect your oppinions.

I think people are afraid to be wrong or learn something new. Those fighters you just named are not fighters with a lot of film. I now very little of them compared to many others around here. So for a poster like me to get an informed oppinion he needs to do his research, on top of what he see on film. What I see happening is that posters do not do any homework but still want respect in a conversation. To get this respect, they resort to weight, era, etc completely ignoring that great fighters overcome obstacles. They in turn choose to debate about what they imagine a great fighter to be. So we then have to hear how great a modern 250 pound champion is because, he was 250 pounds vs older fighters weighed less. Again, ignoring the usual fact that the great fighters they deride have usually KO'ed over 200 pound fighters. Then we have to hear that those fighters that they beat weren't "modern" i.e no skills. Really, Rahman is more skilled than Ali?

The greater the odds, the greater the fighter. I am asking for more learning then posting, rather than posting sarcasm and insults as a crutch for a lack of understanding.

 

Other than what I read on boxrec..no.

What I read in boxrec, a site I have no problem using as starting point which was all I needed for the point I was making to you, as I was starting my research for our decision. Our discussion was about who beats who at middleweight, Roy Jones Jr. or Charley Burley.

On top of that I watched a fight of Charley Burley on youtube, to refresh my oppinion of him, against a fighter that weighed about fifteen more pounds than him. When someone bought up his weight I looked up how many fighters he beat of over the 160 weight limit when he himself was that weight, including heavyweight that weight 219 pounds, who he KO'ed in one round. It seems that all people on that thread keep saying was Ezzard Charles was too small for Roy Jones. His resume which I pointed out disproved that...yet.

Also, I read on Wikipedia (I could find no other website to cooborate this claim) that Roy Jones weight 180+ pounds for the Hopkins fight at 160. I looked it up because someone said that Roy broke his wrist for the fight and that is why he looked so weak. I take that as an excuse especially if he weighed more than 13 pounds than Hopkins for the fight in which Hopkins was still a little green. It was a yawner, a sparing session. People who say Roy would KO Burley must not have seen this match.

I used the Ezzard Charles reference because I, like many other fans have seen Ezzard Charles's fights and studied his style. I have done the same to a lesser degree with Burley. I have seen enough of Burley, Moore, and Charles to give a reasonable oppinion that Roy Jones has faced nothing like the skill of Burley. I will say even more that none of Roy Jones Jr's opponents besides the post first Roy Jones fight B-Hop comes anywhere close to the skill level of Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, or Charley Burley himself.

I hope that helps Senya13.

Please share what you have read on those bouts in question.

 

Ezzard Charles not in his prime. Why not? Says who?

BTW, I picked Jones to beat Burley in the thread. My problem was the fact that people were making Burley out to be a easy fight for Roy. Is that what you think?

Charles was the number 3 ranked LHW in 1942 by the Ring. He beat Burley twice, Maxim who had him by 18 pounds, and Christoforidis who was ranked number two in front of him at 175. The year before he was ranked the number 2 by the ring at 160. After he served in WWII he came back in 1946 was the second ranked contender, 1947 he was the first ranked 175 contender, and then 1948 he was ranked number 3 in the heavyweights.

To me it looks like he was highly regarded at two weight classes as early as 1941. His record up to 1942 was 36-2-22KO's with Burley and Maxim on his win list. At 160 he would have been faster and more aggresive i.e the Cincinnatti Cobra starting his prime. Roy and anyother middleweight in history would have had there hands plenty full with 1942 Ezzard Charles.

I have seen some of Tony Canonzeri's fights. I haven't studied them but I have seen enough to know that he was a great mover and counter puncher. Something that I know Hatton struggled with. But, since I respect your oppinion I will do my homework and get back to you on that fight.

Now, I have a question. Why did you take just a piece of my post to focus on? Everyone here can read that I gave you much more than that to chew on? You loaded the question (obvious, hello!), I answered it honestly anyway, and you penalize me just to make a point. That is not even what the point of this thread is about. I am the first to admit that I do not know everything about boxing, do you? My point instead is that I would rather the everyone put some effort into researching and gaining some understanding before posting which is exactly what I did on the Roy Jones thread and what I am doing here.

Now, I answered all your comments and question in detail. When can we expect you to provide that Burley-Charles report you wanted from me. I gave you mine.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Do not misunderstand me. I noticed the first report when were in the discussion on the other topic. These two are links above are good enough for me when dealing with you.

 

Honestly, I have never heard of him. Thank you.