Could Billy Conn have carried Roy Jones's jockstrap

That's irrelevant, even if I disagree. The point is there were contenders at other periods of time who were much better than Galento or Pastor, and who had much better chance of beating Joe Louis than either of the two, in the opinion of 99.9% of experts, even though there was no actual fight to prove that opinion.

 

Galento is actually ranked above three or four fighters who were better than him, but his ranking is still eminently justified.

When you get past the anomaly that Galento has made it to the top, this is actually a pretty strong top ten.

 

I have no wish to debate the points that are irrelevant to what I have been arguing all along.

 

OK then I will cut to the point.

While resume is not an infallible way of assessing fighters, it can at least be constrained by certain variables.

When you start comparing fighters based on who you think was better head to head, anything goes, and you are effectively the god of your own universe.

Compare my head to head predictions to yours, and then consider that we can’t both be right.

That is why I value resume more highly as a frame of comparison.

 

I don't consider myself an expert on Bob Pastor, thus I'm merely stating the consensus opinion of newspaper reporters who lived there, saw him fight, heard and read about him every day and whose opinion therefore carries more weight than yours or mine.

 

The talk about Jones defeating Louis is amusing.

 

The thought of Jones defeating Billy Conn is amusing too.

 

It is very amusing.

 

Can you tell us when you had this epiphany ?

I'm referring to the bit about those who were there and saw a fighter fight at the time being more qualified than you are to pass judgment on the fighters' merits.

You did argue at length that George Foreman did not deserve his 1973 shot at Joe Frazier (among many other ludicrous assertions !) despite having been a top ranked contender (at 1 or 2) for almost two years before Jamaica.

 

It is the usual problem.

Contemporary opinion should be treated with caution, but at the same time, it certainly shouldn’t be dismissed.

If people at the time thought something, they thought it for a reason, even if it was muisguided!

 

Senya has an offbeat sense of logic.

He once argued that Ali's victory of Terrell was seriously overrated because Ernie had a broken orbital bone for much of the fight.

When it was pointed out that no such fracture existed at the opening bell and that Ali had INFLICTED the injury on the hapless Ernie, he failed to see how that affected his argument. :yep

 

He does for sure, but he is also a brilliant researcher.

Always worth listening to.

 

If I argued something you disagreed with, the debate had to take place then and there, with direct quotes of what I said, not something you are retelling with your own words now, possibly misrepresenting my words.

 

Contemporary opinions (in broad sense, not taking just one or two writers, but what had a consensus or close to consensus or wasn't disputed by anybody) should ALWAYS have preference over reviewing a very short film of one or two fights of a boxer and studying his record at boxrec or like source, with no details of what happened in most fights or between the fights. Even hindsight (which contemporary writers were obviously lacking, they couldn't foresee the future) has to be used very carefully.