Heavyweight Top Ten

Yeah... this discussion is over.

 

Don't confuse him with logic.

 

I don't know why I'm having this argument with you, you clearly haven't got any idea what you're talking about. "Easily one of the greatest"?? For 2 wins? Get a grip of yourself. My frontrunner Tyson? What on earth are you on?
Better at heavyweight than Lewis, Klitschko and Tyson.... Incredible statement, wow

Precisely, but I'm beginning to think there's no point in explaining it to these two man.

Hahahahaha

And I'm 15?... Stay in school kid, and learn what irony is, you idiot.

Irony at its finest, take note Morlocks

 

Listen Dumbass, there is nothing wrong with admitting you're a kid. It is obvious to any adult from your juvenile ideas and manner of argueing. Embrace you childhood while you have it! You like boxing. That's cool! When you grow up you'll have a deeper understanding of the sport and it's nuances (if you don't know what that word means, ask your Mama or Daddy) and look back on your current adolescent opinions and laugh. I promise big boy. But until then, your wacky, zany ideas make you out a DUMBASS. But don't give up! I'm rooting for ya. If you don't understand things just ask and I' steer you right. Goodnight DUMBASS!

 

The irony once more... Of that message haha
You're saying dumbass yet I'm the kid, settle down kiddo.
No retort for the actual topic of conversation then? Nor answers to the questions? Thought not, point proven, enjoy your exams

 

Hey, I wish I was teenager like you. Believe me, getting old is the hardest fight of all. But, DUMBASS, even at your young age, if you can not see the greatness of Tunney, the Mauler and Sonny, but instead go on and on and on about Patterson s greatness, YOU ARE A DUMBASS. You cannot change history to fit your wishes. Like I said, you're just making foolish statements due to your age and lack of experience. It won't be held against ya. You are a neophyte (if parents aren't home ask your babysitter to look up the word for you), so nothing much in the form of boxing wisdom is expected of you. It's just heartening to see young fans still interested in the sport. I like ya DUMBASS, ya got spunk. Have a good day at school study hard and give yourself the best chance when you grow up.

 

I won't stoop to your level of childishness, I'll keep it simple, because that's what you are.

I'll ask again, no retort/answer to my questions then? A big message full of meaningless petulance is all I can see.

I've stated what everyone else with common sense recognises, that Tunney is easily one of the all time greats, but that'd be at light heavyweight, where he fought the majority of his career, and what he's actually most widely known as. Nowhere near a top 10 heavyweight though, obvious to ALMOST everyone else on this forum.
Unsure where you've got the Patterson thing from? He scraped into my top 10, when it gets to 10 it could be any one of a few, he sneaks in for me. It's no more or less complicated than that. I've not otherwise brought him up. You have.

There are undoubtedly many people who have more boxing wisdom than me, you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't one though, which is unfortunate.
You've embarassed yourself really, that's on you, if you aren't a child, then some growing up really does need to be done fella.

 

Yet Patterson is? Find me ONE list that Has Patterson in the top ten on this forum. Guess I'll be in for a long wait.

 

Patterson is a heavyweight, that's the first stumbling block hurdled. If you'd bother to read the thread, someone actually has him at number 7. Hope that's quick enough for you

 

You are perfectly entitled to place Patterson in your top ten if you so wish,but saying he is a heavyweight whilst placing Tunney only as a light heavy is illogical and inconsistent.
Floyd won the crown weighing 182.25lbs,for his first defence he weighed 184lbs ,for his second 187.25lbs.
Tunney weighed 189.5lbs when he won the title,189.5lbs ,for his first defence and 193lbs for his second.

You can't include the former and exclude the latter on grounds of size ,and many if not most ,would pick Tunney to beat Patterson imo. Tunney was an all time great light heavy and not so great at heavy. but arbitrarily deciding he cannot be included aa s heavyweight because he fought less at the weight is nonsensical.

Ezzard Charles was a fine middle and a great light heavy yet,like Tunney he won the heavyweight title,you can't airbrush him out of boxing history at heavyweight though.
Bob Fitzsimmons won three titles whilst never being over the light heavyweight limit ,where would you place him?
How about Sam Langford ? Ray Robinson?,Henry Armstrong? Roberto Duran? Manny Pacquiao? Floyd Mayweather?

 

Can you redirect me as to which post?

 

You'll need to wait for your answer. He got suspended from the computer by his Mom for not cleaning his room.

 

What I'm saying has nothing to do with actual precise weights, it's about the categories they fought in.

Im not trying to say he didn't fight at heavyweight, this is a top 10 thread, I'm simply claiming he doesn't belong on it because he was a great light heavy, and not a great heavy, saying otherwise would be what is nonsensical.

You may be taking it too literally, when I say he wasn't a heavyweight, I mean in the same way as I might say Wilder isn't a boxer. He obviously is a boxer, but isn't a good technical boxer is what it means.

Certainly.

 

I find it just as credible for someone to rate Gene Tunney as a top ten heavyweight as Floyd Patterson.
Indeed I've seen Tunney on quite a few top ten lists ,but never Patterson.So while I agree you have a perfect right to rate Patterson in your top ten , I don't accept your reason for criticizing someone else's for including Tunney in theirs.

 

Absolutely, and be that your agenda/opinion. I disagree and will continue to do so, hey ho, accept it or don't, it remains the same for me