Top 200 list [bona fide]

This is insanely illogical. Your reasoning for a SEVENTY-PLACE gap is flimsy to the point of absurdity.

The sole reason you have given for your low ranking of Pacquiao is that he has lost three times and drawn twice in a career of 50+ fight career where he was fought in many divisions, held many titles, and fought HOF boxers many times.

By the very same logic, there is no justification whatsoever for your comparatively very high rankings of Thomas Hearns, Roy Jones Jr and Felix Trinidad.

 

I don't understand. Please explain.


How exactly would putting this guy (who is not a very popular or overly well-known boxer)...

This content is protected

...create debate????

How would placing William Joppy at 143rd in your top 200 ahead of Erik Morales and Azumah Nelson create debate?

What exactly was the debate that you thought would be created by that decision, or what was the debate that you wanted to happen?

Surely if you knew anything about William Joppy's career, accomplishments and abilities, then you would know that placing him as the 143rd best fighter of all-time ahead of guys like Morales and Nelson would not create any debate at all, but would just leave you open to ridicule, your list bereft of any credibility, and your threads awash with jokes at your expense??

Please explain.

Again, I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about here mate.

- You wanted Calzaghe to get his due after the Hopkins fight.


In order to achieve this, you did NOT...

- Make a thread in the immediate aftermath of the bout calling for people to give Calzaghe his due.

- Make a thread at any point calling for people to give Calzaghe his due.

- Make a thread specifically about the Hopkins v Calzaghe bout.



Instead, what you are claiming you did, is...

- Wait for the best part of a year and then write an entire top 200 list placing Calzaghe at a pretty nondescript and acceptable 86th place...



I don't understand your choice of tactic to gain Calzaghe credit at all. Can you explain this as well?

But on that list you have Calzaghe at 86th place, and now on your "real" list you have him top 50?

Why did you make a list with him at number 86 to say to people "Look! This is where Calzaghe stands on an all-time list!", if you really believe he was top 50?

Yet again, this doesn't make any sense at all.

This is becoming a common theme here I know, but...

This makes no sense at all either mate.

It had to be a top 200 and not a top 100 to show that Calzaghe merits inclusion in such a list and gain him the credit he wasn't getting, but then you place him within the top 100, at 86th?????

What was the function of the other 100 then, with William Joppy in it?

I mean, was it to create debate or was it to gain Calzaghe credit (somehow) by placing him much lower than you truly believed he deserved or was it something else??????????????

One last point: If you are the Zen Master expert on older boxers like you are portraying yourself as, then why didn't you know of some of the biggest fights on the resumes of Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri? Are those two boxers in particular just holes in your knowledge?







Can any of these questions be answered?

 

who did jofre beat to place him too high...in fact he sucks, in his most notable fight

 

I am very happy with it as I have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that you are a liar sir, and anyone who ever reads this thread or refers back to it will see that very plainly. :good

This is insanely illogical. Your reasoning for a SEVENTY-PLACE gap between Calzaghe and Pacquiao is flimsy to the point of absurdity.

The sole reason you have given for your low ranking of Pacquiao is that he has lost three times and drawn twice in a career of 50+ fight career where he was fought in many divisions, held many titles, and fought HOF boxers many times.

By the very same logic, there is no justification whatsoever for your comparatively very high rankings of Thomas Hearns, Roy Jones Jr and Felix Trinidad.

 

do not include the fights of the fighter when he is only a prospect. when we do an ATG list, we must start from the point a boxer becomes a contender and end it when he ceases to be a contender.

 

I must admit, I do agree to an extent.

Early career losses when a fighter may be overmatched or may just be green and still finding his own style etc, or near-end losses where a guy is clearly and undeniably shot to ****, neither of these categories of losses have a great impact on my assessment of their greatness.

Henry Armstrong lost his first pro fight. Obviously the guy he was in with was no great shake, seeing as he was fighting a complete novice in Armstrong. Does that loss hurt Armstrong anywhere near as much as if the same guy had beaten him when Henry was a world champion? Of course not. You're not the same fighter in your early career as your world level days. It's stupid to treat them the same.

 

Another thing I like is that Trampie's reason for having Pacquiao 119th is that he has 3 losses and 2 draws, and yet he promotes himself as an afficianado of boxing from the early 20th century. Does anyone want to tell him to look at the number of losses and draws on those guys' records?

If that's the flimsy basis that one fighter is being judged on, at least be consistent and get someone like Emile Griffith moved down to about 180!

(Personally, I see Griffith as a top 30 man myself, as I don't make judgements on numbers)

 

my problem here is when to stop taking into consideration the fights of a fighter...
say, dela hoya, would the pacquiao loss still have an impact in his lagacy? larry merchant says no, i would say yes because he is still considered to 100 p4p before the pacquiao fight
every fight of a fighter is considered and affects his legacy so long as he is a top 100 p4p fighter.

 

I disagree completely.

Oscar losing to Pac, Tyson losing to Williams, Jones losing to Calzaghe, Leonard losing to Camacho, Whitaker losing to Tito, Duran losing to Camacho, Chavez losing to Tszyu, Ali losing to Holmes, and on and on and on and on and on....

There's comes a point in a boxer's career where a loss no longer affects their greatness/all-time standing. That point is called being shot.

 

leonard,chavez and tyson is not a top 100 guy in that fights...

oscar is still top 100 because of the close PBF fight..
i would say that jones is not a top 100 guy in the calzaghe fight..

 

Good but did you forgot Esteban DeJesus and Ken Buchanan

 

good point alex

i think they would be lower top 100 or 110