My Top 100 of all-time

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by TBooze, Oct 9, 2007.


Page 2 of 7
  1. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,725
    3,565
    Jul 10, 2005
    Notice Dempsey did make it. The heavyweight that is.
     
    Dempsey1238, Oct 9, 2007
    Dempsey1238, Oct 9, 2007
    #16
  2. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    They are both there.;)
     
    TBooze, Oct 9, 2007
    TBooze, Oct 9, 2007
    #17
  3. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,725
    3,565
    Jul 10, 2005
    ok he is 68.
     
    Dempsey1238, Oct 9, 2007
    Dempsey1238, Oct 9, 2007
    #18
  4. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,725
    3,565
    Jul 10, 2005
    Your list of couse is very flaw. With out Ross leading the pack, it shows how flaw it is. He is number 1.
     
    Dempsey1238, Oct 9, 2007
    Dempsey1238, Oct 9, 2007
    #19
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,044
    48,171
    Mar 21, 2007
    Here's another question: Moore above Charles - what's the thinking there?
     
    McGrain, Oct 9, 2007
    McGrain, Oct 9, 2007
    #20
  6. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    He achieved more;) over a longer period of time, and no one can compete with what he did post 40 years old.

    Charles had Moore's number it can be argued that he was a finer 175lber, but for what ever reason ($ is suspect) Charles moved up to Heavyweight without doing everything he could of done at 175.

    Moore on the other hand dominated the division for 10+ years, was a long time Middleweight contender before that and whilst dominanting the 175lbers he showed he could beat all but the very best at Heavyweight, all with the added bias of being at least 37 years old during that period.
     
    TBooze, Oct 9, 2007
    TBooze, Oct 9, 2007
    #21
  7. brownpimp88

    brownpimp88 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,378
    10
    Feb 26, 2007
    archie moore lost to ezzard, burley, patterson, rocky, and he never won a single fight against them. Ezzard on the other hand beat more hall of famers on more occasions.
     
    brownpimp88, Oct 9, 2007
    brownpimp88, Oct 9, 2007
    #22
  8. mattdonnellon

    mattdonnellon Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,630
    1,899
    Dec 2, 2006
    Not as a critism but lately I have come across some of Nonpariel's career and I'm sure he is a tad overated.
     
    mattdonnellon, Oct 9, 2007
    mattdonnellon, Oct 9, 2007
    #23
  9. C. M. Clay II

    C. M. Clay II Manassah's finest! Full Member

    2,276
    19
    Sep 23, 2006
    Ali way too high? He's #10 for god sakes. How low do you want him to go?:lol:
     
    C. M. Clay II, Oct 9, 2007
    C. M. Clay II, Oct 9, 2007
    #24
  10. young griffo

    young griffo Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,499
    7,269
    May 18, 2006
    Fair enough.
    Whilst I disagree with some of your seletions you obviously put a lot of thought into it to come up with such a large list (I struggle to do top 10's for a single division) and should be commended for it.
     
    young griffo, Oct 9, 2007
    young griffo, Oct 9, 2007
    #25
  11. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    Thanks for noticing Greb, you made me think seriously and research that one;) (also sneaked Sweet Pea over Oscar for you:good).

    Ortiz was always on my mind (hey that could be name of a song) once I got to 50, but I seemed to have an excuse to avoid putting his name in the frame. Mainly it was: if you cannot find a place for Buchanan then why should be Ortiz be there? But Carlos was my #3 fighter of the 60s, so maybe with hindsight he was robbed slightly with the low rating.
     
    TBooze, Oct 9, 2007
    TBooze, Oct 9, 2007
    #26
  12. Amsterdam

    Amsterdam Boris Christoff Full Member

    18,436
    20
    Jan 16, 2005
    Oscar de la Hoya top 25???

    Mate, he doesn't even deserve top 75.
     
    Amsterdam, Oct 9, 2007
    Amsterdam, Oct 9, 2007
    #27
  13. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    Yeah the loss to Buchanan was pretty meaningless. Ortiz hadn't beaten anyone of note in about four years and had lost to the only decent fighter he faced in the interim, Teo Cruz.
     
    sweet_scientist, Oct 9, 2007
    sweet_scientist, Oct 9, 2007
    #28
  14. brownpimp88

    brownpimp88 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,378
    10
    Feb 26, 2007
    Why not hes beat 16 beltholders and 2 of his losses he arguably won.
     
    brownpimp88, Oct 9, 2007
    brownpimp88, Oct 9, 2007
    #29
  15. RafaelGonzal

    RafaelGonzal Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,844
    13
    Mar 7, 2006
    I take issue with the position of Delahoya..... guy has never come up big in his greatest fights and you vaulted him over guys that are far more deserving, its ridiculous was there any thought to why you have him ahead of say Marciano? thats just one name, there are a hell of alot of others I could mention, any one else agree!
     
    RafaelGonzal, Oct 9, 2007
    RafaelGonzal, Oct 9, 2007
    #30
Page 2 of 7