It's scary talking to you with that avatar. My point is simple. Big guys with big punches can't have as long as careers. I don't want to punish smaller guys for having more extended careers with more fights, I just don't want to have to punish bigger fighters (Heavyweights) who have less fights and less extended careers. Because a Heavyweight just can't fight 100 times like a lightweight, and end up in the same shape afterwards. And smaller guys fighting more is putting themselves in more danger. Because bigger guys = bigger punches. I don't know how to equate it but I don't see anyone of the last 30 years coming out worse than Ali did... unless they died in a fight or something. Wait, Jerry Quarry came out worse. I can't think of a lighter division, though, which is my point.
Sam McVey was a scary man I see your point but when you look at how much recognition the hw dicision gets I don't see the need to be soft on them. btw. what about McClellan in the lighter weights? Or Tommy Hearns? Did you hear him speak lately?
McGrain is precious. The thing is, these are all supposed to be done. I've been doing them for two months, but when I take a final look before submitting them, I end up spending another 20 hours re-checking the facts and making adjustments. ...and wait til you get a load of the next graphic.
Yeah, non-Heavyweights can get damaged too. Hearns doesn't sound all that bad, especially if you compare his situation with someone like Jerry Quarry. In your personal top 10 list. Does Ali make the cut? Just out of curiosity?
Well, it´s constantly changing and I don´t have a list ranking but I rank them in tiers. Ali is in the same as Pep, Ross and Moore between 9 and 13 in a ranking list.
GPater is correct on more than one account,Stoney.1.Please take your time.The wait is well worth it.2.We are running out of superlatives.If Ring Magazine doesn't swoop you up and pay you a ton,it's their-as well as our-loss.Fantastic work!!!:happy:happy
Thanks Clinton. This content is protected is now snarling in the corner. Go check him out. http://www.thesweetscience.com/index.php
:happy you bluffed me big time, the list has been fantastic so far but this is one placing I wholeheartedly agree with. For the record I'd have Charles 4th, Greb 3rd, Armstrong 2nd and Robinson 1st, though in theory any arrangement of those 3 would not stir any argument from me. Right, I'm gonna read it now, can't wait :good
'...when both fighters were at teir best: Duran was better' Anytime anyone brings up the Montreal Theory they should be forced to read your article, which efficiently dispells that side of the story. My favourite article thus far was the Archie Moore one, but this is a fitting tribute, which in line with your other pieces so far, a cut above the usual 'and then he fought....sparked by Hearns....then he fought....even fought Joppy...' career summaries. As you said before it's not about the prose it's about the placing, but seriously, outstanding writing pal.
There are only four places left. Langford, Greb, Robinson, Armstrong and Charles should all be in a top 10 P4P list.
He's already stated why Langford isn't gonna be in it., there's a cut off point in terms of a fighters prime occuring before a certain date. If I'm not wrong, haven't read the opening introductory offer, nor can I be arsed to skim back a page or so to when StoneHands explains to me why