Is anyone else getting tired of the revisionist?

Quarry was okay. Beat some good contenders. Fought plenty of tough fights on his way up, took on some danger men.

Morrison was mostly a hype job. Fed on has-beens and set-ups. 44 year-old Foreman was his best win, and he ran a lot in that one.

 

:good

 

You should get a therapist, you read things that nobody ever wrote on here, Hookie.

 

1st off Gaul pick's Quarry over Louis in a recent thread, so he might be one of the Quarry faithful you mention...no offense to Son of gaul intended!

2nd I have heard a few of the comments you refer to here on as well...BUT they are a minority, sometimes by people with a clear bias or agenda...other times just trying to stir the pot up! But you have generalized the extreme comments and described them as the norm...

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

By the way I like Quarry, and believe if he were prime today he would be a contender to win an ABC title and maybe even have a couple of nice defenses with it...But not dominate...not today or probably any era! But he would be ranked and a challange in most!

 

I feel that 'revisionists' often tend to elevate with bias the great fighters who skills are not as obvious or 'in your face' as say Jones Jr's or Tyson's. Fighters such as Hopkins and Holmes are two that come to mind. Just like anything in life, the masses(some uneducated in boxing) tend to have a sweeping opinion, and it could just be the flashyness theyre attracted to, or it could just be that obvious. But the educated study everything, which is great, but its a hobby to them. They're looking for a more obscure opinion, its the challenge to find one and they often force it. And the educated become arrogant and look down on "the casuals".

An example of this is the prime Holmes vs Tyson debates, in which Holmes does get favoured on here. A casual fan will have seen the odd fights from each and the fight they actually had and say, "yo dude, tyson would knock Holmes the **** out lol" and then the revisionist will break his neck to pull up on technical aspects the casual may not be educated in and force favour for Holmes. Write a 17 chapter essay with itellectual insults and pompousness included. But what would actually happen? Whats the closest thing to knowing? The fact that regardless of reasons and excuses, Tyson did destroy him.

Also because the casuals lack the knowledge they do, the revisionists are completely free to twist and exaggerate.

 

Not sure the 2 best examples there Pachilles

 

You're a mutant combo of both ******* spawn of MAG1965 ye be:smoke

 

Do I need to justify myself to you? Nope, I don´t.

But I will do so nevertheless and show true greatness myself

Quarry was a very good contender and would be so in any era. Morrison was decent but nothing more. I don´t make h2h lists, too much speculation. I rate Wlad borderline Top20 and Vitali Top30.

I´ve got Johnson as my number one actually, but that´s because I have two lists. One for pre 1920s fighters and one for the time after. Dempsey is Top15 in the latter one. Tunney isn´t on the list, he did not do enough to earn a spot.

I go mostly by resume, achievements, longevity and dominance btw.

 

You answer to fast, I wasn´t finished with my post :bart