Where is Holyfield on your ATG Heavyweight list?

Why would I even be bothered about a poll formulated off the back of the mentalist and completely illogical ideas of ****wits like you Tommy?? In any case I've got a better idea you could go throw yourself under a train I'd much rather see that :good

 

go **** yourself

 

Actually it's "lineal".
"Linear" does mean something along "relating to connecting lines or chains", but "lineal" (which etymologically stems from the same Latin word) means something in a direct line of descent or ancestry.
Wikipedia is far from a reliable source, but they got it right by naming their article "Lineal championship": [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_championship[/ame]

It's also no coincidence you get 0 results when searching google for "linear champion", but get 43700 results when typing in "lineal champion"...

 

Yeah how about no? atsch
What a ****ing joke

 

Yes you are aren't you tommycunt

 

speak for yourself dickwad.
I mean rockyssplitbrain :deal

 

It must be an American/English thing - everyone on my side of the pond uses the term linear champ - infact most of the american journalists I've read discussing the same thing use the term linear aswell??? so yeah bit odd but I'm not about to start arguing about such a pedantic matter -who really cares anyhow these guys are pricks and you are for even hinting at siding with them - oh welcome to the party pal :hi:

 

Nah, mate, I'm not siding with anyone. As a matter of fact, I told myself to absolutely steer clear of this entire "discussion".
It's just that as a linguist I felt the need to chime in about this with the truth. Cause that's what it is. And I'm pretty certain it's not an American/British English-thing. It's just that the two words are pretty similar both in spelling and meaning, so that people are bound to use the wrong term, which I've actually heard quite a lot of people do.
But, as you said, it's quite a pedantic matter, and certainly not one worth getting upset about.
I wouldn't even point it out, if someone was to use the wrong term. But, as there was a discussion about which one was right, I really just wanted to inform you. I know I would like to be corrected, if it was me to unknowingly use a word incorrectly, that's all.
If that makes me a *****, so be it!

 

Apologies Tony you seem like a decent fella - yeah I even heard Michael Buffer I think announcing on a past fight that it was for the linear heavyweight championship of the world - I don't think I've ever heard or seen the term lineal either spoken or written - it's always been linear??? :huh Funny that I bet that's maybe the most mistaken word in the world - thanks for the heads up :good And top marks for not siding with those losers - PS not everyone on here is an ******* - TommyGunn/TommyV/Powderpuff Puncher/Magoo are the usual ones who just try to belittle anything anyone says and and just set off every thread by launching into put downs and **** takes - and aren't even above offended the dead (and their families) just to try to get one over on you - everyone else tends to be pretty much regular fight fans who are just interested in all things boxing - again apologies - for a minute I thought TommyGunn had pulled in one of his sheep for back up

 

Okay folks,

I think it's time shut down this thread.. Rockysplitdick has hijacked the whole thing and now it sucks..

 

Well Rocky, Before I attempt to address your points I will make an observation about your general nature and disposition.

Despite some of the glaring lack of reasoning ability demonstrated so far in many of your posts, I refrained from name-calling and tried to keep the post on topic and point-to-point.

Your response, liberally sprinkled with "Dumbass" indicates the overall level of your discourse. Anyone who sees things differently from you (pretty much the entire forum) becomes an automatic dumbass. And as far as personal insults go, repeatedly tossing Dumbass at one with an opposing view is scarcely indicative of much imagination, even in the trash-talking department.

First of all, your statement is patently false. He was not at his worst of his entire career.

He was worse against Williams and McBride, to name just two.

Not probably worse. not possibly worse. DEFINITELY worse.



What you might be trying to get out, was that he performed worse in the Douglas fight than he had up to that point. (again, not true, but a good deal closer to the truth than your earlier rash statement.)

And what does that matter ?

If he was young (23), and in his prime (which he undoubtedly was), and he still lost by KO, then that's a measure of how he was at that time.

By your reasoning, you could excuse pretty much any loss by any fighter by saying he could have beat so-and-so, except for the fact that he lost.

Tyson was prime and fought a good fight. It's the only evidence we have of how he would have performed against Douglas (DID perform, in fact).

And after making such a spurious statement you go on to say:

A bit ironic, given the redundancy of your position.

No you're wrong on that point as well. You (wrongfully) assume that, because I didn't agree with your position, then I didn't absorb what you were saying. Fact is, I did absorb what you were saying, gave it consideration, and rejected it as subjective, lacking in substance and being logically inconsistent.

No, you are again mistaken. Even you wouldn't rank Holmes over Ali on the basis of their meeting. Ali was clearly shot when they met. Such was not the case for Tyson when he faced Douglas. Both men were prime.

No. Not "end of." Bowe was, IMO, superior to Holyfield, head-to-head, but by overall accomplishment and resume, nowhere near as good.
And here again, you make the mistake of equating hea-do-head superiority with overall superiority. Most commentators don't use head-to-head- as the sole measure.

Your problem is partly one of definitions and criteria. If you want to talk about who was greater head-to-head, fine. Most of your comparisons have to be hypothetical, as most on your list never met.

And even when they did meet, both at prime, you come up with caveats and excuses to stick to your original viewpoint, as you did with Tyson and Douglas.

This makes your whole ranking system highly subjective, as you can't KNOW how Demsey would have fared against Lewis, for example.

But as I mentioned already, most observers factor in what the fighters actually DID do, and that's why you're unlikely to see anything resembling your rankings in anyone else's list. Here or in RING or anywhere else where boxing afficiaonados, from neophyte to expert, compile such lists.

It's unclear whether your use of dumbass refere to Mike or to me. (I'll assume its the latter.)

Fact is, your relative ranking of the pair DOES run counter to your stated methodology. Your poor reasoning ability just handicaps your ability to grasp that fact.

Actually, he was. Literally and figuratively. He fought a good gight and came close to stopping Douglas, who fought an even better fight.

And again, you illustrate the subjective nature of your thinking by posting

That is what's known as speculation. As i've explained to you, people more qualified than you to make these judgments, tend to put a bit more weight on what actually happened, as opposed to what might have happened.

And in what manner is that relevant ?

The fact that he was an underdog merely tells us that the bookies expected Tyson to prevail. And this becomes irrelevant after the fight is actually fought.

If this were not so, we wouldn't need the actual fights to take place.

We would simply ask the bookies what the odds were and dispense with the training camps etc.

Liston would have beaten Ali and been ranked higher based on his betting favourite status.

Now in light of what i've explained to you, that's funny.

So far, that's the first sensible thing you've said.

Wrong again. (Your good sense didn't last very long.)

There are no pure linear champs. When Rocky retired, he took linearity with him to the grave. And Even when it was restarted, it ended again with Ali's retirement after the Spinks rematch. And again after the Lewis retirement.

Linearity is all nice and fine, especially if we had only one belt. But we have four. And sometimes the linerar champ is recognized as "the man' and sometimes he clearly isn't.




In summary, Your list is your list and you're entitled to put David Haye as #1 alltime if you so choose.

However, as has been pointed out, the list is not very defensible and fails to stand up to the most cursory of scrutiny. It is highly subjective, inconsistent, and lacking in coherent criteria, not to mention a fair few outlandish rankings.







P.S.

There's a toggle key on your keyboard that you need to find.

And use.

This content is protected

 

I didn't use any offensive names towards that ***** at all until I pointed out that the word he was trying to use was 'LINEAL' (Which is correct you absolute ****ing spastic). He's a tosser who hammers at his keyboard while foaming at the mouth if someone disagrees with his 'logic'.

Arsehole. Total arsehole. He's the Marciano version of duranimal.

 

He does seem to have anger issues.

 

Chuchulain, the only people I considerer Dumbasses (oh that's so offensive sorry atsch - obviously it's alright for somebody to tell me to go **** Rocky Marciano's dead corpse????) are the people who consider it flawed logic to suggest Riddick Bowe might actually have proved that he was, at his best, better than Holyfield by virtue of actually beating him at his best??? I'd actually call that glaring ignorance of the visual truth actually.

You may have refrained from name calling (big whoop) but your overall tone is just as offensive BTW - and I'd call that indicative of the type of person you are - ie a pretty silly one for siding with a bunch of people who are obviously arrogant bully's with no actually respect for history or dead people or their families - that fact that you've directed your rage at me when they were the first one's to launch into the ridiculing and name calling is another indicator of this too :good

PS I think Tyson's worst ever fight was the Douglas fight - he put up much better fights against Williams & McBride in my opinion - against Douglas he was flat lackluster devoid of any power or strength almost as though he'd been drugged - against Williams and McBride he at least slugged it out with them in the early going

PPS what planet are you on - you think the Douglas fight wasn't even the worst performance he'd put in up to the time even???? Which other performances were worse than that before it???? That's crazy I'm sorry but that is flat out wrong :nono

The fact that Tyson was young, in his prime years was not indicative of his level of ability when performing to the best of his abilities at - that's ridiculous - in that case Max Schmeling was a WAY better fighter than Joe Louis!!!! Which clearly wasn't the case - yet the mid 30's Schmeling pummelled and KO'd the absolute prime version of Joe Louis - fact is people do have horrifically bad off nights

AGAIN WHAT YOU'RE MISSING IS THAT HOLYFIELD WAS AT HIS BEST AND PERFORMING AT HIS BEST - BOWE BROUGHT OUT THE ABSOLUTE BEST IN HIM - AND HOLYFIELD LOST - HOLYFIELD WASN'T HAVING SOME FREAKISH OFF NIGHT - HE WAS AT HIS BEST AND PERFORMING AMAZINGLY WELL - AND LOST - IF THAT ISN'T 'END OF' I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS????

Did I read that right - you said Tyson fought a good fight against Douglas??? You have no grasp on reality - he fought an absolutely awful terrible fight - he didn't even show up:yikes

In fairness YOU admit that I'm right - in that Bowe is better head to head than Holyfield???????? Well that's been my point all along OMG!!!!!

You said something about me not being able to 'know' how Dempsey would do against Lewis??? What was that about?? But anyhow nor do you??? What's your point??? The thread was about whether Bowe was better than Holy?? And I do know the answer to that one because Bowe BEAT HIM WHEN THEY WERE BOTH AT THEIR BEST.

Back to the Tyson-Douglas thing I think you are actually delusional if you think Tyson fought a good fight - that is mad - are you truly serious??? PS the fact that Douglas was a 42-1 underdod is a pretty good indicator that in reality Douglas didn't belong anywhere near a ring with Tyson - were you actually born at the time?? Do you not remember?? The fight was considered a joke - possibly one of the biggest jokes in heavyweight history at the time - that was the reasoning of why the fight went to Tokyo - it was actually the first Tyson fight I didn't stay up for - that's how much of a joke I thought it was at the time too.

hahaha you say that Rocky took Linearity (you're not allowed to use that word because it's wrong BTW) to his grave when he left but then you say it returned - :huh hahahaha - and you call my reasoning a bit off??

On the subject - you think having there be 4 or however many more there are is something we should just accept and settle for??? And you consider all these belt boys to be just have just as much validity as the linear champs of days gone by??? Give me a break

 

You winge about not using offensive names and then you call me *****? and then absolute ****ing spastic?????????? and then Tosser?? Hhhm:think what would you call that??? PS I'm actually chuckling my head off while I'm typing bemused responses to all the insults I've been getting - you're the one who sounds like he might have some "anger issues"