I have read everything, you said. Is it not only natural, that the thing in your post that really caught my attention, is you claim that you have never watched Loma, Crawford or Inoue?
Ray Robinson is, in a way, overrated. Not because he generally gets placed as the all-time number one, pound for pound - but because it's become so widely assumed that everyone holds this opinion, it's now seen as a sign of being clueless if you even dare to question it. Doesn't make for good debate at all. I think a reasonable claim can be made for a couple of guys - Armstrong and Greb in particular - to be ahead of him, depending on what your dominant criteria are. I'm sure even if people did keep an open mind, Robinson would still top plenty of lists, because he's evidently one of only a few who can lay claim to such a rating. He's topped my own plenty of times. But it would be nice to actually see his most passionate fans actually have to argue and justify that position every now and then, rather than it just being assumed. Robinson may well be the greatest ever, but if he is it's not by the huge margin often portrayed, in my opinion.
Tyson from 86 to 89 is the best heavyweight ever. In Holyfield vs Tyson 2 it was draw until he bit him. He was not getting it handed to him like so many people say.
I'm not trying to make anything... I simply asked, why you have no interest at all in seeing, what the fuss about Lomachenko is all about.
Oh, okay, sorry for the mixup. Just not interested in modern boxing enough to pursue it, I suppose. If I have an hour to spend watching boxing I'd rather it be some classic fight.
Ray Leonard fought a terrible fight in New Orleans. Very disappointimg approach/game plan. This guy cussed your women out and took your title laughing all the way. He fought you though. The best revenge you could come up with was run around the ring? Not the stuff legends are made of. Duran's meltdown has overshadowed Leonard's dishonorable tactics. Nobody wants to see a track meet. There is nothing wrong with movement and using angles but punching should be involved. Apply what you learned but that was weak.
I agree with one and three. IMO Louis would lose to more heavyweights of the past 30 years, largely because of size, than many fans think, but not "most."
Savold is a very interesting fighter to watch, especially against Bruce Woodcock, but he would be way too small for today's heavyweights.
Dempsey hurt Willard early, and after that he was able to fight as sloppy as he wished. He threw all kinds of roundhouse punches and was wide open. So, he looked pretty amateurish in this fight because he was in total control. The same goes for Freddie Steele against Vince Dundee. A lot of people on various posts over the years have stated the opinion that Steele looked sloppy and too eager against Vince Dundee, but what difference did it make how sloppy he looked when he was just trying to finish Dundee off? Same with Dempsey against Willard.