[Deleted by user.]

lol@me. The Bronze Bomber is a poster here.

 

If your list is based purely on head to head, then you are effectively God.

You can say that Joe Grim would beat Sugar Ray Robinson, and nobody can definitely prove you wrong.

If you are ranking based on resume, then some calls are pretty close to being objectively wrong, but not quite.

Just as some things are pretty close to being absolute knowledge, but not quite.

 

It's mostly subjective opinion, tempered by fashion. It's fashionable to say that Ali was the greatest. Was he? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not.
Who is to say that Jack Johnson wasn't the greatest? He may have been.

 

Hence it is not quite objectively wrong.

Let's face it, there is nothing wrong with Joe Grim's opposition!

 

You can argue that Ali isn't the GOAT or Brady isn't the GOAT or Jordan isn't the GOAT or Messi isn't the GOAT or Federer isn't the GOAT or Willie Mays isn't the GOAT at their sport but to say they aren't All Time Greats is moronic. This isn't quibbling about who is the greatest but who deserves to be in the argument. When you exclude certain athletes from the argument you look imbecilic to any dispassionate observer.

 

What about Bumbo Myers as GOAT?

 

Also just claiming he was forces to throw all his losses and could have beaten those guys.

It works especially well if you claim that their normal fighting style is evidence they weren't trying to win.

 

I wouldn’t call it “ wrong” to rate one fighter over another. But it would be preferable if the individual had some reasoning behind said rating

 

Mr. Magoo, it's not about saying one fighter is better than the other but saying the other doesnt deserve to be in the argument. If you said Roberto Duran is greater than Sugar Ray Leonard I might disagree with you but if you said either gentlemen doesn't deserve to be included among the greats I'd question your sanity.

 

Exact list is;

Gans
Charles
Armstrong
Robinson
Duran

If you don’t agree I’ll kill you.

 

Ah got it

 

I would say no. Just opinions as mine is now.

You can’t test these lists empirically. While they draw upon, collate and conclude on myriad facts, they aren’t facts in themselves nor do they have any practical effect.

Their intrinsic value resides in the personal, intellectual exercise and enjoyment one gets out of it putting together such lists and also discussing/ comparing such lists with other individuals who have constructed their own.

What is someone going to do with their list otherwise?

I guess with greater consensus one might feel that it makes their list more “correct” and conversely those whose lists bare little resemblance to the majority might be deemed as less “correct” or off the wall.

You will often read someone say “that’s a good list but….”. They’re basically saying it’s good only in so far as as it agrees with their own thinking/list.

Does anyone actually change their lists when comparing them with others or does possible change only ever come when discussing boxing otherwise?

If I have the thinking man’s GOAT, Ingemar Johansson, at # 1, you can ridicule all you want but you can never prove me wrong.

It’s true, it took a LOT of “thinking” but that is where I must place Ingo.

That’s my “list”, I’m not worried about the selections and placements below Ingo.

If you have Ingo at # 1 also, then you have a great “list” too! Have at it.

 

Have you ever seen @George Crowcroft's first ever list? Not long back he PM'd 90% of the forum and threatened legal action if we ever bumped it!!!! If he himself years later states it was categorically "incorrect" does that make it incorrect?

Sorry George!!!!

And Jesus wept when that Rasta Gooly dude or whatever name he was excreted his list out all over the forum. If you'd seen it this thread wouldn't even exist!

 

It got bumped ages back.

George could very well try and kill me. I think he was about 12 or 13.......or was it 8?