oh right, you're from detroit. my bad.
huh? louis is one of the greatest, why would that stuff mean 'nothing'?
end of the day, you left off louis, and the fact he beat most of them more than once, and the list is still special.
six wins over some of the greatest of all time. line up the respective win columns, you'll see the stark contrast.
so was charles. yes. and again. although burley was never a 'champion' as such. a technicality i think. resume underpins everything....
it's actually six bouts - and that's just the cream.
yeah. to be honest, your list is too good to say that you made it using a formula alone. it's obvious that you have a fluid system.
it goes without saying that any list is subjective. that's neither here nor there. my point was that a formula (rigidly applied) cannot do justice...
do you not think that the factors you mention are too intertwined to separate them?
yeah, when i got into boxing, i was fascinated by it too.
why do you like the heavyweights so much?
burt, given that you rank fighters according to their ability head to head, does this mean that all of the greatest fighters are heavyweights, as...
and this is where we disagree, but that's cool. i could go into detail about how duran made hagler fight like that, but i'm pretty tired....
there's more to knock-outs than chin, hook. foreman got knocked out by ali because he was exhausted, remember?
tyson had a lower centre of gravity and was generally more compact. different physiques. shorter, heavier etc.
