I don’t have an agenda. I’ve already stated I agree with ur explanation of what u consider “boxing”. It’s when people throw around the term...
Entertaining scrap for as short as it was.
Excellent list although I’d wager many will have a problem w Frazier standing
Jersey Joe Walcott beat both Harold Johnson and his Father (forget his dads name).
Their thrilla in Manila is a candidate for best HW fight ever…the first although not disappointing couldn’t possibly live to that hype.
That explanation makes more sense. Depended upon what ur definition of boxing really was. I have no issue w that explanation. There are some that...
His “boxing” style was as an aggressive brawler and I’d add counter puncher. Even being a brawler type is in itself a boxing style…was it a style...
Tunney wouldn’t be facing a two year rusty Marciano (not sure Tunney beats a prime Dempsey). He’s extremely unproven at HW. Think only seven...
Can’t see there being a wrong answer 2-4 as all have excellent career wins. If it’s strictly title reign that’s a different story
Def close fight worthy of a rematch but usually it’s the opposite. Stating Charles won most of the first six while Marciano won most of the rest.
I’ve never heard anyone think Charles won this fight…never even heard anyone say it’s controversial. Not sure why u would say that knowing u...
Do- Marciano, Ali, Archie Moore Donts- Jimmy Bivins, Jack Johnson, Max Schmeling
Tunney was a good boxer for his time but other great boxers (far more proven at Hw) tried and failed miserably to keep Marciano off of them. This...
I’m talking about HWs not mixed
He beat more than Charles? Thought Charles had like 25 wins
