Brilliant and beautiful!
Why would today's fighters find it harder to go 15 rounds (if they had to) than the old-timers?
Sure, who (on a history forum) wouldn't like to see that happen?
Yes, it's quite simple... you rank the greatest boxers in whatever order you think, they should be ranked. That's it really! No need for any...
Yes, of course I have seen discussions about the strength of various eras - but what does it mean with regards to this exercise? Are you saying,...
Ok... but where does the ranking of eras come into play?
Am I the only one, who find it hard to understand, how this somehow should make it easier to come up with a proper/objective "greatness" list?...
So looking at the last 100 years, the era we're in right now is the weakest - by "general consensus"! And when was it your grandad boxed...
I don't know, if you could say they would have benefitted from fighting 15-rounders... but Pac and Calzaghe certainly looked, like they could go...
Ok, I'll try to ask again - how do you objectively rank eras from "best to weakest"?
How do you propose we do that? Do you think, there's an objective way to go about this?
No - but calling someone who thinks so stupid, is maybe a bit harsh.
If people don't agree with you, it doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid - maybe it's simply a case of them honestly seeing things differently....
He would be run out of the sport for cowardice? I remember when watching the first Hearns fight, I was pretty sure he would lose. I figured that...
So you want to take some of the best boxers over a 60-year period (from Leonard to Leonard) and compare them to the best boxers TODAY? Sure, why...
