Consensus pound-for-pound greatest

langford #1.
ray lost to joey maxim.
why didn't maxim collapse because of that heat ?
and why no rematch.
and that was ray's only above 160 fight.
srr 147-160
lanford 140+
langford fought much bigger men and sometimes even stopped them.
if lamotta got a win over ray , one must wonder how langford would have fared against him in so many fights.

 

you and boilermaker are rapidly becoming two of the most blinkered posters on here. you post similar things, are you the same person?

 

as i already mentioned to someone who said i am mariancobretti , dinamita , maelstrom , el cepillo , etc. you think i am boilermarker.
1)i only used this name in this site.
2)i never used this name for myself outside this site
this is called a one to one correspondece.

 

i never would've accused you of being DINAMITA, he knows what he's talking about.

 

the thing with langford was that he even didn't try to fight at 160 , 175 or maintain some weight , he didn't care to fight much bigger men ,
try to imagine the outcome of ray fighting against the monsters that langford fought so many times . langford reached their balls not their shoulders even. these people would run over ray or make him run so much that the fight will turn into a catch game. and langford sometimes somehow pass the distance with them , or even stop them inside the distance.

 

Robinson was carring much more weight than he was used to. 175 Lbs. for a natural Welterweight. Constantly moving in the extreem heat. Maxim was a natural 175 pounder.

 

Clearly Robinson is my number one for reasons already stated and some others that i hold in high regard. I just want to say that if some of the fighters that are being mentioned here are to be held in the same regard as the likes of Robinson etc, then Muhammad Ali better be held in the same air in the eyes of you lot. I really can't be bothered getting into it all over again, so if people want to debate with me, please don't be offended, as all i'm going to do is dig out old posts of mine on the subject.

Once again, i have no bias whatsoever towards Muhammad Ali.

 

That's what i mean, i really can't be arsed finding my old posts on the subject, i won't patronise you cos i know you're not a nobhead poster. But the man has a truly outstanding resume, was the best of two eras, one a great one and one a golden one (he was the best of the 70's bunch for my liking). In his prime you know what he was capable of, and how effective he was. The only thing that you can have many others over him for is the thing about him being only at one weight.

But it is subjective, there are angles of looking at things. Pound for pound, in my opinion means 'regardless of weight', which for my money means a heavyweight should be assessed on the same basis as a featherweight. It seems to me that many fans take this pound for pound thing as a way of being able to assess the smaller guys alongside the bigger guys, like they are badly done to because they are smaller (in terms of analysing greatness. And that is one of the reasons 'pound for pound' was coined, but now it's here it should work both ways, and Muhammad Ali should be rated, regardless of weight, on who he beat, the quality of his resume. It's astonishing.

Of course i truly appreciate what someone like Henry Armstrong has achieved, beating up great fighters who are naturally larger than himself, and i would rate such a man above him for them reasons. But i just want to express that Muhammad Ali is on the level of the very finest fighters that ever breathed, not below them, wether he is actually rated below some of them or not. There is no gulf in class. There seems to be an agenda against him because he is so famous, i'll admit i have realised i was subkect of that earlier on in my life myself, likely the reason i had Louis above him at heavyweight, i've realised that and changed them around, no bias from me anymore.