If you have Ray Robinson as P4P number 1 please explain....

I think it is research, if you researched a certain fighter alot you would get a 'feel' for them abit and understand there style and basically know everything about it without seeing it.


Does that apply to David against Goliath and Samson smiting the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass,? G

 

A good indication that someone is losing an argument is when they resort to name-calling and distorting the opposition's position. Emoticon's don't help either.

In any event, you blinked.

You asserted that "Tunney beat Greb 4 times, that is a fact" --and you left it at that as if that was the end of the discussion. You completely ignored the controversies surrounding two of those wins. Now, magically, you write that Tunney 'beat' Greb 4 times. Suddenly, beat has become 'beat.'

Instead of waffling and trying to manipulate the record, why not just concede the point? That would have been more intellectually honest.

I offered you 5 fights with controversial decisions and asked you who rightfully beat who. And you avioded the question. Much like Tunney avoided fighting African-American fighters. Much like you avoid addressing that accusation.

Tunney is a great fighter. No fighter handles Dempsey twice, and then handles a still-formidable though half-blind Greb without being a great fighter.

By the way, Cavanaugh's book was among the best boxing biographies I've ever read.

 

Couldnt have put it better myself. Another poster on here was talking bout how good fritzie zivic was. Im pretty sure no world champion in history lost more fights than zivic so he cant have been that good with that record

 

Tell that to oscar bonavena

 

Sugar Ray Robinson disagrees. And so doesn't Henry Armstrong, who was defeated two out of three times by him. And so doesn't a veritable legion of good and great fighters who could not cope with the hell that Fritzie Zivic brought into that ring.

 

Stay in the General Forum, please.

 

A big part of the ol' Hank and Robinson theory is footage.

Alas we are not dissimilar to sheep and like to be told stories. Few peeps will ever actually question authority and swallow the Robinson pill. I myself am an enlightened little fellow and can clearly see that there have been a handful of greats who more than hold their own against Robinson's resume.

Fitzy boy, Langford, Wilde, Leonard, Greb. I mean those are guys you cannot say no to.

 

Name some fighters Wilde beat that are on par with Gavilan, LaMotta, Angott, Basilio, Zivic, Fullmer, Basora, Olson, Turpin, Costner, Graziano, Abrams, Belloise, etc.

The only ones I can think of that would be on the same level as even the latter half of that group would be Joe Lynch and Memphis Pal Moore. I'd hardly say his resume stacks up, not quite so much as his reputation anyway.

 

That sums up my feeling for Wilde. As great as he seems, there isn't really much in there to lift him above a Perez or Lynch in terms of 'stand out wins'. Alas, he still regularly features in top 20 lists.

 

Ay ay! Now don't be like that!

You forgot Joe Symonds also! But that is not the point with ol' Wildey boy.

The records of his opponents are pitifully complete.

The point with Wilde is he was not even a legit Flyweight! This point can never be underrated for he went onto tame Lightweights like Joe Conn. It is much harder to make your pounds count when there are less of them. For not even technically a Flyweight to take out bantamweights and lightweights is P4P in its purest sense.

 

Hold on a second. Ive every right to be here as yourself. If im right about Zivics losses (im not one for going to boxrec for every point i make) then surely its not as absurd as you clearly think. Now i may not have as many posts and **** like yourself, but for you to look down your nose at somebody for making a statement that you dont agree with smacks of snobbery and elitistism. I've no doubt Zivic was tough but my knowledge of him is limited so can you tell me what was so bad about my other post that warranted your reply. Im not afraid to admit if im wrong and im always open to being educated.

 

These are the kinds of statements that shine from new posters. Great. Be advised, though, many on ESB Classic take slights against long-dead fighters personally. Hang around and you'll understand why and may even find yourself assuming such warlike positions once you study the careers of these figures. It's like defending a big brother, these guys who you may learn to know very well.

A bit to get you started about Zivic. He had many losses during the first five years of his career. By his own admission he wasn't invested in it as a profession yet and only boxed to supplement a full-time job. After he made about seven grand in one of his fights, he smartened up and began to take it more seriously.

His resume, meaning the caliber of fighters he faced, is excellent. Count how many Hall of Famers he faced. He didn't always win, but on his good days, he was something to behold. Consider also how often he fought and the era in which he fought -in my opinion at least, the best era in the history of the sport.

Tough, cunning, resourceful, a street fighter and a ring mechanic, he was good and great enough to whip Armstrong when Armstrong was near-prime. That stands alone as a serious accomplishment. In the rematch, Zivic stopped him. You don't hold wins over Armstrong, LaMotta, and Burley, and Booker unless you are a professor in there. And Fritzie was... a professor of the darker side of the sweet science.

 

The Pitt fight scribes, as good as the came btw, called his first LaMotta fight his career golden fight. It musta been something coz Fritz was a 30 yr old welter and Jake was a big middle who fought like a freekin hurricane.