a sense of humor goes a long way, friend. however, the topic is serious. don't think i'd be on this board for several years merely to troll. my interest is in the relative demands of evidence pertaining to two fighters from different eras. It seems that the farther back in time the less rigorous the demands that are made on actual evidence of skill and ability in grading a fighter. i have presented two fighters, one of which we have basically heresay regarding, and heresay from people who never saw the evolution of the sport. the other, admittedly a disappointment but a decorated amateur and prospect, and of whom we have a great deal of empirical evidence. i like to see how people rate these two. now is that explicit enough for you? or do we need another thread on the magical properties of jim jeffries ball sweat?