Ring magazine is officially lost it

American biased list. Boxrec more accurate.

 

Boxrec's all time lists are flaming piles of garbage, that completely change every couple weeks.

Currently they have Chris Byrd and Jimmy Bivins ahead of Larry Holmes and George Foreman.

They had James Toney and Young Stribling as top 10 all time heavyweights before.

 

I did, Schulz clearly won the fight. I mentioned media cards as proof of authority.

 

Who do you see as being the serious omissions?

 

As the late Eric Morecambe once said, they're playing the right notes just not in the right order.

 

Then who do you feel has been particularly sold short?

 

Haven't checked it for a long while tbh.

 

Lewis and Wlad for definite.

 

Yeah but you argued Kid Norfolk and WK are around the same footing , no?

 

⁸

No, I pointed out that both threw leaping punches, after you criticised Norfolk for it.

Norfolk was an excellent fighter at his weight, but I've never argued he was an ATG heavyweight

It is much easier to argue against strawman though. Especially when you are a moron wasting his time pushing multiple pointless agendas

 

I stated Norfolk leaped off the canvas with both feet , which he did,

You then likened WKs boxing ability to a soup can from 100 years ago. No point redacting it now , you said what you said.. Even I wouldn't liken WK to Kid Norfolk.. lol

 

I don't understand this h2h nonsense in rankings. Yes, I would also guess that many modern HWs, not even great ones, would beat Johnson and other early champions, but so what? Apart from being hypothetical it doesn't really say anything more than that boxing has progressed (quite probably largely because of PEDs in the last decades).

Do I believe Di Stefano, Pele and Cruyff would be as dominant if they was magically transported to today? No, I don't, but it doesn't effect my ranking of them one tiny bit. If 60's Pele was transported to today he perhaps wouldn't be as good as even someone like Lukaku, but no serious football fan, absolutely no one, would dream of ranking Lukaku ahead of Pele in all time standings. That would be absolutely absurd. But in boxing I actually see reasoning along those lines fairly often.

The only reasonable way to rank a fighter is after what he accomplished in his own time. That's how athletes in other sports are ranked and boxing shouldn't be an exception.

That doesn't mean that ranking becomes easy, but The Ring's rankings doesn't seem that bad to me from that perspective. When ranking Johnson you'd have to look mainly at what he did up until winning the title and that was a lot. His reign was weak, though, and I can see how that hurts him in the end estimate, but for several years he was among the most dominant forces in HW history.

Rocky is a hard one since he spent a relatively short time at the top but never lost. Ali and Louis are the top two. You can argue the order, but not in any convincing way that those two shouldn't be at the top. After that it becomes much more difficult imo. How do you compare Rocky's legacy to Lewis's and Wlad's for example? They suffered bad losses that he never did, but were fighting at the top level for a much longer time. Holmes had a long time of dominance, but never really cleaned out among the top guys so where does that leave him? He did after all beat guys that beat those guys. How much does that help?

We shouldn't act like this is a simple exercise, and The Ring's attempt looks like a good go at it for me.

 

Your entire criticism of Norfolk was that he leaps of the canvas.

I pointed out Wlad did that multiple times against Pulev

That had nothing to do with Norfolk's ranking as a heavyweight, when he was a Light Heavyweight who fought up to that weight.

That a moron that does nothing but agenda post, insults Norfolk's abilities doesn't carry much weight.

I'm not redacting anything. Anyone can read what I said here.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/andre-ward-vs-harry-greb.672684/page-3

Maybe I'm being too harsh on you, maybe you aren't intentionally creating a strawman, but instead have the reading comprehension of a particularly stupid rock

 

When that observation you pointed out proved to be a falsity you went running.

So again , you likened Norfolk to Wladimir Klitschko.. I find that funny.

Btw , ill challenge to to debate anyday and when i get serious about it ill wipe you through my ass crak .

 

Perfectly defensible list.

Their top twelve is nearly identical to mine, even if the order is a bit different.


There are reasons that RING has declined in the last decade, but not because of that four-year-old list.