The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

Yeah ****ing good, you are driving me to regular profanity here. But you should be actively thinking of Ike Williams. Such a tough era he fought in. Dawson and Joyce were Murderer's Row level themselves, and so was a welterweight Bratton an equivalent opponent for the lightweight champion.

 

Fan boy :-(

I defy you to separate Williams and Williams by a tier. Let alone ****ing four or five, ****. I'd have it like:

28. Ike
31. Holman

Reasonably it could be the other way round if you like them in reverse. But four or five tiers...

 

Hopkins is totally greater than Zarate. Greater than Sanchez, too. No doubt about it. I like Carlos Ortiz.

Anyway, this thread quite mightily proves that lists going past the top 12 is just nonsense. It's all a big cluster**** past a certain point.

 

You are so far offering little to have faith in when you seem to believe an Ike Williams is, I don't know, fifty or something, when Holman is much, much higher. I can drop Benny Leonard. I can drop Archie Moore. I can't even be bothered to go into Rodriguez-Griffith. But Williams and Williams are so close in career terms they may as well occupy the same spot. I wish you'd graciously acknowledge this grave oversight and appreciate that Williams is considered a top five lightweight by those familiar with him.

I admitted it when I overrated Tunney. Come on.

 

No.



Imma ask you something though: Why so much more love for Zarate than Gomez? He smashed him up, ya know?

 

So Watanabe doesn't have a chance then:twisted:

 

hey i thought my regurgitated Louis points were good.swap him with Napoles, jofre or someone.I demand it.

 

Why are you coming at me with all these sources? You know as well as I do that they are generally full of holes and overall quite ****. Packey McFarland would be lucky to feature. Jack Britton, Johnny Dundee - plenty of boxers are overlooked. I thought we were trying to come up with a list for the real historians as opposed to the Steve Bunces of this world? Christ, Benny Lynch was above Williams on Boxing News. Aaron Pryor! Azumah Nelson... Anyone who knows anything about Ike will shake their head at that.

It seems you are trying to squirm out of this one rather than admit you're underrating Ike Williams by some way. Every rating I come up with, I can justify the rating (whether it is to everyone's taste is another matter, but the point is, there will be a strong degree of reasonability to it), which is why I'm so tentatively expanding and have only settled on a top twenty.

You've put yourself in the firing line and I appreciate that. But admit your oversights. Ike was a ****ing beast and there's no way you can separate him from Holman by four or five tiers. Ike is not an oversight. He was one of the very greatest lightweights ever.

 

Excuse me. My gripe was the spacing between Williams and Williams which is totally unjustified. That is like rating Duran #28.

On the contrary to the gentle swipes you take at me (fan boy and such), you do of course realise you are an equal fan boy of Holman. I hope you do anyway. And that you rate him higher than what most would. And that most rate Ike higher.

Fine with me if you stay entrenched. That's stubbornness born from irrationality rather than a sensible view. You can see they are at the very least equal to each other. Rating them so far apart is akin to having Canzoneri #14 and Ross #31. Or just ridiculous.