Who Has The Best Winning Resume At175lbs?

Everything I stated was FACT.
You can't even get your head around that.
Being wholly objective facts, they are not even up for debate.
Yet you continue to argue, not me.

You cannot disagree with the actual indisputable facts I state, so you create imaginary arguments that I haven't even made.

You seem now to be implying that every one of the few observers who had Tunney the winner was directly corrupted by Tunney, and that none of those who had Greb winning could possibly have been corrupted at all.

The onus is on you to prove that.

It has nothing to do with what I've stated.

All I've said is that Tunney was the official winner.
I've said it was a hotly disputed decision, very questionable.
I've said that I have not seen the fight so I don't know.
THESE ARE THE FACTS.

I haven't pretended anything.
I've stated the facts.

Of course bad decisions happen.
But only an idiot would make a strong judgment on a fight he hasn't seen a second of.

"legendarily bad" doesn't mean an awful lot since I've noticed the relatively "badness" of decisions are not treated equally by the media. Often the outrage and uproar over a high profile questionable decision doesn't tally with what happened in the ring, and at other times even worse decisions are barely noted.

Having not seen the fight, I'm in no position to tell.

I call that fight an ND.
Which is a FACT.

 

Why do boxrec and The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Boxing both have Tunney 3-1-1 vs Greb?

 

Funny, I agree with both of those results. I also had Barrera winning all three fights against Morales and Freitas beating Casamayor. The difference is that those fights were considered close. Close fights arent robberies either way. The Greb Tunney rematch wasnt considered close. It was an outright robbery from the get go and it was well known it was going to happen before hand. But some dumbass deluded morons who either like to sit on the fence or simply have no clue what they are talking about can continue to stick their heads in the sand and tow the long mistaken line that Tunney "solved" Greb's style after the first fight. Doesnt make it so. I always fall back on Tunney's own words when ignorant people pop off. He himself said Greb had some justification in calling it a bad decision years later when it wouldnt have effected his march to the championship. That, along with the absolute mountain of evidence against that decision, is enough for me. Let Unforgiven keep pretending that without film the south may have won the civil war, boxing is as pure as the driven snow, and Tunney was the all American boy... :roll: I'll stand by my assertion that Greb has the best LHW resume ever and wait for him to answer why he doesnt.

 

You are a strange man.
I haven't made any of those claims, not even close.

 

That's what I thought. The ringside press who actually bothered to make a comment seemed to consider it fair enough.
I had Holyfield a clear winner but he did so little it probably doesn't matter.
I had Hopkins winning against Calzaghe, and similarly it doesn't matter since Hopkins was horrible in that one too. I don't know what the press consensus said about that one.

 

Anyway, back on the theme of the thread, I reckon EZZARD CHARLES has the best resume at 175 pounds.

BIVINS, GREB, MOORE and TUNNEY cannot be too far behind.

MICHAEL SPINKS deserves a mention for quality wins relative to quantity.