Why is it everytime someone thinks an old time heavy was good they are accused of having "an agenda"

Here is the IBROs top 20 all time heavyweigtht list, compiled in 2005. Everybody who voted in theis poll woudl have seen Tua figth.

Updated March 2005

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Larry Holmes
7. James J. Jeffries
8. George Foreman
9. Sonny Liston
10. Joe Frazier
11. Gene Tunney
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Mike Tyson
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Sam Langford
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Harry Wills
19. This content is protected
20. Bob Fitzsimmons

Just missing the cut: Riddick Bowe, Max Schmeling, Joe Jeannette, Peter Jackson, John L. Sullivan, George Godfrey, Max Baer, Ken Norton, Sam McVey and Jack Sharkey.

 

News flash: not all top 10 rankings in each year are created equal. Especially across eras decades apart. There are good well put together and logical top 10 rankings in both older and modern eras and there are downright horrible top 10 rankings for both.

Ditto for all time heavyweight rankings. I've seen Braddock on some older top 10 hall of fame lists. I'm sure we both agree he wouldn't sniff top 10 on anyone's list today.

You always fall back on the ranking angle to support your strange contrarian approach but either ignore the obvious differences in quality between different eras, resort to saying it's "subjective", or inflate the skill level of certain fighters with counter intuitive arguments.

By your own logic, one could argue leon spinx could not only beat david tua, but that spinx had the better resume.

 

I think it mostly comes form a film comparison.

 

I voted in this one. The private debate was as clean and as knowledge as I've seen. There was some not liking Rocky come in at #5.

If the vote was re-taken in 2020, I don't think Wills, Corbett or Fitz would make the top 20,

 

More often than not there in fact is a racialist undertone in the propping up of (particularly white) heavyweights from color line drawing era. Necessarily always? Nah...but often enough. And if we're putting aside disingenuous gee-whiz feigned naiveté, everybody "gets it".

 

Yes, you never get tired of this favorite argument of yours: Corbett was able to become champ in his era - while Tua couldn't in his.

To claim the crown, Corbett beat an old, inactive drunk - while Tua in his only try was up against one of the best heavies ever, who happened to be in his prime. Unlucky for him. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to say.

But, hey… I have learned in this thread, that I don't really have to say anything to you! I'm told, that it makes no sense to argue against stubbornness - and that if a claim is silly enough, it kind of defeats itself.

 

Without trying to be rude, without wanting to be banned again (first post back) I'm going to ask plainly how the hell can you believe Corbett stands a chance against Tua?

Corbett was championed by beating a stiff old drunk who had lost his luster as a fighter Tua beat foes greater then the best scalp of the Gent.

I have no bias to modern fighters I just don't see the reasoning, I like you this is no attack i would love to however hear a logical argument.

 

I think Corbett is the most overrated old timer in the sports history. I'd pick a prime Sullivan to destroy him. The fascination with Corbett honestly leaves me scratching my head at times.

 

That list, even in 2005, is shambolic.

 

To be fair, with the exception of Jeffries and arguably Johnson the top ten is solid.

 

Nahhhh, take Wlad out the picture, that top 10 is still pretty bad. There's no way Marciano and Dempsey are greater than Holmes. None. The improvements o would find acceptable(God I sound like a narcissist) would be: Lower Marciano a tad, drop Dempsey out of the top 10, lower Johnson too the 9-10 mark, bump Lewis and Holyfield to the top 10 and obviously get rid of Jeffries. Then they'd have the right names in a rough order. My top 10(in 2005) would look like this.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. George Foreman
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Joe Frazier
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Sonny Liston
10. Jack Johnson

I know that there's obviously a bias, due to needing to 'let the dust settle' and let Lewis' win over Vitali age so well ect, but I still thought that list was BAD. And obviously my list is just M.O. I've found that classicists never liked my top 10.

 

Yeah, it is slightly suspicious that Dempsey, Marciano, Jeffries and Tunney are so highly rated. I can't see any objective reasons for it.

Tunney higher than Lewis, Tyson and Holy is just laughable. That's either old timey bias, racial bias or both. There just isn't any rational reason behind it.

 

Comparing Tyson and Holy to Buddy Baer is the agenda in my book.

"If I say that Louis or Marciano were good, no none would accuse me of having an agenda. But if it's Tony Tubbs or someone, then accusations of agendas get thrown around. I don't get it."

Sounds reasonable?

 

Marciano is still rated commonly among the top 5 (I have him at number 4). To say their is no objective reason to have him rated highly is just wrong. And I'm not even a fan of his.