Rocky is a very, very interesting subject. I think 3-13 can be justified, the widest range of any great HW.
naw 11-13 cannot be justified. he is an automatic top 10. 6-0 against hall of famers, beat 4 of the best heavyweight contenders of his era, knocked out every single top 10 contender he ever faced going 12-0 against them, always gave rematches in close fights and won desicevley 2nd time, ducked no one. hes automatic top 10. h2h rate him whered u like.
LOL holmes beat a shot to **** ali and tyson beat an older holmes i never said tyson wouldnt beat holmes now did i? next please
If ten can be justified, 11 certainly can, there isn't that much in it, a shade. I could justify Foreman being above Marciano, for example, although I don't have him above Rocky at the moment. Other great fighters I have below Rocky are Will and Dempsey, who I think should be below him, that arguably could be ranked above him. I am obviously happy at the fighters I already have above him. But again, I have Holmes at #9 and Holmes could be ranked below Rocky - so could guys like Tyson, Jeffries, it wouldn't be hard. And ther are even arguments for placing him above Frazier, Liston, Lewis. I think that the only fighters he can't possibly be above are Louis and Ali.
Automatically? An automatic top 3? I've yet to see any proof of that being reasonable from any source at all.
ok man but rocky beat guys who yes, were older, but were still capable and winning fights. ali was doing like drugs or w.e to lose weight to holmes. didnt he like land 20 punches against him? that shows the mismatch old ali being absolutely shot
You haven't? Does this help for example: Or perhaps you think your 'sources' are better more reliable and have more actual knowledge or experience?