Find me a fighter who:

[billeau2]

1) Won all his big fights under documented ideal circumstances... Both men great camps, prime career time, wife didn't do them during training... no injuries, no caveats...

2) With no contraversy, no low blows, holding a bit too much, etc

3) For heavyweights: where a great fighter was always another heavyweight, and not "one of them blowed up guys, like Tunney, or Charles. Because weight is everything and lord knows what do these two lightweights do that makes them able to fight a man with a bit more weight to him? I mean its not like lighter fighters beat big men right?

4) A convergence where this manly man of a man (the fighter) fought another such man where both were the same age, same circumstances... Not like that Ali guy who was not the same after prison, which is why he lost to frazier, "Oh wait!" Frazier was not the same, and was shop worn to some!... And Big George? Lost to Ali because the Africans got him upset...


as the saying goes: a woman tells her man after a jaunt... About the perfect man she states "He is kind, he is strong, unselfish, expresses his feelings, but is gentle, considerate...." the man interupts her and states, "You find me such a man I will f uck him!

Anyhow... You find me this paragon of fistic greatness, this man who won under ideal conditions with no conceviable caveats! With no points that could be raised about his opponent's weight, age, condition for fight, etc... About his own such actions... I mean every one knows if Ward had not hit Kovalev low... Oy vay!

YOu find him and I will give you my sig for the rest of the time I am a poster here...

The alternative? Lets accept that the sport of boxing comes from fighting, where no one cares if you are ready... The older guys could not have been ideal all the time as much as they fought, and as far as the newer guys? It shouldn't matter so much. Part of the game is accepting your relative immanent disadvantages and accepting the other man must have some as well...

Sometimes reading through here it seems like everyone has an excuse that explains away greatness. Most of it is related to size...

[Bundana]

The alternative? Lets accept that the sport of boxing comes from fighting, where no one cares if you are ready... The older guys could not have been ideal all the time as much as they fought, and as far as the newer guys? It shouldn't matter so much. Part of the game is accepting your relative immanent disadvantages and accepting the other man must have some as well...

Sometimes reading through here it seems like everyone has an excuse that explains away greatness. Most of it is related to size...

Makes sense!

[Marchegiano]

Rocky Marciano - Y'all make up excuses to not give him his due.

Fought the LHWs after he beat up every available HW worth a damn.

Beat up his peer group before they had a chance to win any awards

Beat up every logical challenger to his title

All people have to say about Rocky is he's not so great because he didn't allow anyone else to shine in his era.

The **** is Foreman or Frazier if Ali whoops their ass before they are Foreman or Frazier? exactly.

Walcott had the biggest bag of tricks HW has ever seen

Louis is the longest reigner

Charles is either the greatest or one of them at LHW

Roland had fan fare because he's the first rope-a-dope and it is genius....unless you're fighting a man who breaks elbows.

Harry had a 55+ win streak going in

Rex was Ring's choice for the next great thing.

****ell comes after dominance has already began and being world champion not just US champion matters.

Moore? Kos son.

What stops these men from shining? One another? **** no, without Marciano there they all do well against one another....rather similarly to Ali-Foreman-Frazier, you never know who'd beat who. Marciano was the one common denominator that stops that era from looking good.

[The Old LefHook]

What are these grown men blabbing about now?

[billeau2]

Rocky Marciano - Y'all make up excuses to not give him his due.

Fought the LHWs after he beat up every available HW worth a damn.

Beat up his peer group before they had a chance to win any awards

Beat up every logical challenger to his title

All people have to say about Rocky is he's not so great because he didn't allow anyone else to shine in his era.

The **** is Foreman or Frazier if Ali whoops their ass before they are Foreman or Frazier? exactly.

Walcott had the biggest bag of tricks HW has ever seen

Louis is the longest reigner

Charles is either the greatest or one of them at LHW

Roland had fan fare because he's the first rope-a-dope and it is genius....unless you're fighting a man who breaks elbows.

Harry had a 55+ win streak going in

Rex was Ring's choice for the next great thing.

****ell comes after dominance has already began and being world champion not just US champion matters.

Moore? Kos son.

What stops these men from shining? One another? **** no, without Marciano there they all do well against one another....rather similarly to Ali-Foreman-Frazier, you never know who'd beat who. Marciano was the one common denominator that stops that era from looking good.

Exactly!

I was hoping someone would mention Marciano because I didn't want to single out any fighter. Marciano gets a brunt of it. is some of it true? Sure! But are similar such trade offs in the record of other great fighters? yes it is!

To be fair lets also mention Dempsey. Here is a guy who many premier trainers who saw fighters up to Tyson, said was incredible. Are they all idiots? Maybe, just maybe, the level of general skill was such that it can be underestimated? And Jack was a puncher. No one was going to outbox the chronically underrated Tunney! So the fact that he was outboxed? I mean... how about the fact that in two fights one of them a 10 rounder, he managed to almost KO a guy who on my non-created list, would be among the 5 greatest fighters ever?

[billeau2]

What are these grown men blabbing about now?

yes sir! the adults are indeed talking! You grasped that Lefty, you get a chedder Churl, a crumket and a hot tea the way the Queen likes it!

[travestyny]

Lets accept that the sport of boxing comes from fighting, where no one cares if you are ready... .

Sometimes reading through here it seems like everyone has an excuse that explains away greatness

I think one of the most important parts of your post is the above, and especially the bolded part. What's important is indeed, fighting.

That stood out to me because, reading your subsequent post, I noticed you brought up Dempsey. But notice how the conversation has to switch from fighting to word of mouth. But the opinion of others isn't what is paramount. It's the fighting that is.

And I don't want to make this into another Dempsey thread so let's take some others that have been criticized here in the history section as well. Mayweather is criticized for not fighting certain boxers in their prime. Jack Johnson is criticized for not fighting certain fighters at a specific point in time. Like it or not, this does affect their legacies of course. It has already been proven satisfactorily to anyone who is willing to be honest about it that Mayweather tried to fight a prime Pacquiao. It has been proven that Jack Johnson agreed to fights with more experienced versions of Jeannette, Langford, and McVey. These fights didn't happen and again, like it or not, it affects Mayweather's and Johnson's legacies. That's just the way it is.

However, the reason that we dive further is because, in my opinion, it IS important to note the circumstances for the fights not happening, or more specifically, who was to blame for the fights not happening. Personally, I'm not going to weigh it heavily on Mayweather's legacy because I know it was not his doing. I'm not going to weigh it heavily on JJohnson's legacy because I know the NY Commission pulled the Jeannette fight, and the promoter pulled the Langford and McVey fights after he was busted for Mann Act violation.

I don't know much about the situation between Lennox Lewis and Rid**** Bowe, but from what I gather without giving it the proper amount of research, Bowe dumped the belt in the trash and was blamed for the fight not taking place. I've never heard Lennox criticized for this fight not happening. Should it weigh on his legacy that it didn't? Sure. I have no problem with that to some degree, just like with the above mentioned fighters. But to what degree? Should it weigh much more heavily on Bowe's legacy? I would say so, if he was indeed the reason that it didn't happen.

No one is saying Dempsey isn't great, as far as I know. Hopefully no one is doubting the greatness of JJohnson and Mayweather. But legacies, in my opinion, are built not on who says you were the greatest thing since sliced bread, but on your performances when you agreed and fought. Dempsey wouldn't need to be defended by saying this person or that person said he was great if he had fought the Wills' and Grebs'. And it's obvious that he was the blame for these fights not happening.

So I'm just trying to say that criticisms are sometimes justified, and just as greatness shouldn't be explained away with excuses, criticisms shouldn't be explained away by opinions. If Loma never fought Lopez, we'd still have Rusty claiming he is P4P better than Sugar Ray Robinson (actually he's probably still claiming that, but he's an idiot so you know) and others thrusting him into "the firmament of all time."

So as you stated in your OP, let the fighting speak for itself. But if you, yourself, refuse to fight, expect warranted criticism. The same as Rid**** Bowe gets. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about Bowe, because I'd love to know he didn't duck that fight).

The TLDR version: A fighter's own actions may justify questioning their degree of greatness in my opinion. Questions are answered not by eye tests . They are answered by taking the fights and performing. Somewhat of a pass can be given if the fighter is found not to be at fault for the fight not occurring.

[billeau2]

I think one of the most important parts of your post is the above, and especially the bolded part. What's important is indeed, fighting.

That stood out to me because, reading your subsequent post, I noticed you brought up Dempsey. But notice how the conversation has to switch from fighting to word of mouth. But the opinion of others isn't what is paramount. It's the fighting that is.

And I don't want to make this into another Dempsey thread so let's take some others that have been criticized here in the history section as well. Mayweather is criticized for not fighting certain boxers in their prime. Jack Johnson is criticized for not fighting certain fighters at a specific point in time. Like it or not, this does affect their legacies of course. It has already been proven satisfactorily to anyone who is willing to be honest about it that Mayweather tried to fight a prime Pacquiao. It has been proven that Jack Johnson agreed to fights with more experienced versions of Jeannette, Langford, and McVey. These fights didn't happen and again, like it or not, it affects Mayweather's and Johnson's legacies. That's just the way it is.

However, the reason that we dive further is because, in my opinion, it IS important to note the circumstances for the fights not happening, or more specifically, who was to blame for the fights not happening. Personally, I'm not going to weigh it heavily on Mayweather's legacy because I know it was not his doing. I'm not going to weigh it heavily on JJohnson's legacy because I know the NY Commission pulled the Jeannette fight, and the promoter pulled the Langford and McVey fights after he was busted for Mann Act violation.

I don't know much about the situation between Lennox Lewis and Rid**** Bowe, but from what I gather without giving it the proper amount of research, Bowe dumped the belt in the trash and was blamed for the fight not taking place. I've never heard Lennox criticized for this fight not happening. Should it weigh on his legacy that it didn't? Sure. I have no problem with that to some degree, just like with the above mentioned fighters. But to what degree? Should it weigh much more heavily on Bowe's legacy? I would say so, if he was indeed the reason that it didn't happen.

No one is saying Dempsey isn't great, as far as I know. Hopefully no one is doubting the greatness of JJohnson and Mayweather. But legacies, in my opinion, are built not on who says you were the greatest thing since sliced bread, but on your performances when you agreed and fought. Dempsey wouldn't need to be defended by saying this person or that person said he was great if he had fought the Wills' and Grebs'. And it's obvious that he was the blame for these fights not happening.

So I'm just trying to say that criticisms are sometimes justified, and just as greatness shouldn't be explained away with excuses, criticisms shouldn't be explained away by opinions. If Loma never fought Lopez, we'd still have Rusty claiming he is P4P better than Sugar Ray Robinson (actually he's probably still claiming that, but he's an idiot so you know) and others thrusting him into "the firmament of all time."

So as you stated in your OP, let the fighting speak for itself. But if you, yourself, refuse to fight, expect warranted criticism. The same as Rid**** Bowe gets. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about Bowe, because I'd love to know he didn't duck that fight).

The TLDR version: A fighter's own actions may justify questioning their degree of greatness in my opinion. Questions are answered not by eye tests . They are answered by taking the fights and performing. Somewhat of a pass can be given if the fighter is found not to be at fault for the fight not occurring.

On my choice of examples. It was only because they had been discussed at length in the section. Same would apply to any and every fighter. Every last one. I just wanted to pick people that had been discussed recently.

As far as making these type of points that specifically discuss the circumstances of a fight, the idiocyncracies, etc... I don't want to abandon it, it has its place. But there is a balance. And often enough the balance tilts... In this case it feels like the balance has tilted to explaining away the victories of fighters as a response to invalidating them... and I cannot stress this enough: I am talking about all fighters and none in particular.

There will always be a place to look at a fighter's legacy carefully. And there is no harm in talking about a fighter's transgressions, as long as we do not do it indiscriminantly. And the Dempsey wars are based on legit debatable issues.

[travestyny]

On my choice of examples. It was only because they had been discussed at length in the section. Same would apply to any and every fighter. Every last one. I just wanted to pick people that had been discussed recently.

As far as making these type of points that specifically discuss the circumstances of a fight, the idiocyncracies, etc... I don't want to abandon it, it has its place. But there is a balance. And often enough the balance tilts... In this case it feels like the balance has tilted to explaining away the victories of fighters as a response to invalidating them... and I cannot stress this enough: I am talking about all fighters and none in particular.

There will always be a place to look at a fighter's legacy carefully. And there is no harm in talking about a fighter's transgressions, as long as we do not do it indiscriminantly. And the Dempsey wars are based on legit debatable issues.

I agree, and I get it. I wasn't disagreeing with your post. I know that my reply wasn't strictly speaking on topic, as you were talking more specifically about how fighters were judged in the performances that they actually gave. I just wanted to add that there are other times where criticisms are warranted, and you totally get that based on your response here. It was a great post by you, by the way, and I agree.

[Rockin']

Roland

Are you referring to Lastarza? ............Rockin'