Boxing Forums


.



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53

Thread: The Top Twenty Heavies

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    452
    Cool Clicks

    Default The Top Twenty Heavies

    I thought I'd pick a fight

    Here's the criteria

    1. Great fighters beaten when they were great fighters
    2. Division wrecking
    3. Ranked fighters beaten
    3. Taking on everyone or nearly so
    4. Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact
    5. Losses to less than great fighters when in one's extended prime have a significant impact
    6. Judgement is made over one's "extended prime." The longer the prime the better
    7. Guesses over "who could beat who" have zero import. Why? Easy, because they are just guesses.
    8. Social impact has no bearing. This an in the ring approach.
    9. It is only what they did as heavies that counts.

    I think too often fighters are simply too close to really rank them. Instead what I am going to do is put them in broad groups and within those groups rank them however you want and I won't argue very often.

    Those having an argument for the top spot

    Only two men defeated over 30 ranked fighters, were champions across a decade had dominant records against HOFers and had over fifteen defenses as undisputed champion. Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali.

    Third

    Jack Johnson. Li'l Arthur was simply dominant after his loss to Joe Choyinski. In the month they spent jailed together Choyinski taught Johnson the sweet science and Johnson never looked back. The best of the four black HOF heavies of the time he retired with a 13-3-3 record against HOFers and eight defenses as champion. Clearly the best heavy in the decade from 1906-1915.

    Slots 4-7

    These are the division wreckers. Jack Dempsey who once he came under Doc Kearns and really got rolling was simply a revolution in the heavyweight division. He defeated 11 HOFers against only two losses. Though criticized today for not fighting any blacks as champion, the fact is there was only one guy Harry Wills, who remotely deserved a shot. Nevertheless Dempsey loses some position for not fighting Wills in my view. In ony 23 fights Jim Jeffries fought HOFers nine times. Jeffries went 7-1-1 with his loss coming to Johnson after a six year layoff. An athlete so far ahead of his time it asn't funny. Jeffries also didn't fight a black fighter as champion. In his case though i is hard to come up with who the logical guy would have been prior to his initial retirement. Had he stuck around another 2-3 years? The four black heavies noted above would have been severe challenges. While there is a variety of opinion on Larry Holmes' reign? I take the view there were few fighters he should have fought that he didn't. His 2-4 record against HOFers is mitigated somewhat by his twenty title defenses and defeating nineteen ranked fighters. The test of Rocky Marciano's greatness is not that he never lost. It is that he left the division so bereft of challengers it took the sport over a year to make a credible match for the vacant crown and one of the participants had already lost to the Rock. Marciano went 6-0 against HOFers and had six title defenses.

    Slots 8-9

    George Foreman gets here really on his singular achievement of winning the undisputed crown twenty years apart. It is a staggering achievement. He went 4-2 against HOFers but only knocked off seven ranked fighters. Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.

    Slots 10-13

    Smoking Joe Frazier fought in an in-arguably tougher era than Marciano and may well also have wrecked that division. It is what it is. 1-4 against HOF heavies and defeated eight ranked heavyweights. One of the five most prestigious wins in boxing history makes a big impact here. Sonny Liston was as intimidating as they come. 2-2 against HOF heavies, seven ranked heavies beaten, undisputed heavyweight champ. Evander Holyfield was at his best below heavy, but with the big boys he went 4-1-1 against HOF heavies and defeated ten ranked men and was a two time lineal champion. Ezzard Charles another guy at his best below heavy. But he went 4-4 against HOF heavies, was undisputed champ with seven defenses and defeated 15 ranked heavies. Why isn't he higher? He lost to some heavies he had no business losing to.

    Slots 14-15

    One can make a pretty good argument these guys are indistinguishable from the above group, though I disagree. Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored. Mike Tyson really only beat one HOF heavyweight and that was Holmes. His overall record against HOF heavies? 1-3. He defeated 12 ranked fighters and had two defenses as undisputed champion.

    Slots 16-20

    Jersey Joe Walcott went 3-6 against HOF heavies with almost all those fights after he was 35. He defeated eight ranked heavies but was hardly unbeatable. Floyd Patterson is a guy I think gets short shrift. Yup he got destroyed by Sonny Liston, twice. Six of his eight losses came to HOFers and the only HOFer he defeated was Ingo. But he also defeated eleven ranked guys over 15 years. Not bad. Harry Wills came along too late to face the four great black heavies pre WWI, bu in their decline he owned them. He went 15-5-6 against HOFers but all those fights were a good five years after Langford, McVea and Jeanette were past it. He should have gotten a shot against Dempsey. Max Schmeling has one of the five most prestigious wins in the history of the division. The only man to handle Louis in his prime. Six wins over ranked fighters and three wins over HOF heavies. Max Baer punched his way through nine ranked fighters and went 2-2 against HOFers.

    Now one might ask where Gene Tunney and Bob Fitzsimmons are. In my view neither did enough at heavyweight to make this list. Ona p4p basis? Those two would both belong inside the top ten here. But that's not what I'm trying to do. The other guy it kills me to leave off is the great Peter Jackson. An Australian Aborigine who went 61 rounds to a draw with Jim Corbett was viewed in his own time as a legend but I just haven't gotten my hands around his career.

    This leaves us with the open question of the Brothers Klitschko. I did not leave them off because they are still active, I left them off because though they have beaten a cauldron of ranked guys, between them they have faced only one clear HOFer to this point. Not their fault, but again, it is what it is. I also don't know how to deal with them not facing one another and what that means (if anything).

    That's my list. Have at it!
    Last edited by marbleheadmaui; 07-15-2011 at 09:19 AM.
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West,Yorkshire,UK
    Posts
    3,832
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1096
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Great post, I'll have a proper look later and give my list and views.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1619
    Cool Clicks

    Angry Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    I can't be bothered to read all that.

    The only fight people care about is prime Mike Tyson vs Anyone.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    10,337
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1052
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.

    IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck

    Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about
    Hidden Content
    Original & Best: The Sugar Man

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ex'way to your Skull
    Posts
    25,024
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    too many criteria to balance and tweak like nipples on an aging female goat: we're too busy suckin' to pick a tit.


    1. Muhammad Ali because he was great in 2 careers. 1st was built on speed and accuracy. 2nd career on taking major punishment and squeaking it out at the end. Who the hell else could make such an adjustment and still remain.......THE GREATES' !!!

    2. Larry Holmes because this guy probably even had a better chin than Ali, a better jab, a better right hand, and better stamina, and he defended his title FOREVER, and should have tied Marciano at 49-0 but was fuckin RAILROADED.

    3. George Foreman because he also had 2 fantastic Champion careers. And he maybe had a better chin than Ali AND Holmes, a better right hand and left hook, a wrecking ball left jab, though not the stamina.

    4. Joe Louis..........jus' bcuz He knew how to rock and roll, shimmy, and do the twist.

    5. Rocky Marciano

    *************THESE ARE THE TOP 5 OF ALL TIME**************
    6. jACK jOHNSON
    7. Joe Frazier
    8. JJ Walcott
    9. Jack Dempsey
    10. Evander Holyfield
    *************************************
    11. Ezzard Charles
    12. Lennox Lewis
    13. Mike Tyson
    then 14-15 is Liston, Schmeling
    ***************************************
    forget corbett, langford, baer, tunney, klitschkos, bowe, etc....thats ridiculous

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    452
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus View Post
    If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.

    IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck

    Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about
    The HOF, at this point, remains a reasonable, if imperfect shorthand for greatness.

    You do realize Stallone went in in a non-fighting capacity like guys including AJ Liebling, Budd Schulberg. Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell, right?
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    452
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Quote Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust View Post
    too many criteria to balance and tweak like nipples on an aging female goat: we're too busy suckin' to pick a tit.


    1. Muhammad Ali because he was great in 2 careers. 1st was built on speed and accuracy. 2nd career on taking major punishment and squeaking it out at the end. Who the hell else could make such an adjustment and still remain.......THE GREATES' !!!

    2. Larry Holmes because this guy probably even had a better chin than Ali, a better jab, a better right hand, and better stamina, and he defended his title FOREVER, and should have tied Marciano at 49-0 but was fuckin RAILROADED.

    3. George Foreman because he also had 2 fantastic Champion careers. And he maybe had a better chin than Ali AND Holmes, a better right hand and left hook, a wrecking ball left jab, though not the stamina.

    4. Joe Louis..........jus' bcuz He knew how to rock and roll, shimmy, and do the twist.

    5. Rocky Marciano

    *************THESE ARE THE TOP 5 OF ALL TIME**************
    6. jACK jOHNSON
    7. Joe Frazier
    8. JJ Walcott
    9. Jack Dempsey
    10. Evander Holyfield
    *************************************
    11. Ezzard Charles
    12. Lennox Lewis
    13. Mike Tyson
    then 14-15 is Liston, Schmeling
    ***************************************
    forget corbett, langford, baer, tunney, klitschkos, bowe, etc....thats ridiculous
    Forget Langford Really?
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1619
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    "Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"

    Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored

    Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.

    Same thing.

    I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    10,337
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1052
    Cool Clicks

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus View Post
    If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.

    IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck

    Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about
    The HOF, at this point, remains a reasonable, if imperfect shorthand for greatness.

    You do realize Stallone went in in a non-fighting capacity like guys including AJ Liebling, Budd Schulberg. Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell, right?
    It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
    Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

    Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

    I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    53,812
    Mentioned
    1359 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2614
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Ali
    Louis
    Holmes
    Johnson
    Tyson
    Lewis
    Foreman
    Frasier
    Holyfield
    Rocky
    Dempsey
    Sullivan
    Liston
    Tunney
    Wlad
    Fitzsimmons
    Corbett
    Vitali
    Schmeling
    Patterson
    Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    South London Baby
    Posts
    5,330
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1365
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus View Post
    It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
    Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

    Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

    I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it
    See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

    However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

    I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

    I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

    My Top 20

    1. Muhammad Ali
    2. Jack Johnson
    3. Joe Louis
    4. Joe Frazier
    5. Larry Holmes
    6. Jack Dempsey
    7. George Foreman
    8. Lennox Lewis
    9. Jim Jeffries
    10. Evander Holyfield
    11. Mike Tyson
    12. Rocky Marciano
    13. Sonny Liston
    14. Sam Langford
    15. Gene Tunney
    16. Ezzard Charles
    17. Floyd Patterson
    18. Ken Norton
    19. Wlad Klitschko
    20. Max Schmeling

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    452
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Quote Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy View Post
    "Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"

    Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored

    Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.

    Same thing.

    I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.
    Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    452
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus View Post
    If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.

    IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck

    Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about
    The HOF, at this point, remains a reasonable, if imperfect shorthand for greatness.

    You do realize Stallone went in in a non-fighting capacity like guys including AJ Liebling, Budd Schulberg. Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell, right?
    It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
    Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

    Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

    I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it
    Hold on for a second, Ali was overrated How the hell is THAT exactly?
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,829
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    452
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Quote Originally Posted by JazMerkin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus View Post
    It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
    Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

    Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

    I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it
    See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

    However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

    I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

    I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

    My Top 20

    1. Muhammad Ali
    2. Jack Johnson
    3. Joe Louis
    4. Joe Frazier
    5. Larry Holmes
    6. Jack Dempsey
    7. George Foreman
    8. Lennox Lewis
    9. Jim Jeffries
    10. Evander Holyfield
    11. Mike Tyson
    12. Rocky Marciano
    13. Sonny Liston
    14. Sam Langford
    15. Gene Tunney
    16. Ezzard Charles
    17. Floyd Patterson
    18. Ken Norton
    19. Wlad Klitschko
    20. Max Schmeling
    The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

    How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

    Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
    Hidden Content Bring me the best and I will knock them out-Alexis Arguello
    I'm not God, but I am something similar-Robert Duran

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1619
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: The Top Twenty Heavies

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy View Post
    "Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"

    Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored

    Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.

    Same thing.

    I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.
    Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.
    Losing by ko or points because you got lazy and didnt train = same thing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Heavies Fighting Heavies
    By marbleheadmaui in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-07-2011, 04:05 AM
  2. The heavies need a Super Six
    By TitoFan in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-14-2009, 11:09 PM
  3. Best Boxing Upsets Of The Past Twenty Years
    By Saddo in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 04:44 AM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 09:36 PM
  5. I wanna see the Heavies Mix it Up!
    By Mintymen in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-23-2006, 08:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Boxing Hompage | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Video Clips | Boxing Forum | Boxing Downloads| Boxing Twitter | Boxing Books | Boxing Posters | Learn to Box | Advanced Fighting Methods | Boxing Quiz | Boxing Rankings | Boxing Schedule | Betting Odds | Boxers Records | Auctions | Fun and Games | Articles on Boxing | World News | Earn Money from your Website | Boxing Equipment

Copyright © 2000 - 2017 Saddo Boxing - Disclaimer l Boxing