Top Ten Heavyweight Champs of All-Time

[magnum]

lol ok tell me wot else i need to change. unlike you i can accept other peoples opinions.

you obviously dont read my posts. hell if my favortie fighters has flaws i will point them out. do you see anyone else do this? if i explain to someone how a certain fighter will win and they jump on the bandwagon and say something why the same fighter would win that is incorrect i will tell them.

i would have louis above ali although i can see ali as number 1.

even though i like mike, going by accomplishments he shouldnt be that high. holyfield and holmes should be higher.

[C0unterPunch]

yeh i don't read all of your posts lol. so my list wasn't all that bad really, you have to admit that i picked some quality fighters even if they were not parrallel to your opinions.

[magnum]

yeh i don't read all of your posts lol. so my list wasn't all that bad really, you have to admit that i picked some quality fighters even if they were not parrallel to your opinions.

i will give you that

but explain to me why that you have marciano ahead of louis.

and holyfield and holmes that low?

[C0unterPunch]

ok, personally i think that holmes and holyfield are a tad overrated but not so overrated that they don't get onto my list.
and as for putting marciano ahead of louis, well i can tell why this is controvertial (spelt wrong probs) but he was undefeated and did beat louis. i do realise that louis was well past it when he lost that fight though.
i think in hindsight i would put them in a joint position because louis did dominate the division all through the 40s.
sorry im taking time to reply i was eating

[magnum]

ok, personally i think that holmes and holyfield are a tad overrated but not so overrated that they don't get onto my list.
and as for putting marciano ahead of louis, well i can tell why this is controvertial (spelt wrong probs) but he was undefeated and did beat louis. i do realise that louis was well past it when he lost that fight though.
i think in hindsight i would put them in a joint position because louis did dominate the division all through the 40s.
sorry im taking time to reply i was eating

holmes held the belt for 7 1/2 years

holyfield was the only 4 time heavyweight champ (legitimatelly he was only 3 time, but the same as ali)

but what did marciano do to give you that opinion? really all you are really saying is marciano should be second because he was undefeated
louis held the belt for nearly 12 years.

[C0unterPunch]

yes because being undefeated is very impressive - come on even you can admit that.
and holmes was playing nobodys like spinks in the 80s, and he was only one in that division who had the talent to keep a title.
.....that was until tyson bursted onto the scene in the late 80s by beating him.
also i dont think that holyfield was fighting at the standard ali was fighting in the 70s.

post back

[magnum]

yes because being undefeated is very impressive - come on even you can admit that.
and holmes was playing nobodys like spinks in the 80s, and he was only one in that division who had the talent to keep a title.
.....that was until tyson bursted onto the scene in the late 80s by beating him.
also i dont think that holyfield was fighting at the standard ali was fighting in the 70s.

post back

it is impressive, but they were worse then the guys holmes beat.
holmes had a great jab, good speed, decent power, a good chin, good boxing ability, well the point is he is a lot like ali but around 90% as talented. so if you defend ali you can really bash him.
holmes was old as shat when he lost to tyson.
holyfield beat a lot of top fighters. and yes this discussion is about him as a heavyweight but he was able to beat top fighters at cruiser too.

[C0unterPunch]

well anyway there are my reasons for putting holmes and holyfield that low. but yeh i admit the marciano position is controversial, but i am sure many boxing experts could agree with putting marciano at the top end of the list.

[magnum]

well anyway there are my reasons for putting holmes and holyfield that low. but yeh i admit the marciano position is controversial, but i am sure many boxing experts could agree with putting marciano at the top end of the list.

so why is walcott that high?
I am guessing to back the marciano arguement

look up an experts list and tell me where they ranked the fighters. you can find them on the net. I know, I just want you to find a real expert and tell me where he is ranked as #2.

[C0unterPunch]

ok will do. i like jersey joe walcott he was a good tactical fighter. what would be your top 15?

[C0unterPunch]

and im not making any excuses but my boxing knowledge aint bad for a 15 yr old

[magnum]

and im not making any excuses but my boxing knowledge aint bad for a 15 yr old

well im only 18 and when i was 15 i knew more than you do. but i will give you that you do know a lot for a 15 year old.

[C0unterPunch]

when i was 15 i knew more than you do

i could have bet my soul on you saying that lol

[magnum]

when i was 15 i knew more than you do

i could have bet my soul on you saying that lol

well yes.

when i was 13 i was the hbo boxing forums prediction champ.
i was just trying to teach you something about boxing because you learn stuff in levels and there was a time a lot of my opinions were like yours.

[C0unterPunch]

ok, out of interest do you box?