Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
These all-time great lists are impossible.

When trying to justify one fighters great attributes over anothers, the Roy-Hopkins argument alone shows how it's impossible to avoid hypocritical inconsistencies. Even though Roy BEAT Hopkins, he is still not regarded a better fighter by many.

The problem with boxing, compared with other sports, is most fighters only meet ONCE. It's rare to have rematches let alone a number of fights to establish the dominant fighter (with older exceptions like Robinson-LaMotta). And because of this almost every match has an excuse attached to it.

Too old
Too young
Too small
Past his best
Weight drained
Robbed

Excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses.

completely agree, even things like glove sizes would have to be brought into play

Its not hard to see that fighters like leonard, robinson, ali, frazier would of been great great fighters in any given era.

But then you reach the questionable guys like jack johnson, marciano, charles etc and wonder if their records really were buffed out through fighting just ordinary guys instead of true greats.


PS:I know ive already asked this question but..........


PERNELL WHITAKER, above the likes of hagler, lewis, hopkins


thats about as bizzare as eugene williams scoring the 1st holyfield, lewis fight 115-113 for evander!!!!!!!