Schmeling, Braddock, Baer, Dempsey, Tunney, Walcott=Top 15 ATGs

[Max Power]

LOL

Surely you can't be serious! Some of them guys were never even champs!

They were not even HW's by todays standards.

Not a single one of them would survive a modern CW fight.

But I suppose, as @greynotsoold points out, you can only judge a fighter's greatness by the criteria of his era...

So going by that measuring stick, as an example.........

What the HELL is a full blown bum like James Braddock doing on ANY toplist, no matter what the criteria?

The fact that a guy like this can BECOME a champ is a PROOF of how poor a quality the era was.

I think if your gonna rank boxers on "greatness" the minimal criteria should atleast be that the boxer should not have a bum record.

Marciano went unbeaten in one of the weakest eras in history (because of the war), but atleast he had a clean record. Braddock has no excuse and no place on such a list.

[ruthless rocco]

But I suppose, as @greynotsoold points out, you can only judge a fighter's greatness by the criteria of his era...

Holy Fuck!!!! You can teach a rock to think!

[Max Power]

But I suppose, as @greynotsoold points out, you can only judge a fighter's greatness by the criteria of his era...

Holy Fuck!!!! You can teach a rock to think!

Fuck you! He pointed out a simple fact that the sport has evolves, kind of like I've been saying as well. Except he is trying to spin it as if the sport is "devolving", becoming progressively weaker as usual for an OTNB poster. The extrapolation until even further past times all the way back to bare knuckles reveals that a boxer then and today, are hard to compare by record and skillset because they were so different.

OF COURSE I can agree with that!