Most Title Defenses Ever By Weight Division - Does Longevity Really matter?

First topic message reminder :

I saw this list the other day and thought it might be of interest.


Does longevity really matter anymore?

I get the feeling people don't place as much emphasis on it these days.

Seems to me to be less important when it comes to judging a fighter reading some posts.

Is it just the proliferation of belts? Many of these fighter were the man at their weight.



HW - Joe Louis - 25 Defenses - Lineal/WBA
CW - Johnny Nelson - 14 Defenses - WBO
LHW - Dariusz Michalczewski - 23 Defenses - WBO
SMW - Joe Calzaghe & Sven Ottke - 21 Defenses - WBO & IBF, respectively
MW - Bernard Hopkins - 20 Defenses - IBF
LMW - Gianfranco Rosi - 11 Defenses - IBF
WW - Henry Armstrong - 19 Defenses - Lineal
LWW - Julio Cesar Chavez - 11 Defenses - WBC
LW - Artur Grigorian - 17 Defenses - WBO
SFW - Tod Morgan - 12 Defenses - WBA
FW - Eusebio Pedroza - 19 Defenses - WBA mistake in list Abe Attell - 20 Defences - Lineal
SBW - Wilfredo Gomez - 17 Defenses - WBC
BW - Orlando Canizales - 16 Defenses - IBF
SFW - Khaosai Galaxy - 19 Defenses - WBA
FW - Pongsaklek Wonjongkam - 19 Defenses - WBC
LFW - Myong Woo-Yuh - 17 Defenses - WBA
MW - Ricardo Lopez - 21 Defenses - WBC 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No they didn't Haz.......But unfortunately they were the best fighters he fought above from the aforementioned Walcott.......

you have Norton creaming the Klits.........Hagler above Mayweather.............

So one might say you like to view the past rosily..........

He fought everyone that was available and beat quality men in Max Baer, Max Schmeling, Billy Conn, Buddy Baer and Jersey Joe. He holds the greatest championship reign in history and is regarded as one of the two greatest heavyweights of all time. He also regularly features in experts' top tens (of all time).

The only thing I view rosily is quality.

Billy Conn any better than JMM ??..........Max Baer was finished lost to the useless Braddock.........Jersey Joe beat him as I alluded to earlier.......Louis admitted that.


You rate Louis higher than Floyd and that;s the best you can do........

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Martinez is the man at middle.......and how many think he'd beat GGG ????

You're the man until someone beats you.......Number 1....you're number 1..

Wlad for me is the man........

Just like Tyson was when Spinks was champion and avoiding the HBO series.......Spinks quit as number 1 when he gave up the belt......Vitali did when he retired first time out.....

Sergio is the champion until he's knocked off. GGG may be the better fighter (right now) but he can't be called a champ until he beats Martinez. It's thinking like that that gave credence to the alphabet bandits stripping fighters and awarding titles wily nily (for their own gain).
 
If only a billionaire would step in and sort boxing out. 8 weight classes, one champion. Champion must face number one contenders. Imagine that?

How wold TRUSS react if his belove Sheikh mansoor decided to quit City but sink those billions into sorting out the boxing problem?

Oh and we're back to Floyd......of course we are.
 
Louis is a greater fighter, for me, for a variety of reasons: He didn't miss a challenge, he dominated his weight for more than a decade; he holds the greatest number of championship defences in history (at any weight), he was masterful in rematches, he crushed the only man to beat him in his prime (didn't nick a decision, he crushed him); is perhaps the greatest puncher in history. Here are a few other idiots who rated Louis top ten:
 
The late Bert Sugar had it this way:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson
 
Respected historian/writer Tracy Callis compiled his best pound-for-pound as follows:
 
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charley Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
10. Harry Greb
 
Historian and writer Mike Casey of Boxing.com rates the top pound-for-pound fighters along these lines:
 
1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Joe Gans
4. Bob Fitzsimmons
5. Sam Langford
6. Jimmy Wilde
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Eder Jofre
 
Matt McGrain of Boxing.com wrote a well-researched top 100 list this past year and had his top ten as follows:
 
1. Sam Langford
2. Harry Greb
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Bob Fitzsimmons
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Joe Gans
9. Joe Louis
10. Roberto Duran
 
In 2007, ESPN.com listed their 50 greatest boxers of all-time. The goal was not an ‘all-time, mythical pound-for-pound ranking’ but rather an assessment based on four criteria: in-ring performance, achievements, dominance, and mainstream appeal. The top ten were:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
 
In 2002, Ring Magazine published the following top ten based on a ranking of the 80 best fighters of the previous 80 years:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker
 
On November 27, 1998, all time pound-for-pound ratings were discussed on ESPN Friday Night Fights. Here was Max Kellerman’s list:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Harry Greb
5. Sam Langford
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Roberto Duran
8. Willie Pep
9. Benny Leonard
10. Ezzard Charles
 
Teddy Atlas countered with his own list:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Benny Leonard
5. Sam Langford
6. Harry Greb
7. Micky Walker
8. Roberto Duran
9. Gene Tunney
10. Carlos Monzon
 

"1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charley Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
10. Harry Greb"

If a 606v2 member wrote this list they'd be laughed off the site.

IBRO:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Joe Louis

Louis was the most fundamentally flawless heavyweight in history. He fought out of a tight structure with his chin down, hands up and his right hand in perfect punching or parrying position. Louis threw short, compact explosive punches and is regarded as perhaps the most effective puncher of all time regardless of weight. Not only did Louis carry lethal power in either hand but his punching accuracy was phenomenal. Louis threw every punch perfectly. The “Brown Bomber” threw some of the most sudden and devastating combinations ever seen. Louis holds records for most title defenses and the longest title reign in his weight class. More than two thirds of voters had him in the top 10. 26 of 30 voters had him in the top 20.

6. Sam Langford
7. Roberto Duran
8. Benny Leonard
9. Willie Pep
10. Bob Fitzsimmons

Emanuel Steward’s Top-Ten Greatest Fighters Of All-Time

1: Sugar Ray Robinson - “The best welterweight ever! A Phenomenal record at a time when records were real!”

2: Muhammad Ali - “Ali fought everybody, no matter what style.”

3: Henry Armstrong - “Fought in all those divisions and was robbed in middleweight title fight when they called it a draw”

4: Willy Pep - “Just a totally amazing fighter”

5: Joe Louis - “Exemplified the world Champion”

6: Marvellous Marvin Hagler - “The best middleweight ever, no doubt!”

7: George Foreman - “So smart in his own way, and so strong.”

8: Sam Langford - “Way before his time”

9: Manny Pacquiao - “Has gone through division after division after division! Just a phenomena”

10: Roberto Duran - “The best lightweight ever!”

hazharrison wrote:Oh and we're back to Floyd......of course we are.
 
Louis is a greater fighter, for me, for a variety of reasons: He didn't miss a challenge, he dominated his weight for more than a decade; he holds the greatest number of championship defences in history (at any weight), he was masterful in rematches, he crushed the only man to beat him in his prime (didn't nick a decision, he crushed him); is perhaps the greatest puncher in history. Here are a few other idiots who rated Louis top ten:
 
The late Bert Sugar had it this way:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson
 
Respected historian/writer Tracy Callis compiled his best pound-for-pound as follows:
 
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charley Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
10. Harry Greb
 
Historian and writer Mike Casey of Boxing.com rates the top pound-for-pound fighters along these lines:
 
1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Joe Gans
4. Bob Fitzsimmons
5. Sam Langford
6. Jimmy Wilde
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Eder Jofre
 
Matt McGrain of Boxing.com wrote a well-researched top 100 list this past year and had his top ten as follows:
 
1. Sam Langford
2. Harry Greb
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Bob Fitzsimmons
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Joe Gans
9. Joe Louis
10. Roberto Duran
 
In 2007, ESPN.com listed their 50 greatest boxers of all-time. The goal was not an ‘all-time, mythical pound-for-pound ranking’ but rather an assessment based on four criteria: in-ring performance, achievements, dominance, and mainstream appeal. The top ten were:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
 
In 2002, Ring Magazine published the following top ten based on a ranking of the 80 best fighters of the previous 80 years:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker
 
On November 27, 1998, all time pound-for-pound ratings were discussed on ESPN Friday Night Fights. Here was Max Kellerman’s list:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Harry Greb
5. Sam Langford
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Roberto Duran
8. Willie Pep
9. Benny Leonard
10. Ezzard Charles
 
Teddy Atlas countered with his own list:
 
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Benny Leonard
5. Sam Langford
6. Harry Greb
7. Micky Walker
8. Roberto Duran
9. Gene Tunney
10. Carlos Monzon
 

Well that's it then isn't it........ 

I'm not going into the d4 realm of posting suitable lists and arguments..

Suffice to say on here Mayweather is rated higher than Louis and Hagler by 30 posters to 32....My top 10 thread........You and strongy disagreeing..

So safe to say plenty of other opinions in the sport would agree..

So don't go down the "Respected Bert sugar route"......Where did he have dempsey and Lewis again ???????

When we had the Hagler and Mayweather argument you chucked two respected british journalists at me..

It's Bs..............

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Martinez is the man at middle.......and how many think he'd beat GGG ????

You're the man until someone beats you.......Number 1....you're number 1..

Wlad for me is the man........

Just like Tyson was when Spinks was champion and avoiding the HBO series.......Spinks quit as number 1 when he gave up the belt......Vitali did when he retired first time out.....

Sergio is the champion until he's knocked off. GGG may be the better fighter (right now) but he can't be called a champ until he beats Martinez. It's thinking like that that gave credence to the alphabet bandits stripping fighters and awarding titles wily nily (for their own gain).
 
If only a billionaire would step in and sort boxing out. 8 weight classes, one champion. Champion must face number one contenders. Imagine that?

How wold TRUSS react if his belove Sheikh mansoor decided to quit City but sink those billions into sorting out the boxing problem?

He can sort out City.........But as soon as he buys out all the alphabet titles and has one title............Some other cretin would start the ABC...XYZ........

Boxing is screwed I'm afraid...........

Unfortunately it means city laughing at Liverpool for the foreseeable future!! 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not going into the d4 realm of posting suitable lists and arguments..

Suffice to say on here Mayweather is rated higher than Louis and Hagler by 30 posters to 32....My top 10 thread........You and strongy disagreeing..

So safe to say plenty of other opinions in the sport would agree..

So don't go down the "Respected Bert sugar route"......Where did he have dempsey and Lewis again ???????

When we had the Hagler and Mayweather argument you chucked two respected british journalists at me..

It's Bs..............

I'll stick with the experts I think.

"i'll stick with the experts".......The old way out.......

You do that...........Have Hagler above Mayweather..........Have Louis above him..........

Have Norton trashing the Klits..........

You stick with a few experts....... like some who pick Dempsey to beat Lewis............Berty boy..

I'll stick with the majority............Including all the experts that don't support your argument........the ones you haven't posted!! 

Don't forget to add Nat Fleischer to your expert list!!.........He picked Dempsey to trash Ali...

and he is an expert..........good luck.

Getting back to the OP. I think longevity is important , not just number of defences, and here's for why; Not only did Ali make a decent number of defences in both his reigns (blip loss to Spinks aside) but his stint at the top stretched from 1964 to 1979, and he cleaned out two generation of good Heavyweights, either of his reigns would have been enough to cement a top ten ranking, but together they blow any other heavy weights achievements out of the water, ok Joe had a longer unbeaten run of defences, and made a afew more defences, but Ali performed in the top class for longer and beat better men whilst he was at it.

It's always the same, some people just can't handle the truth.


Some people hero worship Ali so much they can't stand Louis, or Sugar Ray Robinson for that matter, being mentioned in the same breath.


Some people are massive fans of Tommy Hearns and can't get over the fact Hagler crushed him. Still butthurt all these years later.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Martinez is the man at middle.......and how many think he'd beat GGG ????

You're the man until someone beats you.......Number 1....you're number 1..

Wlad for me is the man........

Just like Tyson was when Spinks was champion and avoiding the HBO series.......Spinks quit as number 1 when he gave up the belt......Vitali did when he retired first time out.....

Sergio is the champion until he's knocked off. GGG may be the better fighter (right now) but he can't be called a champ until he beats Martinez. It's thinking like that that gave credence to the alphabet bandits stripping fighters and awarding titles wily nily (for their own gain).
 
If only a billionaire would step in and sort boxing out. 8 weight classes, one champion. Champion must face number one contenders. Imagine that?

How wold TRUSS react if his belove Sheikh mansoor decided to quit City but sink those billions into sorting out the boxing problem?

He can sort out City.........But as soon as he buys out all the alphabet titles and has one title............Some other cretin would start the ABC...XYZ........

Boxing is screwed I'm afraid...........

Unfortunately it means city laughing at Liverpool for the foreseeable future!! 

Yes I can see them now laughing at our failure to be top of the league, having beaten Utd already this season, all those titles and trophies and glorious history. How your sides must be aching. You need a win this weekend and I'll be rooting for you as the alternative is far too horrible to contemplate. Got the in-laws round at the weekend to watch the Manc derby on MY tv whilst eating MY food.

Still off to Old Trafford on Wednesday (if the tickets arrive). Sitting with the 'pool lot much to my wife's horror

There's nothing butthurt about saying that Ali's best wins read better than Louis'. Liston was better than Schmeling. Frazier was better than Walcott. Foreman was better than the Baers.

Outside of that, Joe's second tier kind of wins such as Conn, Braddock, Carnera, Sharkey, Farr etc ain't too far behind Ali's against Norton, Patterson, Terrell, Shavers etc, but they're still behind all the same. Worth noting that, if we take Ali's absolute peak years to be, say, 1964 to 1967, he was absolutely sailing through his title defences and dominating his opposition consistently. If we take a look at the absolute zenith years of Louis' career, so let's say 1937 to 1941, he was blitzing his way through some challengers (Schmeling II, Roper, John Henry 'only there for a payday' Lewis etc), but also having woes against others - Conn I, Godoy I etc, as well as tasting the canvas once or twice.

Louis was a great Heavy, but I've always struggled to see how anyone could have him as THE greatest of the lot. No denying his technical proficiency, but at the end of the day Ali beat better opposition and was more dominant in his peak years.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"i'll stick with the experts".......The old way out.......

You do that...........Have Hagler above Mayweather..........Have Louis above him..........

Have Norton trashing the Klits..........

You stick with a few experts....... like some  who pick Dempsey to beat Lewis............Berty boy..

I'll stick with the majority............Including all the experts that don't support your argument........the ones you haven't posted!! 

Don't forget to add Nat Fleischer to your expert list!!.........He picked Dempsey to trash Ali...

and he is an expert..........good luck.

Feel free to find them buddy.

In all fairness to Haz unless I have misread his post surely he did post lists which do not feature Louis.

Rowley wrote:In all fairness to Haz unless I have misread his post surely he did post lists which do not feature Louis.

Further proof if it were needed that the man was garbage (NOTE TO SELF take that Louis bio back to the shop and ask for "No Ordinary Joe" Now there was a champion!)

DAVE667 wrote:

Rowley wrote:In all fairness to Haz unless I have misread his post surely he did post lists which do not feature Louis.

Further proof if it were needed that the man was garbage (NOTE TO SELF take that Louis bio back to the shop and ask for "No Ordinary Joe" Now there was a champion!)

To be honest Dave most sensible and serious boxing literature readers have been in the process of replacing all their boxing books with copies of No Ordinary Joe for some years. I currently have 46 copies.

I may just get one copy and ask Joe to sign it 46 times. However this will be consigned to the bin once I have my own copy of "Warrior: a life dedicated to fighting in the trenches with battle lines drawn in the sand in the arena in no man's land and in deep water (or how I'm better than everyone else who isn't a warrior although there's been some guys better than me, quite a few in fact, who DIDN'T call themselves warriors like what I am but on reflection think they really should call themselves warriors cos they were good...except those ones who didn't fight in the trenches or drawn lines in the sand in the arena or in no man's land or in deep water which is what Warriors do and what I am...a Warrior) by Carl "I'm a Warrior, I am" Froch

The problem with using experts..........Is one that they have their prejudices like Bert sugar.....

Two is that like a murder case you tend to have three experts for the prosecution and the defence........

I know for a fact Archie Moore didn't rate Louis that highly...Quoted in Hauser's Ali book.......Thought Johnson was better......But in no way am I saying becuase Archie Moore thinks so it's fact..

but I will say his opinion is as valid as Bert sugar's......

Facts are what matter.........Mayweather's opposition is better end of and he hasn't lost.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The problem with using experts..........Is one that they have their prejudices like Bert sugar.....

Two is that like a murder case you tend to have three experts for the prosecution and the defence........

I know for a fact Archie Moore didn't rate Louis that highly...Quoted in Hauser's Ali book.......Thought Johnson was better......But in no way am I saying becuase Archie Moore thinks so it's fact..

but I will say his opinion is as valid as Bert sugar's......
Facts are what matter.........Mayweather's opposition is better end of and he hasn't lost.

and surely haz's opinion is as valid as yours however much it differs

Never said it wasn't.....I like Haz unlike you he knows something.......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never said it wasn't.....I like Haz unlike you he knows something.......

Why you being a bell end lad? I appreciate it's probaby an inate trait but try to rise above it occasionally....in much the same way I've elevated myself above you and what it is you think you're achieving by conducting yourself in such a classless manner.

Archie Moore said Burley was the best fighter in the world and certainly the best he ever faced. Personally I think we should respect the opinions of the man.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Facts are what matter.........Mayweather's opposition is better end of and he hasn't lost.

That's not a fact though, that's opinion/conjecture.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Facts are what matter.........Mayweather's opposition is better end of and he hasn't lost.

That's not a fact though, that's opinion/conjecture.

Are you not paying attention? TRUSS said it so it must be fact where as anything anyone else says is BS and "hating"

Oscar and JMM will be higher than any of Louis victims in any ATG list..........None of Louis victims could be regarded as good enough to be in a top 10 best fighter list at the time.......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oscar and JMM will be higher than any of Louis victims in any ATG list..........None of Louis victims could be regarded as good enough to be in a top 10 best fighter list at the time.......

So how highly will some of Oscar's and JMM's victims be rated in the ATG lists?

Pernell whittaker ? Manny ??..........Leave it mate..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pernell whittaker ?    Manny ??..........Leave it mate..

Manny ATG? How long is this list going to be?

Enough now..

I agree, time you shut the **** up and went home

Longevity should still be a factor but its impossible to try a draw comparisons in terms of number of title defenses between the modern system of numerous titles and the past system.

DAVE667 wrote:I agree, time you shut the **** up and went home

America hopefully.

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pernell whittaker ?    Manny ??..........Leave it mate..

Manny ATG? How long is this list going to be?

I mean .......give me strength !! 

You're embarrassing yourself...........Haz can sustain an argument...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pernell whittaker ?    Manny ??..........Leave it mate..

Manny ATG? How long is this list going to be?

I mean .......give me strength !! 

You're embarrassing yourself...........Haz can sustain an argument...

Yeah Manny the catchweight king and suspected PED user is going to be listed as one of the greatest of all time in 50 years is he? Mind you, with flip flopping idiots like you around, who can tell?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:I agree, time you shut the **** up and went home

America hopefully.

If you're unhappy with your life...change it !!

Your posting history is one whole posting list of bile and abuse..........

Anybody feel free to check it out !!!!!!!

My heart goes out to you........Hope it gets better.

So Manny isn't great ?????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So Manny isn't great ?????

Not in my opinion...too many caveats to his wins....and it's not so long since you were calling him a busted flush but now it suits your purposes he's "great"

Like I say, you keep flipping and twisting you're likely to turn yourself insde out...still, at least you might finally get your head out your butt that way

You'll find you are pretty much alone in that opinion...........

You probably have Haye ahead of him........ 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You'll find you are pretty much alone in that opinion...........

You probably have Haye ahead of him........ 

Much like you and your Louis argument then.

If you go to my top 10 thread you'll see Mayweather is above him by 30-2.........

Its a bit early to be evaluating about Mayweather isnt it? Plenty of respected lists were compiled by men now dead and gone who never even knew of Mayweathers existence. And plenty of modern lists will be complied without firsthand reference to bygone eras.

Mayweather isnt going to feature in these various lists until his career is over and can be fully evaluated. It took time for many of the great fighters to find their way onto lists. Usually not until years after they had retired.

I agree.......

Safe to say though that Woods will be above Arnold Palmer when he finishes though..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:I agree, time you shut the **** up and went home

America hopefully.

If you're unhappy with your life...change it !!

Your posting history is one whole posting list of bile and abuse..........

Anybody feel free to check it out !!!!!!!

My heart goes out to you........Hope it gets better.

Who said I was unhappy...

You lower to tone sometimes but you mostly amuse me. Like all Americans really. Loveable (sometimes), but a bit retarded.

Well I'll take that........Nicest thing you've ever said about me..

Strongback wrote:It's always the same, some people just can't handle the truth.


Some people hero worship Ali so much they can't stand Louis, or Sugar Ray Robinson for that matter,  being mentioned in the same breath.


Some people are massive fans of Tommy Hearns and can't get over the fact Hagler crushed him. Still butthurt all these years later.

It's not hero worship to point out that his longevity is what allowed him to face the likes of Liston, foreman, frazier etc- I merely used him as an example of why longevity is an important factor in greatness- if Mike Tyson had greater longevity he could have beaten the cream of the 90s crop, as well as clearing out the 80s, and as a result of this he'd he higher ranked.

Would first off like to know why I keep getting banned with no explanation?

Secondly I see no current relevance to the lists Haz posted as most of them are over ten years old. Callis' list for starters is shocking and using that as any sort of evidence is futile. Mayweather will be regarded higher than Hagler because he has a better record and more ability.

Imperial Ghosty??