Immortal stuff

Hey guys I am going to split all this up into different topics OK? I will label them by their eras. Let me know if you dont want me to OK?

soonermark890 wrote:

Hey guys I am going to split all this up into different topics OK? I will label them by their eras. Let me know if you dont want me to OK?

Encourage additional nominees will ya? I'm sure I'm missing guys.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

NOMINEES FOR THE YEARS BACK TO JOHN L. SULLIVAN AND RUNNING TO 1899 (In no order)

John L. Sullivan-Arguably the most important fighter in history. The transitional figure from illegal to legal boxing and from bare knuckle to gloved fighting. Lost only to Corbett. Did not fight best black fighter of the day in Peter Jackson.

Bob Fitzsimmons-THE MAN at heavy, middle and light heavy.

Non-Pareil Jack Demspey-First recognized middle king. Held crown for seven years.

Tommy Ryan-THE MAN at welter for four years. But he was an even better middleweight. He held that title for a eight years until he retired.

Jack McCauliffe-First lightweight king. Held title for seven years. Unbeaten in career.

George Dixon-Featherweight champ for seven years. Extraordinary bantam as well. Defended feather title something like 15 times.

I am happy to provide more details upon request.

One thing I think we should note is that boxing was really finding its legs in this era both in terms of technique and in the number of fighters. This is one of those eras where in my view the benefit of the doubt should NOT go to the fighter in our analysis.

In Bert Sugars book it say sback then it was not always clear whether a title was on the line or not, in reality George Dixon may have defended his title 25 times

1960-1980 yes's for me are

Monzon, Ali, Foster, Napoles, Griffith, Olivares, Duran, Arguello, Elorde and Canto.

amazing marble since marciano beat 2 of your choices.archie moore who indeed was at his best.LH champ beating top heavy contenders and like walcott a late bloomer in developing a prime and charles only 2 years older than rocky.still a great fighter yes at that time but at the lower end of the curve or bell in his peak.non the less still great untill after those 2 fights with rocky..

marbleheadmaui wrote:

1960-1980 yes's for me are

Monzon, Ali, Foster, Napoles, Griffith, Olivares, Duran, Arguello, Elorde and Canto.

Marble repost this in the 60-80 section for me. Sorry I didnt add it for yah. I missed it. I seperated everything. We just need two more eras.

dmar5143 wrote:

amazing marble since marciano beat 2 of your choices.archie moore who indeed was at his best.LH champ beating top heavy contenders and like walcott a late bloomer in developing a prime and charles only 2 years older than rocky.still a great fighter yes at that time but at the lower end of the curve or bell in his peak.non the less still great untill after those 2 fights with rocky..

Did you guys see I split this all up into posts per era?

dmar5143 wrote:

amazing marble since marciano beat 2 of your choices.archie moore who indeed was at his best.LH champ beating top heavy contenders and like walcott a late bloomer in developing a prime and charles only 2 years older than rocky.still a great fighter yes at that time but at the lower end of the curve or bell in his peak.non the less still great untill after those 2 fights with rocky..

Marciano is ANOTHER guy I struggle with the same way I struggle with Dempsey and for the same reasons. Both guys best wins as champ were really against LHW's in a thin era. Not their fault. I mean are both of those guys GREAT? Damned right. All-Time great? You betcha? Are they immortals if we're trying to keep things tight? I can be convinced but they aren't no brainers for me.

marble to me there are only 5 icons in boxing..just 5..its based on legend popularity accomplishments in the ring public acceptence and there talked about 50 to 90 years after they won a title..there special in my mind..dempsey louis robinson marciano and ali are the icons..rocky was lighter then most the guys he fought.0moore fight night outweighed him by half pound or so..he destroyed moore a all time great in his heyday..rocky and charles same size.destroyed a still great fighter.as i described in a previous post.at the end of his curve in his greatness but theres no doubt the resuly would be the same..beat walcott when joe was at his best.walcott matured late..crushed a good fighter in lastarza and yes the top LH in matthews but rocky was what 5 pounds heavier..he came at the tail end of a great ea and beat some great fighters at there best.crushed other good fightes and did so many things well.balance counter punch leverage a master there great accuracy yes missed by a mile a few times.sliped punches well cut the ring off better then anyone and very intelligent fighter.
its how he won also..count 100 over louis walcott layne vingo and others..many a K after his wins not tko..the ten count.more then anything he was a huge plus for boxing in a era of stench..conducted himself as a gentleman with humilty..jim murray said rocky was a rose in a garbage dump..if any two deserve to be called immortals its rocky and dempsey..do you realy think gaviln deserves your vote and they do not..i respect your thoughts greatly but think about that..we are naming the immortals of this great sport..gavi8ln in rocky and jack are not...you know better than that.

I'll think about this later but is there a cap on # of guys in an era? Is it only for fighters? Is it only for retired fighters? Do we go on ability, accomplishment, contribution/significance to the sport, a combination of all?

Sorry if these questions have been answered.

Never mind.

Gumby wrote:

Never mind.

Hey Gumby we split it into eras. We put up a bunch of nominees for each era and you can just vote on which ones you want.