THE BEST EVER-THE LETTER "M"

finaly there are lists i guess.some ill go along with more then others..i wish ring magazine can make up there mind..they list rocky as the 12 th greatest fighter in the last 80 years archie 14th yet monzon 11th..make up your minds ring...burt sugar who i respect over ring mag even though i disagree a bit at times with him has rocky as the 14th greatest fighter of all time..archie moore is number 22....at times a fighter gets his second wind..a last harrah of greatness.turns back the clock for the final time..that was ezz charles in the marciano fights...another example was ray robinson..at 40 tired slipping in greatness etc etc loses 2 fights to paul pender..i saw both fights and ray struggled admirably to go the 15 rounds..then soon later he fights a far better fighter in gene fullmer for a attempt to win the middle crown a 6th time..dispite the pressure gene put on ray he turned back the clock for one final time against a better fighter in fullmer over pender..i had the announchers had ray easly winning 9 or 10 rounds..i had it 9-5-1..what happened..a gift draw to fullmer..

dmar5143 wrote:

finaly there are lists i guess.some ill go along with more then others..i wish ring magazine can make up there mind..they list rocky as the 12 th greatest fighter in the last 80 years archie 14th yet monzon 11th..make up your minds ring...burt sugar who i respect over ring mag even though i disagree a bit at times with him has rocky as the 14th greatest fighter of all time..archie moore is number 22....at times a fighter gets his second wind..a last harrah of greatness.turns back the clock for the final time..that was ezz charles in the marciano fights...another example was ray robinson..at 40 tired slipping in greatness etc etc loses 2 fights to paul pender..i saw both fights and ray struggled admirably to go the 15 rounds..then soon later he fights a far better fighter in gene fullmer for a attempt to win the middle crown a 6th time..dispite the pressure gene put on ray he turned back the clock for one final time against a better fighter in fullmer over pender..i had the announchers had ray easly winning 9 or 10 rounds..i had it 9-5-1..what happened..a gift draw to fullmer..

Especially in the first fight Ezzard was magnificent.

You're making good points here.

Compare Dempsey and the Rock for me. How do you think about those two?

marble on dempsey and marciano i feel truly are 2 great fighters..if i had to pick one fight that defines the fight game or the utlimate fight its dempsey and rocky then number 2 greb and robinson..lookign at everything honestly heres my thoughts..stanima..both fighters trained exceptionaly hard and dedicated..rocky has the edge in endurance and stanima..especialy since he was constantly tossing punches and contrary to opinion dempsey was not..chin.rocky has a huge edge here..jack was tough but rocky much tougher..both knockdowns suffered by rocky were brief and a rare balance problem..i already disgussed in the past with you the moore knockdown which rocky had a foot off the ground when cutting the ring off and was on one leg..thats the only time he did that..on walcott even though joe hit him harder with 2 left hooks then he did charles thats walcott saying this.you will notice rocky again made a one time error of having his feet squared off making anyone easy to knockdown...punch.both great hitters but rocky hit harder with both hands..thats what dempsey himself told me..cuttin the ring off..there both very great at this and its close but rocky seemed to control real estate better..confidence..huge on both parts..after round 10 or soo jacks is not as great as rockies..counter punching..both are very very underated here..close but ive seen too many times with rocky you miss him you pay for it fast..strenth..joe walcott in his last year or two in his life in a interview simply said marcianos the roughest tougest strongest HW ever..thats him opoinion.he maybe should know..slipping punches..both excellent in there day..edge again to rocky where he made you miss by a inch or 2 an d countered..his distence IQ was exceptrional..bobing a weaving..a dempsey halmark and perhaps a first in the ring doing that.marciano perfected it..the sliping of punches tosed by charles moore louis and others is fast instint and antisipation....i love both of these guys..shear killers and finishers in the ring..take no prisioners..rocky in all departments has the edge..both by the way were great for the game public relationship wis well after there careers are over..true champs

No honorable mention for Margarito?

WTF

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

i see no problem with picking moore because of his accomplishments in the ring. beat more HOFers than the rock, has the most KO record, and just his overall competition was better. whether or not marciano was a better fighter, moore was more accomplished i think and thats what pretty much everyone on this board goes off of anyway. if we were saying who was an actual better fighter then i think that a lot of peoples p4p list would be different.

but i would have no problem with them picking rocky. im just stating the other side of the story why ring would pick moore.

My problem is I literally don't know what "better" means in boxing if it doesn't mean more accomplished. I'm not trying to be cute. Can someone tell me what "better" means?

i think that sometimes you have to sit back and watch how somebody fights. for example, if a fighter just has no good people in his weight class, and destroys them all and then goes up a weight class and beats them all. if he beat 0 HOFers, is he automatically considered not as good because of his lack of competition? i dont think so otherwise its just unfair. i try to give everyone an even playing field when i rank them.

i always say that accomplishments show that a fighter is truly great, but after certain accomplishments, you just have to look at who is overall a better fighter.