Boxing history

First topic message reminder :

When talking of the greatest boxers ever to have lived you will often hear the names of Robbo, Greb, Armstrong, Pep etc..., but should they really be labelled as the best.

If you are too short to play basketball, you dont get to enter a league with people under 6ft, if you are not strong enough to play rugby you dont get to enter a <75kg league.

Why is it that we mention Robbo as the best fighter that ever lived, when in fact he could not live with a lumbering oaf like Valuev. Why is boxing a sport that celebrates little people, who can beat other little people and then mentions them as the best ever, when in reality I could list off 100 fighters who would pummell them?

Has boxing always had weight classes, and if not did any one specific event prove a trigger point? Which other sports are examples of sportmen/women procliaming to be the best in the world, when they are nothing of the sort.

I love boxing, so this isnt an article intended to insult you sensitive folk on here...

Thoughts welcome

Union Cane wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:That's not very macho.

You didn't read the letter Tino.

If the op wants to find my alltime great lists from the past he'll see I've always had ali number 1 for this reason...

Robbo, Greb etc couldn't beat him.....

I think where Boxers are reasonably matched record wise.....then the bigger guy should be placed higher....

Kind of see where you are coming from..

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:That's not very macho.

You didn't read the letter Tino.

It's like when you apologise to your lass when you want some (ok, that has never happened to due to my awesome physique, but i'm told ugly people have to).

Means to an end.

I dont see the analogies with rugby as being any way relevant.

At the end of the day weight classes are there in boxing because its recognised that at a cetain point size will overcome skill.

I think pound for pound lists are extremelly biased against heavyweights by nature but they have become so accepted in boxing it is part of the norm. Few people really stop to consider the obvious point that pound for pound is little more than a hypothetical equaliser for small men because they wouldnt be able to compete with heavyweights.

The point made by the OP is valid and I would suggest the fact that the heavyweight title has been the most coveted and highly regarded above all more or less recognises his point. The heavyweight champion is the top dog.

In boxng weight classes are just part of the sport, and its not that surprising that otstanding acheivements in lower weight classes will be held to exceed mediocre ones in higher weight classes, regardless of the fact the smaller fighter would lose a head to head. Theres an argument that this might be taken to excessive lengths. But I think its self explanatory why somebody like Mayweather would be considered better than Haye despite him having little chance of winning a head to head.