So... Anthony Joshua Gets Gold

First topic message reminder :

Yay.

So the obvious questions, will the man go pro? Will he be the dreaded Audley repeat? Will he stay amateur and get a bit more experience? Will he be any good? And all that shebazz.

Think he could do well as a pro, seems to learn things fast and seems to have a strong desire for success.

So wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwha you think?

Gordy just because someone only wins by a point or two in that amateurs has no impact on how he'll do as a pro. Never heard such a load of ball sacks.

The lad has a fantastic chance but you'd rather say how poorly he'll do before he even starts, what a crazy world we live in.

rowley wrote:So easy to forget some things Bamber. In my defence though the accusation I have not watched Lewis fights is one I have to defend myself against I watched his first fights with Rahman and McCall only the other day.

They're part of an anti-Lewis conspiracy. You did not see them and they did not happen.

alma wrote:

Gordy wrote:Lennox Lewis was 24 when he turned pro.

23 actually

seeing though i started this whole thing, thought id look into it to finally finish it:

he was born on 2nd sept 1965
debut was 27th june 1989

so it hadnt been his birthday yet so he was 23

fearlessBamber wrote:

rowley wrote:So easy to forget some things Bamber. In my defence though the accusation I have not watched Lewis fights is one I have to defend myself against I watched his first fights with Rahman and McCall only the other day.

They're part of an anti-Lewis conspiracy. You did not see them and they did not happen.

You joke about it but look at some of the stuff written about him on here! There is three pages of anti Lewis stuff on another thread. Nobody who watched Lewis fight could possibly say he is not one of the top heavyweights of all time. I rate him number two behind Ali and most experts would have him top 5 or 6 minimum. Even biased ones from America!

Gordy wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

rowley wrote:So easy to forget some things Bamber. In my defence though the accusation I have not watched Lewis fights is one I have to defend myself against I watched his first fights with Rahman and McCall only the other day.

They're part of an anti-Lewis conspiracy. You did not see them and they did not happen.

You joke about it but look at some of the stuff written about him on here! There is three pages of anti Lewis stuff on another thread. Nobody who watched Lewis fight could possibly say he is not one of the top heavyweights of all time. I rate him number two behind Ali and most experts would have him top 5 or 6 minimum. Even biased ones from America!

That's called discourse Gordy, it's what adults do.

Still looks like there are a few of those pesky biased Americans we need to educate.

http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=52

http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=&sex=m&division=Heavyweight&status=E&SUBMIT=Go

http://boxing.about.com/b/2007/12/26/all-time-top-10-heavyweights-whos-missing.htm

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/20heavyweights.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavylists.htm

Ok gordy i will bite! I dont pretend to be an expert hence i read more on here than i comments. However, Jeff, manos, chris, superfly, tophat, hampo etc all come across as knowing more about the sport than you could ever dream to. They all have balanced arguements for saying why they have lewis where they have. Where r these experts you mention that have him at numbers two? Just one or two of them will do. Because the name Joe louis springs to mind.

spencerclarke wrote:Ok gordy i will bite! I dont pretend to be an expert hence i read more on here than i comments. However, Jeff, manos, chris, superfly, tophat, hampo etc all come across as knowing more about the sport than you could ever dream to. They all have balanced arguements for saying why they have lewis where they have. Where r these experts you mention that have him at numbers two? Just one or two of them will do. Because the name Joe louis springs to mind.

Thank-you greatly SC for the compliment but I'm definitely in the "know less than Rowley, Manos, Chris etc have forgot" group!!

Gordy's just a WUM, humour him till you get bored (which is normally pretty quickly!).

rowley wrote:Still looks like there are a few of those pesky biased Americans we need to educate.

http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=52

http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=&sex=m&division=Heavyweight&status=E&SUBMIT=Go

http://boxing.about.com/b/2007/12/26/all-time-top-10-heavyweights-whos-missing.htm

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/20heavyweights.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavylists.htm

In fairness Jeff, did you see the about boxing poll?? Guess who was the #1 rated HW not in the top10 by readers/voters (garnering almost 1,500 votes almost 50%) - MIKE TYSON!!

rowley wrote:Still looks like there are a few of those pesky biased Americans we need to educate.

http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=52

http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=&sex=m&division=Heavyweight&status=E&SUBMIT=Go

http://boxing.about.com/b/2007/12/26/all-time-top-10-heavyweights-whos-missing.htm

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/20heavyweights.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavylists.htm

Ok, I dont think this will do any good because you really seem to have it in for Lewis for some reason but here goes!

The first list doesnt even have Ali at number 1. Ali is considered the top one or two boxers of all time not just heavyweight. The only boxer that can rival him is Sugar Ray Robinson. Ali himself said that Robinson was the best so most experts have Robinson number 1. Not having Ali as the number 1 heavyweight is frankly absurd so whoever made the list is not an expert.

The second list looks like it was made by someone who only heard of Ali and nothing else. Foreman is number 20. Tyson is number 22. Frazier is way above Foreman but anyone who knows their boxing will tell you that Foreman handed Frazier a terrible beating so clearly whoever made this list does not know their boxing.

The third list does not have Ali number 1. Same problem as the the first list.

The fourth list does not have Ali number 1. Same problem as the the first and third list.

The last link are mostly links from before Lewis was fighting and the ones that are not are copies from the other lists. Same problems.

None of those lists are what I would call expert. I should also point out that none of the lists had any of todays heavyweights on them which proves my point that the heavyweights at the moment are useless.

Gordy wrote: I rate him number two behind Ali and most experts would have him top 5 or 6 minimum. Even biased ones from America!

Your words not mine. Took me all of about five minutes on google to produce a number of lists, mainly from well established and recognised boxing websites or publications and not a one of them supports your claims that most experts have hin top five or six minimum. However, feel free to produce lists from similarly reputable sources to support you claim.

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote: I rate him number two behind Ali and most experts would have him top 5 or 6 minimum. Even biased ones from America!

Your words not mine. Took me all of about five minutes on google to produce a number of lists, mainly from well established and recognised boxing websites or publications and not a one of them supports your claims that most experts have hin top five or six minimum. However, feel free to produce lists from similarly reputable sources to support you claim.

Yes and I pointed out why they are not expert! Do you really think anyone who does not have Ali number 1 heavyweight is an expert?! They are either biased or do not understand the sport of boxing.

Well the IBRO is made up of about 20 of the foremost boxing historians in the world who have authored god only knows how many boxing books between them and to be honest have a collective knowledge of the sport which stands favourable comparison with any other bunch of people you're likely to find in the world so they are pretty much the dictionary definition of expert.

One poll is from the Ring Magazine which I personally don't much care for but is one of the longest running boxing publications in the world and is probably still the one with the widest circulation in the world.

Dismissing evidence as clearly non expert because it does not match your own views on a subject is not really much of an argument, a far better approach would be to provide lists or expert testimonials that do coincide with your own and also provide compelling reasons why more weight should be given to those views than the ones I have provided.

rowley wrote:Well the IBRO is made up of about 20 of the foremost boxing historians in the world who have authored god only knows how many boxing books between them and to be honest have a collective knowledge of the sport which stands favourable comparison with any other bunch of people you're likely to find in the world so they are pretty much the dictionary definition of expert.

One poll is from the Ring Magazine which I personally don't much care for but is one of the longest running boxing publications in the world and is probably still the one with the widest circulation in the world.

Dismissing evidence as clearly non expert because it does not match your own views on a subject is not really much of an argument, a far better approach would be to provide lists or expert testimonials that do coincide with your own and also provide compelling reasons why more weight should be given to those views than the ones I have provided.

So you do not think Ali is the number 1 heavyweight?

I personally do but that does not mean I believe anyone who disagrees deserves to have their opinion dismissed. I have Ali and Louis one and two and whilst I never waiver in where they rank so people whose opinions on the subject I respect completely have Louis at number one, given they have researched the subject and can make very compelling arguments to back it up I have no problem with the view.

All of which gets us no nearer to establishing where these myriad experts who all have Lewis in the top five or six are hiding out.

rowley wrote:I personally do but that does not mean I believe anyone who disagrees deserves to have their opinion dismissed. I have Ali and Louis one and two and whilst I never waiver in where they rank so people whose opinions on the subject I respect completely have Louis at number one, given they have researched the subject and can make very compelling arguments to back it up I have no problem with the view.

All of which gets us no nearer to establishing where these myriad experts who all have Lewis in the top five or six are hiding out.

So why are showing lists that have Ali at number 2? It doesnt make sense. Ali is by far the best heavyweight ever. If you include all the weights he is number 2 behind Sugar Ray Robinson. Boxing experts rate Ali as the best heavyweight so when you see a list that does not have him number one then you can tell it is not expert or that if it is expert then it is biased against Ali. Some experts, boxers and trainers can still be biased. Joe Frazier never forgave Ali for beating him in their trilogy so I would bet he would be an expert that would not have ali number 1 or if he did he would not say it.

Gordy wrote:

So why are showing lists that have Ali at number 2? It doesnt make sense.

Why would I not show them? I would have to be frightfully self absorbed to dismiss every list that did not rank fighters exactly as I do as the ravings of an idiot. Am also man enough to admit my knowledge is nowhere near as exhaustive as I'd like it to be and thus entertain the possibility that I might be wrong.

Gordy wrote:Joe Frazier never forgave Ali for beating him in their trilogy so I would bet he would be an expert that would not have ali number 1 or if he did he would not say it.

For once, Mr Bennett, you've said something which is correct - upon hearing that Mark Kram (whose 'Ghosts of Manila' I'm reading right now, will post a review once finished) had Ali at number one, Frazier told him that "I wouldn't have Ali in the top five. I beat him three times. I know it, and he knows it, too."

But that's all you're likely to get right in this particular tussle, mate. Rowley's knowledge of the Heavyweights is matched on here by Jimmy Stuart and Jimmy Stuart only; he's dishing out a worse hiding to you than Rahman did to Lennox first time out!

88Chris05 wrote:

For once, Mr Bennett, you've said something which is correct - upon hearing that Mark Kram (whose 'Ghosts of Manila' I'm reading right now, will post a review once finished)

How are you enjoying it Chris, i loved it, is nice to read an Ali book that does not go for the general deification vibe most of them stick to, there are points it comes across as a bit of a kicking but with all the ridiculously over the top tribute books on the market there is a place for that

88Chris05 wrote:

Gordy wrote:Joe Frazier never forgave Ali for beating him in their trilogy so I would bet he would be an expert that would not have ali number 1 or if he did he would not say it.

For once, Mr Bennett, you've said something which is correct - upon hearing that Mark Kram (whose 'Ghosts of Manila' I'm reading right now, will post a review once finished) had Ali at number one, Frazier told him that "I wouldn't have Ali in the top five. I beat him three times. I know it, and he knows it, too."

But that's all you're likely to get right in this particular tussle, mate. Rowley's knowledge of the Heavyweights is matched on here by Jimmy Stuart and Jimmy Stuart only; he's dishing out a worse hiding to you than Rahman did to Lennox first time out!

He is contradicting himself because he posting lists that he says are not really. Does anyone really believe Ali is not the number 1 heavyweight? I am not surprised at all by Frazier there because he hated Ali and this proves my point about bias affecting lists. Any list that does not have Ali number 1 heavyweight is not by an expert or is biased! So why show these lists at all and then say you dont agree with them?

Haven't quite made up my mind just yet, Jeff, but having said that I'm only sixty-odd pages in at the moment. It's certainly interesting whichever way you look at it, though.

Agreeing with it or not at least jeff has shown lists. Where is your 'expert' evidence gordy?

Joshua looks crud and won the gold soley by the fact that the super heavies were damn well awful this Olympic round. Add that he lost to Savon anyway.

If he goes pro he'll survive early on in his career by virtue of being so big but that is basically all he's got going ofr him in the pro game. Will make Audley's venture into the pros a relative success in comparison.

spencerclarke wrote:Agreeing with it or not at least jeff has shown lists. Where is your 'expert' evidence gordy?

Bingo, given most experts have Lewis in the top five or six it surely stands to reason those lists should be easier to track down. I was apparently looking for lists that represented the minority view so had the harder job but still managed it. (with ease I should add)

Gordy wrote:

He is contradicting himself because he posting lists that he says are not really. Does anyone really believe Ali is not the number 1 heavyweight?

No, I am posting lists that think differently than me because I am not arrogant enough to assume I am right about everything, it stands to reason if you dismiss anyone who does not agree with your own view as being non expert then eventually you will reach a scenario where indeed every expert agrees with you.

spencerclarke wrote:Ok gordy i will bite! I dont pretend to be an expert hence i read more on here than i comments. However, Jeff, manos, chris, superfly, tophat, hampo etc all come across as knowing more about the sport than you could ever dream to.

I'm certainly in the group of I'll never know as much as those guys have forgotten

Super D Boon wrote:Joshua looks crud and won the gold soley by the fact that the super heavies were damn well awful this Olympic round. Add that he lost to Savon anyway.

If he goes pro he'll survive early on in his career by virtue of being so big but that is basically all he's got going ofr him in the pro game. Will make Audley's venture into the pros a relative success in comparison.

Bitter because one of your boys went out early doors and the other put in such a pathetic final performance he made Haye v Wlad look heroic?

Gordy wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Gordy wrote:Joe Frazier never forgave Ali for beating him in their trilogy so I would bet he would be an expert that would not have ali number 1 or if he did he would not say it.

For once, Mr Bennett, you've said something which is correct - upon hearing that Mark Kram (whose 'Ghosts of Manila' I'm reading right now, will post a review once finished) had Ali at number one, Frazier told him that "I wouldn't have Ali in the top five. I beat him three times. I know it, and he knows it, too."

But that's all you're likely to get right in this particular tussle, mate. Rowley's knowledge of the Heavyweights is matched on here by Jimmy Stuart and Jimmy Stuart only; he's dishing out a worse hiding to you than Rahman did to Lennox first time out!

He is contradicting himself because he posting lists that he says are not really. Does anyone really believe Ali is not the number 1 heavyweight? I am not surprised at all by Frazier there because he hated Ali and this proves my point about bias affecting lists. Any list that does not have Ali number 1 heavyweight is not by an expert or is biased! So why show these lists at all and then say you dont agree with them?

Stop being a prat Gordy, post at least two lists from these so called 'experts' you quote so readily or stop spamming these pages with your wummery. You wouldn't be the first obsessive WUM to be booted off (see D4) and I'm sure you won't be the last. At least Waingro was funny and Az is a challenge.

I have to say, I am extremely puzzled by the criteria the IBRO list is applying for them to not rank Ali at no 1. I say this because they have ranked George Foreman, Sonny Liston and Joe Frazier 8, 9 and 10 respectively, opponents against whom Ali has a combined record of 5 wins with only 1 defeat. Even if we take into account the Holmes fight his record is still an excellent 5-2. I'm not saying that I disregard their expertise or opinion, or that I think that there is no argument for Joe Louis as the best heavyweight, but I am puzzled as to how they have ranked Frazier, Liston and Foreman where they have without giving Ali the top spot.

It's because they are not experts, try and keep up mate.

To be honest I'm completely dumfounded regarding the rankings in this list http://boxing.about.com/b/2007/12/26/all-time-top-10-heavyweights-whos-missing.htm I am clearly way out of line with traditional expertise.

That's pretty much my line of thinking, Sitting. My best guess is that the IBRO must place extra emphasis on pure statistics and who they'd collectively back in hypothetical head to head match ups, because if they put any kind of emphasis on who each fighter has beaten then they'd surely have to stick Ali at the top of the pile.

I can understand those who have Louis at the top; he set standards, as champion, which were prevously unheard of and, in many ways, haven't been equaled since, as well as being a dominant champion with a supreme skill set - to this day, he remains probably the most technically perfect Heavyweight champion, in the proper sense of the phrase, that we've seen.

However, I think that Ali was, in his own way, just as dominant, but crucially against significantly better opposition. Louis had the tougher road to the title in terms of who he beat on his way up, but that's where it ends. Norton, for instance, wouldn't command a particularly high rank amongst all of the men Ali fought, but is still better than all but a couple of men (at the most) put in front of Louis during his championship reign.

I also think that, if we take the Ali of roughly 1966 and pit him against the Louis of, say, 1938, that Ali wins going away just about every time. I appreciate that Louis set a frantic pace as champion and so naturally, the odd uninspiring performance was bound to creep in, but during his best championships years he was in all sorts of trouble against Conn and on the deck against opponents of a much lower class - a fair contrast to Ali during his first reign of 1964 to 1967, where he was basically dominant in every sense.

Impossible to have anyone other than Ali and Louis in the top two spots, but I'm also yet to be convinced that Louis can realistically rank the higher of the two.

Am with you Chris am firmly in the Ali camp when it comes to splitting the two, but a 12 year reign unbeaten is not something to be sniffed at and whilst my views mirror your own I still maintain the view that Louis can be considered top is not so far out of leftfield to be dismissed as nonsense. As you have already said nobody who has frequented this or the BBC has known more about the big guys than Jimmy Stuart and he had Louis top of the pile and could put one heck of a compelling argument to support his case. My own view is the pair of Frazier and Foreman represent a better pair of opponents than anything on Joe’s record and for Ali to go 3-1 against them when a little past his best is enough to keep him in front.

sittingringside wrote:I have to say, I am extremely puzzled by the criteria the IBRO list is applying for them to not rank Ali at no 1. I say this because they have ranked George Foreman, Sonny Liston and Joe Frazier 8, 9 and 10 respectively, opponents against whom Ali has a combined record of 5 wins with only 1 defeat. Even if we take into account the Holmes fight his record is still an excellent 5-2. I'm not saying that I disregard their expertise or opinion, or that I think that there is no argument for Joe Louis as the best heavyweight, but I am puzzled as to how they have ranked Frazier, Liston and Foreman where they have without giving Ali the top spot.

I agree. A list (expert or not) really needs to have accompanying criteria. Im not sure the IBRO came to their conculsion but strangely while they rank Louis above Ali at heavyweight, they have the tied on their pound for pound list. Make of that what you will.

Possibly all the members of the IBRO just submit their personal lists and the aggregate is taken so I would guess more members than not just had Louis as number 1. Its a good point about the list though which I would agree with. Louis might edge Ali in terms of longetivity, or even head to head, but the list is basically saying Ali beat the better heavyweights by some margin.

Thanks for that Chris, I feared the bottom had fallen out of my boxing knowledge then! I suppose when it comes to hypothetical match-ups it is difficult to know what criteria the IBRO have employed, I suppose that they have given more weight to say, Louis' power than Ali's greater height and weight.

Don't get me wrong, Jeff, I can see the reasoning behind putting Louis at the top, as you allude to. There are arguments for him, I just haven't heard one which can win me over just yet. Nevertheless, even if I do put Louis at number two, he's still separated by a fair old distance from the chasing pack who are fighting for that number three spot.

It's a shame Jimmy's not around right now, come to think of it.

I don't really know what to say about that Boxrec list.

sittingringside wrote:I don't really know what to say about that Boxrec list.

What's your problem, are you trying to say you don't consider Ezzard Charles the third finest heavyweight ever?

I wonder how credible most experts list are anyway. Obviously not every list is going to be identicle but for example Fleischer rated Kid McCoy as the best ever light heavyweight and Barbados Joe Walcott as the best ever welterweight. Charley Rose only had Archie Moore at number 7 light heavyweight and didnt feature Charles at all (McTigue, Berlenbach, O'Brien all ahead). Bert Sugar rated Ezzard Charles number 7 heavyweight of all time. These guys were heavily involved in the sport for decades but I would probably find myself agreeing a Waingro list more and it makes azanias controversial exclusion of Marciano from the top 50 look pretty par for the course.

rowley wrote:

sittingringside wrote:I don't really know what to say about that Boxrec list.

What's your problem, are you trying to say you don't consider Ezzard Charles the third finest heavyweight ever?

It's tight between him and Patterson for the 3rd spot if I'm honest...

manos de piedra wrote:I wonder how credible most experts list are anyway. Obviously not every list is going to be identicle but for example Fleischer rated Kid McCoy as the best ever light heavyweight and Barbados Joe Walcott as the best ever welterweight. Charley Rose only had Archie Moore at number 7 light heavyweight and didnt feature Charles at all (McTigue, Berlenbach, O'Brien all ahead). Bert Sugar rated Ezzard Charles number 7 heavyweight of all time. These guys were heavily involved in the sport for decades but I would probably find myself agreeing a Waingro list more and it makes azanias controversial exclusion of Marciano from the top 50 look pretty par for the course.

That is why if I am looking I tend to go with the IBRO lists, because it is made up I believe of the cumulative ratings of all their members, which is around 20 odd people if any one member ranks someone ridiculously high it tends to not matter as the other members are unlikely to do similar, and when you read their lists you can quibble over places but on the whole they always seem there or there abouts to me

rowley wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I wonder how credible most experts list are anyway. Obviously not every list is going to be identicle but for example Fleischer rated Kid McCoy as the best ever light heavyweight and Barbados Joe Walcott as the best ever welterweight. Charley Rose only had Archie Moore at number 7 light heavyweight and didnt feature Charles at all (McTigue, Berlenbach, O'Brien all ahead). Bert Sugar rated Ezzard Charles number 7 heavyweight of all time. These guys were heavily involved in the sport for decades but I would probably find myself agreeing a Waingro list more and it makes azanias controversial exclusion of Marciano from the top 50 look pretty par for the course.

That is why if I am looking I tend to go with the IBRO lists, because it is made up I believe of the cumulative ratings of all their members, which is around 20 odd people if any one member ranks someone ridiculously high it tends to not matter as the other members are unlikely to do similar, and when you read their lists you can quibble over places but on the whole they always seem there or there abouts to me

Yeah its probably the best way to do it, but sometimes when you see individual lists from those classified as experts it can really make you wonder. The only possible explanation I can have with Fleischer and Rose is that they are ranking guys on how impressive a live performance they witnessed was.

A common theme of agreement with regards to Fleischer is that he was brilliant at compiling - and reporting on - information on boxing, but terrible at trying to make sense of it. It's a strange one because, given his immense experience and importance to the sport, anyone on here could potentially be shot down for claiming they knew more than him, and understandably so. And yet, I'm one hundred percent convinced that, in many cases, quite a few posters on here are far closer to being right when it comes to ranking fighters, whereas Fleischer was, for want of a better word, so often wrong.

Of course, most of his lists were compiled roughly five decades ago, so that's maybe not the best or fairest example. But Bob Mee, for instance, earns his living through his critique and take on the sport and the history of it - he places Archie Moore as the second greatest fighter of all time, pound for pound.

From the outset, what would I know about boxing compared to Mee, who has been an important source of material for writers of Harry Mullan's stature in the past? Nothing would be the obvious answer. And yet I'm convinced that my argument for having Archie somewhere around the twenty mark, pound for pound, rather than the second spot he gives him is entirely the correct one.

Strange stuff, indeed.

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote:

He is contradicting himself because he posting lists that he says are not really. Does anyone really believe Ali is not the number 1 heavyweight?

No, I am posting lists that think differently than me because I am not arrogant enough to assume I am right about everything, it stands to reason if you dismiss anyone who does not agree with your own view as being non expert then eventually you will reach a scenario where indeed every expert agrees with you.

You are posting lists and then saying the lists are wrong. So which is it? If you think ali is the number 1 heavyweight as you claim then why are you showing lists that have him at number 2? You are saying this is what experts think but then saying no actually they are wrong. Ali is the number 1 heavyweight and Lewis would be top 5 with boxing experts unless they are biased, like the example with Joe Frazier proves. Some experts are biased against Lewis, mainly American ones that were jealous when he beat the top American heavyweights and would not give him credit. So when you look at this lists yu have to be aware of these kind of things. There is no point posting lists that are biased or that you think are wrong and I pointed out what was wrong with those lists before.

I have seen lists that have put Holyfield and Tyson above Lewis which shows how biased some experts can be so there is no point in using these lists.

Let me put it another way Gordy, if I have a bowl of smarties and remove every smarty apart from the red ones that will mean I have a bowl of red smarties, it will not mean all smarties are red.

Hope that clarifies my position.

I'm not sure, Jeff - this is Gordon we're talking about, remember. The lad who probably thinks that Sonny Liston was married to Cher.

I know what you mean though, Gordy. I once saw a list which had Ali higher than Holmes - pretty silly considering that Holmes whooped him and whooped him good, as your Tyson-Lewis example ably demonstrates.

rowley wrote:Let me put it another way Gordy, if I have a bowl of smarties and remove every smarty apart from the red ones that will mean I have a bowl of red smarties, it will not mean all smarties are red.

Hope that clarifies my position.

This doesnt quite make sense. If red smarties are the unbiased expert opinions you are looking for then yes a bowl of red smarties at the end should be what you are looking for and getting rid of the non expert or biased opinions. But this is not what you are doing you are just showing lists that are wrong or biased as I pointed out.

Gordy wrote:

You are posting lists and then saying the lists are wrong. So which is it? If you think ali is the number 1 heavyweight as you claim then why are you showing lists that have him at number 2? You are saying this is what experts think but then saying no actually they are wrong.

I'm not saying they are wrong I am saying I think they are wrong, the distinction in this is quite key.

I think he's got you there, jeff.