- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 748
- Reaction score
- 1
edit
Would you consider someone like Lew Eskin's opinion invalid, Bobby, considering he wrote about boxing during the 40's and continued to do so right up until the 80's or 90's, I think?
Not only did Eskin not vote Robinson the best of all-time, but he didn't even think he was the best of his own generation, which Esking followed as it happened. He chose Ezzard Charles as the best during Robinson's time, and I certainly think that's a "valid" enough opinion considering, whether you, I or anybody else can agree with it or not.
Fine, I'll preface.
Ezzard Charles huh, I saw some old list on Boxrec a while back where they said he was the greatest HW of all time. That's just silly. Great all-time fighter, was way better at MW than LH than HW. Either way Sharkey, I've never heard the name in question nor of the guy that wrote it. I'll make a correction though if you like, "If you're a boxing historian that has forgotten more about boxing than I've ever known, you can say whatever you'd like." K?
i dont rate dempsey that highly either....
...think this has been covered before hahaha
sorry bradlee
lol some1 said mike tyson he beat none of the top contenders of his era
Many boxing luminaries including Gene Tunney, Sam Langford, Ray Arcel, and Max Schmeling cited Dempsey as the best fighter they'd ever seen.
Obvious and wrong. Louis is arguable, I agree. Marciano is not. Regardless of the '0', they are of a clearly different caliber.
Ha! Nice post, Sharkey