The greatest boxer of all time...

[Russell]

In your opinion. Name them.

No explanation, no nothing. Just a name.

No weight or peroid restrictions.

Curious as to what the majority of the responses will be if there is any kind of consenus.

[Manassa]

Henry Armstrong.

[Manassa]

You seem to rank him very high but as you admitted you seem to choose quite a few fighters over him in head to head matchups.

... And wrongly so. I've come to my senses.

But I measure 'greatness' mostly on achievements so that is irrelevant.

[Manassa]

So, disregarding the second part of your post, who do you see winning these matchups with Hank?

Ike Williams
Roberto Duran
Pernell Whitaker
Carlos Ortiz
Benny Leonard

Williams
Duran
50/50
Armstrong
Armstrong

I also see Armstrong beating other such notables as Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri and Joe Gans.

[Manassa]

I was assuming Williams would be the one you changed.

No - Williams was that good, and his style was perfect for beating Armstrong. I once did a detailed piece on how I think the fight would go down. From nearly every approached angle, Williams came out on top.

[Manassa]

Well, actually he beat Ross :D

For me it´s also Armstrong. Second Greb, third Robinson.

I know he beat Ross. I'm talking about a prime Ross, who was better. Armstrong still takes it.

[mightyd40]

ray robinson
joe gans

[Russell]

I'm looking for a singular greatest, guys. :)

[Bill1234]

Willie Pep.

[Bill1234]

I don't have him top 10 personally. Is it how he boxed or what he accomplished that makes you rate him at the top?

He is arguably the best defencive fighter of all time, and some of the things he did. Like going 64-0 before he had his first loss, and continueing to fight after a devastating plane crash.

[BeamBlack]

Willie Pep
Roy Jones Jr.

[tays001]

ray robinson

[ripcity]

Pernell Whitaker, Benny Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson are my top three.

[salsanchezfan]

Tough to say. I guess based on a blend of skills and accomplishment, it's pretty hard to do better than Robinson, though Pep, Armstrong, and Greb might have something to say about that.


In my time, Whitaker was the best I ever saw. It's hard to believe he's been retired this long. I remember sitting and watching his pro debut on prime time national TV just yesterday. No wait.......that was 23 years ago. Jesus........

[Lex]

1. Best due to proven record: Robinson.

2. Best unfulfilled potential for all time greatness, lost due to untimely death revealing a scandalous sex life (his own damn business, which nobody holds against Emile Griffith): Tyrone "Ty the Fly" Everett

[Senya13]

Joe Gans

[Outboxer]

Robinson -- he had it all, and then some.

Pep and Whitaker are also up there.

[C. M. Clay II]

Muhammad Ali

[JohnThomas1]

Easy

Sugar Ray Robinson

[pryorgatti]

SRR
Pep

Whitaker

[McGrain]

Easy

Sugar Ray Robinson

Yeah, I find it pretty easy to pick him too.

[sweet_scientist]

I don't have him top 10 personally. Is it how he boxed or what he accomplished that makes you rate him at the top?

Who are the ten (or more) you place ahead of Pep?

[jyuza]

Robinson today. Tomorrow I can say Greb or Armstrong though.

[NickHudson]

Ali.

As this thread does not specify P4P I take my choice from the Open division in boxing, and the division that counts for the most - the Heavyweights.

[jyuza]

Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Ali
Langford
Charles
Duran
Ray Leonard
Whitaker
Benny Leonard

I actually believe I have him #11, although Monzon and a few others are questioning that. Feel free to ask me about any of my selections above him, including the inevitable about Whitaker.

I will ask you about Pernell :D

[Robbi]

I rank Pernell over Pep first and foremost because he was a more complete, better boxer in the ring. I often hear about how Pep was more complete, with more pop in his punches, better combos, etc, but based on what I've seen and what I've heard and even from Pep himself, but mainly from what I've seen, Pep seemed to be more of a slick, elusive, make you miss, pop you and move around kinda guy. He couldn't box off the backfoot like Pernell. He couldn't stay in range and make you miss with upper body movement like Pernell. He wouldn't hit you with clean shots like Pernell would, he'd throw pitty pat combos to get you off him when near. Effective, certainly, but not as good as Pernell in my opinion. Pernell was a better fighter in the ring I believe, contrary to what we're all told about Pep.

Pep lost to his best opponents in Angott and 3 times to Sandy Saddler. Chavez in my book is about as good as Sandy Saddler(both probably top 20) and Whitaker dominated Chavez, while Pep managed 1 win out of 4 bouts. Fights were in 52, Pep retired in 65, so it's hard for me to say he was really pas his prime as everyone says, although he wasn't at his peak since the planecrash.

Pep's record of 229-11-1 is fantastic, but his list of opponents beat isn't as fantastic as you'd figure for someone ranked so high on most lists. While obviously with that many fights you'll probably have a better quantity of opponents than Whitaker, but he really didn't have a better quality of opponents, at all.

I feel that Pep's resume is very overrated and while better on quantity than Whitaker's due to the many more fights, it wasn't better on quality at all. I also feel, as I said before, that Whitaker was the better boxer in the ring, and better than most, if not all, I've ever seen in the ring.

Thank you for listening to my presentation.:D

Whitaker had much more variety than Pep as well. Pep's defense was all about movement, and slipping under punches. Whitaker had much more variety. Because Pep fought around 60-70 years ago, and had over 200 fights, many people on here will tell you he was better than Whitaker. You could make a case he deserves to be ranked ahead of Whitaker P4P. But when it comes to skills and what each fighter could do in the ring, Whitaker without a doubt in my eyes.

[Stonehands89]

Sweet Pea, et al. I think that you underestimate Pep. In terms of sheer skill, there has been no one like him, except for Pernell and even Pernell was a relative novice when you look at activity. A 135-1-1 streak is sickeningly great. Pernell was like 32-1 at his best. I take serious issue with the idea that guys with under 50 fights can be compared with guys like Pep. People casually say "oh but he fought no one" -as if. Pep stepped into the ring and put his life and health in jeopardy 240 times against professionals: Jackie Wilson, Chalky Wright, Willie Joyce, and Paddy DeMarco, and Sandy Saddler are among his wins.

You also forget the testimony of those who saw him and his opponents. Many compared fighting Pep to trying to "put moonbeams in a jar" fighting a man in a hall of mirrors, or chasing a shadow. One of them said that it was like "trying to stamp out a grass fire."

Pep was a beautiful boxer who would make his man miss by centimeters -his defense was usually inside the perimeter. Many celebrate Ali's "defensive skill" -it couldn't compare to Pep's. Pep was a textbook fighter who wrote his own because he was too advanced for it -it wasn't Ali-Jones speedy unorthodoxy -it was calculus 3.

Angott had his number -and I'd be willing to bet the house that Angott would have had Pernell's number just as much. Angott's style was the foil for small innovators because it was designed for disruption, frustration, and smothering. An Armstrong got by him because of the strength and power factor. Pep was no Hercules in there (and contrary to a few confusing opinions out here, neither was Pernell).

You seem to dismiss Pep's comeback from the plane crash. I think it is among the greatest boxing comebacks in history. He was never supposed to walk again, never mind fight... a broken back, paralyzed from the waist down for a time, and in a body cast for 5 months. The fact that he actually offered his greatest masterpiece in beating Saddler after the crash is shocking. He fought Sandy, one of the greatest to come out of Boston, MA (my home town) for the second time in his 140th fight. Fact is, Saddler probably had the Pep puzzle solved too due to his style -Pep shouldn't have beat him at all.

So, if this means who was the "greatest", pound for pound, I would take Robinson. Sometimes conventional wisdom is right. If you mean who was the greatest "boxer" who ever lived, meaning who had the highest level of skill, I'd proclaim Pep. He was superior to them all...a savant technician.

[JohnThomas1]

Pernell was like 32-1 at his best.

I'd say 42-0 to be honest. I couldn't justify Ramirez and Chavez if i was paid money to. Some will debate the DLH fight but i'll make that loss the cutoff.

[Stonehands89]

Pernell was great and I don't deny that -just to be clear. I see them as similar in their skill, but would argue that Pep's was more honed because Pep was more experienced. Pep was in the ring 6 times as much as Pernell was... Now, you would counter with the level of competition and I would agree that while that is true, the chasm between them in terms of comp is not as great as it is made out to be.

Alot of posters out here dismiss Pep's record and yet know nothing about for example, Chalky Wright.

As for Sammy Engotti... his style would be problematic for Pernell. Again, Armstrong beat Engotti -due to strength and power. Beau Jack did as well, but not without stretching out a bit himself. Pep fought him once and left him alone. Some say that it was a hometown gift, but I think that it was a styles problem. Angott was no slouch -he beat Ike, Pep, Montgomery, Arizmendi, Freddie Miller, Johnny Bratton, Tendler ... he stopped the rise of Lenny Mancini (yep, Boom-Boom's pop). The man was strong and had far more experience with elite fighters than Pep, Robinson, and Pernell combined!

Angott was a great wrestler and perhaps the best of the maulers ever. He was very good inside and not bad outside as well -he could bang and he could take it -being stopped once in a 130 fights. The Armstrong fight was actually very close, reportedly.

I don't see Pernell being allowed to innovate and shimmy and shake with him because "the Clutch" would be on him like a cheap suit.

[jyuza]

I'd say 42-0 to be honest. I couldn't justify Ramirez and Chavez if i was paid money to. Some will debate the DLH fight but i'll make that loss the cutoff.

I would say so. For many (me included), Pernell first loss was the Trinidad fight. 43-0, arguably.

[JohnThomas1]

I would say so. For many (me included), Pernell first loss was the Trinidad fight. 43-0, arguably.

Fair call prolly. He certainly deserved the nods over Ramirez and Chavez.

[META5]

Well, saying Pernell would try to shimmy and shake and innovate is pretty close-minded. Pernell was a damn near perfect technical boxer in terms of shifting his feet, staying off the ropes, staying within punching range, and clean counter-punching, as well as tying up and in-fighting. His speed and phenomenal reflexes and cleverness just added to it.

Many fighters tried to be on Pernell like a cheap suit, and he thoroughly handled them all, and I guess it just depends on what ref you have to call the dirty play from Angott.

For all of Pea's technical prowess, crossing his feet and leaving himself vulnerable to being dropped by being countered when off balance was one of Pea's many repeated technical offences. He got away with it, predominantly, because his footspeed, judgment of range and reflexes were so good. His crossing of the feet is something that was picked up on and. if memory serves me correctly, mentioned a fair no. of times during the commentary for the first fight with Ramirez.

[Unlimited]

jack johnson

[META5]

In reference to him being dropped often due to his balance, that more came from the angles he dodged punches from than anything. As far as shifting his feet, a latter day Pernell was not the mover he was in his younger days, and the way he shifted around the ring and knew where to step was one of the reasons he was never in danger of being held on the ropes or kept in one place. He was able to do it without running.

The angles that he dodged punches from would still be an aspect of technical prowess. The crossing of his feet is a major technical "don't do". Pea was an amazing fighter, but let's not paint him perfect ... and yes, he was able to do it without running.

[sweet_scientist]

I was just watching Angott's fight with Slugger White. Great pressure fighter and kind of reminds me of a more skilled version of Ricky Hatton. But I don't think he beats Pernell and here's why:

Whitaker had the strength to fight well in the clinches, whereas Pep never did. Pernell wasn't Hercules, but pressure fighters never had any success against him not only becuase of his evasiveness but becuase whenever they did get him on the inside, they were surprised by how competent Whitaker was there. See the rude awakening Chavez got in the second half of his fight with Pea for evidence of that.

Another reason that I think Pernell beats Angott, whereas someone like Pep couldn't, is that Pep relies heaps on sideways movement, and as Angott loved to barge his way in with hooks, he was able to keep Pep within his wingspan and then move in with his post-punch-hug routine.

Against someone like Whitaker, who fights more on the backfoot than side to side, Angott would be leaping in with hooks and constantly running into Pernell's jab and counter lefts. Once on the inside Whitaker will hang with him and hold his own, neutralising any edge Angott enjoys on the inside.

It will be an ugly, rugged fight, but I don't see Angott being ahead at the end, be it 12 or 15 rounds.

And oh, I think Pep is greater than Pea, but Pea is better against pressure fighters.

[Bill1234]

I rank Pernell over Pep first and foremost because he was a more complete, better boxer in the ring. I often hear about how Pep was more complete, with more pop in his punches, better combos, etc, but based on what I've seen and what I've heard and even from Pep himself, but mainly from what I've seen, Pep seemed to be more of a slick, elusive, make you miss, pop you and move around kinda guy. He couldn't box off the backfoot like Pernell. He couldn't stay in range and make you miss with upper body movement like Pernell. He wouldn't hit you with clean shots like Pernell would, he'd throw pitty pat combos to get you off him when near. Effective, certainly, but not as good as Pernell in my opinion. Pernell was a better fighter in the ring I believe, contrary to what we're all told about Pep.

Pep lost to his best opponents in Angott and 3 times to Sandy Saddler. Chavez in my book is about as good as Sandy Saddler(both probably top 20) and Whitaker dominated Chavez, while Pep managed 1 win out of 4 bouts. Fights were in 52, Pep retired in 65, so it's hard for me to say he was really pas his prime as everyone says, although he wasn't at his peak since the planecrash.

Pep's record of 229-11-1 is fantastic, but his list of opponents beat isn't as fantastic as you'd figure for someone ranked so high on most lists. While obviously with that many fights you'll probably have a better quantity of opponents than Whitaker, but he really didn't have a better quality of opponents, at all.

I feel that Pep's resume is very overrated and while better on quantity than Whitaker's due to the many more fights, it wasn't better on quality at all. I also feel, as I said before, that Whitaker was the better boxer in the ring, and better than most, if not all, I've ever seen in the ring.

Thank you for listening to my presentation.:D


But he fought some of the great guys like Saddler after he was past his prime, and after his horrble plane crash. Its hard to get footage of him in his prime, but he was better than Pernell when he was.

[Bill1234]

Sweet Pea, et al. I think that you underestimate Pep. In terms of sheer skill, there has been no one like him, except for Pernell and even Pernell was a relative novice when you look at activity. A 135-1-1 streak is sickeningly great. Pernell was like 32-1 at his best. I take serious issue with the idea that guys with under 50 fights can be compared with guys like Pep. People casually say "oh but he fought no one" -as if. Pep stepped into the ring and put his life and health in jeopardy 240 times against professionals: Jackie Wilson, Chalky Wright, Willie Joyce, and Paddy DeMarco, and Sandy Saddler are among his wins.

You also forget the testimony of those who saw him and his opponents. Many compared fighting Pep to trying to "put moonbeams in a jar" fighting a man in a hall of mirrors, or chasing a shadow. One of them said that it was like "trying to stamp out a grass fire."

Pep was a beautiful boxer who would make his man miss by centimeters -his defense was usually inside the perimeter. Many celebrate Ali's "defensive skill" -it couldn't compare to Pep's. Pep was a textbook fighter who wrote his own because he was too advanced for it -it wasn't Ali-Jones speedy unorthodoxy -it was calculus 3.

Angott had his number -and I'd be willing to bet the house that Angott would have had Pernell's number just as much. Angott's style was the foil for small innovators because it was designed for disruption, frustration, and smothering. An Armstrong got by him because of the strength and power factor. Pep was no Hercules in there (and contrary to a few confusing opinions out here, neither was Pernell).

You seem to dismiss Pep's comeback from the plane crash. I think it is among the greatest boxing comebacks in history. He was never supposed to walk again, never mind fight... a broken back, paralyzed from the waist down for a time, and in a body cast for 5 months. The fact that he actually offered his greatest masterpiece in beating Saddler after the crash is shocking. He fought Sandy, one of the greatest to come out of Boston, MA (my home town) for the second time in his 140th fight. Fact is, Saddler probably had the Pep puzzle solved too due to his style -Pep shouldn't have beat him at all.

So, if this means who was the "greatest", pound for pound, I would take Robinson. Sometimes conventional wisdom is right. If you mean who was the greatest "boxer" who ever lived, meaning who had the highest level of skill, I'd proclaim Pep. He was superior to them all...a savant technician.

:good

[Bill1234]

How the hell do you know without footage? It's not like he had a different style in his prime. The footage I've seen has been the same as what I've heard, and from what I've seen and heard, he was not as complete as Pernell.

Regardless if he was past his prime against Saddler(he retired in 65, fought Saddler in 52, the crash was the only reason he is said to have been past it) his resume up to then and after then is not as good as many fighters, a lot of his greatness is based on the way he fought, and I think Pernell was better in the way he fought.

I'm not arguing that Pep is the more complete fighter, because he is not. But he wasn't the same after the plane crash, and thats the footage you are most likely seeing. Also, IMO the quality of footage has a lot to do with what people think and see. Which IMO is why a lot of people think the heavyweight division right now is better than the one say 50 years ago, 40 years ago. Other then them just being morons its the footage quality. You can't base everything on what you see. Because a lot of times its not the whole thing.

[Imira]

Joe Louis

[SgrRyLeonard]

Sugar Ray Robinson.

[Stonehands89]

Well, saying Pernell would try to shimmy and shake and innovate is pretty close-minded. Pernell was a damn near perfect technical boxer in terms of shifting his feet, staying off the ropes, staying within punching range, and clean counter-punching, as well as tying up and in-fighting. His speed and phenomenal reflexes and cleverness just added to it.

Many fighters tried to be on Pernell like a cheap suit, and he thoroughly handled them all, and I guess it just depends on what ref you have to call the dirty play from Angott.

Pernell was an innovator and he fought in an extremely unorthodox manner ("shimmy and shake" is merely a fancy way of saying that) -that isn't close-minded. The point is that Angott may have been the most seasoned ever at neutralizing a stylist.

Pernell was absolutely not a "damn near technically perfect boxer." As a matter of fact, his game was actually "anti-technique" -he threw off the other guy's timing and used a mode of attack based on odd angles and imaginative combinations. The whole style was formed around creating illusions and capitalizing on missed shots. But in so doing, he could be off balance and open. Sometimes wide-open... then his athleticism would kick in and a guy like Ramirez, as good as was with conventional boxers, couldn't do much with that.

I would agree that Angott's chances probably depend on the era and a liberal referee.

[Russell]

Saddler was made to take Pep apart anyway, not to mention that he caught Pep after an accident that should of crippled the man for life.

[Dempsey1238]

Barney Ross, no ifs ands or butts about it.

[JC2006]

Sugar Ray Robinson.

[Street Lethal]

Sugar Ray Robinson

[mcvey]

... And wrongly so. I've come to my senses.

But I measure 'greatness' mostly on achievements so that is irrelevant.
Youth is wasted on the young!



SRR!

[heerko koois]

Thomas Hearns ........

[Bill1234]

Roy Jones Jr

NO.:nono

[joe33]

greb