Part I: Classic's Consensus P4P Top 10 Inclusions

[Stonehands89]

The "Stonehands' Top 10 HW Champions" thread from a few weeks ago seems to have settled into the following:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Marciano
5. Lewis
6. Foreman
7. Holmes
8. Holyfield
9. Tyson
10. Dempsey

{Anyone who wants to debate the above list should go to that thread}

The purpose of this thread is to find a pool of potential top 10 fighters of all time, p4p. So I'd like to start hashing out who earns a place somewhere in that elite group. Would posters offer between 1 and 3 names of fighters (champions or non-champions) who were active in 1920 or afterwards whom they see as top 10 all-time, p4p material? Try not to repeat names already mentioned -so read the preceding posts once they start to pile up.

So, Part I is for us to summon a pool of the best of the best and then debate who earns a place somewhere in the top 10 -not "where they place" but "if" a particular fighter places.

[natonic]

Sorry, I'm first out of the gate so I guess I get the no brainers. I can't conceive of these guys being outside any top 10. Esteemed by their peers and "experts" alike:

Sam Langford
Sugar Ray Robinson
Harry Greb

[stevebhoy87]

Sorry, I'm first out of the gate so I guess I get the no brainers. I can't conceive of these guys being outside any top 10. Esteemed by their peers and "experts" alike:

Sam Langford
Sugar Ray Robinson
Harry Greb

I'll take next then

Henry Armstrong
Ezzard Charles
Roberto Duran

[Quick Cash]

Willie Pep

[Drew101]

Definite: Benny Leonard

Recommended: Archie Moore

Entirely Possible: Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali

[the cobra]

Mickey Walker
Barney Ross
Ray Leonard

[TommyV]

Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong, should be the top 4, in whatever order, but nobody can rank above those 4 guys. Ezzard Charles should also definately be in the top 10, as should Roberto Duran.

The rest are debatable, though I have guys like Benny Leonard, Willie Pep and Mickey Walker.

[Stonehands89]

Good start. Benny Leonard, Ezzard, Moore, Ross, and Walker are debatable. Would anyone argue that others (besides the shoe-ins) should be in their place?

[SgrRyLeonard]

Recommended: Sandy Saddler

[Sweet Pea]

Barbados Joe Walcott and Bob Fitzsimmons.

[Minotauro]

Joe Gans

[McGrain]

There are only 5 locks IMO.

Langford, Greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles.

Other five spots, all debateable.

[Drew101]

Good start. Benny Leonard, Ezzard, Moore, Ross, and Walker are debatable. Would anyone argue that others (besides the shoe-ins) should be in their place?

I'd actually say Pep's inclusion might be more open to debate than Moore's. Same with Ezzard Charles. Those two are shoo-in's, SH.

[DINAMITA]

My own personal opinion is that the top 5 simply has to be: Robinson, Langford, Greb, Armstrong and Charles in whichever order you prefer.

Personally I also cannot accept a top 10 without Mickey Walker, Roberto Duran or Muhammad Ali.

So for me, only two places are up for grabs.

Right now, I give them to Archie Moore and Barney Ross.

But I would not argue with anyone who had Benny Leonard or Willie Pep or Bob Fitzsimmons or Joe Gans, or IMO even Pernell Whitaker or Ray Leonard.

In particular, choosing between Ross, Benny Leonard and Pep for 10th is a horrible choice. It's anyones guess who is truly the greatest of those three.

[Stonehands89]

Barbados Joe Walcott and Bob Fitzsimmons.
Neither were active in 1920. That year is as good a cut off as any because I at least hold that before that year it was essentially a different sport.

[Stonehands89]

Joe Gans
Again, I like the pick, but no dice. Gans died in 1910.

[Stonehands89]

I'd actually say Pep's inclusion might be more open to debate than Moore's. Same with Ezzard Charles. Those two are shoo-in's, SH.
I'd agree with you. On Tuesdays and Saturdays...!

[Stonehands89]

Thus far, we have to include Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Langford, Duran, Charles...

That's four more spots up for grabs. I'll throw in 3 that I think should be definites:

Archie Moore
Mickey Walker
Charlie Burley

[McGrain]

Duran is not a lock, though I have him in the ten.

Moore is not a lock, and currently is my #11

Burley is not a lock :|

[Stonehands89]

Duran is not a lock, though I have him in the ten.

Moore is not a lock, and currently is my #11

Burley is not a lock :|
Here are the usual categories give or take that I try to apply:

Ring generalship
experience/quality of opposition
longevity
dominance
performance against larger opponents

Duran scores very high in all of those categories. I can't see him outside of the 10. Walker does as well and Burley is very high in at least 3 categories.

Who would you offer that hasn't already been mentioned that exceeds their rights of inclusion?

[mr. magoo]

There are only 5 locks IMO.

Langford, Greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Charles.

Other five spots, all debateable.

Can't disagree.

However I'd like to Ali in there somewhere.

[Stonehands89]

Can't disagree.

However I'd like to Ali in there somewhere.
I'm looking for a pool of the best potentials, I'd like maybe 20 to apply the measures to once I get them and forge a top 10 that is more than mere feelings and based on some kind of objective standard. Gimme names!

Ali is in the running.

[sweet_scientist]

With fighters like Langford, Greb and B. Leonard, are we to take into account their whole careers, much of which took place pre 1920, or only what they did after 1920? I'd assume it's the former, which of course would make them locks for the top 10.

If it's the latter, then I nominate Willie Pep, Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler for the top 10.

[McGrain]

Here are the usual categories give or take that I try to apply:

Ring generalship
experience/quality of opposition
longevity
dominance
performance against larger opponents

Duran scores very high in all of those categories. I can't see him outside of the 10. Walker does as well and Burley is very high in at least 3 categories.

Who would you offer that hasn't already been mentioned that exceeds their rights of inclusion?

Yes, all true. But here is a very reasonable list that excludes these boys -

01 - Sam Langford
02 - Sugar Ray
03 - Greb
04 - Armstrong
05 - Charles
06 - Your man Mickey
07 - Willie Pep
08 - Benny Leonard
09 - Muhammad Ali
10 - Bob Fitzsimmons.

Now this isn't my list, but I think that it isn't unreasonable. Especially if:

11 - Roberto Duran
12 - Archie Moore

You know?

[McGrain]

:yikes

Marvin Hagler for the top 10.

[sweet_scientist]

:yikes

On the assumption that he clearly beat Vito, Duran and snuck by Ray, of course :good

[McGrain]

On the assumption that he clearly beat Vito, Duran and snuck by Ray, of course :good

I like your Gone With The Wind better than Wizard of Oz pick more.

[Stonehands89]

With fighters like Langford, Greb and B. Leonard, are we to take into account their whole careers, much of which took place pre 1920, or only what they did after 1920? I'd assume it's the former, which of course would make them locks for the top 10.

If it's the latter, then I nominate Willie Pep, Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler for the top 10.
I'd say the former. If a fighter retired in 1921, we consider his career in toto.

[Stonehands89]

Yes, all true. But here is a very reasonable list that excludes these boys -

01 - Sam Langford
02 - Sugar Ray
03 - Greb
04 - Armstrong
05 - Charles
06 - Your man Mickey
07 - Willie Pep
08 - Benny Leonard
09 - Muhammad Ali
10 - Bob Fitzsimmons.

Now this isn't my list, but I think that it isn't unreasonable. Especially if:

11 - Roberto Duran
12 - Archie Moore

You know?
* I can't see Benny Leonard over Duran... arguably as pure LW, but that's only about 1/3 of Duran's career and those later accomplishments put him over The Great Bennah.

* Ali over Moore or Duran? Perish the thought.

* Fitz is pre-1920.

I will include Duran, Ali, Benny, and Moore though.

[sweet_scientist]

I like your Gone With The Wind better than Wizard of Oz pick more.

:lol:

Thanks mate. How about my The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance rather than Lawrence of Arabia? Was lucky to escape with my life after that one :yep

[Stonehands89]

If it's the latter, then I nominate Willie Pep, Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler for the top 10.
Marvin? Nah. I can't see it. I think Ray is a stretch too...

[sweet_scientist]

Marvin? Nah. I can't see it. I think Ray is a stretch too...

What's your personal top ten on the assumption that Greb, Langford and B. Leonard aren't included? Is it STILL unsightly, or a stretch to have a Ray or a Marv?

[McGrain]

* I can't see Benny Leonard over Duran... arguably as pure LW, but that's only about 1/3 of Duran's career and those later accomplishments put him over The Great Bennah.


I think that's fair. It's certainly my position. But it's not absolutley clear.


* Ali over Moore or Duran? Perish the thought.

Well Ali certainly has a better record against the best he fought than Moore did.

* Fitz is pre-1920.

Oh yeah! Chuck in Sugar Ray Leonard then. I think he has a case to be ranked above Moore, certainly (not my position).

I will include Duran, Ali, Benny, and Moore though.

I believe that's reasonable, but I still feel that these positions are arguable.

[McGrain]

:lol:

Thanks mate. How about my The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance rather than Lawrence of Arabia? Was lucky to escape with my life after that one :yep


Saying nothing!

[Stonehands89]

What's your personal top ten on the assumption that Greb, Langford and B. Leonard aren't included? Is it STILL unsightly, or a stretch to have a Ray or a Marv?
There's too many others .... Ross. Canzonari. Burley. Jofre.

[Minotauro]

Again, I like the pick, but no dice. Gans died in 1910.

My bad in that case Walker, Moore, Pep and Ross.

[DINAMITA]

What's your personal top ten on the assumption that Greb, Langford and B. Leonard aren't included? Is it STILL unsightly, or a stretch to have a Ray or a Marv?

1.Robinson
2.Armstrong
3.Charles
4.Duran
5.Ali
6.Walker
7.Ross
8.Moore
9.Pep
10.Ray Leonard

ps: Fitzsimmons not included either for the same reason

[GPater11093]

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Langford
5. Pep
6. Charles
7. Ali
8. Duran
9. Leonard (Benny)
10. Hagler

HM: Monzon, SRL, Ross, etc...

i include hagler as i reckon him to be the best middle ever, also i think Pep is the best fighter out of the top 4 as he was being ranked as P4P great before he even retired. the rest are fairly uncontroversial

[Stonehands89]

1.Robinson
2.Armstrong
3.Charles
4.Duran
5.Ali
6.Walker
7.Ross
8.Moore
9.Pep
10.Ray Leonard

ps: Fitzsimmons not included either for the same reason


1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Langford
5. Pep
6. Charles
7. Ali
8. Duran
9. Leonard (Benny)
10. Hagler

Stay tuned. I have my own top 10 list too... but if we're honest, all of our preconceptions will be challenged and our lists will change once we apply a standard that is above our preconceptions. First, a pool. Then, a list.

[MrMarvel]

Robinson
Armstrong
Ali
Duran
Charles
Pep
Hagler
Greb
Jones Jr.
Langford

Several recommended (in no order and nonexhaustive): Monzon, Napoles, Canzoneri, Saddler, Moore, B. Leonard, Chavez, Jofre, Perez, Whitaker, Pryor, Griffith.

[Stonehands89]

Robinson
Armstrong
Ali
Duran
Charles
Pep
Hagler
Greb
Jones Jr.
Langford

Several recommended (in no order and nonexhaustive): Monzon, Napoles, Canzoneri, Saddler, Moore, B. Leonard, Chavez, Jofre, Perez, Whitaker, Pryor, Griffith.
Jones is looking like a transvestite at the Arthurian Round Table in that list.

[Stonehands89]

Here's the pool thus far:

Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Ali
Langford
Duran
Moore
Ross
Charles
Pep
Benny Leonard
Walker

---anyone who hasn't voted for these names can second them and they get in:

Burley
Canzonari
Ray Leonard
Jofre

[ishy]

Jones is looking like a transvestite at the Arthurian Round Table in that list.

:rofl

[DINAMITA]

Here's the pool thus far:

Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Ali
Langford
Duran
Moore
Ross
Charles
Pep
Benny Leonard
Walker

---anyone who hasn't voted for these names can second them and they get in:

Burley
Canzonari
Ray Leonard
Jofre

Personally I'd have Sweet Pea above Burley, Canzoneri and Jofre.

However, the consensus pool group that you have above is perfect IMO.

[Stonehands89]

Personally I'd have Sweet Pea above Burley, Canzoneri and Jofre.

However, the consensus pool group that you have above is perfect IMO.
Okay... perhaps I'll throw in Whitaker and those three for fun.

[Holmes' Jab]

Agree with McGrain that the 5 fighters he mentioned are the only 'locks'. Ray Leonard, Micky Walker, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whitaker are all strong contenders for top 10 consideration. Most of 'em make my 10.

[Stonehands89]

Agree with McGrain that the 5 fighters he mentioned are the only 'locks'. Ray Leonard, Micky Walker, Benny Leaonrd and Pernell Whitaker are all strong contenders for top 10 consideration.
I appreciate the input Holmes'.... I'll put Leonard in the running for a place.

[Stonehands89]

Even though it makes me feel feverishly ill.

[Holmes' Jab]

Even though it makes me feel feverishly ill.

:D For me, Ray is the greatest fighter of the last 30-odd years or so.


Ps: My heavyweight pick to make it would be Louis. Ali might.

[asero]

louis should be there...ali and louis should be close to one another

fitzsimmons > walker

[Holmes' Jab]

fitzsimmons > walker

You could make a case, though I have 'em the other way around.

[Stonehands89]

:D For me, Ray is the greatest fighter of the last 30-odd years or so.
Greater than Duran?? BAH!!!


Ps: My heavyweight pick to make it would be Louis. Ali might.
Louis has been seconded. He's in.

[asero]

my bad, so gans, johnson, wilde and fitzsimmons are not qualified since their prime happened before 1920s...

top 5 is locked...langford,robinson,armstrong,greb, charles

is this a p4p h2h list (skill based) or a list that is based on accomplishment

[Stonehands89]

my bad, so gans, johnson, wilde and fitzsimmons are not qualified since their prime happened before 1920s...

top 5 is locked...langford,robinson,armstrong,greb, charles

is this a p4p h2h list (skill based) or a list that is based on accomplishment
I'm looking at the including the following categories -give or take- and scoring on a 1-10 basis:

Experience/Quality of Competition
Longevity
Dominance
Ring Generalship
Performance against larger opponents
Adversity overcome

[asero]

I'm looking at the including the following categories -give or take- and scoring on a 1-10 basis:

Experience/Quality of Competition
Longevity
Dominance
Ring Generalship
Performance against larger opponents
Adversity overcome


how about losses in significant fights..where does it fall? dominance or quality of competiton?

[Stonehands89]

how about losses in significant fights..where does it fall? dominance or quality of competiton?
Yes, dominance. I was thinking about throwing in W/L ratio but that would lend an unfair advantage to more modern fighters and greats like Langford would really suffer.

[asero]

how about the record of joe louis in most number of defenses...longetivity or dominance?

[Stonehands89]

how about the record of joe louis in most number of defenses...longetivity or dominance?
Dominance. Longevity would be more like number of fights and years pro.

Good questions. Keep 'em coming... they help to streamline this upcoming effort and I hope that you will be active in the "Part II"

[asero]

there a good article....half of what he says makes sense...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[asero]

that's why i put premium on timeliness...that is the category when a boxer's accomplishment is being compared with other boxer's accomplishment with different era..joe louis record setting defenses...pacquiao's potential 7 division titles...wilde's lagacy in lighter division..

that is the category where calzaghe would gain grounds as years pass by..his 168 career is hard to equalize

[Stonehands89]

there a good article....half of what he says makes sense...

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
I own the book. Gray has the right idea but keep in mind that he's a baseball man. He goes into contortions to keep it as scientific as possible but his list is a mess after the first 5 or so. I disagree with his method and with some of his categories as well.

Quickly put, I think it a mistake to use purely quantitative measures (sheer numbers) when doing a p4p list. You must factor in qualititative measures (opinions) as well even though it will mean more subjectivity. Boxing insiders and analysts and historians know far more than accountants when it comes to who's who and what's what.

Figuring these lists is similar to judge's watching a fight... it cannot be done completely objectively lest you get the mess that is Olympic boxing.

[Stonehands89]

that's why i put premium on timeliness...that is the category when a boxer's accomplishment is being compared with other boxer's accomplishment with different era..joe louis record setting defenses...pacquiao's potential 7 division titles...wilde's lagacy in lighter division..

that is the category where calzaghe would gain grounds as years pass by..his 168 career is hard to equalize
See, my method considers all of that.

Louis for instance (in my other HW Champ thread) scores lower than Ali in Experience/Quality of Comp. For this one, Pac would do well in performance against larger men but less well in dominance... that's the price of jumping about. Duran by contrast scores high both times. Wilde's quality of comp is less impressive, though his longevity is considerable.

[McGrain]

It's good that you have solid criteria, rather than just going on your guy (like myslef), but do you ever feel landlocked by your criteria? Any examples?

[MrMarvel]

What's the dislike for Roy Jones Jr. I'm picking up here? The man was extraordinary. Like every fighter, there was a time limit on his greatness, and the clock ran out on him about the same time it runs out on a lot of all-time greats. But during his prime he was the baffler, making outstanding opponents look stuck in the mud, at times even stupid. He defeated Toney, Hopkins, and Hill, among others. Like many past greats he was able to compete from middleweight to heavyweight, bouncing weights the way Moore did. Just because he was wrecked twice at the end of his career is no reason to revise the entire history of his career and downgrade him.

[MrMarvel]

Ray Leonard is being ranked too highly by many. He shouldn't be a candidate for top ten. He was beaten by a lightweight. Yes, it was Duran, and there is no shame in that, but you have to ask yourself, would a welterweight of all-time pound-for-pound status lose to any lightweight? Would Robinson lose to Duran?

There are other reasons. Leonard's win over Hearns had more to do with Hearns than Leonard. Same thing with Leonard's win over Duran in the rematch. Had Leonard steamrolled Duran in the rematch that would have helped. Had Leonard rematched Hearns immediately and steamrolled him that would have helped, too. Leonard's win over the shot Hagler was undeserved. He looked bad in the Hearns rematch, the rubber match with Duran was a real stinker, and he was overwhelmed by Terry Norris (although he was in his mid-30s by that point so we can cut him some slack).

Leonard was a outstanding boxer, but not top ten all-time material.

[Duodenum]

WARNING: Subject to extensive extreme revision and persuation. It will surprise nobody that I can't go with anybody from the 12 round era. I'd have to rate those of the 12 round era separately.

1) Robby (I can't be eclectic here. Boring, but he's the man. What Armstrong emphatically proclaimed about his superiority carries perhaps disproportionate weight with me. Plus, I've seen 24 minutes of his schooling of Fusari at 147, something everybody here should have an opportunity to study and enjoy.)

2) Duranimal (In any given second, I could switch him with my number three. I rate Montreal Duran over New Orleans SRL, and feel that Montreal Duran always would have won it on the cards after ten rounds. Even in New Orleans, Ray wasn't running away with the scoring.)

3) Greb (A past prime Harry handled Walker fairly decisively. Even Mickey conceded that Greb beat him. This has huge P4P ramifications for me.)

4) Langford (Since he retired after 1920. We're truly blessed to have the peak Sam on film versus Jim Flynn.)

5) Ross. (Good to see Barney well represented on this thread. I've always been impressed with the footage of a peak Ross with Billy Petrolle over 15. Imagine THAT version of Ross versus Hank!)

6) Canzi (Past his best, he handled Ambers better than Armstrong did, when Tony won his final title.)

7) Hank

8) Pep

9) Ezz

10) Burley (Only his footage in the Oakland Billy Smith rematch has come to light, but at 28 he was close to his prime then.)


I wonder how Walker would have done if Doc Kearns had taken away his cigarrettes. Ditto if Locche had managed to kick the habit. (Not only would Nicolino probably still be alive, he might still be competing. Also, smoking is not good for facial skin. That may have cost him his rematch with Cervantes.) Ditto Monzon. (It may not have mattered with Carlos, but imagine a chain smoker as a champion today!)

This is merely a starting point. Gimme a chance to sleep on it, and I might come up with an entirely different looking list.

[Stonehands89]

What's the dislike for Roy Jones Jr. I'm picking up here? The man was extraordinary. Like every fighter, there was a time limit on his greatness, and the clock ran out on him about the same time it runs out on a lot of all-time greats. But during his prime he was the baffler, making outstanding opponents look stuck in the mud, at times even stupid. He defeated Toney, Hopkins, and Hill, among others. Like many past greats he was able to compete from middleweight to heavyweight, bouncing weights the way Moore did. Just because he was wrecked twice at the end of his career is no reason to revise the entire history of his career and downgrade him.
Asserting that Roy Jones does not belong in the top 10 p4p ATG list is not downgrading him in the least. I've yet to meet someone who is out of their 20s or 30s and more than a casual observer of the sport who would put him among the greatest fighters in history. I call it the "Max Kellerman syndrome". The young get starstruck by speed and power and fail to look any closer. The problem here is not that I'm downgrading him, it's that you are glorifying him.

[Stonehands89]

It's good that you have solid criteria, rather than just going on your guy (like myslef), but do you ever feel landlocked by your criteria? Any examples?
The most structured ranking I've done is on the HW champs on this forum. A few results surprised me -Johnson at #3, Lewis at #6 -5, Holyfield was lower than I expected, etc. The problem that I'm encountering is scoring guys fairly and keeping the standard sensible... I think that using, for example, Moore as the standard for longevity and giving him the 10 and then comparing everyone else to that works pretty well. I gave Ali a 10 at level of comp for heavyweights. I'm not sure that I could justify giving him a 10 at P4P compared to say... Sammy Angott. Do you follow me?

[Stonehands89]

Ray Leonard is being ranked too highly by many. He shouldn't be a candidate for top ten. He was beaten by a lightweight. Yes, it was Duran, and there is no shame in that, but you have to ask yourself, would a welterweight of all-time pound-for-pound status lose to any lightweight? Would Robinson lose to Duran?

There are other reasons. Leonard's win over Hearns had more to do with Hearns than Leonard. Same thing with Leonard's win over Duran in the rematch. Had Leonard steamrolled Duran in the rematch that would have helped. Had Leonard rematched Hearns immediately and steamrolled him that would have helped, too. Leonard's win over the shot Hagler was undeserved. He looked bad in the Hearns rematch, the rubber match with Duran was a real stinker, and he was overwhelmed by Terry Norris (although he was in his mid-30s by that point so we can cut him some slack).

Leonard was a outstanding boxer, but not top ten all-time material.
I'd be more inclined to agree than disagreee, although your logic about Duran beating Leonard is problematic. You have to make exceptions for legends. LHW Tunney lost to MW Greb... is that shameful? Considering who and what Greb was it sure as hell isn't.

Either way, Leonard was seconded here and so he is in the pool. It doesn't mean that he will make the top 10 ever.

[Stonehands89]

WARNING: Subject to extensive extreme revision and persuation. It will surprise nobody that I can't go with anybody from the 12 round era. I'd have to rate those of the 12 round era separately.

1) Robby (I can't be eclectic here. Boring, but he's the man. What Armstrong emphatically proclaimed about his superiority carries perhaps disproportionate weight with me. Plus, I've seen 24 minutes of his schooling of Fusari at 147, something everybody here should have an opportunity to study and enjoy.)

2) Duranimal (In any given second, I could switch him with my number three. I rate Montreal Duran over New Orleans SRL, and feel that Montreal Duran always would have won it on the cards after ten rounds. Even in New Orleans, Ray wasn't running away with the scoring.)

3) Greb (A past prime Harry handled Walker fairly decisively. Even Mickey conceded that Greb beat him. This has huge P4P ramifications for me.)

4) Langford (Since he retired after 1920. We're truly blessed to have the peak Sam on film versus Jim Flynn.)

5) Ross. (Good to see Barney well represented on this thread. I've always been impressed with the footage of a peak Ross with Billy Petrolle over 15. Imagine THAT version of Ross versus Hank!)

6) Canzi (Past his best, he handled Ambers better than Armstrong did, when Tony won his final title.)

7) Hank

8) Pep

9) Ezz

10) Burley (Only his footage in the Oakland Billy Smith rematch has come to light, but at 28 he was close to his prime then.)


I wonder how Walker would have done if Doc Kearns had taken away his cigarrettes. Ditto if Locche had managed to kick the habit. (Not only would Nicolino probably still be alive, he might still be competing. Also, smoking is not good for facial skin. That may have cost him his rematch with Cervantes.) Ditto Monzon. (It may not have mattered with Carlos, but imagine a chain smoker as a champion today!)

This is merely a starting point. Gimme a chance to sleep on it, and I might come up with an entirely different looking list.
Thanks for this. Do you think that say, a Tommy Loughren or a Joe Louis?

[BritInvasion]

From what I have read, both in this thread and previous articles it seems that there are, rightly, four 100% locks for any objective top 10. In addition to these 4, there are 2 guys who are maybe just short of 'lock' status on ESB. Roberto Duran and Ezzard Charles. For me, and many on here they are nailed on top 10 guys. Indeed, I can't envisage Duran outside my top 5, and probably makes my #3.

I am beginning to wonder, does the ESB classic board overrate Ezzard Charles? Looking at other ratings he seems woefully underrated, but is the reality that he does not belong in consideration for 'lock' status and therefore top five consideration?

Anyway, here are what I believe are ESB 'locks' and my personal top 6 fighters of all time (who's positioning within that changes though I'd probably go Robinson, Greb, Duran, Langford, Armstrong, Charles; though I sense I often underrate Hank):
Locks:
Greb
Langford
Robinson
Armstrong
Near Locks
Duran
Charles

Following on from theses, here are a few lists from the big wide world that conflict somewhat with ESB's love for Charles.

It seems HWs get too much recognition (indeed of the 5 guys who have won RING's fighter of the year 3 times or more ALL are HWs), with big shouts (naturally) for Ali and Louis in addition to Marciano, Johnson and Dempsey for the top 10. Louis and Ali seems reasonable, but Marciano and Dempsey?!
It seems Pep and Leonard are close to 'locks' elsewhere, and surely are very strong contenders here on ESB. Now if we could just do something about the overrated SR Leonard keep popping up...

I have highlighted the relevant fighters, from the list above:

IBRO:
1 Robinson
2 Greb
3 Armstrong
4 Ali(Tie)
4 Louis(Tie)
6 Langford
7 Duran
8 Leonard
9 Pep
10 Fitzsimmons (Charles#12)

RING 1922-2002:
1 Robinson
2 Armstrong
3 Ali
4 Louis
5 Duran
6 Pep
7 Greb
8 Leonard(B)
9 Leonard (SR)
10 Whitaker (Charles #13, Langford n/a)

RING GREATEST FIGHTERS OF THE 20th CENTURY (1999):
1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Robinson
4 Armstrong
5 Johnson
6 Dempsey
7 Leonard(B)
8 Greb
9 Marciano
10 Moore (Duran #11, Charles & Langford not in top20)

BERT SUGAR (2006):
1 Robinson
2 Armstrong
3 Pep
4 Louis
5 Greb
6 Leonard(B)
7 Ali
8 Duran
9 Dempsey
10 Johnson (Langford #16, Charles #24)

BERT SUGAR (1984):
1 Robinson
2 Armstrong
3 Greb
4 Dempsey
5 Leonard (B)
6 Louis
7 Walker
8 Langford
9 Canzoneri
10 Ali (Duran #17, Charles #31)


NAT FLEISCHER:
HW: Jack Johnson
LHW: Kid McCoy
MW: Stan Ketchel
WW: Joe Walcott
LW: Joe Gans
FW: Terry McGovern
BW: George Dixon
Fly: Jimmy Wilde

Fleischer Best All-Around Fighter:
1 Jack Johnson
2 Jack Dempsey
3 Joe Louis

ESPN (2007):
1 Robinson
2 Ali
3 Armstrong
4 Louis
5 Pep
6 Duran
7 Leonard(B)
8 Johnson
9 Dempsey
10 Langford (Greb #13, Charles #27)

OBSERVER (UK Broadsheet, 2000):
1 Ali
2 Robinson
3 Louis
4 Wilde
5 Leonard(B)
6 Moore
7 Johnson
8 Leonard (SR)
9 Dempsey
10 Armstrong

Angelo Dundee:
"I don’t like to do that (rate the all-time greats). It’s unfair. The best. Hypothetically, Ray Robinson, how can you fault him? He was incredible. So was Jack Johnson."

GIL CLANCY:
1 Pep
2 Robinson
3 Louis
4 Moore
5 Ali
6 Marciano
7 Greb
8 Duran
9 Leonard(SR)
10 Harold Johsnon

LOU DUVA:
1 Robinson
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Ali
5 Saddler
6 Pep
7 Giardello
8 LaMotta
9 Leonard(SR)
10 Whitaker

[Stonehands89]

Thanking you, BritInvasion. Part of my motivation is to question and perhaps expose some of those lists as subjective, internally inconsistent, and just plain "off". The first question should ask what are their measures? I know that ESPN includes "mainstream appeal"... now I ask you, what the !#$% does THAT have to do with who the greatest fighters were? See? I throw that whole list out the window.

[BritInvasion]

Thanking you, BritInvasion. Part of my motivation is to question and perhaps expose some of those lists as subjective, internally inconsistent, and just plain "off". The first question should ask what are their measures? I know that ESPN includes "mainstream appeal"... now I ask you, what the !#$% does THAT have to do with who the greatest fighters were? See? I throw that whole list out the window.
"mainstream appeal" = I can put Ali where I like. And Ray Leonard. I don't like HWs in the top 10. Certainly, any more than 1 is ridiculous.

How do you feel about Charles's low (relatively) placing in many lists?

[MrMarvel]

I'd be more inclined to agree than disagreee, although your logic about Duran beating Leonard is problematic. You have to make exceptions for legends. LHW Tunney lost to MW Greb... is that shameful? Considering who and what Greb was it sure as hell isn't.

Yes, but I wouldn't put Tunney in the top ten, either, and that's part of my point. It's clearly not shameful that Tunney lost to Greb. I agree with you here. Greb was, by all accounts, an amazing fighter. I have him in my top 10! It's not shameful that Leonard lost to Duran. He put up a hell of a fight, and he beat him twice after that. But by losing that first fight, the fight where all their powers were on display, Leonard is precluded from the top 10 all-time great status because, well, I believe a welterweight worthy of that lofty designation would not lose to any lightweight with a world title on the line. That's just my view, and I appreciate your point of view. :)

[Duodenum]

Thanks for this. Do you think that say, a Tommy Loughran or a Joe Louis?Definitely Tommy. I'm somewhat less certain about Joe, as good as he was against larger opposition.:think (Loughran could easily hit my top ten, depending on my mood of the moment.)

[Bokaj]

There are other reasons. Leonard's win over Hearns had more to do with Hearns than Leonard. Same thing with Leonard's win over Duran in the rematch. Had Leonard steamrolled Duran in the rematch that would have helped. Had Leonard rematched Hearns immediately and steamrolled him that would have helped, too. Leonard's win over the shot Hagler was undeserved. He looked bad in the Hearns rematch, the rubber match with Duran was a real stinker, and he was overwhelmed by Terry Norris (although he was in his mid-30s by that point so we can cut him some slack).

This is mostly BS. Don't know why there's so hard to give Leonard his due.

In short: Hearn's loss to Leonard was due to Leonard knocking him out, nothing else. The rematch (which I feel Hearns won, though) showed clearly that Hearns always would have trouble lasting 15 with Leonard.

There's no reason to call the rematch for anything but what it was: A well conducted fight by Leonard and a shameful quit job by Duran. How Duran seems to come out the better in their series for most people is absolutely baffling to me.

Hagler, a dominant champion, shot? Please! Leonard comes out of a long retirement to fight a dominant champion above his natural weight, and Hagler is the one who's in bad shape? This is so stupid that it doesn't warrant a response probably, but you got it anyway.

Besides that, looking purely at resume I agree with you that Leonard is not quite top 10. But watching him on film I feel pretty sure he was one of the 10 best ever. But I go by resume, so he's out.

[MrMarvel]

You are not objective. A knockout is when a boxer cannot rise before the count of 10. In the case of Leonard-Hearns I, the referee stepped in between them. This was a very subjective case. I would not have stopped it, maybe some others of you would, but it was not in any case a knockout.

I will prove you are not objective with your own words. You claim that Hearns would always have trouble over the 15 round distance. Really? If this were true then what explains why Hearns outboxed master boxer Wilfred Benetiz over 15 rounds at a more comfortable weight? There would plenty more examples but he was to busy blowing most people away in the early goings on.

This business about coming out of a long retirement is nonsense. Hagler was fighting ring wars that were taking everything out of him. Leonard waited until Hagler had declined substantially before agreeing to fight him. The Hagler that faced Leonard was not the Hagler that destroyed Hamsho. I thought everybody recognized this. Especially since Leonard himself has admitted to it!

You are clearly a huge Leonard fan and can't be objective. You are trying to build up an old shot Hagler in order to make Leonard look good in a fight that he didn't in any case win.

I give Leonard his due. But I also evaluate his career in context, in light of the facts, balancing his virtues and failings. Doing that, he falls short of inclusion in a top 10 pound-for-pound list. I'm not saying he wasn't great. I'm saying he doesn't belong on this list. There isn't room for him on there.

At least you agree with my conclusion. But then you insert this qualification about resume. That's ironic. His resume is actually more impressive than the film would indicate.


This is mostly BS. Don't know why there's so hard to give Leonard his due.

In short: Hearn's loss to Leonard was due to Leonard knocking him out, nothing else. The rematch (which I feel Hearns won, though) showed clearly that Hearns always would have trouble lasting 15 with Leonard.

There's no reason to call the rematch for anything but what it was: A well conducted fight by Leonard and a shameful quit job by Duran. How Duran seems to come out the better in their series for most people is absolutely baffling to me.

Hagler, a dominant champion, shot? Please! Leonard comes out of a long retirement to fight a dominant champion above his natural weight, and Hagler is the one who's in bad shape? This is so stupid that it doesn't warrant a response probably, but you got it anyway.

Besides that, looking purely at resume I agree with you that Leonard is not quite top 10. But watching him on film I feel pretty sure he was one of the 10 best ever. But I go by resume, so he's out.

[Stonehands89]

"mainstream appeal" = I can put Ali where I like. And Ray Leonard. I don't like HWs in the top 10. Certainly, any more than 1 is ridiculous.

How do you feel about Charles's low (relatively) placing in many lists?
I'm actually more surprised that he was included at all. I lost count of how often Charles is treated as if he began as a HW. It's silly.

[asero]

mainstream appeal can be equated to the contribution of a fighter to the growth of the sport...the NBA also included that criteria in naming its 50 greatest

[Bokaj]

You are not objective. A knockout is when a boxer cannot rise before the count of 10. In the case of Leonard-Hearns I, the referee stepped in between them. This was a very subjective case. I would not have stopped it, maybe some others of you would, but it was not in any case a knockout.

Ok. Splitting words I see. Anyway we put it, he lost because of Leonard's punches. Nothing else.

I will prove you are not objective with your own words. You claim that Hearns would always have trouble over the 15 round distance. Really? If this were true then what explains why Hearns outboxed master boxer Wilfred Benetiz over 15 rounds at a more comfortable weight? There would plenty more examples but he was to busy blowing most people away in the early goings on.

Last over 15 with Leonard. You didn't seriously believe I thought that Hearns couldn't last 15 with anyone, did you? But in the two fights with Leonard he showed obvious trouble in lasting 15 with him.

This business about coming out of a long retirement is nonsense. Hagler was fighting ring wars that were taking everything out of him. Leonard waited until Hagler had declined substantially before agreeing to fight him. The Hagler that faced Leonard was not the Hagler that destroyed Hamsho. I thought everybody recognized this. Especially since Leonard himself has admitted to it!

Of course, Hagler was past his prime, but Leonard was even more past his, and also fighting above his natural weight. And this is clear to see in the odds before that fight. Hagler was a big favourite, just because of these reasons.

You are clearly a huge Leonard fan and can't be objective. You are trying to build up an old shot Hagler in order to make Leonard look good in a fight that he didn't in any case win.

Now that's objectivity. Thanks for the lesson.:lol:

At least you agree with my conclusion. But then you insert this qualification about resume. That's ironic. His resume is actually more impressive than the film would indicate.

I very much disagree. But, yeah, resume is what I use when ranking fighters. Leonard's doesn't quite have the depth I would say, but he may very well be the most impressive fighter I've seen on film.

[asero]

I very much disagree. But, yeah, resume is what I use when ranking fighters. Leonard's doesn't quite have the depth I would say, but he may very well be the most impressive fighter I've seen on film.


how do you define resume? does it include losses to lesser fighters?

[My2Sense]

If we're only limited to 3, here's my picks:

Armstrong
Robinson
Ezzard

Probably in that order too.

[Bokaj]

how do you define resume? does it include losses to lesser fighters?

Of course it does. But it depends under what circumstances. Duran's losses when in his 30's and 40's at weights above his natural one isn't that damaging. Neither is Ali's losses to Spinks or Berbick.

But a Tyson in his physical prime getting his ass handed to him by a fringe contender is a bad mark.

[asero]

here is my personal criteria

40%- resume, tangible accomplishments and dominance
20%- longetivity...how long does a fighter is ranked in the top 50 in the world p4p
20%- prime vs prime; head to head with other hall of famers
20%- timeliness...what did you do that others didn't do

[Flea Man]

Arguello? If not, Duran.

[Stonehands89]

mainstream appeal can be equated to the contribution of a fighter to the growth of the sport...the NBA also included that criteria in naming its 50 greatest
Mainstream appeal is irrelevant in ranking the greatest fighters. It's 3 parts luck and 1 part charisma.... and is, as BritInvasion said, it is merely an engine to put Ali where one likes. Ask Ferdie and Dundee to justify their ranking of Ali and you'll hear confirmation of that.

I toss any ranking that includes such pablum.

Similarly, some rankings listed are based on the opinions of the man on the street. This is garbage too. Why? Celebrity appeal again. No one's opinion should be considered if they cannot at least tell you about Ezzard Charles' career in the mid 40s.

Head-to-head? I love doing that here, but it has no place when you are trying to approach an objective ranking. It is far too speculative, not to mention unimportant. Just because fighter A can beat fighter B doesn't make fighter A a better fighter (fill in Angott and Pep if you need a demonstration).

[Bokaj]

here is my personal criteria

40%- resume, tangible accomplishments and dominance
20%- longetivity...how long does a fighter is ranked in the top 50 in the world p4p
20%- prime vs prime; head to head with other hall of famers
20%- timeliness...what did you do that others didn't do

Those are all good, but can all be find in the resume.

[asero]

but pep can beat more ATGs than angott...

[McGrain]

I gave Ali a 10 at level of comp for heavyweights. I'm not sure that I could justify giving him a 10 at P4P compared to say... Sammy Angott. Do you follow me?

Yeah, quite.

[Bokaj]

An example of how I would look at an resume. Let's take Robinson:

40+ wins over ranked opposition - oustanding

Undefeated at WW and only two losses in the first part of his career that stretched well over 100 fights - oustanding

Most losses came after his comeback, when he was in his 30's and 40's. Even in this career he has several very good wins - clearly good

But

Not that many title fights, relatively speaking, and not terribly good record in those fights (even if almost all losses came after the comeback)

Didn't fight some potentially very dangerous opponents like Burley, Cocoa Kid and Holman Williams. Has some very good wins (Gavilan, LaMotta, Graziano, Basilio etc), but not on par with Charles, Greb, Duran or even Ali.

[McGrain]

Bokaj, how highly do you rate Gavilan head to head at welter?

[Bill Butcher]

I only choose boxers that Ive seen reasonable footage......

1. Robinson
2. Ali
3. Pep
4. Armstrong
5. Duran
6. Leonard (Ray)
7. Louis
8. Chavez/Whitaker
10. ??????????

[Bill Butcher]

Willie Pep should be a lock for any top 10 list, he was the best `boxer` that ever lived.

[Bokaj]

Bokaj, how highly do you rate Gavilan head to head at welter?

Haven't watched enough of him to have a really informed opinion. It was clearly a great win for Robinson, though. How highly do you rate Gavilan h2h at welter?

[McGrain]

I see him as top 6.

Behind Robinson, Burley and Leonard but not clearly behind anyone else.

In the second clutch along with Griffith and Hearns. So no higher than 4, no lower than 6, probably #4.

Robinson is 2-0 with this guy. I think that's pretty astonishing...

[Bokaj]

I see him as top 6.

Behind Robinson, Burley and Leonard but not clearly behind anyone else.

In the second clutch along with Griffith and Hearns. So no higher than 4, no lower than 6, probably #4.

Robinson is 2-0 with this guy. I think that's pretty astonishing...

Yep. It isn't bad.

[Stonehands89]

but pep can beat more ATGs than angott...
Are you suggesting that we include a H2H measure where the candidates for the top 10 be in hypotheticals against each other...?

[McGrain]

Yep. It isn't bad.

How about the following, head to head -

Frazier
Foreman
Liston

[Stonehands89]

Bokaj gives me the idea to craft another category for the p4p rankings, one that really separates the elites:

"significant past prime/past weight/past injury wins."

--such a category would give Moore, SRR, Armstrong, Pep and Greb their rightful due.

[asero]

maybe against other fighters in their weight class...head to head a favor pep and saddler over armstrong...because that's the only way we can evaluate how good their skills are. how can you evaluate the overall skill of a fighter if you do not extend your imagination..

it's only 20% and it would not much be a factor...

[Bokaj]

How about the following, head to head -

Frazier
Foreman
Liston

A prime Liston makes my top 5 h2h, possibly my top 3. Frazier is probably just a bit outside my top 5. Foreman is hard to call. He could be a nightmare for most, or very overrated. It's hard to tell since he met so relatively few quality opponents in his prime.

[asero]

i feel moore accomplished more than charles..but people rank charles over moore for his skill and h2h wars. when he is at his best, nobody can beat him at light heavy..

so now, if we set a criteria 100% resume based...did charles really accomplished more that moore?

[McGrain]

A prime Liston makes my top 5 h2h, possibly my top 3. Frazier is probably just a bit outside my top 5. Foreman is hard to call. He could be a nightmare for most, or very overrated. It's hard to tell since he met so relatively few quality opponents in his prime.

Yeah i'd say that's about right.

Foreman is murder to rate because he'd be beaten by almost any boxer or slickster he would come up against IMO. I think he could lose to puncher's too, and based upon that I have him rated lower than most.

[Stonehands89]

maybe against other fighters in their weight class...head to head a favor pep and saddler over armstrong...because that's the only way we can evaluate how good their skills are. how can you evaluate the overall skill of a fighter if you do not extend your imagination..

it's only 20% and it would not much be a factor...
I'm convinced that it would make a mess of things. Who says Pep would beat Armstrong? It is just as likely that he would not and there is no basis for either opinion unless you read Nostradamus. It is pure conjecture. Taking the record as it stands is not. That is where you can more accurately evaluate skills. If you don't like the comp, then you can take points off for "level of comp".

And how would the category be structured? Like this?

"My personal opinion about how this fighter may or may not perform against other historical fighters in his weight class although I'm confused myself when I think about it because every weight class has a different number of peers in the elite group and styles make fights, therefore 20% of my measure is whimsical."

[Stonehands89]

I would agree with you this far though: we can devise a "Greatest H2H fighters in every weight division". That would be fun.

[asero]

I would agree with you this far though: we can devise a "Greatest H2H fighters in every weight division". That would be fun.

and that would put charles, robinson and wilde at the top...i just feel that we need to do this just to make sure that the real skill of a fighter would really show against other greats..i hate it but i put saddler #1 h2h FW...

[asero]

My HW h2h list

ali
louis
lewis
holmes
liston
foreman
jackson
tyson

[Bokaj]

Yeah i'd say that's about right.

Foreman is murder to rate because he'd be beaten by almost any boxer or slickster he would come up against IMO. I think he could lose to puncher's too, and based upon that I have him rated lower than most.

I really like the canvas level-footage of Liston-Patterson I that you posted a while back. It really shows how very accomplished Liston was at his peak (or at least near it). How I would love to see him against Louis and Tyson. Of course, Frazier-Marciano wouldn't be half bad either.

[McGrain]

I really like the canvas level-footage of Liston-Patterson I that you posted a while back. It really shows how very accomplished Liston was at his peak (or at least near it). How I would love to see him against Louis and Tyson. Of course, Frazier-Marciano wouldn't be half bad either.

These fights would probably give you a stroke if they were actually happening.

[GPater11093]

ive always thought to do a really good top 10 P4P you have to rate the top 10 in everyweight then a top 10 of weight jumpers then a top 10 P4P

[MrMarvel]

My comments are directed mainly to Bokaj, but they goes generally to the posts that include Leonard in the top ten. Sorry for being so longwinded. I will try to be more brief in the future.

Fighters sometimes lose just because of punches. Other times it's because of fatigue, poor officiating, injury, illness, cuts, etc. Sometimes is a combination of these factors. The reality of the boxing ring is complicated and discussions of it suffer from interpretations that are self-serving rather than objective.

Leonard's punches were not what brought Hearns down in that fight. Leonard wasn't doing very well in the fight, as you may recall. In fact, he was getting outboxed. The main reason for Hearn's downfall was fatique and a referee who jumped the gun.

Hearns lost. Leonard won. We all know this. It goes down in the record books as a referee-stopped-fight. Yet the dynamics of the fight are important, too, and, as with all referee-stopped-fight calls, one needs to look at the circumstances and not a number in a record book. Objectivity requires looking at all the facts, not interpreting events in order to pump up one's favs.

At the very least, the fact that Leonard was being so thoroughly outboxed by Hearns goes directly against the claim that he was maybe the best Bokaj ever saw. The best we have ever seen is not videotaped losing to a boxer who we wouldn't put in the top ten. (He also isn't the boxer we see with his back to the ropes for 15 rounds in a losing effort to a lightweight.)

However, I did misread Bokaj's point about 15 rounds in terms of specifics, and I apologize for that. Still, the fact that Hearns went 15 with Benitez at a more comfortable weight shows that under proper conditions Hearns had no problems going 15 rounds with a master boxer who carried a punch. Benitez was a great boxer. Does anybody disagree with this?

If, as Bokaj claims, Leonard was more shot than Hagler, then this would explain why he couldn't beat the old man. But the evidence indicates something more profound: Leonard with considerable skill remaining couldn't really get past a shot fighter in Hagler.

He also couldn't get past a shot Hearns, tasting the canvas twice and rarely - just as in the first fight - able to reach Hearns. True, when he did reach Hearns we saw how shot Hearns was, but then Leonard couldn't put Hearns away. I imagine had it been scheduled for 15 rounds the referee would have again been saving Hearns? I doubt it.

For those who don't think Hagler was shot, that's maybe because they didn't see him on the canvas or helpless against the ropes.

But fighters do shot in different ways, and how they do shot typically reflects the character of their careers. I can think of no boxers that took a better punch than Hagler (perhaps some equals, but none better). He took bombs from arguably the two hardest punchers in middleweight history and kept coming. Hagler's shotness doesn't show up here. Hagler's shotness was exposed by poor timing and an inability to pull the trigger, which were always his ticket to power. He looked like he was swimming not flying through the air.

I didn't want to see Hagler in this state. He is one of the best ever and it pained me to see him missing so many shots, firing punches when his prey had moved well beyond range, being turned around, etc. Hagler was not one to be fooled, and Leonard was pulling every trick in the book and many of them were working. It was like watching Ali at the end of his career. It was a difficult to see.

It must have driven Hearns crazy thinking about his prospects against this version of Hagler instead of the version he faced in 1985. If Hearns had approached a rematch with boxing in mind, having learned his lesson about overtraining (his legs were shot for the Hagler fight), he may very well have won a rematch. He had the skills. Hagler no longer did. Hagler's best years were far behind him.

At any rate, the contours of Leonard's career don't speak well of the man Bokaj claims to be maybe the best he ever saw. Leonard was a great. His greatness was at the level of a Benitez. But Leonard wasn't great at the level needed for a top 10 list. If you include Leonard, I don't see why Benitez and Hearns can't be candidates.

Ok. Splitting words I see. Anyway we put it, he lost because of Leonard's punches. Nothing else.



Last over 15 with Leonard. You didn't seriously believe I thought that Hearns couldn't last 15 with anyone, did you? But in the two fights with Leonard he showed obvious trouble in lasting 15 with him.



Of course, Hagler was past his prime, but Leonard was even more past his, and also fighting above his natural weight. And this is clear to see in the odds before that fight. Hagler was a big favourite, just because of these reasons.



Now that's objectivity. Thanks for the lesson.:lol:



I very much disagree. But, yeah, resume is what I use when ranking fighters. Leonard's doesn't quite have the depth I would say, but he may very well be the most impressive fighter I've seen on film.

[MrMarvel]

The point about people seeing Charles as a heavyweight and evaluating from that perspective is an excellent one!

Charles started as a middleweight and was really ideally a light heavyweight. Had he stayed there our evaluation of Archie Moore would be very different.

People like to talk about Michael Spinks' accomplishment. Although Charles wasn't the reigning light heavyweight when he won the title, he was the best light heavyweight - probably in history - when he won the heavyweight title.

Ezzard Charles was amazing. He's a lock in my view.

[Bokaj]

MrMarvel, you're so longwinded that I didn't read your post thorugh.

But here it goes again:

Leonard had Hearns in severe trouble several times during both their fights. In the second one Hearns didn't look like he would have lasted 15, and as for blaming his loss in the first one on the ref... That's just not serious.

As for Leonard's fight against Hagler... Just look at Ali and Tyson what a long lay-off does. And neither of them moved up in weight to take on a dominant champion. There's just no way getting around that this was a great win for Leonard.

If you think Hagler should have won I've no problems with that, but it was a great perfomance in any case. There's a reason that the commentator goes towards the end of the fight: "Nothing like this has ever been done before in boxing history, win or lose". (Personally I would rank at least Duran's victory over Barkley higher, but you get the point.)

As for Leonard on film: His ability to turn into a predator when getting outboxed is one of the things that makes him great. He outboxed and outfought Benitez, frustrated Duran (and did a good if losing job of brawling with him), outfought Hearns, and outboxed and out-thought Hagler. What more can you posssible want from a fighter? He showed that he controlled every aspect of the game against the very best.

[Stonehands89]

My comments are directed mainly to Bokaj, but they goes generally to the posts that include Leonard in the top ten.

...At any rate, the contours of Leonard's career don't speak well of the man Bokaj claims to be maybe the best he ever saw. Leonard was a great. His greatness was at the level of a Benitez. But Leonard wasn't great at the level needed for a top 10 list. If you include Leonard, I don't see why Benitez and Hearns can't be candidates.
"Leonard wasn't great at the level needed for a top 10 list" ...but Roy Jones was?!

That is an untenable position. To say the least.

[prime]

It would in my opinion reflect rather poorly on this fine forum if "Ruby Robert" and "the Old Master" are not considered for the mix.

Did these men really engage in a different sport just because they retired before the Roaring Twenties? I would say not at all.

Both were complete Queensberry packages, with sterling records, polished skills, amazing success through the divisions and rightfully have always been considered all-time pound-for-pound titans.

Maybe?

[McGrain]

Aye, Fitzsimmons is a lock for a 20.

[Stonehands89]

It would in my opinion reflect rather poorly on this fine forum if "Ruby Robert" and "the Old Master" are not considered for the mix.

Did these men really engage in a different sport just because they retired before the Roaring Twenties? I would say not at all.

Both were complete Queensberry packages, with sterling records, polished skills, amazing success through the divisions and rightfully have always been considered all-time pound-for-pound titans.

Maybe?
Too many newspaper decisions, too little oversight, too many shady dealings that we can't trace very closely, too many rounds, too much wrestling... and frankly their skillset is 2 parts primitive and 2 parts adapted to what was essentially a different sport. I can't do it. I see them as pioneers and/or folk heroes. There are exceptions -including Gans, but I can't pick and choose based on personal preference. They're essential guys, but the vast majority of boxers from that era would have been fodder in the golden era.

[prime]

Too many newspaper decisions, too little oversight, too many shady dealings that we can't trace very closely, too many rounds, too much wrestling... and frankly their skillset is 2 parts primitive and 2 parts adapted to what was essentially a different sport. I can't do it. I see them as pioneers and/or folk heroes. There are exceptions -including Gans, but I can't pick and choose based on personal preference. They're essential guys, but the vast majority of boxers from that era would have been fodder in the golden era.

Fine. But in this case, shouldn't you also discard Sam Langford, whose glorious career certainly spanned an era mostly prior to your Twenties cutoff point?

And perhaps Jack Johnson, who kayoed Burns to become champion in 1908, was improperly considered at heavyweight, then?

[Sweet Pea]

There's too many others .... Ross. Canzonari. Burley. Jofre.
Jofre sure as hell doesn't belong if you're giving Hagler and Leonard no chance.

[Sweet Pea]

Given the criteria:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Roberto Duran
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Benny Leonard
6. Barney Ross
7. Mickey Walker
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker

Back and forth with Duran and Charles, but in the end I just decided that Duran was the better fighter, even though Charles beat a more stacked list of opponents. You could also throw Pep in at the #10 spot.

[Stonehands89]

Fine. But in this case, shouldn't you also discard Sam Langford, whose glorious career certainly spanned an era mostly prior to your Twenties cutoff point?

And perhaps Jack Johnson, who kayoed Burns to become champion in 1908, was improperly considered at heavyweight, then?
Sam was in the ring professionally after 1920. The other thread considered Jeffries as well. Pound for pound is more unwieldy and so I think it wise to streamline it more. There have only been so many HW champs since 1900. The p4p thread considers all of the greats -champion or not.

[McGrain]

Pea -

Whitaker above Pep?

Your p4p lists are usually absolutley spot on these days, but I'd disagree with you there.

Would you wear that jacket?

[Sweet Pea]

Pea -

Whitaker above Pep?

Your p4p lists are usually absolutley spot on these days, but I'd disagree with you there.

Would you wear that jacket?Yes, Whitaker above Pep. His opposition was just as good, even if Pep had more fights, and he proved his skills over multiple weight classes against bigger opponents. Both are of a similar skill level so that just comes down to personal preference, and I prefer Whitaker's versatility. Thus, Whitaker ranks higher for me, though I could see the arguments for Pep on the basis of his experience, longevity, and comeback.

That jacket is fucking awesome.

[McGrain]

Yes, Whitaker above Pep. His opposition was just as good, even if Pep had more fights, and he proved his skills over multiple weight classes against bigger opponents. Both are of a similar skill level so that just comes down to personal preference, and I prefer Whitaker's versatility. Thus, Whitaker ranks higher for me, though I could see the arguments for Pep on the basis of his experience, longevity, and comeback.

That jacket is fucking awesome.

I think Pep shades Whitaker for skill. I say that with all due respect to Pea, but I think Pep is that tiny sliver better. I also think that unbeaten run is special - now I know that Pea doesn't have that opportunity, and I supsect he is physically capable of something similiar. But would he have held it together long enough? Credit where it is due.

:lol: It would suit you, no doubt.

Whilst I got you, what happened to that JC guy on YouTube? You were tight with him, right? He got hooked, no more account :twisted:

No more Tiger-Fernandez :twisted:

[Sweet Pea]

I think Pep shades Whitaker for skill. I say that with all due respect to Pea, but I think Pep is that tiny sliver better. I also think that unbeaten run is special - now I know that Pea doesn't have that opportunity, and I supsect he is physically capable of something similiar. But would he have held it together long enough? Credit where it is due.

:lol: It would suit you, no doubt.

Whilst I got you, what happened to that JC guy on YouTube? You were tight with him, right? He got hooked, no more account :twisted:

No more Tiger-Fernandez :twisted:

I have no idea what he's up to, as he hasn't been able to contact me having been suspended for posting quality videos that make people happy. Fuck Youtube.

[McGrain]

Great shame.

Maybe he posted a video of his balls though.

[sweet_scientist]

That jacket is fucking awesome.

It looks pretty neat. I think he has patches on the sleeves detailing all the championship belts he won. E.g he'll have a patch that says IBF lightweight champion, another that says WBC welterweight champion etc.

[Stonehands89]

Ask yourself the following question:

If you were the best at something and your name was Bob, would you wear a jacket around town that says "Bob is the best!" .....It's so tacky I'd want to throw rocks at Bob and burn his goofy jacket. But that's just me.

[McGrain]

Guess i'll have to turf out my "McGrain Rocks!" long-sleeved t-shirt.

[sweet_scientist]

Ask yourself the following question:

If you were the best at something and your name was Bob, would you wear a jacket around town that says "Bob is the best!" .....It's so tacky I'd want to throw rocks at Bob and burn his goofy jacket. But that's just me.

I believe you so long as you admit that wearing this hat is worse than wearing a name tag to a party. Deal? :good

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Sweet Pea]

I know, what the hell was he thinking? A Sports Illustrated cover shoot is no time to promote.

[sweet_scientist]

I know, what the hell was he thinking? A Sports Illustrated cover shoot is no time to promote.

And who gives a shit if he wore it in his daily life? Is it really any worse that strolling around with a big shiny metal piece of junk around your waist known as a championship belt? Is it any worse than someone living in a big house or owning a flashy car? Isn't it all self gratification?

[Stonehands89]

I believe you so long as you admit that wearing this hat is worse than wearing a name tag to a party. Deal? :good

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
I had a half a mind to post exactly that picture to show good faith. Damn you. And yes, Duran should have seen no need to wear a billboard on his forehead. For the record, I cringe every time I have to put a sticker on my lapel that says "Hello my name is blah blah". It's goofy.

[Stonehands89]

I know, what the hell was he thinking? A Sports Illustrated cover shoot is no time to promote.
Self-promotion like that easily becomes distasteful unless you are a child or a narcissist. If they asked Whitaker to wear that jacket for the shoot then it's no big deal. However, I suspect that Whitaker wore it to bed at night.

[Stonehands89]

And who gives a shit if he wore it in his daily life? Is it really any worse that strolling around with a big shiny metal piece of junk around your waist known as a championship belt? Is it any worse than someone living in a big house or owning a flashy car? Isn't it all self gratification?
There are degress, SS.

I have a thigh-length Kenneth Cole black leather jacket that I love. I wear it often. If it said "Stonehands is the best ESB poster on the planet, Fuck all y'all!" in big block letters on it, I wouldn't wear it. Because that would be ...obnoxious.... and.... tacky... and ....goofy. Only an asshole would wear something like that. However, I would wear that before I'd gratify myself in more severe ways like public masturbation... see? Degrees.

[sweet_scientist]

There are degress, SS.

I have a thigh-length Kenneth Cole black leather jacket that I love. I wear it often. If it said "Stonehands is the best ESB poster on the planet, Fuck all y'all!" in big block letters on it, I wouldn't wear it. Because that would be ...obnoxious.... and.... tacky... and ....goofy. Only an asshole would wear something like that. However, I would wear that before I'd gratify myself in more severe ways like public masturbation... see? Degrees.

:lol: I do agree with your degrees point, BUT....

why would you want to brag about being the best poster on an internet forum anyway? That's just a lame distinction to have. Being the best fighter on the planet on the ohter hand is something well worth boasting about imo, so long as it's not done in a way that belies the truth, e.g. a Floyd Mayweather rocking up with a gladiator suit and then running all night. THAT type of shit is lame.

Having a t-shirt or jacket or hat or whatever that promotes yourself is ok. Pea was the man, and the jacket said so. I see nothing wrong with it. Sure it's boastful, but at least it's the truth.

[Stonehands89]

:lol: I do agree with your degrees point, BUT....

why would you want to brag about being the best poster on an internet forum anyway? That's just a lame distinction to have. Being the best fighter on the planet on the ohter hand is something well worth boasting about imo, so long as it's not done in a way that belies the truth, e.g. a Floyd Mayweather rocking up with a gladiator suit and then running all night. THAT type of shit is lame.

Having a t-shirt or jacket or hat or whatever that promotes yourself is ok. Pea was the man, and the jacket said so. I see nothing wrong with it. Sure it's boastful, but at least it's the truth.
Let the truth speak for itself. Walking around like a human billboard promoting your talents or skills or accomplishments is classless. Put it on a resume. Let others speak for you. Have you ever had a conversation with someone who can't stop bragging about themselves? They suck. Kids today think it's "kewl".... but it isn't cool.

Whether you're the top fighter in the world or the top widget salesman, if you wear a jacket around town proclaiming it, I reserve the right to consider it goofy. The guys who let their actions speak for themselves are almost always more mature. Ali was being comedic most of the time with his brand of bravado, and it was entertaining, but others really come across as having no class. Michael Nunn for instance. That jacket for instance. Loud, in your face, arrogant and obnoxious... it's the hip hop mentality.

[GPater11093]

lets get back to rating guys now lads and not jackets although i could do with a new jacket

i think the best way to get a P4P list is to look at the best fighters of every five year intervals from the 1920s onward as you see who was considered the best at that time and you can see who the ATGs are

[MrMarvel]

I'm a huge fan of Whitaker, but I think Pep is the master of the tricky style. Pep's record is insane. Whitaker was better at jumping weights, of course. But Pep was the greater of the two.

[enquirer]

I find it strange that one of the most dominant and greatest single weight champs hasnt had much of a mention....This guy was unbeaten over the last 81 fights of his career,won ALL 15 of his world title fights,beat very good opposition and retired as champion....The boy is considered my many to be the best 160 man of them all....

[Stonehands89]

I find it strange that one of the most dominant and greatest single weight champs hasnt had much of a mention....This guy was unbeaten over the last 81 fights of his career,won ALL 15 of his world title fights,beat very good opposition and retired as champion....The boy is considered my many to be the best 160 man of them all....
If someone seconds him, he'll be in the pool.

[Stonehands89]

lets get back to rating guys now lads and not jackets although i could do with a new jacket

i think the best way to get a P4P list is to look at the best fighters of every five year intervals from the 1920s onward as you see who was considered the best at that time and you can see who the ATGs are
That isn't a bad idea.... although some guys have short primes and fall through the cracks; not to mention the fact that sometimes guys aren't appreciated until after their career is wrapped up.

[GPater11093]

well stone hands what im menaing is we rank every 5 year intervals so we can appreciate the guys who are forgotten in there time like Sweet Pea, winky wright etc...

also agree about the short primes but 5 year intervals should cover 99.9% of people because if they are exetpional surley they would be rnaked top 10 in a 5 year interval even with a year prime