Name some fighters who actually have a legit clame to being the best of all time?

[cotto20]

Here are some names of the top of my head, Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Muhammed Ali, Willie Pep, Roberto Duran, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Who else?

[Russell]

Langford and Greb.

[sugarsean]

Sugar Ray Leonard

[Bill Butcher]

Anything outside of those names becomes more arguable but maybe Joe Louis or even Ray Leonard perhaps ?

[Bill Butcher]

Robinson deserves the no1 slot tho, no doubt at all.

[Addie]

Duran was one win away in my judgment. A win over Hagler, or Hearns would have sealed it.

[Popkins]

There are only five genuine contenders in my opinion:

Langford, Robinson, Greb, Armstrong and Ezzard Charles.

And Charles is somewhat of an outsider. It's really one of four for me, but I include Charles as I could easily accept someone having him as the GOAT although he wouldn't quite be my choice.

[CottoDaBodykill]

iran barkley of course

[Popkins]

Robinson deserves the no1 slot tho, no doubt at all.

You don't think a strong and valid case can be made for Langford or Armstrong??

[Boxed Ears]

Anyone in my top three: Robinson, Pep, Armstrong. But really it's so subjective and I wouldn't laugh at someone if they said Leonard or Louis or even Greb. They're not crazy suggestions. Personally I think the strongest case is Robinson's.

[cotto20]

Rocky Marciano?

[Seamus]

William "The Prussian" Sheriff.

They said his parry was so fast,the wind from it would force a horseless trolly from its tracks. They said his jab was sharper than a tubercular's bloody cough. And he could run three furloughs in two woolen sweaters and cobnailed boots faster than you could shoe a mule.

And he was a Grand Champion whist player to prove his cereberal acumen.

Survived on a diet of ale broth and swine marrow.

[Dempsey1238]

Joe Gans?
Pep?
Dixion maybe.

[Bill Butcher]

Duran was one win away in my judgment. A win over Hagler, or Hearns would have sealed it.

Still wouldnt have him over Robinson on my list, beating Hagler gives him a strong case tho, beating Hearns (due to their natural weight being closer) tho, not so much, Leonard already beat him to it.

[Bill Butcher]

There are only five genuine contenders in my opinion:

Langford, Robinson, Greb, Armstrong and Ezzard Charles.

And Charles is somewhat of an outsider. It's really one of four for me, but I include Charles as I could easily accept someone having him as the GOAT although he wouldn't quite be my choice.

Robinson is a solid no1 for me & add Muhammad Ali & Willie Pep to that list :good

[techks]

Floyd Patterson, wins over Liston and Ali really would've sealed it.

[Bill Butcher]

You don't think a strong and valid case can be made for Langford or Armstrong??

Their case aint as strong as Robinson`s tho if you take everything into account.

JMO :good

[Bill Butcher]

Rocky Marciano?

:lol:

Chers mate, I needed that :thumbsup

[Addie]

Floyd Patterson, wins over Liston and Ali really would've sealed it.

:lol:

[Popkins]

Robinson is a solid no1 for me & add Muhammad Ali & Willie Pep to that list :good

Not for me mate, no chance.

Pep was a single-weight champion, that is not the greatest fighter ever by any manner of means IMO. His achievements pale in comparison to those of Henry Armstrong, I can't even envisage a decent argument for having Pep over him, so that rules Willie out in my own rankings.

Ali? Again, I personally can't justify him as a GOAT contender. He has an ATG resume, he has great longevity as a heavyweight, and so with effort you could probably make a decent(ish) argument for him being the equal of Robinson in those respects, but I just don't see Ali as being close to an equal of Robinson in terms of ability. Even Ali at his best was quite clearly an inferior fighter to Ray Robinson.

Therefore, just like the Pep-Armstrong comparison rules out Pep from serious contention for the GOAT placing, the Robinson-Ali comparison rules out Ali.

And I'm left with my five/four again.

[Popkins]

Their case aint as strong as Robinson`s tho if you take everything into account.

JMO :good

:huh If you take everything into account, you can make an extremely strong case for Langford IMO.

[Bill Butcher]

Not for me mate, no chance.

Pep was a single-weight champion, that is not the greatest fighter ever by any manner of means IMO. His achievements pale in comparison to those of Henry Armstrong, I can't even envisage a decent argument for having Pep over him, so that rules Willie out in my own rankings.

Ali? Again, I personally can't justify him as a GOAT contender. He has an ATG resume, he has great longevity as a heavyweight, and so with effort you could probably make a decent(ish) argument for him being the equal of Robinson in those respects, but I just don't see Ali as being close to an equal of Robinson in terms of ability. Even Ali at his best was quite clearly an inferior fighter to Ray Robinson.

Therefore, just like the Pep-Armstrong comparison rules out Pep from serious contention for the GOAT placing, the Robinson-Ali comparison rules out Ali.

And I'm left with my five/four again.

Fair enough but I think the highlighted part is harsh on the actual ability of Muhammad Ali at his best.

Sure, Robinson was the best fighter that ever lived, complete as they come, as close to perfect as their has been but Ali at his peak is certainly on the same tier, no doubt at all in my mind.

[Bill Butcher]

:huh If you take everything into account, you can make an extremely strong case for Langford IMO.

Seeing is believing, we will never be able to judge the way we can with say a Duran. Thats why I dont go there regarding the Langford`s & Greb`s.... but I`ll never put them down either... for the exact same reasons.

:good

[Popkins]

Fair enough but I think the highlighted part is harsh on the actual ability of Muhammad Ali at his best.

Sure, Robinson was the best fighter that ever lived, complete as they come, as close to perfect as their has been but Ali at his peak is certainly on the same tier, no doubt at all in my mind.

Fair enough amigo, but I do disagree. To say someone is in the same tier in my mind means they are of a very, very similar standard, to the point where they are almost interchangeable, where you would not argue with someone who had them in a different order from yourself, but I genuinely don't think of Robinson and Ali like that. Whatever way I think of it, I always have Robinson on top, clearly. I think he was definitely a better fighter, it's not really that close, and they are certainly not interchangeable. JMHO.

[Popkins]

Seeing is believing, we will never be able to judge the way we can with say a Duran. Thats why I dont go there regarding the Langford`s & Greb`s.... but I`ll never put them down either... for the exact same reasons.

:good

What about Armstrong then? Considering his achievements (one could argue the greatest achievements of any fighter ever), you don't feel a compelling case can even be made to have him over SRR?

[Maxmomer]

Robinson deserves the no1 slot tho, no doubt at all.

I rank Greb and Langford over Robinson. Consistently.

[Maxmomer]

Rocky Marciano?

Joke?

[WhataRock]

Pep doesnt have a claim to no1, probably not even top 5 IMO but his resume is far deeper then just who he beat defending his title at his favored weight...Beating some of the best Bantams and Lightweights of the day, and alltime actually.

Armstrong and Robinson have always been my no1 or 2..and Ive swapped them several times.

Greb and Langford have the best argument out of the rest...I certainly dont have any issue with lists that have them at no1.

[My2Sense]

There are only five genuine contenders in my opinion:

Langford, Robinson, Greb, Armstrong and Ezzard Charles.


Agreed 100%. In fact, that's my all-time top 5 P4P right there. The order may be debatable, but I think a top 5 should somehow comprise those fighters.

Personally, I favor Armstrong as the #1 ATG. Greb could probably just as well take that spot, but I hesitate to go that extra step and put him over the others without having actually seen him fight.


Not for me mate, no chance.

Pep was a single-weight champion, that is not the greatest fighter ever by any manner of means IMO. His achievements pale in comparison to those of Henry Armstrong, I can't even envisage a decent argument for having Pep over him, so that rules Willie out in my own rankings.

Ali? Again, I personally can't justify him as a GOAT contender. He has an ATG resume, he has great longevity as a heavyweight, and so with effort you could probably make a decent(ish) argument for him being the equal of Robinson in those respects, but I just don't see Ali as being close to an equal of Robinson in terms of ability. Even Ali at his best was quite clearly an inferior fighter to Ray Robinson.

Therefore, just like the Pep-Armstrong comparison rules out Pep from serious contention for the GOAT placing, the Robinson-Ali comparison rules out Ali.


Agreed again. I don't see Ali and Pep as having cases for the #1 spot, or even being on the same tier as the fighters listed above.

[EleventhHour]

Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Ali, Langford, Pep

[cotto20]

Agreed 100%. In fact, that's my all-time top 5 P4P right there. The order may be debatable, but I think a top 5 should somehow comprise those fighters.

Personally, I favor Armstrong as the #1 ATG.




Agreed again. I don't see Ali and Pep as having cases for the #1 spot, or even being on the same tier as the fighters listed above.

Wow, bold statment. Reasons for you saying both dont even have a claim as the best? Also what do you think about Joe Louis getting called the best?

[My2Sense]

Reasons for you saying both dont even have a claim as the best?

Basically what Popkins already said. Pep was only a proven ATG in one weight class, while the others were ATGs across multiple ones - that alone should prevent him from being rated over the others in a P4P sense, and thus not the #1. And while Pep/Ali both have great resumes/achievements, they aren't quite on par with the others listed.

I think the question really should be, what reasons are there for saying Pep/Ali do have claims to being the best?


Also what do you think about Joe Louis getting called the best?

I wouldn't call him that either.

[Addie]

Pep was only a proven ATG in one weight class, while the others were ATGs across multiple ones - that alone should prevent him from being rated over the others in a P4P sense, and thus not the #1.

One reason as to why I rank Morales above Joe Frazier.

[cotto20]

One reason as to why I rank Morales above Joe Frazier.

Basically what Popkins already said. Pep was only a proven ATG in one weight class, while the others were ATGs across multiple ones - that alone should prevent him from being rated over the others in a P4P sense, and thus not the #1. And while Pep/Ali both have great resumes/achievements, they aren't quite on par with the others listed.

I think the question really should be, what reasons are there for saying Pep/Ali do have claims to being the best?

I wouldn't call him that either.

But Heavyweights can't help it if they cant move down. Joe Louis and Ali, are two of the most accomplished fighters of all time.

[Popkins]

But Heavyweights can't help it if they cant move down. Joe Louis and Ali, are two of the most accomplished fighters of all time.

They are indeed. But we have to be ruthless here, as the question demands. Are they two of the most accomplished fighters of all-time? Undoubtedly.

But, are they serious contenders for the GOAT position? I would say a blunt no. Can either man conceivably be viewed as greater than Robinson or Langford or Greb or Armstrong? Would that placing be valid?

Again, a firm no must be the answer if we are intent on keeping it to the legitimate contenders.

[WhataRock]

Alltime lists should be first and foremost about who you beat and how you beat them.

I think its unfair on career heavyweights to give them a handicap because they are unable to get any points for weight jumping.

I cant see an argument for a Morales over Frazier alltime to tell you truth...Nothing on Erik's resume comes close to Frazier beating Ali and though his legacy takes a hit with his bad losses against Foreman..He was a top fighter in one of the strongest heavy eras ever and thus think his resume is even deeper then Morales'.

[Addie]

I cant see an argument for a Morales over Frazier alltime to tell you truth...Nothing on Erik's resume comes close to Frazier beating Ali and though his legacy takes a hit with his bad losses against Foreman..He was a top fighter in one of the strongest heavy eras ever and thus think his resume is even deeper then Morales'.

There's an argument, certainly. Morales has a deeper resume, by only a small margin, and he campaigned in more divisions and he won world titles in 3 of the 4 divisions he entered. It's true, Frazier has the greater one victory, but even that is tainted. Ali wasn't prime time, and he had been inactive due to his exile. How much that was a factor is up for debate, but I think Morales beating a prime, active Barrera and a prime, active Pacquiao shouldn't be overlooked. Longevity also becomes a factor here, where neither fighter holds the significant edge. Morales was never devastated in his prime, and showed the capacity to come back from defeat in a big way..in a way that Frazier couldn't. It's close..and by no means an absurd notion that Morales should be higher.

P.s This so called "great Heavyweight era". Jerry Quarry, Bob Foster, Jimmy Ellis, Oscar Bonavena, Muhammad Ali, and George Foreman. That also reads as, he lost to the two best fighters he ever faced, whereas Morales beat the best two fighters he ever faced. Bonavena was a tough fighter, not a great one. Same applies to Quarry, and Jimmy Ellis. Bob was a great LHW, not a good Heavyweight. Let's not overstate the division Frazier supposedly dominated.

[cotto20]

Alltime lists should be first and foremost about who you beat and how you beat them.

I think its unfair on career heavyweights to give them a handicap because they are unable to get any points for weight jumping.

I cant see an argument for a Morales over Frazier alltime to tell you truth...Nothing on Erik's resume comes close to Frazier beating Ali and though his legacy takes a hit with his bad losses against Foreman..He was a top fighter in one of the strongest heavy eras ever and thus think his resume is even deeper then Morales'.

great post:good

[(PimpThaSystem)]

P.s This so called "great Heavyweight era". Jerry Quarry, Bob Foster, Jimmy Ellis, Oscar Bonavena, Muhammad Ali, and George Foreman. That also reads as, he lost to the two best fighters he ever faced, whereas Morales beat the best two fighters he ever faced. Bonavena was a tough fighter, not a great one. Same applies to Quarry, and Jimmy Ellis. Bob was a great LHW, not a good Heavyweight. Let's not overstate the division Frazier supposedly dominated.

Whoa how does Morales going 1-2 against Pac and Barrera = Morales beat the best two fighters he ever faced?

[Addie]

Whoa how does Morales going 1-2 against Pac and Barrera = Morales beat the best two fighters he ever faced?

Because he defeated the best version of Barrera that he ever faced, and Morales was effectively shot after the Raheem loss. Before that, he held wins over both Pacquiao and Barrera...but I do see your point. We'll at least credit Frazier fully for the Ali victory, but the destruction at the hands of a limited Foreman is a factor here considering Frazier was in his prime years.

[My2Sense]

But Heavyweights can't help it if they cant move down.

Even making allowances for that, they still don't warrant being rated over the other fighters listed

Compare Ali's resume to someone like Greb for example.

Ali's biggest wins - Foreman, Liston, Frazier, Norton, Patterson.

Greb - Tunney, Walker, Loughran, Tom Gibbons, Mike Gibbons, Dillon, Rosenbloom, Levinsky, etc.

That fact that someone like Norton could be considered among Ali's bigger wins speaks volumes. Norton was not an ATG, and arguably not a true great period. Fighters like Greb, Armstrong, etc. regularly beat Norton-level fighters and don't even get remembered for it because they have so many bigger wins that easily overshadow it. Ali has some very big wins, but interspersed among many wins over Chuvalo/Quarry/Bugner-level fighters, who are probably more famous for being in with Ali than anything they actually did on their own. Hell, even Norton is only as well regarded as he is because Ali struggled so much with him.

Greb's volume and depth of work simply blows Ali's away.

[WhataRock]

There's an argument, certainly. Morales has a deeper resume, by only a small margin, and he campaigned in more divisions and he won world titles in 3 of the 4 divisions he entered. It's true, Frazier has the greater one victory, but even that is tainted. Ali wasn't prime time, and he had been inactive due to his exile. How much that was a factor is up for debate, but I think Morales beating a prime, active Barrera and a prime, active Pacquiao shouldn't be overlooked. Longevity also becomes a factor here, where neither fighter holds the significant edge. Morales was never devastated in his prime, and showed the capacity to come back from defeat in a big way..in a way that Frazier couldn't. It's close..and by no means an absurd notion that Morales should be higher.

P.s This so called "great Heavyweight era". Jerry Quarry, Bob Foster, Jimmy Ellis, Oscar Bonavena, Muhammad Ali, and George Foreman. That also reads as, he lost to the two best fighters he ever faced, whereas Morales beat the best two fighters he ever faced. Bonavena was a tough fighter, not a great one. Same applies to Quarry, and Jimmy Ellis. Bob was a great LHW, not a good Heavyweight. Let's not overstate the division Frazier supposedly dominated.

When did I say he dominated?

I said he was a top fighter in that era...Which no matter what spin you want to put on it Addie it was a very strong era. Name me some stronger ones.

Its not only about who he beat but about who his challengers knock off on the way up..Guys like Chuvalo and Quarry are widely regarded as two of better credentialed fighters never to bag a title at the weight.

Ill tell you this now the featherweight and superfeatherweight divisions Morales ripped through are not the strongest the sport has ever seen, dont even think there is an argument for them being close to.

You very much underrate the depth of Frazier's resume pre-Foreman.

[Addie]

That fact that someone like Norton could be considered among Ali's bigger wins speaks volumes. Norton was not an ATG, and arguably not a true great period. Fighters like Greb, Armstrong, etc. regularly beat Norton-level fighters and don't even get remembered for it because they have so many bigger wins that easily overshadow it. Ali has some very big wins, but interspersed among many wins over Chuvalo/Quarry/Bugner-level fighters, who are probably more famous for being in with Ali than anything they actually did on their own. Hell, even Norton is only as well regarded as he is because Ali struggled so much with him.

How do you know Greb regularly beat Norton-level fighters? How much footage of Greb have you personally seen?

How do you rate Muhammad Ali's resume in comparison with other Heavyweights?

[Addie]

When did I say he dominated?

I said he was a top fighter in that era...Which no matter what spin you want to put on it Addie it was a very strong era. Name me some stronger ones.

Its not only about who he beat but about who his challengers knock off on the way up..Guys like Chuvalo and Quarry are widely regarded as two of better credentialed fighters never to bag a title at the weight.

Ill tell you this now the featherweight and superfeatherweight divisions Morales ripped through are not the strongest the sport has ever seen, dont even think there is an argument for them being close to.

You very much underrate the depth of Frazier's resume pre-Foreman.

Well, as I said in another thread, it's late...so excuse me if some things I come out seem a little stupid. Like, "Frazier lost to the two best fighters he faced, whereas Morales beat the best two fighters he faced". On second viewing, I almost felt like quoting myself and responding with the appropriate, "Take up golf". In any event, perhaps I underrate Frazier's credentials, but you don't suppose you're guilty of the same thing regarding Morales?

Chuvalo was no better than an In Jin Chi, just a very very tough fighter. Not much to talk about regarding ability, but his chin and will always kept him in fights, no matter what the level of opposition. That said, I can concede that Frazier does have a case for being higher than Morales, but it's a closely run thing in my judgement. All thing's considered, they both have good resumes, I think Morales was at the top for a little longer, and whereas Frazier has the win over Ali, Morales has the multiple world titles in 3 different weight classes.

What's so impressive about Joe Frazier in your view, Rock?

[My2Sense]

How do you know Greb regularly beat Norton-level fighters? How much footage of Greb have you personally seen?


What does it matter if I've actually seen him do it or not? The fact still remains that he did it. Fighters like Wilson, Chip, McGoorty, Miske, McTigue, Gunboat Smith, etc. were at least on par with someone like Norton.

[WhataRock]

How do you know Greb regularly beat Norton-level fighters? How much footage of Greb have you personally seen?

How do you rate Muhammad Ali's resume in comparison with other Heavyweights?

Cause there is actually film of a lot of his opponants.

Loughran, Tunney etc....you can see their quality of them so its safe to assume it took a quality fighter to beat them.

[WhataRock]

Well, as I said in another thread, it's late...so excuse me if some things I come out seem a little stupid. Like, "Frazier lost to the two best fighters he faced, whereas Morales beat the best two fighters he faced". On second viewing, I almost felt like quoting myself and responding with the appropriate, "Take up golf". In any event, perhaps I underrate Frazier's credentials, but you don't suppose you're guilty of the same thing regarding Morales?

Chuvalo was no better than an In Jin Chi, just a very very tough fighter. Not much to talk about regarding ability, but his chin and will always kept him in fights, no matter what the level of opposition. That said, I can concede that Frazier does have a case for being higher than Morales, but it's a closely run thing in my judgement. All thing's considered, they both have good resumes, I think Morales was at the top for a little longer, and whereas Frazier has the win over Ali, Morales has the multiple world titles in 3 different weight classes.

What's so impressive about Joe Frazier in your view, Rock?

Yikes..Ill leave it that Addie, we can continue this tommorrow when you are thinking a little sharper :lol:

[red cobra]

Boxing fans will never be able to definitively answer the question as to who is the GOAT...because there are too many itangibles and subtle shades of gray involved..boxing is not that simple..though it's great fun in arguing about it.

[Boxed Ears]

Boxing fans will never be able to definitively answer the question as to who is the GOAT...because there are too many itangibles and subtle shades of gray involved..boxing is not that simple..though it's great fun in arguing about it.

Damned straight, red cobra. No definitive answer but real fans almost always love to talk about it. :good

[Rise Above]

I think its between Robinson, Armstrong and Langford. Greb has a claim to it as well but I dont see hime being as good as the others.

[Boxed Ears]

Not having Pep in there because he didn't take a title in more than one weight class is something I'm seeing on here and have heard before. Not fair. There's a hell of a lot more to greatness than pounds. p4p doesn't mean how many weights you can fight at. Who says it's necessary to fight at more than one weight to prove your greatness? Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali certainly didn't need to. If you wanted to make it all about weight classes, just call Pacquiao the man and then call it a day. That's not the end all of the discussion though.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

They count the boxing matches on his fight record, but they neglect to factor in the greatness it took to survive the marriages. Also unfair.

[Russell]

Not having Pep in there because he didn't take a title in more than one weight class is something I'm seeing on here and have heard before. Not fair. There's a hell of a lot more to greatness than pounds. p4p doesn't mean how many weights you can fight at. Who says it's necessary to fight at more than one weight to prove your greatness? Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali certainly didn't need to. If you wanted to make it all about weight classes, just call Pacquiao the man and then call it a day. That's not the end all of the discussion though.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

They count the boxing matches on his fight record, but they neglect to factor in the greatness it took to survive the marriages. Also unfair.

What the fuck are you going on about? :nut:patsch

[Boxed Ears]

What the fuck are you going on about? :nut:patsch

Comments like this "Pep was a single-weight champion, that is not the greatest fighter ever by any manner of means IMO. His achievements pale in comparison to those of Henry Armstrong, I can't even envisage a decent argument for having Pep over him, so that rules Willie out in my own rankings."

I think that's pretty clear. I don't think that logic holds. Yep. That's pretty clear, I think.

[bodhi]

There are only five genuine contenders in my opinion:

Langford, Robinson, Greb, Armstrong and Ezzard Charles.

And Charles is somewhat of an outsider. It's really one of four for me, but I include Charles as I could easily accept someone having him as the GOAT although he wouldn't quite be my choice.

:good

[Sweet Pea]

I think its between Robinson, Armstrong and Langford. Greb has a claim to it as well but I dont see hime being as good as the others.How come?

[Sweet Pea]

How do you know Greb regularly beat Norton-level fighters? How much footage of Greb have you personally seen?C'mon man, you're better than that.

[Addie]

C'mon man, you're better than that.

It's a genuine question, Pea.

I personally don't know anything about Greb, so I'm curious as to how great the man was.

Still, Chuvalo was no better a fighter than In Jin Chi was. In my estimation.

[Bill Butcher]

What about Armstrong then? Considering his achievements (one could argue the greatest achievements of any fighter ever), you don't feel a compelling case can even be made to have him over SRR?

He is 1 of the few that you can make a case for, phenomenal fighter, I still think Robinson has the strongest case of anyone of which there is enough footage tho.

Armstrong shouldnt be seen outside a top 5 tho, no doubt about that.

[Sweet Pea]

It's a genuine question, Pea.

I personally don't know anything about Greb, so I'm curious as to how great the man was.The information is all over the internet.

Here's a good article on him I've posted in the past.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Addie]

The information is all over the internet.

Here's a good article on him I've posted in the past.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Secondary sources...it's great, but how about footage?

[Bill Butcher]

I rank Greb and Langford over Robinson. Consistently.

Show me the proof, there is more to judging a fighter than the black & white of a boxers record.... important as it is, `resume` aint the be all.

[Bill Butcher]

My top 5 fighters ever are......

1. Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Willie Pep
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Roberto Duran

Oh yes, its true.

[Popkins]

My top 5 fighters ever are......

1. Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Willie Pep
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Roberto Duran

Oh yes, its true.

:lol: It may be true old chum, but it's not very good, is it? Pep over Armstrong? Give me a break. I would like to see you justify that decision, because it can't be done with any real legitimacy, not even by those who know a lot more about their careers than your good self.

[Bill Butcher]

I dont see better than those 5 as far as men with reasonable available footage.

There aint a lot between Pep & Armstrong TBH, both were the cream of the crop in their own style, I honestly feel Armstrong was the best swarmer ever & likewise with Pep as a pure boxer (hit & dont get hit)

I know Armstrong has the outstanding achievement of holding the FW, LW & WW titles all at once but he did have some early losses too, Pep only lost once at his best vs the LW Sammy Angott on pts, no disgrace there, he is the majority choice as best ever FW & has one of the greatest win/loss records in the sports history.

Its more a personal choice because it is very close between them, Pep was the best pure boxer, this is boxing, that scores high with me.

:good

[My2Sense]

I know Armstrong has the outstanding achievement of holding the FW, LW & WW titles all at once but he did have some early losses too, Pep only lost once at his best vs the LW Sammy Angott on pts, no disgrace there, he is the majority choice as best ever FW & has one of the greatest win/loss records in the sports history.

But even that's a notable point, as Angott was beaten in his very next fight by Armstrong, who was well past his own prime.


Its more a personal choice because it is very close between them, Pep was the best pure boxer, this is boxing, that scores high with me.


But why? What if someone had a label like "the best KO puncher ever" - would that automatically earn him a top ranking among the P4P greats?

Besides, labeling Pep as "the best pure boxer ever" is questionable as there have been other great boxers that proved more and did more with their boxing skills than Pep, like Whitaker, Benny Leonard, and Barney Ross. Then there's other acclaimed defensive fighters with little or no footage of, like Jack Britton or Abe Attell, who we don't know how skilled they really were.

[chatty]

Robinson, Greb, Pep, Louis, Armstrong, Lightweight Duran, Langford and Ray Leonard would be the prime contenders.

Other arguments could be made for Ali, Benny Leonard, Marciano, Hagler, Prime Tyson, Saddler and the winner of Pac/Mayweather but i dont think they are as good as those listed above.

[Boxed Ears]

I'm changing what I said to Koki Kameda. From now on, that's my default answer for everything and I barely know who he is. ESB has done this to me. I am now insane. :nut

[Dempsey1238]

my top ten in no real order.

Barney Ross
Joe Gans
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Robinson
Micky Walker
Tony Canzi
Bob Fitz
Benny Leonard
And maybe Pep or Ted Kid Lewis.

[cotto20]

my top ten in no real order.

Barney Ross
Joe Gans
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Robinson
Micky Walker
Tony Canzi
Bob Fitz
Benny Leonard
And maybe Pep or Ted Kid Lewis.

No Langford, Charles, Ali, Louis, or Orginal Walcott?

[Dempsey1238]

Perhaps Langford,

Dont think Ali or Louis is top ten, Charles would make the next ten imo.

I get my weight jumpers with titles out of the way first like Ross and Armstrong, than guys that took over there era like Benny or Gans.

As for Ali, for the most part, outside of Foreman I belive, Ali did have a weight, height, and reach adv over almost all he fought. That Joe Fraizer was able to beat him should give more points to Joe, than the other way around, because Fraizer had to over come all of that with his body type.

[Stevie G]

Can't argue with most of the names quoted on this thread. There's debate on whether Muhammad Ali should be included. Imo,he's a cert !

[Stevie G]

Fair enough but I think the highlighted part is harsh on the actual ability of Muhammad Ali at his best.

Sure, Robinson was the best fighter that ever lived, complete as they come, as close to perfect as their has been but Ali at his peak is certainly on the same tier, no doubt at all in my mind.
You're dead right,Bill :good

[redrooster]

Here are some names of the top of my head, Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Muhammed Ali, Willie Pep, Roberto Duran, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Who else?


langford, Greb, Roy Jones, Hagler, B. Leonard but not Ray Leonard

[TommyV]

Langford, Robinson, Armstrong and Greb. No others.

[Minotauro]

Langford, Greb and Charles have the best resumes in boxing, some absolutely huge wins and a lot of depth. Along with the likes of Robinson, Armstrong and maybe Pep all have a claim as being the greatest some more so then others. Outsiders like Gans, Walcott, Fitz and Walker have a claim although not as strong as the aforementioned names.

[Bill Butcher]

my top ten in no real order.

Barney Ross
Joe Gans
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Robinson
Micky Walker
Tony Canzi
Bob Fitz
Benny Leonard
And maybe Pep or Ted Kid Lewis.

No Pacquiao ?

[Bill Butcher]

langford, Greb, Roy Jones, Hagler, B. Leonard but not Ray Leonard

:nut

[China_hand_Joe]

Roy Jones Jr, Calzaghe, Tszyu, Lennox Lewis (if we are not talking P4P and just H2H then he is the best ever), Pernell Whitaker and maybe even Hearns.

[Bill Butcher]

Roy Jones Jr, Calzaghe, Tszyu, Lennox Lewis (if we are not talking P4P and just H2H then he is the best ever), Pernell Whitaker and maybe even Hearns.

If you were talking strictly H2H & not p4p then technically your list should be made up of HWs, no ?

[China_hand_Joe]

If you were talking strictly H2H & not p4p then technically your list should be made up of HWs, no ?

HWs and Joe Calzaghe yes.

I just assumed it was P4P and threw Lewis in there just in case.