My All Time Top 10 List(for whatever that's worth)

[Jorodz]

Ok, so i'm gonna be off the forum for a few weeks visiting scotland and ireland (woo hoo) and I've been thinking about this lately (notably during class today) and thought I should finally put pen to paper and make a list. It's based in roughly equal portions:

a)Resume (longetivity/variety of and quality of opposition)
b)Talent (skill set, variety, dominance)
c)H2H(how well they would have done historically, how they were about to use their talent and prospects against others in their best weight class)

I'll briefly rate how they do in each category and describe any weaknesses they may have that reflect their position

*I fully expect and welcome hate for one of these...

1.Harry Greb (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10) *thanks to mcgrain and burt for the education on greb
-weaknesses (relatively low punching power at elite level, scared the shit out of prospective opponents)

2. Ray Robinson (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (unable to maintain level of excellence when physical gifts left, footwork wasn't on par with some of his other talents)

3.Henry Armstrong (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (some loses to fighters he should have beat such as ambers, zivic which is to be expected considering activity)

4.Muhammad Ali (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (shit body attack, no in fighting, lapses in focus lead to losses against norton, spinks and horrible outing against young)

5.Roberto Duran (Resume 8, Talent 10, H2H 9)
-weaknesses (lazy trainer, too many loses on record and too many excuses, serious trouble with jabbers and movers at elite level, especially as he moved up in weight)

6. Sam Langford (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (little footage but it shows incredible in fighting, strength,and power, regularly challenged bigger fights but did suffer numerous loses showing his size was a disadvantage, perhaps carried fighters for opportunities but still affects resume)

7. Benny Leonard (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (perhaps power but still able to score knockouts when needed such as charley white, unsuccessful attempts at higher weights though DQ for 147 title is odd, commonly rated 2nd best at lightweight though argument can be made for supremacy over duran)

8.Ezzard Charles (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (reluctant fighting style after baroudi, engaged in brawls when he shouldn't have in later career, occasional lose in early career while learning but counts against his resume)

9.Willie Pep (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (virtually untouchable in prime but vulnerable to the clutch style of sammy angott, little power at elite level, able to be outmuscled and bullied by saddler)

10. Roy Jones (Resume 7, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (poor resume shows unknown quality against the truly elite, safety first approach at light heavy lessens legacy as he regular took 2nd rate opponets the distance or toyed with them, chin may have been an issue)

Feel free to tear me a new one

[McGrain]

Charles is far to low, and you are pretty much acknolodging that in your marks out of 10. Langford below Duran doesn't jive for me, never would. Jones at ten, the thing is, think about the guys you have him above? But propsl for doing your list and putting it up there and also for explaining your picks.

[Jorodz]

Charles is far to low, and you are pretty much acknolodging that in your marks out of 10. Langford below Duran doesn't jive for me, never would. Jones at ten, the thing is, think about the guys you have him above? But propsl for doing your list and putting it up there and also for explaining your picks.

have to agree but i didn't know who to put below charles out of those choices. this is making me reconsider the thought of a tier system as i put charles/duran/pep on the same level

definitely see your point about langford and may have to rethink duran's placement. i once had him placed at 3 and now even 5 seems high. duran is likely added by bias towards having footage of him

thanks as always for the input!

[McGrain]

Welcome. For comparison's sake i'm currently rocking:

Langford
Greb
Robinson
Armstrong
Charles
Fitzsimmons
Ali
Leoanrd
Duran
Pep

[Jorodz]

Welcome. For comparison's sake i'm currently rocking:

Langford
Greb
Robinson
Armstrong
Charles
Fitzsimmons
Ali
Leoanrd
Duran
Pep

nice to see im not the only one keeping pep out of the top 5. fitz is interesting at 6. justifiable obviously but one i'm a little surprised about. how much emphasis, if anything, do you put in weight jumping?

[McGrain]

Yeah, I think it's of value to prove yourself against biggest men, for sure.

[ricardinho]

Ok, so i'm gonna be off the forum for a few weeks visiting scotland and ireland (woo hoo) and I've been thinking about this lately (notably during class today) and thought I should finally put pen to paper and make a list. It's based in roughly equal portions:

a)Resume (longetivity/variety of and quality of opposition)
b)Talent (skill set, variety, dominance)
c)H2H(how well they would have done historically, how they were about to use their talent and prospects against others in their best weight class)

I'll briefly rate how they do in each category and describe any weaknesses they may have that reflect their position

*I fully expect and welcome hate for one of these...

1.Harry Greb (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10) *thanks to mcgrain and burt for the education on greb
-weaknesses (relatively low punching power at elite level, scared the shit out of prospective opponents)

2. Ray Robinson (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (unable to maintain level of excellence when physical gifts left, footwork wasn't on par with some of his other talents)

3.Henry Armstrong (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (some loses to fighters he should have beat such as ambers, zivic which is to be expected considering activity)

4.Muhammad Ali (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (shit body attack, no in fighting, lapses in focus lead to losses against norton, spinks and horrible outing against young)

5.Roberto Duran (Resume 8, Talent 10, H2H 9)
-weaknesses (lazy trainer, too many loses on record and too many excuses, serious trouble with jabbers and movers at elite level, especially as he moved up in weight)

6. Sam Langford (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (little footage but it shows incredible in fighting, strength,and power, regularly challenged bigger fights but did suffer numerous loses showing his size was a disadvantage, perhaps carried fighters for opportunities but still affects resume)

7. Benny Leonard (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (perhaps power but still able to score knockouts when needed such as charley white, unsuccessful attempts at higher weights though DQ for 147 title is odd, commonly rated 2nd best at lightweight though argument can be made for supremacy over duran)

8.Ezzard Charles (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (reluctant fighting style after baroudi, engaged in brawls when he shouldn't have in later career, occasional lose in early career while learning but counts against his resume)

9.Willie Pep (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (virtually untouchable in prime but vulnerable to the clutch style of sammy angott, little power at elite level, able to be outmuscled and bullied by saddler)

10. Roy Jones (Resume 7, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (poor resume shows unknown quality against the truly elite, safety first approach at light heavy lessens legacy as he regular took 2nd rate opponets the distance or toyed with them, chin may have been an issue)

Feel free to tear me a new one

I can't complain with your list overall... I would not place Roy Jones on my top ten as he avoided big fights. He was too concerned about his legacy that he has none.

If he gets in on the basis of talent alone we could argue that Ricardo Lopez is between 11 and 20 or number 10 :D

[Jorodz]

I can't complain with your list overall... I would not place Roy Jones on my top ten as he avoided big fights. He was too concerned about his legacy that he has none.

If he gets in on the basis of talent alone we could argue that Ricardo Lopez is between 11 and 20 or number 10 :D

haha guess you don't want to know where he is on my top 20 then...

[Jorodz]

I can't complain with your list overall... I would not place Roy Jones on my top ten as he avoided big fights. He was too concerned about his legacy that he has none.

If he gets in on the basis of talent alone we could argue that Ricardo Lopez is between 11 and 20 or number 10 :D

oh yeah and totally agree about jones but i had to put in that talent and h2h forms a large part of my placing. jones resume is barely a 7 in the grand scheme of things and i was probably being generous with that. if i could be honest h2h jones is top 3 all time and talent wise he's unbelievably off the charts. but otherwise he's borderline top 50

[Jorodz]

Yeah, I think it's of value to prove yourself against biggest men, for sure.

i agree but i am of the mind that better counts more than bigger (obviously). if you can take on quality big men sure but being outweighed alone i don't think should count for all that much, unless the size difference is startling.

burley's win over turner for instance, where he was outweighed by 70 pounds is amazing. in fitz's age for instance the size difference between middle and heavy was not that large as big men rarely came over 220 pounds. however, the quality of his wins from middle-heavy is amazing, the opponents he fought were of the highest order.

[timmers612]

On your placement and comments of Langfords losses. Many articles over the years attest to Sam often having taking fights without training and at times little food. He had to take what he could when he could trained or untrained. A good deal of his losses can be attributed to this alone and others such as his losses to Wills due to his being past his prime against a much bigger man in his.

[asero]

pep is the only guy there that doesnt have success past his natural weight

[Jorodz]

pep is the only guy there that doesnt have success past his natural weight

pretty much and oddly enough (considering how little i thought i'd account for this) it factored into his relatively low placement. leonard had some success but not as much as the others as well. pep is likely the best feather ever and leonard, many rate as the best lightweight ever (at worst he's top 3). but most of their success came at a single weight

[ricardinho]

haha guess you don't want to know where he is on my top 20 then...

Talent wise he is the greatest Boxer ever... resume wise the minimum weight division is weak!

I have him at about 16...

[ricardinho]

pep is the only guy there that doesnt have success past his natural weight

the only people that had success beyond their weight took roids... Mosley, Holyfield, Roy Jones....etc

sometimes if you slam the door open hard enough it comes back in your face... I hope your nose is OK?

[Jorodz]

On your placement and comments of Langfords losses. Many articles over the years attest to Sam often having taking fights without training and at times little food. He had to take what he could when he could trained or untrained. A good deal of his losses can be attributed to this alone and others such as his losses to Wills due to his being past his prime against a much bigger man in his.

great post and it certainly helps putting langford's record into the perspective. his race and the times certainly had a lot to do with things

[Jorodz]

Talent wise he is the greatest Boxer ever... resume wise the minimum weight division is weak!

I have him at about 16...

wow, finally someone who has him rated even higher than i do;)

[ricardinho]

wow, finally someone who has him rated even higher than i do;)

Resume aside closest thing to perfection... finito literally means mr. perfect

[Delroc]

i cant believe i saw Roy Jones at 10. i mean i know Roy was talented and everything but i cant help but feel he was a little over hyped.

[bodhi]

i cant believe i saw Roy Jones at 10. i mean i know Roy was talented and everything but i cant help but feel he was a little over hyped.

:yep

[Jorodz]

:yep

yup. he's the odd one out in that list and the one i have the least justification for keeping. however, given his talent and potential, i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. i genuinely feel he'll be rated highly as years go on.

quick question about jones: let's say he had retired after ruiz or tarver? he'd be 49-1 (i believe), most talented 168 ever, long time dominating champ at 175, former 160 champion and the first middle since fitz to take a heavyweight belt. would it be so odd to have him in the top 10 then? there were rumblings at that time.

if that jones could be considered in the top 10, why not this one? ezzard charles lost a ton in his final 20-30 fights. is that held against him? what about ali's late losses? we tend to rate fighters on their prime, not when they fought past their best.

if jones had retired back then, would this be so odd?

[bodhi]

yup. he's the odd one out in that list and the one i have the least justification for keeping. however, given his talent and potential, i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. i genuinely feel he'll be rated highly as years go on.

Yes and no. The guys to who Jones was the childhood/youth hero will always rank him high and probably glorify him even more - can be clearly seen on here with many 80s fighters - but over time the flash will wane and the real substance in his career will step forward. And sadly this isn't much. I expect his ranking to drop with the more objective people.


quick question about jones: let's say he had retired after ruiz or tarver? he'd be 49-1 (i believe), most talented 168 ever, long time dominating champ at 175, former 160 champion and the first middle since fitz to take a heavyweight belt. would it be so odd to have him in the top 10 then? there were rumblings at that time.

if that jones could be considered in the top 10, why not this one? ezzard charles lost a ton in his final 20-30 fights. is that held against him? what about ali's late losses? we tend to rate fighters on their prime, not when they fought past their best.

I rate his first loss to Tarver full. The second one and the Johnson fight still quite a bit. The other losses not at all.

Jones was a beltholder at mw, the champ at smw, a beltholder at lhw, and a beltholder at hw. For me beltholder equals with top contender. This is a very good career and special achievements. Not many people did so. But it still falls short, especially when you take his resume into account. Compare it with Fitzsimmons. That guy was the champ at mw, lhw and hw. He cleaned out the hw division where Jones just beat one tailormade contender. How does that compare? Not. At. All. Still you have Jones in the Top10 but not Fitz? Crazyness IMO.

I rank Jones between 35-40 these days I think. I rank Fitz in the same mold as Charles, meaning 5 or 6. Even without the losses against Tarver I wouldn't rate Jones Top30.


if jones had retired back then, would this be so odd?

Yes, it is. Very odd imo.

[Jorodz]

Yes and no. The guys to who Jones was the childhood/youth hero will always rank him high and probably glorify him even more - can be clearly seen on here with many 80s fighters - but over time the flash will wane and the real substance in his career will step forward. And sadly this isn't much. I expect his ranking to drop with the more objective people.



I rate his first loss to Tarver full. The second one and the Johnson fight still quite a bit. The other losses not at all.

Jones was a beltholder at mw, the champ at smw, a beltholder at lhw, and a beltholder at hw. For me beltholder equals with top contender. This is a very good career and special achievements. Not many people did so. But it still falls short, especially when you take his resume into account. Compare it with Fitzsimmons. That guy was the champ at mw, lhw and hw. He cleaned out the hw division where Jones just beat one tailormade contender. How does that compare? Not. At. All. Still you have Jones in the Top10 but not Fitz? Crazyness IMO.

I rank Jones between 35-40 these days I think. I rank Fitz in the same mold as Charles, meaning 5 or 6. Even without the losses against Tarver I wouldn't rate Jones Top30.



Yes, it is. Very odd imo.

you know i can't argue with any point and your argument is very well put. Fitz is difficult to leave off the list and there are one or two others that are more deserving than jones on resume, proven ability against opposition and success across weights that i was tempted to include. but for me there simply was no fighter in my generation that looked as brilliant as he did, even considering the limited opposition. i'm ranking him almost solely on his ability and skill set and considering he's the most naturally skilled boxer i've ever seen, he gets a spot. did he earn it? no. your argument cannot be disputed but i can't say i've seen many fighters as consistently spectacular as jones. he's my guilty pleasure and one i'm having a good time (futily) trying to justify

[Sweet Pea]

2. Ray Robinson (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (unable to maintain level of excellence when physical gifts left, footwork wasn't on par with some of his other talents)

Whoah, what?

[McGrain]

Whoah, what?


Be gentle, he's a really sound guy.

[Sweet Pea]

Talent wise he is the greatest Boxer ever...
Well, if you say so.

[GPater11093]

Whoah, what?

I think if you watched a Robinson fight, you might think his footwork wa sbad, you have to really watch it to notice it.

[Jorodz]

Whoah, what?

haha, i wanted to phrase that carefully. to be honest i had to look for weaknesses. BUT in comparison to his other talents his footwork might be considered less magnificient. it's splitting hairs and nothing much but if his durability, punching power, chin, generalship is a 10, footwork may be a 9.5.

[Jorodz]

Be gentle, he's a really sound guy.

:oops:thanks for the backup

[bodhi]

you know i can't argue with any point and your argument is very well put. Fitz is difficult to leave off the list and there are one or two others that are more deserving than jones on resume, proven ability against opposition and success across weights that i was tempted to include. but for me there simply was no fighter in my generation that looked as brilliant as he did, even considering the limited opposition. i'm ranking him almost solely on his ability and skill set and considering he's the most naturally skilled boxer i've ever seen, he gets a spot. did he earn it? no. your argument cannot be disputed but i can't say i've seen many fighters as consistently spectacular as jones. he's my guilty pleasure and one i'm having a good time (futily) trying to justify

Fair enough, everybody has one or a few fighters he has a weak spot for. Just don´t let it cloud your judgement or you become the next PowerPuncher :good

[Boilermaker]

ONe guy i am starting to like, in a pound for pound sense is Rocky Marciano. I see everybody seems to have Charles in the top 10. Rocky was a better fighter than Charles and beat him twice. In reality there is little difference between the two, in natural fighting weights. Archie Moore is another borderline top 10. Rocky beat him also. Rocky dominated his own weight as well. He also fought and beat (admittedly an older version) a bigger all time great (again arguably top 10 or 20 lb for lb) in joe louis. In fact, despite his small dimensions it is very possible that he was the best fighter ever. Joe Walcott is another lb for lb great that Rocky beat comfortably. When you think about it, those 4 wins right there are more impressive than Haglers efforts against Leonard, Duran, Hearns and Antuofermo? In fact it is hard to see who would have beaten 4 higher rated lb for lb guys than this. Perhaps Tunney, who has Loughran, Dempsey, Greb and Gibbons? At this point in time, i certainly would struggle to think of any.

I may change my opinion, but i am really starting to think that

[My2Sense]

My list, for what it's worth:

1. Armstrong
2. Robinson
3. Greb
4. Charles
5. Langford
6. Walker
7. B. Leonard
8. Louis
9. Ross
10. Ali or R. Leonard

I've always rated the first seven pretty consistently that way; after that it gets kinda murky, and the fighters become much more interchangeable.

[Rise Above]

Walker at number 6 is interesting.

[Flea Man]

Ok, so i'm gonna be off the forum for a few weeks visiting scotland and ireland (woo hoo) and I've been thinking about this lately (notably during class today) and thought I should finally put pen to paper and make a list. It's based in roughly equal portions:

a)Resume (longetivity/variety of and quality of opposition)
b)Talent (skill set, variety, dominance)
c)H2H(how well they would have done historically, how they were about to use their talent and prospects against others in their best weight class)

I'll briefly rate how they do in each category and describe any weaknesses they may have that reflect their position

*I fully expect and welcome hate for one of these...

1.Harry Greb (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10) *thanks to mcgrain and burt for the education on greb
-weaknesses (relatively low punching power at elite level, scared the shit out of prospective opponents)

2. Ray Robinson (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (unable to maintain level of excellence when physical gifts left, footwork wasn't on par with some of his other talents)

3.Henry Armstrong (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (some loses to fighters he should have beat such as ambers, zivic which is to be expected considering activity)

4.Muhammad Ali (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (shit body attack, no in fighting, lapses in focus lead to losses against norton, spinks and horrible outing against young)

5.Roberto Duran (Resume 8, Talent 10, H2H 9)
-weaknesses (lazy trainer, too many loses on record and too many excuses, serious trouble with jabbers and movers at elite level, especially as he moved up in weight)

6. Sam Langford (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (little footage but it shows incredible in fighting, strength,and power, regularly challenged bigger fights but did suffer numerous loses showing his size was a disadvantage, perhaps carried fighters for opportunities but still affects resume)

7. Benny Leonard (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (perhaps power but still able to score knockouts when needed such as charley white, unsuccessful attempts at higher weights though DQ for 147 title is odd, commonly rated 2nd best at lightweight though argument can be made for supremacy over duran)

8.Ezzard Charles (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (reluctant fighting style after baroudi, engaged in brawls when he shouldn't have in later career, occasional lose in early career while learning but counts against his resume)

9.Willie Pep (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (virtually untouchable in prime but vulnerable to the clutch style of sammy angott, little power at elite level, able to be outmuscled and bullied by saddler)

10. Roy Jones (Resume 7, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (poor resume shows unknown quality against the truly elite, safety first approach at light heavy lessens legacy as he regular took 2nd rate opponets the distance or toyed with them, chin may have been an issue)

Feel free to tear me a new one

I just can't see how someone will full marks can be below someone who doesn't get full marks?!?!?

A good mix, but IMO Jones should be nowhere above 30.:good

[Flea Man]

Walker at number 6 is interesting.

I have him at no.9 myself.

[Flea Man]

Ricardo Lopez-Poor infighter to the other person who said he was close to perfect.

[Flea Man]

My top ten while I'm here-

1. Greb
2. Armstrong
3. Robinson
4. Charles
5. Langford
6. Duran
7. Pep
8. Leonard
9. Walker
10. Ali
11. Moore
12. Ross
12. Canzoneri
13. Louis
and so on, and so on

[Rise Above]

I may as well post mine too.

1 Robinson
2 Greb
3 Armstrong
4 Langford
5 Moore
6 Charles
7 B. Leonard
8 Duran
9 Pep
10 Gans

[anarci]

yup. he's the odd one out in that list and the one i have the least justification for keeping. however, given his talent and potential, i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. i genuinely feel he'll be rated highly as years go on.

quick question about jones: let's say he had retired after ruiz or tarver? he'd be 49-1 (i believe), most talented 168 ever, long time dominating champ at 175, former 160 champion and the first middle since fitz to take a heavyweight belt. would it be so odd to have him in the top 10 then? there were rumblings at that time.

if that jones could be considered in the top 10, why not this one? ezzard charles lost a ton in his final 20-30 fights. is that held against him? what about ali's late losses? we tend to rate fighters on their prime, not when they fought past their best.

if jones had retired back then, would this be so odd? IF Jones had retired after Ruiz i dont think to many people would complain about him being in the top 10. In fact some were comparing him to Robinson at one time.
Although he was past it in his losses the Ko losses to Tarver and Johnson have hurt his legacy. He still makes my top 20 though.

[Brian123]

Bob Fitzsimmons won titles from middleweight to heavyweight, very fast and powerful, H2H no problems either-should be in the top ten somewhere.

[PetethePrince]

ONe guy i am starting to like, in a pound for pound sense is Rocky Marciano. I see everybody seems to have Charles in the top 10. Rocky was a better fighter than Charles and beat him twice. In reality there is little difference between the two, in natural fighting weights. Archie Moore is another borderline top 10. Rocky beat him also. Rocky dominated his own weight as well. He also fought and beat (admittedly an older version) a bigger all time great (again arguably top 10 or 20 lb for lb) in joe louis. In fact, despite his small dimensions it is very possible that he was the best fighter ever. Joe Walcott is another lb for lb great that Rocky beat comfortably. When you think about it, those 4 wins right there are more impressive than Haglers efforts against Leonard, Duran, Hearns and Antuofermo? In fact it is hard to see who would have beaten 4 higher rated lb for lb guys than this. Perhaps Tunney, who has Loughran, Dempsey, Greb and Gibbons? At this point in time, i certainly would struggle to think of any.

I may change my opinion, but i am really starting to think that

I don't think Marciano was a better fighter. At least he didn't prove it. But in a P4P sense he's somewhere in the same ballpark I think.

[Boxed Ears]

ONe guy i am starting to like, in a pound for pound sense is Rocky Marciano. I see everybody seems to have Charles in the top 10. Rocky was a better fighter than Charles and beat him twice. In reality there is little difference between the two, in natural fighting weights. Archie Moore is another borderline top 10. Rocky beat him also. Rocky dominated his own weight as well. He also fought and beat (admittedly an older version) a bigger all time great (again arguably top 10 or 20 lb for lb) in joe louis. In fact, despite his small dimensions it is very possible that he was the best fighter ever. Joe Walcott is another lb for lb great that Rocky beat comfortably. When you think about it, those 4 wins right there are more impressive than Haglers efforts against Leonard, Duran, Hearns and Antuofermo? In fact it is hard to see who would have beaten 4 higher rated lb for lb guys than this. Perhaps Tunney, who has Loughran, Dempsey, Greb and Gibbons? At this point in time, i certainly would struggle to think of any.

I may change my opinion, but i am really starting to think that

That among others is a fairly bold statement.

[Dempsey1238]

Walker at number 6 is interesting.


And why?? He was a 2 weight divsion champ, and was at one time ranked number 3 in the heavyweight ranks.


Thats way more than what Jones Jr ever did.

He gets lots of credit for his heavyweight run beating the big guys, until a certain German put him in his place.

[bodhi]

Well, mine would look like this:

1. Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Robinson
2. Fitzsimmons, Charles
3. Walker, Duran
4. Leonard, Ross, Pep,
5. Ryan, Canzoneri, Moore

[Bill Butcher]

pep is the only guy there that doesnt have success past his natural weight

Different body types.

He was numero uno in HIS weight tho & was arguably the best pure boxer & defensive boxer in history.

[Bill Butcher]

On fighters Ive seen & not just read about.

Robinson
Ali
Pep
Armstrong
Duran
R. Leonard
Chavez
Whitaker
Louis
Hearns

[Boilermaker]

That among others is a fairly bold statement.
By that, i meant at unlimited weight. If two wins, one by brutal knockout dont suggest you are the better fighter, then i dont know what does. Or do you think Charles was past prime and prime Charles reverses things?

[Boxed Ears]

By that, i meant at unlimited weight. If two wins, one by brutal knockout dont suggest you are the better fighter, then i dont know what does. Or do you think Charles was past prime and prime Charles reverses things?

If that's your meaning, I didn't get ya the first time. Makes a very different statement that way.

[Boilermaker]

If that's your meaning, I didn't get ya the first time. Makes a very different statement that way.
Okay, fair enough.

One other thing which is interesting, as i start to like Rocky more and more as a P4P great. When he fought Moore, his weight advantage was just 1/4 of a pound! Against Ezzard Charles, he had a 2lb weight advanatage the first time, and was actually outweighed by 5 lbs in the rematch! Jersey Joe Walcott enjoyed about a 15lb weight advantage, while Joe Louis had a 30lb advantage. Despite never losing a fight, Rocky gave up weight in about 80 to 90 % of his fights. That stat alone makes him a P4P consideration. If he was a lightweight or a welterweight with the same wins, he would be in the top echelon. He was a very good fighter.

[Abdullah]

Ok, so i'm gonna be off the forum for a few weeks visiting scotland and ireland (woo hoo) and I've been thinking about this lately (notably during class today) and thought I should finally put pen to paper and make a list. It's based in roughly equal portions:

a)Resume (longetivity/variety of and quality of opposition)
b)Talent (skill set, variety, dominance)
c)H2H(how well they would have done historically, how they were about to use their talent and prospects against others in their best weight class)

I'll briefly rate how they do in each category and describe any weaknesses they may have that reflect their position

*I fully expect and welcome hate for one of these...

1.Harry Greb (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10) *thanks to mcgrain and burt for the education on greb
-weaknesses (relatively low punching power at elite level, scared the shit out of prospective opponents)

2. Ray Robinson (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (unable to maintain level of excellence when physical gifts left, footwork wasn't on par with some of his other talents)

3.Henry Armstrong (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (some loses to fighters he should have beat such as ambers, zivic which is to be expected considering activity)

4.Muhammad Ali (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (shit body attack, no in fighting, lapses in focus lead to losses against norton, spinks and horrible outing against young)

5.Roberto Duran (Resume 8, Talent 10, H2H 9)
-weaknesses (lazy trainer, too many loses on record and too many excuses, serious trouble with jabbers and movers at elite level, especially as he moved up in weight)

6. Sam Langford (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (little footage but it shows incredible in fighting, strength,and power, regularly challenged bigger fights but did suffer numerous loses showing his size was a disadvantage, perhaps carried fighters for opportunities but still affects resume)

7. Benny Leonard (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (perhaps power but still able to score knockouts when needed such as charley white, unsuccessful attempts at higher weights though DQ for 147 title is odd, commonly rated 2nd best at lightweight though argument can be made for supremacy over duran)

8.Ezzard Charles (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (reluctant fighting style after baroudi, engaged in brawls when he shouldn't have in later career, occasional lose in early career while learning but counts against his resume)

9.Willie Pep (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (virtually untouchable in prime but vulnerable to the clutch style of sammy angott, little power at elite level, able to be outmuscled and bullied by saddler)

10. Roy Jones (Resume 7, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (poor resume shows unknown quality against the truly elite, safety first approach at light heavy lessens legacy as he regular took 2nd rate opponets the distance or toyed with them, chin may have been an issue)

Feel free to tear me a new one

Hey, guy, I'm not going to criticize you. Of course I don't agree with Jones, but this is your list, not mine. Some people are ready to hang you if you didn't list there guy as #1, or if you list someone they don't agree with. This is all a matter of opinion. I think your list is a good one. :good

[essexboy]

Ok, so i'm gonna be off the forum for a few weeks visiting scotland and ireland (woo hoo) and I've been thinking about this lately (notably during class today) and thought I should finally put pen to paper and make a list. It's based in roughly equal portions:

a)Resume (longetivity/variety of and quality of opposition)
b)Talent (skill set, variety, dominance)
c)H2H(how well they would have done historically, how they were about to use their talent and prospects against others in their best weight class)

I'll briefly rate how they do in each category and describe any weaknesses they may have that reflect their position

*I fully expect and welcome hate for one of these...

1.Harry Greb (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10) *thanks to mcgrain and burt for the education on greb
-weaknesses (relatively low punching power at elite level, scared the shit out of prospective opponents)

2. Ray Robinson (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (unable to maintain level of excellence when physical gifts left, footwork wasn't on par with some of his other talents)

3.Henry Armstrong (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (some loses to fighters he should have beat such as ambers, zivic which is to be expected considering activity)

4.Muhammad Ali (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (shit body attack, no in fighting, lapses in focus lead to losses against norton, spinks and horrible outing against young)

5.Roberto Duran (Resume 8, Talent 10, H2H 9)
-weaknesses (lazy trainer, too many loses on record and too many excuses, serious trouble with jabbers and movers at elite level, especially as he moved up in weight)

6. Sam Langford (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (little footage but it shows incredible in fighting, strength,and power, regularly challenged bigger fights but did suffer numerous loses showing his size was a disadvantage, perhaps carried fighters for opportunities but still affects resume)

7. Benny Leonard (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (perhaps power but still able to score knockouts when needed such as charley white, unsuccessful attempts at higher weights though DQ for 147 title is odd, commonly rated 2nd best at lightweight though argument can be made for supremacy over duran)

8.Ezzard Charles (Resume 10, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (reluctant fighting style after baroudi, engaged in brawls when he shouldn't have in later career, occasional lose in early career while learning but counts against his resume)

9.Willie Pep (Resume 10, Talent 9, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (virtually untouchable in prime but vulnerable to the clutch style of sammy angott, little power at elite level, able to be outmuscled and bullied by saddler)

10. Roy Jones (Resume 7, Talent 10, H2H 10)
-weaknesses (poor resume shows unknown quality against the truly elite, safety first approach at light heavy lessens legacy as he regular took 2nd rate opponets the distance or toyed with them, chin may have been an issue)

Feel free to tear me a new one

good....good....good....good....good....good....good....good....good....NO!

All joking aside, I wouldnt have Duran above Langford and Charles but its all about opinion really.

[TheGreatA]

Robinson had great, outstanding footwork in my opinion, one of his best aspects. The one criticism I'd have about him is that he wasn't a defensive master on the level of Pep, Whitaker, Locche but then again he wasn't exactly a defensive fighter.

[Jorodz]

Thanks for the feedback all! loads to think about, especially duran (of course jones i knew i was gonna get butchered for and now that i got him off my chest, should reconsider that 10 spot...) oh and the fact that if i use a rating system, it should probably reflect how i actually rate the fighters! few months reading and back to the drawing board