ESPN'S 50 Greatest Boxers of All Time...

[JohnThomas1]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Gene Tunney
17. Mickey Walker
18. Archie Moore
19. Stanley Ketchel
20. George Foreman
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Barney Ross
23. Jimmy McLarnin
24. Julio Cesar Chavez
25. Marcel Cerdan
26. Joe Frazier
27. Ezzard Charles
28. Jake LaMotta
29. Sandy Saddler
30. Terry McGovern
31. Billy Conn
32. Jose Napoles
33. Ruben Olivares
34. Emile Griffith
35. Marvin Hagler
36. Eder Jofre
37. Thomas Hearns
38. Larry Holmes Video
39. Oscar De La Hoya
40. Evander Holyfield
41. Ted "Kid" Lewis
42. Alexis Arguello
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Pernell Whitaker
45. Carlos Monzon
46. Roy Jones Jr.
47. Bernard Hopkins
48. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
49. Erik Morales
50. Mike Tyson

Obviously Dempsey's too high but there's plenty of interesting selections.

[RoccoMarciano]

Ali should be about #8 on that list

[Manassa]

Isn't it astonishing how Stanley Ketchel rates above Tony Canzoneri?

[brownpimp88]

dempsey isnt even top 10 in his own weight class.

[RoccoMarciano]

dempsey isnt even top 10 in his own weight class.

Nope, he's top 5 :lol:

[Vanboxingfan]

I go onto Cox's website every now and then and he commented on this list and modified it a bit. Makes for some interesting reading.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[brownpimp88]

Nope, he's top 5 :lol:
then you're top 5 is a joke:lol:. Holyfield, marciano, holmes, frazier, lewis, louis, ali , johnson, foreman all have better resumes than him. Who did he beat, jack sharkey, o fuckin wow.

[RoccoMarciano]

then you're top 5 is a joke:lol:. Holyfield, marciano, holmes, frazier, lewis, louis, ali , johnson, foreman all have better resumes than him. Who did he beat, jack sharkey, o fuckin wow.

Even Cox rates him in the top 5... see the link above your post.

[McGrain]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford

I think this is a very reasonable top ten, although I would switch Ali and Armstrong and I wouls switch Pep and Duran. Johnson and Dempsey, some people are going to kick about these, but this is a GREATEST list, I think it's taken into account what a fighter achieved in a wider sense. But then we have Langford which reeks of redemption and justice, rather than achievment.

John, you've called Dempsey as to high - he's not to high. But he is to high if the list also includes Langford. You know?

11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Gene Tunney
17. Mickey Walker
18. Archie Moore
19. Stanley Ketchel
20. George Foreman

As always, things get softer after the top 10. What possible criteria exsists to hav Foreman as the 20th greatest fighter ever? What does that even mean - nothing. I'm also struggling to understand the placement of Marciano above Moore given the wallpaper of the list, and why oh why oh why oh why oh why oh why is the great Leonard above the great Greb?

21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Barney Ross
23. Jimmy McLarnin
24. Julio Cesar Chavez
25. Marcel Cerdan
26. Joe Frazier
27. Ezzard Charles
28. Jake LaMotta
29. Sandy Saddler
30. Terry McGovern

The placement of Saddler below LaMotta is freakish - this can only be the film. But ridiculous. The placement of Cerdan above Charles can only be described as ludicrous. We now see that your average ESB classic poster could put together a better list.


31. Billy Conn
32. Jose Napoles
33. Ruben Olivares
34. Emile Griffith
35. Marvin Hagler
36. Eder Jofre
37. Thomas Hearns
38. Larry Holmes Video
39. Oscar De La Hoya
40. Evander Holyfield
41. Ted "Kid" Lewis

I've broken this differently just so we see that Oscar has been placed above Ted Kid Lewis, always forgotten. Some more weirdness here, but nothing desperate.

42. Alexis Arguello
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Pernell Whitaker
45. Carlos Monzon
46. Roy Jones Jr.
47. Bernard Hopkins
48. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
49. Erik Morales
50. Mike Tyson

Very modern bias this section, it's like they've tried to squeeze some popular rather than deserving names in here. It's not that Jones and Whitaker and Hopkins don't deserve to be on a certain type of list, but this has really confused me as to the criteria. Is it a p4p list? If so, why is Louis/Ali so high? If not, why is Tyson below Jones? And if it's taking into consideration wider social implications (Dempsey/Johnson) why isn't Tyson in the top 15?

Most of all where is Holman Williams? ;)

Terrible list, terrible. Your list would be far better than this John.


Obviously Dempsey's too high but there's plenty of interesting selections.[/quote]

[brownpimp88]

Even Cox rates him in the top 5... see the link above your post.
its called old school bias. He ranks dempsey ahead of pernell whitaker, which is batshit insane.

[Manassa]

McGrain - I can definitely see the pattern in that last section. It's not a very well thought-out list; you can tell the author has just jotted down the names as they came into his head.

[McGrain]

McGrain - I can definitely see the pattern in that last section. It's not a very well thought-out list; you can tell the author has just jotted down the names as they came into his head.

Shat him/themselves I would guess.

[RoccoMarciano]

its called old school bias. He ranks dempsey ahead of pernell whitaker, which is batshit insane.

The are a few others Cox is "insane" on... oh well, it's just opinions anyway.

[Manassa]

Shat him/themselves I would guess.

Forget Holman Williams - where's Ike?

[brownpimp88]

The are a few others Cox is "insane" on... oh well, it's just opinions anyway.
Whitaker should be above benny leonard, let alone dempsey.

[JohnThomas1]

Isn't it astonishing how Stanley Ketchel rates above Tony Canzoneri?

:yep

[brownpimp88]

Another thing i dont get is why ruben olivares always gets ranked above spinks. Holmes, cooney, qawi, eddie and marvin are easily better names than the people ruben olivares beat.

[RoccoMarciano]

Amazing how much interest these types of lists generate lol

[JohnThomas1]

Terrible list, terrible. Your list would be far better than this John.

Obviously Dempsey's too high but there's plenty of interesting selections.

Fair comments. I wouldn't have Dempsey or Johnson top 10, not even close. Langford's got a great record. Foreman obviously gets enormous milage out of his comeback title with both Cox and ESPN. Foreman's a hard one to judge purely on the comeback win. Many put Charles well above 27 too. Greb at 13 is eye opening.

[JohnThomas1]

Another thing i dont get is why ruben olivares always gets ranked above spinks. Holmes, cooney, qawi, eddie and marvin are easily better names than the people ruben olivares beat.

Just because YOU don't recognise them doesn't mean they aren't as good. Cooney? WTF :lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Amazing how much interest these types of lists generate lol
Which is why i enjoy posting them :D

[RoccoMarciano]

Just because YOU don't recognise them doesn't mean they aren't as good. Cooney? WTF :lol:

Cooney is top ten! No doubt about that one....:smoke

[Manassa]

On a pound-for-pound list I think I'd have Dempsey at around #80.

[RoccoMarciano]

Some folks are striking their zero keys by mistake.

[ChrisPontius]

Forget Holman Williams - where's Ike?

Yeah, i can't believe they left Ibeabuchi off it either. He invented Psycho Pugilism, for fucks sake. :yep


I don't understand Dempsey's high rating at #10. Probably more on a historic impact factor than on accomplishments. I would say Tyson's accomplishements are about as good, but he's #50 or something.

[JohnThomas1]

Some folks are striking their zero keys by mistake.

Yeah, Manassa had Dempsey at #08 at first before correcting himself and getting the numerical order right

:smoke

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah, i can't believe they left Ibeabuchi off it either. He invented Psycho Pugilism, for fucks sake. :yep


I don't understand Dempsey's high rating at #10. Probably more on a historic impact factor than on accomplishments. I would say Tyson's accomplishements are about as good, but he's #50 or something.

He's obviously rated on "name".

[Smith]

The obvious one is Carlos at 45th!!!

The guy has took the hall of fame, and picked at random places for them to go. Crazy

[McGrain]

Some folks are striking their zero keys by mistake.

:lol:

[McGrain]

Yeah, i can't believe they left Ibeabuchi off it either.

:lol:

[ChrisPontius]

One thing about Monte Cox - like all people he does have his bias.

For instance, he quotes a writer (Lotierzo) who says something in the words of: "Mayweather never sets a trap like Robinson vs Fulmer...". That is simply not true. Mayweather has done that several times with right hand leads and in fact did EXACTLY that when he knocked Hatton down the first time. Some people only see what they want to see. :-(

[JohnThomas1]

The obvious one is Carlos at 45th!!!

The guy has took the hall of fame, and picked at random places for them to go. Crazy

Hagler at 35 and Monzon at 45 isn't right for starters.

[RoccoMarciano]

Yeah, Manassa had Dempsey at #08 at first before correcting himself and getting the numerical order right

:smoke

:lol:

[brownpimp88]

Just because YOU don't recognise them doesn't mean they aren't as good. Cooney? WTF :lol:
spinks didnt lose to c level fighters in his prime like olivares did. Whats his best win anways, lionel rose?

[JohnThomas1]

spinks didnt lose to c level fighters in his prime like olivares did. Whats his best win anways, lionel rose?

Don't you be dissin' on Lionel Rose buddy. He's a helluva lot better fighter than COONEY!!!!!!!!

:patsch

[brownpimp88]

Don't you be dissin' on Lionel Rose buddy. He's a helluva lot better fighter than COONEY!!!!!!!!

:patsch

doesnt matter either way, qawi larry and eddie were all p4pers when they fought spinks. Spinks would have had a much better resume anyways if it wasnt for half the division at 175 ducking him nicely, especially matthew saad muhammad.

[JohnThomas1]

doesnt matter either way, qawi larry and eddie were all p4pers when they fought spinks. Spinks would have had a much better resume anyways if it wasnt for half the division at 175 ducking him nicely, especially matthew saad muhammad.

Well i am not even going to begin to defend Olivares as you won't appreciate the finer points anyways.

You are also wrong about Saad ducking Spinks as far as i am concerned. Speculation at best, utter crap at worst.

[brownpimp88]

Well i am not even going to begin to defend Olivares as you won't appreciate the finer points anyways.

You are also wrong about Saad ducking Spinks as far as i am concerned. Speculation at best, utter crap at worst.
no it aint utter crap, saad did avoid him. You dont have to defend olivares, i know hes a top bantamweight of all times, is he greater than spinks, no he isnt.

[JohnThomas1]

no it aint utter crap, saad did avoid him. You dont have to defend olivares, i know hes a top bantamweight of all times, is he greater than spinks, no he isnt.

Better supply your best sources that Saad avoided Spinks then.

Put em up

:yep

[brownpimp88]

Better supply your best sources that Saad avoided Spinks then.

Put em up

:yep
just watch their post fight interviews from 81-80. Spinks thrashed him in sparring too back in 1977. You notice when spinks became champ, rossman, scott, mwale, koopmans and many other contenders never tried to fight him. Back in 83-84 he also called out marvin hagler and hagler never tried to fight him, cuz he would have gotten jinxed the fuck out.

[Vanboxingfan]

The are a few others Cox is "insane" on... oh well, it's just opinions anyway.

Clarification of Cox's list, he makes it clear it's not his, rather he's just correcting the obvious flaws he saw in the list without attempting to re-write it.

[Vanboxingfan]

One thing about Monte Cox - like all people he does have his bias.

For instance, he quotes a writer (Lotierzo) who says something in the words of: "Mayweather never sets a trap like Robinson vs Fulmer...". That is simply not true. Mayweather has done that several times with right hand leads and in fact did EXACTLY that when he knocked Hatton down the first time. Some people only see what they want to see. :-(

Fair enough, but his comment was made before the Hatton fight.

[JohnThomas1]

just watch their post fight interviews from 81-80. Spinks thrashed him in sparring too back in 1977. You notice when spinks became champ, rossman, scott, mwale, koopmans and many other contenders never tried to fight him. Back in 83-84 he also called out marvin hagler and hagler never tried to fight him, cuz he would have gotten jinxed the fuck out.

What sort of proof is this? The Classic forum demands a lot better and more conclusive stuff than this. Do you realise Saad lost his title just 5 months after Spinks won his? Spinks only had 16 fights before getting his shot, one can hardly say Saad was duty bound to fight a guy with 13 or 14 fights or be accused of ducking him, no?

A closer look shows Spinks to be pounding on Saad retreads!! Take a look! Johnson, Yaqui Lopez a mere 3 months after Saad boned him out, Vonzell Johnson just 9 months after Saad gutted him, Spinks was picking on Saad's depleted victims.

Saad didn't avoid Spinks one bit.

[JohnThomas1]

just watch their post fight interviews from 81-80. Spinks thrashed him in sparring too back in 1977. You notice when spinks became champ, rossman, scott, mwale, koopmans and many other contenders never tried to fight him. Back in 83-84 he also called out marvin hagler and hagler never tried to fight him, cuz he would have gotten jinxed the fuck out.

What sort of proof is this? The Classic forum demands a lot better and more conclusive stuff than this. Do you realise Saad lost his title just 5 months after Spinks won his? Spinks only had 16 fights before getting his shot, one can hardly say Saad was duty bound to fight a guy with 13 or 14 fights or be accused of ducking him, no?

A closer look shows Spinks to be pounding on Saad retreads!! Take a look! Johnson, Yaqui Lopez a mere 3 months after Saad boned him out, Vonzell Johnson just 9 months after Saad gutted him, Spinks was picking on Saad's depleted victims.

Saad didn't avoid Spinks one bit. I'd bet if Saad beat Braxton Spinks would have been his next fight, or near certainly the one after. Might have been slated even.

[brownpimp88]

What sort of proof is this? The Classic forum demands a lot better and more conclusive stuff than this. Do you realise Saad lost his title just 5 months after Spinks won his? Spinks only had 16 fights before getting his shot, one can hardly say Saad was duty bound to fight a guy with 13 or 14 fights or be accused of ducking him, no?

A closer look shows Spinks to be pounding on Saad retreads!! Take a look! Johnson, Yaqui Lopez a mere 3 months after Saad boned him out, Vonzell Johnson just 9 months after Saad gutted him, Spinks was picking on Saad's depleted victims.

Saad didn't avoid Spinks one bit. I'd bet if Saad beat Braxton Spinks would have been his next fight, or near certainly the one after. Might have been slated even.
have u seen the post fight interviews after spinks kept beating his left overs. He said sign the contract!

[Maxmomer]

De La Hoya but no Fitzsimmons? Outrageous.

[JohnThomas1]

Harry: Do you feel the Matthew Saad Muhammad of 197-1981 would be light-heavyweight champion of the world today, particularly considering that Roy Jones is the champ?


Saad: Oh wow! Roy Jones. But I'd have dealt with him. I never ducked anyone.


Harry: Do you feel at your best you would bring Jones down?


Saad: Jones is a busy fighter, always moving. It would be hard to catch him. I'd have to do a lot of cutting the ring off. He'd always be moving. So the outcome would be up in the air - a draw between us.


Harry: But he is also a puncher


Saad: He is a hitter, but not against me at that weight. That's why I say it's a toss up.


Harry: Do you feel Michael Spinks ducked you?


Saad: He absolutely ducked me.


Harry: Could you have beaten him?


Saad: Of course. I was the hottest guy for three years. No one could deal with me.


Harry: Who do you rate as the greatest light-heavyweight champs?


Saad: First, Archie Moore - the greatest light-heavyweight champ. I liked that man. Next is Bob Foster. We almost fought?


Harry: Weren't you years apart?


Saad: Yes, but we almost did. I'm glad we didn't. I saw his left hook - wow! What a hook. Number three, maybe Harold Johnson. He was really good, but not an action fighter. So I guess I'm number three.

Sorted!

[JohnThomas1]

And yet another myth bites the dust. Who would have thought it would be Spinks avoiding Saad!!!!

:smoke

[brownpimp88]

yeah spinsk ducked him, lol. Spinks said on camera to saad's face, sign the contract. Why dont u download the fight between spinks and vonzell johnson u clown. Spinks is straight up telling him to fight him and saad doesnt sign the contract, its clear who dodged who.

[JohnThomas1]

yeah spinsk ducked him, lol. Spinks said on camera to saad's face, sign the contract. Why dont u download the fight between spinks and vonzell johnson u clown. Spinks is straight up telling him to fight him and saad doesnt sign the contract, its clear who dodged who.

Yeah, it's really that easy too :lol:

Look, it was a valiant effort you put up but in the end, well it got messy for you. The bottom line is that Saad almost certainly didn't avoid Spinks. The question can possibly even be asked in the reverse.

Unlucky mate, keep well

:good

[RoccoMarciano]

....u clown...

Let's keep the name calling out of this. JT is far from a clown as most that read this section of the forum can attest to.

[brownpimp88]

Yeah, it's really that easy too :lol:

Look, it was a valiant effort you put up but in the end, well it got messy for you. The bottom line is that Saad almost certainly didn't avoid Spinks. The question can possibly even be asked in the reverse.

Unlucky mate, keep well

:good
how can the question be asked in reverse if butch lewis tried to make the fight happen and saad wouldnt sign the fuckin contract. Why do i get the feeling you havent seen the post fight interviews. Either way, i know spinks would have beat him. He beat the 2 guys that bested saad, and marvin johnson nearly killed him twice, yet spinks handled marvin with ease.

[JohnThomas1]

how can the question be asked in reverse if butch lewis tried to make the fight happen and saad wouldnt sign the fuckin contract. Why do i get the feeling you havent seen the post fight interviews. Either way, i know spinks would have beat him. He beat the 2 guys that bested saad, and marvin johnson nearly killed him twice, yet spinks handled marvin with ease.

Like with style matchups, you need to open up your mind a bit mate. Fighters call fighters out every 10 seconds. Spinks and Saad were building up to a unification battle, it was their only way of making big money. Unfortunately Saad couldn't keep winning quite long enough.

Tell me again who won the two Johnson fights?

Also, nobody ever said Spinks wouldn't beat Saad :huh

Of course Michael beat Johnson easy, Saad and Mustafa had already murdered the poor guy in very gruelling fights for Johnson. How much did these three losses take off the man? It's a credit Johnson came back to beat a lesser fighter for the title later on.

I like Johnson, a great warrior. No need to be dissin' the guy, he was a fine fighter with an enormous heart who gave us many great shows. Be thankful for guys like he. They are the heart and soul of boxing.

[brownpimp88]

Like with style matchups, you need to open up your mind a bit mate. Fighters call fighters out every 10 seconds. Spinks and Saad were building up to a unification battle, it was their only way of making big money. Unfortunately Saad couldn't keep winning quite long enough.

Tell me again who won the two Johnson fights?

Also, nobody ever said Spinks wouldn't beat Saad :huh

Of course Michael beat Johnson easy, Saad and Mustafa had already murdered the poor guy in very gruelling fights for Johnson. How much did these three losses take off the man? It's a credit Johnson came back to beat a lesser fighter for the title later on.

I like Johnson, a great warrior. No need to be dissin' the guy, he was a fine fighter with an enormous heart who gave us many great shows. Be thankful for guys like he. They are the heart and soul of boxing.
i never hated on johnson, he beat a top 10 atg light heavyweight.

[JohnThomas1]

Let's keep the name calling out of this. JT is far from a clown as most that read this section of the forum can attest to.

Don't ya just love it when they get all down and dirty

:lol:

Can't believe i've managed to stay aloof for once

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

i never hated on johnson, he beat a top 10 atg light heavyweight.

I will definitely have the material per this unifaction ducking matter. Tell me, IF i can come up with a credible proven source that a bout between the two was in order if Qawi didn't beat Saad what will you do for me??

[brownpimp88]

I will definitely have the material per this unifaction ducking matter. Tell me, IF i can come up with a credible proven source that a bout between the two was in order if Qawi didn't beat Saad what will you do for me??
What do u want me to do?

[JohnThomas1]

What do u want me to do?

Ohhhh the possibilities!!!!

Well simply taking on board Saad didn't duck Spinks would be fine. I'm not 100% sure i'll nab the info i want but it's a chance.

[RoccoMarciano]

Can't believe i've managed to stay aloof for once

:lol:

I was a bit surprised as well :lol:

[JohnThomas1]

I was a bit surprised as well :lol:

Can't say i blame you

:rofl

[RoccoMarciano]

Can't say i blame you

:rofl
Me thinks I shall come up with a list of authorised names to call certain posters :smoke

In any event, I see Johnson ranks rather high... I'm still trying to put a decisive finger on the why in that one.

[JohnThomas1]

Me thinks I shall come up with a list of authorised names to call certain posters :smoke

Sounds, hmmm, scary or good, one of the two

:lol:

[RoccoMarciano]

Sounds, hmmm, scary or good, one of the two

:lol:

All names will be based upon whether I like or dislike a particular poster's avatar :lol:

Back to the thread point:

In any event, I see Johnson ranks rather high... I'm still trying to put a decisive finger on the why in that one.

[elindiomonzon]

those who i think they might be higher:
monzon at 45??he deserves a top 15 easy imo
roy jones at 46?he desereves a top 30 imo
mayweather needs to be in the top 30 also
tyson should be a little bit higher imo
those who i think they might be lower:
de la hoya definitely
emile griffith shoudlnt be on that list
napoles should be a little bit lower

im ok with the others

[MagnificentMatt]

Well, for one, i think Whitaker is WAY to low...

[Manassa]

emile griffith shoudlnt be on that list
napoles should be a little bit lower

What are you, a cunt?

[Robbi]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Gene Tunney
17. Mickey Walker
18. Archie Moore
19. Stanley Ketchel
20. George Foreman
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Barney Ross
23. Jimmy McLarnin
24. Julio Cesar Chavez
25. Marcel Cerdan
26. Joe Frazier
27. Ezzard Charles
28. Jake LaMotta
29. Sandy Saddler
30. Terry McGovern
31. Billy Conn
32. Jose Napoles
33. Ruben Olivares
34. Emile Griffith
35. Marvin Hagler
36. Eder Jofre
37. Thomas Hearns
38. Larry Holmes Video
39. Oscar De La Hoya
40. Evander Holyfield
41. Ted "Kid" Lewis
42. Alexis Arguello
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Pernell Whitaker
45. Carlos Monzon
46. Roy Jones Jr.
47. Bernard Hopkins
48. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
49. Erik Morales
50. Mike Tyson

Obviously Dempsey's too high but there's plenty of interesting selections.

Joe Frazier above Whitaker. Ridiculous.

[Seamus]

Ali too high but still top ten. Jack Johnson should be in the 40 to 50 range if at all on this list. Monzon should be way higher. Frazier and Foreman are a bit too high also. But generally, a very good list.

[brooklyn1550]

This just goes to show you that many posters on ESB have greater knowledge and understanding of the sport and it's history than the so-called-experts who write for ESPN, Yahoo, CBS, etc.

[Manassa]

Ali too high but still top ten. Jack Johnson should be in the 40 to 50 range if at all on this list. Monzon should be way higher. Frazier and Foreman are a bit too high also. But generally, a very good list.

It's a terrible list.

[sthomas]

Ali #1, SRR #2. Put Marciano in top 5. Monzon and Haglar should both be higher. Was Salvador Sanchez on the list? If not, where do you rank him, I'd put him top 30.

[sweet_scientist]

ESPN's list is quite possibly the worst top 50 list I have ever seen, and that's including reference to some of the lists I've seen on the ESB general forum, which is REALLY saying something.

[Senya13]

We don't know what criteria they used for their list. I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they compiling it.

[sweet_scientist]

We don't know what criteria they used for their list. I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they compiling it.
As they said:

The fighters in this list have been assessed on four main criteria:

In-ring performance: A subjective measure and, to some degree, unquantifiable, but an important one. There's more to being considered a great fighter than compiling wins and collecting championship belts. There's also the manner in which the fights are fought and the wins are won -- the skill, the talent, the heart. Muhammad Ali brought a whole new style and panache to heavyweight boxing. Rocky Marciano and Evander Holyfield each defined fighting heart. Roy Jones Jr. and Floyd Mayweather Jr. at times displayed flashes of skill and superiority of a kind rarely seen in a boxing ring. At his peak, Mike Tyson didn't so much knock out his opponents as send them flying across the ring.


Achievements: Blistering power or silky smooth boxing moves aren't enough. Boxing's landscape is littered with fighters whose achievements did not end up matching their skill or talent. Almost all the fighters on this list fought at or near the pinnacle of the sport for years -- most either won multiple world titles or defended one title multiple times. Stanley Ketchel defended his middleweight championship 11 times in a short life that ended at 24. Harry Greb won the middleweight title despite being half blind in one eye, and went on to fight light heavyweights and heavyweights. George Foreman won the heavyweight championship of the world, lost it, retired, came back 10 years later and regained the crown at age 45. Henry Armstrong held world championships at three weights at the same time.
The exceptions all have good reasons for being so. Sam Langford, for example, was denied the opportunity to ever contest a world championship bout. Marcel Cerdan was injured during the first defense of his middleweight title and died in a plane crash before he could win back his crown.


Dominance: A factor that arguably works against those from eras with deeper talent pools, but one which rewards those who stood out from among their peers. Joe Louis was heavyweight champion for 11 years. Robinson suffered just one defeat in his first 123 bouts. Cerdan lost only four times in 110 fights, and each of them was due to disqualification, dodgy judging or injury. Pep allegedly once won a round without throwing a punch.


Mainstream appeal: This is the wild-card element. It's a disadvantage for most modern fighters, who compete in a time when boxing is no longer a mainstream sport, but it also conversely greatly boosts the candidacies of those few contemporary boxers who have achieved crossover recognition. In particular, it substantially elevates De La Hoya and Tyson, two boxers who might otherwise not be as high on this list -- or even on it at all. De La Hoya is perhaps the only active boxer with widespread name recognition outside of boxing circles, and nobody brought a buzz to the sport in recent decades to anything like the degree of Tyson -- who, for better or worse, remains synonymous with modern boxing in the public mind.

This list, then, is not just the 50 greatest fighters of all time. It is the 50 fighters who were the greatest in their time. It is a tribute to the boxers who have gone before, and to those who have strived to reach the standard their predecessors have set.

[Senya13]

Well, the last point is quite probably what has made it so unusual, as compared to what you usually see on this forum or other sites. Most other ratings consider only first two points, and to some degree the 3rd one.

[sweet_scientist]

The fourth criterion might go some way to explaining why the list it so heavyweight oriented, but its still a horrible list, even factoring that into it.

[JohnThomas1]

We don't know what criteria they used for their list. I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they compiling it.

Sorry, care of ESPN

The fighters in this list have been assessed on four main criteria:
In-ring performance: A subjective measure and, to some degree, unquantifiable, but an important one. There's more to being considered a great fighter than compiling wins and collecting championship belts. There's also the manner in which the fights are fought and the wins are won -- the skill, the talent, the heart. Muhammad Ali brought a whole new style and panache to heavyweight boxing. Rocky Marciano and Evander Holyfield each defined fighting heart. Roy Jones Jr. and Floyd Mayweather Jr. at times displayed flashes of skill and superiority of a kind rarely seen in a boxing ring. At his peak, Mike Tyson didn't so much knock out his opponents as send them flying across the ring.
Achievements: Blistering power or silky smooth boxing moves aren't enough. Boxing's landscape is littered with fighters whose achievements did not end up matching their skill or talent. Almost all the fighters on this list fought at or near the pinnacle of the sport for years -- most either won multiple world titles or defended one title multiple times. Stanley Ketchel defended his middleweight championship 11 times in a short life that ended at 24. Harry Greb won the middleweight title despite being half blind in one eye, and went on to fight light heavyweights and heavyweights. George Foreman won the heavyweight championship of the world, lost it, retired, came back 10 years later and regained the crown at age 45. Henry Armstrong held world championships at three weights at the same time.
The exceptions all have good reasons for being so. Sam Langford, for example, was denied the opportunity to ever contest a world championship bout. Marcel Cerdan was injured during the first defense of his middleweight title and died in a plane crash before he could win back his crown.
Dominance: A factor that arguably works against those from eras with deeper talent pools, but one which rewards those who stood out from among their peers. Joe Louis was heavyweight champion for 11 years. Robinson suffered just one defeat in his first 123 bouts. Cerdan lost only four times in 110 fights, and each of them was due to disqualification, dodgy judging or injury. Pep allegedly once won a round without throwing a punch.
Mainstream appeal: This is the wild-card element. It's a disadvantage for most modern fighters, who compete in a time when boxing is no longer a mainstream sport, but it also conversely greatly boosts the candidacies of those few contemporary boxers who have achieved crossover recognition. In particular, it substantially elevates De La Hoya and Tyson, two boxers who might otherwise not be as high on this list -- or even on it at all. De La Hoya is perhaps the only active boxer with widespread name recognition outside of boxing circles, and nobody brought a buzz to the sport in recent decades to anything like the degree of Tyson -- who, for better or worse, remains synonymous with modern boxing in the public mind.
This list, then, is not just the 50 greatest fighters of all time. It is the 50 fighters who were the greatest in their time. It is a tribute to the boxers who have gone before, and to those who have strived to reach the standard their predecessors have set.
Fifty different writers will have 50 different lists. At a time when boxing is frequently criticized and condemned to oblivion, there will, hopefully, be enough fresh blood and exciting developments in the sport to render this list irrelevant and to elevate a whole new generation of pugilists into the pantheon of boxing's greatest.

[JohnThomas1]

Obviously Dempsey and Johnson come under the "Mainstream appeal" factors heavily. Same with Ali and Louis. This certainly explains the amount of heavies in the top 10.

[JohnThomas1]

The fourth criterion might go some way to explaining why the list it so heavyweight oriented, but its still a horrible list, even factoring that into it.
Bugger ya, you just beat me LOL

[RoccoMarciano]

We don't know what criteria they used for their list.

true

I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they compiling it.
what?

[Senya13]

what?
I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they used for compiling it.

[JohnThomas1]

I'd abstain from criticism until I knew what principles they used for compiling it.

WEll she's all up, multiple times lol

[Ezzard]

I don't like these criteria.

1st - Who they fought, then who they beat and then who they did well against; all taking into consideration factors like age, peak, venue, weight class etc... I don't consider spectacular KO's any more significant than points wins.

2nd - What could they do, skills, talent, psychology, etc...

3rd - How long they did it for...

4th - historical significance