ST Gordon

[Luigi1985]

How do you rate this CW fighter?

[unitas]

erratic fat guy. could really hit. but was very slow and could be outboxed. the type of guy who on his best day could be dangerous for anyone.......then gets outworked by a clubfighter the next. still fun enough.

[heerko koois]

Top 20 ATG at Cruiserweight........you know it,s so hard rating Cruisers...
at number uno Holyfield than a very big gap .....even a prime Rickey Parkey would make my top 20......

[TBooze]

Top 20 ATG at Cruiserweight.

ST Gordon may just about scrape into the top 20 cruisers (post 79) but a ATG...

I would not consider Holyfield Great; and like you say he (Holyfield) was far and away the best modern cruiser.

[Titan1]

Maybe top 20 cruiserweight, remember when he destroyed DeLeon and beat Berbick( one of the most unexplainable losses of all-time).

[CANNONBALL]

i remember his comeback in '87. he got flattened in 47 seconds by journeyman veteran dwayne bonds

[heerko koois]

i remember his comeback in '87. he got flattened in 47 seconds by journeyman veteran dwayne bonds

Some comeback......:smoke

[Bigcat]

I remember Dwayne , he boxed Orlin Norris..

He was not that bad but was just too small to compete at heavyweight..

[Zakman]

There was something about Gordon I always liked. Perhaps because he starched De Leon, who I never thought too much of.

[JohnThomas1]

There was something about Gordon I always liked. Perhaps because he starched De Leon, who I never thought too much of.

Tho De Leon totally schooled him in the rematch. I thought Carlos was a very decent, if unexciting Cruiser.

[young griffo]

ST Gordon may just about scrape into the top 20 cruisers (post 79) but a ATG...

I would not consider Holyfield Great; and like you say he (Holyfield) was far and away the best modern cruiser.
You don't consider Holyfield great???
Your criteria for greatness must be pretty fucking harsh considering he was UNDISPUTED Cruiserweight and Heavyweight champion.
Hell he was even a lineal champ which you hold so dear,plus his resume included victories over the likes of Tyson,Bowe,Moorer,Foreman,Holmes,Qawi,De Leon,Dokes,Douglas,Mercer,Thomas,Ruiz etc etc...
If that doesn't make for a great fighter then I'm stuffed if I know what does.

[TBooze]

You don't consider Holyfield great???
Your criteria for greatness must be pretty fucking harsh considering he was UNDISPUTED Cruiserweight and Heavyweight champion.
Hell he was even a lineal champ which you hold so dear,plus his resume included victories over the likes of Tyson,Bowe,Moorer,Foreman,Holmes,Qawi,De Leon,Dokes,Douglas,Mercer,Thomas,Ruiz etc etc...
If that doesn't make for a great fighter then I'm stuffed if I know what does.

IMO there have only been 35 great fighters. Holyfield was brilliant, but he was not great.

[Zakman]

Tho De Leon totally schooled him in the rematch. I thought Carlos was a very decent, if unexciting Cruiser.

De Leon is easily a top five cruiserweight, no doubt. I just didn't particularly like him - I can't even really tell you why. But it was nice seeing him get laid out - and I love upsets like that too!

[young griffo]

IMO there have only been 35 great fighters. Holyfield was brilliant, but he was not great.
Only 35 great fighters in boxing history you say?
I know the terms "great" and "legend" get bandied about a bit too often but I'd have thought there'd be at least 100 great fighters over boxings journey.
Out of curiosity could you list your 35 please?

[TBooze]

Only 35 great fighters in boxing history you say?
I know the terms "great" and "legend" get bandied about a bit too often but I'd have thought there'd be at least 100 great fighters over boxings journey.
Out of curiosity could you list your 35 please?

Like you said Greatness is too cheap, even 35 means there was a great every three/three and a half years (which is still probably too much).

Anyway my 35 are...


35 Roy Jones
34 George Foreman
33 Joe Gans
32 Ruben Olivares
31 Thomas Hearns
30 Marvin Hagler
29 Joe Louis
28 Gene Tunney
27 George Dixon
26 Eder Jofre
25 Carlos Zarate
24 Alexis Arguello
23 Pernell Whitaker
22 Oscar de la Hoya
21 Pancho Villa
20 Bob Fitzsimmons
19 Stanley Ketchel
18 Harry Grebb
17 Ezzard Charles
16 Benny Leonard
15 Julio Cesar Chavez
14 Mickey Walker
13 Ray Leonard
12 Carlos Monzon
11 Muhammad Ali
10 Charley Burley
9 Sammy Langford
8 Archie Moore
7 Jimmy Wilde
6 Willie Pep
5 Sandy Sadler
4 Georges Carpentier
3 Roberto Duran
2 Henry Armstrong
1 Ray Robinson

[Senya13]

Barney Ross has no place among greatest 35? Ok.

[TBooze]

Barney Ross has no place among greatest 35? Ok.

No he does not, I have him in the 40s

[young griffo]

Like you said Greatness is too cheap, even 35 means there was a great every three/three and a half years (which is still probably too much).

Anyway my 35 are...


35 Roy Jones
34 George Foreman
33 Joe Gans
32 Ruben Olivares
31 Thomas Hearns
30 Marvin Hagler
29 Joe Louis
28 Gene Tunney
27 George Dixon
26 Eder Jofre
25 Carlos Zarate
24 Alexis Arguello
23 Pernell Whitaker
22 Oscar de la Hoya
21 Pancho Villa
20 Bob Fitzsimmons
19 Stanley Ketchel
18 Harry Grebb
17 Ezzard Charles
16 Benny Leonard
15 Julio Cesar Chavez
14 Mickey Walker
13 Ray Leonard
12 Carlos Monzon
11 Muhammad Ali
10 Charley Burley
9 Sammy Langford
8 Archie Moore
7 Jimmy Wilde
6 Willie Pep
5 Sandy Sadler
4 Georges Carpentier
3 Roberto Duran
2 Henry Armstrong
1 Ray Robinson
Interesting list.
I'm surprised you have De La Hoya higher than Whitaker and Jones Jnr who I think were both much better fighters.Also Burley's very high for a guy who never won a title,and if you have him so high you could make a case for Holman Williams,Lloyd Marshall or Jimmy Bivins who have wins over him and comparable records.
No place for Jose Napoles,Wilfredo Gomez,Lennox Lewis,Michael Spinks,Floyd Mayweather,Bernard Hopkins etc,etc...sorry I don't mean to nitpick but I do think there has been a lot of great fighters and splitting them is very hard to do.

[TBooze]

Interesting list.
I'm surprised you have De La Hoya higher than Whitaker and Jones Jnr who I think were both much better fighters.Also Burley's very high for a guy who never won a title,and if you have him so high you could make a case for Holman Williams,Lloyd Marshall or Jimmy Bivins who have wins over him and comparable records.
No place for Jose Napoles,Wilfredo Gomez,Lennox Lewis,Michael Spinks,Floyd Mayweather,Bernard Hopkins etc,etc...sorry I don't mean to nitpick but I do think there has been a lot of great fighters and splitting them is very hard to do.

Great is something special, you cannot IMO have too many great fighters, or it dilutes the qualification. So although you may not agree with my 35 (fair enough) I still think you should only have between 30 or 40 fighters yourself that IYO qualify as great, by setting yourself such a task, it makes you think and think hard, who does and does not deserve the honour.

[Mantequilla]

very true and Oscar De La Hoya should be removed from any top 50 immediately.

No man that was never really the best in his division for any length of time and more importantly failed to produce a single definitive performance against a top-flight opponent should ever be considered a true great.

Oscar was a near\borderline great and one of the better fighters of his era.Definitely NOT an all-timer.

[TBooze]

very true and Oscar De La Hoya should be removed from any top 50 immediately.

No man that was never really the best in his division for any length of time and more importantly failed to produce a single definitive performance against a top-flight opponent should ever be considered a true great.

Oscar was a near\borderline great and one of the better fighters of his era.Definitely NOT an all-timer.

Well each to their own (I have de la Hoya as the finest fighter of the 90s), just limit your greats, whoever they are to managable amounts, that way you do not taint the meaning of the word.