Shall We Try And Actually Sort Some Top P4P Fighters?

[McGrain]

By general concensus?

I thought it would be fun if we could see if it was possible to get EVERYONE who posts in the thread to agree upon some fighters that would be on an ATG top 10 p4p list.

If you have an objection to any given fighter just say who and why and maybe there'll be some chat about it and maybe not.

With a bit of luck we might actually end up with 5 fighters we can agree upon as being in a top 10.

So does anyone feel that the following fighters DO NOT belong in a top ten all time p4p list?

SUGAR RAY ROBINSON
HENRY ARMSTRONG
ROBERTO DURAN

Which fighters do you think are a lock for this list? Maybe try to keep your nominations so one or two.

[jyuza]

Definitely Top 10 :

Robinson
Armstrong
Greb
Ali
Duran
Langford
Leonard (Benny of course)
Pep

[McGrain]

Definitely Top 10 :

Robinson
Armstrong
Greb
Ali
Duran
Langford
Leonard (Benny of course)
Pep

I would dispute Ali as a top 10 lock. Sorry bro.

The thing is that you've offered up 8 names here - that leaves only two spaces. Though I'm happy for people to offer up their top ten lists if they like, i'm interested here in getting four or five fighters that EVERYONE agress upon.

[fists of fury]

A case can be made for Hearns, Leonard and Ricardo Lopez. Maybe Whitaker, Arguello and JCC as well.

[fists of fury]

On second thought - scratch Lopez. I doubt there would be unanimity on this one.

[McGrain]

A case can be made for Hearns, Leonard and Ricardo Lopez. Maybe Whitaker, Arguello and JCC as well.

Of course. A case can also be made for Bernard Hopkins, Charley Burley, Joe Louis etc., we are interested in guys who would be a lock here.

Who would your picks be for an absolute lock? Plus, would you agree that Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson and Armstrong are definites?

[McGrain]

I think there are some fighters everybody would agree. Armstrong, Greb, Robinson, Duran, Langford, Pep.

We have six names here; all great shouts. I'd be most interested to hear from anyone who thinks that these 6 aren't top ten locks.

[fists of fury]

Who would your picks be for an absolute lock? Plus, would you agree that Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson and Armstrong are definites?

I'd agree with those three, even though on film Armstrong was a slight disappointment. His achievements speak for themselves though.

Of those I mentioned, I think one of them should be a lock. I just cannot figure out which one. :D

[McGrain]

Of those I mentioned, I think one of them should be a lock. I just cannot figure out which one. :D


:lol:

You're not filling me with confidence here bro...

[Minotauro]

The only guys that are locks for me are:
Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Roberto Duran
Harry Greb
Sam Langford

I would personally add Charles and probably Pep although I have seen a lot of list where they were missing.

[McGrain]

I would personally add Charles and probably Pep although I have seen a lot of list where they were missing.

Yeah. I think i could probably name eleven guys that should be a lock for the top 10!

Could choices.

[jyuza]

I disagree with Ali and Leonard as a lock for it. Greb, Langford and Pep are good choices. Fitzsimmons should also be there. There could also a case be made for Wilde.

I think there are some fighters everybody would agree. Armstrong, Greb, Robinson, Duran, Langford, Pep.

Why not Leonard ?

[jyuza]

We have six names here; all great shouts. I'd be most interested to hear from anyone who thinks that these 6 aren't top ten locks.
I do agree with those.

[McGrain]

I do agree with those.


He might scrape in for me. But he is one of those borderline guys. Very close but possibly no cigar for me.

I think most would have him top 20.

This is why it will be so hard to get a consensus on many names. I'm delighted that there's been nobody shouting down the three names I mentioned in the first post, never mind the 6 tobkhan suggested.

[Manassa]

This is my list:

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Harry Greb
3. Ray Robinson
4. Willie Pep
5. Benny Leonard
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Archie Moore
9. Joe Gans
10. Barney Ross

Of those, I consider Armstrong, Robinson, Leonard, Greb, Charles, Pep and Duran to be unquestionable choices. Anyone disagree?

[jyuza]

This is my list:

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Harry Greb
3. Ray Robinson
4. Willie Pep
5. Benny Leonard
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Archie Moore
9. Joe Gans
10. Barney Ross

Of those, I consider Armstrong, Robinson, Leonard, Greb, Charles, Pep and Duran to be unquestionable choices. Anyone disagree?

Definitely not me :good

I have Benny at 8 though.

[China_hand_Joe]

SUGAR RAY ROBINSON
HENRY ARMSTRONG
ROBERTO DURAN
Those three are undisputable for me, it just gets me when people start bringing up Willie Pep like he has some divine right to be top 10, if someone has Pep and not Calzaghe (the superior one weight fighter) they are a complete lunatic

[McGrain]

if someone has Pep and not Calzaghe (the superior one weight fighter) they are a complete lunatic

Go away.

[jyuza]

Go away.

:lol:

[McGrain]

This is my list:

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Harry Greb
3. Ray Robinson
4. Willie Pep
5. Benny Leonard
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Archie Moore
9. Joe Gans
10. Barney Ross

Of those, I consider Armstrong, Robinson, Leonard, Greb, Charles, Pep and Duran to be unquestionable choices. Anyone disagree?

You're list is gorgeous. No Langford though? Also, I'd reshuffle your top three but I understand this is just personal taste.

I may be inclined to dispute Charles' position as a lock. Master boxer though he was he only dominated one weight class meaningfully. I know part of this was the war (middle).

I've also heard mutterings here and there that Charles was a fighter involved in business - it is true is it not that all the close decisions he was involved in went his way early doors? Certianly i've heard speculation about both the 1st Burley fight and the Moore battles. That's a house of cards though.

I'm not concinced Benny is a lock either. Care to make a brief case?

[McGrain]

Definitely not me :good

I have Benny at 8 though.

But do you really consider your number eight a lock?

Let me provide a quick example. My #8 heavy is Hollyfield. #11 - now outside the top ten - is Foreman. But there really isn't that much between them. It's quite possible that they'll swap places entirely in a years time as I gather new info and see new fights.

But Ali, Louis and Liston who are in my top 3 will probably never be outside my top five. See what I mean?

[jyuza]

But do you really consider your number eight a lock?

Let me provide a quick example. My #8 heavy is Hollyfield. #11 - now outside the top ten - is Foreman. But there really isn't that much between them. It's quite possible that they'll swap places entirely in a years time as I gather new info and see new fights.

But Ali, Louis and Liston who are in my top 3 will probably never be outside my top five. See what I mean?

I see your point and I can't argue with you about having Benny outside the top 10. I do believe Leonard deserves to be Top 10, right now I have him 8 but in one month he could be number 10 or number 5 (according to your very good standard).

[sweet_scientist]

Of course. A case can also be made for Bernard Hopkins, Charley Burley, Joe Louis etc., we are interested in guys who would be a lock here.

Who would your picks be for an absolute lock? Plus, would you agree that Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson and Armstrong are definites?

I'd love to see the case made for Hopkins being top ten all time.

Heck I'd love to see the case for him being top 30 all time.

[McGrain]

I'd love to see the case made for Hopkins being top ten all time.

Heck I'd love to see the case for him being top 30 all time.

I may have been a little facetious with my selection of fighters; the point is that we are after locks here rather than greats.

I rate Hopkins in some pretty serious company though. And he's not done yet.

[Nemesis]

Buck Smith, of course

[Nemesis]

On opposition faced, i am with C_H_J, regarding placing Pep in a top ten, he doesnt deserve to be there...

But if were talking about peoples opinions of him (who saw him in his prime), then that is different altogether

[sweet_scientist]

I may have been a little facetious with my selection of fighters; the point is that we are after locks here rather than greats.

I rate Hopkins in some pretty serious company though. And he's not done yet.

Fair enough, I think it's somewhat difficult to have him right at the pinnacle of the sport, but he is no doubt a great fighter.

[China_hand_Joe]

On opposition faced, i am with C_H_J, regarding placing Pep in a top ten, he doesnt deserve to be there...

But if were talking about peoples opinions of him (who saw him in his prime), then that is different altogetherHis skill level was excellent and his style unique, although he still lost a fair number of rounds against some severely outclassed opposition

[Manassa]

His skill level was excellent and his style unique, although he still lost a fair number of rounds against some severely outclassed opposition

He was fighting every five minutes, of course he's going to lose some rounds. He wasn't on a two-fights-a-year schedule like Calzaghe, who gets as long as he wants to prepare for a fight.

[McGrain]

He was fighting every five minutes, of course he's going to lose some rounds. He wasn't on a two-fights-a-year schedule like Calzaghe, who gets as long as he wants to prepare for a fight.

And sometimes STILL can't be bothered to turn up for the fight.

[Manassa]

And sometimes STILL can't be bothered to turn up for the fight.

Although to be fair, Calzaghe did show a lot of heart beating the dreaded Evans 'African Warrior' Ashira with just one hand.

[China_hand_Joe]

He was fighting every five minutes, of course he's going to lose some rounds. He wasn't on a two-fights-a-year schedule like Calzaghe, who gets as long as he wants to prepare for a fight.They most of them were like sparring sessions for him, if anything they should have kept Willie in good shape and very sharp

[Manassa]

They most of them were like sparring sessions for him, if anything they should have kept Willie in good shape and very sharp

They were? Who told you this?

Oh yea, Boxrec :oops:

[China_hand_Joe]

They were? Who told you this?

Oh yea, Boxrec :oops:Video and boxrec+common sense, the fact there is a rumour he tried to win a round without throwing a punch sums up his opposition -fullstop-

[Dempsey1238]

Ross and Cani should be in the top ten imo.

[McGrain]

Video and boxrec+common sense, the fact there is a rumour he tried to win a round without throwing a punch sums up his opposition -fullstop-

Por favor, what did you make of Pep when you saw him on video?

[China_hand_Joe]

Por favor, what did you make of Pep when you saw him on video?Great fighter, but not very awe-inspiring

[McGrain]

Great fighter, but not very awe-inspiring

You say great - great enough to make an all time top 20 pound for pound list?

Certainly a fighter doesn't have to inspire awe to make a list like this (though Pep inspires something akin to it in me when I see him).

[Manassa]

Video and boxrec+common sense, the fact there is a rumour he tried to win a round without throwing a punch sums up his opposition -fullstop-

If you knew anything about Pep you'd also know that rumour is false.

[China_hand_Joe]

If you knew anything about Pep you'd also know that rumour is false.I did not say anything about the rumour being true, not even Joe Calzaghe can win a round without throwing a punch (if you count slaps), the fact I called it a rumour suggests I am aware Peps greatest legacy is fraudulent

[mr. magoo]

Video and boxrec+common sense, the fact there is a rumour he tried to win a round without throwing a punch sums up his opposition -fullstop-

Common sense would tell anyone who knows anything about boxing, that a person who beats Sandy Sadler, and who was undefeated in their first 62 fights was awesome.

[True Writer]

For me Robinson, Duran & Armstrong are dead certs.

I have a big problem with Harry Greb though - have any of you guys seen much footage of him, I doubt there is enough to make a sound judgement on him. Why do you regard Greb so highly?

[China_hand_Joe]

Common sense would tell anyone who knows anything about boxing, that a person who beats Sandy Sadler, and who was undefeated in their first 62 fights was awesome.You must be a huge Thomas Damgaard fan

[dmt]

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

[McGrain]

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

Would you absolutley insist upon all 10? Which ones do you think are a dead lock for the top ten?

For example, I have Burley on my list but I can't insists upon it (NOT THAT THAT IS HIS FAULT HE WAS CHEATED).

[dmt]

i'd say my top 8 are definately lock for the top 10, atleast for me. They were special and so were there achievements. I am a huge fan of #9 and #10 but their places are arguable

[Manassa]

I did not say anything about the rumour being true, not even Joe Calzaghe can win a round without throwing a punch (if you count slaps), the fact I called it a rumour suggests I am aware Peps greatest legacy is fraudulent

If you knew it was false then why bring it up?

[Dempsey1238]

Ross won 3 titles in 3 weight divsions, Also Ross's has fought Canzi, Armstrong, McLarin, Petrolle, Sammy Fulllmer, Battalino, Garcia, Klick, and others. He should be in the top 3 in his gaining 3 weight divsion titles alone. Since VERY few fighters did it before Ross(Only Cani, Fitz and Berg did it before Ross).

Ross and not Armstrong held 3 titles at the same time FIRST.

[Senya13]

I don't think Duran belongs into Top 10.
Buchanan - good win, but not really great.
Lost to De Jesus in his prime (yes, avenged twice, but still).
Palomino - good, but previous loss to Benitez and the retirement after this bout diminishes the significance of this win.
Leonard 1-2 (extremely close win the 1st time, with awful 'no mas' loss in rematch)
Benitez 0-1
Laing 0-1 (hurting Duran's legacy badly, Lainge coming off a loss to Reggie Ford earlier same year, and losing by knockout the next bout)
Cuevas (no significant achievements after his upset loss to Stafford, meaning he was obviously on the downslide and rusty, diminishes the weight of this win)
Hagler 0-1 (not as close as the judges had it)
Hearns 0-1 (devastating loss)
Sims 0-1 (Sims was held to a draw in the next bout by a tomato can)
SD against tomato can Lanas before a close win over primitive Barkley

[Manassa]

Why no Langford? Why Ross in there above quite a few others?

Ross was a fantastic fighter and is highly underrated. His 74-4-3 record is amazing for the day, and he beat some quality opponents on his way to achieving that. Jimmy McLarnin, Tony Canzoneri and Billy Petrolle, all Hall of Famers, were beaten twice each. Then there's Battling Battalino, another Hall of Famer, and Joe Gnouhly, Sammy Fuller, Frankie Klick, Baby Joe Gans, Ceferino Garcia and Izzy Jannazzo who were all excellent contenders. Barney Ross beat a fine roster and did it all while hardly losing himself. Tony Canzoneri isn't far behind.

[Jack]

He was fighting every five minutes, of course he's going to lose some rounds. He wasn't on a two-fights-a-year schedule like Calzaghe, who gets as long as he wants to prepare for a fight.
Although I agree with this, as long as he gets times to recuperate, a fighter of Pep's quality should walk through average fighters.

And to answer the question, I'd pick only 3 to be locks. Robnson, Greb and Amstrong. My list changes all the time, and right now, Duran isn't in my top 10 for example, on the basis that every serious contender for an ATG list, beat him. I don't think his resume against the elite is strong enough.

[SgrRyLeonard]

I've got two aboslute locks for consensus top 10 p4p. Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong.

[Sam Dixon]

I don't have a current all-time ranking, nor can I remember the last time I even bothered to compile one. But if I was to do a ranking, the names of Langford, Robinson, Greb, and Armstrong would be the only guys I'd be confident in saying are a "lock" on such a top ten list from me.

[Street Lethal]

Interesting discussion. I am surprised by people coming down so hard on Willie Pep. He looks amazing to me. I would say that Robinson, Duran, Armstrong, and Pep are sure top 10 fighters. Greb is a definite contender. So is Chavez.

[jyuza]

Interesting discussion. I am surprised by people coming down so hard on Willie Pep. He looks amazing to me. I would say that Robinson, Duran, Armstrong, and Pep are sure top 10 fighters. Greb is a definite contender. So is Chavez.

Greb a define contender ? Many thinks he can be number one of all time...

You don't know much about Greb if you claim he was only a contender like Chavez (who is top 20 in my opinion).

[McGrain]

Although I agree with this, as long as he gets times to recuperate, a fighter of Pep's quality should walk through average fighters.

And to answer the question, I'd pick only 3 to be locks. Robnson, Greb and Amstrong. My list changes all the time, and right now, Duran isn't in my top 10 for example, on the basis that every serious contender for an ATG list, beat him. I don't think his resume against the elite is strong enough.


A very good and annoying post.

My argument would be the goods he had at lightweight counter act failures at higher weights.

But you make a good point and I think we'll have to leave Duran of the conscensus list.

[Nemesis]

Locks:

SRR
Armstrong
Greb(for anyone who knows anything about him)
Duran

For some reason people think they'll be cute and sophisticated if they don't have Ali in their top 10 so I won't include him, though he clearly rates top 5 for me.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Roberto Duran
7. Willie Pep
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Pernell Whitaker
10. Ray Leonard

The last two are switchable.

Absolutely agree regarding the people not ranking Ali in there top tens, Imo they show a clear bias because of his worldwide popularity.

[JohnThomas1]

Absolutely agree regarding the people not ranking Ali in there top tens, Imo they show a clear bias because of his worldwide popularity.

He's well inside mine

;)

[Nemesis]

He's well inside mine

;)

Agreed JT, for pure variety of opponent and beating the consensus best era in heavyweight history, then that does it alone. Add in the fact that he looks brilliant on film and compares favourably with all the other heavies, he is should be top 5.

[Senya13]

Ali looks brilliant on film? Most of his fights are boring!

[Nemesis]

Ali looks brilliant on film? Most of his fights are boring!

pre-vietnam

[mr. magoo]

Ali looks brilliant on film? Most of his fights are boring!

Yeah,

fighting all those "journeyman" like Quarry, Frazier, Liston, Shavers, Patterson, Lyle, Ellis, Young, Chuvalo, Bonavena, Mathis, Terrell, Norton and Foreman certainly made for some real sleepers.

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah,

fighting all those "journeyman" like Quarry, Frazier, Liston, Shavers, Patterson, Lyle, Ellis, Young, Chuvalo, Bonavena, Mathis, Terrell, Norton and Foreman certainly made for some real sleepers.

Yeah, how can you compare that lot with the as slick as they come Montell Griffin, a fighter of real greatness

:D

[Nemesis]

Senya,

who do you rate higher, in a all time list, Ali or Jones Jr?

[Senya13]

Pre-Vietnam wasn't very entertaining either, except for a couple of bouts.

[mr. magoo]

Yeah, how can you compare that lot with the as slick as they come Montell Griffin, a fighter of real greatness

:D


My answer, is that you can't.

Montell Griffin Makes Ali, Holmes, Ellis, Norton, Quarry, Shavers, Frazier and oh, just about everyone else between 1960 and 1980 look like absolute shit.

I learned this school of thought from master Senya, who is a true boxing historian, and who was so kind as to school me on what a true journeyman is...

[Senya13]

Griffin Makes Ali
Good that you mentioned this fact. Clarence Griffin was a very good trainer and he trained his son good, and Eddie Futch continued his work just as wonderfully.

[Nemesis]

Senya,

who do you rate higher, in a all time list, Ali or Jones Jr?
:think

[China_hand_Joe]

Montell Griffin Makes Ali, Holmes, Ellis, Norton, Quarry, Shavers, Frazier and oh, just about everyone else between 1960 and 1980 look like absolute shit.I agree, solid post for a Pep fan -fullstop-

[mr. magoo]

Good that you mentioned this fact. Clarence Griffin was a very good trainer and he trained his son good, and Eddie Futch continued his work just as wonderfully.

Excellent point.

Of course it's utterly ridicules for me to make the comparison that Jerry Quarry was trained by his father, then later by hall of fame trainer/manager Gil Glancy. The fact is, this journeyman was consistantly rated in the top ten from 1967-1975, and at times was even rated as high as #1 ( during what many consider to be the most competitive era in the sport. ) Despite his wins over top fighters like Earnie Shavers, Thad Spencer, Floyd Patterson, Mac Foster, Ron Lyle, Buster Mathis, Lorenzo Zannon and Jack Bodell, he never captured the world title. What's more his induction into the boxing hall of fame was clearly an oversight, and one that should have gotten the deciding parties permanantely banned from any boxing affiliated entities or activities.

.......The End.........

[mr. magoo]

I agree, solid post for a Pep fan -fullstop-

Thank you,

perhaps you've noticed that I did not provide one piece of evidence nor anything to really support my claim. This is a method of debate that I learned from shadowing you in action.

[dr greenthumb]

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

I think that the top 6 are locks for any top 10and the top 3 are interchangable depending on what criteria you use

[Senya13]

Despite his wins over top fighters like Earnie Shavers, Thad Spencer, Floyd Patterson, Mac Foster, Ron Lyle, Buster Mathis, Lorenzo Zannon and Jack Bodell, he never captured the world title.
Montell holds wins over James Toney and Roy Jones Jr, that's more than Quarry could ever dream of, so what's the point mentioning all these tomato cans names (Patterson was shot, having turned into tomato can too)?

[mr. magoo]

what's the point mentioning all these tomato cans names (Patterson was shot, having turned into tomato can too)?


LOL :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course they were tomato cans. Earnie Shavers' record was 45-2-42, at the time he fought Quarry. He's also reguarded by many historians as still having the hardest right hand in history. What's more, he has the testimony of two of the greatest fighters of all time that he was possibly the most dangerous fighter they ever faced. But hey, why let that stop us from giving him his tomato can divinity? Mac Foster was undefeated 24-0-0-24, and hit like a truck. He also had decent wins over Cleveland Willimas and Thad Spencer, but why credit him as being decent or even moderately competent as a fighter? Buster Mathis was a large heavyweight at 6'3" 225lbs, and had a respectable record, with a few decent wins, but hey, who gives a shit? he was still about as tomatoesque as one can possibly get. Ron Lyle was roughly 19-0 when Quarry fought him, and would go on to remaining in the top ten ratings for about the next 5 or 6 years. He is also reguarded as quite possibly the toughest fight that George Foreman had during his prime. Yet, we dare not let these facts stop us from reducing him to what he truly was, which is absolute crap... Am I right? Floyd Patterson, an olympic gold medalist and former two time world champion, was still ranked highly as one of the best fighters during the late 60's when Quarry beat him. What's more, he would continue to fight, and be ranked for at least another five years. Of course, how silly of me to ignore the fact that he was a whole whopping 32 years old, and probably wearing adult diapers into the ring. And let's not forget Jack Bodell, who was the current British Common Wealth heavyweight champion, coming off a career win over Joe Bugner. Although Quarry dusted Bodell in a single round, I'msure we can dismiss it as being nothing short of a fluke.

You're right Senya. Quarry indeed faced tomato cans. What's more, I have been extremely impressed as of late with your understanding of boxing terms and their true meanings, as well as your ability to provide pertainant examples of such terms.....

[Senya13]

No sense of humor.

[Street Lethal]

Greb a define contender ? Many thinks he can be number one of all time...

You don't know much about Greb if you claim he was only a contender like Chavez (who is top 20 in my opinion).

I thought that we were focusing on people who would be unanimously agreed upon as top 10. Because there is apparently no footage of Greb fighting, and because the training film I found on-line doesn't flatter Greb, I suspect that many people will tell you that they cannot say for sure whether he is that great. I offered him as a contender because I think he's that great but I know others don't because they can't tell. I admire their cautious approach. I know a lot about Greb, jyuza, which is why I said he was a contender. I am going to imagine that because you have Tunney as your avatar that you are a committed Greb fan. That's cool.

I think Chavez is a more likely contender because people have seen video of him fight. A man who goes undefeated in something like 90 fights against the competition Chavez faced and looks as dominant as he does is a remarkable feat. He held titles in three weight divisions, drew in a shot at a fourth, and fought in more championship fights than just about any other fighter. He broke down great fighters like Rosario, Camacho, and Taylor. His record is full of names of outstanding boxers. Both would be in my top ten list but honestly I would rank Chavez higher.

[Street Lethal]

Can people enlighten me about Sam Langford? Why is he appearing in so many of your lists? I have a working knowledge of him, but I would like to hear the arguments in his favor. Thanx!

[Senya13]

Jerry Quarry was trained by his father, then later by hall of fame trainer/manager Gil Glancy.
"I'll tell you something about trainers. I mean... and that includes me. You're only as good as the fighter you work with. I don't care how much you know, if your fighter can't fight, you're another bum in the park."

"In some instances, I was responsible for their success. In many instances, I shared the glory with them. You didn't have to be a great trainer to work with a Barney Ross or a Benny Leonard. I mean, these guys were natural. So if you're able to develop that, you're all right. Sometimes you can. Sometimes a guy stops dead at a certain period. So you're only as good as the guy you work with."

--Ray Arcel in interview to Ronald K. Fried.

[sweet_scientist]

I thought that we were focusing on people who would be unanimously agreed upon as top 10. Because there is apparently no footage of Greb fighting, and because the training film I found on-line doesn't flatter Greb, I suspect that many people will tell you that they cannot say for sure whether he is that great. I offered him as a contender because I think he's that great but I know others don't because they can't tell. I admire their cautious approach. I know a lot about Greb, jyuza, which is why I said he was a contender. I am going to imagine that because you have Tunney as your avatar that you are a committed Greb fan. That's cool.

I think Chavez is a more likely contender because people have seen video of him fight. A man who goes undefeated in something like 90 fights against the competition Chavez faced and looks as dominant as he does is a remarkable feat. He held titles in three weight divisions, drew in a shot at a fourth, and fought in more championship fights than just about any other fighter. He broke down great fighters like Rosario, Camacho, and Taylor. His record is full of names of outstanding boxers. Both would be in my top ten list but honestly I would rank Chavez higher.

Seriously, what does it matter that we don't have Greb on film when he have many of the greats that he beat on film? That he beat them, I'll take it for granted that he was pretty darn special. It's not even an inference, its deductive.

And if you're going to talk competition, Greb puts Chavez to shame. Complete and utter shame.

[mr. magoo]

"I'll tell you something about trainers. I mean... and that includes me. You're only as good as the fighter you work with. I don't care how much you know, if your fighter can't fight, you're another bum in the park."

"In some instances, I was responsible for their success. In many instances, I shared the glory with them. You didn't have to be a great trainer to work with a Barney Ross or a Benny Leonard. I mean, these guys were natural. So if you're able to develop that, you're all right. Sometimes you can. Sometimes a guy stops dead at a certain period. So you're only as good as the guy you work with."

--Ray Arcel in interview to Ronald K. Fried.

If being a good trainer is irrelevant, then why were you the first to bring it to the table by mentioning Griffin working with his father? That was the only reason I brought it up, or have you forgotten already?

[Sonny's jab]

Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Sugar Ray Robinson
Benny Leonard
Henry Armstrong

[George W Hedge]

Here is a nice top 10 list (bearing in mind Ive only selected boxers Ive actually seen enough footage of.)

In no order....

Ali
Robinson
Duran
Chavez
Louis
Pep
Leonard (Ray, of course)
Whitaker
Hagler
Arguello

:good

[mr. magoo]

George " scrap Iron" Johnson
Steve Zouski
Memphis Al Jones
Jack Roper
Joe Grim
Everett " Big foot" Martin
Bob Stallings
Rick Keller
John " Big Red" Morton

[TBooze]

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

[Street Lethal]

Seriously, what does it matter that we don't have Greb on film when he have many of the greats that he beat on film? That he beat them, I'll take it for granted that he was pretty darn special. It's not even an inference, its deductive.

And if you're going to talk competition, Greb puts Chavez to shame. Complete and utter shame.

I don't know how many more times I will be misunderstood, but I do know how many times I will clarify my comment: just one more time. I said that many argue that they can't judge Greb because they haven't seen him on film. I don't argue this. I said that for me he is on my top 10 list. I listed the four fighters I thought would receive unanimous agreement: Robinson, Pep, Duran, and Armstrong. I haven't made a top 10 list. Do you understand me now?

I have seen film of Greb's opponents and they aren't as impressive as Chavez's opponents. I see nobody on Greb's record who was as good as Camacho, Taylor, or Whitaker. Tunney was Greb's best opponent and I honestly don't believe he was as good as these four (although he is a great fighter). I guess we will have to disagree on this point.

[Street Lethal]

A short summary of langford from Monte Cox. [Only registered and activated users can see links]


Gives a great outline of his pound for pound greatness.

Thanx! I will check it out.

[Street Lethal]

That was a good article. Well written and researched. Does anybody know where I can see film of Stanley Ketchel besides his fight with Johnson? Ketchel doesn't look very good in that fight I have to say. How much film is there of Joe Gans and Joe Walcott? I have seen a couple of clips of Gans and I am not that impressed. I have never seen a film of Walcott. I am skeptical of a lot of the boxers from yesteryear because their records don't match how the look on film when I finally see it. That's why I am asking. This is the one thing that keeps me from blowing more sugar up Greb's ass.

[Senya13]

If being a good trainer is irrelevant
That's not quite what he said.

then why were you the first to bring it to the table by mentioning Griffin working with his father? That was the only reason I brought it up, or have you forgotten already?
I brought it up as a joke, a play of words, to rip a part of statement and give it another meaning, that's still relevant to the subject being discussed. Montell Griffin was one of the exceptions to the rule of guys with natural abilities who didn't care to learn much from the book. He was taught all the basics and the complex things, first by his father, then by Eddie Futch, but he didn't use them all the time, same as RJJ, and that's one of the reasons he gave Roy most troubles. They were very alike in this sense, they neutralized each other's advantages they had against classic boxers. Although, Ray Arcel would disagree with that again...
"No two men are alike. Everybody has their own style. Never change a style. Improve it, but never change a style."
If somebody tried to change RJJ to a more classic boxer, they'd most probably ruin him or at least make him a lot less successful in the ring. "The trainer must not impose a style upon his fighter but must enable the fighters' natural skills and inclinations to emerge."
Although, this should have gone to another thread, not here, but while we were at it, why not here.

[sweet_scientist]

I don't know how many more times I will be misunderstood, but I do know how many times I will clarify my comment: just one more time. I said that many argue that they can't judge Greb because they haven't seen him on film. I don't argue this. I said that for me he is on my top 10 list. I listed the four fighters I thought would receive unanimous agreement: Robinson, Pep, Duran, and Armstrong. I haven't made a top 10 list. Do you understand me now?

Yes I understand. You don't penalise Greb for lack of footage even though you "admire" the cautious approach of those who do penalise him in that respect. You also said Chavez was the more likely contender before. Were you speaking on behalf of yourself in thinking that (as I assumed) or just as a matter of general thinking? Given what you say below, I guess it's what you think personally.

I have seen film of Greb's opponents and they aren't as impressive as Chavez's opponents. I see nobody on Greb's record who was as good as Camacho, Taylor, or Whitaker. Tunney was Greb's best opponent and I honestly don't believe he was as good as these four (although he is a great fighter). I guess we will have to disagree on this point.

We most certainly will. To my mind the only person who is on Tunney's (or even Walker's or Loughran's or Gibbons') level of the fighters you mentioned is Whitaker, and he slapped Chavez around.

[Street Lethal]

I disagree with you guys about Tunney. Sorry. I think he is a great light heavyweight and a fine heavyweight boxer, but he is not as good as some of Chavez's opponents.

I would put both Chavez and Greb in my top 10 list, with Chavez ranked higher.

Greb and Benny Leonard are the only fighters from yesteryear that I would put in the top 10. I have seen film of Leonard and he looks fantastic. Based on what I have seen of Greb's opponents and the way his fight record reads, I have to include him without seeing him.

I just watched several clips of Langford on Youtube. It was interesting, but not compelling enough for me to put him in the top 10. I realize that he was fighting men who were bigger than him, but a lot of these men weren't very good boxers.

I am wondering whether when you think about the top 10 you are going by the way the boxers fought or by what they accomplished? I think that some of the yesteryear fighters have impressive looking records but when you see them on film they don't look so great. How much do you allow for the evolution of boxing over time? Are you judging fighters by the standards of their own time or by the standards of the sport as it has progessed?

Again, thanks for such an interesting discussion! I am learning a lot of stuff.

[JohnThomas1]

My answer, is that you can't.

Montell Griffin Makes Ali, Holmes, Ellis, Norton, Quarry, Shavers, Frazier and oh, just about everyone else between 1960 and 1980 look like absolute shit.

I learned this school of thought from master Senya, who is a true boxing historian, and who was so kind as to school me on what a true journeyman is...

:lol:

[Street Lethal]

You don't penalise Greb for lack of footage even though you "admire" the cautious approach of those who do penalise him in that respect.

People don't penalize him for there being no film. It's a scientific attitude that keeps people from being sure of something when they can't see it. I respect that.

[Street Lethal]

You go by how they did for their era. Obviously it has evolved after a certain point, but it really hasn't evolved since around the 40's to tell the truth, and has gone downhill since the 80's. If someone was better for his era and accomplished more, than you rate him above someone who was more skilled but didn't accomplish more or do as much in his era. Most of rankings are based on accomplishments, but a lot is also based on head to head as well. Taylor and Camacho aren't in Tunney's league as far as accomplishments, and aren't better head to head really either.

So you believe that Whitaker and Mayweather Jr. are inferior to boxers earlier than the 1980s?

[sweet_scientist]

People don't penalize him for there being no film. It's a scientific attitude that keeps people from being sure of something when they can't see it. I respect that.
Yeah well I believe in Greb's ability the same way scientists believe in atoms and gravity. After all, scientists haven't seen either of those things, and so can't be sure of their existence. They posit their existence as the best explanation for things that they can observe. Likewise, Greb being a badass is the best explanation one can offer in light of what we can see: his records, and some of the fighters he beat on film. :good

[Street Lethal]

Yeah well I believe in Greb's ability the same way scientists believe in atoms and gravity. After all, scientists haven't seen either of those things, and so can't be sure of their existence.

Since when does a paper record have observable effects (other than to move you to be sure of Greb)?

I am picking Greb based on educated guesswork looking at footage of his opponents and examining his record. I am uncomfortable about my choice. I know I could see film and draw a different conclusion. I was going out on a limb by saying that perhaps most would agree with that choice. I realize now that it was a bad suggestions since too many people are reluctant to pick him because they haven't seen him.

Chavez is a different type of choice, since we have seen him fight many times and we know exactly what we am dealing with. I doubt that Greb looks better than Chavez on film. Greb's opponents don't look better than Chavez or his better competition.

Chavez is a better bet for getting a consensus about the top 10 best.

[Street Lethal]

I forgot to say (not that it matters really) that we have directly seen atoms, but I understand your point.

[sweet_scientist]

Since when does a paper record have observable effects (other than to move you to be sure of Greb)?
The record IS the observation. That's what we have. Now call it a wild hypothesis, but given that record (which as I have said, puts Chavez's to absolute shame) the inference (to the best explanation) is that Greb was a complete animal. This is backed up all the more from another observation: watching some of the fighters he beat on film, who are themselves outstanding. Again, the inference is that Greb was an animal to beat them.



I am picking Greb based on educated guesswork looking at footage of his opponents and examining his record. I am uncomfortable about my choice. I know I could see film and draw a different conclusion. I was going out on a limb by saying that perhaps most would agree with that choice. I realize now that it was a bad suggestions since too many people are reluctant to pick him because they haven't seen him.
Like who? Nearly every one that has an educated list puts Greb ahead of Chavez. The only one here (other than Chavez nuthuggers of course) that has Chavez higher is Tbooze, and with all due respect, he has one of the more quirky p4p lists you'll ever see (Georges Carpentier # 4? Still can't get over it T :lol:)



Chavez is a different type of choice, since we have seen him fight many times and we know exactly what we am dealing with. I doubt that Greb looks better than Chavez on film. Greb's opponents don't look better than Chavez or his better competition.

Chavez is a better bet for getting a consensus about the top 10 best.
No one has Chavez in their top tens. You're lucky to find anyone that has Whitaker in their top tens, and he dominated Chavez. You're lucky to find an opponent that Chavez beat that would rank top 100 all time. I can't think of ANY that I'd place in the top 100. To say the likes of Rosario, Camacho and Taylor are better than the likes of Tunney, Loughran and Mike Gibbons (even on film, let alone in terms of greatness) is a joke.

[Street Lethal]

I would be surprized if nobody had Chavez in their top 10. He engaged in 37 title fights, only losing four and drawing in one. He went undefeated in his first 91 fights and he was fighting boxers like LaPorte, Lockridge, Mayweather, Rosario, Rameriz, Camacho, and Taylor. Aside from Tunney, there is no one on Greb's record who compares to Taylor or Camacho. Don't tell me Loughran or Gibbons because they don't. I have seen footage of them and they were tricky in their day, but Camacho was trickier. I thought Chavez lost to Whitaker, but it was not a dominant performance by Whitaker. Chavez won several rounds and kept it close. Besides, Chavez was slowing down in his marvelous career. He showed me that had he and Whitaker met in Chavez' prime he would have worn Whitaker down. Taylor won many more rounds against Chavez that Whitaker did, but a prime Chavez wore Taylor down.

I think the discussion has run its course. You are obviously not going to consider any of the points I am making. Later.

[sweet_scientist]

I would be surprized if nobody had Chavez in their top 10. He engaged in 37 title fights, only losing four and drawing in one. He went undefeated in his first 91 fights and he was fighting boxers like LaPorte, Lockridge, Mayweather, Rosario, Rameriz, Camacho, and Taylor.
I haven't come across anyone (apart from yourself) that has him top ten, and I've seen quite a few lists over the years. As such I'd be surprised if he ever did make a top 10 all time list. There's just too many other fighters that have a more compelling case than Chavez. I think top 20 is arguable (I have him just outside it) but top 10 is a stretch.

Aside from Tunney, there is no one on Greb's record who compares to Taylor or Camacho. Don't tell me Loughran or Gibbons because they don't. I have seen footage of them and they were tricky in their day, but Camacho was trickier.
Agree to totally disagree here.

I thought Chavez lost to Whitaker, but it was not a dominant performance by Whitaker. Chavez won several rounds and kept it close. Besides, Chavez was slowing down in his marvelous career. He showed me that had he and Whitaker met in Chavez' prime he would have worn Whitaker down.
I must say, the way Chavez didn't win a round in the second half of the fight definitely made it look that a prime Chavez would have worn him down.

Taylor won many more rounds against Chavez that Whitaker did, but a prime Chavez wore Taylor down.
I had Taylor and Whitaker winning about the same amount of rounds on my card, but Taylor always lacked what Whitaker had, and that's great defense. Prime Chavez would still be taking air swings against Whitaker.

I think the discussion has run its course. You are obviously not going to consider any of the points I am making. Later.
:hi: