Where do you put Joe Louis all time, p4p?

[McGrain]

There's a real bias against heavyweights in p4p lists, generally speaking. But I don't think there many that were better than him at any weight ever.

Post WW2 I have him very very high.

What about you?

[Manassa]

#13.

[McGrain]

#13.

I'm gonna guess he's your highest HW?

Who would be the next heavyweight down on your list?

[Manassa]

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. Sam Langford
11. Barney Ross
12. Carlos Monzon
13. Joe Louis
14. Muhammad Ali
15. Tony Canzoneri

[McGrain]

Around #15. 2nd HW on the list.


Are you sure? I mean, how sure are you? I have Ali above Louis too, but it isn't sitting very well with me tonight.

[McGrain]

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. Sam Langford
11. Barney Ross
12. Carlos Monzon
13. Joe Louis
14. Muhammad Ali
15. Tony Canzoneri

Your lists are always excellent...this one is no exception. I would see Langford higher. And you should have Burley on there.

[TBooze]

#29

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

[McGrain]

#29

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

TBooze...the master of the list...you've put Foreman above Louis by mistake...haven't you?

[TBooze]

TBooze...the master of the list...you've put Foreman above Louis by mistake...haven't you?

No, Louis is above Foreman...;)

Louis #29

Foreman #34

[McGrain]

No, Louis is above Foreman...;)


Oh yeah I read it backwards.

Thank Christ.

OK, which heavyweights do you have above Louis?

[TBooze]

Oh yeah I read it backwards.

Thank Christ.

OK, which heavyweights do you have above Louis?

Just the one full time Heavyweight; Ali (#11 all-time)

[McGrain]

Just the one full time Heavyweight; Ali (#11 all-time)

What puts that amount of distance between the two for you?

[Manassa]

Your lists are always excellent...this one is no exception. I would see Langford higher. And you should have Burley on there.

Thank you, but I disagree about Burley. I see Burley as no more accomplished than Luis Rodriguez or Kid Gavilan (around the #35-40 level).

I find Langford's career too shrouded in mystery and uncertainty to rate him any higher; I don't know specifically how many fights he genuinely lost or threw, or how many losses were down to racist judges or whatever.

[Manassa]

that is an awesome list. Though harry greb could easily be number one. :-(

Definitely. The only real thing separating Greb and Armstrong is the fact I have substantial fight footage of the latter.

[Manassa]

I always find TBooze's list quite hard to judge. Some picks I adore, others baffle me.

[TBooze]

What puts that amount of distance between the two for you?


The simple answer is:

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

Honestly the truth is with the exception of maybe three fighters anyone one of 40 or so fighters can make numbers 4 to 40 in any order depending on people's opinions.

There is very little between Ali and Louis, but perhaps I underrate the full time Heavyweights when compiling my all time greatest list, hence the gap.

[TBooze]

I always find TBooze's list quite hard to judge. Some picks I adore, others baffle me.

I find it boring if you go with the status quo; more fun when you play devil's advocate; and it often improves my knowledge if I have to defend something that I may not agree with myself.

[Manassa]

I find it boring if you go with the status quo; more fun when you play devil's advocate;

So do I; but the difference between you and I is, I like to keep my own side defendable, or in other words, I can back up my opinion. Can you honestly say, with any genuine conviction, that Harry Greb deserves a place no higher than eighteen?

[TBooze]

So do I; but the difference between you and I is, I like to keep my own side defendable, or in other words, I can back up my opinion. Can you honestly say, with any genuine conviction, that Harry Greb deserves a place no higher than eighteen?

Yes, Greb did not have a full career, he did not get closure to define his greatness, thus his achievements must have a bias against them, if he is to be fairly rated with his peers.

[Manassa]

Yes, Greb did not have a full career, he did not get closure to define his greatness, thus his achievements must have a bias against them, if he is to be fairly rated with his peers.

That is a most ridiculous assertion if ever I saw one. Just because he died early. Doesn't matter that Carlos Monzon achieved next to nothing in comparison, then?

[TBooze]

That is a most ridiculous assertion if ever I saw one. Just because he died early. Doesn't matter that Carlos Monzon achieved next to nothing in comparison, then?

But Monzon had a full career and so does not have to suffer a bias there. Monzon also had different attributes and achievements had made him great. You are talking about fighters that were 40+ years apart, with different career developments.

The ridiculous assertion we who do this are all guilty of, is trying to rate 95lbs men of the 1910's against 250lbs men of the 2000's and everyone in between.

[Dempsey1238]

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. Sam Langford
11. Barney Ross
12. Carlos Monzon
13. Joe Louis
14. Muhammad Ali
15. Tony Canzoneri

Were is Fitz?? What he did, should make him top 5 easy. I dont see why you rank one weight champs like Monzon, Joe Louis or even Ali over Fitz. Pound for pound speaking of couse.

[Manassa]

Were is Fitz?? What he did, should make him top 5 easy. I dont see why you rank one weight champs like Monzon, Joe Louis or even Ali over Fitz. Pound for pound speaking of couse.

He is in the next bracket of five. I see no reason to rate him higher.

[Dempsey1238]

Why?? First 3 weight champ at heavyweight, Lightheavyweight, and Middleweight. I think we had to wait until the 1920's for some one to repeat that with Jack Kid Berg. Which is a near 30 year gap for that. Also he was mostly a middlweight takeing on the heavyweights. Flatting Sharkey and Corbett. I say he was indeed a top 5 pound for pound guy. Only Armstrong or Ross or any other 3 weight champ could claim what Fitz did. And Fitz did it FIRST.

[Manassa]

Why?? First 3 weight champ at heavyweight, Lightheavyweight, and Middleweight. I think we had to wait until the 1920's for some one to repeat that with Jack Kid Berg. Which is a near 30 year gap for that. Also he was mostly a middlweight takeing on the heavyweights. Flatting Sharkey and Corbett. I say he was indeed a top 5 pound for pound guy. Only Armstrong or Ross or any other 3 weight champ could claim what Fitz did. And Fitz did it FIRST.

And that is significant. But his body of work outside of those accomplishments is not up to the standard of the other fighters on the list.

[TBooze]

In Monzon's "full career" he didn;t achieve half what Greb did. Greb died at a young age, but Armstrong and he had about the same length a career, with Greb hjaving more fights. Does it matter if you die or retire young? No, it doesn't. It matters what you accomplished, nobody but you even takes into account when he died, they take into account what he achieved when he fought, not what he could've. What he had achieved was grounds for a top 3 fighter of all time, arguably #1. Your argument holds no water, and I think you know that.

Greb's career lacked closure, there has to be bias against that to be fair to his peers.

It is unfair IMO that someone like Greb finished near his best by accident not choice, whilst others carried on past their peak and were punished for it.

[JohnThomas1]

Greb's career lacked closure, there has to be bias against that to be fair to his peers.

It is unfair IMO that someone like Greb finished near his best by accident not choice, whilst others carried on past their peak and were punished for it.

So if someone goes totally rank for say 4 years, winning titles from Lightweight to Middleweight or better then retires at say 23 undefeated with multiple titles and wins over a couple of great fighters you rank them down. You're a fine man and have some nice insights, but you also have some of the wierdest criteria's i have ever seen.

[ChrisPontius]

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. Sam Langford
11. Barney Ross
12. Carlos Monzon
13. Joe Louis
14. Muhammad Ali
15. Tony Canzoneri

Where do you have Marciano? He has stoppage wins over your #6 and #8 while they were a bit past their best and a bit outweighed. But i don't think there are many fighters who have stoppage wins over two guys in your (or any) top10.

[McGrain]

Thank you, but I disagree about Burley. I see Burley as no more accomplished than Luis Rodriguez or Kid Gavilan (around the #35-40 level).

Yeah, having Burley in your top 20 is very much a state of mind....you may get there yet :hey

I find Langford's career too shrouded in mystery and uncertainty to rate him any higher; I don't know specifically how many fights he genuinely lost or threw, or how many losses were down to racist judges or whatever.

Seems odd to punish him twice though (not that it matters in the great scheme of things, but you see what I mean)...I put Langford around Greb's spot...i see a parity between these two.

Which of the two do you think has the better scalps at weights above their natural weight?

[McGrain]

Were is Fitz?? What he did, should make him top 5 easy. I dont see why you rank one weight champs like Monzon, Joe Louis or even Ali over Fitz. Pound for pound speaking of couse.


I would agree that Fitz belongs in any top 15.

It's funny, Manassa, quote rightly in my view, challanges TBooze for his placement of Greb, and in the next post he's being picked up, rightly in my view, for not having Fitz in his top 15.

I guess everyone has their ticks.

[dmt]

1.Henry Armstrong
2.Ray Robinson
3.Willie Pep
4.Sam Langford
5.Roberto Duran
6.Harry Greb
7.Benny Leonard
8.Ezzard Charles
9.Joe Gans
10.Eder Jofre
11.Archie Moore
12.Joe Louis
13.Muhammad Ali
14.Ray Leonard
15.Barney Ross
16.Marvin Hagler
17.Carlos Monzon

[Manassa]

Where do you have Marciano? He has stoppage wins over your #6 and #8 while they were a bit past their best and a bit outweighed. But i don't think there are many fighters who have stoppage wins over two guys in your (or any) top10.

Marciano would rate about 40th.

[Manassa]

Yeah, having Burley in your top 20 is very much a state of mind....you may get there yet :hey



Seems odd to punish him twice though (not that it matters in the great scheme of things, but you see what I mean)...I put Langford around Greb's spot...i see a parity between these two.

Which of the two do you think has the better scalps at weights above their natural weight?

It's not so much punishment, it's just I can't judge Langford with much certainty, so it would feel wrong to just 'assume' he was better than more documented fighters such as Roberto Duran.

I think Langford got the slightly better wins over the heavier fighters, however Greb was more consistent.

[TBooze]

So if someone goes totally rank for say 4 years, winning titles from Lightweight to Middleweight or better then retires at say 23 undefeated with multiple titles and wins over a couple of great fighters you rank them down. You're a fine man and have some nice insights, but you also have some of the wierdest criteria's i have ever seen.

Yes, because it needs to be biased against someone the ultimate old man Archie Moore....

So Moore IMO you rate all his achievements and then give him a bias of 1.5. Someone like Ali who had a full career gets a bias of 1, someone like the scenario you put would could a bias of 0.5.

The point I make with Greb, is he lacked a finale to his career, so weighing up all his achievements I give him a bias of 0.8 when rating him.

That way my rating take into account Sanchez, Papp, and Ketchel had shortened careers. Greb did as well just not as much as the three I named. Someone like Ali had a full career, the likes of Moore, Robinson and Foreman had extened careers above the norm thus get rewarded for that.

[Manassa]

So Greb gets punished for dying?

[TBooze]

So Greb gets punished for dying?

Crudely, yes.

[Manassa]

I'd hate for you to be at my funeral. You'd probably be booing and hissing throughout the entire ceremony.

[TBooze]

I'd hate for you to be at my funeral. You'd probably be booing and hissing throughout the entire ceremony.

No, I just try not to let emotion get in the way of making a cold decision of fact.

I am sure many of my work colleagues would agree with though. But I can live with that flaw in my character.

[Manassa]

No, I just try not to let emotion get in the way of making a cold decision of fact.

What emotion? We aren't rating Greb highly because we feel sorry for him that he died early; infact, most of us probably don't even think of it when rating him. He had three hundred fights and an amazing - no, phenomenal - career! That... Is the fact.

[TBooze]

What emotion? We aren't rating Greb highly because we feel sorry for him that he died early; infact, most of us probably don't even think of it when rating him. He had three hundred fights and an amazing - no, phenomenal - career! That... Is the fact.

But you wrote yourself that you are judging me for punishing Greb because he died early. That is an emotion.

The same way as I reward fighters for redemption. That is in part a form of emotion. Indeed because these sort of things are so objective mine and your emotional feeling will be a large part of our ratings. Otherwise you might as well just have a cricket style list of numbers to rate fighters.

[Manassa]

What are you rattling on about? Here's what I think; you are wrong, I know you're wrong, everybody knows you're wrong and even you know you're wrong, but you're too stubborn to admit it, so you've tried to whip up some sort of corrupted logic to try to make yourself sound respectable.

It ain't working though. So far my conclusion is that you're a confused idiot.

[TBooze]

What are you rattling on about? Here's what I think; you're wrong, I know you're wrong, everybody knows you're wrong and even you know you're wrong, but you're too stubborn to admit it, so you've tried to whip up some sort of corrupted logic to try to make yourself sound respectable.

It ain't working though. So far my conclusion is that you're a confused idiot.

That is your call, everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just gave mine and always will defend it if it is questioned.

What I am rattling on about is everyone is influenced by personal opinion and peer pressure when it comes to writing a list this is purely objective.;)

[Bummy Davis]

@ # 1