View Full Version : your best of all time is..


joelouisbarrow
01-18-2007, 04:50 PM
im new to this forum so im presuming this question has been posed umpteen times previously but im interested to read your views on these matters...mine would be

1..henry armstrong
2..sugar ray robinson
3..joe louis
4..julio cesar chavez
5..willie pep
6..harry greb

BIGPOPPAPUMP
01-18-2007, 05:35 PM
im new to this forum so im presuming this question has been posed umpteen times previously but im interested to read your views on these matters...mine would be

1..henry armstrong
2..sugar ray robinson
3..joe louis
4..julio cesar chavez
5..willie pep
6..harry greb


Sugar Ray Robinson at 1. Roberto Duran would be above Chavez, Joe Louis IMO.

joelouisbarrow
01-18-2007, 05:39 PM
duran as a lighweight was awesome but after moving up and beating leonard at 147 the decline set in ( other than his fantastic wins against moore & barkley and the heroic battle with hagler )

K-DOGG
01-18-2007, 05:42 PM
1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Robert Fitzsimmons
5. Sam Langford
6. Roberto Duran
7. Joe Gans
8. Benny Leonard
9. Jimmy Wilde
10. Mickey Walker


pound-for-pound = no natural heavies in my book.

Yogi
01-18-2007, 05:44 PM
I haven't done one in quite some time, but Langford & Robinson are and have been my two top picks when I've compiled such all-time lists, with Armstrong & Greb following closely behind.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 05:59 PM
i rank ezzard above joe louis cuz he has a better resume, pernell whitaker is better than chavez.

ben41193
01-18-2007, 06:02 PM
No ali in ur list? i agree he aint top 5 and but he should be near the end of a top ten list

joelouisbarrow
01-18-2007, 06:03 PM
i rank ezzard above joe louis cuz he has a better resume, pernell whitaker is better than chavez.


im sorry but your putting mr charles above the great one...my first day on here and already im upset :)...sweet pea is not better than chavez....opinions i guess

ben41193
01-18-2007, 06:05 PM
im sorry but your putting mr charles above the great one...my first day on here and already im upset :)...sweet pea is not better than chavez....opinions i guess

U got to be carefull on here mna there is some real haters nad thtey will send bad karma for dumb stuff like that lol. But yeah i agree just say it in a more respectfull way lol.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:09 PM
im sorry but your putting mr charles above the great one...my first day on here and already im upset :)...sweet pea is not better than chavez....opinions i guess

ezzard beat archie 3 times, walcott twice, burley twice, maxim 5 times, bivins 3 times, he smashed ur boy joe louis, hes a natural middleweight that won the heavyweight title and defended it 9 times, he also beat gus lisnivich.

By the way k-dogg;s list is a laughing joke. You can tell he doesnt have an opinion, he just bows down to turn of the century fighters, i'm not even going to argue with him, his list is that bad. Ali and Ezzard beat like 8-10 hall of famers in thier primes on numerous occasions, yet he is gonna choose guys that are entirely built on rep.

K-DOGG
01-18-2007, 06:11 PM
ezzard beat archie 3 times, walcott twice, burley twice, maxim 5 times, bivins 3 times, he smashed ur boy joe louis, hes a natural middleweight that won the heavyweight title and defended it 9 times, he also beat gus lisnivich.

By the way k-dogg;s list is a laughing joke. You can tell he doesnt have an opinion, he just bows down to turn of the century fighters, i'm not even going to argue with him, his list is that bad. Ali and Ezzard beat like 8-10 hall of famers in thier primes on numerous occasions, yet he is gonna choose guys that are entirely built on rep.


You can't be that ****ing dumb. Time and again you have proven you don't have the slightest hint of a clue as to anything...and I mean anything that isn't in boxrec about any fighter prior to 1975 or so and you've got the nerve to tell me I don't have an opinion.

Boy, I've forgotten more about boxing history than you'll ever take the time to learn.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:16 PM
You can't be that ****ing dumb. Time and again you have proven you don't have the slightest hint of a clue as to anything...and I mean anything that isn't in boxrec about any fighter prior to 1975 or so and you've got the nerve to tell me I don't have an opinion.

Boy, I've forgotten more about boxing history than you'll ever take the time to learn.

7 of your top 10 are turn of the century, nuff said. Ali did enought to prove hes better than good ole greb.

joelouisbarrow
01-18-2007, 06:19 PM
good ole greb as you elequently put it fought 300 fights and lost only 8...he was the best middleweight ever ( imo ) and beat tunney at light heavy

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:25 PM
Calling him the best middleweight even though u never seen him fight, yeah thats fair to monzon and hagler. By the way he lost 21 times and had 19 draws. Half these guys boxed when the sport wasnt even technical, it was brawling.


There is a boxing historian sabbath mentioned before, this historian basically exposes those old guys as "bums" with no talent, i forget the guys name. Those old guys are not the best, i dont know when people will get it.

You cant rank greb if you never seen him fight, thats why ring magazine doesnt include old guys in thier lists cuz there is no footage of him. Boxing evloves just like every other sport, the way people boxed in the 1910's is not the same as how they boxed in the 60's and onwards, they improved the technique. Idiots will never get it.

joelouisbarrow
01-18-2007, 06:28 PM
idiots ?...i hope your not calling me that...i come on here to discuss my love of the sport..im 41 and been an avid fight fan for over 20 years..im far from an idiot...how old are you ?...by the sounds of it your presumeably not much older than my son..please refrain from calling me an idiot and we`ll get along just fine

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:30 PM
I dont refer to anyone in particular as an idiot.

K-DOGG
01-18-2007, 06:30 PM
The reason Ring or ESPN don't rank "old fighters" is because either...

(a.) They are ignorant themselves of them....unlikely.


or

(b.) they are only ranking the "current" perceived top ten in their pages.

or

(c.) They're catoriing to a by and large wholly ignorant and gullable pop-culture audience to appease their advertisers because those are the dumbasses who buy the product and who will believe any damn thing you tell 'em.

joelouisbarrow
01-18-2007, 06:31 PM
I dont refer to anyone in particular as an idiot.

then i must have misinterpreted your quote of "idiots will never get it "...if so i apologise

Kid Achilles
01-18-2007, 06:33 PM
We dont have footage of Greb but we do of guys like Loughran, Walker, and Tunney and we can see they were all highly skilled guys with heart, speed, and power (except in Loughran's case) and that anyone who could beat these men repeatedly would have to be as good as they say.

Greb's resume is tops. You can't argue against that. Just looking at it objectively, he beat so many greats who were bigger than him that you'd have to be completely biased to not have Greb in your top ten. Even then, I think he deserves a top five spot for his record alone.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:35 PM
The reason Ring or ESPN don't rank "old fighters" is because either

a. They are ignorant themselves of them....or they are only ranking the "current" perceived top ten in their pages.

or

b. They're catoriing to a by and large wholly ignorant and gullable pop-culture audience to appease their advertisers because those are the dumbasses who buy the product and who will believe any damn thing you tell 'em.

ring magazine considers the greb, tunney and dempsey era as thier first time frame in which boxing became technical.

****, i cant remember that guy's name but there is a historian that is 70 years old and he flat out says those guys like gans, etc are NOT GOOD, they suck. he says benny loenard sucks, philly jack o'brien is a bum, etc.

K-DOGG
01-18-2007, 06:38 PM
ring magazine considers the greb, tunney and dempsey era as thier first time frame in which boxing became technical.

****, i cant remember that guy's name but there is a historian that is 70 years old and he flat out says those guys like gans, etc are NOT GOOD, they suck. he says benny loenard sucks, philly jack o'brien is a bum, etc.

Wow, 1 historian....must be a freakin' genius.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 06:40 PM
The fact that you knock old fighters just because you've never seen them fight makes you just as ignorant as the so called idiots you talk about...

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:40 PM
We dont have footage of Greb but we do of guys like Loughran, Walker, and Tunney and we can see they were all highly skilled guys with heart, speed, and power (except in Loughran's case) and that anyone who could beat these men repeatedly would have to be as good as they say.

Greb's resume is tops. You can't argue against that. Just looking at it objectively, he beat so many greats who were bigger than him that you'd have to be completely biased to not have Greb in your top ten. Even then, I think he deserves a top five spot for his record alone.

walker and loughran were good for thier era, do ring magazine consider them as elite all time greats, nope. Loughran is not top 10 in his own division according to them.

Then again u think battling levinksy would be undefeated in todays era, so i can tell u really jizz to thiem.

Greb lost like 21 times and supposedly he would have 100 dqs if he fought in modern times, maybe u should consider that?

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:41 PM
The fact that you knock old fighters just because you've never seen them fight makes you just as ignorant as the so called idiots you talk about...

I've seen rocky's wonderful footwork and head movement.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:43 PM
Wow, 1 historian....must be a freakin' genius.

he sees the differnce in technique, what can i say. The sport evolved.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 06:43 PM
I've seen rocky's wonderful footwork and head movement.

Rocky did have wonderful head movement...but it stemmed from his great lateral movement....

I also love how you say that K-Dogg has no opinion when you back up all your statements with what magazines say....why don't you form your own opinion rather then rely on magazines to tell you how to think...

joelouisbarrow
01-18-2007, 06:43 PM
greb lost 21 times ?..i always believed his loss count was under 10 in nearly 300 fights...are you the regular expert on here ?

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:44 PM
Rocky did have wonderful head movement...but it stemmed from his great lateral movement....

I also love how you say that K-Dogg has no opinion when you back up all your statements with what magazines say....why don't you form your own opinion rather then rely on magazines to tell you how to think...

o i definetly have my own opinion, i have seen walker in action and i know b-hop would beat him, just dont let kid achs know that.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:45 PM
Rocky did have wonderful head movement...but it stemmed from his great lateral movement....

I also love how you say that K-Dogg has no opinion when you back up all your statements with what magazines say....why don't you form your own opinion rather then rely on magazines to tell you how to think...

his head movement is horrible, larry holmes would turn his face into hamburger meat.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 06:47 PM
his head movement is horrible, larry holmes would turn his face into hamburger meat.

Really because I seem to see him rarely get hit cleanly in the face in the more then half a dozen fights I've seen him in....

He seems to be able to easily slip under punches...Most of the time when he got swung at he didn't get hit in the face or the head, it would be the air over his back as he came up with an uppercut or a hook...

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 06:51 PM
Really because I seem to see him rarely get hit cleanly in the face in the more then half a dozen fights I've seen him in....

He seems to be able to easily slip under punches...Most of the time when he got swung at he didn't get hit in the face or the head, it would be the air over his back as he came up with an uppercut or a hook...

slip punches against who, shot fighters and bums?

larry has the reach, he has more skill, he has footwork. Rocky got dropped by archie moore, now i can see why he was scared of liston.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 06:56 PM
slip punches against who, shot fighters and bums?

larry has the reach, he has more skill, he has footwork. Rocky got dropped by archie moore, now i can see why he was scared of liston.

The two bold statements alone show just how ignorant and limited your knowledge of fighting actually is, I can see why everyone else stopped answering you...I'm done talking to you basically because you have a very ignorant/limited knowledge of figthing....

K-DOGG
01-18-2007, 07:00 PM
HERE'S THE ULTIMATE TRUTH...so pay attention and think about it.

The fact of the matter is if you take any fighter in history...any fighter...all you can say with any degree of certainty is whether or not he was the best of his time.

That's It.....That's ALL you get.


Anything else is pure speculation because if you take "Fighter A" from 1938, you cannot, no matter how hard you try, you cannot put him physically in the ring with "Fighter B" from 2008....or you'd have a man pounding on a casket or beating up an old guy in a wheelchair.

Opinions are like *******s, everybody's got one and some are more full of **** than others.

There is NO PROOF that today's techniques or fighters are any better than yesterdays....NONE, just as there is no proof that yesterday's fighters were any better than today's.

The only thing any of us can do is watch footage if it's available and read accounts of fights.....or watch footage of opponents of fighters who have no footage and put two and two together to have a bearing as to how "great" the "invisible" fighter really was and not be so closed minded as to presume anything.

Only if two men actually meet or met can you say without err that one was the better man....the rest is a guess, educated or not.

....and that's the BOTTOM LINE.....'Kause the K-DOGG says so.


WOOOOOOO!!!!!





....now I feel better. :)

Kid Achilles
01-18-2007, 07:03 PM
Exactly K-Dogg, exactly. I'm interesting in reading Brownpimp's response.

phallus
01-18-2007, 07:10 PM
Exactly K-Dogg, exactly. I'm interesting in reading Brownpimp's response.

...u might be waiting a long time, no one beats THA DOGG so easily

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:19 PM
So i can say hagler, monzon and b-hop are the best middleweights ever cuz they dominated in thier own era, while others such as greb and walker lost and thier oppoents became famous because they beat greb or walker.:owned:

SABBATH
01-18-2007, 07:21 PM
....and that's the BOTTOM LINE.....'Kause the K-DOGG says so.


WOOOOOOO!!!!!

DO YA SMELL WHAT THE DOGG IS COOKIN!!!!!

K-DOGG
01-18-2007, 07:22 PM
So i can say hagler, monzon and b-hop are the best middleweights ever cuz they dominated in thier own era, while others such as greb and walker lost and thier oppoents became famous because they beat greb or walker.:owned:

owned? Right.

Fellas I'm going home to argue with a brick wall; I could use some intelligent conversation. :owned:


Later kid....and keep working on that logic. One day you'll get that 1 + 1 always = 2.

I'm out.

K-DOGG
01-18-2007, 07:23 PM
DO YA SMELL WHAT THE DOGG IS COOKIN!!!!!


:lol1: :D


Peace brother....try to get through to young blood while I'm gone.

Yogi
01-18-2007, 07:26 PM
walker and loughran were good for thier era, do ring magazine consider them as elite all time greats, nope. Loughran is not top 10 in his own division according to them.

Hmm...really?

The Ring's "20 Greatest Light Heavyweights" from their Sept 2002 issue;

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Michael Spinks
4. Tommy Loughran
5. Bob Foster
6. Jimmy Bivins
7. Harold Johnson
8. Maxie Rosenbloom
9. Billy Conn
10. Matthew Saad Muhammad
11. Victor Galindez
12. Jack Dillon
13. Battling Levinsky
14. Joey Maxim
15. Dwight Qawi
16. John Henry Lewis
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
18. Gene Tunney
19. Virgil Hill
20. Marvin Johnson


I'm also in the process of finding the their middleweight ratings from, I believe, the Jan or Feb of 2001 issue, and I'm quite confident that Walker is yet another one of those fighters from that time that you conviently overlooked (like Dempsey & Loughran) when browsing their respective all-time lists.

K-DOGG
01-18-2007, 07:28 PM
No. One more post.


Look pimp, it's really easy. You can say that Monzon was the best of his time and Hagler was the best of his time.....just like Greb was the best of his and Walker afterwards, etc., etc.

BUT, you can't say any fighter was the best ever and be certain....cause you don't and never will KNOW.

That's the point, that's the truth and you can post emoticons all f'in day long if it makes you feel like a man.....but it'll never make you "more" right; and actually encourages the belief that you don't know diddly.


Do what you will....think or do not. It's up to you.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:28 PM
owned? Right.

Fellas I'm going home to argue with a brick wall; I could use some intelligent conversation. :owned:


Later kid....and keep working on that logic. One day you'll get that 1 + 1 always = 2.

I'm out.

turpin, olson and graziano are overrated, they become gods for beating robinson at 160. If mugabi, hamsho or roldan actually beat hagler, boy they would get loads of hype. what happened though, hagler my boy smoked them all. Every fighter he fought was getting hyped and he ended thier 15 minutes of fame by knokcing them the **** out. Hgaler beat antuoerfermo both times, leonard ran away from him for 12 rounds in a circus sized ring.

Kid Achilles
01-18-2007, 07:36 PM
Graziano and Olson never beat Robinson, so in that respect you're wrong right off the bat and further exposing your own lack of historical knowledge.

Moving on...you say that these guys you named are recognized only for fighting Robinson and that their reputations are based entirely on that fact alone and yet guys like Hamsho, Mugabi, Roldan etc were just legitimate greats because you want them to be?

Can you not see your own double standard?

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:38 PM
Hmm...really?

The Ring's "20 Greatest Light Heavyweights" from their Sept 2002 issue;

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Michael Spinks
4. Tommy Loughran
5. Bob Foster
6. Jimmy Bivins
7. Harold Johnson
8. Maxie Rosenbloom
9. Billy Conn
10. Matthew Saad Muhammad
11. Victor Galindez
12. Jack Dillon
13. Battling Levinsky
14. Joey Maxim
15. Dwight Qawi
16. John Henry Lewis
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
18. Gene Tunney
19. Virgil Hill
20. Marvin Johnson


I'm also in the process of finding the their middleweight ratings from, I believe, the Jan or Feb of 2001 issue, and I'm quite confident that Walker is yet another one of those fighters from that time that you conviently overlooked (like Dempsey & Loughran) when browsing their respective all-time lists.

roy isnt in the top 20, yet p4p they rank him well ahead of loughran, doesnt make sense to me since loughran lost like 50 times.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:39 PM
Graziano and Olson never beat Robinson, so in that respect you're wrong right off the bat and further exposing your own lack of historical knowledge.

Moving on...you say that these guys you named are recognized only for fighting Robinson and that their reputations are based entirely on that fact alone and yet guys like Hamsho, Mugabi, Roldan etc were just legitimate greats because you want them to be?

Can you not see your own double standard?

the guys hagler beat were always in the top 5, hamsho crushed a 25 year old benitez, mugabi has beat many good fighters. Graziano is always dubbed as overrated, and yeah turpin did beat robinson.

Kid Achilles
01-18-2007, 07:40 PM
Oh so now you don't like The Ring magzine so much when it doesn't help out your argument.

Yogi
01-18-2007, 07:41 PM
I'm suprised that Kid & K-Dogg have spent so much time discussing things with this Brownpimp character, although I have to admit that he does somewhat remind of Butterfly when he first started posting here and was giving us all forehead bruises with his constant & very frequent belittling of just about anyone & everyone not of Ali's era.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:41 PM
Oh so now you don't like The Ring magzine so much when it doesn't help out your argument.

roy was #1 p4p for 7 years pal, loughran lost 50 times, you do the math.

Kid Achilles
01-18-2007, 07:42 PM
When did I say anything about Turpin? I say Bobo Olson never beat Robinson, when you stated that he did.

Kid Achilles
01-18-2007, 07:43 PM
Math isn't my strong suit. I'm a liberal arts major. ;)

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:43 PM
I'm suprised that Kid & K-Dogg have spent so much time discussing things with this Brownpimp character, although I have to admit that he does somewhat remind of Butterfly when he first started posting here and was giving us all forehead bruises with his constant & very frequent belittling of just about anyone & everyone not of Ali's era.

I'm surprised that when you watch dempsey fight, you dont see all these holes in his game. I mean its clear as day he was a crude brawler, yet he would find a way to make the top 10 heavyweights even though he never beat any heavyweight worth a damn. Hes the great white hope, nothing more.

Yogi
01-18-2007, 07:45 PM
roy was #1 p4p for 7 years pal

Is that according to The Ring, as well?

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:46 PM
Is that according to The Ring, as well?

not technically, after pernell lost to oscar, roy got #1 p4p and had it till he lost to tarver.

Damn, he was fighter of the decade, how many of ur favourite guys had that honour, huh smart guy?

Roy is sweet science.

phallus
01-18-2007, 07:47 PM
I'm surprised that when you watch dempsey fight, you dont see all these holes in his game. I mean its clear as day he was a crude brawler, yet he would find a way to make the top 10 heavyweights even though he never beat any heavyweight worth a damn. Hes the great white hope, nothing more.

and that's why tyson idolized him, dreamed of being him and fought like him... he even cut his hair in fade because dempsey did

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:49 PM
and that's why tyson idolized him, dreamed of being him and fought like him

tyson's style is more modern, he actually got fundamental training. I'm sure they tought tyson how to use angles and head movement. I dont think they told tyson to keep his hands down.

I dont think tyson won his belt off a cowboy with no skill.

Yogi
01-18-2007, 07:54 PM
Damn, he was fighter of the decade, how many of ur favourite guys had that honour, huh smart guy?

I only use this name because you seem to bring him up nearly every time you respond to me, and I know that you personally don't think much of him...

In 1950 Dempsey was voted by a large group of Associated Press writers as the fighter of the first half of the century, not just merely a "best of the decade" honour given...

But getting back to Jones and his p4p status, what sources are you using cause I'd like to crosscheck with a few of my older boxing mags?

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 07:59 PM
I made a thread and the general agreemnt was that
hagler was #1 pound for pound from november 1982- april 1987
tyson was #1 from april 1987- feb 1990
then chavez got it from feb 1990-spet 1993
pernell was #1 from sept 1993- may 1997
then roy jones was #1 from may 1997-may 2004
b-hop from 2004- july 2005
and now its floyd

some mags can say paman is #1 right now, i dont care. You #1 till u lose.

Regarding dempsey being #1, do u realizez that it was during a time where blacks were hated and dempsey was the good ole whiteboy. Just look at his resume, its crap.

Yogi
01-18-2007, 08:38 PM
I made a thread and the general agreemnt was that
hagler was #1 pound for pound from november 1982- april 1987
tyson was #1 from april 1987- feb 1990
then chavez got it from feb 1990-spet 1993
pernell was #1 from sept 1993- may 1997
then roy jones was #1 from may 1997-may 2004
b-hop from 2004- july 2005
and now its floyd

I saw that thread and actually posted in it, but where in it was this "general agreement" that you speak of, as even the one person who wrote "agreed" in reponse to your post didn't completely agree with what you're posting here (which is the same as you posted there), and he rightfully stated that both DLH & Trinidad (add Mosley in there too) had stints when they were considered #1 in the sport?

I believe I also saw someone post that Jones was the top rated p4p fighter in The Ring's 1997 year-end poll, which was not the case, and here's the actual & factual ranking that they came up with on that occasion...

1. Oscar De La Hoya - 123 (voted points)
2. Roy Jones - 117
3. Ricardo Lopez - 83
4. Evander Holyfield - 80
5. Felix Trinidad - 65
6. Pernell Whitaker - 37
7. Naseem Hamed - 28
8. Mark Johnson - 22 tie
8. Junior Jones - 22 tie
10. Johnny Tapia - 18

Yogi
01-18-2007, 08:49 PM
In 1950 Dempsey was voted by a large group of Associated Press writers as the fighter of the first half of the century, not just merely a "best of the decade" honour given.

Neither here nor there, but for anyone who's interested in a few numbers regarded this "fighter of the half century" poll, 393 AP writers voted on that question and Dempsey finished in first place with 251 total votes (what's that...about 63-64% or so?), with Joe Louis finishing in a distant second place with 104 total votes.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 09:11 PM
All I kno is that Brownpimp will never win an argument with Yogi....Once you mess with Yogi you should basically give up because his knowledge of the sport exceeds basically anybody elses (at least on this forum)....

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 09:13 PM
Next thing you know brownpimps gunna say Joe Louis isn't a top 5 heavyweight...

Yaman
01-18-2007, 09:14 PM
You starting to sound like an alt..
Anyway, I guess i think Roy is the best P4P, but that doesn't include accomplishments, wich is how you rate a fighter in history.

Southpaw Stinger
01-18-2007, 09:15 PM
All I kno is that Brownpimp will never win an argument with Yogi....Once you mess with Yogi you should basically give up because his knowledge of the sport exceeds basically anybody elses (at least on this forum)....


I bet yogi could turn fiction into fact if he wanted to.

Yaman
01-18-2007, 09:17 PM
I dont like the way you guys slang on brownpimp88. He has obviously studied the things he debates about, and i agree with him from time to time(Like that post where he showed the Greb Sparring and the comments on it etc). If we're gonna make fun of somebody, it should be butterfly or our trailerpark boy.

Yogi
01-18-2007, 09:21 PM
All I kno is that Brownpimp will never win an argument with Yogi....Once you mess with Yogi you should basically give up because his knowledge of the sport exceeds basically anybody elses (at least on this forum)....

You're being way too kind, Rock, but thank you nonetheless...

Also, from this side of the fence, I wouldn't neccessarily say that I'm in an argument with Brownpimp, nor do I really have the interest or the desire in partaking in something like that with him.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 09:21 PM
I dont like the way you guys slang on brownpimp88. He has obviously studied the things he debates about, and i agree with him from time to time(Like that post where he showed the Greb Sparring and the comments on it etc). If we're gonna make fun of somebody, it should be butterfly or our trailerpark boy.

have you read his posts....He's putting down guys who are some of the best of the last century.....

Yogi
01-18-2007, 09:23 PM
I bet yogi could turn fiction into fact if he wanted to.

Oh, smarten up you. :nonono:

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 09:23 PM
You're being way too kind, Rock, but thank you nonetheless...

Also, from this side of the fence, I wouldn't neccessarily say that I'm in an argument with Brownpimp, nor do I really have the interest or the desire in partaking in something like that with him.

I guess he has the right to his opinion and all but he shouldn't put down fighters just because there from turn-of-the-century....

phallus
01-18-2007, 09:24 PM
have you read his posts....He's putting down guys who are some of the best of the last century.....

lots of other 15 year old kids think just like him, who cares? why should it bother u?

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 09:26 PM
lots of other 15 year old kids think just like him, who cares? why should it bother u?

Boredom.....But you are correct I'm going to go see whats going on in the lounge...

Southpaw Stinger
01-18-2007, 09:32 PM
Oh, smarten up you. :nonono:

Every boy needs a hero yogi. Can I help it if your mine? :flirt:

SABBATH
01-18-2007, 09:48 PM
BP is entitled to his opinions. It's an open forum and agree or disagree his points generate discussion. There is nothing wrong with questioning what we've been repeatedly told ie: so and so was the greatest this or that. Maybe some of the older fighters and the 'gospel' surrounding them need to be re-examined.

I generally do not like to debate the comparing of eras that are too far apart because times have changed. The rules of the ring, equipment, fighting styles, frequency of fights and the tendancy to overly scrutinize the modern fighters down to the minute detail, while making general concessions for older fighters where the resource material is far less and more difficult to evaluate.

Since Dempsey keeps popping up I would ask some of these questions.

Would Dempsey have held the heavyweight title as long as he did if he was forced to make mandatory defences each year?

On these threads a modern guy like Tyson gets jumped on for backing out of fights with Ruddock, Holyfield (alleged sickness and injury) even though he fought these same guys twice later on. What about Dempsey not defending Wills, or Johnson not defending against Langford? Those are more blatant to me.

Would Dempsey have destroyed Willard in the same fashion with 10 oz gloves, and a mandatory 8 count and neutral corner rule? Maybe under today's rules Willard gets up from the first knockdown recovers and the fight goes the full 12 rounds and one slice of Dempsey's aura is signifigantly reduced.

Would Dempsey have been stopped by Tunney over 15 or 20 rounds instead of 10 or taken a more sustantial beating (knocked down, staggered etc...?How would it affect each guy's legacy.

If the FOTC was 10 rounds, Ali never gets hurt in the 11th or floored in the 15th and possibly wins a decision. Frazier legacy goes down a few notches and Ali's is cemented even further. All based on rounds 11-15.

It's apples to oranges.

Food for thought...

ceboxer15
01-18-2007, 10:14 PM
im new to this forum so im presuming this question has been posed umpteen times previously but im interested to read your views on these matters...mine would be

1..henry armstrong
2..sugar ray robinson
3..joe louis
4..julio cesar chavez
5..willie pep
6..harry greb

welcome aboard!

here's my list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Willie Pep
5. Joe Louis
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Sam Langford
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Sugar Ray Leonard

KidDynamite86
01-18-2007, 10:21 PM
I have no knowledge at all in boxing history besides the heavyweights, so I listed only heavies because if I put another fighter in another weight class, I wouldn't be able to back it up :)

1. Sonny Liston
2. Joe Frazier
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe Louis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Evander Holyfield
10. John L. Sullivan

Yogi
01-18-2007, 10:30 PM
Every boy needs a hero yogi. Can I help it if your mine? :flirt:

Lol!

Ya clown.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-18-2007, 10:34 PM
I'm still curious if by best of all time he means P4P or best overall....

Yogi
01-18-2007, 10:36 PM
Sabbath;

You briefly mentioned the Dempsey/Wills situation, and as one of the guys on this site whose thoughts & opinions I value (and also because I've never read them on this particular subject, I don't believe), what are your views on that whole situation?

SABBATH
01-18-2007, 10:38 PM
Sabbath;

You briefly mentioned the Dempsey/Wills situation, and as one of the guys on this site whose thoughts & opinions I value (and also because I've never read them on this particular subject, I don't believe), what are your views on that whole situation? Four simple words:

SIGN
OF
THE
TIMES

Yogi
01-18-2007, 10:45 PM
Four simple words:

SIGN
OF
THE
TIMES


Well yeah, that is true, and even Wills would agree with you as he always maintained that "it's not Jack's fault" that the fight didn't happen, but that "more blatant" comment of yours regarding that whole situation stuck out with me, so am I interpretating that the wrong way or something?

Yogi
01-18-2007, 10:57 PM
I have no knowledge at all in boxing history besides the heavyweights, so I listed only heavies because if I put another fighter in another weight class, I wouldn't be able to back it up :)

1. Sonny Liston
2. Joe Frazier
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe Louis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Evander Holyfield
10. John L. Sullivan

Don't know about your ranking, but I do like the quote in your sig from he who possessed a mere 78 IQ, though.

brownpimp88
01-18-2007, 11:29 PM
I'm back, i believe that you are #1 pound for pound until you lose. When Pernell lost to oscar, roy was handpicked as #1 pound for pound and he didnt lose it till he fought tarver. Right after that loss, b-hop got the spot for 1 year and now floyd has it. I dont care if people think pacman is number one pound for pound, he isnt getting it till floyd loses.

Dempsey is being ranked in the top 10 due to legacy. There is no ****in way you can convince me his opponents were better than the ones lennox fought, its not even a comparison.

Just get a normal boxing fan to watch dempsey in action and dont let them know its dempsey, i guarantee they will say he sucks ass. He is a brawler, its sad that guys like me, sir jose and dino are the only ones that recognize this.

Rockin'
01-18-2007, 11:47 PM
1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Robert Fitzsimmons
5. Sam Langford
6. Roberto Duran
7. Joe Gans
8. Benny Leonard
9. Jimmy Wilde
10. Mickey Walker


pound-for-pound = no natural heavies in my book.

I like that you included Jimmy Wilde. I have never seen a film of his but from everything that I have read about him he was a terror of a little man to be in the ring with................Rockin':boxing:

Yogi
01-18-2007, 11:55 PM
I like that you included Jimmy Wilde. I have never seen a film of his but from everything that I have read about him he was a terror of a little man to be in the ring with................Rockin':boxing:

Rockin, I could upload a Jimmy Wilde fight for you if you like, although unfortunately it's of him when he was past it against Pancho Villa...Really good fight, though, from the available video I have of it, and the 6th round of that fight was truly something else as far as action, drama, momentum swings, or simply the amount of punches thrown by both fighters.

Rockin'
01-18-2007, 11:58 PM
Rockin, I could upload a Jimmy Wilde fight for you if you like, although unfortunately it's of him when he was past it against Pancho Villa...Really good fight, though, from the available video I have of it, and the 6th round of that fight was truly something else as far as action, drama, momentum swings, or simply the amount of punches thrown by both fighters.

Dude, that would be great. I read alot about Pncho Villa, what I could find atleast. I would love to see it, thanks alot man!!!!!!!! ........Rockin':boxing:

hhascup
01-18-2007, 11:59 PM
Here it is here

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wD9A_n-MmfQ

By the way, I have Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Ali and Joe Louis as my Top 5. That is not in no special order.

Kid Achilles
01-19-2007, 12:12 AM
Looks to me like Wilde, who fought with his arms down with the intent of being ready to deliver combinations of uppercuts and hooks and to draw the opponent's punch, depended on his reflexes to slip punches and counter away and when those reflexes faded he was left with a style that left him vulnerable to a lot of punches. Even then he was still a force, tough as nails with a huge punch in either hand.

It's a shame how Pancho Villa ended his career and life. There's one guy who would have benefitted from fighting (and living) in a modern era.

Yogi
01-19-2007, 12:16 AM
Here it is here

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wD9A_n-MmfQ

My computer says thank you for saving it the work, as do I.

SABBATH
01-19-2007, 12:32 AM
Well yeah, that is true, and even Wills would agree with you as he always maintained that "it's not Jack's fault" that the fight didn't happen, but that "more blatant" comment of yours regarding that whole situation stuck out with me, so am I interpretating that the wrong way or something?Every heavyweight champion has an asterik attached to his reign which makes comparisons fruitless.

Dempsey had periods of inactivity and didn't fight the top rated Wills. The length of his reign is therefore not comparable to a modern champion who would have to actively defend his title, including a once a year mandatory defence. I don't hold it personally against Dempsey but it does put an asterik on his reign IMO.

Louis had a 12 year reign which likely will not be broken in our lifetime, given the different standards that exist today. Louis had a 4 year hiatus, fought challengers that today's commissions would never approve of and didn't fight top ten black heavyweights. Again I don't hold it personally against Louis but again there is an asterik on his reign.

Larry Holmes had an impressive reign but again due to the fragmented WBC/WBA situation and Don King's control of both belts, Holmes often defended against inexperienced challengers instead of perennial contenders and talented fighters like Page and Dokes, nor did he rematch with fighters deserving such as Witherspoon and Weaver for example. Again, I don't hold it personally against Holmes but once again there is an asterik on his reign.

Each guy has different circumstances attached to his reign which is a reflection of the times in which he fought in.

-Antonio-
01-19-2007, 12:50 AM
Calling him the best middleweight even though u never seen him fight, yeah thats fair to monzon and hagler. By the way he lost 21 times and had 19 draws. Half these guys boxed when the sport wasnt even technical, it was brawling.


There is a boxing historian sabbath mentioned before, this historian basically exposes those old guys as "bums" with no talent, i forget the guys name. Those old guys are not the best, i dont know when people will get it.

You cant rank greb if you never seen him fight, thats why ring magazine doesnt include old guys in thier lists cuz there is no footage of him. Boxing evloves just like every other sport, the way people boxed in the 1910's is not the same as how they boxed in the 60's and onwards, they improved the technique. Idiots will never get it.

I completely agree with what you say. I think the older fighters get way too much credit when people havent even seen them fight.

-Antonio-
01-19-2007, 01:10 AM
Listen Ill say it right off the bat, most of you have 100 times more knowledge than me in the history of the sport. What I dont understand is why the guys from the 1800s to the early 1900s get so much credit. Discluding SRR and Pepp who I have seen. Is it because of the amount of fights they won? Why cant Leonard or Hagler be ranked higher than Greb or Langford?

Yogi
01-19-2007, 01:12 AM
You cant rank greb if you never seen him fight, thats why ring magazine doesnt include old guys in thier lists cuz there is no footage of him.

For your information, The Ring ranked Greb as the #1 middleweight of all-time in their Jan 2001 issue, as well as give him a top ten spot in their 80 best of 80 years issue, which is a ranking from them that you are well aware of, but yet again, you seem to be quite selective in your browsing of that list...

I also have some of their other divisional rankings and their lists are respresented by quite a few turn of the century fighters, so it might be best not to speak on The Ring's behalf from now on.

Yogi
01-19-2007, 01:18 AM
Listen Ill say it right off the bat, most of you have 100 times more knowledge than me in the history of the sport. What I dont understand is why the guys from the 1800s to the early 1900s get so much credit. Discluding SRR and Pepp who I have seen. Is it because of the amount of fights they won? Why cant Leonard or Hagler be ranked higher than Greb or Langford?

What I don't understand is how guys like Abe Lincoln and George Washington are so revered as great U.S. Presidents when both of them would be completely out of their league discussing modern politics with...well, just about anybody with even a small semblance of knowledge in regards to modern politics.

Yogi
01-19-2007, 01:21 AM
Dempsey had periods of inactivity and didn't fight the top rated Wills. The length of his reign is therefore not comparable to a modern champion who would have to actively defend his title, including a once a year mandatory defence. I don't hold it personally against Dempsey but it does put an asterik on his reign IMO.

Fair enough, and unlike what I was kinda hoping for, I can't really disagree with anything you said here.

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 01:36 AM
I completely agree with what you say. I think the older fighters get way too much credit when people havent even seen them fight.

The older fighters do get too much credit, dont listen to these guys on the forum, they dont make up the majority of fans that know alot about the sport. Every sport evolves, you cant compare old timers to roy jones, they arent in his league, he was one of the most skilled fighters to ever live.

sleazyfellow
01-19-2007, 03:41 AM
well my top 5 list imo..
1. tied, joe louis/ali
2. another tie, henry armstrong/srr
3. george foreman
4. tommy hearns
5. mike tyson
this is just a list that comes off the top of my head and its not a p4p list or all time great, just my personal favorite fighters

Dempsey 1919
01-19-2007, 04:51 AM
Well, here's mine...

Muhammad Ali
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Roy Jones Jr.
Joe Gans

K-DOGG
01-19-2007, 02:13 PM
Every heavyweight champion has an asterik attached to his reign which makes comparisons fruitless.

Dempsey had periods of inactivity and didn't fight the top rated Wills. The length of his reign is therefore not comparable to a modern champion who would have to actively defend his title, including a once a year mandatory defence. I don't hold it personally against Dempsey but it does put an asterik on his reign IMO.

Louis had a 12 year reign which likely will not be broken in our lifetime, given the different standards that exist today. Louis had a 4 year hiatus, fought challengers that today's commissions would never approve of and didn't fight top ten black heavyweights. Again I don't hold it personally against Louis but again there is an asterik on his reign.

Larry Holmes had an impressive reign but again due to the fragmented WBC/WBA situation and Don King's control of both belts, Holmes often defended against inexperienced challengers instead of perennial contenders and talented fighters like Page and Dokes, nor did he rematch with fighters deserving such as Witherspoon and Weaver for example. Again, I don't hold it personally against Holmes but once again there is an asterik on his reign.

Each guy has different circumstances attached to his reign which is a reflection of the times in which he fought in.

Though it pains me to concede, this is the best post on the entire thread.


Nice one Sabbath; way to cut through the ****.

K-DOGG
01-19-2007, 02:37 PM
Listen Ill say it right off the bat, most of you have 100 times more knowledge than me in the history of the sport. What I dont understand is why the guys from the 1800s to the early 1900s get so much credit. Discluding SRR and Pepp who I have seen. Is it because of the amount of fights they won? Why cant Leonard or Hagler be ranked higher than Greb or Langford?

Look, I'll be the first to admit, as I've already done, that it's all about perspective. Hagler and Leonard could be better pound-4-pound than Greb and Langford. All we have to go on to form our opinions is what we know and what we've learnd. We know that Langford started off as a virtual welterweight, yet this man had the skill and power and style to beat and knockout men who weighed in at heavyweight. What does that tell you? That he was pretty damn good to say the least.

We also know that Greb was a swarmer-type fighter with incredible handspeed and irrefutable toughness. He was a middlweight with one eye who beat the vast majority of his opposistion, many of whom outweighed him from light-heavyweights to heavyweights....and one future heavyweight champion. What does that say about Greb? That he was a tough, skilled, rugged S.O.B.

The fact that these men did fight 200 and 300 fights, or in that neighborhood, and fought often does say something about them. Does it mean that they could beat Hagler and Leonard head on, toe-to-toe? No; but that's not what ranking all-time greats is about becuase there's entirely too much speculation in that regard. Making a list is about putting each fighter in the context of thier respective time and comparing their accomplishements to those who came before and after them, comparing competition and such.



Is X + Y > or < Y + Z?....so to over simplify it.


You do make some valid points concerning some of yesteryear's fighters, however, there is no physical proof that they would have gotten their heads torn off by any of today's boxers.

Let me give you a couple of examples. Roy Jones Jr., you feel, is one of the greatest of all time pound-4-pound, correct? It's a fact, that stylistically speaking, Roy did just about everything wrong in the ring. He held his hands low, he jumped in with his punches, he lead with uppercuts and hooks, he moved to his right when fighting southpaws, etc. Yet, because of his immense physical skill, he made everything that he did "wrong" work for him. He relied essentially on his reflexes to carry him through to the end and defeat the man in front of him. He didn't have a superior technique. There was no advanced training that can be accredited for what he accomplished. It was just Roy being Roy and taking what he had learned and improvising upon it because he knew what he could do and what he could get away with. The first time it really hurt him was after his body had aged just enough that his reflexes were no longer off the charts.....and Antonio Tarver knocked him out.

Cassius Clay did the same thing, as did Jimmy Wilde, and from what I've read, Harry Greb.....and many other "old-time" fighters who you so easily dismiss as if they were nothing. Who's to say their God-given abilities weren't the heart and soul of their success and what would take them to victory agaisnt the more "evolved" techniques of today?


Just something to think about.

BuddyChacon
01-19-2007, 03:28 PM
I put my list in my signature. I have a bias towards old school fighters myself. Even though I have read a great deal on Greb and Langford and know they were great. I only included guys on my list that I have seen on film and my list is not based on ability just my feelings towards the individual. You won't see a top ten list with Johnson and Quarry in it until you see mine.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-19-2007, 04:30 PM
The older fighters do get too much credit, dont listen to these guys on the forum, they dont make up the majority of fans that know alot about the sport. Every sport evolves, you cant compare old timers to roy jones, they arent in his league, he was one of the most skilled fighters to ever live.

I'm done arguing for or against...

I'd like to make the point though that lets say there was not films of fights from the 70's or prior, and they started filming around now...

Now lets say that this argument happened in 30 years from now...You'd say fighters like Ali, Foreman, Shavers, etc are all guys who must have been bad and overrated because they came from a time before we had film....Also the sport must have evolved and they therefore must not be as good as fighters of today like Kitschko, Peter, Toney, etc...

I'm just trying to make a point...do you get it?

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 05:08 PM
I'm done arguing for or against...

I'd like to make the point though that lets say there was not films of fights from the 70's or prior, and they started filming around now...

Now lets say that this argument happened in 30 years from now...You'd say fighters like Ali, Foreman, Shavers, etc are all guys who must have been bad and overrated because they came from a time before we had film....Also the sport must have evolved and they therefore must not be as good as fighters of today like Kitschko, Peter, Toney, etc...

I'm just trying to make a point...do you get it?

Dude anyone that watches dempsey without knowing who he is, says he was talentless. The proof is right there, you can watch as many dempsey fights as you can get, he's horrible, no skills at all.

K-DOGG
01-19-2007, 05:12 PM
Dude anyone that watches dempsey without knowing who he is, says he was talentless. The proof is right there, you can watch as many dempsey fights as you can get, he's horrible, no skills at all.


Do you have any idea how assinine such a statement is making you look? You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

joelouisbarrow
01-19-2007, 05:20 PM
Dude anyone that watches dempsey without knowing who he is, says he was talentless. The proof is right there, you can watch as many dempsey fights as you can get, he's horrible, no skills at all.

and you were implying yesyerday that i was an idiot....seemingly my 15 year old daughter knows more about the fight game than you do

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 05:20 PM
O please, i'm not the only one that admits he sucks ass. His competiton was garbage, it makes lennox's opponents look like legends.

K-DOGG
01-19-2007, 05:24 PM
O please, i'm not the only one that admits he sucks ass. His competiton was garbage, it makes lennox's opponents look like legends.


Right, a man with no talent, who was a "bum" won the world heavyweight championship by destroying all competition before he won the title and was regarded by his peers, to say nothing of most creditable boxing historians TODAY as one of the best whoever lived.

Right! And I'm Mary F'in Poppins.


You don't have to think he was "the best"; but to call a bonafied ATG "a bum"....you are not helping yourself one bit.

Southpaw Stinger
01-19-2007, 05:24 PM
O please, i'm not the only one that admits he sucks ass. His competiton was garbage, it makes lennox's opponents look like legends.


or even Larry Holmes competition look good..

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 05:26 PM
or even Larry Holmes competition look good..

larry beat norton is better than dempsey winning the title off a cowboy that hides behind refs.

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 05:27 PM
Right, a man with no talent, who was a "bum" won the world heavyweight championship by destroying all competition before he won the title and was regarded by his peers, to say nothing of most creditable boxing historians TODAY as one of the best whoever lived. Right!


And I'm Mary F'in Poppins.


You don't have to think he was "the best"; but to call a bonafied ATG "a bum"....you are not helping yourself one bit.

why dont u enlighten us on his great resume that makes him one of the best ever. Firpo, sharkey and willard, o wow he beat true legends. Better yet he defended his belt against guys that are the same size as roy jones but with half the skill, what a golden era of boxing.

Southpaw Stinger
01-19-2007, 05:28 PM
larry beat norton is better than dempsey winning the title off a cowboy that hides behind refs.

Dempsey beating Firpo is betting than beating an old drugged up former champ with parkinsons...

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 05:29 PM
Dempsey beating Firpo is betting than beating an old drugged up former champ with parkinsons...

shavers and cooney are held in a higer regard than firpo, hell david tua is better than firpo.

K-DOGG
01-19-2007, 05:34 PM
why dont u enlighten us on his great resume that makes him one of the best ever. Firpo, sharkey and willard, o wow he beat true legends. Better yet he defended his belt against guys that are the same size as roy jones but with half the skill, what a golden era of boxing.

Us? There is no "us"; there is just you; and if Yogi's citation of the Ring's rankings and other threads already made on the subject arent' enough to convince you to at least open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong and that everybody else might know something you do not, then nothing I say is going to do it. I could list off his best opposistion and even describe a few of those matches; but you would counter with some ingenius response such as ...they were bums too, or they had no skills, or they weren't black. So, no, I"m not going to waste my time getting into a full-on discussion with you on the topic while I'm busy trying to earn a living in between posts. Re-examinging a legend's career is one thing; but completely dismissing him as if he were something on the bottom of your "god's" shoe is entirely different.

Either read up and concede to the knowledge of those older than you or wallow in ignorance, I care not.

Southpaw Stinger
01-19-2007, 05:34 PM
shavers and cooney are held in a higer regard than firpo, hell david tua is better than firpo.

I don't know many who hold Cooney in high regard. And Shavers only possed a big punch with very little skill. Basic opponents indeed.

Southpaw Stinger
01-19-2007, 05:35 PM
Us? There is no "us"; there is just you; and if Yogi's citation of the Ring's rankings and other threads already made on the subject arent' enough to convince you to at least open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong and that everybody else might know something you do not, then nothing I say is going to do it. I could list off his best opposistion and even describe a few of those matches; but you would counter with some ingenius response such as ...they were bums too, or they had no skills, or they weren't black. So, no, I"m not going to waste my time getting into a full-on discussion with you on the topic while I'm busy trying to earn a living in between posts. Re-examinging a legend's career is one thing; but completely dismissing him as if he were something on the bottom of your "god's" shoe is entirely different.

Either read up and concede to the knowledge of those older than you or wallow in ignorance, I care not.

Thats all that needs to be said.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-19-2007, 05:53 PM
Dude anyone that watches dempsey without knowing who he is, says he was talentless. The proof is right there, you can watch as many dempsey fights as you can get, he's horrible, no skills at all.

All I'm saying is that if all you had to go by was that Ali was great, and you had never seen anybody except today's fighters you'd be making the same argument against guys like Foreman, Frazier, Ali etc....

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 05:57 PM
I don't know many who hold Cooney in high regard. And Shavers only possed a big punch with very little skill. Basic opponents indeed.

i dont really need to defend holme's opponents, they had more skill than that cowboy and firefighter.

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 05:59 PM
All I'm saying is that if all you had to go by was that Ali was great, and you had never seen anybody except today's fighters you'd be making the same argument against guys like Foreman, Frazier, Ali etc....

i know frazier and ali were legit, hell i consider ur boy rocky to better than joe louis by the way.

Kid Achilles
01-19-2007, 06:00 PM
pimp,

Where are your best fighters? Maybe I've missed them on this thread but so far all I've seen you do is talk down on others for favoring certain fighters, never offering your own boxing heros up for criticism.

The Surgeon
01-19-2007, 06:01 PM
im new to this forum so im presuming this question has been posed umpteen times previously but im interested to read your views on these matters...mine would be

1..henry armstrong
2..sugar ray robinson
3..joe louis
4..julio cesar chavez
5..willie pep
6..harry greb

I hate doing lists, there so brutal but mine TODAY goes like this
SRR
Pep
Sweet Pea

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 06:03 PM
pimp,

Where are your best fighters? Maybe I've missed them on this thread but so far all I've seen you do is talk down on others for favoring certain fighters, never offering your own boxing heros up for criticism.

my favourite fighters

ezzard charles
joe calzaghe
pernell whitaker
jermain taylor
marvin hagler
michael spinks
larry holmes
and i like willie pep too

Yogi
01-19-2007, 06:05 PM
pimp,

Where are your best fighters? Maybe I've missed them on this thread but so far all I've seen you do is talk down on others for favoring certain fighters, never offering your own boxing heros up for criticism.

June 1996 issue of The Ring.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-19-2007, 06:16 PM
June 1996 issue of The Ring.

haha yogi made a joke....Hopefully I'm not the only one that picks up on it :banana:

RockyMarcianofan00
01-19-2007, 06:17 PM
i know frazier and ali were legit, hell i consider ur boy rocky to better than joe louis by the way.

All I'm looking at is if the tables were turned alittle you could be saying that some of the greatest fighters of the last half century were bums....

joelouisbarrow
01-19-2007, 06:31 PM
i know frazier and ali were legit, hell i consider ur boy rocky to better than joe louis by the way.

you also rate ezzard charles and lennox lewis better than joe and dempsey so what you think is pretty much irrelavent...and btw im not taking anything away from the rock who i personnaly place #3 in my all time heavys..i loved the guy

brownpimp88
01-19-2007, 06:34 PM
you also rate ezzard charles and lennox lewis better than joe and dempsey so what you think is pretty much irrelavent...and btw im not taking anything away from the rock who i personnaly place #3 in my all time heavys..i loved the guy

i rank ezzard higher in a pound for pound terms cuz he used to be a middleweight.

Southpaw16BF
02-09-2010, 08:29 PM
Some Interesting lists here.

sonnyboyx2
02-12-2010, 11:03 AM
im new to this forum so im presuming this question has been posed umpteen times previously but im interested to read your views on these matters...mine would be

1..henry armstrong
2..sugar ray robinson
3..joe louis
4..julio cesar chavez
5..willie pep
6..harry greb

No4 ? ... please explain

guzi815
02-12-2010, 11:18 AM
No ali in ur list? i agree he aint top 5 and but he should be near the end of a top ten list
Co sign!

Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Ernie Shavers..these are huge wins!

Fighting Marine
02-12-2010, 11:23 AM
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong

Fighting Marine
02-12-2010, 11:25 AM
who are the idiots who don't have Ali in the top 5???? you don't know **** about boxing...if you dont have Ali in your top 5 just don't bother posting on boxing forums

guzi815
02-12-2010, 11:32 AM
No4 ? ... please explain
You must've missed The Meldrick Taylor (24-0) fight. JCC pulls a TKO in the final seconds of the 12th round (2x!) Pernil Whitaker (32-1) (Roger Mayweather (, Miguel Angel Gonzalez (42-1) Hector Camacho (40-1) Frankie Randal (42-1) 2X

JUlio Cesar Chavez was the face of WBC light Weight Champ for a loooooooong time.

Ask any non bias boxing expert....who is the greatest Boxer to ever come out of Mexico...

Julio Cesar Chavez.

When the task of naming the greatest Light Weight ever. JJC and Roberto Duran is on everyone's ballot. no nonsense.

sonnyboyx2
02-12-2010, 11:33 AM
1/. Ray Robinson
2/. Muhammad Ali
3/. Manny Pacquiao
4/. Henry Armstrong
5/. Roberto Duran

sonnyboyx2
02-12-2010, 11:35 AM
You must've missed The Meldrick Taylor (24-0) fight. JCC pulls a TKO in the final seconds of the 12th round (2x!) Pernil Whitaker (32-1) (Roger Mayweather (, Miguel Angel Gonzalez (42-1) Hector Camacho (40-1) Frankie Randal (42-1) 2X

JUlio Cesar Chavez was the face of WBC light Weight Champ for a loooooooong time.

Ask any non bias boxing expert....who is the greatest Boxer to ever come out of Mexico...

Julio Cesar Chavez.

No i never missed any of those fights... Chavez was way behind on the scorecards againt Taylor when he got the TKO ... Pernel Whitaker schooled Chavez and was robbed of the decision.. Frankie Randall beat Chavez

JAB5239
02-12-2010, 04:31 PM
You must've missed The Meldrick Taylor (24-0) fight. JCC pulls a TKO in the final seconds of the 12th round (2x!) Pernil Whitaker (32-1) (Roger Mayweather (, Miguel Angel Gonzalez (42-1) Hector Camacho (40-1) Frankie Randal (42-1) 2X

JUlio Cesar Chavez was the face of WBC light Weight Champ for a loooooooong time.

Ask any non bias boxing expert....who is the greatest Boxer to ever come out of Mexico...

Julio Cesar Chavez.

When the task of naming the greatest Light Weight ever. JJC and Roberto Duran is on everyone's ballot. no nonsense.

I think you are mistaken here my friend. Chavez best days were at 130 followed by 140. He only had one significant fight at 135 that I can recall, Edwin Rosario.

geribeetus
02-13-2010, 03:55 AM
my top 3 are

joe louis
the brown bomber
joseph louis barrow

the rest of the list would start at 6th place, skipping 4 and 5, to illustrate how much better he is than everyone else.

GJC
02-14-2010, 02:30 PM
****, i cant remember that guy's name but there is a historian that is 70 years old and he flat out says those guys like gans, etc are NOT GOOD, they suck. he says benny loenard sucks, philly jack o'brien is a bum, etc.
Probably a very good reason why you can***8217;t remember his name

Rocky got dropped by archie moore, now i can see why he was scared of liston.

Was down for 2 seconds against Archie Moore who ko***8217;d over 100 fighters. Not saying Marciano would beat Liston but he wasn***8217;t scared of anyone.
Are you saying he ducked Liston who wasn***8217;t ranked until 3 years after Marciano retired?

So i can say hagler, monzon and b-hop are the best middleweights ever cuz they dominated in thier own era, while others such as greb and walker lost and thier oppoents became famous because they beat greb or walker.:owned:

So Greb didn***8217;t dominate his era then?

roy isnt in the top 20, yet p4p they rank him well ahead of loughran, doesnt make sense to me since loughran lost like 50 times.
No Loughran lost half that amount of times and most of those were***8217;nt at Light Heavy. Incidently the only fighter in his weight class who regularily beat him was Greb.

the guys hagler beat were always in the top 5, hamsho crushed a 25 year old benitez, mugabi has beat many good fighters. Graziano is always dubbed as overrated, and yeah turpin did beat robinson.

Benetiz was finished at 25 so forget that win. I***8217;m a big fan of Hagler but you can as easily say he narrowly beat a lightweight and lost to a pumped up welter coming off 1 fight in 5 years. Mugabi has pretty much no record at Middle

tyson's style is more modern, he actually got fundamental training. I'm sure they tought tyson how to use angles and head movement.


That will be news to Floyd Patterson.

talip bin osman
08-21-2010, 07:24 AM
bump... its a nice and very informative thread featuring some of the smartest posters on this site...

Vadrigar.
08-21-2010, 07:33 AM
I'll have a go at this, from the top of my head.

p4p:

1. SRR
2. Armstrong
3. Ali

Greatest:

1. Ali
2. SRR
3. Armstrong

Vadrigar.
08-21-2010, 11:00 AM
I have no knowledge at all in boxing history besides the heavyweights, so I listed only heavies because if I put another fighter in another weight class, I wouldn't be able to back it up :)

1. Sonny Liston
2. Joe Frazier
3. Jack Johnson
4. Joe Louis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Evander Holyfield
10. John L. Sullivan

Like your signature, a smart response :D