BoxingScene's members top 10 P4P all-time [Archive]

wpink1

08-04-2008, 12:37 AM

Im gonna respectfully say that Neither Jones, Sanchez or Mayweather belong in the top 10. In all 3 cases none have the quality of opposition to rank so high. These lists are subjective, but I believe quality op is the first thing that has to be taken into consideration, followed by longevity, then talent. We can speculate all day who they MAY have beat based on their talent, but that still doesn't give them better careers then fighters with the first two attributes in spades, plus being ultra talented as well. Just my opinion. Peace.

Hmmm Jab5239. You have every right to use what ever variables you would like to formulate your opinion of the top 10, as do I. Let me point out a couple of things that you maybe dont figure.

First off Sanchez I agree I was reaching, but based on his short spectaculare career he IMO would have been one of the best ever...EVER. Jones I am sorry does belong, Skill, wins vs Toney and Hopkins then over 17 other world champions. He was soo dominant that he made very good fighters look bad, and he did this at light heavy, when he was a natural Middle. He only flaw is that he came along when he did. Had he came along 10 years earlier, we would not be hearing the names Hagler leonard hearns as dominating the welters to Middle...As Jones would have crushed in easy fashion Hagler, and leonard and Hearns would not have moved up to challenge Jones. Maybe Hearns, but clearly not leonard who by the way is my favorite fighter of all time. Jones is a victim of being simply too good for a entire decade. Leonard himself said during a telecast of a Jones fight, that they were lucky they did not have to face him as his combination speed, power, reach and awkwardness, made him simply virtually impossible to beat at middleweight.

Mayweather, has beaten Corrales, Castillo, DLH, Hatton, Judah, etc.. He has won titles at 130, 135, 140, 147 and 154. No he did not face the quality that Leonard faced and beat...but Leonard faced most his challenges at his normale weight. Leoanrd moved up and beat Hagler, the rest of his great wins where at welter. Now we can consider Lalond, Kalule etc...good wins but not legendary. If we consider those, then we have to count the baldomir fights and others like that, as Mayweather again is competing vs very good opposition at a weight class 17 pound north of his orginal weight. I do agree that he has to fight Margerito, and or Williams, Cotto any combination of the these fighters or at least Margerito...However he had already done enough in my book to be a top fighter.

I would challenge you if you slam my choice of Jones, to justify Duran being placed (which I placed him too). Duran did move up and beat leoanrd at welterweight. Duran did own the lightweight division for an entire decade. However over half of Durans fights were vs subpar fighters who had either losing records, are records that are not worthy of fighting for a championship vs a fighter the level of Duran. Example one fighter had a losing record and Duran fought him, after he was champ. Jones on the other hand did beat James Toney, and Hopkins two all time great fighters,,vs Duran beating Leonard, then some very good fighters in Buchanon, Marcil, the great asian fighter, Dejesus 2 out of 3 times..... Jones was undefeated (except for a dq) until he he reached the tender age of 35. Duran got repeated ass whippings..I repeate, Repeated ass whippings when he moved up in weight class,...wasnt his record vs leoanrd, hagler, hearns, benitez 1-5, and all but one of these fights were before he was age 34.

So Yes I clearly stand behind my choice of Jones, as he up until the age of 35 was being considered the greatest ever by many of the sportswriters, boxers themselves. etc. Did he face the leoanrds, haglers, hearns, NO...but he did beat 2 top fighters all time and beat a lot of very good fighters..rather easily, and showed in the one revenge fight during his career at a decent age, what he had inside, by garnering a brutal 1st round stoppage.

Pacquio is coming on strong...Many times we give way too much credit to older fighters. I think that many would have struggled mightily vs the modern fighters that have speed galore, techniques that would minimize the punches that they take from such fighters like Liston vs Ali....Ali used boxing, angles side to side to frusterate the destructive force that was killing greats like the fast Patterson. Chavez one the greatest throwback fighters ever, simply got humilated when he faced Whitacker, and really Taylor except for a horrible stoppage, then Randle...So yes a Jones at middleweight would cause isssues for anyone at any era. Leoanrd would for almost anyone at Welter if used his head. Mayweather at the lower weights, hmmm Lightweight imo may be the greatest ever. Duran fans will have a hey day, but remember duran lost to Dejesus and struggle the 2nd time for a while. Mayweather at lightweight is a more defensive specialst version of What duran faced in New Orleans.....and you saw he quit...

theghost#1

08-04-2008, 12:52 AM

After seeing LeftHookTua's thread about the current top10 P4P I tought it would be interesting aswell to make a same kind of all-time thread.

The fighter on #1 of a person's list will get 10 points, #2 gets 9 points, ... #10 gets 1 point.

I'll update the official list every now and then.
Also feel free to comment each other's lists and the "official" one.

PS: I do realise that there are ALOT of fighters that will be chosen but some will be chosen more frequently; making the "official" p4p list relevant.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO: Give 10 different names, and only 1 name per number.

Current top10: (9 Posts: #2,3,5,7,9,10,11,12,14)

1. Sugar Ray Robinson (85)
2. Willie Pep (51)
3. Henry Armstrong (50)
4. Muhammad Ali (49)
5. Joe Louis (46)
6. Roberto Duràn (40)
7. Sugar Ray Leonard (32)
8. Harry Greb (24)
9. Sam Langford (24)
10. Marvin Hagler (10)

1. SRR
2. Herny Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. SRL
5. Ali
6. Hagler
7. FMJ
8. Durna
9. Louis
10. Billy Conn

Hearnsz

08-04-2008, 08:52 AM

My list is an off the top ranking of who I consider the "greatest" fighters of all-time, yes (their standing in the sport or sports in general, how they're compared to their peers, etc.) , and if that's not what you were looking for, Rafael, then by all means, you have my permission to scratch my ranking off your list. I'm not big on doing these anyways.

I'm not going to cut out your list because there's a thin line between greatest and best. Because someone can be the greatest in many different ways: including the best. (also most dominant, most respect, durability, personality, recognition etc...)

Anyways guys; these are the current 11-20 runner ups:
11. Marvin Hagler (15)
12. Bob Fitszimmons (15)
13. Ezzard Charles (14)
14. Pernell Withaker (10)
15. Roy Jones Jr. (10)
16. Archie Moore (7)
17. Mike Tyson (6)
18. Salvador Sanchez (6)
19. Floyd Mayweather Jr. (5)
20. Joe Frazier (5)

S.G.

08-04-2008, 09:30 AM

edit.......................................

UnDeniable

08-04-2008, 10:35 AM

Hearnsz

08-04-2008, 11:20 AM

wpink, i completely agree with you.

Old time fighters are sometimes very overrated while more modern fighters are overlooked
if Roy was born 10 years earlier i honestly believe that he would beat Hagler, Leonard and Hearns. It may take 10-20 years for fighters like Jones and FMJ to see their true place in History but on head to head matchups their is no fighter i would pick over FMJ at 130 and no fighter i would pick over Roy at 160

Also, no surprise to see SRR at the top of the pile his mixture of talent, level of competition and achievements may never be matched

Hmm RJJ might have a chance vs Hearns but I don't think he'd beat Leonard or Hagler. I think RJJ's place in the rankings is pretty righteous. (atleast top20 all time p4p)
And I agree that the longer we wait, the higher PBF will be on the list. I personally rate him top10. There are of course alot fighters that have fought and won better competition than PBF who only had 39 fights... But he's technically the best boxer I've ever seen. And I think the only kind of person in history that would beat him are physical incredible specimen such as SRL and SRR. (at WW) Perhaps a prime Duràn would beat him at LW but I'm not sure about that.

JAB5239

08-04-2008, 04:56 PM

[QUOTE=wpink1;3883004]Hmmm Jab5239. You have every right to use what ever variables you would like to formulate your opinion of the top 10, as do I. Let me point out a couple of things that you maybe dont figure.

Before I start, please understand I am not disrespecting you, I just dont agree.

First off Sanchez I agree I was reaching, but based on his short spectaculare career he IMO would have been one of the best ever...EVER.

Sanchez was a spectacular fighter who accomplished quite a bit in a short life. The LaPorte and Nelson fights are nice names on his record, yet both were green at the time they fought Sal. His biggest wins (that I find impressive) are the two fights against Lopez and the win against Castillo. Both were murderers. The rest of his resume falls short in my opinion. I would rank Julio Cesar Chave higher, out of Mexico and p4p. I agree had he lived he would have been one of the best ever. But I can't in good conscience dismiss more accomplished fighers because of what I think MAY have happened if he lived.

Jones I am sorry does belong, Skill, wins vs Toney and Hopkins then over 17 other world champions. He was soo dominant that he made very good fighters look bad, and he did this at light heavy, when he was a natural Middle. He only flaw is that he came along when he did. Had he came along 10 years earlier, we would not be hearing the names Hagler leonard hearns as dominating the welters to Middle...As Jones would have crushed in easy fashion Hagler, and leonard and Hearns would not have moved up to challenge Jones. Maybe Hearns, but clearly not leonard who by the way is my favorite fighter of all time. Jones is a victim of being simply too good for a entire decade. Leonard himself said during a telecast of a Jones fight, that they were lucky they did not have to face him as his combination speed, power, reach and awkwardness, made him simply virtually impossible to beat at middleweight.

Jones has always been a favorite of mine. But if we compare the level of competition to other fighters in the top 10 Jones falls short. as much as I like Roy I don't buy the 17 world chamions he fought. Truth is he fought and beat 17b tileists. Break that down and he really just beat top contenders. I think he had a great run, but it was a weak era. But Roy would be close to my top 10, just not in it. TheB-Hop win is good but not great. Hop was still new to the game with no real amatuer background besides prison. The Toney win at 168 is huge, as he dominated the #2 p4p fighter in the world. I' also give him more credit for the Ruiz win than others may. He had a lot of defenses and unified. But there were no real threats. Reggie Johnson was past it. Virgil Hill I thought was a good win with a spectacular stoppage. Mike McCallum was past his best by a few years, and the rest of his defenses were fighters that were really not that talented fighting in a weak division. As far as what we think MAY have happened had he been around 10 years earlier, can we really judge him on what didn't happen? I don't think so.

Mayweather, has beaten Corrales, Castillo, DLH, Hatton, Judah, etc.. He has won titles at 130, 135, 140, 147 and 154. No he did not face the quality that Leonard faced and beat...but Leonard faced most his challenges at his normale weight. Leoanrd moved up and beat Hagler, the rest of his great wins where at welter. Now we can consider Lalond, Kalule etc...good wins but not legendary. If we consider those, then we have to count the baldomir fights and others like that, as Mayweather again is competing vs very good opposition at a weight class 17 pound north of his orginal weight. I do agree that he has to fight Margerito, and or Williams, Cotto any combination of the these fighters or at least Margerito...However he had already done enough in my book to be a top fighter.

Like I said before, I mean no disrespect, but Floyd is severly overrated when it comes to all-time status in my opinion. He cleaned out 130. That was impressive. After that he was sort of rogue. He beat a couple of lightweights and than fought and beat Jose Luis Castillo in a fight many thought Castillo won. He redeemed himself in the rematch. Next he went to 140 and beat some decent guys, but nothing to write home about. He tried making a Cotto fight at this weight, but Cotto was still green. He passed up a Hatton fight at this weight if Im not mistaken. Next he went to 147. His competition here is atrocious. Judah was a decent fighter, but was just beaten and known not to be mentally tough. Sharmba Mitchell was old and shot. Baldomir was the lineal champ, but that was do more to the fact of Judah being unprepared than anything Baldomir did. Baldo wqas a tough guy, but his skills were and are highly questionable. He fought Hatton after Hatton had already struggled at 147 against a fighter in the lower half of the top 10. This might have been an impressive win if he didn't have so many tough fighters at 147 that he could have fought though, from Williams, Cintron, Margarito, Cotto, clottey, Mosely etc, all of which I would pick to beat Ricky. The DLH fight was about money. Its a bnice name on his record, but Oscar was more promoter than fighter at that point. Once again, if it was just about skills, Floyd would be in. But there is a steep drop off in the talent he fought and his longevity after 135.

I would challenge you if you slam my choice of Jones, to justify Duran being placed (which I placed him too). Duran did move up and beat leoanrd at welterweight. Duran did own the lightweight division for an entire decade. However over half of Durans fights were vs subpar fighters who had either losing records, are records that are not worthy of fighting for a championship vs a fighter the level of Duran. Example one fighter had a losing record and Duran fought him, after he was champ. Jones on the other hand did beat James Toney, and Hopkins two all time great fighters,,vs Duran beating Leonard, then some very good fighters in Buchanon, Marcil, the great asian fighter, Dejesus 2 out of 3 times..... Jones was undefeated (except for a dq) until he he reached the tender age of 35. Duran got repeated ass whippings..I repeate, Repeated ass whippings when he moved up in weight class,...wasnt his record vs leoanrd, hagler, hearns, benitez 1-5, and all but one of these fights were before he was age 34.

I wouldn't slam Jones, but I do except the challenge. Like Roy at 175, Duran dominated the lightweight division and cleaned it out for almost a decade. But Duran moved up and beat one of the greatest p4p legends of all time in Ray Leonard. His losses for the most part come at the hands of legends, many who are top 25 all time fighters themselves. He fought Marvin Hagler down to the wire and Hagler makes most peoples top middleweight list. He punished a green Davey Moore who was the favorite to beat him in brutal fashion. He took a portion of the middlweight title 21 years after turning pro. That is the very definition of longevity. He has beaten other top fighters as Pipino Quevas and Carlos Palomino. He has fought such other fighters as Hearns (yeah, I know) and Wilfred Benitez. Overall he sports better names than Jones on his resume, fought a higher level of competition for a longer period of time and id considered by most as the greatest lightweight of all time.

So Yes I clearly stand behind my choice of Jones, as he up until the age of 35 was being considered the greatest ever by many of the sportswriters, boxers themselves. etc. Did he face the leoanrds, haglers, hearns, NO...but he did beat 2 top fighters all time and beat a lot of very good fighters..rather easily, and showed in the one revenge fight during his career at a decent age, what he had inside, by garnering a brutal 1st round stoppage.

I respect the fact you stand behind Jones, even if I disagree. Personaly I don't think there has ever been a more gifted fighter, and that includes Ray Robinson. But that alone doesn't get you in with the p4p greatest fighters of all time. YHou have to prove yourself over and over as others have. I realize he didn;t have the era to do so, but I can't penelize other fighters who did, just to get Jones in based on his talent. He was a phenomenal fighter, but he ranks just a bit outside for me.

Pacquio is coming on strong...

I like Manny a lot. But he might sqeeze into the top 50 right now, but we would have to wait till the end of his career or near to it to figure out his all time status.

JAB5239

08-04-2008, 04:57 PM

Many times we give way too much credit to older fighters. I think that many would have struggled mightily vs the modern fighters that have speed galore, techniques that would minimize the punches that they take from such fighters like Liston vs Ali....Ali used boxing, angles side to side to frusterate the destructive force that was killing greats like the fast Patterson.

I don't think enough credit is given to fighters from the past. Think about how much more difficult it would be having to fight more often because of less money. There were more professional fighters, half the weight classes and only one title to win in each division. Throw in same day weigh in, where totally dehydrating to get to the lowest weight would be out the window because you would never have enough time to regain your strength.
Just out of curiousity, what makes you think fighters from the past had any less speed than today? Something we know they certainly had more of was stamina.

Chavez one the greatest throwback fighters ever, simply got humilated when he faced Whitacker, and really Taylor except for a horrible stoppage, then Randle...

We can't judge fighter from the past based on the performance of someone called a throw back fighter. Chavez may have been losing on points to Taylor, but he beat him up and changed the direction of his career foever. Whitaker? I think he ranks right up there with Roy and others just outside the top 10, so there is no shame in Chavez losing that fight (yes, he did lose). And Randle? Chavez was in his 14th year as a pro with around 90 fights. Not much shame in giving up a run after all those innings, in my opinion.

So yes a Jones at middleweight would cause isssues for anyone at any era. Leoanrd would for almost anyone at Welter if used his head. Mayweather at the lower weights, hmmm Lightweight imo may be the greatest ever. Duran fans will have a hey day, but remember duran lost to Dejesus and struggle the 2nd time for a while. Mayweather at lightweight is a more defensive specialst version of What duran faced in New Orleans.....and you saw he quit...[/QUOTE]

I agree these guys have the ability to cause problems to many fighters. But they still didn't or have to prove it first, before we put them ahaed of more accomplished fighters. We can't just assume they're better when they haven't faced the same level of competition. Peace!

Hearnsz

08-04-2008, 05:32 PM

I don't think enough credit is given to fighters from the past. Think about how much more difficult it would be having to fight more often because of less money.
That's deffinately true. Figthers from the past deserve alot more credit than the new ones. But I think wpink meant that people overrate fighters of the pas, which in many cases is also true imo.

Oldtimers had to fight several times per month in order to "survive", and after their retirement they mostly still were broke. Look at SRR for example.
And by fighting more than once every month they suffered alot of brain damage. Just look at Basilio and how slow he talks. (also the thinner gloves caused more permanent damage)
Most of the fighters also just couldnt control their spendings but some just weren't paid enough.

And now there are guys like PBF who have made enough money to live in a huge villa and drive fancy cars for the rest of their lives. They can actually live a very wealthy life for EACH fight they have. So every fight after a world championship bout is just a bonus.

But all this doesn't mean PBF isn't a worse fighter than some old timer just because the oldtimer had it alot more difficult.

I think boxing champions shouldn't have to work again after they retire at the age of 40 or something. But I think they should atleast fight 5-10 times a year, rather than 1 time.

wpink1

08-04-2008, 05:38 PM

Jab5239....Great great reads. You know your stuff, we may not agree on everything, but for the most part we do.

Roy I agree his level of competition pales to what Duran faced. However, Duran lost these fights or at least most of them. Duran dominated lightweight fightintg far easier level of compeition than Roy did. At least 1/3 of his fights were vs fighters that would struggle to be considered valid sparring partners. However, you do have to give Duran credit he was great, and did move up and beat Ray at 147, and yes he did earn a part of the middleweight championship 21 years after he started.

Compare that to Roy....He was undefeated (except for a dq) until he reach 35 and moved down from heavyweight to accept challenges. He beat fighters the quality of what Duran beat except for Leonard. Duran lost these fights that many give him credit for excepting these challenges, and for the most part these fights were before he reached age 34. Roy moved up 40 pounds to challenge for Heavyweight title..Duran moved up 50 pounds from 118 ( the weight for his first fight) to 168....Hmmm great on both parts. Duran did lose to Dejesus, and was dropped the 2nd fight before coming on to stop him. I think many will simply give Duran the nod, with out digging deep into this comparison. If you do Roy looks much better than what many would initially think.

I think fighters from the past were definately tougher, had more stamina, and could take a better punch. However, Ray Robinson, Ali, Leoanrd, Whitacker, have all shown that their style of speed, combinations, movement, right hand leads..etc..this style has continously shown to best the best fighters of the yesteryear's style. Liston, Duran, Chavez, and the great fighters Robinson beat, all struggle mightily when dealing with the angles, speed, counterpunching styles that Robinson initially started, ali took to another level, and then leonard kept it going. Do you think Marciano would be undefeated had he had to face Ali, Tyson, etc...He may have beaten Tyson, but would lose to Ali...etc.

Your points about Mayweather I concur...I hate him myself, I think he has avoided the best at Welter...However,,,However....keep this in mind. Leonard didnt campaign effectivly at middleweight or higher. He did win the belt, but he never campaigned vs the best at that weight class, above Welter. Duran moved up and got beat repeatedly. Dlh move up and got beat, Whitacker has many top fights at the lower weight, but did not campaign effectivly at the higher weights...

We all hate Mayweather, but the fact is no he did not fight William, Cotto, or Margerito, but outside of Robinson and now pacquio,,who has moved up roughly 20 pounds and faced the best at that higher weight class, and repeatedly won. Roy is close but there are names he did not fight either..Duran lost, leoanrd was retired, etc..etc.. etc.. so how can we slam Mayweather. In all honesty he is fighting 18 pounds north of his orginal weight class, and has done so better than most.

slicksouthpaw16

08-04-2008, 05:48 PM

I go by accomplishments and opposition. This is my list of top 10 greats in this order.

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

JAB5239

08-04-2008, 05:48 PM

Hearnsz

08-04-2008, 06:32 PM

Sam Langford seems to be highly ranked by alot of people. Yogi already educated me a bit about him in his previous post and I'll deffinately do some research about him! He never won a title right?

Yogi

08-04-2008, 08:40 PM

Sam Langford seems to be highly ranked by alot of people. Yogi already educated me a bit about him in his previous post and I'll deffinately do some research about him! He never won a title right?

He won many titles, Rafael, although the majority of his "world" titles were won overseas;

"New York, May 30--Sam Langford, of Boston, is billed in London music halls as 'the heavyweight champion of the world'. He is showing to crowded houses, and is rakingin the money hand over fist. The fact that Johnson has refused to fill his European contracts while Langford is on the other side, has increased the belief there that Burns' conqueror is a quitter. Langford has recieved a championship belt from the National Sporting Club, and says he will defend his new honors against any man in the world. He does not bar Jeffries in making up his list of desirable opponents, and says he will fight Johnson, winner take all." - printed in a few sources dated May 31st, 1909 with this taken from the Washington Herald on that date

One of many other sources referencing that and this one from a couple of weeks later;

"A negro who is much in the limelight right now is Sam Langford, of Boston, who has recently been proclaimed the heavyweight champion of the world by Lord Lonsdale and other promoters of the boxing game in England. The fact that Johnson welched out of his match with langford in London is the reason why the latter has recieved a belt emblematic of the title. The National Sporting Club declared the other day that Johnson's failure to live up to his agreement was equal to forfeiting the championship." - New York Sun, June 13th, 1909

That proclamation by the National Sporting Club (the oldest governing body since the Queensberry days), was of course, as those elude to, was because Johnson backed out of a signed agreement he had to face Langford in London. The contracts were originally signed when the English promoters lent Johnson the money to travel to Australia to face Burns, with the understanding that if Johnson won he'd return to London to face Langford. Johnson agreed to that, and you can find signed agreements of the like in the papers of the time.

That's the heavyweight, but there was also this story that was reported in many sources, as well;

"London, April 23--Sam Langford, the burly negro who hails from Cambridge, Mass., more than evened up matters for the decision against his countrymen by knocking out "Tiger" Smith, the pride of the British army, who was considered the best light heavyweight in England, next to Gunner Moir, in the fourth of their scheduled twenty-round go. The ebony hued scrapper from across the big pond forced the fighting all the way and gave the "Tiger" a merciless beating. This bout was announced to be for the middleweight championship of the world and a purse of $2,000." - Washington Times, Apr 23rd, 1907

Neither were accepted much on this side of the pond, though, although Langford did outfight the reigning middleweight champion, Stanley Ketchel, in a six-rounder in Philadelphia that took place in Apr of 1910, I believe it was. That was supposed to be a prelude to a fight (a 45 rounder) they scheduled against each other for the summer of 1910, but Ketchel backed out during the days leading up to it stating that he was unfit to fight.

Oh, Langford also decisioned the reigning lightweight champion, Joe Gans, while weighing in at two pounds over the lightweight limit during an earlier fight, and he also was said to have outboxed the reigning welterweight champion, Barbados Joe Walcott, soon after only to see the fight declared a draw. Both were fought over 15 round distances.

Also, Langford had some strong light heavyweight title claims during the years between 1911 and 1912, and while it will take me too long to get into, here's a few quotes from the papers at the time that I've posted elsewhere in the past;

"Langford was hailed as the light heavyweight champion of the world" - Jan 15th, 1911, Colorado Springs Gazette

"Mr. Hugh D. McIntosh, the world's most famous sports promoter, who recently put up a prize of 3,500, the largest stake ever offered for a boxing contest in this country, for a bout between Lang, the champion of Australia, and Langford, the colored light heavyweight champion of the world." - Washington Post, Mar 24th, 1911

"Since O'Brien's handlers assure him he can lift the polish off langford's claim to the light heavyweight title in short order, it now appears he really thinks so himself." - Washington Post, Fort Wayne News, etc., Aug 15th, 1911

"Joe Jeannette and Sam Langford have been matched for a ten-round bout at Madison Square Garden for the title of Light Heavyweight Champion of the World and a purse of $10,000." - AP report dated Aug 28th, 1911, and printed in various sources such as the Washington Post, Indianapolis Star, Daily Northwestern, etc., etc.

After that fight, which Langford reportedly got the best of while weighing in at 168 pounds (as per NY Times, Sept 6th, 1911);

"There was little disagreement today among the experts as to the justification of Sam Langford's claim to the light heavyweight championship." - AP report dated Sep 6th, 1911 in the Syracuse Herald, Lincoln Evening News, etc.

"The light heavyweight title rightfully belongs to Langford. Sam has defeated every man of his weight in the world. Jack O' Brien was the last challenger that Sam sent to slumber." - AP dated Dec 4th, 1911, and printed in a number of sources

"The Federation Francais de Boxe, the French pugilistic governing body which has been trying to form an international board to manage the boxing game, recommends that the following be recognized as the present actual world's champions; Flyweight: Sid Smith, Bantamweight: Johnny Coulon, Featherweight: Johnny Kilbane, Lightweight: Ad Wolgast, Welterweight: Dixie Kid, Middleweight: Billy Papke, Light Heavyweight: Sam Langford, Heavyweight: Jack Johnson" - AP report listed in a number of different sources between the dates July 12th to the 21st

Two months later, as printed in a number of sources from Sept 12th to 16th, that list that was "recommended" there went to an "approved" list. Of course, as some may know, the Federation Francais de Boxe (led by Victor Breyer) were the leaders in forming the Internation Boxing Union, which was formed largely because they wanted to clear of the confusion over fighters claiming titles amongst other things. Worth noting too, that the newspaper writers on this side of the pond didn't have any objections to the fighters listed save for Dixie Kid and Billy Papke (who some dispute as champions in record books and whatnot).

poet682006

08-04-2008, 09:56 PM

Sam Langford seems to be highly ranked by alot of people. Yogi already educated me a bit about him in his previous post and I'll deffinately do some research about him! He never won a title right?

Sam Langford was a Welterweight who fought and KOed Heavyweights. That in and of itself will get you consideration for P4P lists. Langford also fought a titantic battle with Jack Johnson and held his own for most of the fight: No small thing considering who is opponent was.

Poet

slicksouthpaw16

08-04-2008, 10:01 PM

Sam Langford was a Welterweight who fought and KOed Heavyweights. That in and of itself will get you consideration for P4P lists. Langford also fought a titantic battle with Jack Johnson and held his own for most of the fight: No small thing considering who is opponent was.

Poet

I agree Poet, however Langford was a lightweight that fought and drew with the best fighters down there and is known for moving up in weight and fighting the best in each weight class and performing well against them. He also fought and beat some of the best African American heavyweights in the Johnson era. I have heard different stories from the Johnson fight though. One source stated Johnson toyed with Langford and had to ease up on the assults at time, and another one stated that the fight was very competitive and that let to Johnson not giving Langford a rematch as a champion. This is an article that i pulled from Wiki.

''Langford was a boxer who fought greats from the lightweight division right up to the heavyweights, beating many champions in the process. However, he was never able to secure a world title for himself. The primary reason for this was that heavyweight champion Jack Johnson, after winning their first match, repeatedly refused rematches against Langford, who was considered by some to be the most dangerous challenger for Johnson's crown, although Johnson cited Langford's inability to meet his $30,000 appearance fee. Despite the fact Langford never received his rightful chance at the heavyweight title because of Jack Johnson's refusal to risk his crown against Langford, Ring magazine founder Nat Fleischer rated Langford as one of the ten best heavyweights of all time''.

Yogi

08-04-2008, 10:47 PM

I have heard different stories from the Johnson fight though. One source stated Johnson toyed with Langford and had to ease up on the assults at time, and another one stated that the fight was very competitive and that let to Johnson not giving Langford a rematch as a champion.

If you don't mind me asking, what sources are you looking at, Slickster?

slicksouthpaw16

08-04-2008, 11:21 PM

If you don't mind me asking, what sources are you looking at, Slickster?

This is a very good article that discusses the fight and actually gives us a round by round anaylsis on how the fight happened. I first looked at Buzzler.com and according to them, the fight was very competitive. This is from Buzzler.com

''Langford’s early strategy was centered upon using his hand and foot speed to befuddle Johnson and thwart his stellar defense. Langford missed with two fast lefts and banged a solid right off of the top of Johnson’s skull. Jack fought patiently, countering with right leads over Langford’s thrusts and managing to keep his challenger at arms length. Langford was excited and determined to land with authority on Jack.

Sam was short with a right hook and came right back with a hard left hook to the solar plexus. Jack jabbed hard at Sam, then scored with a right lead to the neck followed by a jolting left lead to the point of Langford’s chin. Sam returned to his corner realizing that the first round was a carbon copy of their previous contest, dominated by Jack.

Rounds two through four saw Jack continuing to frustrate Langford, outthinking the challenger and maintaining an iron defense against Sam’s rapider like combinations that too often sailed wide of the mark. Late in round three Langford feinted beautifully and jolted Jack with a smashing right to the chin. The champion held, then broke and retreated to clear his senses. With that exception, the first four rounds clearly belonged to the titleholder.

Rounds five and six told a different tale. Langford’s speed began to pay dividends as his solid jabs began to find the mark, connecting frequently with Johnson’s face. Although Jack still blocked a majority of these blows, it was apparent that Sam had discovered a mechanism to bother Jack. Johnson was content to smirk at Sam and taunt him through raise gloves. "You don’t belong in the same ring with me, Sam. You ought to know charity when you see it., Ol’ Jack is jes helpin you out.".

Early in round seven Johnson began to feint. Doing little else, his head fakes and defensive maneuvers began to anger Sam. "I’m whippin you Jack. You gonna be sorry you made me wait!". Langford landed a wide, glancing right lead off of Jack’s head, banged a short right to the body and hammered Jack about the shoulders and head with a series of blinding punches. With thirty seconds remaining in the round Johnson delivered a shoulder fake and Sam was wide open.

A Johnson right uppercut, delivered with power and telling accuracy, crashed under Sam’s chin and sent the challenger tumbling to the canvas. Rage in his eyes, Langford pulled himself to one knee and took the count of nine. Jack immediately delivered a punishing right to the body and crossed up Sam with a left uppercut that dropped Langford to one knee at the bell. Bounding to his feet, Sam wobbled to his stool, his eyes glazed. He had been hurt.

Johnson’s attack seemed to remind Sam that he was in with a foeman very worthy of his steel. Now cautious, Sam used round eight to recuperate as he reorganized his battle plan. Johnson, never overly aggressive, was confident he could land the big punch when circumstances required. Jabbing with increased frequency, Jack held Langford off during rounds nine and ten, parrying Sam’s solid right leads and bullish attempts at hurt Johnson to the body.

Early in round eleven Sam trapped Jack against the ropes. Confident, Johnson bobbed his massive frame and picked off two hard Langford right leads. Sam stepped smartly to his left, permitting Johnson an opening to escape to ring center. Taking the bait Johnson slid outward only to be staggered by a classic right cross that Sam buried into his jaw. Johnson stumbled into ring center, pursued by Langford with missed with two long rights, scoring with a left hook to the head and smashing three right leads into Johnson’s stomach.

Jack feinted, offered a right lead and attempted to surprise Sam with "Iron Mike", the killer right uppercut. Sam sidestepped the blow and countered with a perfect left hook to Johnson’s jaw. Down went Jack, flat on his back and he was badly dazed. Grasping for the lower rope his fell forward onto his face before forcing himself to his feet as the referee’s count tolled nine. Sam had a minute left to finish the job yet, seeing his first true opportunity in two bouts to stop Johnson, his eagerness to deliver the finis’ denied him a chance for the stoppage. Firing long right leads and bulling himself into Jack, trying to get inside, Sam found himself stymied by Johnson’s defense. Jack was hurt yet he knew how to survive. Tying Sam into knots the champion lasted the round.

Round 12, 13 and 14 saw the titleholder reduce the pace of the contest to a near standstill. Jack was no stranger to the canvas and having come within an eyelash of surrendering the championship in round 11 resurrected the Johnson’s tendency to box conservatively unless threatened. He snaked long jabs into Sam’s face and repeatedly tangled up his challenger in his long arms, forcing numerous time consuming clinches. By the end of round 14 the slow handclap had begun and Langford, his left eye badly swollen and claret dripped from his mouth, had begun to tire.

Early in round 15 Jack snarled at Langford. "Come on and take my title. It’s here for ya. Come on in and lets fight. Haven’t shown me a thing today". Langford, well schooled in how to prevail in a long contest and familiar with Johnson’s tantalizing, refused to take the bait. Yet Jack was clearly in control. Having absorbed Sam’s best shot four rounds earlier the Champion was content to deliver hard right hand leaders over Langford’s rushes and spear his opponent with powerful jabs. Jack aimed directly at Sam’s injured eye, landing several punishing combinations late in the round as Langford, tiring rapidly, smothered Jack in a clinch at the bell.

Johnson controlled rounds 16 and 17 by working exclusively on Langford’s body. Jack crashed three hard right crosses to Langford’s midsection early in the eighteenth, forcing Sam’s weary guard down just in time for a right hand bomb from Jack that decked Langford for the third time in the contest. Sam took the count of nine, barely lifting his knee off of the canvas before the fatal ten was tolled. Langford threw himself at Jack, winging wild right leads that bounced off of Jack’s impenetrable arms. With seconds remaining in the round Langford found Jack’s chin with a bludgeoning right cross, his best blow in six rounds. Jack merely laughed it as the bell concluded the round.

The Champion tried to take the 18th round off yet found his nemesis realizing that his one and only championship shot was on the threshold of failure. Bleeding, swollen and grunting Langford pinned Jack against the ropes and pounded the titleholder with a seemingly never ending volley of terrific right and left hand smashes to the body. Initially Jack dismissed the attack, confident he could feint his way out of the corner and into ring center. However, Sam was not buying it.

Pushing his tormentor against the ring apron Langford threw haymaker after haymaker and many of the blows exploded on Johnson’s chin and face. Eighteen rounds of combat had begun to dull Jack’s defense and for the first time in the bout a large mouse appeared over Jack’s left eye.

Johnson was visibly weary as the two combatants began the 19th round. Jack again tried to rest yet the rejuvenated Langford would have none of it, battering his way past Jack’s guard and again punishing the exhausted Champion brutally about the body. Midway through the round Sam landed a crushing straight right hand to the heart and Jack staggered into the ropes. Johnson grabbed the shorter Langford around the head and forced a desperate clinch. Jabbing hard, Jack would have no more of the challenger’s attack as he kept Sam at the end of his long arms for the final minute of the round.

The Champion extended his right glove at the beginning of the final round. "You’se kin fight, Sam. Mebbe I was wrong" smirked Jack as the two tapped gloves. Langford missed a wild right lead the caused him to lose balance and trip over his own feet, landing on the canvas. Johnson worked a stiff jab into Langford’s face over the first half of the round. Langford was short with a left and banged a right off of Johnson’s swollen face. Jack blocked a Langford right, countered with a stiff left to the nose and a terrific right lead to the body that caused Langford to gasp.

Both fighters were at the point of exhaustion as the contest entered its final minute. Jack blocked a Langford right and pulled his challenger into a lengthy clinch. Langford missed a hard right, then landed two light lefts to the ribcage. Jack jabbed Sam hard twice and took a solid Langford left hook to the jaw as the bell signaled the conclusion of the bout.

Sam extended his glove to Jack as the referee separated the pair. "Thanks for the chance," he grunted as he took his robe and turned towards his corner. Shortly Referee Driscoll held Jack’s hand high in the air. The newspaperman agreed. He had retained his championship in an epic contest against a foeman who refused to go as quietly as he had five years''

slicksouthpaw16

08-04-2008, 11:26 PM

Now the article that stated Johnson had to ease up on the beating was actually Boxrec. One day i was browsing through as i was looking through Johnson's resume and wanted to find out more on the fight. Here is the article.

''Shortly before Johnson's legendary reign as heavyweight champion, he met Sam Langford in Chelsea Massachusetts in defense of his "colored" portion of the heavyweight crown. Johnson, who had met the best heavyweight contenders (compared to Langford, who had recently battled lightweights and welterweights), dominated the bout and according to Dad Phillips, who was in attendance for the bout, "purposely eased up on his onslaughts." Langford was also reportedly taken to the hospital after the bout was over. ''

Yogi

08-04-2008, 11:35 PM

Umm, Slickster, I remember reading that before and that's only a fictional writeup of someone's idea of what would have happened had Johnson and Langford had had a rematch for the title. That wasn' their actual fight sorry to say.

I have a couple of writeups from the day-afters from their actual fight from Apr of 1906 that I could type out later, I guess, although it might have to wait for tomorrow.

For the record, though, based on these couple of fight reports, Johnson seemed to have a clear (not dominating) edge in the fight with two knockdowns credited to him in the sixth, but Langford was said to have been game himself and also had a few moments during the fight. For a n example, after the sixth round ended Johnson was said to have been "in as bad a way as Langford" after Langford "came back at Johnson quickly" after the second knockdown that round.

Yogi

08-04-2008, 11:36 PM

slicksouthpaw16

08-04-2008, 11:41 PM

slicksouthpaw16

08-04-2008, 11:47 PM

This is some good information for anyone that wants to know a bit about Langford. Just a peice that talks about some of his main accomplishments and oppositions. Another article from Wiki.

''Langford's most memorable fights were his numerous encounters against fellow Black boxers Sam McVey, Battling Jim Johnson and Joe Jeanette, who all experienced similar barriers in their fighting careers. Langford fought Harry Wills on 22 separate occasions. Langford defeated lightweight champion Joe Gans in 1903, drew with welterweight champion Joe Walcott in 1904, lost to future world heavyweight champion Jack Johnson in 1906, and knocked out former light-heavyweight champion Philadelphia Jack O'Brien in 1911, with scores of contender fights in between. His last fight was in 1926, when his failing eyesight finally forced him to retire.

In 1923, Sam Langford fought and won Boxing's last "fight to the finish" for the Mexican Heavyweight title.

Films exist of Langford fighting Fireman Jim Flynn and Bill Lang. One story characterizing his career involved Langford walking out for the 8th round and touching gloves with his opponent. "What's the matter, Sam, it ain't the last round!" said his mystified opponent. "Tis for you son," said Langford, who promptly knocked his opponent out.''

KostyaTszyu44

08-04-2008, 11:52 PM

Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Muhammad Ali
Roy Jones Jr (his lack of top notch opposition outside of toney and hopkins hurts him but his talent is unquestionably top notch, and he does have those two wins, along with many other wins versus top notch opponents.
Harry Greb
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran
Salvador Sanchez
Sam Langford
Floyd Mayweather.

i wish i could put sanchez in my top ten but he didnt do quite enough as he died at 23.....he beat nelson, lopez and a few others but yeah top ten p4p you need to do more.....if it was an ability wise top ten p4p he would be in it

Yogi

08-05-2008, 12:25 AM

I really don't think any source is very accurate on this fight.

So I take it you're not going to believe Johnson's own account of the fight, as written in 1910 and printed in his French biography 'Mes Combat'?

"I found him one of the toughest adversaries I ever met in the ring. I weighed 190 and langford only 138. In the second round the little negro hit me on the jaw with a terrible right hand and I fell as if upended by a cannon ball. In all my pugilistic career, not before and not afterwards, have I recieved a blow that struck me with such force. It was all I could just to get back on my feet just as the referee was about to count 'Ten!' I made it, but I assure you that I felt the effects of that punch for the rest of the fight. I recovered but I would have to take my hat off to him if I hadn't had so much science at my comment. In the fifteenth round I was declared the winner on points." - Jack Johnson

Johnson seemed to be quite complimentary of Langford with those words about their fight, but maybe that was because he felt bad about backing out of his signed agreement to face Langford again for the title in London and exaggerated some. Or maybe Johnson, as Gunboat Smith described in 'In This Corner', felt bad for this incident;

"There was a lot of ill feelings between Johnson and Sam Langford. He'd never fight Langford. They fought once, and they put up a hell of a fight, Johnson and Langford. I don't know who would have won that fight if they ever fought. And there was always ill feelings between those two that the public didn't know nothing about. They hated one another like rat poison. When Johnson drove from Jeffries' place he met Langford on the road. He was always a crazy driver. He liked fast cars, Johnson did. He took the wheel and threw dirt right in Langford's face. If Sam Langford had a gun, he'd a killed him right there." - Gunboat Smith

Ah, I don't know why I typed out that story from the Gunboat, besides that it is somewhat interesting.

Anyways, if you hear two divided opinions on how something went or what happened, there's that old saying that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle". I don't neccessarily believe Langford gave Johnson a really tough fight, nor do I believe that Johnson gave him a bad and dominating beating throughout. Like I stated, I believe it was a clear enough win for Johnson over 15 rounds, though, as illustrated by what I assume are the neutral opinions written in these two fight reports.

Yogi

08-05-2008, 01:20 AM

BoxRec blows when it comes to sources on those old fights, but that's a story for another day.

Some examples of this.

BoxRec lists Langford's fight with Joe Jeannette on Sept 1st, 1908 as a draw for some reason based on a single and inaccurate (i.e. saying that Jeannette was downed in both the first and second) account by the NY Times, but there were plenty of other reports of the fight out of New York, and none of the other ones thought it was a draw;

"That negro fighters do not make the same fierce battle against one of their own color as they do against white opponents was again demonstrated in the contest between Sam Langford and Joe Jeannette, the colored fighters, at the stag of the National A. C. stag last night. In the six rounds they fought, Langford easily had the better in giving Jeannette a good walloping, and flooring him three times - twice in the opening round, and again in the fifth session." - New York Evening World, Sept 2nd, 1908

"Sam Langford of Boston, the colored pugilist who wants to meet the winner of the Ketchel-papke fight for the middleweight championship of the world, defeated Joe Jeannette, a dusky heavyweight of this city, in a grueling six round bout at the National Athletic Club in East Twenty-fourth street last night." - New York Sun, Sept 2nd, 1908

"New York, Sept 2--Sam Langford, of Boston, visited us again last night, and broke into smithereens Joe Jeannette's hopes of a championship. Sam has been a hope buster for the last year around here, having cracked quite a few, among them the hopes of James Barry, of Chicago, Jawn Wille, of Chicago, and Tony Ross, of Pennsylvania." - Washington Times, Sept 2nd, 1908, who went on to basically say Jeannette lost, as per their "if Mr. Jeannette is breathing easily today", and him showing gameness "but aside from that little else can be said in his favor".

There were other reports too, that stated Langford got the best of the fight (such as the Washington Herald, Boston Daily Globe, Hartford Courant, Trenton Evening Times, etc.), and all the reports are accurate to each other in stating that Langford knocked him down twice in the first, and also backed off some after scoring the second knockdown in the first.

I'll get to some more of their mysterious ways tomorrow, starting with that other NY Times decision they gave to Jim Barry over Langford in Sept 25, 1907, which is, once again, a puzzling source selection. Could also list shed some light to their three missing "ND" that they have for the Langford/Barry fights right after that, which going off the papers of the time, were two wins for Langford, and the other one a draw or even fight based on one source. I also find it puzzling that they select a source from nearly a year after the fact (and that from halfway across the country) in regards to the Feb, 1910 between Langford and Fireman Flynn when there are perfectly good sources from the day after the fight and from the fight's location.

Sweet Pea 50

08-05-2008, 03:52 AM

1.SRR
2.Armstrong
3.Ali
4.Pep
5.Louis
6.SRL
7.Duran
8.Hagler
9.Greb
10.Pea

poet682006

08-05-2008, 06:48 AM

Yogi, Slicksouthpaw, great work and great research!

Poet

Hearnsz

08-05-2008, 07:03 AM

Wow! Thanks for the info.
Pretty incredible how the 170cm Sam Langford went from lightweight to heavyweight and beat champions throughout the divisions.
When you do research about Langford it will of course seem that Jack Johnson ducked him after their fight but I think if you hear Johnson's part of the story it will be more reasonable. No offence to Langford but Johnson was pretty good in knocking out smaller opponents. I saw a video of him bullying Tommy Burns and Fireman Jim Flynn. He just held them down with one arm on their head and called them names.

I didn't mean he never won A title btw, I meant world championship title.
Thanks again for the info but some of the stuff is difficult to read for me as I'm not englishspeaking ...

UnDeniable

08-05-2008, 08:05 AM

Johnson also faced the smaller Stanley Ketchel, Delivering a brutal KO which supposedly embedded many of Ketchels teeth into Johnsons glove. It seems that back then it was not unusual to have huge size differences between the fighters, i wonder how many of the modern fighters would cope back then.

Was their ever a case of the smaller man defeating the larger fighter back then as in a fighter weighing 150-155 winning against a fighter weighing 195-200

Hearnsz

08-05-2008, 09:01 AM

Was their ever a case of the smaller man defeating the larger fighter back then as in a fighter weighing 150-155 winning against a fighter weighing 195-200

Likely not. But that's because 150 vs 200 fights only happened in the old days back when the majority of the fighters were white. Fitzsimmons probably knocked out some guys who were alot heavier but also white. And so did Langford I'm guessing. I suppose they were both freaks of nature too.

Btw, I also just read somewhere that another possible reason why the Jack Johnson - Sam Langford rematch never happened was because Johnson said it was pointless to have 2 black men fight over the heavyweight title... And there were also financial issues I think.

Yogi

08-05-2008, 01:02 PM

Btw, I also just read somewhere that another possible reason why the Jack Johnson - Sam Langford rematch never happened was because Johnson said it was pointless to have 2 black men fight over the heavyweight title... And there were also financial issues I think.

Jack Johnson is full of **** if he said that it was pointless to defend again another black man, because he did in fact defend against one when he faced Battling Jim Johnson in Dec of 1913, which was a bout that took place in Paris.

The financial reasons Johnson may have stated are also incorrect because, every time he made a demand of money to defend against Langford either a promoter like Hugh McIntosh or, when it came to side bets, Langford (and backers) himself stepped forward with the money.

That's a long story with many, many different examples, so starting from the beginning when Johnson started ducking him, let's look at their initial agreement to face each other in a rematch scheduled for May 24th, 1909 (as stated earlier in the thread, Johnson agreed to the match in return for loan by the NSC that was reported to be $6,000), and here's an actual written statement from Johnson to the National Sporting Club in London that was signed on Sept 19th, 1908, and printed in a number of different sources back then;

"To the committee of the National Sporting Club.
Gentlemen: I undertake and agree to carry out my contest with Sam Langford on the 22d of February, 1909, on the same terms and conditions as already arranged with Langford, viz. 1,000 pound purse and one-third of the interest in any bioscopic pictures that may be taken. At the same time allow me to tender my thanks to you for the courtesy you have extended to myself and manager, Mr. Sam Fitzpatrick, while we have been in this country. I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully.
Jack Johnson"

Johnson asked for and was granted an extension on that agreement by the NSC, and then a few months later;

"JOHNSON ACCEPTS OFFER

Agrees to Fight Sam Langford Before London Club on Derby Day

London, Feb. 5--Jack Johnson, the heavyweight champion, tonight notified the National Sporting Club that he has accepted their offer of a $6,000 purse for a match of twenty rounds with Sam Langford. The fight will take place during Derby week and the purse will be divided, $4,000 to the winner and $2,000 to the loser. Each man is to recieve $750 to cover travelling and training expenses." - Various sources printed between Feb 6th and Feb 8th, with this one taken from the Feb 8th, 1909, Salt Lake Herald

From that point on their were NUMEROUS newspaper sources from back then stating that Johnson and Langford were going to meet in London on May 24th, including more quotes from Johnson himself when he wrote a letter to a sportswriter by a W.H. Moseley as printed in sources dated Feb 22nd, 1909;

"As to your suggestion that I don't fight fight Langford in the event I whipped Burns, I will say that I am open to all comers and would not call myself the champion if I cannot defend the title. I gave my word to my English friends to fight Langford, win or lose with Burns, and I shall do so. I know Sam has whipped some good men in America lately and that I am going up against warm proposition, but you will remember I bested him in our fifteen-round fight, and while he has improved a great deal from his recent fights, I have learned a thing or two myself. I do think, however, that Sam is the best today in the game outside of myself; but when we fight get a big bunch on me, for 'I'll deliver the goods'.
Jack Johnson, Champion of the World, of Galveston, Texas, U.S.A."

Johnson signs the agreement to face Langford in London, publicly states that he has agreed to the fight in many sources, and then pulls out of the fight around Mar 18th, of 1909, gets himself called a "coward" and "yellow" by the press (some papers, such as the Times Dispatch, Apr 18th, report that Johnson was "hot under the collar" and whatnot over being called such things, but still stuck to his backing out of the fight, as well as getting called out by the manager (a Mr. Bettinson) of the NSC for failing to honour the agreement, and then publicly admits on Apr 19that "he broke his word" after stating that he "had promised to fight Langford at London (both quotes taken from Washington Times, Apr 19th, 1909)

Anyways, I don't want to go on forever in this post, but that's just a small sampling of it, and by only using a couple (of many, many) different sources on the matter.

Yogi

08-05-2008, 01:14 PM

Was their ever a case of the smaller man defeating the larger fighter back then as in a fighter weighing 150-155 winning against a fighter weighing 195-200

There were, but Langford wasn't going to be weighing 150 to 155 if he had faced Johnson again, as even during the ill fated London bout slated for the spring of 1909, Langford and his manager, Joe Woodman, were stating that he'd be entering the ring to face Johnson at 170 pounds.

Weight wasn't considered as much of a factor in those days compared to today's "bigger is better" era of boxing fans, and there were articles written expressing exactly that back then (Feb 7th, 1909, Washington Times speaks on this very story and how weight or size "counts little in making champs").

As per the potential Johnson/Langford rematch, some written opinions thought Johnson's size would be the deciding factor, although there were also plenty of opinions stating that Langford would win the rematch if it had taken place. James Jeffries, himself, was quotes that he thought Langford would win the fight scheduled for May of 1909, as did old-time managers like Tom O' Rourke (who managed one of those fighters who never found size an obstacle, Barbados Joe Walcott, who, as a short and stocky welterweight, proceeded to knock out some heavyweights).

Yogi

08-05-2008, 03:03 PM

I didn't mean he never won A title btw, I meant world championship title.
Thanks again for the info but some of the stuff is difficult to read for me as I'm not englishspeaking ...

I consider Langford the light heavyweight champion of the world during those years I stated, and possibly even earlier if you consider that when the British and America specified strict weight divisions in Feb of 1909, Langford was listed as the light heavyweight champion*

If you go by the definition of champion as being "one acknowledged to be better than all others", and also consider the vast amount of advertising and support he got as the light heavyweight champion of the world (including after he knocked out the last acknowledged linear light heavyweight champion, Jack O' Brien, as well as from official governing bodies), as well as considering he weighed in between the limit during those years from 1909 to 1912, I don't see the argument against it. He certainly had more claims and a hell of a lot more support to that title than did Jack Dillon did when he defeated Hugo Kelly in 1912, which is a fight that many different modern day sources say started the linear light heavyweight title again, despite it being, at the time (in the days leading up to and the days after...including the reports from the Indianapolis Star), nothing more than advertised as a middleweight fight between two middleweight claimants.

*The article from the Times Dispatch, Feb 14th, 1909 is too long to write out in full, but in discussing the strict weight classes and whatnot, the article states the following at the bottom;

"Under the new American classification of weights, the present-day champions would stand like this: Paperweight, Johnny Coulon; bantam, Young O' Leary; feather, Abe Attell; heavy feather, Jem Driscoll; light, Battling Nelson; welter, Jack Blackburn; light middle, Jack Gardner; middle, Stanley Ketchel; light heavy, Sam Langford; heavy, Jack Johnson

There was also an AP article out of New York written by Jeff Thompson that was published in that source and others on that same date (again speaking of the weight divisions being set by both the British and Americnas), and it also lists "present champion, S. Langford" for the "light heavy" class.

Does anybody have any sources that state otherwise that weren't written after, what was it 1942 when the first boxing record keeping book came out?

Yogi

08-05-2008, 07:28 PM

So I take it you're not going to believe Johnson's own account of the fight, as written in 1910 and printed in his French biography 'Mes Combat'?

"I found him one of the toughest adversaries I ever met in the ring. I weighed 190 and Langford only 138. In the second round the little negro hit me on the jaw with a terrible right hand and I fell as if upended by a cannon ball. In all my pugilistic career, not before and not afterwards, have I recieved a blow that struck me with such force. It was all I could just to get back on my feet just as the referee was about to count 'Ten!' I made it, but I assure you that I felt the effects of that punch for the rest of the fight. I recovered but I would have to take my hat off to him if I hadn't had so much science at my comment. In the fifteenth round I was declared the winner on points." - Jack Johnson

For comparision's sake to Johnson's account, here's a short description of Langford's account of their first fight as printed in the Mar 29th, 1909 edition of the New York Sun;

"If he thought he had a chance to beat me Johnson would be in England in May ready to fight. But he hasn't forgotten the time I had him practically knocked out in two rounds in Boston three years ago, when I weighed under 140 pounds. Johnson knows that I will weigh 170 if he takes me on and that I have improved a hundred per cent since our last fight. That is why he has dodged me, and you can bet he'll never take another chance with me again unless he is forced into a match by public opinion." - Sam Langford

Another account alluding to that possible 2nd round knockdown;

"I saw Langford and Johnson box two years ago in Boston. On that occasion, Langford, who weighed only 138 pounds, had Johnson down for the count in the second round. The referee took his time in counting the seconds, so that Johnson was able to recover by the time he got up. After that Johnson took no chances and won on points at the end of fifteen rounds." - famous fight mananger of the early days, Tom O'Rourke, as stated feb 5th, 1909, and printed in various sources over the next couple/few days (this taken from the Ogden Standard, Feb 8th)

Here's another similiar account;

"In 1906, Langford, then weighing only 138 pounds, had Johnson almsot out in the second round of a fifteen round bout at Chelsea, Mass. Langford in a hot mixup caught 'Little Arthur' on the point of the jaw with a terrific uppercut and down went the big colored boxer in a heap. The referee was accused of giving johnson the benefit of a 'slow count', several watch holders at the ringside declaring that the present champion was on the floor for more than fifteen seconds actual time. At any rate Johnson finally managed to regain his feet, and then boxing Langford at long range for the remaining rounds, he was declared the winner on points." - March 6th, 1909, New York Sun

With Johnson & Langford stating it themselves, as well as a couple of others stating the 2nd round knockdown happened, does that count as believable? Hmm?

Yogi

08-05-2008, 07:49 PM

"I think Sam Langford was the greatest fighter we ever had." - Jack Dempsey in Peter Heller's 'In This Corner'

"Langford was the greatest fighter who ever lived." - Joe Jeannette in an old issue of 'Boxing Illustrated

Just a couple of quick quotes from the fighters from around Langford's time, and that opinion was echoed by many different fighters of the day, including Harry Wills, Abe Atell, Frank Erne, Gunboat Smith etc., etc.

Those opinions were also echoed by many of the most famous sportswriters of the time, on this side of the pond and abroad, including two of the most famous, Hype Igoe, who proclaimed Langford the "greatest fighter, pound for pound, who ever lived" and the most famous sportswriter of them all from those early days (and possibly any day or time), Grantland Rice, who stated that Langford was "the best fighting man I ever watched".

JAB5239

08-06-2008, 12:59 AM

lum-chate

08-06-2008, 01:34 AM

You kinda have to give 10 names to in order for the system to work. There's lots of great names to choose from. I'm sure you can find more :)

6. Marciano undefeated as HW weighing @190
7. Dempsey
8. Carlos Monzon
9. Jack Johnson
10. Arguello

McGrain

08-06-2008, 10:38 AM

Great stuff from Yogi. Here's me:

01 - Sam Langford
02 - Sugar Ray Robinson
03 - Harry Greb
04 - Hank Armstrong
------------------------

I consider these four elite and feel they should make up any given four in any order.

05 - Ezzard Charles
06 - Mickey Walker
07 - Willie Pep
08 - Roberto Duran
09 - Archie Moore
10 - Bob Fitzsimmons

Yogi

08-06-2008, 03:13 PM

I'll get to some more of their mysterious ways tomorrow, starting with that other NY Times decision they gave to Jim Barry over Langford in Sept 25, 1907, which is, once again, a puzzling source selection.

As it was with that Jeannette fight I alluded to, the NY Times were very much in the minority with the opinion that Jim Barry got the better of Langford on that date quoted, and in fact, they were the only one who had that opinion (yet BoxRec uses it?). All of the other opinions of the newspapers of the time thought Langford had the best of it, including the Trenton Daily News, Washington Times, Boston Daily Globe, Chicago Daily Tribune, etc., and the following one, which is probably the most detailed account of the fight I've seen from the time;

"New York, Sept 25th--Sam Langford, of Boston, scored a victory over Jim Barry, of Chicago, at the Sharkey Athletic Club here tonight. He outpointed his opponent in every round, and several times had the Westerner in a dazed condition.

In the first the negro tripped while backing away from one of Barry's rushes and before he could recover himself Barry struck him a slight right-hand swing on the jaw and felled him. Langford got up in a jiffy and fought back fiercely.

Langford scored a clean knockdown in the second round.

When Barry got up, after he had fallen, the Boston man landed a hard right and left swing to the jaw, and while Barry was reeling from side to side, landed another terrific left-hand swing to the same spot, and Barry struck the floor with a thud.

Langford had the better of the third and fourth rounds. After they had clinched several times in the fifth, Barry landed a hard right-swing on Langford's jaw, but the latter merely grinned and retaliated by three straight jabs on his opponents face and jaw.

Barry was extremely tired and hung on to prevent being knocked out.

Barry showed signs of fatigue in the final round and was content to fight at long range. At this style Langford was much the superior, and landed three blows to Barry's one." - The Washington Herald, Sept 26th, 1907

Yogi

08-06-2008, 03:18 PM

Cheers Poet, Jab, and McGrain, and I'm glad you guys get a little bit out of this stuff no matter how anal it is of me to be posting it.

dobermann28

08-07-2008, 02:36 PM

JAB5239

08-07-2008, 02:54 PM

Hearnsz

08-07-2008, 03:56 PM

these list only have old fighters in them!!!

are modern fighters not good enough?

it seem to be we are only picking fighters from 30-50 years ago!! you all need to take your head out your asses and pick some active fighters!!!

just cos there legecy is finished dont mean they are the best!!!

The oldtimers on most people's P4P lists are either guys who fought ALOT (SRR, Armstrong, Langford, Greb, Charles), fighters who DOMINATED (Louis, Duran) and/or fighters who fought GREAT OPPOSITION (SRL, Ali, Jeffries).
(please note that I am aware of the fact that the guys who fought alot also faced crappy opposition often)

Today's fighters may seem to be fighting great opposition but their managers are very worried about their fighter's record and still protect them. There's alot of ducking.

I'm not saying current fighters are less skilled. But when you make a top10 list chances are higher that there's gonna be more fighters in it from the past 100 years than fighters from the past 5 years. That's just simple predictionmathematics. None the less I have PBF in my top10, but I'm not going to post it yet because I might still adjust it while learning from posts of Yogi, Jab, Poet etc...
The reason I have PBF in my top10 isn't because of his resume or accomplishments but looking at his skill I think he's technically the best ever.
However I do believe amazing physical specimen like Hearns and Leonard would be able to beat him with raw power and combinations.

Feel free to post your P4P list though. I'm interesting in seeing how you rank the former champions and the current ones. Everyone's views are welcome. And so is the critisism you gave btw.

dobermann28

08-07-2008, 06:09 PM

Maybe you should explain why active fighters should be ranked higher than their more accomplished counterparts?

i would base a all time p4p list on pure talent. not who they fought in what era...just pure talent!!!

and i belive alot of modern fighters are being over looked because people dont want to take a chance because the best might still be to come...

on pure talent i think modern fighters like RJJ, bernard hopkins,calzaghe,mayweather,de la hoya,castillo,pacman,berrera should be in some lists.

i just think people need to see that on talent alone we are in a better time!!!

Hearnsz

08-07-2008, 06:35 PM

i would base a all time p4p list on pure talent. not who they fought in what era...just pure talent!!!

and i belive alot of modern fighters are being over looked because people dont want to take a chance because the best might still be to come...

on pure talent i think modern fighters like RJJ, bernard hopkins,calzaghe,mayweather,de la hoya,castillo,pacman,berrera should be in some lists.

i just think people need to see that on talent alone we are in a better time!!!

Well that's kinda hard to judge as the kind of skill you need has changed over the years as boxing has evolved.
Let me elaborate:
In the old days the thinner gloves forced the fighters to clinch more because that was the only way they could rest. They couldn't just stand there and block shots with their gloves because then they would break their hands. That's why you see fighters just throw a few punches and rush in to clinch in the old fights.
Would some of the fighters have looked technically even better than Mayweather or Hopkins if they had bigger gloves? Who knows.

I can see where you are comming from though and I would probably also have more recent fighters in my list than the avarage Joe.
But guys like Yogi, JAB, Poet etc... who have alot of oldtimers in their list, also have done alot of research and know alot more than we do.
So if those guys say Sam Langford (or whoever) was, in their opinion, the greatest of all time, I'm not just going to accept it as my own opinion. But I'd deffinately find it interesting to hear out. And that's a big reason why I made this thread.

EDIT: and yes it's true that people are always saying: "damn the current scene SUCKS!", "It was alot better XX years ago!".
And then after XX years that scene finally gets the recognition it deserves. (Lennox Lewis is a great example; and Wlad will be too)

poet682006

08-08-2008, 09:08 AM

After seeing LeftHookTua's thread about the current top10 P4P I tought it would be interesting aswell to make a same kind of all-time thread.

The fighter on #1 of a person's list will get 10 points, #2 gets 9 points, ... #10 gets 1 point.

I'll update the official list every now and then.
Also feel free to comment each other's lists and the "official" one.

PS: I do realise that there are ALOT of fighters that will be chosen but some will be chosen more frequently; making the "official" p4p list relevant.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO: Give 10 different names, and only 1 name per number.

Current top10: (18 Posts: #2,3,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,18,19,21,23,25,32,48,59,60)

1. Sugar Ray Robinson (174)
2. Henry Armstrong (108)
3. Muhammad Ali (97)
4. Willie Pep (97)
5. Roberto Duràn (87)
6. Joe Louis (66)
7. Sugar Ray Leonard (59)
8. Sam Langford (56)
9. Harry Greb (45)
10. Ezzard Charles (20)

We were working on something similier on the All-Time Heavyweight thread.

BTW, your another newcomer that's really turning into a star on this forum: My hat's off to you, great work!

Poet

Hearnsz

08-08-2008, 09:24 AM

We were working on something similier on the All-Time Heavyweight thread.

BTW, your another newcomer that's really turning into a star on this forum: My hat's off to you, great work!

Poet

Thanks!
I've recently started boxing and got more interested in the history scene of the sport. So I joined this forum for the T&N / History section.
Boxing is a very unpopular sport in Belgium. People here only know Ali and Tyson. They've never heard of SRR, Louis, Dempsey...
So I'm trying to learn more because a few months ago I also didn't know those names.
Boxing is getting slightly more popular lately though because the current WW eurochamp is Belgian and because we might actually have olympic players in 2012 :D

Where's the all time heavyweight thread by the way?

JAB5239

08-08-2008, 10:09 AM

Thanks!
I've recently started boxing and got more interested in the history scene of the sport. So I joined this forum for the T&N / History section.
Boxing is a very unpopular sport in Belgium. People here only know Ali and Tyson. They've never heard of SRR, Louis, Dempsey...
So I'm trying to learn more because a few months ago I also didn't know those names.
Boxing is getting slightly more popular lately though because the current WW eurochamp is Belgian and because we might actually have olympic players in 2012 :D

Where's the all time heavyweight thread by the way?

When you click on the boxing history section, look at the very top of all the threads. It should be a "sticky".

JAB5239

08-08-2008, 10:43 AM

i would base a all time p4p list on pure talent. not who they fought in what era...just pure talent!!!

and i belive alot of modern fighters are being over looked because people dont want to take a chance because the best might still be to come...

on pure talent i think modern fighters like RJJ, bernard hopkins,calzaghe,mayweather,de la hoya,castillo,pacman,berrera should be in some lists.

i just think people need to see that on talent alone we are in a better time!!!

I have a couple of problems with, my friend. First, while ranking fighters all time is subjective, I believe its imperitive to take the era and competition into consideration. I KNOW Roy Jones was more talented than Micheal Spinks. But Spinks beat a better level of fighter over and over at 175. He PROVED he could conquer different styles from excellent fighters. Jones as talented as he was, was never subjected to the same level of talent as Spinks, therefore we have no clue how he would have responded in the same situation. Me personaly, I won't dismiss the greater accomplishments of one fighter to guess how another fighter MAY have done and rank him higher.

Next, and I may be wrong, but I don't think you have seen to much footage of many of the old time greats. While fighters like Jones, Barerra, Whitaker, Hopkins etc are fantastic, their counterparts from byegone era's were just as good and fought in tougher times, for less pay, with more professional boxers and half the overall weight classes with about a quarter of the championship belts. Fighters like Robinson, Pep, Canzoneri, Greb and Tunney also didn't have the advantages of film to study their opponents over and over. They were also 15 round fighters. And While I have no question that the before mention modern fighters could fight in any era, I also have no doubt that the greats of yesteryear would be equally good today with the advantages of fighting less often (reducing the chance of fighting injured greatly) with advancements in nutrition, and the addition of more weight classes and four times as many championship belts, as well as being able to study their opponents like a book.

You see, there is just so much more to look at when anylizing fighters. What I think a lot of fans don't understand when they see other fans rank the old timers higher is, we're not putting the fighters of today down, we atre just recognizing they are less accomplished. I don't blame that on the fighters, its the A, B, C organizations, its the money involved and a host of other things. But this doesn't mean we should dismiss the greats of the past either. Peace.

poet682006

08-08-2008, 09:06 PM

Hearnsz

08-22-2008, 06:43 AM

After watching more footage I made my personal list:

1. SRR: He had it all: speed, power, combinations, accuracy. Except his defence and oposition is questionable. Nevertheless his left hook combos are simply beautiful.
2. SRL: He fought in a time with Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez and beat them all. He mastered many different styles and even almost had a draw fighting Duran's fight. Too bad his 2 latest comebacks failed.
3. Joe Louis: His great power, accuracy and combinations allowed him to be very dominant by Kayo'ing the best and biggest men of his time. Many people say he lacked footwork but to me he seemed to be in perfect range almost all the time.
4. Ali: He also fought great oposition and beat them all. Perhaps he would be higher on my list if he was allowed to fight during his true prime. Someone needs to explain to me how he lost to Leon Spinks, though.
5. Gene Tunney: Not only did he beat Dempsey and Greb. He beat them 5 times combined. He also beat other names like Carpentier. The 10kgs he gained to go from lightheavy to heavy didn't seem to bother him at all. He was very succesful at both divisions.
6. Roberto Duràn: I've seen more footage of him now and I was impressed. He may very well have the sweetest right hand in the business as they say. Just ask Ken Buchanan and Ray Leonard. He's also a technical idol to many of today's fighters like Ricky Hatton.
7. Henry Armstrong: The master of the weight classes. He had incredible stamina aswell; he's the most active fighter I've ever seen. He's exactly what today's boxing needs. His last name is no lie, he just kept on punching.
8. Sam Langford: Or is this guy the master of the weightclasses? Perhaps I'd rank him higher if I'd seen clearer footage of him. I wish I could, too! People who say Evander Holyfield was the bravest must have not heard about Sam Langford.
9. Floyd Mayweather Jr.: Say what you want but this guy's defence is simplu amazing. And we can see that his father is Floyd Mayweather Sr not only by his name, but also by his incredible speed. Not the most exciting fighter but a true boxing fan should get hooked on his skills. Too bad he had the personality of a ten-year-old.
10. Pernell Whitaker: He has the kind of style you expect only to work against rookies. But JCC and JCV aren't rookies in my book. He's the kind of fighter that might also do great in the old days; because he didn't need to use his gloves or arms to prevent from getting hit!

My personal list will probably change soon. But there is no point in waiting to post it; because it will change again and again and again...

Hagler★

08-22-2008, 10:25 AM

1. Ali
2. SRR
3. Duran
4. Armstrong
5. Louis
6. Pep
7. SRL
8. Sweet Pea
9. Hagler
10. RJJ ( If it was based on purely talent he would be first but level of competition must be taken into acount )

closest to mine i can think of

them_apples

08-24-2008, 11:27 AM

wpink1

08-24-2008, 08:27 PM

I have a couple of problems with, my friend. First, while ranking fighters all time is subjective, I believe its imperitive to take the era and competition into consideration. I KNOW Roy Jones was more talented than Micheal Spinks. But Spinks beat a better level of fighter over and over at 175. He PROVED he could conquer different styles from excellent fighters. Jones as talented as he was, was never subjected to the same level of talent as Spinks, therefore we have no clue how he would have responded in the same situation. Me personaly, I won't dismiss the greater accomplishments of one fighter to guess how another fighter MAY have done and rank him higher.

Next, and I may be wrong, but I don't think you have seen to much footage of many of the old time greats. While fighters like Jones, Barerra, Whitaker, Hopkins etc are fantastic, their counterparts from byegone era's were just as good and fought in tougher times, for less pay, with more professional boxers and half the overall weight classes with about a quarter of the championship belts. Fighters like Robinson, Pep, Canzoneri, Greb and Tunney also didn't have the advantages of film to study their opponents over and over. They were also 15 round fighters. And While I have no question that the before mention modern fighters could fight in any era, I also have no doubt that the greats of yesteryear would be equally good today with the advantages of fighting less often (reducing the chance of fighting injured greatly) with advancements in nutrition, and the addition of more weight classes and four times as many championship belts, as well as being able to study their opponents like a book.

You see, there is just so much more to look at when anylizing fighters. What I think a lot of fans don't understand when they see other fans rank the old timers higher is, we're not putting the fighters of today down, we atre just recognizing they are less accomplished. I don't blame that on the fighters, its the A, B, C organizations, its the money involved and a host of other things. But this doesn't mean we should dismiss the greats of the past either. Peace.

What a great post.......... That aside I do think that SRR, then Ali, later Leonard, Whitackr, Jones, Mayweather did have styles that would pose major major challenges for the fighters of yesteryears. Just look at when those styles clashed in the very few chances we where able to see them

Clay - liston -----Beat him like he was his daddy.
Leonard -Duran----- when ray was smart enought to box and not go toe to toe.
Whitacker - chavez --- Everyone knows Whitacker won that fight even Chavez
Jones --- his speed and power at Middlweight in any era would almost certainly have him the odds on favorite to beat any fighter he faced..hmm monzoon had a great chance at beating him based on styles, and McClellan too. But your average shorter hard hitting straight ahead Middleweight great would not have a chance vs the instincts of a prime Roy Jones. He was faster at Middleweigh thant Leonard was at welterweight and hit hard, and was unorthodox Leonard even said himself that he, hearns, and hagler where lucky they did not have to face him. Duran told Vinny that anyone fighting Roy at that time especially moving up is simply asking for suicide...

Mayweather ----is such a good technician, that lightweight he would beat almost every figher ever, maybe duran could have done some damage, but look at how frusterated Duran was vs Leoanrd in their 2nd fight, and Leonard was not the defensive fighter Mayweather was or the technical precision counter puncher. He could counter but that is all Mayweather does. I think at welter Mayweather would be in for some beatings thought.

My top ten

Robinson'
Ali
Armstrong
Greb
SRL
Duran
Jones
Pep
Louis
Whitacker

Hearnsz

08-25-2008, 10:34 AM

I wish people would stop putting Robinson at no.1 just because Ali said he was.

Lots of fighters have done more than he and don't get any honorable mentions just because they aren't old enough.

Roy Jones needs to be up there, he went all the way from middleweight to heavyweight, dominates at both MW and LHW, takes a belt from a HW. Arguably the most skilled middleweight of all time.

SRL moved up in weight also, took on the best middleweight who was much bigger than he.

Joe Louis shouldn't even be close to this list, he's a heavyweight that lots of other good heavyweights could beat.

Last but not least, I think the most deserving character to date that needs to be up there is Roberto Duran, he jumped weight several times and still dominated, took on people twice his size and won sometimes. He also has a solid resume.

give it a few more years and Pacquiao is a serious contender whether you like it or not, Mayweather possibly..although I'm not convinced by his resume as much as Pacquiaos, I just have a feeling he'd beat a lot of the p4p fighters on most people's list from 130-147.

How can you say Duràn deffinetaly deserves a high spot and SRR doesn't? They both had similair dominant carreers. Moving up in weight and losing alot at the end by fighting at old age.
SRR fought better opponents imo than Duràn during their dominant reign.
I'm not bashing Duràn btw, he's on my personal top10 aswell!

For a long time SRL was my #1 but not long ago I realized had to give it to Robinson. I've never seen any fighter like him. He throws with great speed and power, even his combo's are so accurate that they almost always land, his footwork and timing was great.
I've seen a KO by him where he throws like 5 punches and lands them ALL. His final 2 punches was a beautiful double left hook WHILE TURNING his opponent. That's ****ing incredible.
There are lots of other great fighters like SRL who also throw alot of combos but none were as accurate as SRR. Appart from Louis' but he threw them slower.

I deffinately put Joe Louis on the list too because not only did he beat many all time greats during his carreer, he knocked them out. Sure maybe his opposition may have seemed poor but that's only because Louis' made it look poor.

The fighter that's on most people's top5 I don't agree with is Willie Pep. He barely fought good opposition until Sandy Sadler, whom he got beat by 3/4.
All my respect to Willie Pep though, I love to see him fight, but I expected more of him after all the fuss I had heard.

wpink1

08-25-2008, 02:55 PM

first off Duran did not dominate any weight classes north of lightweight. He beat Leonard in their 1st fight, by a narrow margin. 1 round scored for Leonard on 2 of the 3 judges you have a draw. Then you have duran overall record vs the best at welter, jr middle & middle standing @ 1-4. If you want 2 count Moore barkly & Leonard the 3rd fight it is 3-5.

That is not dominance.

wpink1

08-25-2008, 04:49 PM

Them apples, SRR is considered the best because he beat the best at 135, then beat the best at 147, then beat the best at 160, & realistically was beating the 175 pound champ until the heat stopped both he & the ref.

He also beat alltime greats @ one time his record was 121-1-1. , having beat the guy that beat him 5 out of 6 times. That record combined with the fact that he beat fighters such as gavilan, Armstrong, basillio, lamatta, anicott, etc. Was never stopped til that light heavy weight fight.

Who else can say that! Leonard can't, he did not campaign at any weight class above welter, even though he won titles. There. I love ray, but his detached retina shortened his career. When comparing the two who beat legends you have 2 go with Robinson when you look at his dominance over 3 weight classes two & record.

Roy jones true on talent is up there, but quality of opposition is what hurts him. Duran, is great, clearly the most dominant lightweight ever, but repeatedly got his hair combed when he ventured north vs the great of his era.

Mayweather may be undefeated but his quality of opposition @ light welter & above is weak.

poet682006

08-26-2008, 12:00 PM

How can you say Duràn deffinetaly deserves a high spot and SRR doesn't? They both had similair dominant carreers. Moving up in weight and losing alot at the end by fighting at old age.
SRR fought better opponents imo than Duràn during their dominant reign.
I'm not bashing Duràn btw, he's on my personal top10 aswell!

For a long time SRL was my #1 but not long ago I realized had to give it to Robinson. I've never seen any fighter like him. He throws with great speed and power, even his combo's are so accurate that they almost always land, his footwork and timing was great.
I've seen a KO by him where he throws like 5 punches and lands them ALL. His final 2 punches was a beautiful double left hook WHILE TURNING his opponent. That's ****ing incredible.
There are lots of other great fighters like SRL who also throw alot of combos but none were as accurate as SRR. Appart from Louis' but he threw them slower.

I deffinately put Joe Louis on the list too because not only did he beat many all time greats during his carreer, he knocked them out. Sure maybe his opposition may have seemed poor but that's only because Louis' made it look poor.

The fighter that's on most people's top5 I don't agree with is Willie Pep. He barely fought good opposition until Sandy Sadler, whom he got beat by 3/4.
All my respect to Willie Pep though, I love to see him fight, but I expected more of him after all the fuss I had heard.

Hey Rafael! You have to keep things in perspective with them_apples: He hates any fighter pre-1980 and considers them bums. He thinks a tomato can from today would be champion in yesteryear. It's funny, he says anybody who argues that an old-time fighter was better than a "modern" fighter has "old-timer bias" when in fact he himself has an obvious "modern" bias. Can we say hipocracy? Why yes, yes we can! He so full of his own bias that he doesn't even realize it IS a bias: Rather, he thinks it's the Gospel truth and anyone who doesn't share the bias is an idiot.

Poet