View Full Version : Bert Sugar Top 100 Fighters-THOUGHTS???


winky44
06-28-2009, 09:45 PM
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Wille Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson

11. Mickey Walker
12. Tony Canzoneri
13. Gene Tunney
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Joe Gans
16. Sam Langford
17. Julio Cesar Chavez
18. Jimmy Wilde
19. Stanley Ketchel
20 Barney Ross

21, Jimmy McLarnin
22. Archie Moore
23. Marcel Cerdan
24. Ezzard Charles
25. Sugar Ray Leonard
26. Joe Walcott (The original)
27. Jake LaMotta
28. Eder Jofre
29. Emile Griffith
30. Terry McGovern

31. George Foreman
32. Johnny Dundee
33. Jose Napoles
34. Pascual Perez
35. Billy Conn
36. Ruben Olivares
37. Joe Frazier
38. Tommy Loughran
39. Sandy Saddler
40. Kid Chocolate
41. Abe Attell
42. Evander Holyfield
43. George Dixon
44. Maxie Rosenbloom
45. Larry Holmes
46. Ted "Kid" Lewis
47. Marvin Hagler
48. Pernell Whitaker
49. Carlos Zarate
50. Thomas Hearns

51. Battling Nelson
52. Beau Jack
53. Ricardo ;Lopez
54. John L. Sullivan
55. Carlos Monzon
56. Alexis Arguello
57. Carmen Basillio
58. Pete Herman
59. Charley Burley
60. Ike Williams
61. Kid Gavilan
62. Jack Britton
63. Dick Tiger
64. Pancho Villa
65. Panama Al Brown
66. Bob Fitszimmons
67. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
68. Tiger Flowers
69. James J.Corbett
70. Tony Zale

71. Tommy Ryan
72. Georges Carpentier
73, Sonny Liston
74. "Kid" McCoy
75. Bob Foster
76. Freddie Welsh
77. Joe Jeanette
78. Jim Driscoll
79. Jersey Joe Walcott
80. Peter Jackson
81. Ad Wolgast
82. Jack Dempsey (The Nonpareil)
83. Manuel Ortiz
84. James J. Jeffries
85. Salvador Sanchez

86. Jimmy Barry
87. Carlos Ortiz
88. Roy Jones Jr.
89. Wilfredo Gomez
90. Aaron Pryor
91. Bernard Hopkins
92. Mike Gibbons
93. Jack Delaney
94. Johnny Kilbane
95. Willie Ritchie
96. Wilfredo Benitez
97. Packey McFarland
98. Rocky Graziano
99. Lew Jenkins
100. Mike Tyson

winky44
06-28-2009, 09:53 PM
Now post who you feel to low or to high, and who shound't be above who etc!

For me Bert has Sam Langford, Ray Leonard, Ezzard Charles, Evander Holyfield, Pernell Whitaker, Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, Alexis Arguello, Charley Burley, Ike Williams, Kid Gavilan, Sandy Saddler Bob Fitszimmons, Salvador Sanchez, Roy Jones Jr, Wilfredo Gomez, Aaron Pryor, Bernard Hopkins, Wilfredo Benitez and Mike Tyson to low and way to low.

And for me I think he may have the following to high Jack Dempsey,Jose Napoles, Billy Conn, Carlos Zarate, Tony Zale, Maxie Rosenbloom, and maybe Marcel Cerdan.

and for me bert shoundt of left out the following, felix trinidad, michael spinks, azumah nelson, maybe de la hoya, Eusebio Pedroza, maybe Antonio Cervantes and probs a few more!

Discuss on who you think is to low and who is to high and who bert missed out!

MissDeeCole
06-28-2009, 10:01 PM
such an awful list, and the book that explains it is even worse. it way too heavily favors pre modern fighters.

winky44
06-28-2009, 10:06 PM
such an awful list, and the book that explains it is even worse. it way too heavily favors pre modern fighters.

you got the book? and you do you feel is to low and who is to high?

bklynboy
06-28-2009, 10:07 PM
Yeah. I can't see Dempsey in the top 10. Nor can I see Tyson at 100. Tyson's self-destruction weighed way too heavy in Bert Sugar's mind. And as much I'm having trouble figuring out who I definitely would put above Dempsey I don't see how he did enough to be placed so high.

cotto16
06-28-2009, 10:10 PM
He has monzon and whitaker far to low, were is felix trinindad and nassem hamed?

bklynboy
06-28-2009, 10:25 PM
He has monzon and whitaker far to low, were is felix trinindad and nassem hamed?

With all due respect I can't see Hamed in the top 100 and Felix Trinidad is not a sure thing. Trinidad was excellent but he is not a sure thing top 100 fighter. Where would you place him among Welterweights? Do you have him crack the top 10 all-time?

Southpaw16BF
06-28-2009, 10:35 PM
With all due respect I can't see Hamed in the top 100 and Felix Trinidad is not a sure thing. Trinidad was excellent but he is not a sure thing top 100 fighter. Where would you place him among Welterweights? Do you have him crack the top 10 all-time?

To be honest I think Trinidad is more that worthy of a top 100 spot.

Resume Of Wins
Hector Camacho
Luis Ramon Campas (56-0)
Oba Carr (32-0)
Pernell Whitaker
Oscar De La Hoya (31-0)
David Reid (14-0)
Fernando Vargas (20-0)
Ricardo Mayorga

3 Weight Divsion World Champion
Made 15 defences of IBF Welterweight Title
Fought Virtually all the era's best.
Was Number #1 P4P Best Fighter In The World.
Unifed 147 and 154 Champion as well as a winning a Title at 160

bklynboy
06-28-2009, 11:01 PM
To be honest I think Trinidad is more that worthy of a top 100 spot.

Resume Of Wins
Hector Camacho
Luis Ramon Campas (56-0)
Oba Carr (32-0)
Pernell Whitaker
Oscar De La Hoya (31-0)
David Reid (14-0)
Fernando Vargas (20-0)
Ricardo Mayorga

3 Weight Divsion World Champion
Made 15 defences of IBF Welterweight Title
Fought Virtually all the era's best.
Was Number #1 P4P Best Fighter In The World.
Unifed 147 and 154 Champion as well as a winning a Title at 160

Yeah, I was refreshing my memory on boxrec but I think that once you get past the top 3-5 welterweights of all time the next 10 are close to each other. I was a Trinidad fan and rooted for him against de la Hoya. But, as an example, de la Hoya would have won that fight if he didn't run for the last three rounds. Again, I like Trinidad, but I'll pose the same question: where does he place among Welterweights?

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 12:07 AM
Bert is always very, very harsh on modern boxers. I think it's obvious that he prefers the earlier eras to the ones that followed.

I think he put Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins, Monzon, Sanchez and Lopez too low.

And I also think that Conn, Zale, Dempsey, Cerdan and Napoles are too high.

Kinetic Linking
06-29-2009, 12:14 AM
dempsey was the greatest single attraction in the history of sports for a reason, you can't have him high enough in my opinion.

As for the book as a whole, I wouldn't deny there's an obvious bias toward older era fighters. However, one thing I liked about that is you get to learn about some great, great fighters that you might not have heard of.

For instance, I hadn't heard about the first joe walcott until I read that book. He was practically a midget who could practically kick anyone of any size's ass.

D-MiZe
06-29-2009, 12:19 AM
Hagler 47?

Arguably the best Middleweight ever is near the bottom half.

:?!:

winky44
06-29-2009, 12:20 AM
dempsey was the greatest single attraction in the history of sports for a reason, you can't have him high enough in my opinion.

As for the book as a whole, I wouldn't deny there's an obvious bias toward older era fighters. However, one thing I liked about that is you get to learn about some great, great fighters that you might not have heard of.

For instance, I hadn't heard about the first joe walcott until I read that book. He was practically a midget who could practically kick anyone of any size's ass.

yeah but you cant just have him that high due to being a draw! dempsey was great fighter in his day, but should he be as high as fighters like whitaker and monzon? i dont think so!

Thread Stealer
06-29-2009, 01:35 AM
The most glaring omission is Michael Spinks.

Spinks is only one of the greatest light-heavyweights of all-time, who became the lineal heavyweight champion after that.

BennyST
06-29-2009, 09:27 AM
Why do people think Napoles at 33 is too high? He is generally considered one of the top three WW's of all time, if not the best right behind Ray Robinson. The guy was an incredible fighter and had probably the greatest WW title run of any fighter in history, and that includes Robinson. That is certainly arguable, but many people think that.

Don't forget that Napoles was the unified champion and stayed as such for seven years! He made about thirteen defenses of that unified WW championship, losing it once to Billy Bachus and regaining straight away by a fourth round KO. He also went up and challenged for the middleweight title against Monzon but came up short and eventually lost it to John Stracey, retiring after that fight with a record of 79-7-0.

He also beat many legendary fighters like Griffith, Cokes, Gray, Muniz, Lewis, etc. Really great champion.

bklynboy
06-29-2009, 10:58 AM
dempsey was the greatest single attraction in the history of sports for a reason, you can't have him high enough in my opinion.

As for the book as a whole, I wouldn't deny there's an obvious bias toward older era fighters. However, one thing I liked about that is you get to learn about some great, great fighters that you might not have heard of.

For instance, I hadn't heard about the first joe walcott until I read that book. He was practically a midget who could practically kick anyone of any size's ass.

Yes he was a phenomenal draw, the biggest name in sports at the time, but he had few title defenses after defeating Willard and lost twice to Tunney who is rated lower than him.

GJC
06-29-2009, 11:03 AM
Sugar is as entitled to his opinion as anyone on this site. I wouldn't personally give his list any more weight than a lot of others.
Thing when you do these lists is how you weight it, if it is a who beats who p4p top hundred or do you take their historical significance into account?
Historical significance puts Jack Johnson and Dempsey a lot higher than who beats who.

mickey malone
06-29-2009, 03:29 PM
Seen worst lists.. Think he's placed a few personal favs above the facts..
Putting Tyson at the bottom has been done purely for childish reasons..
Canzonari at no12 is peculiar to.. In general, littered with mediocrity..
Especially towards the end..

winky44
06-29-2009, 03:32 PM
Seen worst lists.. Think he's placed a few personal favs above the facts..
Putting Tyson at the bottom has been done purely for childish reasons..
Canzonari at no12 is peculiar to.. In general, littered with mediocrity..
Especially towards the end..

name some names who you feel are to low, and explain for saying canzonari being to high!

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 04:30 PM
Sugar is as entitled to his opinion as anyone on this site. I wouldn't personally give his list any more weight than a lot of others.
Thing when you do these lists is how you weight it, if it is a who beats who p4p top hundred or do you take their historical significance into account?
Historical significance puts Jack Johnson and Dempsey a lot higher than who beats who.

True enough.

Though I do have a bit of a problem whenever I see anybody (especially a Historian like Sugar) compiling a list of the "100 Greatest Fighters Of All Time", and giving the guys with more historical significance higher spots than the guys who would likely beat them in the ring.

For me, if you want to do a list that factors in historical significance ; Do the "Top 100 Fighters of Historical Significane" list.

It's not entirely fair to dismiss the historical significance of a Joe Louis, or a Jack Johnson either

But you could also argue it's not fair to bump down guys who'd beat them head to head, just because of their significance.

(For the record, I don't think anybody beats Louis head to head and I think he deserves his spot. But I can think of a few who I think could take Johnson in a head to head, and were greater Champions but less significant historically.)

GJC
06-29-2009, 06:15 PM
True enough.

Though I do have a bit of a problem whenever I see anybody (especially a Historian like Sugar) compiling a list of the "100 Greatest Fighters Of All Time", and giving the guys with more historical significance higher spots than the guys who would likely beat them in the ring.

For me, if you want to do a list that factors in historical significance ; Do the "Top 100 Fighters of Historical Significane" list.

It's not entirely fair to dismiss the historical significance of a Joe Louis, or a Jack Johnson either

But you could also argue it's not fair to bump down guys who'd beat them head to head, just because of their significance.

(For the record, I don't think anybody beats Louis head to head and I think he deserves his spot. But I can think of a few who I think could take Johnson in a head to head, and were greater Champions but less significant historically.)
Guess for publishing and interest purposes people who publish these books will try and cover a variety of eras. For example you may think that all modern fighters will beat all fighters before them but I guess to list 90 fighters in the currentish era probably wouldn't get a lot of interest due to the lack of variety.
I kind of do a mix myself and probably put Johnson and Dempsey higher than others due to their impact, I like to think I acknowledge the new too.
But I'm an old man so you'll have to forgive me

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 06:30 PM
Guess for publishing and interest purposes people who publish these books will try and cover a variety of eras. For example you may think that all modern fighters will beat all fighters before them but I guess to list 90 fighters in the currentish era probably wouldn't get a lot of interest due to the lack of variety.
I kind of do a mix myself and probably put Johnson and Dempsey higher than others due to their impact, I like to think I acknowledge the new too.
But I'm an old man so you'll have to forgive me

Don't get me wrong ; I'm not one of these "modern athletes are teh awesome!!!!!!" types who thinks that the fighters of today are leaps and bounds beyond their counterparts of yesteryear.

I'm just saying that on a whole ; I think Sugar is one of many boxing historians who prefers to rank historical significance over anything else.

I don't have many issues with his list, aside from the few points I've already mentioned.

Overall ; Anybody's list of the "top 100" is going to get **** on in one way or another. Because you're always going to omit someone, or rank one person too highly, or too low based on intangibles, etc...

It's a hard thing to do ; which is why I've never posted my "top 100". :lol1:

I just think that Sugar doesn't give enough credit to some of the more "modern" legends, due to a lack of historical significance.

You are right though ; you've got to strike a balance for the reader. I can't imagine too many people picking up a list like that these days and instantly recognizing some of the more recent legends.

If boxing were still on primetime television, that'd be a much different story.

But that's another debate, for another time.

GJC
06-29-2009, 06:43 PM
Don't get me wrong ; I'm not one of these "modern athletes are teh awesome!!!!!!" types who thinks that the fighters of today are leaps and bounds beyond their counterparts of yesteryear.

I'm just saying that on a whole ; I think Sugar is one of many boxing historians who prefers to rank historical significance over anything else.

I don't have many issues with his list, aside from the few points I've already mentioned.

Overall ; Anybody's list of the "top 100" is going to get **** on in one way or another. Because you're always going to omit someone, or rank one person too highly, or too low based on intangibles, etc...

It's a hard thing to do ; which is why I've never posted my "top 100". :lol1:

I just think that Sugar doesn't give enough credit to some of the more "modern" legends, due to a lack of historical significance.

You are right though ; you've got to strike a balance for the reader. I can't imagine too many people picking up a list like that these days and instantly recognizing some of the more recent legends.

If boxing were still on primetime television, that'd be a much different story.

But that's another debate, for another time.
I personally don't rate Sugar's opinion too highly. He has been fortunate enough to see a lot of fights live over a long period of time but don't rate him too much.
My favourite boxing writer is Hugh Mcilvanney though I not sure how well known he is in America?
New fellow I have been reading is Jim McNeill just finished his book That night at the garden and started They could've been contenders. Recommend both, maybe the Scots have a talent for writing about boxing god knows they love a fight :)

GJC
06-29-2009, 06:44 PM
Oh and the you I referred to was a genral you not directed at your good self. :)

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 06:46 PM
I personally don't rate Sugar's opinion too highly. He has been fortunate enough to see a lot of fights live over a long period of time but don't rate him too much.
My favourite boxing writer is Hugh Mcilvanney though I not sure how well known he is in America?
New fellow I have been reading is Jim McNeill just finished his book That night at the garden and started They could've been contenders. Recommend both, maybe the Scots have a talent for writing about boxing god knows they love a fight :)

I'm going to check out those writers, thanks for the information. :fing02:

Sugar is widely considered the foremost authority on boxing here in America ; for better, or worse.

Overall ; I like him a lot. I love hearing his stories and insight into fights that took place long before I drew my first breath. And he's a pretty good writer in his own respect.

The only real beef I have with him is what I touched on earlier.

GJC
06-29-2009, 06:58 PM
I'm going to check out those writers, thanks for the information. :fing02:

Sugar is widely considered the foremost authority on boxing here in America ; for better, or worse.

Overall ; I like him a lot. I love hearing his stories and insight into fights that took place long before I drew my first breath. And he's a pretty good writer in his own respect.

The only real beef I have with him is what I touched on earlier.
I'll always read Sugar like I did Fleischer before him just think that sometimes their writing becomes more them than the fighters. McNeil is new to me but both books are very good, Mcilvanney has been writing in papers for years and done a few documentaries. Do believe there is a compendium of his on boxing I have it but can't lay my hands on it at the moment, very good though you will enjoy it. In this corner by Peter Heller is a great book too, I keep mentioning it people must think I have shares in it! If you haven't read it, do, it is superb.

Mr. Chago
06-29-2009, 07:30 PM
Tyson No. 100???!!!

WTF, can't believe he puts him last when he made a tremendous impact on the sport...any other fighter who enters the list would put Tyson out of the Top 100...nonsense...

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 07:33 PM
I'll always read Sugar like I did Fleischer before him just think that sometimes their writing becomes more them than the fighters. McNeil is new to me but both books are very good, Mcilvanney has been writing in papers for years and done a few documentaries. Do believe there is a compendium of his on boxing I have it but can't lay my hands on it at the moment, very good though you will enjoy it. In this corner by Peter Heller is a great book too, I keep mentioning it people must think I have shares in it! If you haven't read it, do, it is superb.

The bolded part is very, very true of Sugar. Fleischer I cannot comment on at the moment, but that's the best take I've ever heard on Bert. :fing02:

"In This Corner" has been spoken of quite highly around here, I plan on picking it up on amazon or ebay just as soon as work picks up ; it's coming my way highly reccomended.

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 07:35 PM
Oh and the you I referred to was a genral you not directed at your good self. :)

I wasn't sure if it was, I just felt I needed to point out that I'm not a typical 23 year old NSB'er. :lol1:

McGoorty
09-11-2011, 10:37 PM
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Wille Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson

11. Mickey Walker
12. Tony Canzoneri
13. Gene Tunney
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Joe Gans
16. Sam Langford
17. Julio Cesar Chavez
18. Jimmy Wilde
19. Stanley Ketchel
20 Barney Ross

21, Jimmy McLarnin
22. Archie Moore
23. Marcel Cerdan
24. Ezzard Charles
25. Sugar Ray Leonard
26. Joe Walcott (The original)
27. Jake LaMotta
28. Eder Jofre
29. Emile Griffith
30. Terry McGovern

31. George Foreman
32. Johnny Dundee
33. Jose Napoles
34. Pascual Perez
35. Billy Conn
36. Ruben Olivares
37. Joe Frazier
38. Tommy Loughran
39. Sandy Saddler
40. Kid Chocolate
41. Abe Attell
42. Evander Holyfield
43. George Dixon
44. Maxie Rosenbloom
45. Larry Holmes
46. Ted "Kid" Lewis
47. Marvin Hagler
48. Pernell Whitaker
49. Carlos Zarate
50. Thomas Hearns

51. Battling Nelson
52. Beau Jack
53. Ricardo ;Lopez
54. John L. Sullivan
55. Carlos Monzon
56. Alexis Arguello
57. Carmen Basillio
58. Pete Herman
59. Charley Burley
60. Ike Williams
61. Kid Gavilan
62. Jack Britton
63. Dick Tiger
64. Pancho Villa
65. Panama Al Brown
66. Bob Fitszimmons
67. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
68. Tiger Flowers
69. James J.Corbett
70. Tony Zale

71. Tommy Ryan
72. Georges Carpentier
73, Sonny Liston
74. "Kid" McCoy
75. Bob Foster
76. Freddie Welsh
77. Joe Jeanette
78. Jim Driscoll
79. Jersey Joe Walcott
80. Peter Jackson
81. Ad Wolgast
82. Jack Dempsey (The Nonpareil)
83. Manuel Ortiz
84. James J. Jeffries
85. Salvador Sanchez

86. Jimmy Barry
87. Carlos Ortiz
88. Roy Jones Jr.
89. Wilfredo Gomez
90. Aaron Pryor
91. Bernard Hopkins
92. Mike Gibbons
93. Jack Delaney
94. Johnny Kilbane
95. Willie Ritchie
96. Wilfredo Benitez
97. Packey McFarland
98. Rocky Graziano
99. Lew Jenkins
100. Mike Tyson
A Pathetic list........ what about the names he completely ignored............ There is a GLARING OMISSION IN THERE....... A TOTAL OUTRAGE......... EEERRRRAAAAAAAAHhhhgh... &8**$@@##@!HF9++.;'&......... you know what ???? I think it sucks.

Capaedia
09-12-2011, 02:52 AM
Dempsey at 9th place, and Langford at 16th?

Chavez only a single place behind Langford??

Liston 19 places behind Sullivan???

:bsflag:

(I figured McGoorty was outraged enough by Darcy's omission for me to skip over it. Enough anger and confusion for the both of us)

McGoorty
09-12-2011, 11:45 AM
Dempsey at 9th place, and Langford at 16th?

Chavez only a single place behind Langford??

Liston 19 places behind Sullivan???

:bsflag:

(I figured McGoorty was outraged enough by Darcy's omission for me to skip over it. Enough anger and confusion for the both of us)
Thanks,..... but it's far more than one guy missing out. I think someone like Mike Gibbons is a terrific fighter, but he was almost insignificant alongside Darcy,.... and think about this,.. I'm no fan of Tyson's, but only a madman would say that Mike Gibbons is a greater fighter than Tyson Mike ????........ And if I go through it I'll find dozens of cases like that. As for those that missed out,... you could argue for at least 30, totally not even on his short list. By the way, it seems like he had a short list of around 140 names....... talk about a rush job....... He must have had a grudge to miss Darcy's name,

SirTomJones
09-12-2011, 11:57 AM
At least Jimmy Wilde is on the list.

18th,

raf727
09-12-2011, 11:59 AM
Billy Conn at 35??!?! Evander in the 40s?!?"!

McGoorty
09-12-2011, 12:39 PM
At least Jimmy Wilde is on the list.

18th,
Bert was astute on that one,........ but he's 90% wrong. Wilde belongs around that mark.... but Mike Gibbons ??????

McGoorty
09-12-2011, 12:41 PM
Billy Conn at 35??!?! Evander in the 40s?!?"!
Conn is a tough one to get anywhere near right....... Holyfield at least 30 spots too high.