what your 10 greatest


1.rocky marciano
2.sugar ray robinson
3.mike tyson
4.sugar ray leonard
5.muhammed ali
6.willie pep
7.joe luis
8.henry armstrong
9.roberto duran
10.Ezzard Charles

what your 10 greatest


1.rocky marciano
2.sugar ray robinson
3.mike tyson
4.sugar ray leonard
5.muhammed ali
6.willie pep
7.joe luis
8.henry armstrong
9.roberto duran
10.Ezzard Charles

First off take Marciano off that list. He was barely a top ten hw, let alone a top ten fighter. Ali shouldn't be lower than three, and armstrong is too low.

First off take Marciano off that list. He was barely a top ten hw, let alone a top ten fighter. Ali shouldn't be lower than three, and armstrong is too low.
firts off shut your face i didnt ask what you thought about my list i asked you what your list was moron

firts off shut your face i didnt ask what you thought about my list i asked you what your list was moron

Before you call someone a moron, learn some boxing. No idiot in their right mind would put marciano in any p4p list.

Before you call someone a moron, learn some boxing. No idiot in their right mind would put marciano in any p4p list.
lol P4P list were to classify all the other weights besides heavi...
to technically Ali shouldnt even be there either

lol P4P list were to classify all the other weights besides heavi...
to technically Ali shouldnt even be there either

No, p4p means any weight class including heavies.

No, p4p means any weight class including heavies.
it was originally thought of, to equalize the ranks in their boxing avilities, because they "would not be able to beat a heavy."

"It is often said to have been created to describe world Welterweight and Middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson, the most accomplished fighter of the modern era, by supporters who realized that while he could beat anyone in his own class, as a Middleweight he would not be able to beat a top Heavyweight. Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him."

1.Ray Robinson
2.Willie Pep
3.Henry Armstrong
4.Harry Greb
5.Benny Leonard
6.Joe Louis
7.Muhammad Ali
8.Jack Dempsey
9.Roberto Duran
10.Mickey Walker

First off take Marciano off that list. He was barely a top ten hw, let alone a top ten fighter. Ali shouldn't be lower than three, and armstrong is too low.

It's his opinion!So what?While I don't rank Marciano in the top ten.I certainly rank him in the top twenty,and im not alone on that one.Marciano is easily a top ten heavyweight on almost everyone's list except haters.We can fantasy what would happen if Marciano faced Foreman,Ali,ETC.But we'll never know.The man's accomplishments speak for themselves.

Before you call someone a moron, learn some boxing. No idiot in their right mind would put marciano in any p4p list.

marciano was a heavywieght yes, but at 185-190lbs he was very light despite this he has the highest knockout-fight ratio of any champ in ANY weight class and was the only champion in any weight class to retire undefeated, so he could very well be in the top en P4p list. it is very hard to compare fighters of different weights, heavyweights will always be more powerful and strawweights will always be quicker.

what i cant believe is that you say that no idiot in their right mind would but marciano in the top ten and yet you say ali 205-220lbs should be 3 or better even though he is 20lbs heavier! do you really believe ali is THAT much better than marciano?

I don't know lots about boxing history especially compared to other guys here so don't jump down my throat if you don't like what I put.

BTW, this is in no specific order.

1.) Joe Louis
2.) Muhammad Ali
3.) Sugar Ray Robinson
4.) George Foreman
5.) Joe Frazier
6.) Jack Dempsey
7.) Jack Johnson
8.) Sugar Ray Leanard
9.) Rocky Marciano
10.) Valeuv Nicolay...I'm serious.











:D

if i can count howmany times this has been done i would be a quadillionaire :D

Top 10s and stuff are no good. Its kinda dissrespectfull because you cant put the other greats in a list like that, even though they deserve it. Every fighter has his time and place in history. Making Top 10s is a waste of time.

1) Ray Robinson
2) Muhammad Ali
3) Willie Pep
4) Joe Louis
5) Harry Greb
6) Jack Johnson
7) Jack Dempsey
8) Roberto Duran
9) Joe Frazier
10)Larry Holmes

As you can see, I'm a heavyweight junkie :)

Today...here's my list:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Hank Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Harry Greb
5. Roberto Duran
6. Robert Fitzsimmons
7. Sam Langford
8. Benny Leonard
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Micky Walker

heres my list :
1) joe louis
2) ray robinson
3) eder jofre
4) roberto duran (always have a tough time putting jofre ahead of duran - but it has to be done)
5) willie pep
6) joe gans
7) benny leonard
8) ezzard charles
9) homicide hank armstrong

...and finally....
10) carlos monzon

i know it's somewhat of a homer pick, but the man was brilliant. had a knack for keeping his opponents on the outside and tying up when he was losing his advantages on the inside. he was a great pugilist - underated because of his punch and his boxing style (which was very unorthodox).

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Harry Greb
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Joe Gans
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Benny Leonard
10. Ray Leonard

marciano was a heavywieght yes, but at 185-190lbs he was very light despite this he has the highest knockout-fight ratio of any champ in ANY weight class and was the only champion in any weight class to retire undefeated, so he could very well be in the top en P4p list. it is very hard to compare fighters of different weights, heavyweights will always be more powerful and strawweights will always be quicker.

what i cant believe is that you say that no idiot in their right mind would but marciano in the top ten and yet you say ali 205-220lbs should be 3 or better even though he is 20lbs heavier! do you really believe ali is THAT much better than marciano?

as p4p goes ricardo finito lopez retired as undefeated champion too!!
marciano was the only heavyweight champion to reire undefeated!!

Heavyweighters


5. Vitali Klitscho-highest KO percentage in history

4. Riddick Bowe only official loss was to holfield and Bowe beat him twice

3. Evander Holyfield Gladiator/fearless/ never ducked a fight

2. Mike Tyson- baddest man on the planet

1. Lennox Lewis- retired a champion with money in the bank and the majority of his brain cells. How many boxers can say that without BBQing their heads in a plane crash?

18 title defenses, beat every man he ever faced


The other 5 in order of weight class

Feather: Willie Pep
Light: Roberto Duran
Welter: Henry Armstrong
Middle: Sugar Ray robinson my #1 over all
Middle-Heavy: James Toney

Heavyweighters


5. Vitali Klitscho-highest KO percentage in history

4. Riddick Bowe only official loss was to holfield and Bowe beat him twice

3. Evander Holyfield Gladiator/fearless/ never ducked a fight

2. Mike Tyson- baddest man on the planet

1. Lennox Lewis- retired a champion with money in the bank and the majority of his brain cells. How many boxers can say that without BBQing their heads in a plane crash?

18 title defenses, beat every man he ever faced


The other 5 in order of weight class

Feather: Willie Pep
Light: Roberto Duran
Welter: Henry Armstrong
Middle: Sugar Ray robinson my #1 over all
Middle-Heavy: James Toney

Wow. Didn't you ever see a pre-Tyson heavyweight? That is hilarious.

Wow. Didn't you ever see a pre-Tyson heavyweight? That is hilarious.

Yeah, that list is pretty funny.

Yeah, that list is pretty funny.

Not as funny as your Ali nut drewling list of fighters ;)

Not as funny as your Ali nut drewling list of fighters ;)

And what list is that, might I ask?

No idiot in their right mind would put marciano in any p4p list.

Like the "idiot" who goes by the name of Angelo Dundee?

"I don't think anyone can argue that the following fighters must rate as the cream of the crop: Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tony Canzoneri, Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, and Rocky Marciano." - Dundee

Not that I'd put Marciano in there myself (all-time p4p...maybe around 30th to 40th, or thereabouts), but...the other guy isn't alone in his giving the high position to Marciano anyways.

Not as funny as your Ali nut drewling list of fighters ;)

Any list with Vitali in the top 5, is a disgrace. Therefore, it is A LOT more funny than any list Butterfly complies.

Any list with Vitali in the top 5, is a disgrace. Therefore, it is A LOT more funny than any list Butterfly complies.

Greatest big men boxer, maybe? There is a list for everyone.

Any list with Vitali in the top 5, is a disgrace. Therefore, it is A LOT more funny than any list Butterfly complies.


If you name a Heavyweight who got knocked down less than Vitali then I will admit to my list being funny.

Roy Jones Jr
Roy Robinson
Ray Leonard
Muhammad Ali
Joe Frazier
Floyd Mayweather Jr
Oscar De La Hoya
Bernard Hopkins
Marvin Hagler
Meldrick Taylor

No Particular Order. Xcept Roy being #1 and DO NOT burn me Beause of that.

1. Rocky Marciano
2. Joe Frazier
3. Joe Louis
4. Roberto Duran
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Thomas Hearns
7. Marvin Hagler
8. Nigel Benn
9. Bernard Hopkins
10. Mike Tyson

If you name a Heavyweight who got knocked down less than Vitali then I will admit to my list being funny.

George Chuvalo - Never knocked down and fought many more fights than Vitali and against better opposition.

1.Rocky Marciano
2.Joe Frazier
3.Muhammad Ali
4.Joe Louis
5.Evander Holyfield
6.Jersey Joe Walcott
7.Ezzard Charles
8.George Foreman
9.Mike Tyson
10.Archie Moore

1.Rocky Marciano
2.Joe Frazier
3.Muhammad Ali
4.Joe Louis
5.Evander Holyfield
6.Jersey Joe Walcott
7.Ezzard Charles
8.George Foreman
9.Mike Tyson
10.Archie Moore

Why put frazier above Foreman and Ali?

Well when it comes to Frazier and Ali, I think the first fight was the best way to tell which was better, because they were both in ther prime. In the second fight Frazier wasn't in peak condition, and in the third he was past his prime as was Ali. As for Foreman....well I just didn't think that one out too well lol.

Well when it comes to Frazier and Ali, I think the first fight was the best way to tell which was better, because they were both in ther prime. In the second fight Frazier wasn't in peak condition, and in the third he was past his prime as was Ali. As for Foreman....well I just didn't think that one out too well lol.

You have to remember that Ali was coming off a 3 year lay off and hadn't had proper time to warm up before the 1st Frazier fight. Ali was far from in his prime for that fight. And you can't really put frazier ahead of Foreman. Career accomplishments and head to head all favour Foreman.

Well when it comes to Frazier and Ali, I think the first fight was the best way to tell which was better, because they were both in ther prime. In the second fight Frazier wasn't in peak condition, and in the third he was past his prime as was Ali. As for Foreman....well I just didn't think that one out too well lol.

Ali was past his prime in all three frazier fights. :rolleyes:

George Chuvalo - Never knocked down and fought many more fights than Vitali and against better opposition.


lol Look at your sig man! How can you type something like that with Foremans bright, shiney, bald head staring at you everytime you post?

Chuvalo, barely conscious, wimpering in fear in the corner of the ring, is the 2nd most pathetic sight in boxing history.

Oliver mccall crying is the only thing worst.

Chuvalo, barely conscious, wimpering in fear in the corner of the ring, is the 2nd most pathetic sight in boxing history.

He was still standing.

1)Sugar Ray Robinson
2)Sam Langford
3)Harry greb
4)Roberto Duran
5)Henry Armstrong
6)Joe Gans
7)Willie Pep
8)Ezzard Charles
9)Muhammad Ali
10)Sugar Ray leonard

Well when it comes to Frazier and Ali, I think the first fight was the best way to tell which was better, because they were both in ther prime. In the second fight Frazier wasn't in peak condition, and in the third he was past his prime as was Ali. As for Foreman....well I just didn't think that one out too well lol.

Everyone gets this twisted. In the second fight Frazier wasn't in his peak, but he was no further over the hill then Ali was... and the same applies to the third fight. In the first fight Ali was underprepared, infact ferdie pacheo made a concerted effort to stop Ali fighting Frazier so soon. Less then a year after his layoff, after two fights in which he looked rusty in he was fighting an absolutely determined Joe Frazier at his best. Regardless of this Ali was still a brilliant fighter and fought a very good fight, it took every ounce of Frazier's ability to beat Ali that night and as a result he was never the same again. Ali was NOT at his peak... his legs wern't what they were, his hands had slowed slightly, and most importantly his conditioning and ability to move and keep up a torrid pace had erroded significantly. Frazier would always give Ali trouble and was capable of beating any version of Ali. In a trilogy against Ali in 67' i see Frazier winning the first fight and such a loosing experience being the learning curve required for Ali to suceed in the next two fights... just as it happened in the 70's.

Well when it comes to Frazier and Ali, I think the first fight was the best way to tell which was better, because they were both in ther prime. In the second fight Frazier wasn't in peak condition, and in the third he was past his prime as was Ali. As for Foreman....well I just didn't think that one out too well lol.

Even if Frazier was capable of beating ali 5/5 times does that make him the better fighter? ahhh no.... it merely means he was capable of beating him.

If you name a Heavyweight who got knocked down less than Vitali then I will admit to my list being funny.

So not getting put on your ass is the criteria for being a top ten fighter these days? We now have a ****load of young pro's who are potentially top 10 fighters.

my list:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Joe Louis
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Willie Pep
6. Harry Greb
7. Roberto Duran
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Joe Frazier
10. Sugar Ray Leonard

Are we talking personal favorites or who we think actually are p4p the greatest fighters of all time?

1. Ray Robinson
2. Hank Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Sam Langford
5. Robert Fitzsimmons
6. Harry Greb
7. Ezzard Charles
8. Roberto Duran
9. Mickey Walker
10. Roy Jones Jr.


PS. I usually don't list any natural heavyweights on p4p lists because they get enough acclaim as it is and p4p rankings were originally designed to give smaller fighters their credit. Also, Jones is a recent addition to my All-Time list and I'm still trying to get comfortable with the idea of him being there; but his phenomenal talent can't be denied and it is easy for me to envision him giving any great who ever lived a run for their money in the ring based on his actual ring accomplishments, disappointments not withstanding.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Aaron Pryor
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Ray Leonard
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Marvin Hagler
7. Tony Zale
8. Ray Robinson
9. Roberto Duran
10. Mike Tyson


I might have a slightly different list if I gave it more thought, with the exception of the #1 posistion; but this is close enough for now.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Aaron Pryor
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Ray Leonard
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Marvin Hagler
7. Tony Zale
8. Ray Robinson
9. Roberto Duran
10. Mike Tyson


I might have a slightly different list if I gave it more thought, with the exception of the #1 posistion; but this is close enough for now.Dog, didn't realize you were a Pryor fan. Check your personal e-mail, I'm sending something your way.

Dog, didn't realize you were a Pryor fan. Check your personal e-mail, I'm sending something your way.

I'll have to do it later; but thank you in advance. :)

Yeah, I love Pryor. He had such a hard life growing up, probably didnt' get the breaks he should have as a prol....and the way he fought, with that chip on his shoulder. If you knocked him down, you just pissed him off, and he'd get up with more grit and determination to knock you out than he had before the fight started. I just love that...he had heart.

One of my favorite quotes from a boxing writer whose name escapes me at the moment, spoke of Pryor this way: He was the type of guy if you knocked him down, he'd get up, spit in your eye, and kick your ass.

How can you not love that?

One of my favorite quotes from a boxing writer whose name escapes me at the moment, spoke of Pryor this way: He was the type of guy if you knocked him down, he'd get up, spit in your eye, and kick your ass.

How can you not love that?
That was Buddy Larosa Pryor's manager.

I spent two weeks at Pryor's training camp in June 1984 when he trained for Nicky Furlano. Spoke with Aaron numerous times and took several pictures. I have e-mailed you some of the pictures.

Pryor was one of my all time favourite fighters.

That was Buddy Larosa Pryor's manager.

I spent two weeks at Pryor's training camp in June 1984 when he trained for Nicky Furlano. Spoke with Aaron numerous times and took several pictures. I have e-mailed you some of the pictures.

Pryor was one of my all time favourite fighters.

Larosa! That's it!! Thanks...and thanks for the Photos!!! Too cool! :D

Also, Jones is a recent addition to my All-Time list and I'm still trying to get comfortable with the idea of him being there;

I like your list better with Benny Leonard included on there, but that's just me. Also, it's nice to see Langford move up a few spots on your list.


My favourite fighters in a historical sense;

Flyweight - Umm...Benny Lynch & Newsboy Brown, I guess, as I've argued/defended both of them in the past and on a couple/few occasions. Jimmy Barry, too. Yoko Gushiken & Jung Koo Chang are a couple of more contemporary favourites

Bantamweight - George Dixon, Terry McGovern, and Johnny Coulon. Jeff Chandler a more modern favourite.

Featherweight - Alexis Arguello and Kid Chocolate. Like most everyone else, I'm a big fan of the Pacquiao, Barrera and Morales battles.

Lightweight - Ike Williams, Tony Canzoneri, Henry Armstrong, Carlos Ortiz, Battling Nelson, Beau Jack, etc...The lightweights are my favourite division in a historical sense and following/watching the mid 80's lightweight scene (pre-Whitaker, post-Arguello) was probably my the most fun I had following the sport in my lifetime.

Welterweight - Jimmy McLarnin, Kid Gavilan, Jose Napoles, Wilfred Benitez, and Billy Graham.

Middleweight - Marvin Hagler, Marcel Cerdan, Freddie Steele, Nonpareil Jack Dempsey, and Panama Joe Gans.

Light Heavyweight - Sam Langford, Ezzard Charles, Matthew Saad Muhammad, and Harold Johnson. Donny Lalonde deserves mention, as that's the only semi-famous fighter that I've met in person and he came across as a very good guy.

Heavyweight - None...they all suck ****.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sugar Ray Leonard
7. George Foreman
8. Julio Caesar Chavez
9. Lennox Lewis
10.Bernard Hopkins/Roy Jones Jr.

I like your list better with Benny Leonard included on there, but that's just me. Also, it's nice to see Langford move up a few spots on your list.


My favourite fighters in a historical sense;

Flyweight - Umm...Benny Lynch & Newsboy Brown, I guess, as I've argued/defended both of them in the past and on a couple/few occasions. Jimmy Barry, too. Yoko Gushiken & Jung Koo Chang are a couple of more contemporary favourites

Bantamweight - George Dixon, Terry McGovern, and Johnny Coulon. Jeff Chandler a more modern favourite.

Featherweight - Alexis Arguello and Kid Chocolate. Like most everyone else, I'm a big fan of the Pacquiao, Barrera and Morales battles.

Lightweight - Ike Williams, Tony Canzoneri, Henry Armstrong, Carlos Ortiz, Battling Nelson, Beau Jack, etc...The lightweights are my favourite division in a historical sense and following/watching the mid 80's lightweight scene (pre-Whitaker, post-Arguello) was probably my the most fun I had following the sport in my lifetime.

Welterweight - Jimmy McLarnin, Kid Gavilan, Jose Napoles, Wilfred Benitez, and Billy Graham.

Middleweight - Marvin Hagler, Marcel Cerdan, Freddie Steele, Nonpareil Jack Dempsey, and Panama Joe Gans.

Light Heavyweight - Sam Langford, Ezzard Charles, Matthew Saad Muhammad, and Harold Johnson. Donny Lalonde deserves mention, as that's the only semi-famous fighter that I've met in person and he came across as a very good guy.

Heavyweight - None...they all suck ****.

:pat: I forgot Leonard.

I'll never have a perfect list. :puppy_dog

Heavyweight - None...they all suck ****.

What about Gordie Racette? WTF?

mine changes everytime i post it

Heavyweights only:

Ali
Joe Louis
George foreman
larry holmes
sonny liston
jackdempsey
marciano
frazier
lennox lewis
evander holyfield


honorable mentions to tyson,tunney,ken norton, ezzard charles and walcott

Langford
Armstrong
Gans
Robinson
Leonard (Benny, ofcourse)
Pep
Duran
Greb
Charles
Walcott (original)

Langford
Armstrong
Gans
Robinson
Leonard (Benny, ofcourse)
Pep
Duran
Greb
Charles
Walcott (original)


Damn good list....and props for remembering the forgotten legends. You know your stuff.

Faves...

Benn
Tyson
Toney
Mayweather
Chocolate
Jersey Joe
Patterson
Gans
Louis
Bowe

1. Vlad Klit
2. Vitali Klit
3.Tommy Morrison
4. Kelly Plavik
5.Ricky Hatton
6.Wayne Mcullogh
7.Dale Brown
8.Jerry Cooney
9. Corrie Sanders
10. Jerry Quary

Langford
Armstrong
Gans
Robinson
Leonard (Benny, ofcourse)
Pep
Duran
Greb
Charles
Walcott (original)

How many of them have you seen, I wish tape of the Barbados Demon existed.

FAVORITES james toney
muhammad ali
pernell whitaker
sugar ray leonard
terry norris


im a fan of the boxer/punchers

What about Gordie Racette? WTF?

Oh yeah...Gotta love Gordie Racette, Lee Canalito, and anyone else who showed that they truely & legitimately possessed the much sought after, Eye of the Tiger.

It's been a couple of years, but I believe Dave Brown wrote quite a bit about Racette in his book about Canadian boxing, or at least a couple/few pages worth of stuff on Racette (starting from his toughman beginnings in those 'So You Think You're Tough' promotions or whatever those things were called out west here).

In terms of accomplishments:

Muhammad Ali
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Willie Pep
Sugar Ray Leonard
Joe Louis
Roberto Duran
Benny Leonard
Marvin Hagler
Larry Holmes

I haven't though of head-to head yet.

In terms of accomplishments:

Muhammad Ali
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Willie Pep
Sugar Ray Leonard
Joe Louis
Roberto Duran
Benny Leonard
Marvin Hagler
Larry Holmes

I haven't though of head-to head yet.
shut up butterfly:boxing:

I'll never have a perfect list. :puppy_dog

As well you shouldn't, my friend, because if you show me someone who claims to have a perfect all-time p4p list and also expresses no willingness to ever change it (I've ran across a couple of them types on the net), then I'll show you someone who simply isn't willing to learn anything new about the sport's great history...

All-time ratings SHOULD always be changing, in my opinion, even if it's just a minor adjustment or two on such a list since the last time you actually sat down and compiled one.

Oh yeah...Gotta love Gordie Racette, Lee Canalito, and anyone else who showed that they truely & legitimately possessed the much sought after, Eye of the Tiger.

It's been a couple of years, but I believe Dave Brown wrote quite a bit about Racette in his book about Canadian boxing, or at least a couple/few pages worth of stuff on Racette (starting from his toughman beginnings in those 'So You Think You're Tough' promotions or whatever those things were called out west here).You might be thinking of Flesh and Blood by Jim Christy had an excellent chapter on Nanaimo's own Gordie Racette as well as an excellent chapter on Donny Lalonde, Tony Pep, Michael Olajide etc.... It was published in Canada in the early 90's but is likely out of print now.

Lets see here:

Robinson
Armstrong
Pep
Duran
Ali
Charles
Langford
Greb
Leonard
Whitaker

joyous day.

You might be thinking of Flesh and Blood by Jim Christy had an excellent chapter on Nanaimo's own Gordie Racette as well as an excellent chapter on Donny Lalonde, Tony Pep, Michael Olajide etc.... It was published in Canada in the early 90's but is likely out of print now.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it was Dave Brown's book (almost positive), as I can remember that there was a black & white photo of him ref'ing the Ali/Chuvalo rematch on the back cover.

Robinson
Armstrong
Pep
Ali
Louis
Duran
Greb
Langford

No order.

Hmmm....not sure about the last 2. Wilde? Charles? Leonard (both of them)?

As well you shouldn't, my friend, because if you show me someone who claims to have a perfect all-time p4p list and also expresses no willingness to ever change it (I've ran across a couple of them types on the net), then I'll show you someone who simply isn't willing to learn anything new about the sport's great history...

All-time ratings SHOULD always be changing, in my opinion, even if it's just a minor adjustment or two on such a list since the last time you actually sat down and compiled one.

Yeah, I know. You're right; and I am always updating it. I just find myself wanting to recognize some of the modern fighters in order to show that greatness is not something locked away in a time-warp, ya know.

I just find myself wanting to recognize some of the modern fighters in order to show that greatness is not something locked away in a time-warp, ya know.

Why, of course...There's great fighters from any & all generations, no question, although I do have a personal tendency to struggle with rating the most recent generation of fighters in a historical context just because they're so fresh in my memory and are still fighting. Kind of a "gotta be in the past before it's a part of history" attitude thing with me, I guess, whether that's right or wrong...

After they finally retire, give me a few years on the likes of Jones, Hopkins, De La Hoya, Mayweather, etc., etc., and I'll personally be able to get a better handle on where those guys fit in historically, and what legacy(s) they are likely going to leave for future generations.

Why, of course...There's great fighters from any & all generations, no question, although I do have a personal tendency to struggle with rating the most recent generation of fighters in a historical context just because they're so fresh in my memory and are still fighting. Kind of a "gotta be in the past before it's a part of history" attitude thing with me, I guess, whether that's right or wrong...

After they finally retire, give me a few years on the likes of Jones, Hopkins, De La Hoya, Mayweather, etc., etc., and I'll personally be able to get a better handle on where those guys fit in historically, and what legacy(s) they are likely going to leave for future generations.

Yeah, I'm kind of the same way; but I know Jones's best days are long gone, so I thought I'd try to place him....though, he may be too "fresh on my mind" to do in accurately at this point, in all honesty

Yeah, I'm kind of the same way; but I know Jones's best days are long gone, so I thought I'd try to place him....though, he may be too "fresh on my mind" to do in accurately at this point, in all honestyThe modern fighter is able to be scrutinized under a microscope due to existing video footage and the instant availability (internet) while many of the older fighters have little film existing and so we often take their accomplishments at face value and support it with contemporary writings.

If guys like James Toney and Roy Jones fought in an era (say early 1900's) that had little available film footage there is the probability that they would be confirmed P4P ATG based on their accomplishments of title wins at different weights etc...On paper, the blown up middleweight Toney scoring a KO over Evander Holyfield a guy that warred and stood up to the punches of Foreman, Lewis, Tyson and Bowe would no doubt have granted him legendary status. Even his chin and defence would be legendary, especially given the fact that fighting at an advanced age as a heavyweight he has never been dominated or even dropped.

Contemporary writings especially those of Roy Jones at his peak would both confirm and substantiate his ATG'ness. What if we only had one fight of each guy available say Toney-Barkley or Jones-Hill and in large part based our opinions on that lone available footage supported by contemporary writings and in the ring accomplishments?

The modern fighter is able to be scrutinized under a microscope due to existing video footage and the instant availability (internet) while many of the older fighters have little film existing and so we often take their accomplishments at face value and support it with contemporary writings.

If guys like James Toney and Roy Jones fought in an era (say early 1900's) that had little available film footage there is the probability that they would be confirmed P4P ATG based on their accomplishments of title wins at different weights etc...On paper, the blown up middleweight Toney scoring a KO over Evander Holyfield a guy that warred and stood up to the punches of Foreman, Lewis, Tyson and Bowe would no doubt have granted him legendary status. Even his chin and defence would be legendary, especially given the fact that fighting at an advanced age as a heavyweight he has never been dominated or even dropped.

Contemporary writings especially those of Roy Jones at his peak would both confirm and substantiate his ATG'ness. What if we only had one fight of each guy available say Toney-Barkley or Jones-Hill and in large part based our opinions on that lone available footage supported by contemporary writings and in the ring accomplishments?

Great point, my friend. Great Point. Props.

I gave up on making Top 10 greatest fighters lists. You basicely learn about other fighters every day, and if i made a list like this, i would feel silly because there would be too many fighters left out who i dont know anything about, but would consider if i did research.

If guys like James Toney and Roy Jones fought in an era (say early 1900's) that had little available film footage there is the probability that they would be confirmed P4P ATG based on their accomplishments of title wins at different weights etc...

If Toney & Jones fought in the early 1900's then they don't have the accomplishments of the title wins they do have in today's game (for obvious reasons), and if I could go back in time with them on their journey, I'd take a grand with me that says neither of them win even a single world title fight back in those days and I'd like my chances.

If Toney & Jones fought in the early 1900's then they don't have the accomplishments of the title wins they do have in today's game (for obvious reasons), and if I could go back in time with them on their journey, I'd take a grand with me that says neither of them win even a single world title fight back in those days and I'd like my chances.

Ouch! Yogi comes out swinging!! :boxing:

LOL!!!!!

If Toney & Jones fought in the early 1900's then they don't have the accomplishments of the title wins they do have in today's game (for obvious reasons), and if I could go back in time with them on their journey, I'd take a grand with me that says neither of them win even a single world title fight back in those days and I'd like my chances.

"On paper, the blown up middleweight Toney scoring a KO over Evander Holyfield a guy that warred and stood up to the punches of Foreman, Lewis, Tyson and Bowe would no doubt have granted him legendary status. Even his chin and defence would be legendary, especially given the fact that fighting at an advanced age as a heavyweight he has never been dominated or even dropped."

Please note that I used the words "on paper" on assesing these fighters. In other words taking his win over Holyfield at face value as well as titles at multi-weights.

I'm no Toney or Jones fan in particular however since I did say the early 1900's I think Jones or Toney have more than a decent chance against turn of the century champions like middleweight Billy Papke, light heavyweight Jack O'Brien or heavyweights like Tommy Burns or Marvin Hart, all fighters who held world titles during that era.

Of course I would then be entering the abyss of hypotheticals....

I'm no Toney or Jones fan in particular however since I did say the early 1900's I think Jones or Toney have more than a decent chance against turn of the century champions like middleweight Billy Papke, light heavyweight Jack O'Brien or heavyweights like Tommy Burns or Marvin Hart, all fighters who held world titles during that era.

Yeah maybe...but then again I'd certainly give Langford a "decent" chance against them guys, as well. Ditto for guys like Kid Norfolk, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVey, Jeff Clark, and the other top black fighters that Jones & Toney (unless they're physically weak & starving, they likely end up above the middleweight limit in a time of same day/ringside weigh-ins if going by their actual in-ring fighting weight) are likely going to have to fight and on multiple occasions.

Yeah maybe...but then again I'd certainly give Langford a "decent" chance against them guys, as well. Ditto for guys like Kid Norfolk, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVey, Jeff Clark, and the other top black fighters that Jones & Toney (unless they're physically weak & starving, they likely end up above the middleweight limit in a time of same day/ringside weigh-ins if going by their actual in-ring fighting weight) are likely going to have to fight and on multiple occasions.Hence the problem with hypotheticals when dealing with fighters of that era vs modern fighters. Because of the availabilty and accessabilty to video I can pick apart and dissect the fighting styles of modern fighters like Tyson, Jones, Toney etc....Kid Norfolk? Can't say I've seen him fight, so I don't know squat about his balance, stance, handspeed, jab, combination punching, punching technique, defence, in-fighting ability, bodypunching or in the ring tendencies and habits. All I really have to go on is his record, reputation and subjective newspaper accounts of that era. Ditto for his competition.

Now the problem with newspaper accounts of that era is that the writer was often reporting on a fight that he only saw once (if at all) and knew the reader likely had not seen nor would ever see it, so I imagine a less than completely accurate portrayal of some of these fights were often presented. Sports writers were also in the business of selling papers and their metaphoric imagery inducing depictions of fights and the fighters themselves as "dark dusky jewels" sprinkled with generous doses of similies "he moved in the ring like a hungry jungle cat" are laughable by today's standards not to mention racist.

I have a photocopied newspaper from 1910 the day after the Battle of The Century with a round by round description of Johnson-Jeffries which has notable inaccuracies when you compare it with the actual film. I'm sure it was quite common.

The modern fighter is able to be scrutinized under a microscope due to existing video footage and the instant availability (internet) while many of the older fighters have little film existing and so we often take their accomplishments at face value and support it with contemporary writings.

If guys like James Toney and Roy Jones fought in an era (say early 1900's) that had little available film footage there is the probability that they would be confirmed P4P ATG based on their accomplishments of title wins at different weights etc...On paper, the blown up middleweight Toney scoring a KO over Evander Holyfield a guy that warred and stood up to the punches of Foreman, Lewis, Tyson and Bowe would no doubt have granted him legendary status. Even his chin and defence would be legendary, especially given the fact that fighting at an advanced age as a heavyweight he has never been dominated or even dropped.

Contemporary writings especially those of Roy Jones at his peak would both confirm and substantiate his ATG'ness. What if we only had one fight of each guy available say Toney-Barkley or Jones-Hill and in large part based our opinions on that lone available footage supported by contemporary writings and in the ring accomplishments?


wow, great post... i'd like to buy u a beer sometime, eh

Hence the problem with hypotheticals when dealing with fighters of that era vs modern fighters. Because of the availabilty and accessabilty to video I can pick apart and dissect the fighting styles of modern fighters like Tyson, Jones, Toney etc....Kid Norfolk? Can't say I've seen him fight, so I don't know squat about his balance, stance, handspeed, jab, combination punching, punching technique, defence, in-fighting ability, bodypunching or in the ring tendencies and habits. All I really have to go on is his record, reputation and subjective newspaper accounts of that era. Ditto for his competition.

Now the problem with newspaper accounts of that era is that the writer was often reporting on a fight that he only saw once (if at all) and knew the reader likely had not seen nor would ever see it, so I imagine a less than completely accurate portrayal of some of these fights were often presented. Sports writers were also in the business of selling papers and their metaphoric imagery inducing depictions of fights and the fighters themselves as "dark dusky jewels" sprinkled with generous doses of similies "he moved in the ring like a hungry jungle cat" are laughable by today's standards not to mention racist.

I have a photocopied newspaper from 1910 the day after the Battle of The Century with a round by round description of Johnson-Jeffries which has notable inaccuracies when you compare it with the actual film. I'm sure it was quite common.

Hence why I give so little credence to those all-time rankings people compile that are based on mythical head-to-head matchups, and why I personally try not to discuss mythical matchups involving fighters from that early film era when pitted against a fighter from the more modern era...Actually I'm not a really big fan of mythical matchups in general, although a good & largely objective discussion on them can be most enjoyable, for sure.

Kid Norfolk?

No, I don't believe I've ever seen him fight either, and to tell you the truth, I'm not even sure that footage of him is still in existence today. But even if video of him, do you think you, I, or anybody else is going to get the complete picture of his fighting skills from film that is likely going to have a bunch of missing frames, varying speed depending on the "cranker", moisture blotches or any other damage that's most prevailant on those old films?

I'd certainly say not, especially if one was trying to dissect a fighter's ability to fight on the inside, which is just about completely impossible...

Besides giving me a rough idea on the style they fought in, those old films do nothing more for me that fill a curiosity, and the only direct comparisions I'll make with fighters in those films is going to be with other fighters that I'm watching under the same or very similiar circumstances.

Ok, if I can backtrack just a little...If you could get an accurate gauge on a fighter's skill level by looking at films, is that honestly going to tell you how "great" that fighter was?

No, I don't think so, because to me a fighter's skill level is only a very small part of the total equation when determining a level of greatness for said fighter, and in fact, I'd say it was a prerequisite that every great fighter in history has had a very high level of fighting ability in the sport...They wouldn't have had the success they did if they didn't have an abundance of fighting ability in comparision to his peers.

As far as fight reports go, I'm generally not looking for the exact specifics of a fight unless it was to answer a specific question about said fight (i.e. pep vs. Graves or something like that). Instead I'm looking for a general feel and an overall description of the action being described...

For example, and I only use this because one of the fighters has been fresh on my mind over the last few days;


"Carnera hooked a left to the jaw and clinched. Godfrey sank a hard left to the body. They exchanged left jabs and then Godfrey hammered a right to the jaw. Godfrey hooked a left to Carnera's head and Carnera drove a left and right to the face. They exchanged lefts to the face and then Godfrey crossed a right to the head. Carnera replied with rights to the body and head. Godfrey drove a right to Carnera's head and then staggered his opponent with a right and left to the jaw"


That was the description of the first round of that fight, and was from the round-by-round published in the NY Times. Nothing fancy being written, at all, as a way of beautifying the action or whatever, and when reading on through the other four rounds, I believe the writer has captured the general feel of what was taking place in the ring from what we can see from the video...Nothing overly dramatic being written by the writer in a not-overly dramatic fight. He makes note of the clinching & pushing going on, the harder punches being thrown by Godfrey (by his description), and also, if going by my interpretation of the writings, the writer seemed to have the view that Godfrey got the slightly better of things over the course of the rounds fought, which is something my own eyes tell me...

And those are the kind of reports I'm looking for when reading about an old fight, as they're both descriptive, written in a factually sort of way (no glamourizing), and are words from, I trust fully*, a first hand viewer (written in Philly, then sold to the Times)...

It also helps that you have a secondary (or more) source at your disposal, but, even though boxing's history has retained a TON of written information, that's not always an option. But a secondary fight report is certainly going to be an option in regards to the historical (one of, if not the single biggest fight in history at that time and for all-time) Johnson/Jeffries bout that you alluded to, as I've come across plenty of contemporary writings in regards to that matchup. And ****, that fight took place during the days of Langford & Ketchel, and God knows their's still numerous fight reports/descriptions left over from that one and by many different newspapers.

*I do tend to put an element of trust in the written word of those writers from back then, and if, for whatever reason(s), I find myself not trusting what was said initial readings, then I'll carry on 'til I find something that I can trust a great amount. Boxing's great & illustrious history didn't begin with the advent of film, so no, I'm not going to rely only on the available footage, just like I'm not going to rely all that much on filmed footage to learn the history of anything that people have taken part in...In the context of mankind's history and when comparisions are made to the average lifetime, the film era is but a baby that's just opened it's eyes for the first time.

Let me ask you, though...

I've seen a whole lot of friggin' fights over the last 30 years (covering all eras), as I'm sure you have. I've also done plenty of reading on the history of the sportm, as again, I'm sure you have...But knowledge-wise, what have you learned more from, video or the written word?

Ok, if you're anything like me then you're likely to say the written word. Now if such was the case, what written word are you going to trust more...the modern writings of some early 20th century fighter, which are more likely to be embellished or untrue one way or the other, or the contemporary writings of what was said about them back in their day?

A few 2006 writers may tell me that Willie Pep once one a round without throwing a punch, but a few 1947 writers make no mention of that "feat" and instead decribe the action as something quite opposite...I'll take the latter for $500, Alex

A few 2006 writers may tell me that the "pound-for-pound" term was originally coined for Robinson, yet I can see an article written in 1933 with that exact term being used to describe a fighter that was fighting in that year...Robinson didn't have access to a time machine, did he?

Or getting back to the Langford/Ketchel fight, I can read on BoxRec listing it as a newspaper win for Ketchel, or the IBHOF site claiming that Ketchel got the better of things according to most newspapers. Yet, if I was to use the newspapers from that time I can see that the Philadelphia Record, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Gettysburg Times, etc., all thought Langford got the better of the action even though he was said to have taken it easy on Ketchel (most newspaper accounts will allude to this), whereas I can find but two that had the opinion Ketchel got the better of things (Washington Post being one of them...a few like the NY Times had it even).

I know that's only a couple of quick examples, but do you see what I'm getting at?

P.S. "A great fighter in his time is a great fighter for all-time."

That's been a saying of mine for quite some time, and it's one that I firmly believe in. I'm also going to go to whatever lengths I can to see what made that fighter great in his time, and if I have to rely largely on the written word & opinions of the writers & fighters of those days, then yeah, that is what I'm going to do...For me, the alternative is ignorant, and ignoring a large part of boxing history because of the some advancement in technology would be just plain wrong.

Hence why I give so little credence to those all-time rankings people compile that are based on mythical head-to-head matchups, and why I personally try not to discuss mythical matchups involving fighters from that early film era when pitted against a fighter from the more modern era...Actually I'm not a really big fan of mythical matchups in general, although a good & largely objective discussion on them can be most enjoyable, for sure.

Kid Norfolk?
No, I don't believe I've ever seen him fight either, and to tell you the truth, I'm not even sure that footage of him is still in existence today. But even if video of him, do you think you, I, or anybody else is going to get the complete picture of his fighting skills from film that is likely going to have a bunch of missing frames, varying speed depending on the "cranker", moisture blotches or any other damage that's most prevailant on those old films?

I'd certainly say not, especially if one was trying to dissect a fighter's ability to fight on the inside, which is just about completely impossible...

Besides giving me a rough idea on the style they fought in, those old films do nothing more for me that fill a curiosity, and the only direct comparisions I'll make with fighters in those films is going to be with other fighters that I'm watching under the same or very similiar circumstances.

Ok, if I can backtrack just a little...If you could get an accurate gauge on a fighter's skill level by looking at films, is that honestly going to tell you how "great" that fighter was?

No, I don't think so, because to me a fighter's skill level is only a very small part of the total equation when determining a level of greatness for said fighter, and in fact, I'd say it was a prerequisite that every great fighter in history has had a very high level of fighting ability in the sport...They wouldn't have had the success they did if they didn't have an abundance of fighting ability in comparision to his peers.

As far as fight reports go, I'm generally not looking for the exact specifics of a fight unless it was to answer a specific question about said fight (i.e. pep vs. Graves or something like that). Instead I'm looking for a general feel and an overall description of the action being described...

For example, and I only use this because one of the fighters has been fresh on my mind over the last few days;


"Carnera hooked a left to the jaw and clinched. Godfrey sank a hard left to the body. They exchanged left jabs and then Godfrey hammered a right to the jaw. Godfrey hooked a left to Carnera's head and Carnera drove a left and right to the face. They exchanged lefts to the face and then Godfrey crossed a right to the head. Carnera replied with rights to the body and head. Godfrey drove a right to Carnera's head and then staggered his opponent with a right and left to the jaw"


That was the description of the first round of that fight, and was from the round-by-round published in the NY Times. Nothing fancy being written, at all, as a way of beautifying the action or whatever, and when reading on through the other four rounds, I believe the writer has captured the general feel of what was taking place in the ring from what we can see from the video...Nothing overly dramatic being written by the writer in a not-overly dramatic fight. He makes note of the clinching & pushing going on, the harder punches being thrown by Godfrey (by his description), and also, if going by my interpretation of the writings, the writer seemed to have the view that Godfrey got the slightly better of things over the course of the rounds fought, which is something my own eyes tell me...

And those are the kind of reports I'm looking for when reading about an old fight, as they're both descriptive, written in a factually sort of way (no glamourizing), and are words from, I trust fully*, a first hand viewer (written in Philly, then sold to the Times)...

It also helps that you have a secondary (or more) source at your disposal, but, even though boxing's history has retained a TON of written information, that's not always an option. But a secondary fight report is certainly going to be an option in regards to the historical (one of, if not the single biggest fight in history at that time and for all-time) Johnson/Jeffries bout that you alluded to, as I've come across plenty of contemporary writings in regards to that matchup. And ****, that fight took place during the days of Langford & Ketchel, and God knows their's still numerous fight reports/descriptions left over from that one and by many different newspapers.

*I do tend to put an element of trust in the written word of those writers from back then, and if, for whatever reason(s), I find myself not trusting what was said initial readings, then I'll carry on 'til I find something that I can trust a great amount. Boxing's great & illustrious history didn't begin with the advent of film, so no, I'm not going to rely only on the available footage, just like I'm not going to rely all that much on filmed footage to learn the history of anything that people have taken part in...In the context of mankind's history and when comparisions are made to the average lifetime, the film era is but a baby that's just opened it's eyes for the first time.

Let me ask you, though...

I've seen a whole lot of friggin' fights over the last 30 years (covering all eras), as I'm sure you have. I've also done plenty of reading on the history of the sportm, as again, I'm sure you have...But knowledge-wise, what have you learned more from, video or the written word?

Ok, if you're anything like me then you're likely to say the written word. Now if such was the case, what written word are you going to trust more...the modern writings of some early 20th century fighter, which are more likely to be embellished or untrue one way or the other, or the contemporary writings of what was said about them back in their day?

A few 2006 writers may tell me that Willie Pep once one a round without throwing a punch, but a few 1947 writers make no mention of that "feat" and instead decribe the action as something quite opposite...I'll take the latter for $500, Alex

A few 2006 writers may tell me that the "pound-for-pound" term was originally coined for Robinson, yet I can see an article written in 1933 with that exact term being used to describe a fighter that was fighting in that year...Robinson didn't have access to a time machine, did he?

Or getting back to the Langford/Ketchel fight, I can read on BoxRec listing it as a newspaper win for Ketchel, or the IBHOF site claiming that Ketchel got the better of things according to most newspapers. Yet, if I was to use the newspapers from that time I can see that the Philadelphia Record, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Gettysburg Times, etc., all thought Langford got the better of the action even though he was said to have taken it easy on Ketchel (most newspaper accounts will allude to this), whereas I can find but two that had the opinion Ketchel got the better of things (Washington Post being one of them...a few like the NY Times had it even).

I know that's only a couple of quick examples, but do you see what I'm getting at?

P.S. "A great fighter in his time is a great fighter for all-time."

That's been a saying of mine for quite some time, and it's one that I firmly believe in. I'm also going to go to whatever lengths I can to see what made that fighter great in his time, and if I have to rely largely on the written word & opinions of the writers & fighters of those days, then yeah, that is what I'm going to do...For me, the alternative is ignorant, and ignoring a large part of boxing history because of the some advancement in technology would be just plain wrong.

kid norfolk detached harry greb's retina

I've seen a whole lot of friggin' fights over the last 30 years (covering all eras), as I'm sure you have. I've also done plenty of reading on the history of the sportm, as again, I'm sure you have...But knowledge-wise, what have you learned more from, video or the written word?Absolutely I've learned more about fighters and the game's history from the written word, and I'm no stranger to quoting reference material on these threads however it's a different matter when trying to assess just how good a particular fighter was when we have very poor and limited or in many cases no film footage.

In fact it's quite impossible to completely and subjectively critique those old-time fighters (as we so often do with modern fighters) when we've never seen them fight. All we have to rely on is historical data such as newspaper reports, eye witness accounts ring records etc.....

If Mike Tyson fought in the early 1900's and there was no existing film footage of him and you were left to only look at his ring record and accomplishments in his championship prime combined with some of the more glowing reports that were being written about him in 1986-89, would you not have a different view that you do now of Tyson as a fighter? I know I would. In fact my whole view of Tyson the fighter has very little to do with what I've read and has everything to do with what I've seen.

I'm not suggesting we should question everything written about a particular old-time fighter. However, should we necessarily accept contemporary writings of them simply because there is no existing footage to refute it? I'll take it with a grain of salt as I also do with modern contemporary writers who can also embelish, exaggerate and mislead.

Fighters of yesteryear had their warts and bumps as do modern fighters. We're just unable to downplay their accomplishments and overall abilities and dissect them to the same degree that we do modern fighters (a common theme on these threads) where we are able to utilize our own subjective observations as part of the overall equation.

All I'm sayin'......

Absolutely I've learned more about fighters and the game's history from the written word, and I'm no stranger to quoting reference material on these threads however it's a different matter when trying to assess just how good a particular fighter was when we have very poor and limited or in many cases no film footage.

In fact it's quite impossible to completely and subjectively critique those old-time fighters (as we so often do with modern fighters) when we've never seen them fight. All we have to rely on is historical data such as newspaper reports, eye witness accounts ring records etc.....

If Mike Tyson fought in the early 1900's and there was no existing film footage of him and you were left to only look at his ring record and accomplishments in his championship prime combined with some of the more glowing reports that were being written about him in 1986-89, would you not have a different view that you do now of Tyson as a fighter? I know I would. In fact my whole view of Tyson the fighter has very little to do with what I've read and has everything to do with what I've seen.

I'm not suggesting we should question everything written about a particular old-time fighter. However, should we necessarily accept contemporary writings of them simply because there is no existing footage to refute it? I'll take it with a grain of salt as I also do with modern contemporary writers who can also embelish, exaggerate and mislead.

Fighters of yesteryear had their warts and bumps as do modern fighters. We're just unable to downplay their accomplishments and overall abilities and dissect them to the same degree that we do modern fighters (a common theme on these threads) where we are able to utilize our own subjective observations as part of the overall equation.

All I'm sayin'......

i see your point when it comes to fighters pre louis there is very little footage dempsey is really the only one from before 1920 who you cna find even a handful of fights.

flaws certianly are more apparent in todays fighters because you can see it so close up from so many angles

I'll get back to you later, Sabbath, as my little guy has his school Christmas concert this evening and we're just about to head out the door for that.

It's his opinion!So what?While I don't rank Marciano in the top ten.I certainly rank him in the top twenty,and im not alone on that one.Marciano is easily a top ten heavyweight on almost everyone's list except haters.We can fantasy what would happen if Marciano faced Foreman,Ali,ETC.But we'll never know.The man's accomplishments speak for themselves.
He's certainly not top 20 P4P either, and #1 is absolutely ridiculous. His accomplishments speak for themselves? I guess Lopez should be #1, Rocky #2, and Ottke #3 all time then.

His resume, while good, does not merit #1 status at HW, at best top 5. His skills put him even lower. In P4P terms, he might crack the top 40 due to his smaller size at HW.

Anyways:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Mickey Walker
9. Barbados Joe Walcott
10. Barney Ross

Sabbath, you have made some great points in this thread.

1. Bruce LeeSabbath, you have made some great points in this thread.

Lol Rocky Marciano is one of the top 10 fighters of all time?Well we know what type of people put him on their list don't we?