Bert Sugar Top 100 Fighters-THOUGHTS???

[Kinetic Linking]

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]

Hagler 47?

Arguably the best Middleweight ever is near the bottom half.

[winky44]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[ßringer]

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.)