Bert Sugar Top 100 Fighters-THOUGHTS???

[GJC]

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

[ßringer]

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".

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]

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".

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]

Oh and the you I referred to was a genral you not directed at your good self.

[ßringer]

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.

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]

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

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]

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...

[ßringer]

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.

"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.

[ßringer]

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.

[McGoorty]

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.