At Their Peak, Who is the most Dominant Fighter Of All Time?

[crold1]

During his peak run, Ezzard Charles was another who belongs. From 1944-51, he lost only one HOTLY disputed decision and laid waste to one of the finest eras of Light Heavies ever before winning the Heavyweight title and having a solid reign there.

Based on who he beat in that run, Charles is up there with anyone. I think he beat better fighters in his peak run than Robinson, in their time.

I love Roy but he just doesn't have the depth of resume to belong in these conversations. I know how his fans felt about him but it just takes WAY too much conjecture. If you want to play the relativity game one can fuss into an argument, but objectively weighing it out, he doesn't sniff the convo.

[Earl-Hickey]

It's one of many factors.

It's a flawed theory because there are numerous fights throughout history that were not made:

You say:

Boxing is a proving ground, you didn't fight a guy, you didn't prove anything.

Kosta Tszyu never fought Oscar De la Hoya or Floyd Mayweather

Mosley and Mayweather never fought

Alexis Arguello never fought Roberto Duran

Felix Trinidad never fought Terry Norris or Ike Quartery

Lennox Lewis never fought Bowe.


Did all of those guys "not prove anything?" because they didn't fight those guys?

Again, Roy Jones resume is mediocre. B-/C+ at best. But as I've stated in my other post, his level of dominance during his era cannot be questioned.

No, but I dont class any of them in the same level of dominance of the aforementioned three, which is the question we are asking here isn't it.

I could argue all night at the end of the day it's just my opinion, bu i think it's supported by a fair amount of facts. I'm just not into swallowing hype, as you say Jones as around a C for resume, which considering the amount of fighters around that people wanted to see him in with he DIDN'T fight, makes him questionable.

You can cite business reasons, but theres no way Jones would have been paid less to fight the Benn's, Mclellans, Eubanks etc than many of the chumps he did fihgt, and if he was an absoloute shoe in to completley dominante all of them with a 0% chance of losing, he would have done it for the glory.

Risk/Reward, The only explaination is that Jones didn't think the risk was worth the reward, hence THERE WAS RISK.

[QballLobo]

Even though his peak was shorter than most, Tyson for sure. He won fights just by looking into opponents eyes during the final instructions. He would have KO'd Ali...

[New England]

During his peak run, Ezzard Charles was another who belongs. From 1944-51, he lost only one HOTLY disputed decision and laid waste to one of the finest eras of Light Heavies ever before winning the Heavyweight title and having a solid reign there.

Based on who he beat in that run, Charles is up there with anyone. I think he beat better fighters in his peak run than Robinson, in their time.

I love Roy but he just doesn't have the depth of resume to belong in these conversations. I know how his fans felt about him but it just takes WAY too much conjecture. If you want to play the relativity game one can fuss into an argument, but objectively weighing it out, he doesn't sniff the convo.

in the sense that others "dominated" better competition that roy jones you have a point

but you can only look spectacular against whoever they put in front of you.

charles is a good nod and one, if not the of the best ever LHW, and somebody i would pick to beat jones.
going with the LHW theme, another fighter whose name i have not seen listed is gene tunney. dominant. in his prime he had the D with loughgran, and other than that his only issues were with harry greb.


and finally, i have not seen mention jack johnson. with his style and his size compared to other men of his era (the standard by which one is considered dominant,) he was a very rough go.

he was big enough to stay at range and score, strong enough to knock his opponents out, and if they got close enough block shots or he'd hold.

[fight_professor]

Ali, SRR, RJJ, Tyson.

Those four had aura.

[-PBP-]

No, but I dont class any of them in the same level of dominance of the aforementioned three, which is the question we are asking here isn't it.

I could argue all night at the end of the day it's just my opinion, bu i think it's supported by a fair amount of facts. I'm just not into swallowing hype, as you say Jones as around a C for resume, which considering the amount of fighters around that people wanted to see him in with he DIDN'T fight, makes him questionable.

You can cite business reasons, but theres no way Jones would have been paid less to fight the Benn's, Mclellans, Eubanks etc than many of the chumps he did fihgt, and if he was an absoloute shoe in to completley dominante all of them with a 0% chance of losing, he would have done it for the glory.

Risk/Reward, The only explaination is that Jones didn't think the risk was worth the reward, hence THERE WAS RISK.

I agree to an extent. He managed himself and wanted more money for riskier fights and its possible that he priced himself out a few times. Perfect example is when he was asking for 60/40 against Bernard Hopkins who was #1 p4p coming of the win over Trinidad.

But my point is, there are instances in his career where you could measure his level of dominance. He toyed with the #3 pound for pound fighter in the world and comfortably beat Hopkins which eventually became one of his top 5 wins. He also knocked and comfortably beat some very solid and highly rated contenders like Virgil Hill, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson Eric Harding (who was just coming off of a victory over Tarver) and Julio Cesar Gonzalez.

Yes, he has some names on his resume that didn't belong in the ring with him. But to label his entire resume as "bums, cab drivers and sheep herders is incorrect". He made some solid contenders look like bums.

[crold1]

in the sense that others "dominated" better competition that roy jones you have a point

but you can only look spectacular against whoever they put in front of you.

charles is a good nod and one, if not the of the best ever LHW, and somebody i would pick to beat jones.
going with the LHW theme, another fighter whose name i have not seen listed is gene tunney. dominant. in his prime he had the D with loughgran, and other than that his only issues were with harry greb.


and finally, i have not seen mention jack johnson. with his style and his size compared to other men of his era (the standard by which one is considered dominant,) he was a very rough go.

he was big enough to stay at range and score, strong enough to knock his opponents out, and if they got close enough block shots or he'd hold.

Yes, but Roy fought in what, even given the recent hot run, is probably the most dense and exceptionally talented time at 68 since the division came to be as we know it. The business of boxing meant names like Byrd and Thorton while King and Warren had the rest of the best of the division locked up (and Roy wasn't easy to work with). Toney was a great performance (as was malinga, maybe his most underrated) but the dreck that came for most of 95-96, before Light Heavy, makes it hard to even justify a peak dominance 'relative' argument.

He fought what was put in front of him but he had fine dining available and too often went for the McDonald's value menu.

[Ray Corso]

Sugarman
Joe Louis
Henry Armstrong
.............................I don't need to compare them to others or what happened in common opponent match ups. I can simply watch them fight and see how strong their talents were and how minor their deficiencies were. I can step into their thought proccess when they react to punches and movement. Knowing Methods and Techniques is how you evaluate talent not who won this bout or lost that one. Everything isn't winning and loosing if you box enough times your gonna loose if your competition is strong.
My three choices all come to take the lead then make adjustments. All of them can win via knockout with either hand. All of them are very difficult to Stop!! None of them will loose their heart during a bout. All come in great shape and are willing and able!! Being a solid boxer is great but if you don't bring a punch with you in the pros your in for a long haul!! Gotta punch! Ray

[Mr. Fantastic]

henry armstrong.

the man held titles in 3 divisions at once back when there was only 8 weightclasses and one champion in each. he should have held 4 but got robbed, that means he should have held half the titles all at once.

runner up, 147lb ray robinson. the man was just untouchable. only lost one fight giving up massive weight to lamotta, aveneged the loss in the same month and then fought him another 4 times winning all of them. beat the great kid gavilan too who was a top 5 all time WW in his own right.

also ali during his first reign, he was on a whole other level to everyone else and they were quality HWs. not like today but really good fighters and ali could do whatever he wanted with them.

/thread

I kinda disagree with Ali but it's cause he lost to Frazier I believe during that time. I might be wrong.

[taansend]

henry armstrong.

the man held titles in 3 divisions at once back when there was only 8 weightclasses and one champion in each. he should have held 4 but got robbed, that means he should have held half the titles all at once.

also ali during his first reign, he was on a whole other level to everyone else and they were quality HWs. not like today but really good fighters and ali could do whatever he wanted with them.

This. Young Ali was chinnier than old Ali (well probably more about balance & positioning) but he was sooo fast he dominated although old Ali did have a higher level of opposition.

But Henry Armstrong was incredible. After leaping up from Feather to Welter (and beating an all time great in the process - imagine Gamboa beating Floyd) he then made something like 17 defenses in a single year. Amazing.