Bert Sugar's 100 Greatest Fighters List......Give Me Your Opinion!

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Bert Sugar never let facts get in the way of a good story..

[rightsideup]

I think the original list was formed in 1983!!!! it was updated around 2003!!!
So you Mayweather and Klitz bros fan a tics should relax especially off the original list.
Ray.

I am sure if he was alive today his latest version would have some updates.

[greeh]

how is ricardo lopez so low ?

he was an unstoppable champion

:rofl2: …….

[juggernaut666]

Sugar covered boxing for a zillion years. He probably had reasons for ranking some of them that most of us newbies cannot comprehend.

yea that would be called a few whiskeys, one too many. I stopped at the # 3 ranking he had then scrolled down just for kicks and saw Tysons name at number 100...... scrolling though these old threads and couldn't help but comment,particularly to show ones experience or age doesn't reflect intelligence as ive also showed recently! Truly mind boggling warped list no matter how old it is.


Willy PEP over joe Louis??????????????? how did I miss this thread? Resembles someone picking out of a hat

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Here is Mr Bert Sugars 100 greatest fighters list. Now read through it closley, and mark the fighters in RED that you think are to HIGH, and BLUE for the fighters that are to LOW. Only do it by this format Historians! Here's the list!

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

Great list for sure.

I think Felix Trinidad should be in there and Duran should be higher with Ali lower. Over all, though, great list. Bert knew boxing through and through.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Sugar was old school. He would never put a modern fighter high up. Notice the top 20 is made up the majority of fighters that we have very little film on. The film we do have is usually crude, slowed down or sped up and not complete. How can you rate someone you have never seen fight before in a full bout? I agree with the first 2 but that's it.

[Weltschmerz]

so only guys who have boxed professionaly are taken seriously when ATG lists are put up, is what you are saying?

Bert Sugar has followed boxing for 50yrs, he was editor of the 2 biggest fight publications, "Boxing Illustrated & Ring Magazine" he has sat ringside for thousands of fights and wrote dozens of books and articles on the sport, yet you are claiming the guy has `No Idea`

So will I have when I reach my 60's...

[JAB5239]

So will I have when I reach my 60's...

I never understood that reasoning. Bert had knowledge, but so do many others who haven't followed it as long. Bottom line is lists are subjective. Everyone has their favorites and their own reasoning, its what makes things like this so fun to argue about.

[Weltschmerz]

I never understood that reasoning. Bert had knowledge, but so do many others who haven't followed it as long. Bottom line is lists are subjective. Everyone has their favorites and their own reasoning, its what makes things like this so fun to argue about.

Yes, and then you have this argument,

It's hard to take a guys seriously when he is supposed to be an expert and never stepped in to the ring himself. I know many people who could tell me who was the middleweight champion during 1912 who couldn't tell me how to parry a jab. After reading some of his "pre-fight analysis" articles I'm not sure he has any idea what he is watching.

And then you have pro fighters with perhaps little historical knowledge of the sport.

[The Old LefHook]

We all make lists. Yes, they are highly subjective for every individual. We pretend that the perfect list is an actuality, that it can be made, that there is such a thing as the hundred greatest fighters that exists objectively.

We do this of course without explaining our exact criteria. Some are basing it on who-beats-who, some on longevity, some on historical impact, some on reputation.

There is no such thing as the 100 greatest fighters, unless you yourself understand what your criteria are. Most of us have only a vague idea of what our criteria are. At least we never explain it very well to any others, I have noticed.

For myself, it is who-beats-who in their best ring years. If you start basing it on multiple categories it gets all mixed up and too big to handle. Keep it simple. Who-beats-who at their best?