50 greatest fighters of all time poll for radio show

[UrDazed]

That's good. Unprecedented actually.

Sometime after 20 most people start wheeling out Morales, Barrera e.t.c. and it starts to look like more of a memory exercise than ranking

Great fighters, but they don't belong quite that high.

And for the record, I rate Hearns over Hagler

[Capaedia]

And for the record, I rate Hearns over Hagler

Excellent. EXCELLENT.

[Barn]

And for the record, I rate Hearns over Hagler

i regret ever giving you 1 billion points.

don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[UrDazed]

Excellent. EXCELLENT.

i regret ever giving you 1 billion points.

don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I just feel Hearns did more over more weights

[Prince_Pugilist]

I just feel Hearns did more over more weights

Yes and got KO'd by both Hagler and SRL, not to mention a good but not great fighter in Barkley. He also never ruled a division the way Hagler ruled 160.

[Ray Corso]

Your welcomed to praise who ever you like but to pick Tommy over Hagler is a stretch in many ways! Tommy was pretty much a one dimentional fighter, it certainly worked for him but it also got him KO'd against Hagler! Tommy proved he had good boxing skills against Leonard but didn't always use thoughs skills to set up his power. Where as Hagler was determined to be "consistant" with his approach to any opponent and use his skills as a good boxer along with pressure and maintain combination punching too!
To employ these methods & techniques is NOT easy to do let alone have them as part of your arsonal! Tommy could have done better in some cases but his warrior mentality hurt him at times! Tommy was a very good amatuer who couldn't break an egg as a little kid. So when the power started coming on he did get a little "overly excited" at times!!
To me Hagler was a more complete fighter. I had fighters on a few of Haglers shows and he was a great guy to watch live and his intensity could be felt live also!! Their three rounds was pretty insane and Tommy hurt Hagler too and thats not easy to do. Both top tier men that could fight in any era and do well. Ray.

[Barn]

Your welcomed to praise who ever you like but to pick Tommy over Hagler is a stretch in many ways! Tommy was pretty much a one dimentional fighter, it certainly worked for him but it also got him KO'd against Hagler! Tommy proved he had good boxing skills against Leonard but didn't always use thoughs skills to set up his power. Where as Hagler was determined to be "consistant" with his approach to any opponent and use his skills as a good boxer along with pressure and maintain combination punching too!
To employ these methods & techniques is NOT easy to do let alone have them as part of your arsonal! Tommy could have done better in some cases but his warrior mentality hurt him at times! Tommy was a very good amatuer who couldn't break an egg as a little kid. So when the power started coming on he did get a little "overly excited" at times!!
To me Hagler was a more complete fighter. I had fighters on a few of Haglers shows and he was a great guy to watch live and his intensity could be felt live also!! Their three rounds was pretty insane and Tommy hurt Hagler too and thats not easy to do. Both top tier men that could fight in any era and do well. Ray.

I agree, Hagler deserves to be ranked above Hearns.

[UrDazed]

Nope. Hagler never had a win like Hearns' over Hill.

[Bolo Punch]

Top 50 is so hard.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Hank Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Sam Langford
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Ben Leonard
8. Roberto Duran
9. Archie Moore
10. Ray Leonard
______
11. Willie Pep
12. Mickey Walker
13. Bob Fitzimmons
14. Joe Gans
15. Barney Ross
16. Pernell Whitaker
17. Joe Louis
18. Jimmy McClarnin
19. Roy Jones
20. Jimmy Wilde
____________
21. Julio Cesar Chavez
22. Bernard Hopkins
23. Marvin Hagler
24. Eder Jofre
25. Tommy Hearns
26. Carlos Monzon
27. Charley Burley
28. Barbados JW
29. Ike Williams
30. Alexis Arguello
31. Wilfredo Gomez

It baffles me how people can make lists like this, considering they've never seen several of the people on it actually fighting!

Most of our opinions of the old timers is based on boxing historians' opinions and newspaper reports. Now this is just my opinion, but I believe boxing historians try to make out that what they saw back in the day was the best, be it true or untrue, and cling on to their memories of the fighters of yesteryear because no-one else can truly say "you're wrong", as the only thing anyone else has to go by is a fighter's record.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, UrDazed. I'm not slating your opinion, I just think it's a bit crazy that people buy into the old reports so much. I'm also of the belief that the pre-war, turn of the 19th century world champions are vastly overrated simply because we will never be able to see what the majority of them were like. Also, the modern day version of boxing was more or less just starting to take shape back then, so fighters were obviously a whole lot less evolved.

Apologies if it seems like I'm having a go at you, UrDazed. I'm not. I just thought this was an appropriate time and thread to vent some of my opinions that I haven't really been able to do before.

[SBleeder]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Joe Gans
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Willie Pep
8. Sam Langford
9. Benny Leonard
10. Archie Moore
11. Joe Louis
12. Roberto Duran
13. Carlos Monzon
14. Eder Jofre
15. Pernell Whitaker
16. Jimmy Wilde
17. Sugar Ray Leonard
18. Tony Canzoneri
19. Bob Fitzsimmons
20. Ricardo Lopez
21. Gene Tunney
22. Wilfredo Gomez
23. Julio Cesar Chavez
24. Larry Holmes
25. Jimmy McLarnin


I actually attempted a top 100 list years ago, but I've torn it apart way too many times to go that far beyond 25.

And yes, that is Ricardo "Finito" Lopez at #20.