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

[Weltschmerz]

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?

Bert Sugar makes a such list to reassure himself how knowledgeable he is. It's just a silly name dropping list, like who cares.

[juggernaut666]

Bert Sugar makes a such list to reassure himself how knowledgeable he is. It's just a silly name dropping list, like who cares.

If that was a list to reassure himself on his knowledge ,he did an extremely lousy job!Its even more amusing the posters who actually defended the list .Even the worst ones with poor boxing perspectives should see how bad it really is:

[Panamaniac]

Taken as a whole, and given when it was written, I think Sugar's 100 list is as reasonable as any. My only quibble is the ranking of some. Most glaring is 100th ranking of Mike Tyson, who at worst should be within the top 20.

On the positive side, given how far back he went, I think it's remarkable that the only two relatively modern fighters to crack the elite top ten was Muhammad Ali and Roberto Duran at 7th and 8th respectively.

You have to go as far down as the 17th rank (Julio Cesar Chavez) to find the next contemporary fighter. Sugar Ray Leonard (who beat Duran 2 of 3 times) is next at the 25th slot.

[Panamaniac]

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.

The first sentence moots the rest of your argument when you suggest that one has to get burned before knowing that fire is hot.

[McGoorty]

Surprised this thread was bumped, it was a bad list then and a bad list now. Sugar hadn't even heard of some of the great boxers yet still thought he could make a Top 100

[McGoorty]

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.

Seriously the list is all over the place, The Scotch Wop was a tough rugged fighter and worthy of a lot of respect but he is way too high on the list and really lucky to be in the 100....... Rocky Graziano a better fighter than Les Darcy a fighter Sugar obviously never heard of... good grief. There are many names worthy of a place but nowhere near their right spot, NOT THAT THERE IS AN EXACT RIGHT SPOT. Lew Jenkins a awesome puncher but a shabby record and no film to back it up is not Top 100 surely, Ted Kid Lewis over 20 spots higher than Jack Britton ???? just proves Sugar was drunk or never knew that Britton clearly came way out ahead in the 20 fight series with Britton..... George Dixon high on the list and Young Griffo not even listed ??? that is seriously f****** up... Griffo was clearly a better fighter even though he was past his best in two of his three fights with Dixon.... he was clearly better in all three fights. Oh and Tommy Ryan so far near the bottom of the list, man oh man that takes the cake... Ryan would have beat the hell out of most of the middles and welters above him, indeed would have made them look second rate.... I could go on and on.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Seriously the list is all over the place, The Scotch Wop was a tough rugged fighter and worthy of a lot of respect but he is way too high on the list and really lucky to be in the 100....... Rocky Graziano a better fighter than Les Darcy a fighter Sugar obviously never heard of... good grief. There are many names worthy of a place but nowhere near their right spot, NOT THAT THERE IS AN EXACT RIGHT SPOT. Lew Jenkins a awesome puncher but a shabby record and no film to back it up is not Top 100 surely, Ted Kid Lewis over 20 spots higher than Jack Britton ???? just proves Sugar was drunk or never knew that Britton clearly came way out ahead in the 20 fight series with Britton..... George Dixon high on the list and Young Griffo not even listed ??? that is seriously f****** up... Griffo was clearly a better fighter even though he was past his best in two of his three fights with Dixon.... he was clearly better in all three fights. Oh and Tommy Ryan so far near the bottom of the list, man oh man that takes the cake... Ryan would have beat the hell out of most of the middles and welters above him, indeed would have made them look second rate.... I could go on and on.

Man, I believe you definitely could go on and on. Haha.

Great knowledge, sir. You are obviously a longtime follower and a true fan. I have to respect that and send you some green.

However, I will say that any list like this is going to be somewhat biased and many will be overlooked. Top 100? That's really too much to ask of anybody. You should do your own and believe me, I'd love to read it. I might agree more with yours than ol' Bert's.

[The Old LefHook]

Give us McGoorty's top 100 now!

[McGoorty]

Man, I believe you definitely could go on and on. Haha.

Great knowledge, sir. You are obviously a longtime follower and a true fan. I have to respect that and send you some green.

However, I will say that any list like this is going to be somewhat biased and many will be overlooked. Top 100? That's really too much to ask of anybody. You should do your own and believe me, I'd love to read it. I might agree more with yours than ol' Bert's.

I don't really hold a grudge against Sugar but I do not go with the hoopla that he was somehow one of the worlds great experts but I did enjoy hearing him speak because of his great passion and he was entertaining, just a shame he would recycle a lot of myths. You are right that a top 100 is an impossible task but I also know that guys like Les Darcy and Young Griffo were extreme talents and must be on any Top 100 list and the likes of Lew Jenkins should not be favoured over them, imagine Jenkins trying to beat Griffo when Joe Gans couldn't hardly touch him in their first two fights ? Griffo would just completely shut Jenkins out and cruise to an easy points victory, Jenkins was a very formidable fighter but he isn't even top 20 in the lightweight division is he... I suspect Sugar saw a bit of Jenkins fight and that he was excited by Lew's style of fighting. Johnny Kilbane and Dundee were formidable but too many holes in their records and there are many with similar records...... this is where a top 100 is not really feasible, once we reach the level of a Scotch Wop (the very good) we are now looking at probably 250 fighters, Tippy Larkin a fighter many have not heard of was a really sensational fighter with a superlative record, rarely gets a mention and I have never seen him in a top 100 and that is because the level of the very good contains hundreds of names like Larkin who was a better fighter than two thirds of the guys who have been world champs.... world champion is a title some guys I have argued vehemently with is not regarded highly... until it suits them so I get the old OHHHH Les Darcy was never a REAL world champ and we reject his claim that his world title belt was legit.... anyway thats a whole story on it's own, everyone who knows me well knows that myself and a certain cretinous boxing book author hate each other.... but as I said we cannot really consider world titles as the end all and I am very glad that on this forum very few regard world titles as such.... that is not to say it's not a great achievement, it's just that we all know that a lot of it has nothing to do with ability but with the businessmen and crims...... Anthony Mundine and Johnny Wilson and Al McCoy are three off the top of my head that were no way real champs and I bet you could name 70 or a hundred such names............................................. .................................................. ............. ................................... Take McCoy who held the other version of the middleweight title Darcy had.... the gap in ability and sheer power between them is as large a gap as can be imagined, it's like comparing Lucas Browne to Muhammad Ali, if they had fought McCoy's excellent chin would have probably resulted in his early death as darcy would have virtually cremated the guy.... McCoy was nothing more than a journeyman... Johnny Wilson held the title for quite a long time and Harry Greb was kept waiting all that time while Wilson made excuses.. once again like comparing Browne to Muhammad Ali.... this is the sad fact about boxing.. at least Greb did finally get the title.

[McGoorty]

Give us McGoorty's top 100 now!

I would at least try mate but a lot of my research I never saved and I am sick from cancer so have little energy, what I can do is put up Sugars list and delete some fighters and add some, but read the post I just made first mate as I explained a lot of where I stand on many things........ For a start I would not have Graziano even though he is one of my all time favourite fighters to watch. I am not huge on Henry Armstrong, well love the guy but no way is he number two but that's just my opinion, I could imagine a Packey McFarland absolutely making Henry look real bad and would win a large UD. I also think McFarlands record and seeing him on film makes him the equal at least of Armstrong... McFarland would have beat Barney Ross the same and many of those guys from the depression, those 30's guys were so tough but so many were badly undernourished, guys in McFarland's time did not have the depression to deal with so they were usually much healthier and stronger.