50 greatest fighters of all time poll for radio show

[tonyjones]

Just to let you know, all the players I listed were head and shoulders better then any modern player, so there are sports out their where the old-timers are still better then any modern player.

When I was younger then you, I use to hang around a lot of boxing people. Some were ex-fighters, even World Champions, others were trainers, boxing writers and boxing historians. Over time I learned to listen to what they had to say and I learned a lot.

I already told my side and others, including you have told theirs, and no one is going to change anyones mind.

I see your from Ireland, we send an Amateur Team over their every other year, and they come over to New Jersey in the years we don't go over to them. Do you know how many active Professional boxers there in your country. Answer 38. If you count all the fighters that ever came out of your country since the start of glove boxing, it's 741. The reason I am stating this is why do you show so much interest in boxing when your country isn't really involved.

Finally, no one really knows for sure who would beat who, But we all have our opinions and we should respect them. Even though I think your wrong, I do respect your opinion.

First off my country isn't involved???what an idiots statement to make are you aware IRELAND WON MORE OLYMPIC BOXING MEDALS IN LONDON THEN USA even though we a population of 5 MILLION as opposed ye're 312 MILLION but sher why would you be interested in things actually happening in the present....When you have a small population like us we're proud of the Barry mcguigans,Wayne mcculloughs,andy lees and Matthew macklins and of course the current world number 1 female boxer on the planet Katie Taylor!!!!did anyone ever tell you stats don't tell the whole story so do your RESEARCH before you make stupid statements

[BennyST]

You name the best fighters in each division up until the 60s guarantee someone from the recent past who's clearly better....what's so hard to understand that ALL sports have progressed significantly why is boxing different?

Roberto Duran fought in the 60's and was still beating top ten contenders and champions in the late 90's and 2000's as a 50 year old man.

That's your ancient black and white hopeless bum era and today's era in the same fighter. Duran beat his first great champion in the late 60's at 130, then 3 decades later, 30 years later, at nearly 50 years of age and about 40 pounds higher, beat a 29 year old prime fighter who was the WBA middleweight champion and had just come off wins over world champions like John David Jackson and Reggie Johnson.

How many fighters today have progressed beyond this, have learned all of his strengths and skills and apply them plus everyone else's?


One other thing; most sports are simple time breaking exercises. It is often a simpler process of figuring out the most minute differences in things that can break a time record.

Boxing is so far removed from that realm as to be completely unrelated. There is no time you have to beat. You are not racing someone. It is not a team sport in which you have to score more than another team. It is the most primitive, primal sport known.

In most other sports it is possible to learn from past and use what they could and could not do. In boxing, a couple of things make all of that utterly obsolete. First, no matter how athletic you might be, how well you might run, how fast you can do things and how utterly brilliant from an athletic perspective, which seems to be most peoples babble these days ("today's fighters are bigger, stronger and faster and more athletic!"), it disappears the moment you get in the ring and cannot take a punch. How often do we see some pathetically unathletic, physically hopeless guy, who wouldn't get remotely close to even qualifying for any world level athletic event, let alone breaking any records, excel in boxing? It happens all the time.

A quick example off the top of my head: the young, super athletic, supremely gifted, extremely fast supposed future superstar beats the older, skilled ATG and has the torch passed to him, then later gets in with a young pasty white, tall, lanky, slow, plodder and gets knocked out in 7 rounds.

Let me put an even better one to ya: in what other sport on earth, especially the ones you are thinking about in which "All the records are being broken today! Today's athletes are more evolved from 50 years ago!", would a nearly 50 year old man beat a supremely athletically talented young man in his late twenties? Name one other sport.

How close do you think this 41 year old, near obese man would get to beating a bigger, stronger, faster, prime, late twenties man in any other athletic, time breaking sport at the elite, world level?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...00_634x392.jpg

How could it be remotely possible with all these amazing young athletes coming up, faster, bigger, stronger, more advanced, that a nearly 50 year old man could beat the world's most elite young champions that are in their late twenties?

Boxing is not the same as other sports and they are not comparable. If what you say is true, then a fighter like Evander Holyfield would be the product of Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, R. Marciano, Patterson, Liston, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, and Tyson. He is utterly unlike any of them. He has not developed the speed of Ali, the combination punching of Louis, the ferocity of Dempsey, the skill of Tunney, the power of Marciano, the skill of Charles, the jab of Liston, the brute force of Foreman etc etc.

But, maybe you're right....Clearly these top fighters of today (top champions etc) are an evolution and advancement on what came before them.

[tonyjones]

Roberto Duran fought in the 60's and was still beating top ten contenders and champions in the late 90's and 2000's as a 50 year old man.

That's your ancient black and white hopeless bum era and today's era in the same fighter. Duran beat his first great champion in the late 60's at 130, then 3 decades later, 30 years later, at nearly 50 years of age and about 40 pounds higher, beat a 29 year old prime fighter who was the WBA middleweight champion and had just come off wins over world champions like John David Jackson and Reggie Johnson.

How many fighters today have progressed beyond this, have learned all of his strengths and skills and apply them plus everyone else's?


One other thing; most sports are simple time breaking exercises. It is often a simpler process of figuring out the most minute differences in things that can break a time record.

Boxing is so far removed from that realm as to be completely unrelated. There is no time you have to beat. You are not racing someone. It is not a team sport in which you have to score more than another team. It is the most primitive, primal sport known.

In most other sports it is possible to learn from past and use what they could and could not do. In boxing, a couple of things make all of that utterly obsolete. First, no matter how athletic you might be, how well you might run, how fast you can do things and how utterly brilliant from an athletic perspective, which seems to be most peoples babble these days ("today's fighters are bigger, stronger and faster and more athletic!"), it disappears the moment you get in the ring and cannot take a punch. How often do we see some pathetically unathletic, physically hopeless guy, who wouldn't get remotely close to even qualifying for any world level athletic event, let alone breaking any records, excel in boxing? It happens all the time.

A quick example off the top of my head: the young, super athletic, supremely gifted, extremely fast supposed future superstar beats the older, skilled ATG and has the torch passed to him, then later gets in with a young pasty white, tall, lanky, slow, plodder and gets knocked out in 7 rounds.

Let me put an even better one to ya: in what other sport on earth, especially the ones you are thinking about in which "All the records are being broken today! Today's athletes are more evolved from 50 years ago!", would a nearly 50 year old man beat a supremely athletically talented young man in his late twenties? Name one other sport.

How close do you think this 41 year old, near obese man would get to beating a bigger, stronger, faster, prime, late twenties man in any other athletic, time breaking sport at the elite, world level?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...00_634x392.jpg

How could it be remotely possible with all these amazing young athletes coming up, faster, bigger, stronger, more advanced, that a nearly 50 year old man could beat the world's most elite young champions that are in their late twenties?

Boxing is not the same as other sports and they are not comparable. If what you say is true, then a fighter like Evander Holyfield would be the product of Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, R. Marciano, Patterson, Liston, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, and Tyson. He is utterly unlike any of them. He has not developed the speed of Ali, the combination punching of Louis, the ferocity of Dempsey, the skill of Tunney, the power of Marciano, the skill of Charles, the jab of Liston, the brute force of Foreman etc etc.

But, maybe you're right....Clearly these top fighters of today (top champions etc) are an evolution and advancement on what came before them.

Roberto Duran was what 17 or 18 at the end of the 60s he's part of the change in the sport just like Ali as I already said he changed the game,they are products of there environments who benefited from progression in training methods,nutrition,tape.....Is it coincidence that in the 50s joe Walcott became the oldest world champion at 37 but yet mayweather,Marquez,klitschko and Martinez are all still dominating at that age and older!!!is this due to weak opposition or just maybe it's the advances in training and nutrition.although I'm not a fan of it MMA is just as primitive and primal if not more so and you can see the clear evolution in that sport from Gracie's to Jon jones........Nice try with the videos but i would like to see the videos of a Henry Armstrong next to a pacquaio or a defensive wizard B.leonard next to a Whitaker or maybe a ferocious jack Dempsey next to a Lennox lewis

[hhascup]

First off my country isn't involved???what an idiots statement to make are you aware IRELAND WON MORE OLYMPIC BOXING MEDALS IN LONDON THEN USA even though we a population of 5 MILLION as opposed ye're 312 MILLION but sher why would you be interested in things actually happening in the present....When you have a small population like us we're proud of the Barry mcguigans,Wayne mcculloughs,andy lees and Matthew macklins and of course the current world number 1 female boxer on the planet Katie Taylor!!!!did anyone ever tell you stats don't tell the whole story so do your RESEARCH before you make stupid statements

I am sorry for asking But I was talking about Professional Boxing, not Amateur! Yes, they won 4 medals in the last Olympics, 1 Gold, 1 Silver and 2 Bronze. On the pro level Ireland only had 2 pro boxing cards last year and only 304 shows since records were kept, that's what I was talking about!.

[Pugilist King]

Conflicted about how much you overrate Tyson?

he is just that good

[The Tase]

boxing has changed and evolved.

People who think Boxing has remained untouched and in the same pristine condition it was during the golden era (more like the tainted era) are lying to themselves.

[Anthony342]

Since I'm not from the US, I don't know enough about baseball to comment on Hack Wilson.

I happen to believe that, H2H, Ali is the best heavyweight ever... but not because he won the lineal title 3 times, and no one has been able to break that record since. These are just numbers, that don't mean anything.

SRR won the middleweight crown 5 times; a record that isn't likely to ever be broken - but is this even a record worth striving for? I mean, couldn't you argue, that he would have been even greater, if he had won it only once - and not lost it 4 times!

Sven Ottke had the most defences at 168... plus retired without ever losing a fight. But does this prove, that he was better than Andre Ward? I don't think so.

I'm not at all disagreeing with you, about there being certain boxers from the past, who are better than most of the modern fighters. As I have said in a previous post, I don't really see any appreciable improvement, skill-wise, in our sport over the last 60-70 years or so. And yes, there are certainly boxers from way back, who would more than hold their own against even the best champions from today... I just don't think you can "prove" that, by putting up those numbers.

And just for the record: I believe that, P4P, SRR is the greatest boxer ever to step into a ring.

And who did Ottke have those defenses against? What kind of resume does he have? I think those numbers do prove that. Until a heavyweight comes along and defends the lineal or undisputed title more than 25 times and has a better resume than Ali, than he won't be the best heavyweight of all time.

[Bundana]

And who did Ottke have those defenses against? What kind of resume does he have? I think those numbers do prove that. Until a heavyweight comes along and defends the lineal or undisputed title more than 25 times and has a better resume than Ali, than he won't be the best heavyweight of all time.

And who did Ottke have those defenses against? What kind of resume does he have?

I presume you mean, that his resume is nothing to brag about - because most of his many defences were against crap fighters. Which is exactly my point... so what are you arguing about?

[Scott9945]

boxing has changed and evolved.

People who think Boxing has remained untouched and in the same pristine condition it was during the golden era (more like the tainted era) are lying to themselves.

That is so funny that you refer to a previous era as "tainted" when almost every top fighter is juiced up now and the terrible decisions are at an all time high.

[Anthony342]

And who did Ottke have those defenses against? What kind of resume does he have?

I presume you mean, that his resume is nothing to brag about - because most of his many defences were against crap fighters. Which is exactly my point... so what are you arguing about?

I'm arguing that Sven Ottke doesn't have a strong resume and since Joe Louis defended the heavyweight title 25 times and does have a good one, that proves that not every fighter from today is better than those of the past. If everyone is so much better, then why has nobody surpassed Louis' record? If today's boxers are so much better, they'd be surpassing the achievements of those who came before them and shattering records, like all the swimmers and track athletes we see breaking records every summer Olympics, but they're not, so my argument is some from today might be better and others from the past are still better and that goes for a lot of sports. If today's athletes were better, than they would be at the top of everyone's all-time greatest lists, but they're not. When it comes to the best, we still hear names mentioned like Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, Ruth, Mays, Dimaggio, Michael Jordan, Ali and Louis. Someday we might hear those names replaced by the likes of a Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Lebron James or some boxer that hasn't come along yet, but we have yet to see that.