The 20 Greatest Fighters of the 20th Century

[Southpaw16BF]

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Sugar Ray Robinson
4.Henry Armstrong
5.Jack Johnson
6.Jack Dempsey
7.Benny Leonard
8.Harry Greb
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Archie Moore
11.Roberto Duran
12.Willie Pep
13.Jimmy Wilde
14.Pernell Whitaker
15.Sugar Ray Leonard
16.Stanley Ketchel
17.Julio Cesar Chavez
18.Terry McGovern
19.Joe Gans
20.Kid Gavilan

In my opinion, arguably the worst list I have ever seen.

[JAB5239]

[CENTER]


In my opinion, arguably the worst list I have ever seen.

Yeah, that list pretty much blows.

[queenieerika24]

woott my idol no. 1 muhammad ali hehe

[sonnyboyx2]

[CENTER]


In my opinion, arguably the worst list I have ever seen.

explain why its the worst list you have ever seen and show the best list you have seen

[JAB5239]

explain why its the worst list you have ever seen and show the best list you have seen

In my opinion Ali and Louis are way to high. Dempsey (6), Marciano (9) should even be close to the rankings given all the great fighters in history. Ketchel, McGovern and Gavilan are way to high in my opinion, and no Charles or Langford is an outrage. I wouldn't call it the worst list, but I definitely have seen better. Jmo.

[Schmerzen]

its a good list, finally a list where heavyweights dont get underrated.
but i still think robinson deserves to be #1 p4p.

[Rolling Stone]

its a good list, finally a list where heavyweights dont get underrated.
but i still think robinson deserves to be #1 p4p.

i agree, heavyweights are always underrated when it comes to P4P lists but Sugar Ray is the best ever

[crold1]

[CENTER]


In my opinion, arguably the worst list I have ever seen.

Most of the fighters are fine; the order can be debated but, if I recall from that issue, it weighs 'historical impact' or 'significance.' Not sure how that measures. Louis was bigger in his time, arguably, than Ali in his.

[bklynboy]

Most of the fighters are fine; the order can be debated but, if I recall from that issue, it weighs 'historical impact' or 'significance.' Not sure how that measures. Louis was bigger in his time, arguably, than Ali in his.

When I see "greatest" I think "best." In that case should "historical impact" really be much of a factor when you're judging who were the best fighters? I don't think so.

Dempsey was huge in his time, a celebrity along the lines of Joe DiMaggio, Michel Jordan, and Tiger Woods. His celebrity status is important but that, in and of itself, shouldn't count when we're comparing who was the better fighter.

I think Dempsey is rated too high and, as much as I love Marciano, he's also ranked too high.

[crold1]

When I see "greatest" I think "best." In that case should "historical impact" really be much of a factor when you're judging who were the best fighters? I don't think so.

Dempsey was huge in his time, a celebrity along the lines of Joe DiMaggio, Michel Jordan, and Tiger Woods. His celebrity status is important but that, in and of itself, shouldn't count when we're comparing who was the better fighter.

I think Dempsey is rated too high and, as much as I love Marciano, he's also ranked too high.

I was talking to someone the other day, and have heard others use the idea, of 'greater' vs. 'better'. I don't always agree, but it's not invalid. Part of sporting greatness is what people remember, and Dempsey's impact on the game was greater than all but a handful (and we're not talking about okay Heavyweight fighters versus great ones. Dempsey and Rock were certainly great Heavies).