The Top 100 All Time

I've been watching boxing for over four decades now and have been lucky enough to cover some of the biggest fights and the biggest fighters in the last 30 years. I've managed to rub shoulders with the likes of Evander Holyfield, Bernard Hopkins, Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran....and so on. But in all those decades I have never once compiled a list of the 100 greatest fighters ever. I still hold that Bert Sugar's list is in many ways, one of the best I've ever read, and his book on the topic is highly fascinating. I have, however, often listed the best fighters I have witnessed box in my own lifetime and the list is part of my latest book: The Sweet Science, Then and Now. It is currently in the process of editing and will contain my many articles on the sport and some original pieces. The list is an integral feature of my book and during the course of my research I started to spread my net farther and farther...till it started to include some of the most iconic names of an age even before mine. Names like Robinson, Louis and Pep were just far too irresistible. This is why I am, for the first time ever, unveiling my own 100 Greatest Fighters Ever. The list is not perfect, far from it, but it is from the perspective of a boxing fan, who for many years of his life, managed to attain the dream of working within the sport he so dearly loves. An in depth look at each fighter will only be available in my book, but just for your enjoyment/debate/argument/criticism/ and possible praise, I present to you, The List 100: 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Henry Armstrong 4. Willie Pep 5. Joe Louis 6. Benny Leonard 7. Sam Langford 8. Sugar Ray Leonard 9. Roberto Duran 10. Harry Greb 11. Joe Gans 12. Jimmy Wilde 13. Mickey Walker 14. Jack Dempsey 15. Ezzard Charles 16. Julio Cesar Chavez Sr 17. Rocky Marciano 18. Stanley Ketchel 19. Archie Moore 20. Gene Tunney 21. George Foreman 22. Barney Ross 23. Joe Frazier 24. Tony Canzoneri 25. Jimmy McLarnin 26. Sandy Saddler 27. Terry McGovern 28. Marcel Cerdan 29. Jake LaMotta 30. Billy Conn 31. Marvin Hagler 32. Eder Jofre 33. Emile Griffith 34. Carlos Monzon 35. Ruben Olivares 36. Pernell Whitaker 37. Jose Napoles 38. Tommy Hearns 39. Ted Kid Lewis 40. Bernard Hopkins 41. Jack Johnson 42. Nino Bienvenuti 43. Bob Foster 44. Larry Holmes 45. Michael Spinks 46. Alexis Arguello 47. Miguel Canto 48. Mike Tyson 49. Oscar De La Hoya 50. Evander Holyfield 51. Manny Pacquiao 52. Roy Jones Jr 53. Marco Antonio Barrera 54. Felix Trinidad 55. Aaron Pryor 56. Floyd Mayweather Jr 57. Wilfred Benitez 58. James Toney 59. Erik Morales 60. Shane Mosley 61. Lennox Lewis 62. Wilfredo Gomez 63. Salvador Sanchez 64. Nicolino Locche 65. Sonny Liston 66. Kid Gavilan 67. Joe Calzaghe 68. Barbados Joe Walcott 69. Bob Fitzsimmons 70. James J. Jeffries 71. Joey Maxim 72. Jersey Joe Walcott 73. Carmen Basilio 74. Bobo Olson 75. Dick Tiger 76. Gene Fullmer 77. Jose Torres 78. John L. Sullivan 79. Pancho Villa 80. Carlos Ortiz 81. Chris Eubank 82. Wladimir Klitschko 83. Naseem Hamed 84. Ricardo Lopez 85. Myung Woo Yuh 86. Fighting Harada 87. Vitali Klitschko 88. Dwight Muhammad Qawi 89. Tony Zale 90. Ricky Hatton 91. Riddick Bowe 92. Jung Koo-Chang 93. Rocky Graziano 94. James J. Corbett 95. Matthew Saad Muhammad 96. Kostya Tszyu 97. Hector Camacho 98. Mike McCallum 99. Nigel Benn 100. Jose Luis Castillo For those of you wondering how I ranked these fighters, here is my criteria: Boxing Attributes Opposition Faced Achievements when compared to other fighters in the division(s) Title wins Length of Title Reign(s) Contribution to the popularity of the sport Long term legacy To break this down further Boxing Attributes: - Potency of Offence - Defensive Ability - Ability fighting at range - In-fighting ability - Adaptability - Power, Speed, Punch Resistance, Combinations, Footwork, Reflexes, Timing - Heart/Courage Opposition Faced: - How many top level opponents did the fighter in question face? Were they champions (former/current/future)? HOFers? Other fighters ranked as ATGs? And how close were these fighters to their best? Example: Holyfield's win over Tyson ranks higher than Lewis' - Were there particular fights that should have happened but didn't? Were the replacement fights better or lesser? Achievements when compared to other fighters in the division(s): - Pretty self explanatory here, did the fighter in question achieve more or less than other fighters in the divisions he has fought in? Did he have more title wins? Better opponents? Etc. An example would be ranking Ali above Louis, both have exceptional heavyweight careers but Ali fought the better overall opponents and won more championships. Title Wins: - How many titles did the fighter win? How many were against legitimate champions and how many were vacant belts? Was the fighter in question ever indisputably regarded as the best in the division? Example: Marvin Hagler recognised as the best middleweight on the planet for much of the 80s. Length of Title Reign(s): - How long did the fighter in question hold the belts he had? Again quite self explanatory. Contribution to the popularity of the sport: - How did the fighter affect the sport, with both the casual and hard core fans? Did the fighter attract new fans to the sport? Did he have a largely positive or negative impact? Long Term Legacy: - How is the fighter remembered in the years following retirement? For example, when Jack Johnson retired from the sport, he was for a while regarded as the best heavyweight ever but boxers came along, such as Dempsey and Louis who superseded him in the regard. Thus decreasing Johnson's long term legacy. Other fighters have legacies enhanced after retirement, such as Robinson or Ali.

Comments (20)

On what planet is George Foreman higher all-time than Floyd Mayweather Jr? P4P, Floyd is MILES above Foreman.

4y ago

MisterHardtop

Leaonard beat Duran 2x and had a great fight with him the first time around, beat one of the greatest middleweights ever and beat Tommy Hearns, not to mention the likes of Benitez and winning belts all the way above 160. He is certainly comparable to Duran if not greater.

4y ago

hugh_grant

Both were greater than Pacquiao. Yes, in this unofficial list they are at no7 & 8 respectively. But I wonder if In the real world they should be? Because in the real world I was thinking if a little kid looks at their achievements they might find it's Pac s achievements which are harder to achieve. Actually I think Duran is up there with pac. Id have srl a little lower

4y ago

MisterHardtop

If SRL and Duran is some kind of yardstick I'd have thought PAC would be above them or at least alongside Both were greater than Pacquiao.

4y ago

BodyBagz

Pretty much how most lists look. Guys with 100+ wins usually have shabby resumes. A fight a month ? Edit - WTF...2013 ?!?!

4y ago

hugh_grant

If SRL and Duran is some kind of yardstick I'd have thought PAC would be above them or at least alongside

4y ago

MisterHardtop

A lot has happened since I first posted my top 100, and I believe it may be time for an update. Keeping in mind my original criteria, I have made the following changes: 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Henry Armstrong 4. Willie Pep 5. Joe Louis 6. Benny Leonard 7. Sam Langford 8. Sugar Ray Leonard 9. Roberto Duran 10. Harry Greb 11. Joe Gans 12. Jimmy Wilde 13. Mickey Walker 14. Jack Dempsey 15. Ezzard Charles 16. Julio Cesar Chavez Sr 17. Rocky Marciano 18. Stanley Ketchel 19. Archie Moore 20. Gene Tunney 21. George Foreman 22. Barney Ross 23. Joe Frazier 24. Tony Canzoneri 25. Jimmy McLarnin 26. Sandy Saddler 27. Terry McGovern 28. Marcel Cerdan 29. Jake LaMotta 30. Billy Conn 31. Marvin Hagler 32. Eder Jofre 33. Emile Griffith 34. Carlos Monzon 35. Ruben Olivares 36. Pernell Whitaker 37. Jose Napoles 38. Tommy Hearns 39. Ted Kid Lewis 40. Bernard Hopkins 41. Jack Johnson 42. Nino Bienvenuti 43. Bob Foster 44. Floyd Mayweather - the iconic win over Pacquiao cements Pretty boy Floyd's place among the greatest fighters of his generation. 45. Larry Holmes 46. Manny Pacquiao - arguably the greatest offensive boxer of the 21st century, post loss to Mayweather he won 3 more world titles while approaching 40. Remarkable. 47. Michael Spinks 48. Alexis Arguello 49. Miguel Canto 50. Mike Tyson 51. Oscar De La Hoya 52. Evander Holyfield 53. Roy Jones Jr 54. Marco Antonio Barrera 55. Felix Trinidad 56. Aaron Pryor 57. Wilfred Benitez 58. James Toney 59. Erik Morales 60. Shane Mosley 61. Lennox Lewis 62. Wilfredo Gomez 63. Salvador Sanchez 64. Nicolino Locche 65. Sonny Liston 66. Kid Gavilan 67. Joe Calzaghe 68. Barbados Joe Walcott 69. Bob Fitzsimmons 70. James J. Jeffries 71. Joey Maxim 72. Jersey Joe Walcott 73. Carmen Basilio 74. Bobo Olson 75. Dick Tiger 76. Gene Fullmer 77. Jose Torres 78. John L. Sullivan 79. Pancho Villa 80. Carlos Ortiz 81. Saul "Canelo" Alvarez - what a remarkable career this young man has had. I would never have thought he would win titles at middleweight, super and then light heavyweight. 82. Chris Eubank 83. Wladimir Klitschko 84. Oleksandr Usyk - the best fighter to come out of Ukraine who is not a Klitschko. His undisputed win at cruiserweight and brilliant win over number one heavyweight Joshua are era defining. 85. Naseem Hamed 86. Ricardo Lopez 87. Myung Woo Yuh 88. Fighting Harada 89. Vitali Klitschko 90. Dwight Muhammad Qawi 91. Tony Zale 92. Ricky Hatton 93. Riddick Bowe 94. Jung Koo-Chang 95. Rocky Graziano 96. James J. Corbett 97. Matthew Saad Muhammad 98. Kostya Tszyu 99. Hector Camacho 100. Mike McCallum Sadly, both Nigel Benn and Jose Luis Castillo must make way for our two new additions.

4y ago

MisterHardtop

I'm interested in your opinion on this? Overall whilst I wouldn't compile a top 100 myself for said reasons, I respect your understanding and think its a well thought out and commend your effort. "My only problem is I fundamentally disagree with compiling a P4P list that spans over such a long time frame. The sport from Fitzsimmons era has (in some ways) arguably as much in common with the London Prize rules as it does with the marquess of queensberry rules. For example many of Grebbs fights were newspaper decisions where you had to knock the champion out to get the title. Or being able to stalk your opponent and knock them down as they were standing rather than waiting for a count of 10 and going to a mutual corner. Can we really compare our modern boxers to fighters of this era? These rules fundamentally change the sport into something else IMO." Thank you and sorry for the late reply. I haven't been on in a couple days. The poster who I quote raises a very good point, that fighting from say the era of Fitzsimmons or Greb was different from ours, yes it most definitely was. I will not say it was as different as he believes it to be but there was no neutral corner or 15/12 round limits, which obviously affected the fights. One of the points made was that Greb's time and in fact the time of Tunney, Johnson and so on employed the use of newspaper decisions, just a little bit of info for those of you who don't know what those were: Newspaper decisions were handed to fighters who were thought to have won and had gone the distance (in those days anywhere upwards of 20 rounds). That's essentially what the judges do now. In those days, the referee was the ringside judge and in some fights, he was also allowed to award the winner. The above post seems to think newspaper decisions were somewhat wrong, I don't see how they were. Now comparing fighters from the early 20th century or the late 19th to those who fought in the age of bare knuckle boxing is going too far, those were fights that were mauling, brawling wrestling matches rather than exhibitions of the sweet science. Imagine Wlad v Povetkin with no gloves and tonnes of biting, elbowing and the sort...so basically a Hopkins type fight. So, I can not rank, in good conscience, those who fought without the modern day boxing rules or gloves, it just wouldn't be right. I only think I can rate those who performed under rules that have hardly changed to this day, except the number of rounds and a few other, tiny aspects of this sport. "Can we really compare our modern boxers to fighters of this era? These rules fundamentally change the sport into something else IMO." Final point, I've been rambling on a bit, making a list of this sort isn't all about comparison, it is also about how good these fighters were in their own era and how they were ranked amongst their peers. I personally believe, that if you put a brute like Tyson in the ring with Louis, he would knock Louis' head off but that doesn't mean I'd rank Tyson higher. Louis' combines achievements and stature in his own generation far outweighs anything Tyson ever did. Yes fighters across eras will always be compared but in my opinion anyway, comparisons or head to heads should only play a small part when making such a list.

12y ago

soul_survivor

A bit generous to modern fighters. I thought the opposite, I'd have Pacman, Hopkins, Naz, Eubank, Lewis and a few others a lot higher. Names like Hagler, Hopkins and Monzon should be top 20-25 for me. But hey, everyone has their opinions and considering this fellas been around a lot longer than me, I'd take his word on some of the point he's made.

12y ago

Cyberspace

A bit generous to modern fighters.

12y ago

MBE

you speak of Tom Cribb in the same breath as Harry Greb but we know far more about Greb than we do Cribb, we have many, many more detailed accounts of Greb than we do of Cribb. Plus, I'm not sure if you know this but Cribb was a bare knuckle fighter who died many years before the Marquess of Queensbury Rules came into effect, that almost instantly negates his mention in any BOXING top 100 or top 7000. Bare knuckle fighting is a completely different sport, which still lives on today and if you have ever seen it, you will know exactly what I mean. Yes I am aware of differences but as I already posted: My only problem is I fundamentally disagree with compiling a P4P list that spans over such a long time frame. The sport from Fitzsimmons era has (in some ways) arguably as much in common with the London Prize rules as it does with the marquess of queensberry rules. For example many of Grebbs fights were newspaper decisions where you had to knock the champion out to get the title. Or being able to stalk your opponent and knock them down as they were standing rather than waiting for a count of 10 and going to a mutual corner. Can we really compare our modern boxers to fighters of this era? These rules fundamentally change the sport into something else IMO. I'm interested in your opinion on this? Overall whilst I wouldn't compile a top 100 myself for said reasons, I respect your understanding and think its a well thought out and commend your effort.

12y ago

MisterHardtop

This is garbage. You have Ricky Hatton on the list above Mike McCallum. And you're missing names like Vicente Saldivar, Luis Rodriguez, etc. Calzaghe above Carlos Ortiz also? Are you kidding me? Jesus Christ. This is why lists such as these can be so subjective. Mike McCallum was a terrific fighter but he never quite clicked the way Hatton did but again, it's a borderline inclusion, as many of the names post 85 are. It's tough which boxer to pick as so many in that section or close in terms of achievements, skill sets etc. The case of Carlos Ortiz is a tough one. He was a terrific fighter, right till his final days on earth but in the ring he often lacked the capacity to beat the very best put in front of him, such as the terrific Duilio Loi, and we must remember that Ortiz was at his best then, his physical prime whereas Loi was slipping. When Ortiz beat Elorde, again it came down to Elorde not quite being the fighter he had been years earlier. I don't want to take anything away from Ortiz but he was not better than Calzaghe, it's not all about opponents faced as Ortiz may have a slight, very slight edge but also about the skills and attributes on show. Calzaghe had a far better chin, better hand speed, he had far more cultured footwork and could get in and out of range better than Ortiz ever could. Calzagh was also better in a crisis and better at adapting to and beating every possible style of boxing under the sun. Plus he was THE champion in two weight divisions and hold a victory over Hopkins, who is still going strong and has been muted as a possible opponent for current top fighters such as Golovkin, Froch, Kovalev and Ward.

12y ago

dporcer0

12y ago

MisterHardtop

Top 100 lists are hard. You don't still do the reporting anymore? Sounds like a good career. What's your name and can you show us some articles or links. I love reading boxing articles and stuff. :fing02: I've retired from reporting on the sport. I had a little experiment with an online blog some years ago but that didn't quite work out. Too damn new for these old bones. I can certainly post some articles or send them to you via email or message.

12y ago

MisterHardtop

Remove Trinidad, Mosley, Hatton, Bowe & Castillo completely. Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Hopkins, Tyson, Roy Jones & Toney are all too high. I'd have Fitzsimmons, Pacquiao, & Hagler all higher. Finally, take Joe Louis and and Sam Langford out of the top 10 and replace them with Greb and Gans respectfully. Green K Given. You would remove the likes of Trinidad, Mosley, Hatton, Bowe and Castillo frm a top 100? Who would you replace them with. Admittedly Haton, Bowe and Castillo were borderline for me but Mosley and Trinidad have to be in it. Mosley was one of the best fighters over the last 15 years from 135 - 154. Trinidad was probably the greatest welterweight of the 90s, along with his rival Oscar of course. I personally have no problem with guys such as Greb and Gans making it into someone's top 10. They were both great fighters, pioneers and men who beat the odds on multiple occasions. We have newspaper reports to go off tom cribb in the same manner as Harry grebb, so why shouldn't he rank as high? I think having footage, lots of it or just the bare minimum may be irrelevant when looking at giants of the sport such as Greb of Gans etc. Yes there is an argument that fighters we have not seen or seen very little of should not be ranked so high but to me, when we have evidence of all their achievements, who would be quite disrespectful to not have them in their correct podium amongst the greats. you speak of Tom Cribb in the same breath as Harry Greb but we know far more about Greb than we do Cribb, we have many, many more detailed accounts of Greb than we do of Cribb. Plus, I'm not sure if you know this but Cribb was a bare knuckle fighter who died many years before the Marquess of Queensbury Rules came into effect, that almost instantly negates his mention in any BOXING top 100 or top 7000. Bare knuckle fighting is a completely different sport, which still lives on today and if you have ever seen it, you will know exactly what I mean.

12y ago

BennyST

Dempsey was the most feared heavyweight of his generation and hit as hard as anyone. He beat some of the best out there and was only beaten when he started to fade...even then quite controversially. Frazier beat the best version of ALi anyone ever beat and cleared out the division, admittedly a slightly weakened division but he did so with ferocious intensity and the baddest left hook ever. Marciano was limited in terms of technical ability but made up for it with a granite chin, exceptional power and an undying will. He didn't have the best era to work in but wins over Charles and Walcott are nothing to be scoffed at. In fact, if you look at it, those wins are better than Lennox Lewis entire career if you take out the Tyson, Holyfield and possibly Ruddock/Golota wins. That is impressive in my book. Greb I argued with over and over again, should he be higher? should he be a top 5?! It was tough but in essence I put it down to would I favour him in p4p match ups against Leonard and Duran. The answer came to a resounding no. And with the ESPN aspect, no I didn't use any list as a template, I've spent most of my life reporting on boxing so I'd like to think I know a bit about it. Having said that, I did often agree with my good friend Bert Sugar who I believe was influential in coming up with the ESPN list so that is maybe why there are some similarities. Top 100 lists are hard. You don't still do the reporting anymore? Sounds like a good career. What's your name and can you show us some articles or links. I love reading boxing articles and stuff. :fing02:

12y ago

bklynboy

Nice post, you make a great argument and I have to give it to you you've won me around with a lot of what you say! My only problem is I fundamentally disagree with compiling a P4P list that spans over such a long time frame. The sport from Fitzsimmons era has (in some ways) arguably as much in common with the London Prize rules as it does with the marquess of queensberry rules. For example many of Grebbs fights were newspaper decisions where you had to knock the champion out to get the title. Or being able to stalk your opponent and knock them down as they were standing rather than waiting for a count of 10 and going to a mutual corner. Can we really compare our modern boxers to fighters of this era? These rules fundamentally change the sport into something else IMO. I agree with you - to a large part. It's close to impossible to compare pre-1920 boxing with today. But do we ignore them completely? But it's also hard to compare fighters from the the present to 50 - 60 years ago. Today we have divisions with belt holders, not champions. It's not uncommon to have the best 3 or 4 fighters in a division NEVER fight each other. What's up with that? How do we know how good they are if they never fight each other? How do they improve their game if they don't fight the best out there? Then we don't have same day weigh-ins anymore. People re-hydrate an insane amount. Featherweights become lightweights and lightweights become welterweights. So how do you compare lightweights of different eras with one walking in at 135-38 with the other walking in at 145-148? We also are far more protective of our fighters and fights get stopped WAY earlier then they used to. When you got a TKO loss in the 1950s you were truly f**ked up. I'm in favor of this but it does take away a certain style of fighter. Imagine a Provodnikov taking punishment, surviving a beating for 10-12 rounds and then catching up and winning the fight in the championship rounds. (Definitely for the better as far as the fighter's health is concern.) And speaking of championship rounds - we don't have them either. Fights of today end at 12, not 15 rounds. SRL was losing to Thomas Hearns over 12 rounds. He needed the extra 3 to pull out a win. So, all-in-all, how do we compare fighters from the current era (roughly 1980 to today) with those of the earlier era (say 1920-1980)? Do we not compare them? No. We're fight fans. Of course we're going to compare them.

12y ago

MBE

Because it wasn't "boxing" in the 19th C. London Prize Rules was closer to MMA without the ground game. No gloves, elbows and knees and pulling, shoving, throwing, back-hands, forearms were all part of the sport. There was a slow transition (20 yrs) from people trained in LPR to what we now know as boxing. By the turn of the century we had the first generation of boxers (gloves, front of the fist only) but the sport was also illegal and there was no scoring (for the most part). A 45 round fight wasn't meant to go to the score cards. It was assumed that someone would be dropped long before then (either from a KO or shear exhaustion). It really wasn't until 1920 (after WWI) when boxing became legal, rounds were set to 15, scoring became normal part of the sport, AND rules were more truly enforced. Bring a modern fighter back to the 1910s and 1920s and they would be mugged. Bring Harry Greb to the present and he would be DQed by the 2nd round. The fight game has changed a lot. I agree bringing in Bob Fitzsimmons, Joe Gans, Stanley Ketchel, Harry Greb can be confusing - but what do you do? Do you ignore them? Re lack of film: there were many, many, many professionals (not fans but fighters, trainers, managers) who saw Harry Greb and Barney Ross and Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson and these professionals rated Greb as a definite TOP 5. It would be like if we had film now but not in 1980. (The same 30 years as from 1920 Greb to 1950 SRR) There would have been a lot of people that would say that Carlos Monzon (and Muhammad Ali) were among the greats and that they would either whoop present day competition or be very competitive. We, 60 years later, should not throw away their judgement. But I agree ... it does make it difficult to judge as we can't see for ourselves. Nice post, you make a great argument and I have to give it to you you've won me around with a lot of what you say! My only problem is I fundamentally disagree with compiling a P4P list that spans over such a long time frame. The sport from Fitzsimmons era has (in some ways) arguably as much in common with the London Prize rules as it does with the marquess of queensberry rules. For example many of Grebbs fights were newspaper decisions where you had to knock the champion out to get the title. Or being able to stalk your opponent and knock them down as they were standing rather than waiting for a count of 10 and going to a mutual corner. Can we really compare our modern boxers to fighters of this era? These rules fundamentally change the sport into something else IMO.

12y ago

bklynboy

I know statistically we have to respect Harry grebb but there's no video footage of the guy so how can we really tell. All we have is other peoples accounts. I agree that too much emphasis is put on the careers of the early 20th century fighters. So as a history major I want to counter that logic by going back even further and looking at some of the great pioneers of the 18th and 19th centuries, because we know about as much of them as Harry grebb. For example why not include john broughton? He was the undefeated boxing champion of England for 20 years in two reigns. But he fought in the 18th century so not a lot of info there. Or tom cribb, world champ of the 19th century, beating the great american champion tom molineaux in the fight of the century, and also his pioneering trainer bill Richmond ( A natural welterweight whose footwork was so good he often fought heavyweights during his era). We have newspaper reports to go off tom cribb in the same manner as Harry grebb, so why shouldn't he rank as high? Because it wasn't "boxing" in the 19th C. London Prize Rules was closer to MMA without the ground game. No gloves, elbows and knees and pulling, shoving, throwing, back-hands, forearms were all part of the sport. There was a slow transition (20 yrs) from people trained in LPR to what we now know as boxing. By the turn of the century we had the first generation of boxers (gloves, front of the fist only) but the sport was also illegal and there was no scoring (for the most part). A 45 round fight wasn't meant to go to the score cards. It was assumed that someone would be dropped long before then (either from a KO or shear exhaustion). It really wasn't until 1920 (after WWI) when boxing became legal, rounds were set to 15, scoring became normal part of the sport, AND rules were more truly enforced. Bring a modern fighter back to the 1910s and 1920s and they would be mugged. Bring Harry Greb to the present and he would be DQed by the 2nd round. The fight game has changed a lot. I agree bringing in Bob Fitzsimmons, Joe Gans, Stanley Ketchel, Harry Greb can be confusing - but what do you do? Do you ignore them? Re lack of film: there were many, many, many professionals (not fans but fighters, trainers, managers) who saw Harry Greb and Barney Ross and Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson and these professionals rated Greb as a definite TOP 5. It would be like if we had film now but not in 1980. (The same 30 years as from 1920 Greb to 1950 SRR) There would have been a lot of people that would say that Carlos Monzon (and Muhammad Ali) were among the greats and that they would either whoop present day competition or be very competitive. We, 60 years later, should not throw away their judgement. But I agree ... it does make it difficult to judge as we can't see for ourselves.

12y ago

MrTambourineMan

The List 100: 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Henry Armstrong 4. Willie Pep 5. Joe Louis 6. Benny Leonard 7. Sam Langford 8. Sugar Ray Leonard 9. Roberto Duran 10. Harry Greb 11. Joe Gans 12. Jimmy Wilde 13. Mickey Walker 14. Jack Dempsey 15. Ezzard Charles 16. Julio Cesar Chavez Sr 17. Rocky Marciano 18. Stanley Ketchel 19. Archie Moore 20. Gene Tunney 21. George Foreman 22. Barney Ross 23. Joe Frazier 24. Tony Canzoneri 25. Jimmy McLarnin 26. Sandy Saddler 27. Terry McGovern 28. Marcel Cerdan 29. Jake LaMotta 30. Billy Conn 31. Marvin Hagler 32. Eder Jofre 33. Emile Griffith 34. Carlos Monzon 35. Ruben Olivares 36. Pernell Whitaker 37. Jose Napoles 38. Tommy Hearns 39. Ted Kid Lewis 40. Bernard Hopkins 41. Jack Johnson 42. Nino Bienvenuti 43. Bob Foster 44. Larry Holmes 45. Michael Spinks 46. Alexis Arguello 47. Miguel Canto 48. Mike Tyson 49. Oscar De La Hoya 50. Evander Holyfield 51. Manny Pacquiao 52. Roy Jones Jr 53. Marco Antonio Barrera 54. Felix Trinidad 55. Aaron Pryor 56. Floyd Mayweather Jr 57. Wilfred Benitez 58. James Toney 59. Erik Morales 60. Shane Mosley 61. Lennox Lewis 62. Wilfredo Gomez 63. Salvador Sanchez 64. Nicolino Locche 65. Sonny Liston 66. Kid Gavilan 67. Joe Calzaghe 68. Barbados Joe Walcott 69. Bob Fitzsimmons 70. James J. Jeffries 71. Joey Maxim 72. Jersey Joe Walcott 73. Carmen Basilio 74. Bobo Olson 75. Dick Tiger 76. Gene Fullmer 77. Jose Torres 78. John L. Sullivan 79. Pancho Villa 80. Carlos Ortiz 81. Chris Eubank 82. Wladimir Klitschko 83. Naseem Hamed 84. Ricardo Lopez 85. Myung Woo Yuh 86. Fighting Harada 87. Vitali Klitschko 88. Dwight Muhammad Qawi 89. Tony Zale 90. Ricky Hatton 91. Riddick Bowe 92. Jung Koo-Chang 93. Rocky Graziano 94. James J. Corbett 95. Matthew Saad Muhammad 96. Kostya Tszyu 97. Hector Camacho 98. Mike McCallum 99. Nigel Benn 100. Jose Luis Castillo Remove Trinidad, Mosley, Hatton, Bowe & Castillo completely. Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Hopkins, Tyson, Roy Jones & Toney are all too high. I'd have Fitzsimmons, Pacquiao, & Hagler all higher. Finally, take Joe Louis and and Sam Langford out of the top 10 and replace them with Greb and Gans respectfully. Green K Given.

12y ago