Great list. Now my question is are you basing this based on how good they were in their era or how based on how you think they'd do against each other p4p?
With my list I leaned more towards how great they were in their era. Some that I considered strongly but didn't add were Roy Jones Jr., Alexis Arguello, Carlos Monzon, Joe Calzaghe, Juan Manuel Marquez, Pernell Whitaker and George Foreman along with a few others. The 1930s-1950s I believe to be the greatest there ever was in boxing. Out of my entire list I really tried to pick using my head, but, with Rocky Marciano I went with my heart and respect for a man, who like Floyd of our time, fought the best and beat the best in the golden era of boxing, when men were men and the only gameplan of a champion was do or die.
Great list. Now my question is are you basing this based on how good they were in their era or how based on how you think they'd do against each other p4p?
And I bet against each other Floyd would be considered the favorite in the betting odds. P4P #1
It is just your list. Such lists are based on opinion and can't be proven right or wrong. Unless two fighters fight each other in their prime you can't be sure which one is better. You are just guessing. If you are rating Langford as a heavyweight how is he better than Jack Johnson? How do you know Greb would beat modern excellent middleweights like Hagler, Monzon, Hopkins or Roy Jones. There is no film of Greb fighting. Greb was champion of a world with a much smaller population and boxers made much less money back then. Boxing was only well developed in a few countries back then. It wasn't a world wide sport. Big money helps bring out talented fighters. The more boxers competing means the better chance of a great fighter being among them. There is nothing wrong with your list but it's just your opinion and you are mostly just guessing who is the best. Any such list can and always will be disputed.
Peeps always say it was one of the weakest eras in h/w history...but thats also subjective. I have always maintained this....if you took klitschko out of the picture...and everyone else just fought each other...it would have seemed like one of the most competitive h/w eras of all time....because all those below klitschko were seeming at the same level and would have been in close compelling fights. In that scenario...klitschko seems a mile ahead of the pack and warrants his place near the top of the heavies and into anyones top all time fighters lists.
This is true.
Their competition was nowhere near as good. Klitschko dominated one of the weakest HW eras we have seen and Calzaghe was extremely protected. Very good fighters but Roy and Bernard have far better wins on their resume, it's not even close to debatable. Plus they did it in more than 1 weight division.
Peeps always say it was one of the weakest eras in h/w history...but thats also subjective. I have always maintained this....if you took klitschko out of the picture...and everyone else just fought each other...it would have seemed like one of the most competitive h/w eras of all time....because all those below klitschko were seeming at the same level and would have been in close compelling fights. In that scenario...klitschko seems a mile ahead of the pack and warrants his place near the top of the heavies and into anyones top all time fighters lists.
If you love old school boxing and want to see the best fighters, take a look at my list.
1. Sugar Ray Robinson 173-6-6 (108 KOs) 1940-1965
2. Henry Armstrong 151-21-9 (101 KOs) 1931-1945
3. Joe Louis 66-3-0 (52 KOs) 1934-1951
4. Willie Pep 229-11-1 (65 KOs) 1940-1966
5. Jack Dempsey 54-6-9 (44 KOs) 1914-1927
6. Muhammad Ali 56-5-0 (37 KOs) 1960-1981
7. Roberto Duran 103-16-0 (70 KOs) 1968-2001
8. Rocky Marciano 49-0-0 (43 KOs) 1947-1955
9. Sam Langford 180-29-39 (128 KOs) 1902-1926
10. Harry Greb 107-8-3 (48 KOs) 1913-1926
11. Benny Leonard 89-6-1 (70 KOs) 1911-1932
12. Floyd Mayweather Jr. 49-0-0 (26 KOs) 1996-2015
13. Sugar Ray Leonard 36-3-1 (25 KOs) 1977-1997
14. Jack Johnson 56-11-8 (36 KOs) 1897-1931
15. Joe Gans 145-10-16 (100 KOs) 1893-1909
16. Jimmy Wilde 132-3-1 (99 KOs) 1911-1923
17. Gene Tunney 65-1-1 (48 KOs) 1915-1928
18. Mickey Walker 94-19-4 (60 KOs) 1919-1935
19. Julio Cesar Chavez 107-6-2 (86 KOs) 1980-2005
20. Manny Pacquiao 59-7-2 (38 KOs) 1995-2017
21. Marvin Hagler 62-3-2 (52 KOs) 1973-1987
22. Archie Moore 186-23-10 (132 KOs) 1935-1963
23. Ricardo Lopez 51-0-1 (38 KOs) 1985-2001
24. Barney Ross 72-4-3 (22 KOs) 1929-1938
25. Stanley Ketchel 51-4-4 (48 KOs) 1903-1910
Great list. Now my question is are you basing this based on how good they were in their era or how based on how you think they'd do against each other p4p?
Calzaghe and klitschko also had 10 year runs of domination.
Their competition was nowhere near as good. Klitschko dominated one of the weakest HW eras we have seen and Calzaghe was extremely protected. Very good fighters but Roy and Bernard have far better wins on their resume, it's not even close to debatable. Plus they did it in more than 1 weight division.
There's always lots of things to moan at when people make lists so props for making one, and for having Ricardo Lopez up there (Definitely one of the most skilled boxers of all time). It all comes down to personal preference and how you judge greatness (everyone views it differently). I would have Mayweather and Hagler higher up (Mayweather is at least Top 5 to me, but that's just me) and I think if you're going to put Pacquiao up there you gotta put Marquez up there at least in the Top 25. In my opinion he's beaten everyone on his record except Mayweather and even if you think he lost some other fights they were all close and controversial. I also think Marciano is way too high and B-Hop and Roy should be up there (Both had 10 year runs of domination). B-Hop's longevity is unmatched.
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug so a lot of people tend to just put their favorites at the top (Not accusing you of this). But if we're talking skill and overall how great they are in the ring I gotta put Floyd over Duran and Marciano. You could make a strong argument for Pernell Whitaker being in the Top 25 as well. Very few people in boxing history would've been able to beat that man at his peak. But it's all subjective, some people don't look at it like that. They look at who had the most exciting style, who fought the most fights of the year etc. I look at pure skill.
Calzaghe and klitschko also had 10 year runs of domination.
There's always lots of things to moan at when people make lists so props for making one, and for having Ricardo Lopez up there (Definitely one of the most skilled boxers of all time). It all comes down to personal preference and how you judge greatness (everyone views it differently). I would have Mayweather and Hagler higher up (Mayweather is at least Top 5 to me, but that's just me) and I think if you're going to put Pacquiao up there you gotta put Marquez up there at least in the Top 25. In my opinion he's beaten everyone on his record except Mayweather and even if you think he lost some other fights they were all close and controversial. I also think Marciano is way too high and B-Hop and Roy should be up there (Both had 10 year runs of domination). B-Hop's longevity is unmatched.
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug so a lot of people tend to just put their favorites at the top (Not accusing you of this). But if we're talking skill and overall how great they are in the ring I gotta put Floyd over Duran and Marciano. You could make a strong argument for Pernell Whitaker being in the Top 25 as well. Very few people in boxing history would've been able to beat that man at his peak. But it's all subjective, some people don't look at it like that. They look at who had the most exciting style, who fought the most fights of the year etc. I look at pure skill.