your best of all time is..

[Yogi]

You cant rank greb if you never seen him fight, thats why ring magazine doesnt include old guys in thier lists cuz there is no footage of him.

For your information, The Ring ranked Greb as the #1 middleweight of all-time in their Jan 2001 issue, as well as give him a top ten spot in their 80 best of 80 years issue, which is a ranking from them that you are well aware of, but yet again, you seem to be quite selective in your browsing of that list...

I also have some of their other divisional rankings and their lists are respresented by quite a few turn of the century fighters, so it might be best not to speak on The Ring's behalf from now on.

[Yogi]

Listen Ill say it right off the bat, most of you have 100 times more knowledge than me in the history of the sport. What I dont understand is why the guys from the 1800s to the early 1900s get so much credit. Discluding SRR and Pepp who I have seen. Is it because of the amount of fights they won? Why cant Leonard or Hagler be ranked higher than Greb or Langford?

What I don't understand is how guys like Abe Lincoln and George Washington are so revered as great U.S. Presidents when both of them would be completely out of their league discussing modern politics with...well, just about anybody with even a small semblance of knowledge in regards to modern politics.

[Yogi]

Dempsey had periods of inactivity and didn't fight the top rated Wills. The length of his reign is therefore not comparable to a modern champion who would have to actively defend his title, including a once a year mandatory defence. I don't hold it personally against Dempsey but it does put an asterik on his reign IMO.

Fair enough, and unlike what I was kinda hoping for, I can't really disagree with anything you said here.

[brownpimp88]

I completely agree with what you say. I think the older fighters get way too much credit when people havent even seen them fight.

The older fighters do get too much credit, dont listen to these guys on the forum, they dont make up the majority of fans that know alot about the sport. Every sport evolves, you cant compare old timers to roy jones, they arent in his league, he was one of the most skilled fighters to ever live.

[sleazyfellow]

well my top 5 list imo..
1. tied, joe louis/ali
2. another tie, henry armstrong/srr
3. george foreman
4. tommy hearns
5. mike tyson
this is just a list that comes off the top of my head and its not a p4p list or all time great, just my personal favorite fighters

[butterfly1964]

Well, here's mine...

Muhammad Ali
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Roy Jones Jr.
Joe Gans

[K-DOGG]

Every heavyweight champion has an asterik attached to his reign which makes comparisons fruitless.

Dempsey had periods of inactivity and didn't fight the top rated Wills. The length of his reign is therefore not comparable to a modern champion who would have to actively defend his title, including a once a year mandatory defence. I don't hold it personally against Dempsey but it does put an asterik on his reign IMO.

Louis had a 12 year reign which likely will not be broken in our lifetime, given the different standards that exist today. Louis had a 4 year hiatus, fought challengers that today's commissions would never approve of and didn't fight top ten black heavyweights. Again I don't hold it personally against Louis but again there is an asterik on his reign.

Larry Holmes had an impressive reign but again due to the fragmented WBC/WBA situation and Don King's control of both belts, Holmes often defended against inexperienced challengers instead of perennial contenders and talented fighters like Page and Dokes, nor did he rematch with fighters deserving such as Witherspoon and Weaver for example. Again, I don't hold it personally against Holmes but once again there is an asterik on his reign.

Each guy has different circumstances attached to his reign which is a reflection of the times in which he fought in.

Though it pains me to concede, this is the best post on the entire thread.


Nice one Sabbath; way to cut through the ****.

[K-DOGG]

Listen Ill say it right off the bat, most of you have 100 times more knowledge than me in the history of the sport. What I dont understand is why the guys from the 1800s to the early 1900s get so much credit. Discluding SRR and Pepp who I have seen. Is it because of the amount of fights they won? Why cant Leonard or Hagler be ranked higher than Greb or Langford?

Look, I'll be the first to admit, as I've already done, that it's all about perspective. Hagler and Leonard could be better pound-4-pound than Greb and Langford. All we have to go on to form our opinions is what we know and what we've learnd. We know that Langford started off as a virtual welterweight, yet this man had the skill and power and style to beat and knockout men who weighed in at heavyweight. What does that tell you? That he was pretty damn good to say the least.

We also know that Greb was a swarmer-type fighter with incredible handspeed and irrefutable toughness. He was a middlweight with one eye who beat the vast majority of his opposistion, many of whom outweighed him from light-heavyweights to heavyweights....and one future heavyweight champion. What does that say about Greb? That he was a tough, skilled, rugged S.O.B.

The fact that these men did fight 200 and 300 fights, or in that neighborhood, and fought often does say something about them. Does it mean that they could beat Hagler and Leonard head on, toe-to-toe? No; but that's not what ranking all-time greats is about becuase there's entirely too much speculation in that regard. Making a list is about putting each fighter in the context of thier respective time and comparing their accomplishements to those who came before and after them, comparing competition and such.



Is X + Y > or < Y + Z?....so to over simplify it.


You do make some valid points concerning some of yesteryear's fighters, however, there is no physical proof that they would have gotten their heads torn off by any of today's boxers.

Let me give you a couple of examples. Roy Jones Jr., you feel, is one of the greatest of all time pound-4-pound, correct? It's a fact, that stylistically speaking, Roy did just about everything wrong in the ring. He held his hands low, he jumped in with his punches, he lead with uppercuts and hooks, he moved to his right when fighting southpaws, etc. Yet, because of his immense physical skill, he made everything that he did "wrong" work for him. He relied essentially on his reflexes to carry him through to the end and defeat the man in front of him. He didn't have a superior technique. There was no advanced training that can be accredited for what he accomplished. It was just Roy being Roy and taking what he had learned and improvising upon it because he knew what he could do and what he could get away with. The first time it really hurt him was after his body had aged just enough that his reflexes were no longer off the charts.....and Antonio Tarver knocked him out.

Cassius Clay did the same thing, as did Jimmy Wilde, and from what I've read, Harry Greb.....and many other "old-time" fighters who you so easily dismiss as if they were nothing. Who's to say their God-given abilities weren't the heart and soul of their success and what would take them to victory agaisnt the more "evolved" techniques of today?


Just something to think about.

[BuddyChacon]

I put my list in my signature. I have a bias towards old school fighters myself. Even though I have read a great deal on Greb and Langford and know they were great. I only included guys on my list that I have seen on film and my list is not based on ability just my feelings towards the individual. You won't see a top ten list with Johnson and Quarry in it until you see mine.

[RockyMarcianofan00]

The older fighters do get too much credit, dont listen to these guys on the forum, they dont make up the majority of fans that know alot about the sport. Every sport evolves, you cant compare old timers to roy jones, they arent in his league, he was one of the most skilled fighters to ever live.

I'm done arguing for or against...

I'd like to make the point though that lets say there was not films of fights from the 70's or prior, and they started filming around now...

Now lets say that this argument happened in 30 years from now...You'd say fighters like Ali, Foreman, Shavers, etc are all guys who must have been bad and overrated because they came from a time before we had film....Also the sport must have evolved and they therefore must not be as good as fighters of today like Kitschko, Peter, Toney, etc...

I'm just trying to make a point...do you get it?