Bert Sugars Greatest Fighters List!

[sleazyfellow]

I have the book as well, the first 2 are fine with me, but when he starts past 20 it gets a little ******. Glad to see beau jack and ike willams make the list though.

[Reggie Miller]

WTF is larry holmes ranked so low? :smh:.
bull**** list.

[zelley]

Eder Jofre

The rating of Eder Jofre at 28 is low, I would rank him in the top ten

[zelley]

Ratings

It is all so academic, once one gets past Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong and
Roberto Duran it is an academic game.

[jmyersdtn]

There are lots of debates about that list. I'm not sure Tyson deserves to be on there, among other things......

[BKM-]

Nobody can call his list bogus. If there is a man that knows his list and its fighters from the inside out it's Bert Sugar. Research people. Extensive research leads to diffirent perspective, especially if it's a slow progress over years.

You also have to remember that most Boxing historians do not rate greatness by head to head matchups and era comparisons. That's fun and all, but it's completely based on theory, because we'll never know for sure. To be credible in ANYTHING you must have facts. Therefor we look at the factual material that is available such as fight footage, resume, accomplishments etc. THAT is how you rate greatness.

I'm really sick and tired of people having this superiority complex for todays fighters. Why must well over 10 decades of historical boxing be compared to ONE era? This current era?

Please, look at what they did in their respective times and prime, then rate them. Thank you.

[3_Hooks]

i think these lists are kinda old school nuthuggery. jack johnson and jack dempsey that high? they were great for their time, but from the from the 50's until present it has been the peak talent wise.

boxers now don't box like boxers from the 1910's. jack johnson was defeated by a boxer that didn't start boxing until he was 30. i don't know when dempsey started training but i think his early experiences in fighting were bar fights. maybe in accomplishments, but i think a lot of these lists are nut hugging the old school.

there's not a lot of recent fighters in his top 15 even. take marciano's accomplishments and they're about the same as lennow lewis's or lewis may have slightly more. i'm sure lewis has been through more challenges than marciano and is probably more skilled.

it's probably because of the history boxing has and the fact that not a lot of boxers defend their titles for 10 years straight anymore, but i think from the 50's until present has been the most talented era.

[Xyei]

I think even attempting to make a list like this is bogus. Trying to rate fighters from vastly different eras is futile as the standards have evolved. Would Mike Tyson ever KO Jack Johnson? No one f'n knows, and no one could ever find out.

I totally agree with you man. That's why I never really take part in this kind of ****. It's all speculation.

[BattlingNelson]

It's pretty difficult to compile such a list. Of course one might expect something better from a distinguished writer such as Bert Sugar. Some of the names mentioned in the thread is obvious faults on Sugars behalf.

[cotto16]

THAT LIST IS TERRIBLE!!! Carlos monzon 55th? charley burley 59? how can you not have learnard in your top ten! the guy is a gob****e