Bert Sugars top 100- is he too old school?

[sonnyboyx2]

P4P Leonard is superior.
Hearns is a tricky call on whether he was p4p better than Hagler.
Had he have put together a dominant reign or looked like doing so in one weight division I think it might have swung it for him, but I always had the feeling that there was always a better guy in any particular weight division to beat him.
Liked him to have stuck at light middle to be honest think he could have dominated there.

common opponents they both fought Hearns came out best
although it is meaningless and only of interest to the anoraks.

Hagler vs Geraldo W Pts -- Hearns KO1
Hagler vs Duran W Pts --- Hearns KO2
Hagler vs Roldan TKO10 --- Hearns KO4
Hagler vs Leonard L12 ---- Hearns LTKO14 & D12

if Leonard vs Hearns (1) was fought over 12rds Hearns would have been a clear winner.

[GJC]

common opponents they both fought Hearns came out best
although it is meaningless and only of interest to the anoraks.

Hagler vs Geraldo W Pts -- Hearns KO1
Hagler vs Duran W Pts --- Hearns KO2
Hagler vs Roldan TKO10 --- Hearns KO4
Hagler vs Leonard L12 ---- Hearns LTKO14 & D12

if Leonard vs Hearns (1) was fought over 12rds Hearns would have been a clear winner.

Yeah common opponents is one of the great red herrings, Hearns beat Duran comfortably, Barkley beat Hearns twice so naturally Barkley beats......

Ironically although I always say Leonard always did very well with the judges the 1st Hearns fight is one where I think he was getting ripped off.
An argument for another day maybe

[Rocker]

It's all in a matter of opinion but I don't agree with his list. It seems to have a certain amount of bias in it, in my opinion.

[HaglerSteelChin]

It's all in a matter of opinion but I don't agree with his list. It seems to have a certain amount of bias in it, in my opinion.

I dont like getting into the race issue but its odd that 12 of the top 20 fighters are white. Dont get me wrong, some of those are greeat fighters but many due to segregation laws didnt even fight black fighters. Also the pool of latin fighters didnt really make it an impact until the 1930's and to a major extent in the 1950's.

Its important to consider the vast pool of fighters available to fight to consider true greatness.

[GJC]

I dont like getting into the race issue but its odd that 12 of the top 20 fighters are white. Dont get me wrong, some of those are greeat fighters but many due to segregation laws didnt even fight black fighters. Also the pool of latin fighters didnt really make it an impact until the 1930's and to a major extent in the 1950's.

Its important to consider the vast pool of fighters available to fight to consider true greatness.

Never really noticed it to be honest, I don't agree with the list and re the race thing I personally wouldn't have Jack Johnson, great HW though he was, so high.
I can think of a fair few coloured fighters above him p4p. Ditto Chavez. Ditto Dempsey.
Not a big fan of Sugar's and think that maybe there is an element of who made great "copy" rather than a pure boxing viewpoint?

[HaglerSteelChin]

Never really noticed it to be honest, I don't agree with the list and re the race thing I personally wouldn't have Jack Johnson, great HW though he was, so high.
I can think of a fair few coloured fighters above him p4p. Ditto Chavez. Ditto Dempsey.
Not a big fan of Sugar's and think that maybe there is an element of who made great "copy" rather than a pure boxing viewpoint?

Yes i think that is why he has Dempsey so high. Dempsey was one of early big celebrities of the sport. Even if some thought his gloves were loaded when he KOD the much bigger Willard by shattering his jaw in several places.
Ali at #7 is a joke, Ali beat 7 guys who went to the HOF and was champ on 3 occassions.

[sonnyboyx2]

i cannot really disagree with his list.. yes it is mainly old school fighters but it would be picked apart by boxing fans if he had not chosen those ATG fighters... what if he had Kelly Pavlik at No22 could you honestly see Pavlik last more than 4rds against Marcel Cerdan who he has at No23. The fighters on Berts list are all legendary fighters who mostly fought when we had only 8 weight divisions with only one undisputed champion unlike today where we have 72 belts on offer

[sonnyboyx2]

Never really noticed it to be honest, I don't agree with the list and re the race thing I personally wouldn't have Jack Johnson, great HW though he was, so high.
I can think of a fair few coloured fighters above him p4p. Ditto Chavez. Ditto Dempsey.
Not a big fan of Sugar's and think that maybe there is an element of who made great "copy" rather than a pure boxing viewpoint?

i understand what you are saying, but you have to remember that a Jack Johnson fight was 10 times bigger than Pacquiao vs Mayweather as was a Dempsey fight, todays fight fans do not grasp just how collossal fighters like those two was in their day, Tex Rickard Dempsey`s promotor had Madison Square Gardens built for Jack Dempsey such was the enormous interest in him, same with Jack Johnson who both Gilbert Old & Nat Fleitcher claimed was the greatest of all times with Gilbert Old making his statement at ringside after watching Holmes vs Norton in 1978... who are we compaired to those great writers who sat ringside fight after fight, year after year and put it into print for future generations to read.. yet we ignore it and sit watching on cold-flat-screen (TV) then call them jokers or biased or racist... just like posters on this topic who call Bert Sugar "A JOKE"..... why is the guy a joke.. i was at ringside in 2007 for Mosley vs Cotto at MSG Bert was just in front of me in the press section, he never spoke to me personally but i could overhear him talking to his colleagues and he most definately knows his stuff and should never be written off as some crazy old fool who knows nothing about boxing or is biased.. Bert was editor of Boxing Illustrated also editor of The Ring Magazine, he has wrote over 80 books on boxing history and is in a better position to compile a Top 100 greatest Boxers List than any man in the world.

[T.Horton]

i understand what you are saying, but you have to remember that a Jack Johnson fight was 10 times bigger than Pacquiao vs Mayweather as was a Dempsey fight, todays fight fans do not grasp just how collossal fighters like those two was in their day, Tex Rickard Dempsey`s promotor had Madison Square Gardens built for Jack Dempsey such was the enormous interest in him, same with Jack Johnson who both Gilbert Old & Nat Fleitcher claimed was the greatest of all times with Gilbert Old making his statement at ringside after watching Holmes vs Norton in 1978... who are we compaired to those great writers who sat ringside fight after fight, year after year and put it into print for future generations to read.. yet we ignore it and sit watching on cold-flat-screen (TV) then call them jokers or biased or racist... just like posters on this topic who call Bert Sugar "A JOKE"..... why is the guy a joke.. i was at ringside in 2007 for Mosley vs Cotto at MSG Bert was just in front of me in the press section, he never spoke to me personally but i could overhear him talking to his colleagues and he most definately knows his stuff and should never be written off as some crazy old fool who knows nothing about boxing or is biased.. Bert was editor of Boxing Illustrated also editor of The Ring Magazine, he has wrote over 80 books on boxing history and is in a better position to compile a Top 100 greatest Boxers List than any man in the world.

i think that you mean to say Gilbert Odd.

[HaglerSteelChin]

Bert Sugar is not the most qualified person to write about boxing or evaluate fighters. As i said in my first post, i actually do like him as a person even if i think he is biased at times. Is sugar more qualified than Larry Merchant who has been around since the dinosaur age? Is he more qualified than people who have been both trainers and commentators as Emmanuel Steward and Gil Clancy? Bert Sugar was never a fighter or a trainer; that is like a non musician or the public determing who is the greatest composer? It just opinion.

For example, if you go by the public many people never thought of Handel as a top 5 composer, yet his peers thought the most about him. Beethoven said "handel is the greatest composer that ever lived......i would kneel before his tomb", Bach said " If i wasent Bach i would want to be Handel", Mozart "Handel understands effects better than all of us when he strikes its like a thunder bolt", and Haydn said Handel is the master of us all." Yet in most lists handel barely makes top 10.

Ali was considered the greatest HW by a fair amount of his peers and trainers- some even hated him as a person due to his big mouth. Yet Sugar has him 7. When almost no other journalist or boxer have him lower #4.

I tell you where i think he brings bias by having Lopez higher than Monzon. Monzon was a bad person he killed his wife, punch out photagraphers possibly some of sugar's friends. Monzon fought on a division where there is great amount of talent due to the fact that many fighters fight at MW. Lopez was a straw weight and fought at light flyweight. Monzon beat atleast 3 hall of fame fighters Benevenutti, Napoles, and Griffith and how many Lopez beat? Lopez was unbeaten in 52 fights and Monzon went his last 70 plus fights without a lost. Monzon had a record 14 title defenses in arubably the toughest division in boxing. But Lopez higher than Monzon? Lopez like 32 slots higher than Salvador Sanchez? Sanchez who beat fighters as Danny Red Lopez, Juan La Porte , Azulmah Nelson, Ruben Castillo and Wilfredo Gomez. Every list is debated as ESPN and RIng Magazine but there were just some fishy rankings.