20 Billion: Top 20 Filmed Fighters of the last 80 years

[BigStereotype]

THE LIST

Note that since the thread has started, it's changed from top 20 to just me rating all the guys I can. So if there's some names up there you don't get, that's why.


I have had a lot of trouble ranking all time fighters and making any kind of list. I simply wasn't confident enough in my boxing knowledge to put together a ranking of the top any kind of fighters of all time. So I decided that I would try and make a system for ranking fighters. I was hoping that even if this system couldn't eliminate objectivity or magically give me more boxing knowledge, I could at least add some consistency to my rankings. I decided to keep it to filmed fighters (because the eyeball test is a part of my rankings) and fighters since 1930. I needed a cutoff date for two reasons. One, the sport has clearly changed since the days of Stanley Ketchel and Bob Fitzsimmons. While they were definitely great champions, I have some much trouble imagining how a fight would go between, say Jack Johnson and Joe Louis. I almost treat it like a different sport. Two, I simply do not know enough about the competition that was levied against the great fighters and the murky win-loss records makes it hard to tell who was a somebody and who was just a popular fighter. Hopefully in the future, I will continue to expand my knowledge so that I can "accurately" rate those kinds of fighters. But before I get to the actual results of my system, I should explain how it works.

Top Five Wins: This is a simple assessment of the quality of the best wins on a fighter’s resume. Some guys have more than five big wins, but that can be reflected in “Dominance” and “Consistency.” There are some fighters with a thinner resume, with maybe one or two big wins and then not much else. That will really hurt them in this category and probably eliminate them from top 10 consideration. The wins are graded by a number of different standards. I look at the best wins of the opponent, the stage of the career both men were in (I rate a significant age gap pretty highly most of the time), how close the bout was. I also like to give credit if a fighter “showed something.” Joe Frazier was not at his best in his third fight with Muhammad Ali, but Ali showed such incredible grit and toughness that it is hard not to rank that win among his best. Also, based on the circumstances, a win can be rated higher or lower than the actual grade of the fighter defeated. I rate each of the five wins individually and then average out the results to see how consistently they fought great fighters. (Weighted 35%)
Dominance: How did the boxer perform against the fighters of his era? This combines the mid-level wins and title defenses with other wins outside of his top five. Basically, this is rating the “best of the rest” wins on his resume, so a fighter who made a career of beating champions will see a big bump in this category if there is “spillover” of greats from his top five. (Weighted 30%)
Style: How good did this fighter look? What tools did he have? This is an extremely subjective category, so it is not weighted heavily, but it is important for “head-to-head matchups.” Also, I think it is ridiculous to rate a fighter without taking a look at how “good” they were. There are some who would say that it is possible to rate a fighter without seeing film, and to a certain extent, I agree. But I am really hesitant to say that someone was a great without the proof of my own two eyes. (Weighted 10% + Tiebreaker if two are tied)
Longevity: A lot of fighters had brief flashes of excellence, but this category is about sustaining that over a long stretch of time. This is about the time spent at the elite level of the sport. For newer fighters, this is usually when they win their first title, but for the more old-school fighters who fought when there was only one belt, it is a little more abstract. (Weighted 10%)
Consistency: Some guys are notoriously inconsistent. They could look like the greatest boxer that ever was in one fight, then lay an egg the next. This category is mostly about who you struggled with, who you lost to, and whether those losses can be justified on an all-time level. Long winning streaks are a good way to get good consistency points. (Weighted 15%)
Notes:
• These grades are all based on the fighter’s prime, with the obvious exception of longevity.
• They intertwine, as well. It is hard to get a good score in dominance without good top five wins and consistency, but the differences are distinct enough to justify different grades.

Once I have all those values tallied, I enter them into a weighted average calculator (so that your top five wins will be a lot more important than how pretty I thought their style was) and, boom, there's my result. However, the "Style" category has a little more weight than the other 15% ones. In the event of a tie in the Overall rating, I use the style rating as a "head to head" tiebreaker. I didn't rate active fighters because it's hard to pin them down for a "longevity" rating. The results here are interesting, some are surprising, but I treated this more as a game and a tool for improving my knowledge than a hard and fast rankings system. Let me know what you think!

Also, I'm almost positive that I missed out on some great fighters. I spent a lot of time researching this, but let me know who I forgot so I can get to ranking them!

[BigStereotype]

“The Bronx Bull” Jake LaMotta

Record: 83-19-4 (KO 30, 28.3%)
Top Five Wins: Holman Williams Dec 10 (87), Jose Basora Dec 10 (86), Laurent Dauthuille KO 15 (89), Marcel Cerdan TKO 10 (92), Sugar Ray Robinson Dec 10 (97); Points: 90
Dominance: LaMotta had a good run as champion and floating around the top of the middleweight division, but there are some notable names missing from his resume. He could have fought Archie Moore and Charley Burley and did not. Wins over those two would have vaulted into the true upper echelons of the division. But regardless of who he did not fight, he had wins over some very good champions, most notably Cerdan and Robinson. Points: 87
Style: LaMotta is unfairly tagged as a face first brawler, mainly due to his portrayal in Raging Bull. While he certainly was no Fancy Dan, he was a skilled pressure fighter with better defense than people give him credit for. His power and speed left a some to be desired, but he was a fearsome body puncher with a legendary chin, maybe the hardest beard ever seen in the sport. Points: 84
Consistency: Fighting a bunch of great fighters and giving them rematches means that you will lose some fights. Five of those were at the hands of Ray Robinson and eleven came at light heavyweight, where he was just much too small. So when fighting men who were both his size and not indestructible killing machines, he only had three losses. It is hard to just write off his losses to Robinson and he does lose points, but he was a much better fighter than his 19 losses would indicate. Points: 89
Longevity: Jake fought his first elite level fighter in Jose Basora in 1941. He lost that fight, then lost his second step up fight against Robinson in ‘42. His first big win was against Jimmy Edgar the next month and continued to fight at a high level until he defeated Laurent Dauthille in 1950, his last fight before the disastrous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre that tolled the end of his tour on the elite circuit. Points: 88
Overall Grade: 88.1

[BigStereotype]

“Big” George Foreman

Record: 76-5 (KO 68, 84%)
Top Five Wins: George Chuvalo TKO 3 (85), Joe Frazier KO 2 (94), Joe Frazier TKO 5 (77), Ken Norton KO 2 (88), Michael Moorer KO 10 (92); Points: 87
Dominance: In early 1970, Foreman got a ten-round decision over a fighter named Gregorio Peralta. After that, he embarked on a 24 fight knockout streak. That is simply incredible, especially when you consider that it included fighters like George Chuvalo (who never left his feet but took an incredible pounding), Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, none of whom reached the fourth round. He was a dominant heavyweight force in the 70’s, but his title reign leaves a little to be desired. Points: 87
Style: Foreman is the truest slugger in the history of the sport. At his peak, he lumbered forward, hurling decapitating punches at his opponents with reckless abandon. He had a rock solid chin and is one of the biggest one-punch hitters in the history of the heavyweight division. Unfortunately, he overcommitted to punches, which drained his stamina quickly and made him easy to counter. Ali and Jimmy Young both took advantage of this stylistic flaw. But his power and chin carried over into his old age, when he outbrawled men 15 years younger than himself, an impressive feat. Points: 92
Consistency: When Foreman was at his best, he was a fearsome power punching beast. But while there is no shame in losing to Muhammad Ali, he had a tendency to struggle with fighters he really had no business struggling with. This came to light in his close shootout win over Ron Lyle, his loss to Jimmy Young and, in his comeback, glass-jawed Tommy Morrison. Points: 82
Longevity: Foreman is a funny example of longevity. He had a fairly short title reign initially, but made his legendary comeback in the 80’s and 90’s to reclaim the crown in 1995 with his KO of Michael Moorer. But his long career overcomes his lack of title defenses and his ability to beat good (if not great) fighters in the 90’s makes him one of the finest aging fighters ever seen. Points: 95
Overall Grade: 88.2

[BigStereotype]

Sonny Liston

Record: 50-4 (KO 39, 72.2%)
Top Five Wins: Cleveland Williams TKO 3 (82), Eddie Machen Dec 12 (79), Floyd Patterson KO 1 (93), Floyd Patterson II KO 1 (90), Zora Folley KO 3 (85); Points: 86
Dominance: Before he captured the title by demolishing Floyd Patterson, he was 34-1 (KO 25, 71.4%). He lost in his eighth professional fight, when he suffered a broken jaw against Marty Marshall, but other than that mauled the majority of his competition. His division hardly one of the strongest in heavyweight history, but Liston was able to maul and dominate his competition. But he was past his best when he had his coming out parties in those two one-round fights with Patterson. And in only his second title defense (and first against an opponent other than Patterson), he was outboxed and humiliated over an 8 round TKO by Muhammad Ali, then sent crashing to the canvas in round 1 of their rematch. While he was in his prime in the late fifties, though, Sonny Liston was a terrifying force in the heavyweight division. Points: 88
Style: Sonny Liston was an aggressive boxer-puncher who loved to scrap. With a solid chin, immense power and big, long arms, he was dangerous to get into a trading match with. He had a thudding left jab that sent numerous contenders sprawling to the canvas, backed up by a devastating left hook upstairs and down, and a powerful right hand. Also, more than any fighter other than perhaps Mike Tyson, Liston knew the power of fear. A large, intimidating man, he used to petrify his opponents before they were in the ring with them, often beating them even before the bell had rung. For some context, even former sparring partner George Foreman used to be backed up and bullied by Liston. But his reliance on flatfooted power punching made him very vulnerable to a good mover and boxer, a flaw that Muhammad Ali ruthlessly exposed and hammered. Points: 89
Consistency: Even with an early setback in his career, Liston simply outclassed the rest of the heavyweights in his division, pummeling and knocking out all of the major contender surrounding him. He was dominated by Muhammad Ali, but he was aging and slowing down by that point. He was listed at 33 years old, but had no official birth certificate and many suspected that he could have been significantly older than that. I think it is hard to hold a loss as he approached his 40’s against the greatest heavyweight who ever lived against him. Points: 93
Longevity: Liston’s career had a number of setbacks early. He lost the broken jaw fight to Marty Marshall, then was arrested for assaulting a police officer in 1956. But he came back in ’58, scoring six knockouts in eight wins. He was the best heavyweight in the world until Muhammad Ali dethroned him in 64. But he was still a quality heavyweight after that, scoring 11 straight knockouts before he was knocked out by Leotis Martin in a vicious war that forced Martin into retirement. That was in 1969 and it was clear that he was only a shadow of his former self. Points: 86
Overall Grade: 88.4

[BigStereotype]

Archie “The Old Mongoose” Moore

Record: 185-23-10 (KO 131, 59.8%)
Top Five Wins: Bert Lytell Dec 10 (92), Harold Johnson TKO 14 (93), Holman Williams TKO 11 (91), Joey Maxim Dec 15 III (96), Joey Maxim Dec 15 I (95) Total: 93
Dominance: Because of the era he fought in, Archie Moore not only fought everyone but beat most of them. He split a couple of series, but he cleaned out most everyone at middleweight and light heavyweight. Unfortunately, there are two names missing from that resume. He never beat Charley Burley or Ezzard Charles, and the latter controlled him and even knocked him out in their final fight. That hurts his score, but for the most part, he has wins over a lot of big names and beat guys who beat those two. Points: 86
Style: Moore might be the hardest pound-for-pound puncher in history. On top of that, he had a shifty, tricky counterpunching style, characterized by his trademark cross guard. At middle and light heavyweight, Moore’s right hand usually meant the end of the fight. He proved that this style itself was very effective, as he continued to have success even as his athletic gifts faded with age. Points: 92
Consistency: Part of fighting everyone means taking some losses, but Archie’s loss total is a little high for my liking. He was certainly a great fighter and wins are more important to rating a great fighter, but he did lose 23 times. Unlike many other fighters with high loss totals, he did not have the excuse of age for his losses, either. Actually, he lost more in his twenties than he did in his thirties and forties! That really hurts his score here. Points: 81
Longevity: The “Old Mongoose” was a fitting nickname for Archie, as he continued to have success into his late thirties and early forties. He holds a seemingly untouchable record for the most knockouts ever, collected over a long and storied career. His best win, a dominant win over ex-light heavyweight champ Joey Maxim in their third matchup, happened at age 38. Archie continued to add tricks to his bag as he aged, allowing him to succeed when other fighters declined. Until Bernard Hopkins, Archie Moore was the most successful “past-prime” fighter in history. Points: 98
Overall Grade: 90.4

[BigStereotype]

Alexis “El Flaco Explosivo” Arguello

Record: 77-8 (KO 62, 83%)
Top Five Wins: Bobby Chacon TKO 7 (85), Jimm Watt Dec 15 (86), Leonel Hernandez TKO 8 (82), Rafael Limon TKO 13 (82), Ruben Olivares KO 13 (90); Points: 85
Dominance: Like so many great fighters, most of Arguello’s losses came either far before or far after his prime. From his failed title shot (at age 21, mind you) against Ernesto Marcel to his next loss, a razor sharp split decision to Vilomar Fernandez, he rode a 25 fight win streak, including 21 knockouts. That was his last loss before his fateful meeting with Aaron Pryor. He thoroughly controlled featherweight and super featherweight, with a solid lightweight run too. He was only the sixth three division champ in history, a feat made more impressive because all of those were the lineal titles. Points: 93
Style: Arguello had a picture perfect style, with a right hand from hell, a quick left hook and maybe the greatest body attack that ever was. His incredible power was shown by his really impressive 83% knockout ratio. He used his skysc****r height (a 5’10” featherweight!) and long arms to control the pace of his fights. Unfortunately, being so tall also made him very thin and it was evident when he was hit by a strong puncher that sometimes his legs weren’t as strong as they could have been at higher weights. Points: 94
Consistency: Arguello reeled off several long winning streaks in his career and was only ever stopped by bigger, stronger men in the twilight of his career. He showed a bit of trouble dealing with quick, tricky boxers, but he usually found a way to beat them. Alexis Arguello was the picture of a consistently great champion. Points: 91
Longevity: In between his losses to Escalera and Aaron Pryor, Arguello was 41-1 (KO 33, 79%) over 12 years. A twelve year stretch of competition at the elite level is quite an impressive feat. Points: 95
Overall Grade: 90.4

[BigStereotype]

Ezzard Charles, “The Cincinnati Cobra”

Record: 93-25-1 (KO 52, 43.7%)
Top Five Wins: Archie Moore KO 8 (95), Archie Moore Dec 15 (90), Charley Burley UD 10 (95), Charley Burley UD 10 (93), Joe Louis Dec 15 (88); Points: 92
Dominance: Ezzard Charles beat all the top contenders at light heavyweight in his day. Plain and simple. Oakland Billy Smith, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Teddy Tarosz, he beat them all. He has an excellent resume over the best fighters in the division. A lot of great fighters were floating around the division at the time and he has wins over all of them. He had a decent run at heavyweight as well, beating Joe Louis and Jersey Joe Walcott, but that is not where his greatest success was. Points: 94
Style: Charles was a tricky counterpuncher with mean KO power and a dedicated body attack. He was an efficient fighter, wasting little movement and was very skilled at remaining slightly out of the range of his opponent while maintaining his own offensive position. Even as a greatly diminished fighter against Marciano, he was still skilled and slippery enough to be the only man ever to take the Rock 15 rounds. In their second fight, his accurate power punching was enough to almost rip Rocky’s nose off of his face, although he had difficulty finishing off the champion and succumbed to Marciano’s knockout power. He was all-around an excellent fighter with beautiful technical skills. Points: 93
Consistency: Charles was a mean light heavyweight, losing only twice in the division and avenging both defeats. But when he killed poor Sam Baroudi, he refused to fight men his own size and moved up to heavyweight. The size gap combined with the loss of his killer instinct was too much for him and he suffered quite a few losses at the weight, although he had a modicum of success. But that does not change what he accomplished at light heavyweight, which is where he is ranked by many to be the greatest of all time. Points: 90
Longevity: After killing Baroudi, Charles continued to fight, but he was never the same. Charles was only 27 at the time. Even with extenuating circumstances, you have to hold his shorter tour on the top circuit of the sport against him. Points: 80
Overall Grade: 90.5

[BigStereotype]

Eder Jofre “El Gallo de Oro”

Record: 72-2-4 (KO 50, 64.1%)
Top Five Wins: Bernadro Caballero KO 7 (84), Johnny Caldwell TKO 10 (89), Jose Legra Dec 15 (90), Jose Medel KO 6 (78), Piero Rolo TKO 9 (83); Points: 85
Dominance: Jofre snatched up the World Bantamweight title in 1962 against undefeated champ Johnny Caldwell. He defended that title five times, with all his wins coming by way of knockout until he lost it to Fighting Harada. He lost that rematch and retired for three years, coming back to campaign at featherweight. He actually reeled off a 25 fight win streak, picking up the WBC featherweight belt against Jose Legra in the process and defending it once, again protecting his crown with a knockout. Jofre’s resume is a little thin when it comes to top-flight level competition, but he has many scalps from title contenders and also-rans on his belt. Points: 92
Style: Eder was a very clinical, accurate power puncher. He could stalk his opponents or move around the ring, but he usually waited for them to lead unleashing his artillery. With good counter punching skills, he made his opponents lead and then capitalized on the openings in their defenses to deliver punishing blows. He was quick to pounce on an opponent once they were hurt. But Fighting Harada showed that, if you could take the fire coming back, he could be outworked. Harada was the only man who could take that fire, though, so maybe that says more about the Japanese warrior than it does Jofre. Points: 92
Consistency: Jofre was only beaten twice in his entire career, two close decision losses to Fighting Harada of Japan. He had draws here and there with lesser fighters, but for the most part, if Jofre stepped in the ring, he was going to win the fight. It was just a question of how and in what round. Points: 96
Longevity: Jofre, a career bantamweight, had real, legit success as a 37 year old featherweight. He captured the South American bantamweight title in 1960 and the WBC featherweight title in 1973.That is impressive, especially for a little man. Points: 95
Overall Grade: 90.6

[BigStereotype]

“Hammerin’, Homicide, Hurricane” Henry Armstrong

Record: 150-21-10 (KO 101, 55.8%)
Top Five Wins: Barney Ross Dec 15 (93), Ceferino Garcia Dec 15 (87), Lou Ambers Dec 15 (91), Petey Sarron KO 6 (85), Tony Chavez KO 10 (85); Points: 88
Dominance: Armstrong had a run from 1937 to 1940 where he went 60-1-1 with 51 knockouts. During this period, he captured the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight titles all at once. He would have captured the middleweight title as well, but for a controversial draw with champ Ceferino Garcia. This was at a point where there were a total of eight recognized championships in the world. If that is not dominance, nobody has ever dominated anything ever. Points: 98
Style: The original Hammerin’ Hank was a furious punching machine in the ring. He would sprint at his opponent, lower his head and drive his man back, throwing thudding shots to both the body and head. He rolled away from punches and covered up and avoided shots well on the inside. He was tremendously strong, able to manhandle bigger opponents, and although he was no one-punch knockout artist, his feverish pace wore down opponents and he scored more than his share of stoppages. His chin was granite, his gastank never ran down, Henry Armstrong was a nightmare for his opponent in every sense of the word. Points: 95
Consistency: During those four incredible years, Armstrong won every single fight against a litany of champions and contenders. His lone prime loss was a unanimous decision to Lou Ambers where he had five points deducted for low blows and still forced a close decision. He fought a little more than once a month and was ready to go every time. That is a remarkable level of consistency. He had losses before and after his prime, but at his best, he was as close to invincible as anyone has ever been. Points: 93
Longevity: Armstrong was a monster during his four year prime, but suffered a few losses before he hit his stride and quite a few after his intense, all-action style burned him out. He was 90-20-9 outside of his spectacular run, a respectable total for sure, he was by all accounts a different fighter. Points: 80
Overall Grade: 90.6

[BigStereotype]

Ray Leonard

Record: 36-3-1 (KO 25, 62.5%)
Top Five Wins: Ayube Kalule TKO 9 (80), Marvin Hagler SD 12 (93), Roberto Duran TKO 8 (93), Thomas Hearns KO 14 (98), Wilfred Benitez KO 15 (91); Points: 91
Dominance: Simply put, Ray Leonard beat everyone. From the time he beat Pete Ranzany in 4 rounds in 1979 to take the NABF welterweight belt to when he knocked out Danny Lalonde to capture the WBC light heavyweight title, he defeated four hall of famers in Duran, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns and Wilfred Benitez. But he missed four years of his prime when he retired due to a detached retina suffered against Hearns and that hurts his score here. Points: 92
Style: It is really, really hard to sit down and watch footage of Ray Leonard and say that he has a weakness. His hand speed was legendary, he had knockout power in each hand, an extremely sturdy chin, a courageous fighting heart and, perhaps most importantly, a keen tactical mind for boxing. Simply put, he was a complete fighter. There have been a few fighters with more speed, a few more with better power, but it is hard to find a more well-rounded boxer than Ray Leonard. Points: 97
Consistency: Two of Ray’s three losses came in the last two fights of his career. The other was at the hands of Roberto Duran on a night where the great Manos de Piedra looked invincible. He promptly avenged that loss in the infamous “No mas” debacle. You could always count on Ray Leonard to not only win, but to win with style. Points: 94
Longevity: Leonard’s career began in 1977 and ended in 1997, but there were a staggering 14 years of inactivity in there due to his retiring and un-retiring. He accomplished quite a lot, but had he not paid such a steep toll in the Hearns fight, he might have continued to have middleweight success into the 90’s against some of the middleweight contenders like Nigel Benn and his ilk. This is really a weak category for Leonard. Points: 80
Overall Grade: 90.9