50 greatest fighters of all time poll for radio show

[DedrickTatum]

Just 10?

1.Robinson
2. Greb
3.Ali
4. Sugar Ray Leonard
5.Pep
6.Charles
7.Tunney
8. Mayweather
9. Armstrong
10. Duran

[hhascup]

I agree that none of us have ever seen some of these fighters, even on film. This is where you have to go by there record, who they fought and beat and what the old-timers had to say about them. The same thing can be said for other sports as well. Most people really never saw Honus Wagner or Cy Young play, but for some highlights, but they rate them very high. Even Babe Ruth, the only thing we see of him mostly is the highlights. I have talked to a lot of boxing people about this.

How can you tell if the pitchers like Cy Young, Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson had the same speed and movement of the pitchers in the modern era. So if you can't do that, how can you honestly say how Great Ruth or Cobb really was.

The answer is that we go by there records, etc.

That's just my opinion.

[The Tase]

it is intellectually and analytically dishonest to put any fighter who has no fight footage on any list over a great fighter with vast amount of film footage.

It just is.

You know it, and i know it.

I see a lot of these list littered with fighters from the 20s,30s,40s, & 50s and i just shake my god damn head at the intellectual dishonesty for the sake of preserving history and mythologizing fighters of the past.

Why is it that if you look at every single sport across the board, the greatest players always have come from modern time (1970s & up to be generous) yet the only sport that is immune to this is boxing?

@ Harry Greb's position on a lot of these lists.

[wmute]

it is intellectually and analytically dishonest to put any fighter who has no fight footage on any list over a great fighter with vast amount of film footage.

It just is.

You know it, and i know it.

I see a lot of these list littered with fighters from the 20s,30s,40s, & 50s and i just shake my god damn head at the intellectual dishonesty for the sake of preserving history and mythologizing fighters of the past.

I don't know about honest or dishonest but thinking that the existence and quality of footage determines the quality of a fighter is flat out stupid.

Why is it that if you look at every single sport across the board, the greatest players always have come from modern time (1970s & up to be generous) yet the only sport that is immune to this is boxing?

@ Harry Greb's position on a lot of these lists.

Because with time there were less people boxing, and the talent pool shrank. Shouldn't be too hard to understand that.

Just like it should not be too hard to see the decline in the skill level by comparing 50s footage with today's.

[hhascup]

it is intellectually and analytically dishonest to put any fighter who has no fight footage on any list over a great fighter with vast amount of film footage.

It just is.

You know it, and i know it.

I see a lot of these list littered with fighters from the 20s,30s,40s, & 50s and i just shake my god damn head at the intellectual dishonesty for the sake of preserving history and mythologizing fighters of the past.

Why is it that if you look at every single sport across the board, the greatest players always have come from modern time (1970s & up to be generous) yet the only sport that is immune to this is boxing?

@ Harry Greb's position on a lot of these lists.

So what your saying is that if there no film of a fighter, they should be ruled out! There is very little film on a prime Sugar Ray Robinson, as a Welterweight, so should we rule him out as well. All we have is the highlights of him in his prime.

Why should fighters like Harry Greb be overlooked just because we have no film on them.

As far as the Greatest Players always come from the modern time goes, it does work on almost all sports, including boxing somewhat. BUT back in the day we had many more fighters and they fought a lot more.

Right now we have approx. 18,000 active fighters in the World and less then 3,000 in the USA and just 138 male pro boxers in New York. In the 20's and 30's the USA they had well over 10,000 licensed fighters and New York had over 2,000 of them.

In 1921 New York had approx. 950 shows. Last year, 2012, in the USA they had 624 shows, and New York had only 35. So they had over 50% more shows in the state of New York in 1921 as they did last year in the hold country.

In 1929, they had 6,450 shows in the USA, that's over 10 times the amount they had last year.

The total of 6,450 are the shows that we found, there could be even more.

I know sometimes the more is not better But this is not even close.

That's just one reason why it's different when it comes to boxing.

In baseball years ago we just had 16 teams now we have 30 teams. almost half of todays players would still be in the minors, including half of the pitchers. Just think what players like Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Mantle, and many others would do with those pitchers.

[tonyjones]

All sports evolve but many fight fans are stubborn and won't accept that the fighters of the the modern era are better (80s on) it's not coincidence that messi(soccer) federer(tennis) tiger(golf) bolt(athletics) Jordan (basketball) phelps (swimming) are all the goats at there sports.......look old time fighters are pioneers and deserve respect but people watch learn and develop that's simply why boxers of the modern on the whole are better athletes and also skillyfully greater....like it or loathe it may/srl skill wise **** on srr/greb

[hhascup]

All sports evolve but many fight fans are stubborn and won't accept that the fighters of the the modern era are better (80s on) it's not coincidence that messi(soccer) federer(tennis) tiger(golf) bolt(athletics) Jordan (basketball) phelps (swimming) are all the goats at there sports.......look old time fighters are pioneers and deserve respect but people watch learn and develop that's simply why boxers of the modern on the whole are better athletes and also skillyfully greater....like it or loathe it may/srl skill wise **** on srr/greb

I agree to a point But there better equipment now, such as golf clubs, running shoes, tracks and others. Also everyone has there opinion and I try to respect everyones But putting Mayweather and Sugar Ray Leonard over Greb and Robinson is going some. I don't think too many people would agree with you on that one.

[tonyjones]

I agree to a point But there better equipment now, such as golf clubs, running shoes, tracks and others. Also everyone has there opinion and I try to respect everyones But putting Mayweather and Sugar Ray Leonard over Greb and Robinson is going some. I don't think too many people would agree with you on that one.

I'm sorry but equipment is a very small part in there success why there better.remind what skill or technique srr or greb are superior to fmj/srl?dont get me started on the they fought more often argument as that's very flawed....I don't mind if people say srr is p4p #1 cos of his affect on the sport and what he achieved in his era fair enough my problem is skill for skill fighters now are better in most areas

[Anthony342]

No, they're not better in most areas. Some from today might be better than those of the past, but some fighters from the past are still better than those from today or the more recent past. I'm sure others here can provide plenty of examples if you need some.

[hhascup]

I'm sorry but equipment is a very small part in there success why there better.remind what skill or technique srr or greb are superior to fmj/srl?dont get me started on the they fought more often argument as that's very flawed....I don't mind if people say srr is p4p #1 cos of his affect on the sport and what he achieved in his era fair enough my problem is skill for skill fighters now are better in most areas

I guess you know better then all the boxing historians and experts put together, congratulations!

Just to let you know, I am a voting member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame on all 5 Committees (there only about 12 people in the World that can say that) and I am also a voting member of the new Boxing Hall of Fame in Las Vegas, plus many other Hall of Fames, including the NYBHOF and the NJBHOF where I am also the President now for close to 28 years. I am also a charter member of the International Research Organization which started back in 1982 plus an editor on BoxRec.

I am not questioning who is better Mayweather or Robinson, everyone has there own opinion But your saying that Robinson isn't even in the same class as Mayweather, and that is not true.

Honestly, I don't know 1 boxing historian that would agree with you on that, and I know almost all of them, in fact they would just laugh at you for even thinking it!