50 greatest fighters of all time poll for radio show

[tonyjones]

Boxing isn't different. So you're saying every athlete from today is better than all the athletes from the past? If that were true, then Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali wouldn't still be considered better than all the heavyweights that came later. Joe Montana is still considered the best quarterback of all time in the NFL, even though he came before the likes of Brady, Peyton Manning and Favre. Babe Ruth, Willie Mays or Joe Dimaggio are often mentioned as the best baseball players and Michael Jordan is still considered the best all-time NBA player. Might some surpass their skill and achievements someday? Of course that's possible. Hasn't happened yet though. Nobody from today or the recent past beats Ali, nor do they have a better resume than him.

Yes on the whole I'm saying athletes are better today for the reasons already given ie training methods,nutrition how can you dispute that?....put joe Louis in with Lennox Lewis,wlad,bowe and he's gettin eaten alive....Ali changed the game he's a freak of nature who raised the bar brought the sport forward in every aspect!i don't know anything about American football/baseball so I can't argue who's the top athletes in these particular sports since they are predominatly played in the usa but I highly doubt these sports havent evolved and progressed hugely since the 60s

[tonyjones]

I'm going to try not keep replying because its derailing the thread,I think I made my point clearly though I know many wont agree......I'm going to try put together a p4p top 10 atg based on there affect on boxing during there era which I believe is the fairest way to do it

[Barn]

Props to hhascup for keeping it classy, despite some people choosing not to do so.

I agree with people saying generally the newer age fighters do appear to be better due to advancements already covered in this thread.

However, as well as this, it is obvious there are exceptions to the rule and Sugar Ray Robinson happens to be one of them. He looks spectacular on film and his style and form is very modern in its approach. He was simply a naturally gifted athlete and I believe if you put him against someone who weighed 150 on fight night these days he would do great.

I don't think it's sensible to argue the likes of Sam Langford would compete in todays era. It's relatively clear that his style is of a less developed form and the sport has advanced stylistically from his times when they fought with the older-type rules.

[rsf]

1. Robinson
2. Greb
3. Armstrong
4. Ali
5. Langford
6. Charles
7. B.Leonard
8. Pepp
9. Duran
10. Moore
11. Fitz
12. Louis
13. Joe gans
14. Mickey walker
15. Ray leonard
16. Barney Ross
17. Charley burley
18. Tony canzoneri
19. Holman Williams
20. Packey McFarland
21. Pernel Whitaker
22. Sandy saddler
23. Terry McGovern
24. Jimmy mclarnin
25. Kid gavilan
26. Barbados joe Walcott
27. Gene Tunney
28. Tommy loughran
29. Roy jones
30. Eder jofre
31. George Dixon
33. Stanley ketchel
34. Marvin hagler
35. Jose napoles
36. Carlos monzon
37. Billy conn
38. Jimmy bivins
40. Alexis arguello
41. Jack Britton
42. Julio cesar Chavez
43. Fighting harada
44. Ike Williams
45. Ted kid Lewis
46. Thomas hearns
47. Rocky Marciano
48. Evander Holyfield
49. Michael spinks
50. Jimmy Wilde



Never doing that again

[hhascup]

That doesn't mean anything. The only thing that fact proves is that boxing was a more popular sport to take up 80-90 years ago.

There were probably the same amount of good fighters back then as there are now. The rest were probably bums with ridiculously bad records or people that only fought a couple of times as that was the easiest way to earn a few dollars on the side as a part time job.

Of course, the last paragraph is just me assuming. I have no evidence of that being true or false, but frankly, neither do you. I do believe what I said to be true, though. The chances of even 10% of the fighters around back then being quality are very slim.

It's called research, that's something that most people don't do any more. Everything I put up is 100% correct, you can even check some of it out by going on BoxRec, where I am also an editor.

As far as how good they were, there were many very good fighters back at that time. A lot of them had 100's of fights and had very good records. Please don't go by BoxRec as 100% complete. Just because a fighter is listed as having very few fights, it doesn't mean that. There 10's of 1,000's of fights that still have to be put in and many will never be put in because they weren't posted anywhere.

[rsf]

Sorry read the thread tittle a while back so put a top 50 list together

[Bundana]

As hhascup says, the "Old vs New" debate will never end... and while it's an interesting discussion, it's also a futile one, as there's no "right" or "wrong", and no conclusion can be reached, one way or the other.

Now I'm past the age, where I think it's fun to engage in a mudslinging contest where we accuse each other of being ignorant, ******, senile... or worse. On the other hand, I do feel this is an interesting topic - so, for what it's worth, here's my take on the subject:

It's an undeniable fact, that in sports (such as, for instance, athletics and swimming), where a tape measure or a stopwatch decides the winner, we have seen great improvements over the years. And even in sports where the winner is picked as a result of a judgement call (like figure skating or gymnastics), it's pretty obvious, that athletes of today have reached a much higher level of excellence, than those who competed several decades ago.

So if this improvement, over time, apparently is a given in all other sports - would it not be strange if boxing, as the only sport, turns out to be different?

This is of course an argument that, logically, is hard to refute. And yet, today we have lots and lots of "historians", who will tell us, that not only has boxing not evolved over the past many, many years... no, it has actually devolved!

So which is "true"? Well, if we study available footage of the old-timers, I think it's pretty clear, that very few (Langford may be an exception) pre-WWI fighters would be able to hold their own in H2H match-ups against today's champions. To be honest, most of them look quite awful; lacking even the most basic skills.

It's equally clear (to me, anyway), that between the two wars, there's a rapid improvement in technique/ability... and for me "modern" boxing really started with the emergence of a young Joe Louis in the late 30's. Here we have, for the first time, a heavyweight with such superb skills, that all those before him pale by comparison. A boxer who even today, technically, would be seen as nearly perfect (which is not the same as saying, he would beat someone like Ali... which I don't think he would! But that has nothing to do with lack of ability/skills).

A few years later, as we move into the 40's, brilliant boxers (even by today's standard) such as Willie Pep and SRR pop up. It is my opinion, that around this time boxing had evolved into the sport we know today. You can call me an old nostalgic, but I honestly don't see any major improvement (technically) since then.

On the other hand, I don't subscribe to the idea (as many do), that the 40's and 50's represent boxing's "golden age" (I'm talking ability-wise; I'm not dis*****g that there was a lot more activity back then)... and that the sport has been in steady decline ever since. That today's champions would be schooled by those from 60-70 years ago (because they were tougher, fought more often, had better trainers, were more dedicated, etc.). I just don't buy that - but I don't see any overall improvement either, like in other sports. To me it looks, like once the bare-knuckle era was over, it took about half a century to adapt to what essentially was a completely different sport, and develop the skills needed to compete at the highest level. A level that has remained more or less the same ever since. But that's just my opinion.


And another thing: I firmly believe, that as far as greatness is concerned, athletes should be judged on what they accomplish... IN THEIR OWN TIME! Mark Spitz's world record times from the 1972 Munic Olympics wouldn't have seen him past the preliminary rounds in London last year - but while he's a long way from being one of the best (i.e. fastest) swimmers ever, it would be hard to argue against him being one of the greatest.

And what about 100 years from now... when sprinters (in all likelihood!) routinely will clock under 9.5 sec. in the 100 meters? Will sports historians then look at this Usain Bolt old-timer from a century ago and shake their heads in bewilderment, because his contemporaries hailed him as the greatest sprinter ever? And if they do, will that be fair?

No, of course not! An athlete's greatness should be judged on what he has achieved (be it titles won, domination of opposition, longevity, historical impact... or whatever you want to put into the equation) in his own time - and not measured against the level other athletes have taken the sport to many decades later. I don't really understand, how it can be seen any other way!

So even though Bob Fitzsimmons looks terrible on film, how can we exclude him from a "Greatest of all Time" list, when we know what he accomplished? We just can't! And as for completely ignoring someone like Harry Greb (the man with the greatest resume of all!), simply because we, sadly, have no footage of him... well, that would just be crazy (IMO)!

[Anthony342]

Yes on the whole I'm saying athletes are better today for the reasons already given ie training methods,nutrition how can you dispute that?....put joe Louis in with Lennox Lewis,wlad,bowe and he's gettin eaten alive....Ali changed the game he's a freak of nature who raised the bar brought the sport forward in every aspect!i don't know anything about American football/baseball so I can't argue who's the top athletes in these particular sports since they are predominatly played in the usa but I highly doubt these sports havent evolved and progressed hugely since the 60s

Nobody is dis*****g that. The point is that doesn't necessarily mean that every athlete from today is more skilled. Most are, but not all. Some athletes from the past still have better stats and some fighters from the past have better resumes than the ones of today or the recent past. That doesn't mean that head to head those same fighters from today couldn't beat those same boxers of the past, but it doesn't change the fact that some of those past boxers had better careers. That's also something that can't be disputed.

[hhascup]

Are you saying that there better baseball players today then we had years ago. In the 40's, 50's and 60's we had players like Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial and Sandy Koufax, just to name a few.

Williams, who was the greatest pure hitter ever, he had a lifetime batting average of .344, and hit 521 homeruns.
Aaron only weighed 180 pounds and still hit 755 homeruns without using anything.
Mays weighed even less and still hit 660 homeruns.
Mantle use to hit the ball over 500 feet and he too weighed under 200 pounds.

There very few players today that can even come close to any of these. If any of them were playing today they would be THE SUPERSTAR of the sport.

[tonyjones]

Are you saying that there better baseball players today then we had years ago. In the 40's, 50's and 60's we had players like Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial and Sandy Koufax, just to name a few.

Williams, who was the greatest pure hitter ever, he had a lifetime batting average of .344, and hit 521 homeruns.
Aaron only weighed 180 pounds and still hit 755 homeruns without using anything.
Mays weighed even less and still hit 660 homeruns.
Mantle use to hit the ball over 500 feet and he too weighed under 200 pounds.

There very few players today that can even come close to any of these. If any of them were playing today they would be THE SUPERSTAR of the sport.

i do not know anything about baseball as ive already stated so i cant argue this but i would be surprised/doubtful if it hasnt also evolved........i will say that outide of the US theirs a place called the rest of the world where no cares less about baseball

How many more examples of WORLDWIDE sports do you need where the best player is from recent times???Is soccer,swimming,ALL athletics,tennis,basketball,rugby,F1 driving not enough for you??Just live in the present and accept that there much better athletes now is literally a fact