50 greatest fighters of all time poll for radio show

[tonyjones]

So once again your saying that you know better and more then any other person that ever lived when it comes to boxing. Again, Congratulations!

I gave you my background so you would know that I am not just the average fan Plus I know almost all of the top boxing historians in the last 50 years.. They would think your nuts But you know better then any of them so you should be the only one to pick the Hall of Famers from on now.

We just finished picking a NEW Boxing Hall of Fame that will be based in Las Vegas. Some of the top people in boxing was asked to pick their top 50 all-time (the fighters must be retired for 5 years), and anyone that received 75% or more was elected. In the end 25 was selected, But I doubt if you would agree with most of them.

With that said, I do agree with you on Lewis and Marciano! Lewis would just be too big for him, But if I was like you I would say who cares what you think!

By the way, what's your background on the sport of boxing? Maybe you should try to become an official, either a referee or judge if you want.

first off im not claiming i know better then everyone else,all im doing is giving my opinion on fighters ive actually watched.....let me hazard a guess that all these people voting are of a paticular age group??


look if you really believe greb,b leonard,louis and these other great fighters from these times could be the same force against modern era fighters with all the advances in training,technique and nutrition well thats stubborn and deluded.
I cant believe you went the "what if" route as thats defeating your original argument that old school fighters are already better!

My background is simply just a meaningless life long fan/anorak of both the pro and amateur game.......

[tonyjones]

The best athletics don't go into boxing any more, years ago they did, everyone knows that.

I am a Big fan of Floyd, Pacman, Jones and Hopkins, along with many others of today's fighters. These 4 will be 1st ballot Hall of Famers for sure, But to say that there head and shoulders over Robinson is in your words "just plain ******."

We can take a poll on who is better, Robinson or Floyd But when it comes out differently then what you want, you'll just say they don't know what their talking about, But you do!

also what are u basing the best athletics dont go into boxing anymore on??or is this just in the ole usa cos you do realise boxing is a worldwide sport!

[hhascup]

If you go by films, the guy who has the largest fight film collect in the World in Steve Lott. He is the one that is the head of the New Boxing Hall of Fame in Las Vegas. In fact he just sent me saying that he is ready to release it to the press.

He stated that how can you pick someone when you never saw him fight, even on film, or if you did, it was very little, But he still voted for a few such as Harry Greb, John L. Sullivan and Sam Langford, who all made the 1st Class.

If your interested here's a short clip on the NEW Boxing Hall of Fame that is in Las Vegas.

The cable TV show “In This Corner” has produced a terrific 60 second BHOF commercial that will be playing on their station as well as others. Here is a link to the spot:

https://www.yousendit.com/download/UW14Z282bEpoMlVVV01UQw

[hhascup]

first off im not claiming i know better then everyone else,all im doing is giving my opinion on fighters ive actually watched.....let me hazard a guess that all these people voting are of a paticular age group??


look if you really believe greb,b leonard,louis and these other great fighters from these times could be the same force against modern era fighters with all the advances in training,technique and nutrition well thats stubborn and deluded.
I cant believe you went the "what if" route as thats defeating your original argument that old school fighters are already better!

My background is simply just a meaningless life long fan/anorak of both the pro and amateur game.......

also what are u basing the best athletics dont go into boxing anymore on??or is this just in the ole usa cos you do realise boxing is a worldwide sport!

I know it's a world wide sport But it still isn't the same sport it once was. Back in the day, every boxing fan knew who was the Champion in every weight division, now a world champion can walk down the street and most people, even boxing fans, wouldn't even recognize him.

The only reason I stated what if is to put everyone in the same era fighting under the same rules and conditions. Most of todays fighters get tried after several rounds, the old-timers use to box 20, 40, 60, 80 and the all-time record 110 rounds. They also fought much more, the all-time record is 58 fights in a year, now most fighters don't have 58 fights in a career. If the old-timers fought in todays day, they would also have to adjust.

[tonyjones]

I know it's a world wide sport But it still isn't the same sport it once was. Back in the day, every boxing fan knew who was the Champion in every weight division, now a world champion can walk down the street and most people, even boxing fans, wouldn't even recognize him.

The only reason I stated what if is to put everyone in the same era fighting under the same rules and conditions. Most of todays fighters get tried after several rounds, the old-timers use to box 20, 40, 60, 80 and the all-time record 110 rounds. They also fought much more, the all-time record is 58 fights in a year, now most fighters don't have 58 fights in a career. If the old-timers fought in todays day, they would also have to adjust.

look mate keep living in the past and pretend everything was better if you want but its not the truth,at the end of the day modern fighters have raised the bar as in EVERY OTHER SPORT their better.....deep down you know it but continue to romanticise all you want about the past

[hhascup]

look mate keep living in the past and pretend everything was better if you want but its not the truth,at the end of the day modern fighters have raised the bar as in EVERY OTHER SPORT their better.....deep down you know it but continue to romanticise all you want about the past

I guess you and DTMB disagree with me and that's OK!

This argument will go on as long as there is life on earth. I know some boxing experts that feel that the best fighters today wouldn't beat a good club fighter back in the old days.

If we could drop off Floyd back in the old days he would still be Great. Also if we could drop off say, Sam Langford in todays boxing I believe he would be Great as well. I believe anyone that is Great in one era, would be Great in another.

I just feel the old-timers were better because of what they had to go through to make it to the top. They were tough men back then, they trained in all kind of conditions and were always in shape. They grew up in tough times and no they didn't have the modern equipment like we have today but they did have the heart, determination and will to get the job done.

[Bolo Punch]

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.

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.

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 with this post, bar the line in bold.

I agree that fighters nowadays are more skilled than the majority of the old-timers, but I think that a select few from the 1930s-1960s era would do more than just hold their own against some of the greats from the 70s up until today. Also, what adds to their greatness is the fact that those back in the day fought far more often, over more rounds and were willing to fight anyone, which is something that no-one of the last 30 years can lay claim to.

Basically what I'm trying to say by that last paragraph is there's no way that Mayweather Jr and Ray Leonard are greater than Sugar Ray Robinson.

[Anthony342]

You name the best fighters in each division up until the 60s guarantee someone from the recent past who's clearly better....what's so hard to understand that ALL sports have progressed significantly why is boxing different?

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.

[SlySlickSmooth]

No order.

Muhammad Ali
Sugar Ray Leonard
Manny Pacquiao
Thomas Hearns
Julio Cesar Chavez Sr.
Mike Tyson
Pernell Whitaker
Sugar Ray Robinson
Roberto Duran
Jake LaMotta

[Anthony342]

uhhh first of all i hate floyd's guts. second of all, i think ray robinson is the greatest of all time.

but nice job trying to extrapolate that as a way to discredit my post.

not going to work. I was using robinson or any fighter starting off in the 40s or 50s as an example that they cant really learn from fighters before them because they didnt have film back then.

at the end of the day, there is a huge vast of difference between a professional athlete in 1960 as oppose to say an athlete now.

from modern medicine, coaching, better equipment, food, training methods, analytics its a whole new ball game.

i dont see how that is even arguable.

Just because they have access to better equipment, doesn't always translate into a better athlete. That doesn't automatically make someone better. Yes the training and medicine is more advanced. The fact of the matter is, there are still some boxers and athletes from the past that are better than some from the recent past and present. You even admit it yourself by calling Robinson the greatest.