Top 20 of all times?

[LacedUp]

Hopkins is a great fighter yeah, no question.

Much greater than Wilde that's for sure. In every single one of your catergory of criteria probably.

The only one that's arguable is "What have they done for Boxing", I'd say being the oldest Champion ever is more significant than being the first Flyweight Champion ever.

I know he's great. and I agree. What I meant was that he's not enticing. I don't think he brings the neutral to the sport like a jack dempsey or a jimmy wilde did. Draw thousands and thousands of people to fights.

I wasn't talking about significance in terms of 'what have they done for boxing'. Not exclusively at least. I'm talking what have they done for boxing in terms of bringing excitement and bums on seats.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Nope. Never a hopkins fan at all. But it was more the principle behind it as well.

I don't think greatness is defined by hugging your opponents to death. Hopkins have literally showed me some of the worst boxing I've ever seen. Some of it has made me question why I'm a fan in the first place!

I think it was his fight with Winky Wright that did it for me. It was just one too many for me.

Dude gotta do what dudes gotta do at the age of 40+.......

Hopkins wasnt the hugger in the 90s and as he got older, he had to adapt to a less pleasing style, but it has worked for him, and he is a top 10 draw of his generation, started past the age of 36.....

I didnt see him clinch and grab vs a prime tito, even though tito was bringing the heat in the mid rounds

[LacedUp]

Dude gotta do what dudes gotta do at the age of 40+.......

Hopkins wasnt the hugger in the 90s and as he got older, he had to adapt to a less pleasing style, but it has worked for him, and he is a top 10 draw of his generation, started past the age of 36.....

I didnt see him clinch and grab vs a prime tito, even though tito was bringing the heat in the mid rounds

I suppose. It was also just an example! The same could be said for a wladimir klitschko.

I liked young hopkins though. I think he still has one of the quickest KOs in history. 15 seconds or something. I liked that version of him, but he changed as he got older.

[IronDanHamza]

I know he's great. and I agree. What I meant was that he's not enticing. I don't think he brings the neutral to the sport like a jack dempsey or a jimmy wilde did. Draw thousands and thousands of people to fights.

I wasn't talking about significance in terms of 'what have they done for boxing'. Not exclusively at least. I'm talking what have they done for boxing in terms of bringing excitement and bums on seats.

I don't think being exciting has anything to do with it.

I think ranking a fighter over another because one is exciting and the other is a spoiler is not a sound way to rank a fighter.

[LacedUp]

I don't think being exciting has anything to do with it.

I think ranking a fighter over another because one is exciting and the other is a spoiler is not a sound way to rank a fighter.

Why not?

Isn't bringing joy to the people and fans better than the opposite?
I like action fighters, the ones that put it on the line. Sure, they often lose a fight here and there but at least they tried.

And that makes it greater in my eyes. I don't think there's a set 'sound way of ranking fighters' anyway - so each to their own.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I put jimmy wilde as a supped up version of gatti or mayorga,,,

I think he fits better into that caliber of fighter, than he does with guys like benny leonard, duran, etc....

All i have read about wilde, is that he beat all the regional champs from around the globe,, like the best guy from chicago, best guy from asia, best guy from canada, etc...

but in reality, who's to say those opponents would be the equavilant, to todays domestic champs.....

It just sounds to me from all i have read, that wilde and his opponents were very crude, and basically a step up from rock'em sock'em robots,,, guys just dropping bombs,, probably very entertaining, and he was probably the best at it,, but just hard for me to make a compelling case that he is some top 20 or even top 50 ATG

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Why not?

Isn't bringing joy to the people and fans better than the opposite?
I like action fighters, the ones that put it on the line. Sure, they often lose a fight here and there but at least they tried.

And that makes it greater in my eyes. I don't think there's a set 'sound way of ranking fighters' anyway - so each to their own.

If that was the case, then guys like mayorga and gatti, would be top 10 ATG...

ATG is about who could beat who,, and a guy like SRR or Armstrong would beat 99% of fighters throughout history,,, Wilde would be a much lower %

exciting does not equal greatness..... exciting only equals excitement

[LacedUp]

I put jimmy wilde as a supped up version of gatti or mayorga,,,

I think he fits better into that caliber of fighter, than he does with guys like benny leonard, duran, etc....

All i have read about wilde, is that he beat all the regional champs from around the globe,, like the best guy from chicago, best guy from asia, best guy from canada, etc...

but in reality, who's to say those opponents would be the equavilant, to todays domestic champs.....

It just sounds to me from all i have read, that wilde and his opponents were very crude, and basically a step up from rock'em sock'em robots,,, guys just dropping bombs,, probably very entertaining, and he was probably the best at it,, but just hard for me to make a compelling case that he is some top 20 or even top 50 ATG

Well that was how the majority of boxing was in those days.

Otherwise we can easily disregard any heavyweight from 1960 and downwards who all looked like their feet were nailed to the floor.

Boxing changes - you can only be good in your era - and Wilde was undoubtedly one of THE fighters of his era.

[LacedUp]

If that was the case, then guys like mayorga and gatti, would be top 10 ATG...

ATG is about who could beat who,, and a guy like SRR or Armstrong would beat 99% of fighters throughout history,,, Wilde would be a much lower %

exciting does not equal greatness..... exciting only equals excitement

Well, it's not black and white.

It has to be a mix of course. Now, as an example, Manny Pacquiao is slightly higher on my list than, say, a Floyd Mayweather - despite Mayweather being the better fighter imo.

It's of course based on resume, taking on the bigger challenges, but also for the fact that he's just a much more exciting fighter.

[IronDanHamza]

Why not?

Isn't bringing joy to the people and fans better than the opposite?
I like action fighters, the ones that put it on the line. Sure, they often lose a fight here and there but at least they tried.

And that makes it greater in my eyes. I don't think there's a set 'sound way of ranking fighters' anyway - so each to their own.

I don't understand why that would matter.

If Fighter A is a boring spoiler but beats 10 ATG's in their primes and Fighter A is the most exciting fighter of all time and beats 5 ATG's in their prime who ranks higher? Fighter A surely? Otherwise that just defeats the object of winning and losing and just achievements in general.


Marciano is a whole lot more exciting to watch than Lennox Lewis but I think most would rank Lewis higher.

Pacquaio is a lot more exciting than Ezzard Charles but who ranks higher?

Just isn't sound logic at all IMO.