Top 20 of all times?

[LacedUp]

A lot of people are also not looking at the timing of the fights. Camacho was clearly not what he was earlier in his career at the time the fight was made. In my opinion Chavez should have lost to Taylor the first time. The Rosario fight was his most impressive to me.

Saying that, there is a very long list of fighters with better resumes and certainly at least 20.

Do you have a list?

[RubenSonny]

Where do I start?

Jimmy Wilde fought in boxing booths hundreds and hundreds of times, and he was undefeated in more than 100 contests as a professional, clearly one of the greatest punchers of all times and the best flyweight of all times.

He lost his first because of sickness vs Tancy Lee, but avenged it afterwards with a devastating performance. He beat both Symonds and Rosner who were recognized champions and he beat them both by knockout.

I think it was Zulu Kid who was recognized as world champion in America and he completely battered him as well. He also went on the beat plenty featherweights in Britain and unfortunately lost when he stepped up to face the bantamweight champion.
I believe he had reached approximately 1000 fights when he was done, 150 or so as a pro with only a couple of defeats.

From what I read, he was like a jack dempsey of the smaller weights and Gene Tunney also said he was the greatest fighter he ever saw. He had an incredible career and I don't think there's any doubt that he's in the top 20 of all times.

Most of the guys he was fighting weren't serious pros, why would what Gene Tunney have to say have any bearing on his ranking? Most of what you're saying is superficial. How many top opponents did he beat?

[LacedUp]

Most of the guys he was fighting weren't serious pros, why would what Gene Tunney have to say have any bearing on his ranking? Most of what you're saying is superficial. How many top opponents did he beat?

Many of the guys fighting at the time, weren't 'serious' pros. It was a different game back then. The same can be said with a lot of Joe Louis' opponents.

He beat british champions, european champions, american champions, #1 contenders and ultimately became a world champion himself. He beat featherweights and even challenged Pancho Villa.

He fought everyone in and around his weightclass.

Gene Tunney's remark doesn't have a bearing on his ranking, but it should give you an idea of his greatness and how he was revered and perceived at the time.

[RubenSonny]

Many of the guys fighting at the time, weren't 'serious' pros. It was a different game back then. The same can be said with a lot of Joe Louis' opponents.

He beat british champions, european champions, american champions, #1 contenders and ultimately became a world champion himself. He beat featherweights and even challenged Pancho Villa.

He fought everyone in and around his weightclass.

Gene Tunney's remark doesn't have a bearing on his ranking, but it should give you an idea of his greatness and how he was revered and perceived at the time.

Joe Louis opposition is in a different stratosphere to Wilde's that's a laughable comparison. How many number 1 contenders did he beat? Who were all the contenders he beat? Why would challenging Villa make him any greater?

His is era isn't a valid excuse either there were other guys in that time that beat great opposition, surely those guys are on a different level of greatness to him? Why should he be elevated when he didn't consistently prove himself against top opposition? Other fighters are not afforded this luxury.

[joseph5620]

Do you have a list?

Twenty with better resumes than Chavez?

In no order:


Robinson
Greb
Conn
Armstrong
Duran
B Leonard
Ray Leonard
Whitaker
Joe Louis
Joe Gans
Bob Fitzsimmons
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Barney Ross
Monzon
Hagler
Burley
Sadler
Walker
Langford
Jofre

There is good number of others I can include here.

[Welsh Jon]

In defence of Wilde:

He fought the best guys in his division. He knocked most of them out. He looked so good doing it his contemporaries regarded him as one of the greatest boxers of all time. He was the first ever flyweight Champion, and with the possible exception of Canto, he is the greatest ever flyweight champion. In my opinion if you can make a case for a fighter being the greatest ever in his weight class, you can make a case for him being a top 20 P4P fighter (assuming it's not a "Junior" or "Super" division)

I don't exactly see how you can compare the top flyweight of the 1910's to the top Junior Welterweight of the 1980's and be able to definetively see who is better. That's why I said earlier that I have never done a P4P top 20 list.

Who is better Ali or Louis is a debate I can really get involved in, but I wouldn't know how to decide who is better out of Louis and Monzon.

[IronDanHamza]

Not very good.. they were good for his era and that's all you can say about fighters.

Was he not one of the greatest punchers of all times? First genuine flyweight champion, captured the imagination of the world, fought everyone in and around his weightclass, one of the first genuinely captivating smaller weight champions, continuously fought bigger guys, undefeated for more than a hundred fights...

Boxing has changed from 1910's to 1990's Dan. It's not only about resume, it's about what you have done for boxing.

So because his resume is poor it's "What he's done for Boxing". So it's a different standard for Wilde and not everyone else?

There's plenty of guys from his era with good resume. His resume is not good, at all.

His resume is not even close to Top 20 calibur. Simple as that.

[IronDanHamza]

In defence of Wilde:

He fought the best guys in his division. He knocked most of them out. He looked so good doing it his contemporaries regarded him as one of the greatest boxers of all time. He was the first ever flyweight Champion, and with the possible exception of Canto, he is the greatest ever flyweight champion. In my opinion if you can make a case for a fighter being the greatest ever in his weight class, you can make a case for him being a top 20 P4P fighter (assuming it's not a "Junior" or "Super" division)

I don't exactly see how you can compare the top flyweight of the 1910's to the top Junior Welterweight of the 1980's and be able to definetively see who is better. That's why I said earlier that I have never done a P4P top 20 list.

Who is better Ali or Louis is a debate I can really get involved in, but I wouldn't know how to decide who is better out of Louis and Monzon.

If Wilde fought the best then "the best" at that time were pretty damn awful.

Were they really the best? I'm not sure they were.

[LacedUp]

So because his resume is poor it's "What he's done for Boxing". So it's a different standard for Wilde and not everyone else?

There's plenty of guys from his era with good resume. His resume is not good, at all.

His resume is not even close to Top 20 calibur. Simple as that.

No, it's the same standard for everyone.

If Wilde fought the best then "the best" at that time were pretty damn awful.

Were they really the best? I'm not sure they were.

Who would you liked to have seen Wilde fight then?

[IronDanHamza]

No, it's the same standard for everyone.

Well clearly it's not because you're letting Wilde off for having a poor resume but not Roy Jones.

Roy Jones resume absolutely blows Wilde's out of the water.

Who would you liked to have seen Wilde fight then?

I'm not entirely sure.

What I do know is, when you're touting names like Johnny Rosner and Young Zulu Kid amongst his best wins then he's absolutely no where near Top 20 ATG calibur.

Are they good fighters? They both ended their careers with losing records for crying out loud. And these are amongst his best wins?

Speaks for itself.

Not even close to Top 20.