The 25 GOAT.

[fschofield]

I like this list

[Elroy The Great]

Very well may be true. There are 2 things to consider though. First, he never had an amateur career, instead fighting for money at Carnivals and fairs. Second, many records of the time are incomplete. That said, he wouldn't make my top 10 and maybe not 25.

Lot of missing fighters on this list. Ross, Canzoneri, Louis....plenty more I'm sure if I looked into it. To each his own though.

EIGHTY TWO FIGHTS. i doubt you can find another boxer with a string of no hopers like this. thats a whole careers worth of bums. i didnt bother checking to see if he even won them all.

as for a lack of an amateur life, meh. i dont give too much weight on that. succeeding in the amas doesnt always follow a guy to the pros. same thing with the heisman trophy. kills it in college and flops in the nfl. tom brady was picked 199th (6th rd).

[JAB5239]

EIGHTY TWO FIGHTS. i doubt you can find another boxer with a string of no hopers like this. thats a whole careers worth of bums. i didnt bother checking to see if he even won them all.

as for a lack of an amateur life, meh. i dont give too much weight on that. succeeding in the amas doesnt always follow a guy to the pros. same thing with the heisman trophy. kills it in college and flops in the nfl. tom brady was picked 199th (6th rd).

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Pretty hard to right off if you don't have all the information though, wouldn't you think? Billy Conn was 8-6 in his first 14 fights without an amateur background and went on to become one of the best p4p fighters ever. There is certainly a lot more information to go on with him than Wilde though. My point is you just can't make an assumption without all the facts. Wilde isn't considered great because of his record, but because of many of the names on that record and how he defeated them. Like I said though, I don't personally have him as high as many historians, but I haven't looked that deeply into his carer either.

[Elroy The Great]

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Pretty hard to right off if you don't have all the information though, wouldn't you think? Billy Conn was 8-6 in his first 14 fights without an amateur background and went on to become one of the best p4p fighters ever. There is certainly a lot more information to go on with him than Wilde though. My point is you just can't make an assumption without all the facts. Wilde isn't considered great because of his record, but because of many of the names on that record and how he defeated them. Like I said though, I don't personally have him as high as many historians, but I haven't looked that deeply into his carer either.

most boxers have ''some'' ama background.
but the head gear, 3 rd limits, shady scoring....not really boxing if you ask me.

also, what skill level do most amateur guys have ? cant anyone be an amateur ?

generally speaking, theres no reason why a guy with little to no amateur experience should fail at the pro level. it cant hurt though.

as for guys like wilde, youd have to assume boxing was polluted with straight up BUMS. the perfect era for stat padding. people fought too often back in the day and record keeping was laughable.

many guys from that era have shady looking resumes but wilde's takes the cake.

[Bundana]

as for guys like wilde, youd have to assume boxing was polluted with straight up BUMS. the perfect era for stat padding. people fought too often back in the day and record keeping was laughable.

many guys from that era have shady looking resumes but wilde's takes the cake.

Yes, Wilde's record indeed looks very shady. Or maybe I would rather use the word "thin", since the vast majority of his opponents were (as you rightly point out) nobodies.

But Wilde wasn't alone in this respect, when you look at (supposedly!) great fighters from 100+ years ago. HOFers like Jimmy Barry, Young Griffo and Nonpareil Dempsey had career records that were just as bad, or even worse!

But the fact is, that regardless of his "shady" record, many historians consider him the greatest flyweight of all time. Not that I would agree with that... but for lefHook to have him #1 on his list, isn't as crazy as it may seem. At least not if we rate by legacy/greatness.

Anyway, I believe lefHook's list is more an attempt to create some controversy/discussion... rather than a serious effort to make an all-time Top-25. I mean, Art Hafey in 25th place?? LefHook is much too knowledgeable for that - so this is surely a joke!

[Elroy The Great]

Yes, Wilde's record indeed looks very shady. Or maybe I would rather use the word "thin", since the vast majority of his opponents were (as you rightly point out) nobodies.

But Wilde wasn't alone in this respect, when you look at (supposedly!) great fighters from 100+ years ago. HOFers like Jimmy Barry, Young Griffo and Nonpareil Dempsey had career records that were just as bad, or even worse!

But the fact is, that regardless of his "shady" record, many historians consider him the greatest flyweight of all time. Not that I would agree with that... but for lefHook to have him #1 on his list, isn't as crazy as it may seem. At least not if we rate by legacy/greatness.

Anyway, I believe lefHook's list is more an attempt to create some controversy/discussion... rather than a serious effort to make an all-time Top-25. I mean, Art Hafey in 25th place?? LefHook is much too knowledgeable for that - so this is surely a joke!

its not knock against them (guys from the pre video era), but im kinda sick of fight fans gushing over how a guy was written up. historians wrote those guys up that way because thats all they knew. we know better.

when i see footage of guys from the way back when era and how sloppy they were.....omfg !!!!!!!!! youve gotta be kidding me. bum rush and swing wildly.

jump on the guy as soon as he gets up. used to be able to stand over the poor sap. refs werent there to save lives. just there to raise the winners hand.

and fight fans rave about guys going 20+ rds..as if those guys went 20 rds full throttle. probably 7 rds of ''action'' and the rest would be holding and hugging.

i dont know lefhook. even if he is serious, its his list. im not one to mock it. he should state how he came to it though.

[Bundana]

its not knock against them (guys from the pre video era), but im kinda sick of fight fans gushing over how a guy was written up. historians wrote those guys up that way because thats all they knew. we know better.

when i see footage of guys from the way back when era and how sloppy they were.....omfg !!!!!!!!! youve gotta be kidding me. bum rush and swing wildly.

jump on the guy as soon as he gets up. used to be able to stand over the poor sap. refs werent there to save lives. just there to raise the winners hand.

and fight fans rave about guys going 20+ rds..as if those guys went 20 rds full throttle. probably 7 rds of ''action'' and the rest would be holding and hugging.

i dont know lefhook. even if he is serious, its his list. im not one to mock it. he should state how he came to it though.

I can't honestly say, that I disagree with any of this!

[Elroy The Great]

I can't honestly say, that I disagree with any of this!

mma without the kicking.....

[billeau2]

I can't honestly say, that I disagree with any of this!

Things not seen by the trained eye always appear a certain way. The thing is, some of us who understand the methods used and try to point out what is going on, are seldom listened to. Not talking about you here, but by many who choose not to see things.

[Weltschmerz]

What's your criteria here?