Another crappy list!! Opinions?

[billeau2]

I can't find my old list so I pilfered this from McGrain. For those who don't know him he is one of the most historically knowledgeable boxing posters and historians I've come across in more than 20 years on different boxing forums. Our top 5 are the same, but there are things at a glance I disagree with on other placements. Anyway, when I get more time I will compile my top 20 list again. Until than I thought this was a good starting point for the topic.


01 - Sam Langford
02 - Harry Greb
03 - Sugar Ray Robinson
04 - Henry Armstrong
05 - Ezzard Charles
06 - Bob Fitzsimmons
07 - Muhammad Ali
08 - Joe Gans
09 - Joe Louis
10 - Roberto Duran.
11 - Benny Leonard
12 - Mickey Walker
13 - Willie Pep
14 - Barney Ross
15 - Archie Moore
16 - Ray Leonard
17 - George Dixon
18 - Terry McGovern
19 - Packey McFarland
20 - Pernell Whitaker

Wow! that is a hell of a list! I say that with no irony what so ever. Very well thought out.

[Ben Bolt]

People want the heroes of their own time to be the best. So The Sun put Mayweather and Pacquiao at the top. It's good journalism as it make lots of people feeling comfortable.
If it's a trustworthy list, The Sun doesn't bothered with. It just writes what people want to hear.

[JAB5239]

Wow! that is a hell of a list! I say that with no irony what so ever. Very well thought out.

It really is. My only problem, if you can even call it that are the placement of Gans, Duran and Benny Leonard. I pretty much consider those guys interchangeable as the greatest lightweight ever. P4p though I think Leonard fought the best overall comp, and Duran being the most dominant as well as moving up. Not really a big thing to get in a twist about, I'd just like to hear his reasoning.

[billeau2]

It really is. My only problem, if you can even call it that are the placement of Gans, Duran and Benny Leonard. I pretty much consider those guys interchangeable as the greatest lightweight ever. P4p though I think Leonard fought the best overall comp, and Duran being the most dominant as well as moving up. Not really a big thing to get in a twist about, I'd just like to hear his reasoning.

I have a few problems myself but I have a policy that I abide by...I would never attempt to make one of these lists, so while I will comment generally I will not pick specifics. I know If I did one of these I would hear: "whadda bout ____? You forgot____!!! etc etc.

Edit: and if you include a few that are not usual, you have to take a few off who are and may deserve to be. Its tough.

Reminds me of this guy who thought about it and did one of these lists only to have forgotten one guy Sugar Ray Robinson... That is a joke for you Ray!!! RIP.

[The Old LefHook]

Some past greats may be getting free rides. I would need to see a vigorous defense and prosecution of both Fitz and Charles as AT P4P top 10'ers, because I am unconvinced.

[JAB5239]

Some past greats may be getting free rides. I would need to see a vigorous defense and prosecution of both Fitz and Charles as AT P4P top 10'ers, because I am unconvinced.

I don't see how you can't include Charles heard on his resume of wine alone. He fought a who's who of top fighter, and many of them more than once.

[OctoberRed]

I don't see how you can't include Charles heard on his resume of wine alone. He fought a who's who of top fighter, and many of them more than once.

^^^^^^

[TBear]

This is the IBRO top 20 for comparison.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

2. Harry Greb

3. Henry Armstrong

4. Muhammad Ali (Tie)

4. Joe Louis (Tie)

6. Sam Langford

7. Roberto Duran

8. Benny Leonard

9. Willie Pep

10. Bob Fitzsimmons

11. Joe Gans

12. Ezzard Charles (Tie)

12. Sugar Ray Leonard (Tie)

14. Jimmy Wilde

15. Eder Jofre

16. Mickey Walker

17. Archie Moore

18. Jack Dempsey

19. Jack Johnson

20. Gene Tunney

I personally like that one.

[The Old LefHook]

I don't see how you can't include Charles heard on his resume of wine alone. He fought a who's who of top fighter, and many of them more than once.

Top 10 is quite high for a man with an average punch and speed that barely makes average. We are not judging the man's entertainment value, luckily for him, because he was notably boring to watch.

How is Charles going to handle any heavyweight with real speed? He never fought anyone with real speed that I know of, but was apparently great when going against slow motion guys.

If I am moderately dubious over Charles, I really question Fitz. Okay, he was tough. Now give some convincing reasons he would be top 10 all time. I think Fitz is mainly an historical concession and probably has no business at all this high on such a list. Does anyone really think he could land his vaunted punch on more modern practitioners with his primitive technique?

[QueensburyRules]

Top 10 is quite high for a man with an average punch and speed that barely makes average. We are not judging the man's entertainment value, luckily for him, because he was notably boring to watch.

How is Charles going to handle any heavyweight with real speed? He never fought anyone with real speed that I know of, but was apparently great when going against slow motion guys.

If I am moderately dubious over Charles, I really question Fitz. Okay, he was tough. Now give some convincing reasons he would be top 10 all time. I think Fitz is mainly an historical concession and probably has no business at all this high on such a list. Does anyone really think he could land his vaunted punch on more modern practitioners with his primitive technique?

- -When you bathe, shave and wear your dentures you understand more.