My top 10 greatest fighters in the history of boxing

[BoloShot]

You seem to be the type of fan that favours punchers/ brawlers over boxers. That’s a very subjective list, fair play for posting it, buts it’s heavy on that type of fighter.
Tunney was Dempsey’s bogeyman, he only lost once I think, his defeat to Dempsey, which he avenged more than once. Sounds like Tunney was better than Dempsey to me, although not as big a star.
I’ve not seen La Motta in many top 10 of all time lists, excellent fighter though he undoubtedly was.

Tunney never lost to Dempsey, he only lost to Harry Greb, avenged his loss too.

[apollocreed]

Tunney never lost to Dempsey, he only lost to Harry Greb, avenged his loss too.

Yeah I did actually correct myself later in this thread after checking. I knew he had one loss that he avenged. He was 3 -1 -1 against Greb, who was reputedly another great fighter.

[uppercut510]

good list, never understood why these topics make people argue instead of just making their own list.

[BoloShot]

Yeah I did actually correct myself later in this thread after checking. I knew he had one loss that he avenged. He was 3 -1 -1 against Greb, who was reputedly another great fighter.

Greb has to be included in a top 10 all time list. I'm pretty sure he fought and excelled from middleweight to light heavyweight which was unprecedented at the time the mad bast.ard.

[BoloShot]

I don't know if it's entirely deserved or not but I'd like to shout out Carlos Monzon for people's top 10s because that man was a fighting phenomenon.

[Boxing_1013]

- -Nancys think Ray won, men thought Marv won.

Ray skipped on the mega lucrative rematch.

End of the day Ray won a political boxing decision, but Marv won the war.

Lol...I mean...you gotta score it round by round man, that's boxing ya know...opinions about whose trunks you like better don't really matter when scoring a fight...honestly seems like with Hagler people trying to see what they want to see...and perhaps some favoring Hagler because they don't really know how to score a boxing match (not saying you or the other guy are that way btw - just some others who think Hagler won).

Not really arguing who scored more damage throughout the fight either...though I think SRL was doing a lot more than just shoe-shining.

But yeah rd by rd there just were too many clear run away rounds from SRL...I tend to favor the aggressor in a fight...but Hagler generally just tried to lower his head and bounce his way in against his opponent...against guys who stood in front of him, that was fine.

But against a boxer/mover he had troubles...and I would say SRL boxed/moved in that fight rather than ran...he just won about half of those rounds very clearly...can't really see where anyone who knows boxing can score 6+ rounds for Marvin - no offense, sincerely.

He never really boxed his way in and that is why he could struggle against movers (Monroe) boxers (Leonard/Duran) and why he struggled against Watts who just tied him up and hit and held every time Marvelous tried to get inside.

Hagler was incredible though...if you tried to go to war with him, well Hearns and Mugabe couldn't put a dent in him...that says it all about his toughness.

Not really hyping SRL's win btw...or the aftermath of everything...he did go up in weight which was commendable...but it was only 12 rounds he had to survive, not 15...he did catch Hagler at the end of his career.

I think the ring that night was also quite large which helped SRL...but yeah from a neutral perspective, I don't really see how anyone can go with Hagler on that one...seems you are a big fan of his which is cool...he was certainly an ATG in my book.

[Richard Hamilton]

I like this list. You have actually watched the fighters and made an opinion from watching them. No point in listing loads of old school fighters that you have hardly watched and just go off others opinion. That is your list from your eyes.

[apollocreed]

I like this list. You have actually watched the fighters and made an opinion from watching them. No point in listing loads of old school fighters that you have hardly watched and just go off others opinion. That is your list from your eyes.

From reading about guys like Tunney and Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep etc, I think it's reasonable to put them in an ATG list though.
Plenty of boxing journalists/ historians have done that, without seeing them fight, except from some grainy old footage.

[apollocreed]

I'm not a fan of lists, for reasons shown in this thread

When I first saw DLH, I thought he was gonna be a gimmick. A pretty boy trying to prove he's more than a latin heartthrob by beating up a bunch of cans.

DLH was a serious dude. Where he's placed on a list is not important to me.

Oscar was definitely an excellent fighter. No question. He had skills and tenacity. Having watched a few of his fights in his peak years, he did tend to not adapt his style too much. His style was excellent, but he tended to fight very upright, always looking to work with his dominant left hand. Like the style had been drilled into him since he was a kid.
I can see why he'd be one of your's or anyone's fave fighters.
I think he beat some great fighters at the end of their careers, timing was a big factor in his wins over Whitaker and Chavez.
His losses to Trinidad and Mosley, although disputed, mean he isn't up for ATG status for me, but I totally agree he was a serious fighter and one of the best p4p of the 90's.

[Richard Hamilton]

From reading about guys like Tunney and Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep etc, I think it's reasonable to put them in an ATG list though.
Plenty of boxing journalists/ historians have done that, without seeing them fight, except from some grainy old footage.

Can't properly analyse a fighter without watching plenty of footage in my opinion.