Bert Sugar's 100 Greatest Fighters List......Give Me Your Opinion!

[StarshipTrooper]

I didn't mean disrespect over mr. Sugar, he's a good historian but a bookworm could never know more than a bit about boxing...

That's rather like saying construction workers know more about engineering than architects do :rolleyes9:

Poet

[Suckmedry]

Has Sugar ever even been in the gym or ring himself? There is only so much you can know about the sport without actually doing it imo.

[r.burgundy]

Has Sugar ever even been in the gym or ring himself? There is only so much you can know about the sport without actually doing it imo.

bert sugar is a known troll.i think he posts in this section

[Vadrigar.]

bert sugar is a known troll.i think he posts in this section

You're a troll. Simple as.

[Nick Name]

That's rather like saying construction workers know more about engineering than architects do :rolleyes9:

Poet

Lol, I don't know if I actually got the exact meaning of your witty metaphor, sir.

Anyway what I meant is that construction workers know more about construction working than architects do.

[Thread Stealer]

I didn't mean disrespect over mr. Sugar, he's a good historian but a bookworm could never know more than a bit about boxing... I am not a historian of boxing myself but I suspect that some of the names (like Emile Griffith at no. 29 or Ad Wolgast) are made more out of sympathy than for their real value. It is a very romantic list.

A bookworm can know a ton about the history of the sport, maybe not the technical aspects of how to fight, but historical things are different.

A boxer may spend hours in the gym busting his ass off so he may not have the time to read and research all these old newspaper articles, or a baseball player is too busy training and practicing hitting breaking balls, while Bert is just reading about both of these sports.

Griffith was a hell of a fighter. Just look at the opposition he faced and defeated.

[Nick Name]

A bookworm can know a ton about the history of the sport, maybe not the technical aspects of how to fight, but historical things are different.

A boxer may spend hours in the gym busting his ass off so he may not have the time to read and research all these old newspaper articles, or a baseball player is too busy training and practicing hitting breaking balls, while Bert is just reading about both of these sports.

Griffith was a hell of a fighter. Just look at the opposition he faced and defeated.

He WAS one hell of a fighter. I don't intend to take anything from him. But why putting him so high (at 29, while Napoles is at 33 and Carlos Monzon is at 55...), and not putting Nino Benvenuti who beat him twice in his prime? That doesn't make sense. Or instead, it makes a sense: mr. Sugar has a sympathy for Griffith. And I have nothing against that, I have sympathy for him to: he had a harsh life, he was a black ****sexual in the 50s... He killed a guy into the ring... Now he's poor and old with an adopted son... Alright, but then he should have titled the list "Bert Sugar's favorite boxers" or "the top 100 most sympathetic boxers of all times" (Ali would come 1st and Tyson 2nd in that list ).

This is my point: it's not up to a historian to state the value of a fighter.
If Freddie Roach, or Manny Steward or Roger Mayweather for example, would publish a similar list (not that they have time to waste on such things), I would consider it a lot. Because they are in the real business, they know how boxing work, and better than anyone.
But a list like that made by Bert Sugar, is not much more worth than a list made by you or me. In fact it's full of sentimentalities.

[StarshipTrooper]

This is my point: it's not up to a historian to state the value of a fighter. If Freddie Roach, or Manny Steward or Roger Mayweather for example, would publish a similar list (not that they have time to waste on such things), I would consider it a lot. Because they are in the real business, they know how boxing work, and better than anyone.
But a list like that made by Bert Sugar, is not much more worth than a list made by you or me. In fact it's full of sentimentalities.

Oh I can hear now: "Dumb jocks of the world unite! The braniacs you cheated off of in math class are rating you!" :rolleyes9:

Poet

[Nick Name]

Oh I can hear now: "Dumb jocks of the world unite! The braniacs you cheated off of in math class are rating you!" :rolleyes9:

Poet

The end is near, redeem yourself.

[deanrw]

You have to take these lists with a grain of salt. Every list ever made was heavily influenced by the authors likes and dislikes. None are truly factual. If they were, no greatest list would ever be made as it is impossible to rank fighters from different eras against each other with any degree of accuracy.

Whether he based his list on Talent, Achievements or a combo of both, can be picked apart very easily.

Fact is Bert's list really sucks, but everyone's list does. Just seeing Mike McCallum missing from the list is good enough for me. In his prime he would have given any fighter in history around his weight class more than they wanted. That of course is my own opinion and I am sure many of you would disagree.