Ring Magazine's Eighty Greatest Boxers

[TheOneIsHere2008]

In 2002, Ring Magazine published a list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years in boxing, as voted by the magazine's writers.

Various criteria were used for the voting: what percentage of fights by each boxer resulted as knockout wins, how many knockouts and knockout streaks each boxer had, what important rivals he knocked out during his career, and who he couldn't knock out.

List of boxing's all time best fighters, as deemed by Ring's writers:

ON EDIT- THE LIST IN ORDER. THE NUMBERS DISAPPEARED WHEN I COPIED AND PASTED IT

Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Roberto Duran
Willie Pep
Harry Greb
Benny Leonard
Sugar Ray Leonard
Pernell Whitaker
Carlos Monzon
Rocky Marciano
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Sandy Saddler
Jack Dempsey
Marvin Hagler
Julio César Chávez
Eder Jofre
Alexis Arguello
Barney Ross
Evander Holyfield
Ike Williams
Salvador Sanchez
George Foreman
Kid Gavilan
Larry Holmes
Mickey Walker
Ruben Olivares
Gene Tunney
Dick Tiger
Fighting Harada
Emile Griffith
Tony Canzoneri
Aaron Pryor
Pascual Perez
Miguel Canto
Manuel Ortiz
Charley Burley
Carmen Basilio
Michael Spinks
Joe Frazier
Khaosai Galaxy
Roy Jones, Jr.
Tiger Flowers
Panama Al Brown
Kid Chocolate
Joe Brown
Tommy Loughran
Bernard Hopkins
Felix Trinidad
Jake LaMotta
Lennox Lewis
Wilfredo Gómez
Bob Foster
Jose Napoles
Billy Conn
Jimmy McLarnin
Pancho Villa
Carlos Ortiz
Bob Montgomery
Freddie Miller
Benny Lynch
Beau Jack
Azumah Nelson
Eusebio Pedroza
Thomas Hearns
Wilfred Benitez
Antonio Cervantes
Ricardo Lopez
Sonny Liston
Mike Tyson
Vicente Saldivar
Gene Fullmer
Oscar de la Hoya
Carlos Zarate
Marcel Cerdan
Flash Elorde
Mike McCallum
Harold Johnson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_Magaz ... t_80_Years

Interesting list, what do you gentlemen think?

[Ezzard]

As a boxers list the first thing that really stands out is that Ezzard Charles seem too low.

Then when I look at the criteria the list looks odd. I mean the emphasis on KOs makes me wonder about Pep and Whittaker who didn't have great KO records against their top opponents.

Aaron Pryor above Hearns, Spinks, Loughran, Frazier, Kid Chocolate, Gomez, Nelson, Pedroza...

Actually the more I look at this list the more jumbled up it appears to be.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

As a boxers list the first thing that really stands out is that Ezzard Charles seem too low.

Then when I look at the criteria the list looks odd. I mean the emphasis on KOs makes me wonder about Pep and Whittaker who didn't have great KO records against their top opponents.

Aaron Pryor above Hearns, Spinks, Loughran, Frazier, Kid Chocolate, Gomez, Nelson, Pedroza...

Actually the more I look at this list the more jumbled up it appears to be.

I'm not an expert but this is the criteria I use to evaluate any athlete ...I use peak value and career value, quality of opposition, and how that athlete fared against his opposition...The hard part is to infer from the performance of an athlete in one era how he or she would perform in another era...

I think what the folks Ring were trying to emphasize by focusing on knockouts is the margin of victory...A third round knockout is more impressive than a fifteen round split decision...There are computer rankings galore of American football, baseball, and basketball teams... These computer ranking factor in the margin of victory as well as the quality of competition... I think that's what Ring magazine was trying to do...

[Ambling Alp]

When I first read some of the criteria, it seemed like way too much emphasis was on knockouts.
A fight that ends in a knockout is often more competitive than a fight that goes the distance. KO % can often be very decieiving because the level of competition can vary greratly.

However, as I read the names listed, it looks pretty good. I wasn't sure if it was listed in order; if so myself and I'm sure everyone will have their share of disagreements. However, of the 80 listed, almost all are worthy.

The obvious one that doesn't belong is Trinidad. Mike McCallum would probably be a borderline case.
I would replace them with Lou Ambers and Nino Benvenuti are the most deserving fighters that aren't on the list that I can think of and that's who I would replace them with.

Overall, though it's a great list. There doesn't seem to be a bias toward certain eras or too many heavyweights.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

When I first read some of the criteria, it seemed like way too much emphasis was on knockouts.
A fight that ends in a knockout is often more competitive than a fight that goes the distance. KO % can often be very decieiving because the level of competition can vary greratly.

However, as I read the names listed, it looks pretty good. I wasn't sure if it was listed in order; if so myself and I'm sure everyone will have their share of disagreements. However, of the 80 listed, almost all are worthy.

The obvious one that doesn't belong is Trinidad. Mike McCallum would probably be a borderline case.
I would replace them with Lou Ambers and Nino Benvenuti are the most deserving fighters that aren't on the list that I can think of and that's who I would replace them with.

Overall, though it's a great list. There doesn't seem to be a bias toward certain eras or too many heavyweights.

I'm a huge SRL fan so I am glad to see him at #9...I'll bet some of the old timers will be apopleptic at that pick....And Sweet Pea at #10 is a bit surprising...

But then there's The Hands Of Stone at #5 who a poster here dismissed as an "overweight lightweight"...

[Ezzard]

I f we throw out the KO criteria than Marciano is too high IMO. With the KO criteria I can accept it.

[Ambling Alp]

TheOneishere;
I think that when he was called an "overweight lightweight" they weren't dismissing Duran. What they were doing was saying that it wasn't a big deal for someone to beat him at a higher weight.
They were really dismissing the win for the other guy.
I don't know the exact quote that you are referring to, but have heard it in regard to Hagler's win over Duran several times.

This is an interesting list. (I hope this doesn't get hijacked into a yet another thread about Duran, Leonard or Ali.)

No two people will have the same rankings.
I think Montgomery,Marciano,Duran, Basilio,Pryor and Whitaker are a little too high.
Spinks,Frazier,Charles,Hearns,Benitez and Tunney are a little too low.

Still, it looks pretty realistic.

[Ezzard]

How was the voting arranged?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

How was the voting arranged?

It doesn't say at the link... I guess you could e-mail the magazine if you were so inclined...

[Ezzard]

I just ask as any readership vote will be biased towards the readership's demographic... These things are often a popularity contest...

I wonder if The Ring's editorial baord pushed in a few names to save embarrassment.

[Ambling Alp]

Ezzard,
I'm not not quite I understand what you are saying.
Are you suggesting that the Magazine's Writers (who voted for this) may have been trying to appeal to the readers of the magazine and not necessarily who they thought deserved it?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I just ask as any readership vote will be biased towards the readership's demographic... These things are often a popularity contest...

I wonder if The Ring's editorial baord pushed in a few names to save embarrassment.

I suspect the magazine was on the up and up...Henry Armstrong is not exactly a household word...Actually he is but that's because of his catchy last name...I don't think most people outside of boxing know who he is....

When I was a kid in the late sixties and seventies The Ring was my Bible... I used to read Ring and biographies about great fighters like Louis and Marciano who were to me larger than life figures...

My interest in boxing waxes and wanes...I have to have an interest in the participants before I can watch the match...But that applies to basketball and American football as well...I have to have a person or team to root for...Though I do make exceptions if the qualitiy of the opponents are stellar...

[bjermaine]

yes, thanks to the ring i learned that k. galaxy was a greater fighter than roy jones. pretty terrible. with the ring, i'm surprised roy even made the list.

[Big Bad John]

LOL@Felix Trinidad being that high. For what? Beating an old cokehead and a couple of guys with fewer than 20 fights?

[Harvey Levy]

That's a pretty good list and I'm glad to see that it's not overloaded with oldtimers. I would make a few changes. Remove Marcel Cerdan, Antonio (Kid Pambele) Cervantes and insert Freddie Steele and Luie Rodriguez. IMO, Kid Pambele fought in a lack luster division. He was impressive but by choosing to be the big fish in a small pond his credentials suffer. Marcel Cerdan, I don't know to much about the guy but he was a Frenchman and they're all effeminate so he gets chopped of the list. I've seen films of Freedie Steele and he was an impressive MW. It's too bad that he fought in an era in which the MW division had no one champ but I think he was the best after Walker. Loui Rodriguez I saw fight many times and he was fantastic. I think he beat Emile Griffith all three bouts and should have been champ for longer than just a few months. He fought and beat the best WW and MW of the 1960's.

I also think Salvador Sanchez is rated a bit too high. He was great but for too short a period because he was killed in an auto crash still in his early twenties. He was a special fighter though and one can see that he had unlimited potential.

[HomicideHenry]

Personally myself, I dont see how heavyweights, unless they done something that has yet to be matched or done something that has never been done before, should be on a "greatest fighters" list, because lets face it the lighter weight divisions hold far more ATG's than the heavyweights. Outside of Louis and Ali, there shouldnt be a heavyweight on the list, with maybe the exception of Evander Holyfield, but only because he excelled as a Cruiserweight first and then went on to become a 4 time heavyweight title holder.

[yancey]

Any list that puts Michael Spinks over Joe Frazier should automatically be shit-canned without further study.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Any list that puts Michael Spinks over Joe Frazier should automatically be shit-canned without further study.

You are right about dat!

But I don't think you can shit can the whole list...

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

Nicolino Locche is not in this list; neither Stanley Ketchel (???)

[I Feel Fine]

Pep, Greb, Langford, Charles should all be ahead of Ali, Louis, Duran. Leonard is a tad high. Marciano is too high. Whitaker should be ahead of Chavez and such, but he shouldn't be top 20 either. I think Moore should be a little higher. Gavilan and Griffith should be higher. Trinidad ahead of LaMotta, Lewis, Gomez, Napoles, Conn etc. is a complete joke. De La Hoya should not be ahead of the guys he's ahead of, but he should be ahead of Trinidad.

[raylawpc]

Leonard is a tad high.

Which Leonard is too high?

[dr_devious]

Sam Langford isnt even on the list, which is ludicrous!

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Leonard is a tad high.

Which Leonard is too high?

I believe he's referring to Ray but he can speak for himself...

As a SRL fan I'm happy to see him that hight but I'm not going to bicker with those who don't...

[bjermaine]

Sam Langford isnt even on the list, which is ludicrous!

the list is the 80 greatest fighters of the last 80 years. langford didn't fall in that category. he should be top 5 if we're talking about all-time fighters.

[Big Bad John]

Nicolino Locche is not in this list; neither Stanley Ketchel (???)

Ketchel died before Ring magazine was created.