I was looking at monte cox's website and it had an article on fighter of the century where it picked a fighter for each decade and a fighter for the whole century, which were,
1900-1909: Joe Gans
1910-1919: Sam Langford
1920-1929: Benny Leonard
1930-1939: Joe Louis
1940-1949: Ray Robinson
1950-1959: Archie Moore
1960-1969: Muhammad Ali
1970-1979: Roberto Duran
1980-1989: Ray Leonard
1990-1999: Roy Jones Jr.
and overall fighter of the century Sugar Ray Robinson, any opinions?
Any opinions?
-
Guest
- Heavyweight
Steve Bunce said it the other night.Guest wrote:I reckon Muhammad Ali as fighter of the century. Just my personal opinion, though.
Ali was only liked towards the end of his career, now years later the rose tinted glasses really make things look like their a different colour.
Why is Ali so often given this sort of praise?
Sugar Ray Robinson or Joe Louis is my choice and if you asked an oldtime boxing fan in the 50-60`s day they may have said Ketchel, either way Ali does not deserve it.
-
TheRiverCityHippy
- Middleweight
- Posts: 8466
- Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 15:39
A good list--I'd like to find a way to sneak Greb on to it, but I guess he didn't accomplish enough in the teens to knock Langford off the list, and for the 20's there's no way he tops Leonard ... oh well.
Not to be a Jones basher--I'm actually a fan--but arguments can be made in favor of others for the 90s: Holyfield fought better opposition (as did a lot of people), Ricardo Lopez was even more dominant at his weight, etc.
Not to be a Jones basher--I'm actually a fan--but arguments can be made in favor of others for the 90s: Holyfield fought better opposition (as did a lot of people), Ricardo Lopez was even more dominant at his weight, etc.
Greb
I think you could argue Greb as being worthy for either a teens or twenties berth. Its true he didnt quite get rolling until the last half of the teens but when he did he accomplished a hell of a lot. I would also argue that he was a better fighter and more accomplished than Benny Leonard in the 20s.
-
TheRiverCityHippy
- Middleweight
- Posts: 8466
- Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 15:39
Re: Greb
Great! You've convinced me, Greb is in.klompton wrote:I think you could argue Greb as being worthy for either a teens or twenties berth. Its true he didnt quite get rolling until the last half of the teens but when he did he accomplished a hell of a lot. I would also argue that he was a better fighter and more accomplished than Benny Leonard in the 20s.
Why are you so down on Ali Tony?.... the impact which Ali had upon boxing is totally unparralled... and his ability surely ranks him as one of the best ever boxers of all time p4p... (and we didn't see him at his best!)... why does Ali not deserve these plaudits?.....tonyevs wrote:Steve Bunce said it the other night.Guest wrote:I reckon Muhammad Ali as fighter of the century. Just my personal opinion, though.
Ali was only liked towards the end of his career, now years later the rose tinted glasses really make things look like their a different colour.
Why is Ali so often given this sort of praise?
Sugar Ray Robinson or Joe Louis is my choice and if you asked an oldtime boxing fan in the 50-60`s day they may have said Ketchel, either way Ali does not deserve it.
If we were talking a fighter which stands out in their decade for grabbing the attention of the masses, or a fighter that fought and beat better opposition than the rest, then there would probably be two different names for each of the decades.
Let us look at 1950-59 that he places Archie Moore.
The 40`s could be argued as being Archie’s best fighting era because, this is where he fought the better opposition, ok he lost a few, but the quality of the fighters he lost to were most definitely better than most he fought in the 50`s.
But the 50`s is where Archie gained a wider recognition to the masses.
And to contradict it even further, the list has Ray Robinson down as 1940-1949 fighter.
How can anybody not make this Joe Louis era?
Again, whilst Ray Robinson was in my opinion, at his best in the 40`s than he was in the 50`s, he too gained wider headlines in the 50`s.
And much can be argued for the rest of the list.
The 20`s will always be Dempsey’s time.
Back to Joe Louis over Ali though.
In my opinion Joe Louis achieved so much more than Ali.
He opened so many doors for others, he built bridges for others when there was a big divide.
His opposition may be regarded as inferior to what Ali faced by some looking back over the years, though they were the best that was around at the time, and he faced and beat them all, that’s all he could do.
Ali lost his best years some repeat, we will never know, who says the rest didn’t prolong his career? And Joe also had a long time out when he was 28yrs old, could these have been Joe Louis’s peak years?
And as for the impact that Ali had upon boxing being totally apparelled, well there have been many great impacts made in boxing before- Jack Johnson, and after- Tyson. Some good and some bad.
Joe Louis was all good for boxing throughout his fighting days, and always provided a good role model to the public. He was loved by all, regardless of colour.
Sadly, Ali for a very big part of his career spouted hate and whilst the latter part of his career he tried to amend this, what he said and what he did will always keep him a mile behind the great Joe Louis in my mind anyway.
Let us look at 1950-59 that he places Archie Moore.
The 40`s could be argued as being Archie’s best fighting era because, this is where he fought the better opposition, ok he lost a few, but the quality of the fighters he lost to were most definitely better than most he fought in the 50`s.
But the 50`s is where Archie gained a wider recognition to the masses.
And to contradict it even further, the list has Ray Robinson down as 1940-1949 fighter.
How can anybody not make this Joe Louis era?
Again, whilst Ray Robinson was in my opinion, at his best in the 40`s than he was in the 50`s, he too gained wider headlines in the 50`s.
And much can be argued for the rest of the list.
The 20`s will always be Dempsey’s time.
Back to Joe Louis over Ali though.
In my opinion Joe Louis achieved so much more than Ali.
He opened so many doors for others, he built bridges for others when there was a big divide.
His opposition may be regarded as inferior to what Ali faced by some looking back over the years, though they were the best that was around at the time, and he faced and beat them all, that’s all he could do.
Ali lost his best years some repeat, we will never know, who says the rest didn’t prolong his career? And Joe also had a long time out when he was 28yrs old, could these have been Joe Louis’s peak years?
And as for the impact that Ali had upon boxing being totally apparelled, well there have been many great impacts made in boxing before- Jack Johnson, and after- Tyson. Some good and some bad.
Joe Louis was all good for boxing throughout his fighting days, and always provided a good role model to the public. He was loved by all, regardless of colour.
Sadly, Ali for a very big part of his career spouted hate and whilst the latter part of his career he tried to amend this, what he said and what he did will always keep him a mile behind the great Joe Louis in my mind anyway.
tonyevs wrote:If we were talking a fighter which stands out in their decade for grabbing the attention of the masses, or a fighter that fought and beat better opposition than the rest, then there would probably be two different names for each of the decades.
Let us look at 1950-59 that he places Archie Moore.
The 40`s could be argued as being Archie’s best fighting era because, this is where he fought the better opposition, ok he lost a few, but the quality of the fighters he lost to were most definitely better than most he fought in the 50`s.
But the 50`s is where Archie gained a wider recognition to the masses.
And to contradict it even further, the list has Ray Robinson down as 1940-1949 fighter.
How can anybody not make this Joe Louis era?
Again, whilst Ray Robinson was in my opinion, at his best in the 40`s than he was in the 50`s, he too gained wider headlines in the 50`s.
And much can be argued for the rest of the list.
The 20`s will always be Dempsey’s time.
Back to Joe Louis over Ali though.
In my opinion Joe Louis achieved so much more than Ali.
He opened so many doors for others, he built bridges for others when there was a big divide.
His opposition may be regarded as inferior to what Ali faced by some looking back over the years, though they were the best that was around at the time, and he faced and beat them all, that’s all he could do.
Ali lost his best years some repeat, we will never know, who says the rest didn’t prolong his career? And Joe also had a long time out when he was 28yrs old, could these have been Joe Louis’s peak years?
And as for the impact that Ali had upon boxing being totally apparelled, well there have been many great impacts made in boxing before- Jack Johnson, and after- Tyson. Some good and some bad.
Joe Louis was all good for boxing throughout his fighting days, and always provided a good role model to the public. He was loved by all, regardless of colour.
Sadly, Ali for a very big part of his career spouted hate and whilst the latter part of his career he tried to amend this, what he said and what he did will always keep him a mile behind the great Joe Louis in my mind anyway.
Ali spouted hate???... rubbish!.... just because the man was aggresively active for the rights of the black people does not mean that Ali spouted hate!. Ali did more for the rights of his people than just about any other black sportsman ever. I do not agree with everything that he said when he was young but theres a difference in saying things you don't agree with and spouting hate.... Ali never spouted hate... but he had plenty of hate fired at himself.... and there are still many people only too willing to dig up some of the dubious things that Ali may have said when he was still in his early twenties. Like I said before I disagree with some of the things that Ali used to say but to accuse him of spouting hate and to also not recognise that his views have widened and matured from when he was just 22 is very biased on your part.
As for your view that Ali's exile helped prolong his career, this is a very unsound argument... Ali lost much of his speed in those three years and only revived his career by modifiying his style and relying very much on his guile, courage and chin in his 70s career. It's true that Louis lost some years to the war but Louis was already 28 when he joined up... he had been allowed to reach his physical peak more so than Ali who was only 25 when he had the inactivity forced upon him.
-
Eric the Viking
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 03 Apr 2003, 21:40
Answer: (and I shall say this only once!).....oh I think it must be the open mouth, with heavy hint of red tongue sticking out!... .....reminds me of a dog I used to have!... named Sonny after guess who?... but thats another story.Eric the Viking wrote:Silkov, exactly how similar is being Guest and Steve Bunce in facial resemblance? Please find the answer for me and help me out.silkov wrote:I can see the facial resemblance! alas!!!...... 8)Guest wrote: Well, I admit it. I am Steve Bunce. :P
Actually, Sonny (the dog, sadly deceased as in no more!) was quite a boxing fan!..... 8)
Re-read what I wrote before.silkov wrote:tonyevs wrote:If we were talking a fighter which stands out in their decade for grabbing the attention of the masses, or a fighter that fought and beat better opposition than the rest, then there would probably be two different names for each of the decades.
Let us look at 1950-59 that he places Archie Moore.
The 40`s could be argued as being Archie’s best fighting era because, this is where he fought the better opposition, ok he lost a few, but the quality of the fighters he lost to were most definitely better than most he fought in the 50`s.
But the 50`s is where Archie gained a wider recognition to the masses.
And to contradict it even further, the list has Ray Robinson down as 1940-1949 fighter.
How can anybody not make this Joe Louis era?
Again, whilst Ray Robinson was in my opinion, at his best in the 40`s than he was in the 50`s, he too gained wider headlines in the 50`s.
And much can be argued for the rest of the list.
The 20`s will always be Dempsey’s time.
Back to Joe Louis over Ali though.
In my opinion Joe Louis achieved so much more than Ali.
He opened so many doors for others, he built bridges for others when there was a big divide.
His opposition may be regarded as inferior to what Ali faced by some looking back over the years, though they were the best that was around at the time, and he faced and beat them all, that’s all he could do.
Ali lost his best years some repeat, we will never know, who says the rest didn’t prolong his career? And Joe also had a long time out when he was 28yrs old, could these have been Joe Louis’s peak years?
And as for the impact that Ali had upon boxing being totally apparelled, well there have been many great impacts made in boxing before- Jack Johnson, and after- Tyson. Some good and some bad.
Joe Louis was all good for boxing throughout his fighting days, and always provided a good role model to the public. He was loved by all, regardless of colour.
Sadly, Ali for a very big part of his career spouted hate and whilst the latter part of his career he tried to amend this, what he said and what he did will always keep him a mile behind the great Joe Louis in my mind anyway.
Ali spouted hate???... rubbish!.... just because the man was aggresively active for the rights of the black people does not mean that Ali spouted hate!. Ali did more for the rights of his people than just about any other black sportsman ever. I do not agree with everything that he said when he was young but theres a difference in saying things you don't agree with and spouting hate.... Ali never spouted hate... but he had plenty of hate fired at himself.... and there are still many people only too willing to dig up some of the dubious things that Ali may have said when he was still in his early twenties. Like I said before I disagree with some of the things that Ali used to say but to accuse him of spouting hate and to also not recognise that his views have widened and matured from when he was just 22 is very biased on your part.
As for your view that Ali's exile helped prolong his career, this is a very unsound argument... Ali lost much of his speed in those three years and only revived his career by modifiying his style and relying very much on his guile, courage and chin in his 70s career. It's true that Louis lost some years to the war but Louis was already 28 when he joined up... he had been allowed to reach his physical peak more so than Ali who was only 25 when he had the inactivity forced upon him.
Look back at what Ali said, don’t just read the pro-Ali hero worshipping books that will have you believe he said it all with his tongue in cheek.
How would Marciano be remembered if he had said what Ali had said? Forever he would have been remembered as a racist bigot, and quite rightly, so why does Ali get away with it?
Was he not quick to insult other fighters as an `Uncle Tom` insulting to white people and even worse to the fighters involved.
You obviously need to read more on what Joe Louis did, he helped more than ANY other black sportsman before of after, if it was not for what Joe Louis achieved Ali would never have got a chance in the beginning.
Like I had written, he did try to amend this later on….(written in the last but one line)
As for your incorrect interpretation that I meant Ali `s exile prolonged his career, I merely wanted to point out that we will never know what might have been, with his exile or Joe Louis `s.
Your argument that Joe Louis had been allowed to reach his peak at 28yrs old is quite biased when you consider Ali had his most memorable fights when he was 32yrs old.
Surely a forced exile would hurt an older fighter than a younger one.
The exiled years do not count now, they are gone so we will never know.
Nothing you have written will convince me to change my mind, Joe Louis every time.
Re-read what I wrote before.silkov wrote:tonyevs wrote:If we were talking a fighter which stands out in their decade for grabbing the attention of the masses, or a fighter that fought and beat better opposition than the rest, then there would probably be two different names for each of the decades.
Let us look at 1950-59 that he places Archie Moore.
The 40`s could be argued as being Archie’s best fighting era because, this is where he fought the better opposition, ok he lost a few, but the quality of the fighters he lost to were most definitely better than most he fought in the 50`s.
But the 50`s is where Archie gained a wider recognition to the masses.
And to contradict it even further, the list has Ray Robinson down as 1940-1949 fighter.
How can anybody not make this Joe Louis era?
Again, whilst Ray Robinson was in my opinion, at his best in the 40`s than he was in the 50`s, he too gained wider headlines in the 50`s.
And much can be argued for the rest of the list.
The 20`s will always be Dempsey’s time.
Back to Joe Louis over Ali though.
In my opinion Joe Louis achieved so much more than Ali.
He opened so many doors for others, he built bridges for others when there was a big divide.
His opposition may be regarded as inferior to what Ali faced by some looking back over the years, though they were the best that was around at the time, and he faced and beat them all, that’s all he could do.
Ali lost his best years some repeat, we will never know, who says the rest didn’t prolong his career? And Joe also had a long time out when he was 28yrs old, could these have been Joe Louis’s peak years?
And as for the impact that Ali had upon boxing being totally apparelled, well there have been many great impacts made in boxing before- Jack Johnson, and after- Tyson. Some good and some bad.
Joe Louis was all good for boxing throughout his fighting days, and always provided a good role model to the public. He was loved by all, regardless of colour.
Sadly, Ali for a very big part of his career spouted hate and whilst the latter part of his career he tried to amend this, what he said and what he did will always keep him a mile behind the great Joe Louis in my mind anyway.
Ali spouted hate???... rubbish!.... just because the man was aggresively active for the rights of the black people does not mean that Ali spouted hate!. Ali did more for the rights of his people than just about any other black sportsman ever. I do not agree with everything that he said when he was young but theres a difference in saying things you don't agree with and spouting hate.... Ali never spouted hate... but he had plenty of hate fired at himself.... and there are still many people only too willing to dig up some of the dubious things that Ali may have said when he was still in his early twenties. Like I said before I disagree with some of the things that Ali used to say but to accuse him of spouting hate and to also not recognise that his views have widened and matured from when he was just 22 is very biased on your part.
As for your view that Ali's exile helped prolong his career, this is a very unsound argument... Ali lost much of his speed in those three years and only revived his career by modifiying his style and relying very much on his guile, courage and chin in his 70s career. It's true that Louis lost some years to the war but Louis was already 28 when he joined up... he had been allowed to reach his physical peak more so than Ali who was only 25 when he had the inactivity forced upon him.
Look back at what Ali said, don’t just read the pro-Ali hero worshipping books that will have you believe he said it all with his tongue in cheek.
How would Marciano be remembered if he had said what Ali had said? Forever he would have been remembered as a racist bigot, and quite rightly, so why does Ali get away with it?
Was he not quick to insult other fighters as an `Uncle Tom` insulting to white people and even worse to the fighters involved.
You obviously need to read more on what Joe Louis did, he helped more than ANY other black sportsman before of after, if it was not for what Joe Louis achieved Ali would never have got a chance in the beginning.
Like I had written, he did try to amend this later on….(written in the last but one line)
As for your incorrect interpretation that I meant Ali `s exile prolonged his career, I merely wanted to point out that we will never know what might have been, with his exile or Joe Louis `s.
Your argument that Joe Louis had been allowed to reach his peak at 28yrs old is quite biased when you consider Ali had his most memorable fights when he was 32yrs old.
Surely a forced exile would hurt an older fighter than a younger one.
The exiled years do not count now, they are gone so we will never know.
Nothing you have written will convince me to change my mind, Joe Louis every time.
maybe you had to be around then to really understand the enormous influence joe louis had......well beyond his triumphs in the boxing ring. it goes way beyond that of any other boxer , athlete or black celebrity in any field......he was the first great african american icon ..... a hero to "his people" without peer....and gained the respect and affection of all but the most bigoted white people in an era in which racism was so deeply imbedded in our society that it was virtually a "normal" part of it.
he was a giant who overcame obstacles that do not exist today....and i am by no means saying that racism isn't still a pervading immense social problem.
ah hell..go back to my first sentence.....i think you just had to be there.
he was a giant who overcame obstacles that do not exist today....and i am by no means saying that racism isn't still a pervading immense social problem.
ah hell..go back to my first sentence.....i think you just had to be there.
-
Professor X
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 130
- Joined: 22 Jun 2004, 10:42
century's best
KO Magazine did something like this in Jul'99. Here's how they saw it:
1900-'09- Jack Johnson (FOD-Johnson-Burns)
1910-'19- Benny Leonard (FOD-Johnson-Jeffries)
1920-29- Jack Dempsey
(FOD- Dempsey-Firpo)
1930-'39- Henry Armstrog
(FOD- Louis-Schmeling II)
1940-'49- Joe Louis
(FOD- Zale-Graziano I)
1950-'59- Ray Robinson
(FOD- Moore-Durelle)
1960-'69- Muhammad Ali
(FOD- Ali-Liston I)
1970-'79- Muhammad Ali
(FOD- Ali-Frazier I)
1980-'89- Mike Tyson
(FOD- Hagler-Hearns)
1990-'99- Pete Whitaker
(FOD- Chavez-Taylor)
*FOD= Fight of the Decade
1900-'09- Jack Johnson (FOD-Johnson-Burns)
1910-'19- Benny Leonard (FOD-Johnson-Jeffries)
1920-29- Jack Dempsey
(FOD- Dempsey-Firpo)
1930-'39- Henry Armstrog
(FOD- Louis-Schmeling II)
1940-'49- Joe Louis
(FOD- Zale-Graziano I)
1950-'59- Ray Robinson
(FOD- Moore-Durelle)
1960-'69- Muhammad Ali
(FOD- Ali-Liston I)
1970-'79- Muhammad Ali
(FOD- Ali-Frazier I)
1980-'89- Mike Tyson
(FOD- Hagler-Hearns)
1990-'99- Pete Whitaker
(FOD- Chavez-Taylor)
*FOD= Fight of the Decade
Jaclem, to my rescue once more….very true.
Back to the original list, very poor in almost all the era`s.
Who is brave enough to post their revised list in full. I shall post mine tomorrow (need more time to compile it, because mine will be scrutinized a little closer).
My friend Jaclem, your list I especially look forward to seeing my learned friend.
Back to the original list, very poor in almost all the era`s.
Who is brave enough to post their revised list in full. I shall post mine tomorrow (need more time to compile it, because mine will be scrutinized a little closer).
My friend Jaclem, your list I especially look forward to seeing my learned friend.
Here goes.
One thing though, I have picked not just the outstanding fighter, or the outstanding personality, instead a person who for me emphasises that era.
1900-10 Stanley Ketchel (Joe Gans and Abe Attell were considered)
1910-20 Jack Johnson ( Jimmy Wilde and Jack Britton were considered).
1920-30 Jack Dempsey (Greb was close and Mickey Walker could be argued as a better example due to him fighting longer in that era ).
1930-40 Henry Armstrong (Canzoneri and Barney Ross probably deserved it more though)
1940-50 Joe Louis ( though as said, there were lots of just as good fighters about, at the beginning of the era and at different weights, Charles, Pep, Robinson and Moore to name a few).
1950-60 Rocky Marciano ( again a good argument could be made for Ray Robinson and Archie Moore, bur the rock being a heavyweight sways it his way much as Dempsey).
1960-70 Muhammad Ali ( I am not a fan, but the man emphasised boxing in this era, Benvenuti and Emile Griffith deserve a mention though).
1970-80 Carlos Monzon ( Again, not a fan, but he was this era. Arguello, Benitez, Napoles, Duran and definitely Bob Foster deserve the place higher than Monzon , but as said Monzon was the 70`s.
1980-90 Tyson ( more so because he caught the end of the decade, Hagler loses it because his was the beginning to middle. There seems to have been quite a lot of good fighters about then, Hollyfield, Spinks, Leonard, Hearns, Nelson, Chavez the list goes on but Tyson stole the 80`s).
1990-2000 Oscar De La Hoya ( screams of disbelief I hear, and even louder than before. Let me try to explain the method to my madness, he was, and is an outstanding fighter, he has fought and beat, and sometimes lost, against quality opposition, he is better known than almost all other fighters around the world and so can demand almost equal purses to those of a heavyweight champion, Jones Jr. has only quite recently gained his big following so that’s why he lost out, Pernell Whitaker never had much of a following, Julio Cesar Chavez just missed out and sadly probably the most deserving one on ability does not even come close, Ricardo Lopez).
2000-10 still too early.
One thing though, I have picked not just the outstanding fighter, or the outstanding personality, instead a person who for me emphasises that era.
1900-10 Stanley Ketchel (Joe Gans and Abe Attell were considered)
1910-20 Jack Johnson ( Jimmy Wilde and Jack Britton were considered).
1920-30 Jack Dempsey (Greb was close and Mickey Walker could be argued as a better example due to him fighting longer in that era ).
1930-40 Henry Armstrong (Canzoneri and Barney Ross probably deserved it more though)
1940-50 Joe Louis ( though as said, there were lots of just as good fighters about, at the beginning of the era and at different weights, Charles, Pep, Robinson and Moore to name a few).
1950-60 Rocky Marciano ( again a good argument could be made for Ray Robinson and Archie Moore, bur the rock being a heavyweight sways it his way much as Dempsey).
1960-70 Muhammad Ali ( I am not a fan, but the man emphasised boxing in this era, Benvenuti and Emile Griffith deserve a mention though).
1970-80 Carlos Monzon ( Again, not a fan, but he was this era. Arguello, Benitez, Napoles, Duran and definitely Bob Foster deserve the place higher than Monzon , but as said Monzon was the 70`s.
1980-90 Tyson ( more so because he caught the end of the decade, Hagler loses it because his was the beginning to middle. There seems to have been quite a lot of good fighters about then, Hollyfield, Spinks, Leonard, Hearns, Nelson, Chavez the list goes on but Tyson stole the 80`s).
1990-2000 Oscar De La Hoya ( screams of disbelief I hear, and even louder than before. Let me try to explain the method to my madness, he was, and is an outstanding fighter, he has fought and beat, and sometimes lost, against quality opposition, he is better known than almost all other fighters around the world and so can demand almost equal purses to those of a heavyweight champion, Jones Jr. has only quite recently gained his big following so that’s why he lost out, Pernell Whitaker never had much of a following, Julio Cesar Chavez just missed out and sadly probably the most deserving one on ability does not even come close, Ricardo Lopez).
2000-10 still too early.
tonyevs wrote:Here goes.
One thing though, I have picked not just the outstanding fighter, or the outstanding personality, instead a person who for me emphasises that era.
1900-10 Stanley Ketchel (Joe Gans and Abe Attell were considered)
1910-20 Jack Johnson ( Jimmy Wilde and Jack Britton were considered).
1920-30 Jack Dempsey (Greb was close and Mickey Walker could be argued as a better example due to him fighting longer in that era ).
1930-40 Henry Armstrong (Canzoneri and Barney Ross probably deserved it more though)
1940-50 Joe Louis ( though as said, there were lots of just as good fighters about, at the beginning of the era and at different weights, Charles, Pep, Robinson and Moore to name a few).
1950-60 Rocky Marciano ( again a good argument could be made for Ray Robinson and Archie Moore, bur the rock being a heavyweight sways it his way much as Dempsey).
1960-70 Muhammad Ali ( I am not a fan, but the man emphasised boxing in this era, Benvenuti and Emile Griffith deserve a mention though).
1970-80 Carlos Monzon ( Again, not a fan, but he was this era. Arguello, Benitez, Napoles, Duran and definitely Bob Foster deserve the place higher than Monzon , but as said Monzon was the 70`s.
1980-90 Tyson ( more so because he caught the end of the decade, Hagler loses it because his was the beginning to middle. There seems to have been quite a lot of good fighters about then, Hollyfield, Spinks, Leonard, Hearns, Nelson, Chavez the list goes on but Tyson stole the 80`s).
1990-2000 Oscar De La Hoya ( screams of disbelief I hear, and even louder than before. Let me try to explain the method to my madness, he was, and is an outstanding fighter, he has fought and beat, and sometimes lost, against quality opposition, he is better known than almost all other fighters around the world and so can demand almost equal purses to those of a heavyweight champion, Jones Jr. has only quite recently gained his big following so that’s why he lost out, Pernell Whitaker never had much of a following, Julio Cesar Chavez just missed out and sadly probably the most deserving one on ability does not even come close, Ricardo Lopez).
2000-10 still too early.
I've heard of sitting on the fence but you must be getting splinters in your whatnots!!!!...
I did the same thing as you tonyevs and came up with a similar list.
1900-1909 Stanley Ketchel-Avenged defeat to Billy Pake twice, KO'd Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, beat both "Twin" Sullivans, lost to Heavyweight Jack Johnson, and other two losses within 1st year as pro
1910-1919 Jimmy Wilde(I already explained in an earlier post)
1920-1929 Harry Greb-Beat Gene Tunney,Tommy Loughran, and Mickey Walker. Last losses to Tiger Flowers(who is one of the most underrated fighters ever.)
1930-1939 Henry Armstrong- During those years captured three world titles at once (Feather, Light, and Welterweight). From 37 to 38 went 41-0 and finshed the decade 104-12-7. Beat Barney Ross, Chalky Wright, Lou Ambers, and Ceferino Garcia.
1940-1949 Willie Pep- Went 144-2-1 in the decade losses to only top ten Sammy Angott and hall of famer Sandy Saddler(avenged).
1950-1959 Sugar Ray Robinson-Inconsistent but beat Fullmer, Olson, Graziano, and Basilio. Avenged most losses.
1960-1969 Muhammed Ali-Undefeated and beat Liston, Moore, Patterson, Quarry, and Bonavena.
1970-1979 Carlos Monzon-More consistent than Ali in the 70's, beating Nino Benvenuti, Jose Napoles, and Rodrigo valdes.
1980-1989-Marvelous Marvin Hagler-Beat every contender, fight of the decade vs. Hearns, and only loss was controversial.
1990-1999 Roy Jones Jr.-Went 40-1 and avenged only "loss". Beat Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Hill, and Unified the title. (De La Hoya fought to many close fights but went 31-1, Trinidad went 36-0 but last win controversial over De La Hoya crosses both out in my opinion.
Whoo...That's a lot of typing.
1900-1909 Stanley Ketchel-Avenged defeat to Billy Pake twice, KO'd Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, beat both "Twin" Sullivans, lost to Heavyweight Jack Johnson, and other two losses within 1st year as pro
1910-1919 Jimmy Wilde(I already explained in an earlier post)
1920-1929 Harry Greb-Beat Gene Tunney,Tommy Loughran, and Mickey Walker. Last losses to Tiger Flowers(who is one of the most underrated fighters ever.)
1930-1939 Henry Armstrong- During those years captured three world titles at once (Feather, Light, and Welterweight). From 37 to 38 went 41-0 and finshed the decade 104-12-7. Beat Barney Ross, Chalky Wright, Lou Ambers, and Ceferino Garcia.
1940-1949 Willie Pep- Went 144-2-1 in the decade losses to only top ten Sammy Angott and hall of famer Sandy Saddler(avenged).
1950-1959 Sugar Ray Robinson-Inconsistent but beat Fullmer, Olson, Graziano, and Basilio. Avenged most losses.
1960-1969 Muhammed Ali-Undefeated and beat Liston, Moore, Patterson, Quarry, and Bonavena.
1970-1979 Carlos Monzon-More consistent than Ali in the 70's, beating Nino Benvenuti, Jose Napoles, and Rodrigo valdes.
1980-1989-Marvelous Marvin Hagler-Beat every contender, fight of the decade vs. Hearns, and only loss was controversial.
1990-1999 Roy Jones Jr.-Went 40-1 and avenged only "loss". Beat Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Hill, and Unified the title. (De La Hoya fought to many close fights but went 31-1, Trinidad went 36-0 but last win controversial over De La Hoya crosses both out in my opinion.
Whoo...That's a lot of typing.