The Best

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 06 Jan 2005, 23:01

I have heard many opinions but who would you say is the greatest fighter of all time?

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 07 Jan 2005, 08:16

Most say Sugar Ray Robinson, but strong agruments can be made for Henry Armstrong or Joe Louis. My personal pick is Henry Armstrong due to his unrelenting attack and knockout power downed many top contenders, also only person to hold three world titles at the same time.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 07 Jan 2005, 15:27

Langford and Greb P4P

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 07 Jan 2005, 16:26

Ezzard Charles deserves a mention, apart from Greb and Langford, he didn`t avoid anybody.

Post by **John** » 07 Jan 2005, 16:27

I can state without fear of contradiction that Jimmy Wilde is the greatest boxer of all time.

loudmouth · Post by **loudmouth** » 07 Jan 2005, 17:06

JohnShep wrote:I can state without fear of contradiction that Jimmy Wilde is the greatest boxer of all time.

You are wrong!

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 07 Jan 2005, 18:38

loudmouth wrote:
JohnShep wrote:I can state without fear of contradiction that Jimmy Wilde is the greatest boxer of all time.
You are wrong!

Isn’t it the norm when somebody posts a reply like this they do not know enough on the subject to give an answer why.

And is it me or do most of them call themselves names like the one mentioned.

Klompton is a person who enjoys the older fighters for their gameness, and the Joe Louis, Hurricane Hank, sugar Ray and Mighty Atom are all boxers who could arguably claim the title, to categorically denounce any of these, well..what else needs to be said.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 07 Jan 2005, 21:21

I wouldnt denounce Louis, Armstrong, RObinson, or Wilde in the least. I hope that wasnt implied by my post.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 07 Jan 2005, 21:37

Sorry, I aimed that at `Loudmouth`

loudmouth · Post by **loudmouth** » 08 Jan 2005, 00:14

tonyevs wrote:
loudmouth wrote:
JohnShep wrote:I can state without fear of contradiction that Jimmy Wilde is the greatest boxer of all time.
You are wrong!
Isn’t it the norm when somebody posts a reply like this they do not know enough on the subject to give an answer why.
And is it me or do most of them call themselves names like the one mentioned.

Klompton is a person who enjoys the older fighters for their gameness, and the Joe Louis, Hurricane Hank, sugar Ray and Mighty Atom are all boxers who could arguably claim the title, to categorically denounce any of these, well..what else needs to be said.

Lighten up for goodness sake!

When somebody, in a thread that invites opinions makes a statement "without fear of contradiction", surely the only possible response is to contradict him!

FWIW, based on the boxers I saw in action (yes, saw in action), my opinion is that Sugar Ray Robinson was the best pound for pound fighter.

I never saw the earlier contenders in action, though I was at Harringay on closing night in 1958 when Henry Armstrong ('Homicide Hank', BTW) was introduced as one of the honoured guests. He and Jimmy Wilde ('The Ghost With a Hammer in His Hand') must also be considered for the title of 'best ever'.

Armstrong's record speaks for itself and Wilde merits inclusion for his many victories over opponents who enjoyed a considerable weight advantage.

One thing that has surprised me about this thread is that Muhammad Ali (so far) hasn't attracted a few supporters.

Loathe him for his arrogance if you will, but there has never been a speedier heavyweight than Ali in his prime. So fast was he that even the relentless Rocky Marciano would never have nailed him, despite what that computer said a few years back.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 08 Jan 2005, 09:10

bollocks wrote:Jimmy Wilde - does anyone know if footage exists?

Yes, I have highlights of a few of his fights.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 08 Jan 2005, 11:41

loudmouth wrote:
tonyevs wrote:
loudmouth wrote: You are wrong!
Isn’t it the norm when somebody posts a reply like this they do not know enough on the subject to give an answer why.
And is it me or do most of them call themselves names like the one mentioned.

Klompton is a person who enjoys the older fighters for their gameness, and the Joe Louis, Hurricane Hank, sugar Ray and Mighty Atom are all boxers who could arguably claim the title, to categorically denounce any of these, well..what else needs to be said.

Lighten up for goodness sake!

When somebody, in a thread that invites opinions makes a statement "without fear of contradiction", surely the only possible response is to contradict him!

FWIW, based on the boxers I saw in action (yes, saw in action), my opinion is that Sugar Ray Robinson was the best pound for pound fighter.

I never saw the earlier contenders in action, though I was at Harringay on closing night in 1958 when Henry Armstrong ('Homicide Hank', BTW) was introduced as one of the honoured guests. He and Jimmy Wilde ('The Ghost With a Hammer in His Hand') must also be considered for the title of 'best ever'.

Armstrong's record speaks for itself and Wilde merits inclusion for his many victories over opponents who enjoyed a considerable weight advantage.

One thing that has surprised me about this thread is that Muhammad Ali (so far) hasn't attracted a few supporters.

Loathe him for his arrogance if you will, but there has never been a speedier heavyweight than Ali in his prime. So fast was he that even the relentless Rocky Marciano would never have nailed him, despite what that computer said a few years back.

Thats better

At what weight do you rate Henry Armstrong at to be `The Greatest`
Discussed this before, he was fantastic, no doubt, but I think at any of the weights he held the title he just wasn`t the best throughout that weights history, or even top 5.
Feather, would you rate him above Sanchez, or Saddler.
Lightweight, Duran or Whitaker.
welter, Robinson or Leonard.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 08 Jan 2005, 11:49

Its difficult to name just one boxer as being the number one best of all time... but if I had to name one then I'd go for Henry Armstrong, he's the only fighter I can think of really that you could make a strong case for being best of all time... to hold 3 real world titles all at the same time (and it should have been 4!) and to have so many world title fights in such a short space of time is truly remarkable... just below him I'd place Greb, Ali, Robinson, Pep, Benny Leonard, Gans, Wilde, Langford and Duran...

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 08 Jan 2005, 14:34

silkov wrote:Its difficult to name just one boxer as being the number one best of all time... but if I had to name one then I'd go for Henry Armstrong, he's the only fighter I can think of really that you could make a strong case for being best of all time... to hold 3 real world titles all at the same time (and it should have been 4!) and to have so many world title fights in such a short space of time is truly remarkable... just below him I'd place Greb, Ali, Robinson, Pep, Benny Leonard, Gans, Wilde, Langford and Duran...

As sais previously, he was good.
He was very lucky to have been given the chance to have achieved the remarkable feat of 3titles held at the same time.other outstanding fighters couldn`t even fight for one..
But don`t overlook the facts, how long did he hold these titles, and did he fight the best at the weight when defending??and losing??

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 08 Jan 2005, 15:15

tonyevs wrote: As sais previously, he was good.
He was very lucky to have been given the chance to have achieved the remarkable feat of 3titles held at the same time.other outstanding fighters couldn`t even fight for one..
But don`t overlook the facts, how long did he hold these titles, and did he fight the best at the weight when defending??and losing??

He gave up the featherweight as soon as he won the welterweight. In 2 years he made 19 defenses against top quality fighters. He gave tremendous beatings to his opponents. Only vice against him was he tended to stray low, resulting in 5 point deductions against Ambers in the rematch.

And through 1937-1940, his record is near perfect against quality fighters and about 5 hall of famers-including Ambers, Ross, Ceferino Garcia, etc.

Also Jimmy Wilde is very underrated-my personal #2 pound for pound.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 08 Jan 2005, 15:41

Sherlock wrote:Also Jimmy Wilde is very underrated-my personal #2 pound for pound.

The Mighty Atom is one of my all time favourites. I have a tenuous link to him as my Grandfathers uncle was a very good friend of Jimmy's during his fighting years.

lumpymo · Post by **lumpymo** » 09 Jan 2005, 21:38

When we are talking about best of all time, this means p4p. obviously.

Ali was probobly the best heavyweight of all time, but not p4p.

Jimmy Wild fought when the sport was still young, and I don't know if any of the heavyweights he knocked out were any good to begin with, that being said a guy so small being able to knock out guys that much bigger than himself does speak voloums about his abilities.

Stanley Ketchel won the middleweight tile, knocked out the Light-heavyweight champion, challenged for the heavyweight title and was shot and killed, all by the age of 24. This guy could have been the best p4p.

Henry Armstrong never defended the featherweight title, and lost in his only defense of the lightweight title, though he did hold all three at one time, and lost a decision in a middleweight title bid to a fellow he beat earlier. Also these were when their were no "junior", or "super" titles and only one champion in each division.

Sugar Ray Robinson through his longevity at being at the top of his game, being unbeatable at 147 lbs (his only loss was to a middleweight)
and cruising to a victory at 175lbs when the heat over came him, has to be concidered the best of the best.

One fellow I want to mention is Roberto Duran, this guy also had longevity, being at the top of the game for so many years, his one blip in his record was on that night in new orleans when everything was loaded in favor of the SRL corner. Apart from that one night (lets not forget his loss to Hearns), he was the first guy to have the guts to challenge Hagler, who was concidered unbeatable at that time destroying all challengers. After failing that bid he challenged Barkely and won that title, he was at one time the lightweight champion, the welterweight champion, junior middleweight, and middleweight champion. Though he never successfully defended any of the titles besides the lightweight one, still he did win em.
I listened to an interview with Mills Lane the referee, he said that Duran could have been in his opinion the best their ever was, if not for his lifestyle, he was a bit of a party animal.

cheers M.O.

crooked nose · Post by **crooked nose** » 10 Jan 2005, 04:06

Robinson's flawless, fluid style wins lots of admirers, along with his ring credentials - victories over a string of tough opponents at the championship level. Armstrong was a fighter's fighter- relentless, focused, committed to wearing down opponents punch by punch. Duran was of similar style, always (almost) forcing foes to fight his fight. There was nothing probing or tentative about Duran. It seemed like every punch he threw was designed to do the most damage.
But if I must pick one it's Robinson.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 10 Jan 2005, 10:04

The names listed so far are all on my favourite list.
But doesn’t Ezzard Charles get the nod because his fighting pedigree spanned a larger weight category.
From middleweight up to the top fighting weight of heavyweight he could be regarded as being the best of his era.
The previous names mentioned only stood tall in about a 14lb-21lb weight differential.
Ezzard was 28lb plus difference.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 10 Jan 2005, 13:30

crooked nose wrote:Duran was of similar style, always (almost) forcing foes to fight his fight. There was nothing probing or tentative about Duran. It seemed like every punch he threw was designed to do the most damage.

Also for such an agressive fighter, he had a very subtle but very effective defence and was a master counter puncher.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 10 Jan 2005, 18:13

I pick them like this:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Joe Gans
7. Willie Pep
8. Jack Johnson
9. Benny Leonard
10. Harry Greb
11. Sam Langford
12. Ray Leonard
13. Rocky Marciano
14. Pernell Whitaker
15. Carlos Monzon
16. Jimmy Wilde
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Archie Moore
19. Marvin Hagler
20. Jack Dempsey

This is my personal opinion.

lumpymo · Post by **lumpymo** » 10 Jan 2005, 23:25

1. Ray Robinson - this guy deserves this one
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Joe Gans
7. Willie Pep
8. Jack Johnson
9. Benny Leonard - think I would have this one higher on my list
10. Harry Greb
11. Sam Langford
12. Ray Leonard - this guy I don't know if I would put him in my top 20
13. Rocky Marciano
14. Pernell Whitaker - or this guy for sure wouldn't make it to my top 20
15. Carlos Monzon
16. Jimmy Wilde
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Archie Moore
19. Marvin Hagler - I liked him alot, but top 20... I don't think so
20. Jack Dempsey - this guy was to small and to wild and not that good of a boxer to be concidered top 20 material, the guys he beat were not much.
- you forgot "the original joe walcott" he was suppose to be a giant killer
* no Stanley Ketchel ???

cheers M.O.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 11 Jan 2005, 00:31

elmersalsa wrote:I pick them like this:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Joe Gans
7. Willie Pep
8. Jack Johnson
9. Benny Leonard
10. Harry Greb
11. Sam Langford
12. Ray Leonard
13. Rocky Marciano
14. Pernell Whitaker
15. Carlos Monzon
16. Jimmy Wilde
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Archie Moore
19. Marvin Hagler
20. Jack Dempsey

This is my personal opinion.

I understand that this is your personal opinion and I can understand that................but can you make me understand why the hell pernell whitaker is on your list.

crooked nose · Post by **crooked nose** » 11 Jan 2005, 05:32

elmersalsa's list seems right on the money, except for the 12, 13, 14 area. Leonard, Marciano and Whittaker just don't strike me as all-timers. They had star quality, for sure, but there's just something lacking. For Leonard, it's the relatively short career and the way he always tilted things in his favor in his comeback fights. For Marciano, it's the lack of all-around skills. Very lumbering style. A large, speedy boxer would have taken him, but none was available. For Whittaker, it's just his lack of commitment. He seemed to play too much. If you KO when you can, you don't get stiffed with bad decisions like vs. Ramirez and Chavez.
Isn't there room for Barney Ross, Gene Tunney or Salvador Sanchez on the list?