Ring Magazine's 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years

[ThatOne]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Archie Moore
15. Sandy Saddler
16. Jack Dempsey
17. Marvin Hagler
18. Julio Cesar Chavez
19. Eder Jofre
20. Alexis Arguello
21. Barney Ross
22. Evander Holyfield
23. Ike Williams
24. Salvador Sanchez
25. George Foreman
26. Kid Gavilian
27. Larry Holmes
28. Mickey Walker
29. Ruben Olivares
30. Gene Tunney
31. Dick Tiger
32. Fighting Harada
33. Emile Griffith
34. Tony Canzoneri
35. Aaron Pryor
36. Pascual Perez
37. Miguel Canto
38. Manuel Ortiz
39. Charley Burley
40. Carmen Basilio
41. Michael Spinks
42. Joe Frazier
43. Khaosai Galaxy
44. Roy Jones Jr.
45. Tiger Flowers
46. Panama Al Brown
47. Kid Chocolate
48. Joe Brown
49. Tommy Loughran
50. Bernard Hopkins
51. Felix Trinidad
52. Jake LaMotta
53. Lennox Lewis
54. Wilfredo Gomez
55. Bob Foster
56. Jose Napoles
57. Billy Conn
58. Jimmy McLarnin
59. Pancho Villa
60. Carlos Ortiz
61. Bob Montgomery
62. Freddie Miller
63. Benny Lynch
64. Beau Jack
65. Azumah Nelson
66. Eusebio Pedroza
67. Thomas Hearns
68. Wilfred Benitez
69. Antonio Cervantes
70. Ricardo Lopez
71. Sonny Liston
72. Mike Tyson
73. Vicente Saldivar
74. Gene Fullmer
75. Oscar De La Hoya
76. Carlos Zarate
77. Marcel Cerdan
78. Flash Elorde
79. Mike McCallum
80. Harold Johnson

Any glaring omissions? inclusions? rankings?

[The Great John L]

Some of these guys, like Dempsey and Greb, haven't fought in the last 80 years.

When was this published?

[ThatOne]

Some of these guys, like Dempsey and Greb, haven't fought in the last 80 years.

When was this published?

2002

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

[Ezzard]

Hearns at 67 and Leonard at 9... That's too big a gap.

Chalres should be over Whittaker. Pernell was great but he's too high.

Greb should be in the top 3.

Marciano at 12 and Frazier at 42? Again that's too big a disparity.

[BoxBuzz]

Hearns at 67 and Leonard at 9... That's too big a gap.

Chalres should be over Whittaker. Pernell was great but he's too high.

Greb should be in the top 3.

Marciano at 12 and Frazier at 42? Again that's too big a disparity.

Yep, seein' as how Marciano would get his clock cleaned by Joe. The Monzon Hagler discrepancy works out to about right to my way of thinking. But that's going to have some folks here howling the blues.

[Ambling Alp]

I agree Hearns and Charles are too low. Whitaker and Marciano are way too high.

At first glance, here is what else I noticed:

Too High:
Basilio #40
Galaxy #43
Pedroza #66
Trinidad #51 (Should not even be on the list at all)

Too low:
Saldivar #73
Fullmer #74
Johnson #80

[Expug]

I would pull Trinidad off the list and put in Jimmy Bivins.

[Idisagree]

I would pull Trinidad off the list and put in Jimmy Bivins.

I would rather take out Pedroza who in my opinion did even less than Trinidad and insert Jimmy Bivins.

[Expug]

I would pull Trinidad off the list and put in Jimmy Bivins.

I would rather take out Pedroza who in my opinion did even less than Trinidad and insert Jimmy Bivins.

I see Bivins more deserving than Pedroza also.

[jaclem2]

...impossible, really, to put a rating number on so many fighters of high quality. that said, i think burley is way to low.....bivins belongs in there, maybe instead of fullmer, and lloyd marshall obviously instead of aaron pryor.

sugar ray leonard i think is too high..gavilan, his superior, too low.

[raylawpc]

I would pull Trinidad off the list and put in Jimmy Bivins.

I would rather take out Pedroza who in my opinion did even less than Trinidad and insert Jimmy Bivins.

I see Bivins more deserving than Pedroza also.

One of the great tragedies of boxing is that Bivins never got to face Joe Louis in his prime (crica 1943-1945). And equally tragic is that he never got his shot at the light-heavyweight title either. In 1942, Bivins was ranked as top contender by Ring Magazine in BOTH divisions.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, Dempsey & Chavez are ridiculously high.

Loughran, McClarnin & Hearns are all too low.

Holman Williams is a glaring ommission that immediately comes to mind.

[elmersalsa]

Thomas Hearns is too low.
Oscar De La Hoya should not be in there
Felix "Tito" Trinidad should not be in there
Lennox Lewis should not be in there


Guys that should be in there:
Nino Benvenutti
Jimmy Bivins
Holman Williams
Nicolino Locche
Tony Zale
Jack "Kid" Berg

Too Low:
Tony Canzoneri is too low. He should be in the top 20
Freddie Miller
Carlos Zarate
Vicente Saldivar


Too High:
Salvador Sanchez
Miguel Canto
Michael Spinks
Bernard Hopkins
Aaron Pryor

[elmersalsa]

Also Jimmy McLarnin is waaaaayyyyy too low.
Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles is also waaaayyy too low.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Good call on Pryor, I don't think he should be on it at all.

[Syntax Error]

Good call on Pryor, I don't think he should be on it at all.

Got to agree.

Pryor was a tremendous fighter, but I do believe he is tad overrated & does not belong in that list.

He seems to dine out on the fact that Ray Leonard never fought him, despite the fact he was the one that didn't show the inclination to fight Ray by jumping up to welterweight & beating a path to his door so to speak.

[Idisagree]

Good call on Pryor, I don't think he should be on it at all.

Got to agree.

Pryor was a tremendous fighter, but I do believe he is tad overrated & does not belong in that list.

He seems to dine out on the fact that Ray Leonard never fought him, despite the fact he was the one that didn't show the inclination to fight Ray by jumping up to welterweight & beating a path to his door so to speak.

The same should be applied to Eusebio Pedroza. He was also a tremendous fighter, but on the era that he fought there was plenty of talent to fight and he lacks every single major fighter of that era. Lopez, Sanchez, Nelson, Arguello,Gomez, Pintor, and many other good fighters in or around his weight class. Sadly he does not have one credible name on his resume other than an over the hill Olivares.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That definitely isn't close to being an accurate statement. Credible? Lockridge(yeah he lost the first fight), Laporte, Ford, Carrasquilla, Kobayashi, Lujan & Taylor are all quite credible.

What separates Eusebio from Pryor is his long reign at the top. But they are comparable fighters given Aaron's win over Alexis. I still give the edge to Pedroza.

[telboy66]

At last it is confirmed,what I have been saying for the last 50 years SRR the very best of the best

[Idisagree]

That definitely isn't close to being an accurate statement. Credible? Lockridge(yeah he lost the first fight), Laporte, Ford, Carrasquilla, Kobayashi, Lujan & Taylor are all quite credible.

What separates Eusebio from Pryor is his long reign at the top. But they are comparable fighters given Aaron's win over Alexis. I still give the edge to Pedroza.

Kobayashi was a good fighter but nothing to get excited about. He was KO in every major fight that he had. He could not last more than five rounds with the elite (Gomez and Arguello). Good but quite Average imo.

Against Laporte he had to employ every little dirty trick in the book to win that fight. And even then it was very close. Other than his chin there is nothing special about Laporte. Average fighter imo.

Lockridge was also a good average fighter.

Ford a credible opponent? You have to be kidding.

Lujan was completely washed-up at that point in his career. Same as Olivares. And Lujan was nothing more than an average fighter too.

He drew against a very green Taylor and that says a lot about Pedroza skills. How come Pedroza did not demand a second fight to clear who was the best?

Carrasquilla a credible opponent? Again you have to be kidding.

Pryor has wins against Arguello (2x) and he got the title from Cervantes.

Who is Pedroza best win?

At best you could say Lockridge, other than that there is nothing. I often compare his record to that of Samuel Serrano.

How do you see Samuel Serrano’s career?

I don’t look that much at his longevity, but at who did he fought during his reign. When you truly look at this record he has nothing, same as Pryor.

Where are the real names of that era: Gomez, Nelson, Sanchez, Lopez, Pintor, Castillo, Arguello, and many others more deserving fighters? So many names he could have fought and yet none can be found with the lone exception of well past his prime over the hill Olivares.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

If Ford wasn't credible, how did he almost beat Sanchez?

You often use where fighters are at in their prime only for your side of the argument. If Olivares was shot, so was Arguello for the rematch. Cervantes wasn't past his best? C'mon, try and be objective about things. Laporte & Lockridge were both good enough to arguably beat Chavez.

Your wording is what is silly. You said he had no credible opponents. If you said he didn't beat anybody great you would be correct.

Take a trip to the home site if you think Taylor was green.

Why do you place all the blame on him for certain fights not getting made? The WBC vs WBA feud happened to coincide with his reign. It takes two to sign a contract and get off the Pintor obsession, if he would have fought and blasted him you would rightfully be saying that Lupe had no business at featherweight.

Again, he and Pryor are of the same level. Difference being Pryor is rated in the 30's instead of the 60's. That makes his placement far more ridiculous. I don't know that Eusebio would make my list either. But saying he never fought credible opponents is outlandish. Now you're going from that statement to discrediting the credible fighters he beat. Just say you exaggerated and lets get on with our lives.

Serrano was a solid fighter, not in the league of Pedroza. 20 defenses doesn't come easy, no matter who you're facing. His defenses were every bit as good as bernard Hopkins.

[elmersalsa]

The great Eusebio Pedroza was a terrific and excellent technician. I think, like the great Aaron Pryor and Mike McCallum, they were the most ducked fighters of the 80s. The so-called "elite" fighters like Danny Lopez, Salvador Sanchez, Wilfredo Gomez and Azumah Nelson, did not want nothing to do with him. Pedroza was tall, quick, slick, always in great shape and had an incredible sense of self confidence. He defended the WBA Feather Crown 20 times, 10 of them in opponent's backyards.

And he beat credible opponents: Rocky Lockdridge twice, Juan LaPorte, Patrick Ford, Jorge Lujan, Hector Carrasquilla, Royal Kobayashi and faded Ruben Olivares.

He asked for a fight against Sanchez to unify the crowns. Sanchez looked the other way. He wanted to fight a faded great like Alexis Arguello. Arguello wanted a fourth crown.
Then, after Sanchez' death, LaPorte did not want a rematch for a title unification. Gomez beats LaPorte and never wanted a piece of Pedroza. Then Nelson beats Gomez and looks like Nelson did not want a title unification either. Pedroza called Nelson. THAT IS A FACT. IS ON VIDEOTAPE.

[Idisagree]

Ford almost beat Sanchez? Really!! The fight that I saw was a quite clear win by Sanchez. I haven’t watched in a while but as I remember Sanchez dominated that fight for the most part. No controversy on that fight.

Arguello was at least 88% on the first fight and around 85% on the second fight. He was not as shot as Olivares. Cervantes was past his best but again not as bad Olivares.

Olivares was clearly past his best and the only reason he got another title shot was because of his name. He was not deserving of that title shot. On the other hand, Arguello was a champion and so was Cervantes, BIG difference.

Are you saying that Taylor was not green? What championship experience did he have before that fight? Who did he ever face before the Pedroza fight that entitles him to that title shot?

I always argue that Hopkins record at middleweight is mediocre. Hopkins earned my respect by going up in weight and making better fights. But again his record at middleweight is mediocre at best.

For me there are different levels and Laporte and Lockridge fall in the C level category. Good but not good enough. People like Pintor and Castillo make it into the B level, and The Gomez, Nelson, and Sanchez makes the A level.

There is no way I could see Laporte or Lockridge defeating Chavez.

BTW Lockridge and Laporte did actually fight Chavez, and Chavez won. No surprise there. That does not help your case at all.

What makes them credible opponents? Laporte best asset was his chin, other than that he was a very limited fighter. Lockridge did have decent skills but was never able to put it together. He lost every major fight he was ever in.

What I found silly is you claiming that Ford and Carrasquillo are credible opponents. Based on what? What is your definition of credible. For me credible would be someone on the high B level or A, and I cannot find one on Pedroza’s win column. Pedroza lacks that signature win imo.

Again, who is Pedroza best win? Lockdridge and Laporte? Both C level fighters, good but not elite. For me a credible win would be against an elite fighter, not just merely good.

I’m not claiming Pryor was better or that he had a better record. For me both are quite over-rated and do not deserve to be on that list.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

LOL, Lockridge & Laporte both fought Chavez and the fights could have went either way. I wasn't speaking hypothetically, I watched the fights more than once.

Ford may not have almost won, but he was more competitive with Sanchez than he was with Pedroza. Certainly making him "credible".

Arguello was 3% less for the rematch? LMAO

Taylor was one of the most decorated amateurs in history and well into his professional career. Now he is green because it was his first title fight? Do you revise the dictionary daily? It makes it very difficult to talk to you when you change the meaning of words to fit your argument.


Obviously your definition of credible = great fighter. Which is preposterous. Either that or you are so incredibly stubborn that you can't admit you made a stupid statement. Whichever it is, you're boring me.

[Idisagree]

LOL, Lockridge & Laporte both fought Chavez and the fights could have went either way. I wasn't speaking hypothetically, I watched the fights more than once.

Ford may not have almost won, but he was more competitive with Sanchez than he was with Pedroza. Certainly making him "credible".

Arguello was 3% less for the rematch? LMAO

Taylor was one of the most decorated amateurs in history and well into his professional career. Now he is green because it was his first title fight? Do you revise the dictionary daily? It makes it very difficult to talk to you when you change the meaning of words to fit your argument.


Obviously your definition of credible = great fighter. Which is preposterous. Either that or you are so incredibly stubborn that you can't admit you made a stupid statement. Whichever it is, you're boring me.

You are boring me too with your nonsense. Lockridge and Laporte could have gone either way. Go watch the fight again. Those were clear wins by Chavez.

You must be new at this because amateurs records those not always translate into greatness. Duran amateur record was something like 10 fights and he is one of the all-time greats. Taylor was not deserving of that title shot based on his professional record period.

Obviously your definition of credible is not the same as mine, let's leave it at that.