The RING'S Top 20 Fighters Ever. Who Belongs, Who Doesn't?

Italian 4 U · Post by **Italian 4 U** » 20 Jan 2003, 10:09

1) Sugar Ray Robinson
2) Henry Armstrong
3) The Greatest
4) Joe Louis
5) Roberto Duran
6) Willie Pep
7) Harry Greb
8) Benny leonard
9) Sugar Ray Leonard
10) Oernell Whitaker
11) Carlos Monzon
12) Rocky Marciano
13) Ezzard Charles
14) Archie Moore
15) Sandy Saddler
16) Jack Dempsey
17) Marvin Hagler
18) Julio Caesar Chavez
19) Eder Jofre
20) Alexis Arguello

This list is shortened from 80 for time and space sake. Who belongs, who doesn't and why?

Italian 4 U · Post by **Italian 4 U** » 20 Jan 2003, 10:25

I have no idea where the yellow faces came from as I did not include them. However, it's funny they showed up next to whom they did cuz those are 2 fighters who's rankings I do question!!!

Pill_85 · Post by **Pill_85** » 20 Jan 2003, 12:09

Sorry i Harry Greb must be considered rated too high

Holyfield Headbutt · Post by **Holyfield Headbutt** » 20 Jan 2003, 20:25

Benny Leonard doesnt belong on it at all and Jack Dempsey got lucky too.

saad · Post by **saad** » 20 Jan 2003, 23:54

Holyfield Headbutt wrote:Benny Leonard doesnt belong on it at all and Jack Dempsey got lucky too.

I think Benny Leonard is rated appropiately.

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 21 Jan 2003, 00:58

I think this is the 80th anniversery issue where they rated the 80 best from the last 80 years...
So its not really the best of all time....it's somewhat slanted towards modern day fighters

I think Willie Pep should switch places with the guy who stopped him three times in four meetings Sandy Saddler....

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 22 Jan 2003, 15:28

all good fighters. Based on their over all careers Willie Pep has the flashiest and more impressive record versus Saddler, but face to face Saddler dominates and maybe that should be the yardstick.In other words, Saddler beat the guy who beat all those other guys. I think either way you have to rate them together, either tying for a spot, or one right after the other. Incidentally, it didn't have the prestige it has now, and was virtually ignored, but Saddler was also the junior lightweight champion for a while, and retired still holding the featherweight title when he had to quit because of injuries.

I don't see how Benny Leonard can be excluded, based on his record in the era he fought in, and the high regard he is held in by his contemporaries, both fighters and sports writers and boxing followers in general.

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 22 Jan 2003, 23:56

Jaclem as you have said on a number of occasions rating greats against greats is pretty subjective..
However in the case of Pep vs Saddler we have two great fighters who have fought against each other several times. And one guy has established pretty clear dominance..
Saddler beat Pep three times within the distance..
The one victory Pep eked out..He had to fight the fight of his life..
Willie Peps record is not THAT much more impressive than Saddlers.
They both have awsome records..
Clearly,They both deserve to be ranked among the best of the best..
Its just that Saddler should occupy the higher slot

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 23 Jan 2003, 01:34

Well, Zurd,you've got me thinking. I love good boxers and I loved to watch Willie Pep because he was a marvel with all that speed and throwing punches in bunches. I liked to watch Saddler too just because of his general superiority. As to who was the better....well, if it got down to the crunch and I had to place a wager that woiuld really hurt me financially if I lost.....I'd bet on Saddler.

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 24 Jan 2003, 00:01

Also I think that Julio Caesar Chavez belongs...on the list without a doubt..

.He made the classic mistake of sticking around too long and gave some horrible performances
He didn't deal very well with his eroding skills. and turned into something of sour grapes crybaby near the end

.but for the first 90 or so fights of his career this guy was a fighting machine..

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 25 Jan 2003, 12:47

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 11 Feb 2003, 20:31

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 11 Feb 2003, 20:46

tomato can wrote:xxxx

Ah, I must've missed this.

Thanks!

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 11 Feb 2003, 20:55

Italian 4 U wrote:1) Sugar Ray Robinson
2) Henry Armstrong
3) The Greatest
4) Joe Louis
5) Roberto Duran
6) Willie Pep
7) Harry Greb
8) Benny leonard
9) Sugar Ray Leonard
10) Oernell Whitaker
11) Carlos Monzon
12) Rocky Marciano
13) Ezzard Charles
14) Archie Moore
15) Sandy Saddler
16) Jack Dempsey
17) Marvin Hagler
18) Julio Caesar Chavez
19) Eder Jofre
20) Alexis Arguello

This list is shortened from 80 for time and space sake. Who belongs, who doesn't and why?

Kid Gavilan, Ruben Olivares, and Azumah Nelson should all be on that list.

Hagler should be higher.

Dempsey and Marciano are too high, and maybe shouldn't even be on there at all.

While Armstrong deserves to be on there, I think #2 is a bit too high.

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 12 Feb 2003, 10:17

Oh, and Holyfield should be on there too.

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 12 Feb 2003, 14:03

And I think Ike Williams might have a place on there too.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 12 Feb 2003, 22:59

Ike Williams...a must!!!!Good boxer, terrific puncher.a stalker. Was sometimes called "The Lightweight Joe Louis." the problem with adding these guys is who to take out. Personally I'd trade Williams for Whitaker. or do I mean Whitaker for Williams. anyway, if Ike goes in,Whitaker goes out.

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 12 Feb 2003, 23:20

Heavyweights Marciano and Dempsey out. Replace wth Sam Langford and Larry Holmes.

TT · Post by TT » 19 Feb 2003, 20:25

The Ring is too biased!

Terp · Post by **Terp** » 21 Feb 2003, 16:21

tomato can wrote:Heavyweights Marciano and Dempsey out. Replace wth Sam Langford and Larry Holmes.

Neither Langford or Holmes are top 20 all-time. Miguel Canto deserves it more than Holmes, and I don't know if Canto is top 30.

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 21 Feb 2003, 19:59

Terp wrote:
tomato can wrote:Heavyweights Marciano and Dempsey out. Replace wth Sam Langford and Larry Holmes.
Neither Langford or Holmes are top 20 all-time. Miguel Canto deserves it more than Holmes, and I don't know if Canto is top 30.

Terp, it is difficult to say who belongs and who does'nt. Canto certainly was great. Langford had'nt even been mentioned, and he should at the very least be considered. Also no mention of Jimmy Wilde, another who could make the list or at least be mentioned.

matador · Post by **matador** » 23 Feb 2003, 20:54

how can anyone say whitaker should be replaced? pernell whitaker was one of the finest pure boxers of all time. most of his fights were one-sided and he made several top tier fighters look average. BTW, almost everyone beleives he beat chavez(#17) in his prime in their cotroversial fight.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 24 Feb 2003, 01:38

matador...I agree that Whitaker was one of the best. so good defensively that when Tito had him on the canvas and sitting by the ropes, he kept trying to get a few more shots in and even then Whitaker was able to dodge them. I just have such a high regard for Ike Williams that I can't see him not being on the list,and somebody had to come out to make room. I think Williams would take Whitaker, so that's why I made the choice to take Pernell out. Having said that, there are just too many outstanding fighters over the years to come up with a list of 20 that doesn't leaver a lot of them out.

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 24 Feb 2003, 09:30

matador wrote:how can anyone say whitaker should be replaced? pernell whitaker was one of the finest pure boxers of all time. most of his fights were one-sided and he made several top tier fighters look average. BTW, almost everyone beleives he beat chavez(#17) in his prime in their cotroversial fight.

No doubt Whitaker was a great one, but two things about him:

1) Although I had Whitaker beating Chavez, it was only by about 2 points, so IMO a draw was not the most blatant robbery ever like a lot of people claim. And Chavez really was not at his best weight then. He was slow and chunky at 147. I would have liked to have seen this take place at 135 or 140, when they both were in their primes.

2) I thought DeLaHoya definitely beat Whitaker (although that may have been when Whitaker was starting to get old).

matador · Post by **matador** » 24 Feb 2003, 19:10

i know this thread talks about the top 20 RING fighters, however let me throw in my 2 cents about 2 of the fighers on that issue. Tommy Hearns(#67) and evander holyfield(#23) should swap places. Hearns put up a hell of a first fight w/ Leonard in his prime. Yes, Holyfield has shown courage, but nobody will forget the courage Hearns displayed in his war w/ Hagler who is also in the top 20. IN holyfields defining fight against tyson, evanders dirty tactics and headbutts were a huge factor.

The RING'S Top 20 Fighters Ever. Who Belongs, Who Doesn't?

The RING'S Top 20 Fighters Ever. Who Belongs, Who Doesn't?

Re: The RING'S Top 20 Fighters Ever. Who Belongs, Who Doesn'