You decide - One name - THE GREATEST FIGHTER WHO EVER LIVED.

[gp.]

I'm sure nobody on this Forum would have any problem with that pick. We are all knowledgable and fair minded here.

Some people are changing the question to "In their lifetime". In my lifetime, Ray Leonard would be the obvious pick; Ali's was at his best a little before I was born.

For the orginal question of the Greatest Fighter Whoever Lived? I will go with Ray Robinson. However, there are a few right behind him that I have no problem with someone else picking.

it doesn't have to be lifetime it's just that if you pick someone from before the era of film and TV there's going to be very little to judge them by. Somebody born in 1980 is perfectly capable of judging Ali, though, as all the footage is out there.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Film from the old days is of poor quality. Ali would look like crap in a 1920 reel too. Whom you beat matters more than how pretty it looked on film. There are plenty of first hand accounts for the older fights that you can read.

For me it's either Langford or Greb, film be damned.

[BoxBuzz]

I just think it's too imaginative to rate a fighter that has no visual record. But if we were to do so, I guess I'd rate Maxie Rosenbloom up there, simply because I like the guy's persona on film, when he was not fighting.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I just think it's too imaginative to rate a fighter that has no visual record. But if we were to do so, I guess I'd rate Maxie Rosenbloom up there, simply because I like the guy's persona on film, when he was not fighting.

Fighters have always been rated by guys that didn't see them. I guarantee you the whole Ring panel wasn't traveling to Asia to watch all the Flyweight fights in the 80's.

I get the premise of only rating what you've seen, but then I feel like you should have to have seen each and every round they ever fought. If I'm just going by what I've seen, Hearns was > Sugar Ray Robinson or Ezzard Charles. While I wish that was true, it isn't.

[Duch]

I just think it's too imaginative to rate a fighter that has no visual record. But if we were to do so, I guess I'd rate Maxie Rosenbloom up there, simply because I like the guy's persona on film, when he was not fighting.

Fighters have always been rated by guys that didn't see them. I guarantee you the whole Ring panel wasn't traveling to Asia to watch all the Flyweight fights in the 80's.

I get the premise of only rating what you've seen, but then I feel like you should have to have seen each and every round they ever fought. If I'm just going by what I've seen, Hearns was > Sugar Ray Robinson or Ezzard Charles. While I wish that was true, it isn't.

I don't think this reductio ad absurdum is appropriate. There is a big difference of quaility between not seeing at all and see something. You don't need to watch all rounds of all fights to create a good opinion about a boxer. Of course, the more rounds and fights, the more your opinion should be better. But that's just and absurd, that's not necessary. We have our level of acceptance much lower than this position of watching everything.

Do you think you would rate boxers like Norton or Lyle in the same way if you only read about them? How far your judgement would be different?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I just think it's too imaginative to rate a fighter that has no visual record. But if we were to do so, I guess I'd rate Maxie Rosenbloom up there, simply because I like the guy's persona on film, when he was not fighting.

Fighters have always been rated by guys that didn't see them. I guarantee you the whole Ring panel wasn't traveling to Asia to watch all the Flyweight fights in the 80's.

I get the premise of only rating what you've seen, but then I feel like you should have to have seen each and every round they ever fought. If I'm just going by what I've seen, Hearns was > Sugar Ray Robinson or Ezzard Charles. While I wish that was true, it isn't.

I don't think this reductio ad absurdum is appropriate. There is a big difference of quaility between not seeing at all and see something. You don't need to watch all rounds of all fights to create a good opinion about a boxer. Of course, the more rounds and fights, the more your opinion should be better. But that's just and absurd, that's not necessary. We have our level of acceptance much lower than this position of watching everything.

Do you think you would rate boxers like Norton or Lyle in the same way if you only read about them? How far your judgement would be different?

I don't think my rating of Lyle or Norton would be vastly different than it is, if it was at all. What is the actually appropriate level of viewing? I mean we don't have Robinson and Charles at their best? Am I able to envision them being better than what they are on the film? Is that within the rules?

[King Carlos]

well if we're going with old fighters no one has seen i'm going with Achillies

So you don't rate boxers from the past. Big deal. Achilles might not have even existed. Greb did. Get over yourself man.

it's a joke you dounut , some of you are as bad as bible bashers ,you can't see anyone else's opinion..

let's be honest you haven't a clue how good greb was just as i have no idea how good gypsy gem mace was because you haven't seen him box you are only repeating something someone else was told who in turn is repeating what he was told it's like some saying that the beatles are the greatest band ever they had more records than anyone ,more number ones and a longer career which all sounds good BUT you have never heard them so how can you claim something you have never heard as the best ,you may hear them and realize that in fact you don't think they are that great.

the best fighter i have seen was sugar ray leonard

Arguably the dumbest post I've ever seen. From front to back. So I'm just going to assume you're trolling.

[evrenb]

Film from the old days is of poor quality. Ali would look like crap in a 1920 reel too. Whom you beat matters more than how pretty it looked on film. There are plenty of first hand accounts for the older fights that you can read.

For me it's either Langford or Greb, film be damned.

I think this is valid ; People say you cannot rate Greb as his fights are currently not available on film. However you can view Tunney, Levinsky and Brennan for example all of whom Greb beat. The Tunney fight being particularly pertinent as Tunney was an all time great and only lost 1 in 68 fights. That must account for something?? This coupled with the fight reports and their is confirmation of ability..

Evrenb

[gp.]

Film from the old days is of poor quality. Ali would look like crap in a 1920 reel too. Whom you beat matters more than how pretty it looked on film. There are plenty of first hand accounts for the older fights that you can read.

For me it's either Langford or Greb, film be damned.

Yes, but that's not really your judgement. You are merely reporting the judgements of others. While it is quite possible to say you think someone is probably the greatest fighter who ever lived because so many people said so, it doesn't really add anything to a debate as those other people's opinions are already out there.

And if we accept Harry Greb is the greatest fighter of all time, how can anyone in the future ever be held to surpass him? It will always be impossible to make a direct comparison, whereas there will always be the possibility of comparing with Ali.

[evrenb]

Film from the old days is of poor quality. Ali would look like crap in a 1920 reel too. Whom you beat matters more than how pretty it looked on film. There are plenty of first hand accounts for the older fights that you can read.

For me it's either Langford or Greb, film be damned.

Yes, but that's not really your judgement. You are merely reporting the judgements of others. While it is quite possible to say you think someone is probably the greatest fighter who ever lived because so many people said so, it doesn't really add anything to a debate as those other people's opinions are already out there.

And if we accept Harry Greb is the greatest fighter of all time, how can anyone in the future ever be held to surpass him? It will always be impossible to make a direct comparison, whereas there will always be the possibility of comparing with Ali.

Nonsense! What about accomplishment? Quality of opposition? Longevity?

[Duch]

Imagine you didn't see Ali and everything you know about him is from Il Duce's posts

[Tomasino]

Film from the old days is of poor quality. Ali would look like crap in a 1920 reel too. Whom you beat matters more than how pretty it looked on film. There are plenty of first hand accounts for the older fights that you can read.

For me it's either Langford or Greb, film be damned.

Yes, but that's not really your judgement. You are merely reporting the judgements of others. While it is quite possible to say you think someone is probably the greatest fighter who ever lived because so many people said so, it doesn't really add anything to a debate as those other people's opinions are already out there.

And if we accept Harry Greb is the greatest fighter of all time, how can anyone in the future ever be held to surpass him? It will always be impossible to make a direct comparison, whereas there will always be the possibility of comparing with Ali.

Nonsense! What about accomplishment? Quality of opposition? Longevity?

[Datsue]

Imagine you didn't see Ali and everything you know about him is from Il Duce's posts

Imagine if, after the apocalypse, the only records that remain for surviving fight fans (or their cockroach overlords) are Il Duce's Boxrec posts...

[The Great John L]

Langford

[Billyjoel]

1.ALI
2.MONZON
3.SANCHEZ

[SamWise72]

I can rate this, but I'm aware that my ratings are subjective, and based on a combination of what I've seen, what others have reported, who the fighters have beaten, and some sort of x factor connected to whether I want to like them or not.

On that basis, Sugar Ray Robinson is my pick, but I feel like I know enough about Harry Greb and Henry Armstrong to know that I could be wrong, and they could be even greater. In terms of those whose careers I've seen lots of, all of the 4 kings are in the running for different reasons (Hearns, for instance, for his longevity and ability to outbox someone like Hill WAY above his original weight, at a time when Hagler had long retired, Leonard was a shot mess getting beaten up, and Duran was a podgy man wading through concrete), Ali would have to get a shake too, as would Roy Jones, though I feel that fighters with more savvy and experience might have given him a hard time. I'd love to see him against a peak Ray Robinson.

[tiny_acres]

If all we are going on is by reading it would be Greb.
From those I have seen Robinson.

[BoxBuzz]

Though there are no documents or recordings to support it, I suspect it's Gronk. from 2,000,000 BC

Beat Neanderthal Ned 3 out to 3 times. AND fought a saber tooth tiger to a Draw.

[tiny_acres]

Though there are no documents or recordings to support it, I suspect it's Gronk. from 2,000,000 BC

Beat Neanderthal Ned 3 out to 3 times. AND fought a saber tooth tiger to a Draw.

\

All controversial decisions.Nothing new in the fight game though.

[Ambling Alp II]

If all we are going on is by reading it would be Greb.
From those I have seen Robinson.

From what I have read I will go with Robinson.
From what I have seen there are several fighters above Robinson, almost all the video available is when he was well past his best.

[yancey]

Henry Armstrong for me.

[Crease]

Fedor Emelienko

[Crease]

Sugar Ray Robinson

[liamlion]

Roy Jones. Boxed the ears off Toney and Hopkins. His speed was near impossible to deal with.

Shame his legacy is affected by him fighting on far too long and his link to PEDs.

[The_Sugarman]

Sugar Ray Robinson.