Top 20 All Time Pound for Pound

[JohnnyCross]

Let's get some polls running on top 5, 10, 15, or 20 fighters pound for pound of all time!

3 Numbers given are W- win percentage, KO- knock out percentage for wins, and total bouts or total fights.

1. S. Ray Robinson 86%W. 62%KO. 200TB
2. Harry Greb 87%. 18%. 298. M weight
3. Henry Armstrong 83%. 67%. 181. F-M weight
4. Willie Pep 95%. 28%. 241. F.
5. Joe Louis 94%. 78%. 70. H.
6. Bob Fitzsimmons 68%. 87%. 99. M-H
7. Sam Langford 69%. 71%. 256. L-H. Weights
8. Jack Dempsey 78%. 78%. 83. H.
9. Muhammad Ali 91%. 66%. 61. H weight
10. Jimmy Wilde 94%. 75%. 141.
11. Stanley Ketchel 83%. 91%. 64. Age24. M
12. Roberto Duran 87%. 67%. 119. L-M weight
13. Jim Jeffries 79%. 67%. 24. H.
14. Julio Cesar Chavez 93%. 80%. 115.
15. Joe Gans 80%. 63%. 196.
16. Rocky Marciano 100%. 88%. 49.
17. Jack Johnson 70%. 55%. 104.
18. Benny Leonard 84%. 38%. 219.
19. Gene Tunney 96%. 74%. 68.
20. S. Ray Leonard 90%. 69%. 40.

I'm curious to see how my list changes given everyone else's opinion

[elmersalsa]

The great Floyd Mayweather, Jr., should be in the top ten

[elmersalsa]

By the way, not a bad list. I will put Roberto Duran in the top 5, though

[JohnnyCross]

Thanks, I really tried to cluster them in semi comparable groups and then order the groups as well as the boxers in the groups. Seemed to make sense. If a is similar fighter to b and b is greater than c then a is greater than c too and a and b are both greater than d if d is similar enough to c!

I can definitely see Duran higher, though I don't see him make it quite to the top 5 (he gave up a fight!) definitely can be top 10 fighter.

I can't give Floyd much respect though. Maybe he is comparable to Ray Leonard overall. But Floyd only has only 49 fights this late in his career. Ketchel died at 24 and still has 64 professional fights. Other small boxers fought 120-280 fights in their career because they were real fighters and weren't ducking fighters and dodging risk (of losing?). He took too long to accept fights from worthy competition and possibly fought them when they were passed their peaks. I frankly think he's a coward that Julio Cesar Chavez, Armstrong, S R Robinson, or Willie Pep would have done Easy work of.

Btw, I bumped Dempsey up the list. He was too good, I think he would have took Ali.

[Ezzard]

Ezzard Charles is a top 10 guy. Archie Moore should be top 20 minimum. Sandy Saddler would make it too... I'd add Emile Griffith and Barney Ross as well.

[JohnnyCross]

I definitely had Archie Moore in the top 20. I think Leonard gets the boot from my list for Moore if anyone...I've had problems with arguing for Charles over any of the guys on my list...I like your opinion that Griffith is too 20. Ross and Sandler are very close calls as well! Damn tough to choose the top 20 pure fighters taking away their hype or my prejudices towards my favorites (though my favorites are definitely debatably top 20)

[Ezzard]

Everyone has their own opinions Johnny. Always interested in a different take...

[stevedoc]

nice to see jimmy wilde up there he gets overlooked by some ,i personally would of had hagler in there

[cfang]

1. SRR
2. Greb
3. Langford

4. Charles
5. Duran
6. Ali
7. Armstrong
8. Floyd M
9. Manny P
10. SRL

I think youve got too many heavys on that list. I'd have Louis at 11 and Johnson/Holmes top 20 but thats it.

I cant stand Floyd but despite everything everyone says about him, hes a top 10 p4p. the guy has been pretty much unbeatable and unhittable for like a decade and has been through the weights too.

Fitz could be in the top 10. He's hard to rate though. His record is impressive with his wins against heavys etc but Im really not sure.

[JohnnyCross]

1. SRR
2. Greb
3. Langford

4. Charles
5. Duran
6. Ali
7. Armstrong
8. Floyd M
9. Manny P
10. SRL

I think youve got too many heavys on that list. I'd have Louis at 11 and Johnson/Holmes top 20 but thats it.

I cant stand Floyd but despite everything everyone says about him, hes a top 10 p4p. the guy has been pretty much unbeatable and unhittable for like a decade and has been through the weights too.

Fitz could be in the top 10. He's hard to rate though. His record is impressive with his wins against heavys etc but Im really not sure.

Hey I agree that too many heavys are on this list. Perhaps Charles should be top 20, I'm definitely going to check out his fights more and his opposition. Marciano is probably too high- maybe Jack Johnson and Jimmy Jeffries are too, always wondered if they are a bit too hyped. Think Tunney was light heavy but I can see him as a debatable top 20 fighter as well. My list might be too biased towards old timers like I think yours is too biased to modern fighters. Never heard Manny P as a top 10...I understand people thinking highly of Floyd, but I think he is weak for not fighting actively..... thats kinda my problem with Ray Leonard, Jim Jerffries and Marciano too (can't hold it against Ketchel, for god sake he even had 64 at such a young age). But mayweather fought in a dead era in which he postponed- for years- fighting the biggest names like manny p and de la Hoya until they were much older but also less involved in boxing. His undefeated record is therefore less impressive to me. I think it took Robinson over 50 fights to get his first loss, but he went to 200 fights. It even took a tough Chavez like 75 fights before getting his first draw- not even a loss. So 49-0 is not unprecedented and we will never know if mayweather can get to 75-0 like Chavez cause mayweather avoids the ring

Just checked Robinson was 40-0 before his first loss.

[JohnnyCross]

Everyone has their own opinions Johnny. Always interested in a different take...

Opinions are great they should be unique, I'm really looking for reasons though. Now I without a doubt can see Charles as a Top 20 fighter, and possibly even top 10...or maybe even 5. I just don't know enough about the man, I clearly need to study up on him.

[Ambling Alp II]

No two people are going to have it exactly the same.
You listed stats such as winning%, KO% and total fights. Hope you don't rely on them too much.
In boxing a fighter can always find opponents who is are easy wins. (They can avoid tough competition as well)

What needs to be done is to look at the wins that a fighter has over quality opponents and weigh them against losses. The bigger the win, the more credit a fighter should get.
ie A win over say Mickey Walker means more than 20 wins against journeyman.
For losses the worse an opponent was the more it hurts the fighters case.
And of course you have to take into consideration the stage of a fighter's career as well as his opponents when looking at fights.

As for Ezzard Charles, you need to look at what he did at light heavyweight before he moved up to heavyweight. He could never get a shot at the light heavyweight title, but he has a lot of big wins. For example he was 3-0 vs Archie Moore. He should be in the top 10.

Moore himself should be in the top 20. Would also add Carlos Monzon and Barney Ross. Move up Ray Leonard several spots. Fitzsimmons and Wilde need to go down several spots if you are even going to keep them. Would take out Johnson,Marciano, Dempsey, and Jeffries.

Most of the guys you have in there you can at least make a case for.

[cfang]

No two people are going to have it exactly the same.
You listed stats such as winning%, KO% and total fights. Hope you don't rely on them too much.
In boxing a fighter can always find opponents who is are easy wins. (They can avoid tough competition as well)

What needs to be done is to look at the wins that a fighter has over quality opponents and weigh them against losses. The bigger the win, the more credit a fighter should get.
ie A win over say Mickey Walker means more than 20 wins against journeyman.
For losses the worse an opponent was the more it hurts the fighters case.
And of course you have to take into consideration the stage of a fighter's career as well as his opponents when looking at fights.

As for Ezzard Charles, you need to look at what he did at light heavyweight before he moved up to heavyweight. He could never get a shot at the light heavyweight title, but he has a lot of big wins. For example he was 3-0 vs Archie Moore. He should be in the top 10.

Moore himself should be in the top 20. Would also add Carlos Monzon and Barney Ross. Move up Ray Leonard several spots. Fitzsimmons and Wilde need to go down several spots if you are even going to keep them. Would take out Johnson,Marciano, Dempsey, and Jeffries.

Most of the guys you have in there you can at least make a case for.

[JohnnyCross]

Ambling app, of course I don't rely on them too much at all. I don't blame greb or pep for not being KO machines..and I do consider quality wins not just wins that's why I don't hold Marciano or Mayweather so highly. Opposition is single most important factor in determining quality of fighter.

I definitely agree that Marciano needs to go. I'm leaning towards tossing Jeffries too. Harder to toss Johnson and Dempsey is definitely top 20 in my opinion, and arguably top 10. He could have been best heavy weight...that guy was badass! How can you seriously say that Dempsey has no argument in the top 20?...I also gotta keep Fitzsimmons and Wilde close to the top 10. I actually think Ray Leonard might have to go personally.

I am thinking of removing Ray Leonard, Marciano, Jeffries, and Johnson. And replacing them with Monzon, Charles, Ross, and Sandler. They all seem like safer choices- I agree. Feeling bad about letting Ray Leonard go instead of Chavez...I could change my mind on that one. And if Moore goes up it's gonna be in place of Tunney. Gotta compare them a bit in detail. I might end it with Moore 19 and Ray Leonard 20, and remove Tunney and Chavez....ahhh no I'm feeling like Leonard stays and Chavez goes

Thanks for tipping me on how to analyze Charles btw

[Ambling Alp II]

First, all of these guys are great fighters. Comparing them against each other means you have to do some nitpciking and be more critical of them than you normally would be.

Dempsey was a great fighter. His biggest wins? Sharkey, then probably Miske, Willard.That doesn't stack up against some other fighters. There are simply more than 20 better.
Wilde? The problem is we simply don't know a ton about his opponents.

Ray Leonard? He has wins over Duran, Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. How many other fighters have wins over four fighters of this quality? Not many at all. A lot less than 20. Not to mention he only has one loss near his prime and that was to another great fighter. The only thing he lacks is 20 wins over journeyman.

Monzon has to be top 20. No matter how you do it, there are going to be close calls. Glad that you are going to take a hard look at Charles. He is arguably the greatest light heavyweight of all time.

[elmersalsa]

Ranking fighters of an all time list not necessarily goes by who you beat.

What about the longevity factor?
How about other accomplishments after a boxer's prime years.

How about his dominance in the weight he is in?

For example, the great Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Does he has the fault that he didn't had an opponent almost his equal? Should we penalize him for that? He could ONLY FIGHT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF HIM. What he did in front of him is where he is judged. He went TOTALLY FLAWLESS from 130 to 154lbs, beating everybody of his era. That is a great accomplishment no matter how you look at it. He was the best fighter for a decade and a half. I don't see a Sugar Ray Leonard or a Archie Moore in his record. The fighters that he mostly beat were not even considered a top 100 p4p great material. But, they weren't tomato cans either: Diego Corrales, Genaro Hernandez, Oscar DeLaHoya, Saul "Canelo" Alvarez, Miguel Cotto and Jose Luis Castillo to name a few. PBF dominated them. I think we should look at this great fighter career and consider his achievements. He was remarkable. Was he better than the great Ezzard Charles? In my opinion now, A BIG YES! Was he better than the great Muhammad Ali? Yes! Was he better than the great Sugar Ray Leonard? I think is a BIG YES ALSO.

PBF was terrific and fantastic fighter. Was he the most boring fighter? Probably yes. He probably was too boring to be the best, but, he got the job done.

[dr_devious]

1. Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Harry Greb
4. Willie Pep
5. Roberto Duran
6. Sugar Ray Leonard
7. Ezzard Charles
8. Muhammed Ali
9. Jimmy Wilde
10. Benny Leonard
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Marvin Hagler
13. Archie Moore
14. Joe Gans
15. Floyd Mayweather
16. Barney Ross
17. Sandy Saddler
18. Emile Griffiths
19. Tommy Hearns
20. Salvador Sanchez

[Ambling Alp II]

Ranking fighters of an all time list not necessarily goes by who you beat.

What about the longevity factor?
How about other accomplishments after a boxer's prime years.

How about his dominance in the weight he is in?

For example, the great Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Does he has the fault that he didn't had an opponent almost his equal? Should we penalize him for that? He could ONLY FIGHT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF HIM. What he did in front of him is where he is judged. He went TOTALLY FLAWLESS from 130 to 154lbs, beating everybody of his era. That is a great accomplishment no matter how you look at it. He was the best fighter for a decade and a half. I don't see a Sugar Ray Leonard or a Archie Moore in his record. The fighters that he mostly beat were not even considered a top 100 p4p great material. But, they weren't tomato cans either: Diego Corrales, Genaro Hernandez, Oscar DeLaHoya, Saul "Canelo" Alvarez, Miguel Cotto and Jose Luis Castillo to name a few. PBF dominated them. I think we should look at this great fighter career and consider his achievements. He was remarkable. Was he better than the great Ezzard Charles? In my opinion now, A BIG YES! Was he better than the great Muhammad Ali? Yes! Was he better than the great Sugar Ray Leonard? I think is a BIG YES ALSO.

PBF was terrific and fantastic fighter. Was he the most boring fighter? Probably yes. He probably was too boring to be the best, but, he got the job done.

I know I'm going to regret this but here goes:
Weighing who you beat and who you lost to is what should be the primary factor when rating a fighter. (Of course you do have to factor in the stages of everyone's career and to a lesser extent the competitiveness of the fights).

As for Mayweather, he could have fought much tougher competition. He could have fought quality opponents when they were closer to their prime but did not. Therefore, those win don't mean much.
Some of the opponents that he did beat were decent fighters, but simply don't compare to several others.
To be rated at the very top level, you have to dare to be great.
He did not dominate all the fighters mentioned either.

As for dominating the weight class you are in: It matters how good the weight class is. If the competition is weak, then it doesn't mean much. (i.e. A lot of title defenses against mediocre contenders don't mean very much at all.)
If the competition is strong, then yes it does mean a lot.

[elmersalsa]

A guy that beat the very best of his era cannot be criticized lower than others that beat some great ones. Mayweather beat the very best of his time. Period. Even if he beats a prime great like Manny Pacquiao, still, he would've been criticized. Let's give the man his due. I believe he is a top ten fighter by anybody standards. He has been the best fighter for a decade and a half. The ONLY KNOCK I got against him was that he should have much more fights. This guy DOMINATED ALMOST EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER HE FACED. Was it pretty? No. Meaningful? Yes. He had the longevity, he won 25 fights that mattered at 5 weight divisions, he never lost, and retired undefeated champ.

I have never cared about his career. He was too boring for me to watch. Somebody should have stepped up and beat him. Maybe he was ahead of his time or his competition wasn't all that to begin with, or a combination of the two.

[elmersalsa]

nice to see jimmy wilde up there he gets overlooked by some ,i personally would of had hagler in there

Jimmy Wilde was a great fighter. Nuff said. Look at his amazing record my brethren.

[cfang]

A guy that beat the very best of his era cannot be criticized lower than others that beat some great ones. Mayweather beat the very best of his time. Period. Even if he beats a prime great like Manny Pacquiao, still, he would've been criticized. Let's give the man his due. I believe he is a top ten fighter by anybody standards. He has been the best fighter for a decade and a half. The ONLY KNOCK I got against him was that he should have much more fights. This guy DOMINATED ALMOST EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER HE FACED. Was it pretty? No. Meaningful? Yes. He had the longevity, he won 25 fights that mattered at 5 weight divisions, he never lost, and retired undefeated champ.

I have never cared about his career. He was too boring for me to watch. Somebody should have stepped up and beat him. Maybe he was ahead of his time or his competition wasn't all that to begin with, or a combination of the two.

[Ambling Alp II]

It is more impressive if you beat great fighters than if you did not. Pretty simple concept.

If he would have beaten a prime Pacquiao he would have got a lot of credit. He didn't. It's that simple.
He had a lot of nice wins over good, solid fighters. So did scores of other fighters in other eras.

He never fought a fighter who was still great at the time he fought them. And he could have. That alone keeps him out of the top 10.

Did he dominate a past it De la hoya? Not at all.
He never lost, officially.
He got a gift decision in the first Castillo fight in which he slept walked his way through.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

JohnnyCross...........That's a great list But Bob Fitzsimmon at 6th and Ali 9th that's crazy and Julio Cesar Chavez Sr at 14 Leonard ranked 20th
that's big of ya and I loved Duran but he is not 8 spots above Leonard

[ClivePatrickLyons]

1. Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Harry Greb
4. Willie Pep
5. Roberto Duran
6. Sugar Ray Leonard
7. Ezzard Charles
8. Muhammed Ali
9. Jimmy Wilde
10. Benny Leonard
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Marvin Hagler
13. Archie Moore
14. Joe Gans
15. Floyd Mayweather
16. Barney Ross
17. Sandy Saddler
18. Emile Griffiths
19. Tommy Hearns
20. Salvador Sanchez

It's another great list but its happened again on another all time greatest list Pep rated way above Saddler that's crap

[elmersalsa]

PBF cannot go back to 1980 and fight Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard or Tommy Hearns or Alexis Arguello. He could only fight the guys of his era in which he clearly beat them all convingly.

Well, let's say he lost to Jose Luis Castillo the first fight. Well, he clearly won the second one.

What other fighters were in their primes and he didn't fight?. I didn't see a difference who comes to fight him. I knocked him about not fighting the great Manny Pacquiao earlier around 2009 when both were primes. I don't know why he didn't sign for that fight earlier. Was he afraid of Pacman and waited for him to fade? That might be the first answer by many fans.

But the point is, the guy beat every single significant and relevant boxer of his era. That's what great fighters do. Shall we knock the great Sugar Ray Robinson then for not fighting greats like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Holman Willliams and others like Cocoa Kid?

Shall we knock the great George Foreman by not fighting the great Larry Holmes sometime in '77?

How about let's knock off the great Salvador Sanchez for not fighting the great Eusebio Pedroza? Or The Explosive Thin Man not meeting the Hands of Stone? Should they get knocked off for that?

Like I said before, Mayweather should be in the top ten for what he accomplished. And he accomplished a lot. He won 5 world crowns in 5 different weight classes. They may not be a Henry Armstrong, but he did what he had to do. He beat them. Most of them by a SHUTOUT. Greatness sometimes comes in degrees.

Right now, he belongs:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep
6. Harry Greb
7. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

I think that's about right in my view.