The Top 10 Best Fighters of the 1940s

[elmersalsa]

We have discussed about the best fighters of the 1980s. Some did not agree that the great Mike Tyson, was in the second place. Nobody in this forum had a problem with the great Sugar Ray Leonard as the number one fighter of the 80s. But, who was the best fighter 40 years before that? Let's see. We got some exceptional and gifted fighters in this decade of the 1940s that is hard to deny their place in boxing history. Seven of these great boxers are without a doubt in the top 50 all time pound per pound boxing greats to say the least. Some of them didn't get a title shot opportunity. Some of them had their career cut for a while because of World War II. But, indeed, these guys were terrifically great.

These, in my view are the best pound per pound fighters of the 1940s decade:
1. Willie Pep
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Joe Louis
5. Ike Williams
6. Manuel Ortiz
7. Sandy Saddler
8. Jake LaMotta
9. Beau Jack
10. Charley Burley

Didn't make the cut:
Tony Zale: Although he had the world middleweight title for 7 years, didn't defended enough. His 3-fight brutal series with Rocky Graziano made the headlines of the decade.

Marcel Cerdan: Fought most of his career in obscurity in his native France, even though he won the European welter and middleweight crowns. Also won the world middleweight crown by stopping champion Tony Zale with a brutal non stop body attack. He also beat a fading great in Holman Williams.

Archie Moore: Didn't get a title shot. One of the most avoided and ducked fighters of all time. In his prime, he had enough bouts, beat a great deal of top notch contenders from middleweight to light-heavyweight, and fought the most avoided black fighters that you could name in the decade. Name a member of the Black Murderers Row, and he probably fought them more than once. He lost 3 times to the great Ezzard Charles.

Billy Conn: Great light-heavyweight champion that needed 12 more minutes on his feet to become the only light-heavyweight champ to win the world heavyweight championship. He almost upset the great Joe Louis on their great fight of June 18, 1941 at the Polo Grounds in New York City. But, after decisioning Tony Zale in '42, he enlisted in the U.S. army and career was cut for a while. Was never the same boxer when he returned in 1946.

[elmersalsa]

Others that didn't make it:
Kid Gavilan who had two wars with the great Sugar Ray Robinson, losing both times. He also beat Ike Williams two out of three, and beat the great Beau Jack

Jimmy Bivins: Fantastic light-heavyweight and heavyweight contender that beat greats like Achie Moore, Ezzard Charles and Joey Maxim among other good contenders. But Moore and Charles beat him at least three times each.

Bob Montgomery: Probably the forgotten man of the greatest era of the lightweight division. A two-time NBA world lightweight champion that doesn't get the credit that he deserves. Lost 3 questionable and controversial decisions to Sammy Angott. Also beat the great Beau Jack twice and stopped the great Ike Williams in their first fight. But, lost for all the lightweight marbles to Williams in a title unification in '47.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Robinson and Charles are the definitive top 2. No other viable answer.

[jimglen]

how's this for an alternative list of just as capable Champion's & Top Contenders...

HW - JJW
L-HW- Moore
MW - McAvoy
WW - Zivic / Roderick
LW - Beau Jack
FW -
BW - Jim Brady
FW - Kane / Patterson / Ortiz

[King Carlos]

Beau Jack is wildly out of place.

[elmersalsa]

Beau Jack is wildly out of place.

Why, King Carlos?

[King Carlos]

Beau Jack is wildly out of place.

Why, King Carlos?

He just doesn't belong in that company. Bivins' undefeated run from '42 to '46 surpasses everything Jack ever achieved.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Pep number 1 Robinson 40's 50's number 1 without doubt

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ezzard has a case for the 40's. Pep does not.

[TBEwasLangford]

In terms of 40's achievements;

Charles
Robinson
Pep
Louis
Cerdan
Lamotta
Moore
Bivins
Williams
Burley

Just missed out:
Zivic
Saddler
Ortiz

[DaveyMac]

I think Zale has to be in there. The 40's was his decade, he turned it all around in 1940. Remember he spent 3-4 years actually in the army which is part of the reason he didn't defend more. Got to give him some credit for that.

[elmersalsa]

Beau Jack is wildly out of place.

Why, King Carlos?

He just doesn't belong in that company. Bivins' undefeated run from '42 to '46 surpasses everything Jack ever achieved.

The great Beau Jack was a twice lightweight king and The Ring Fighter of the Year in 1944 I believe. How could he be out of place?

[elmersalsa]

Ezzard has a case for the 40's. Pep does not.

The Wil' of the Wisp got the credentials to be the best fighter of the 40s decade.

[elmersalsa]

Beau Jack in the 1940s.
Two-time NBA World Lightweight Champion (1942-43, 1943-44).
The Ring Fighter of the Year in 1944
Won 16 in a row from Jan 1942 to April '43
Record in the decade was 77-16-4, 38KOs
Among his best wins:
WKO8 Al Reid
WTKO6 Bobby McIntyre
WKO1 Carmine Fatta
WTKO7 Allie Stolsz
WKO3 Tippy Larkin
W10 Fritzie Zivic (twice)
W10 Henry Armstrong (a faded version)
W10 Lulu Constantino
W15 Bob Montgomery (twice)...Split 4 fights with The Bobcat
W10 Maxie Berger
W10 Al "Bummy" Davis
W10 Juan Zurita
W10 Willie Joyce
WTKO7 Sammy Angott (2nd fight)
W10 Tony Janiro (2nd fight)
W10 Johnny Greco
W10 Eddie Giosa
W10 Livio Minelli

This guy was truly amazing. One of the best of the 1940s decade no doubt.

[Ambling Alp II]

I figured out the Fighters' mentioned record vs the Top 10/champion as well as HOFers. during the 1940s. Since it was the same era, it is more of a valid comparison than we often get with boxing stats.

Anyway here it is:
Robinson 29-1-1 vs Top 10/Champion, 12-1 vs HOFers.
Pep 25-2, and 6-2 vs HOF
Charles, 25-5-1, 14-2 vs HOF
Louis 14-0, 4-0 vs HOF
Williams 22-7-1, 5-4 vs HOF
Manual Ortiz 32-6-3, 0-1 vs HOF
Saddler 6-4, 3-1 vs HOF
LaMotta 20-10-2, 6-7 vs HOF
Beau Jack 17-9, 6-4-1 vs HOF
Burley, 15-7-2, 4-6 vs HOF
Zale 7-4, 3-3 vs HOF
Moore 24-9-3, 5-6 vs HOF
Bivins 25-15-1, 4-9 vs HOF
Zivic 9-21-1, 5-9-1 vs HOF
Cerdan 6-2, 1-1 vs HOF

I also did Bob Montgomery, who was 17-11, 5-7 vs HOF

Robinson is the clear #1 no matter how you cut it.
I would lean towards Charles over Pep at #2, because his competition was even better.
Louis is #4, then it gets close with Williams, Moore, Jack, and Burley. Saddler Bivins, and Montgomery aren't that far back. After them, Zale, Cerdan, and Ortiz are pretty close.
Zivic is way behind everyone else.

My top 10:
1. Robinson
2. Charles
3. Pep
4. Louis
5. Williams
6. Moore
7. Jack
8. Burley
9. Saddler
140. Bivins

[elmersalsa]

Of course, Sugar Ray and The Cincinnati Cobra fought the same guy more than 3 times LOL!

[Ambling Alp II]

Take out the 4-0 vs Chalky Wright and Pep vs Top 10/Champions is 21-2 and just 2-2 vs the HOF . Take out LaMotta and Robinson is 25-0-1 vs Top 10/Champions and 8-0 vs the HOF. Wow, this is a close one.

[elmersalsa]

Take out the 4-0 vs Chalky Wright and Pep vs Top 10/Champions is 21-2 and just 2-2 vs the HOF . Take out LaMotta and Robinson is 25-0-1 vs Top 10/Champions and 8-0 vs the HOF. Wow, this is a close one.

We will check in depth about their careers tonight

[SaadOffTheDeck]

We? Lol, nobody else has to.

[elmersalsa]

We? Lol, nobody else has to.

Robinson comes short to Pep in that decade. The accomplishments of this little giant Pep was something to be awed about.

[elmersalsa]

Well, this topic has brought some controversy in some people's point of views because in some of these opinions were not liked as the great Willie Pep as the best of the decade of the 1940s. I, in my part, will bring objectivity as I possibly could.

The great Sugar Ray Robinson, as he was in that decade, was as fantastic as The Will of the Wisp. The only one in that decade that could give Pep a run for his title as the best of the '40s. But, in my objectivity, he is not so. Neither the great Ezzard Charles. See, some people are biased in the sense of who you beat. And who you beat IS NOT THE ONLY PARAMETER to qualify a fighter as the best. There are other factors.

See, Ambling Alp tried to make Robinson as overwhelmingly better than Pep, when in fact, is the other way around. He brought up the wins against HOFs. He really came short in that understanding. And even at that, Sugar Ray in his whole damn career, never beat someone as good as the great Sandy Saddler. I would like Ambling Alp to answer me, who did Sugar Ray Robinson beat as good as Sandy Saddler???... Don't give me that crap that he beat the great Henry Armstrong in '43. I consider Armstrong as the best fighter ever, but, by 1943, HE WAS WASHED UP, FOLKS. THAT DOESN'T COUNT. TRY AGAIN, ALP.

Then, he comes with the statistic of records vs hall of fame boxers. My question is, how many times you gotta fight the same fighter to prove the point that you are better than him? He beat the great Jake LaMotta 4 times in the decade. He beat Sammy Angott 3 times. Fritzie Zivic twice and the great Kid Gavilan twice. None of them were better than Saddler...None!

He dominated the welterweight division. So did Pep at featherweight. That's why both are the best of all time in their respective weight classes.

If someone wants to bring wins against hall of fame boxers, how about we flip it to wins against world title holders and world champions. Pep beat 8. Robinson 6. How about that? Some of the champions that Robinson beat were not established boxers in the rankings. Pep beat all 8 in their primes and all of them were established boxers at the time he beat them. And if we want to bring up top notch contenders of the time, Pep surpassed Robinson in that regard. Robinson beat 15 top notch boxers while Pep beat 20. It's amazing how can someone wants to manipulate the issue when probably I guess, the person is either lying, doesn't know much about the era, or just simply is plain wicked to prove a point or all of the above.


And let's not go by the numbers. Pep thrashes Robinson and Charles in that regard. Accomplished much more. Pep, in the decade alone won 143 fights! Can someone in here tells me that a person that wins 143 fights in a decade, with top notch opposition should not be #1? He only lost 2 fights! One against someone that was bigger than he was in Angott and the other against a true all time top 15 pound per pound best in my view or many people's views. NO SHAME IN THAT. And he eventually avenged it in spectacular fashion outboxing Saddler's ears off. That is remarkable. Pep just didn't just win. He dominated the opposition.

Robinson as champion only had 4 title defenses. Pep had 8 in two reigns in the decade, making 7 of them in the first reign alone. And he held the crown longer than Sugar Ray.

We will touch the subject between Charles vs Pep, later. But let's just focus on Pep vs Robinson right now, my brothers.

Pep in the decade won 41 more fights than Robinson. That's not even close!

[Ambling Alp II]

And let's not go by the numbers. Pep thrashes Robinson and Charles in that regard. Accomplished much more. Pep, in the decade alone won 143 fights!

You don't want to hear about the stats that make your gyu look vastly inferior and say lets not go by the numbers. Then you in your next breath bring up a meaningless stat that favors your guy. The sad part it, you don't even get what is funny.

I will try to make it simple so you can understand:
-The shear amount of wins a fighter has means almost nothing. The vast majority are mediocre fighters or worse. Fighters can always find an easy victim if they want to. Doesn't matter if you win 250 fights or 30. Its who (and when ) that counts. One win over LaMotta means more than 50 wins over people nobody has ever heard of.

-You asked who Robinson beat that was better than Saddler? Beating LaMotta who was a middleweight when Robinson was a welterweight is better. LaMotta outweighed him by 12 pounds once and 15 two other times.
-Title defenses? This may be news to you, but Robinson was black. Black fighters often got screwed over back then. He was the number one contender in 1941 and did not get a title shot until the end of 1946. He would have had over a dozen title defenses in that period if he got a title shot. Yet another reason why title defenses don't mean squat.

-Henry Armstrong? Yes he was past his best. He still was very good. You have no problem ignoring Pacquio and Marquez being way past it when propping up Floyd Mayweather. Armstrong had more left at that point that either of them.

You like to make a big deal about beating HOFers when it suits you. However, when it makes your guy look vastly inferior, suddenly you don't like it.

Ok, this is the part where you ignore my points, ignore anything inconvenient to the guy you like, and spew your nonsense.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Lol at Floyd fighting a shot Marquez. Elmer isn't the only one that uses stats when they benefit them and goes straight to bs to support their argument.

[elmersalsa]

And let's not go by the numbers. Pep thrashes Robinson and Charles in that regard. Accomplished much more. Pep, in the decade alone won 143 fights!

You don't want to hear about the stats that make your gyu look vastly inferior and say lets not go by the numbers. Then you in your next breath bring up a meaningless stat that favors your guy. The sad part it, you don't even get what is funny.

I will try to make it simple so you can understand:
-The shear amount of wins a fighter has means almost nothing. The vast majority are mediocre fighters or worse. Fighters can always find an easy victim if they want to. Doesn't matter if you win 250 fights or 30. Its who (and when ) that counts. One win over LaMotta means more than 50 wins over people nobody has ever heard of.

-You asked who Robinson beat that was better than Saddler? Beating LaMotta who was a middleweight when Robinson was a welterweight is better. LaMotta outweighed him by 12 pounds once and 15 two other times.
-Title defenses? This may be news to you, but Robinson was black. Black fighters often got screwed over back then. He was the number one contender in 1941 and did not get a title shot until the end of 1946. He would have had over a dozen title defenses in that period if he got a title shot. Yet another reason why title defenses don't mean squat.

-Henry Armstrong? Yes he was past his best. He still was very good. You have no problem ignoring Pacquio and Marquez being way past it when propping up Floyd Mayweather. Armstrong had more left at that point that either of them.

You like to make a big deal about beating HOFers when it suits you. However, when it makes your guy look vastly inferior, suddenly you don't like it.

Ok, this is the part where you ignore my points, ignore anything inconvenient to the guy you like, and spew your nonsense.

Sugar Ray went 91 bouts without a loss. He did the same thing The Will of the Wisp did. You mentioned that Robinson didn't get a title shot earlier because he was black. How about Pep? Couldn't he had more title defenses if he hadn't had the airplane crash and it gave him a serious accident? The great Charley Burley was black. He didn't get a title shot. So the great Holman Williams and The Ol' Mongoose. That was the conspiracy of that era.

And then, you're telling me that Robinson beating the great Jake LaMotta was a better win than Pep beating an extraordinary fighter like the great Sandy Saddler? What is this? A freaking joke? Are we serious here?

And this joke that you're telling me about the great Henry Armstrong. Armstrong was WASHED UP when Robinson beat him. He wasn't even half of what he was. Robinson used him for a ladder. Henry was through.

C'mon Alp, you can do better than that. The comparison of Pretty Boy Floyd vs Pacman and the great Juan Manuel Marquez doesn't have nothing to do with Armstrong. Pretty Boy was not in his total prime when he beat both of them. I'll give you this: Mayweather was too big for Marquez. Fair enough.

C'mon Alp. Give me something to consider.

[campfire]

And let's not go by the numbers. Pep thrashes Robinson and Charles in that regard. Accomplished much more. Pep, in the decade alone won 143 fights!

You don't want to hear about the stats that make your gyu look vastly inferior and say lets not go by the numbers. Then you in your next breath bring up a meaningless stat that favors your guy. The sad part it, you don't even get what is funny.

I will try to make it simple so you can understand:
-The shear amount of wins a fighter has means almost nothing. The vast majority are mediocre fighters or worse. Fighters can always find an easy victim if they want to. Doesn't matter if you win 250 fights or 30. Its who (and when ) that counts. One win over LaMotta means more than 50 wins over people nobody has ever heard of.

-You asked who Robinson beat that was better than Saddler? Beating LaMotta who was a middleweight when Robinson was a welterweight is better. LaMotta outweighed him by 12 pounds once and 15 two other times.
-Title defenses? This may be news to you, but Robinson was black. Black fighters often got screwed over back then. He was the number one contender in 1941 and did not get a title shot until the end of 1946. He would have had over a dozen title defenses in that period if he got a title shot. Yet another reason why title defenses don't mean squat.

-Henry Armstrong? Yes he was past his best. He still was very good. You have no problem ignoring Pacquio and Marquez being way past it when propping up Floyd Mayweather. Armstrong had more left at that point that either of them.

You like to make a big deal about beating HOFers when it suits you. However, when it makes your guy look vastly inferior, suddenly you don't like it.

Ok, this is the part where you ignore my points, ignore anything inconvenient to the guy you like, and spew your nonsense.

Sugar Ray went 91 bouts without a loss. He did the same thing The Will of the Wisp did. You mentioned that Robinson didn't get a title shot earlier because he was black. How about Pep? Couldn't he had more title defenses if he hadn't had the airplane crash and it gave him a serious accident? The great Charley Burley was black. He didn't get a title shot. So the great Holman Williams and The Ol' Mongoose. That was the conspiracy of that era.

And then, you're telling me that Robinson beating the great Jake LaMotta was a better win than Pep beating an extraordinary fighter like the great Sandy Saddler? What is this? A freaking joke? Are we serious here?

And this joke that you're telling me about the great Henry Armstrong. Armstrong was WASHED UP when Robinson beat him. He wasn't even half of what he was. Robinson used him for a ladder. Henry was through.

C'mon Alp, you can do better than that. The comparison of Pretty Boy Floyd vs Pacman and the great Juan Manuel Marquez doesn't have nothing to do with Armstrong. Pretty Boy was not in his total prime when he beat both of them. I'll give you this: Mayweather was too big for Marquez. Fair enough.

C'mon Alp. Give me something to consider.

Saddler was the better fighter elma stop making out Pep is alongside Robinson because he on another level different building afew streets away a planet or two to the east