Greatest Middleweights Ever?

[beaujack]

Beating all-time greats at Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight, Light Heavyweight & Heavyweight is a distinction that Sam has all to himself.

This is true.

Although, i would like to know by Langford fans, which was his best weight and which period of time.

What Sam did makes him definitely one of the elite. But it is hard to find a division that he was the real stand out dominant fighter. I dont think he was ever a better heavyweight than Jack Johnson. He didnt really standout over Holly and Blackburn. He was probably better as a middleweight or light heavyweight, but never really got a chance to fight the best of these divisions much. (and if i understand the argument made by Saad on a different thread), his wins against non middleweights or light heavys shouldnt be considered in ranking these divisions.

How was Langord not a standout at light heavyweight? He beat all the top fighters from 175 through heavyweight for about 10 years. He KO'd O'Brian. Dillon as great as he was drew the color line so Sam never got a chance but he's about the lone guy not a victim on his resume.

D, Sam Langford was a GREAT fighter, but I had read that Sam Langford NEVER sought out Jack Dillon while they were MWs...Jack Dillon was a feared fighter in his prime and was called the "white Sam Langford...What a fight that would have been !.

[raylawpc]

This is true.

Although, i would like to know by Langford fans, which was his best weight and which period of time.

What Sam did makes him definitely one of the elite. But it is hard to find a division that he was the real stand out dominant fighter. I dont think he was ever a better heavyweight than Jack Johnson. He didnt really standout over Holly and Blackburn. He was probably better as a middleweight or light heavyweight, but never really got a chance to fight the best of these divisions much. (and if i understand the argument made by Saad on a different thread), his wins against non middleweights or light heavys shouldnt be considered in ranking these divisions.

How was Langord not a standout at light heavyweight? He beat all the top fighters from 175 through heavyweight for about 10 years. He KO'd O'Brian. Dillon as great as he was drew the color line so Sam never got a chance but he's about the lone guy not a victim on his resume.

D, Sam Langford was a GREAT fighter, but I had read that Sam Langford NEVER sought out Jack Dillon while they were MWs...Jack Dillon was a feared fighter in his prime and was called the "white Sam Langford...What a fight that would have been !.

I don't know about Langford never seeking out Dillon, but Dillon did seek out Langford:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 62,6936198

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Beating all-time greats at Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight, Light Heavyweight & Heavyweight is a distinction that Sam has all to himself.

This is true.

Although, i would like to know by Langford fans, which was his best weight and which period of time.

What Sam did makes him definitely one of the elite. But it is hard to find a division that he was the real stand out dominant fighter. I dont think he was ever a better heavyweight than Jack Johnson. He didnt really standout over Holly and Blackburn. He was probably better as a middleweight or light heavyweight, but never really got a chance to fight the best of these divisions much. (and if i understand the argument made by Saad on a different thread), his wins against non middleweights or light heavys shouldnt be considered in ranking these divisions.

I was talking all time, Langford doesn't approach Greb at Middle. Sam is a guy whose career rates him higher all around than in any particular division. But I wouldn't dismiss wins over the likes of Norfolk, O'Brien & Ketchel. They were great fighters.

[beaujack]

How was Langord not a standout at light heavyweight? He beat all the top fighters from 175 through heavyweight for about 10 years. He KO'd O'Brian. Dillon as great as he was drew the color line so Sam never got a chance but he's about the lone guy not a victim on his resume.

D, Sam Langford was a GREAT fighter, but I had read that Sam Langford NEVER sought out Jack Dillon while they were MWs...Jack Dillon was a feared fighter in his prime and was called the "white Sam Langford...What a fight that would have been !.

I don't know about Langford never seeking out Dillon, but Dillon did seek out Langford:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 62,6936198

Thanks Ray for your article. It confirms what i had read many moons ago about Sam Langford
never seeking out Jack Dillon who was called Jack the Giant Killer for good reason....A bullish
MW of that time who feared no one and kod heavyweights...

[raylawpc]

D, Sam Langford was a GREAT fighter, but I had read that Sam Langford NEVER sought out Jack Dillon while they were MWs...Jack Dillon was a feared fighter in his prime and was called the "white Sam Langford...What a fight that would have been !.

I don't know about Langford never seeking out Dillon, but Dillon did seek out Langford:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 62,6936198

Thanks Ray for your article. It confirms what i had read many moons ago about Sam Langford
never seeking out Jack Dillon who was called Jack the Giant Killer for good reason....A bullish
MW of that time who feared no one and kod heavyweights...

I don't read it to say Sam ducked Dillon, but it does seem to show that Dillon was willing to fight Langford, and didn't draw the color line as suggested . . . at least not in 1910.

The only fighter I'm aware that Sam ever "ducked" was Jim Jeffries. His manager posted an ad in the newspapers that Sam was willing to fight any man in the world "except Jim Jeffries."

[Boilermaker]

Beating all-time greats at Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight, Light Heavyweight & Heavyweight is a distinction that Sam has all to himself.

This is true.

Although, i would like to know by Langford fans, which was his best weight and which period of time.

What Sam did makes him definitely one of the elite. But it is hard to find a division that he was the real stand out dominant fighter. I dont think he was ever a better heavyweight than Jack Johnson. He didnt really standout over Holly and Blackburn. He was probably better as a middleweight or light heavyweight, but never really got a chance to fight the best of these divisions much. (and if i understand the argument made by Saad on a different thread), his wins against non middleweights or light heavys shouldnt be considered in ranking these divisions.

How was Langord not a standout at light heavyweight? He beat all the top fighters from 175 through heavyweight for about 10 years. He KO'd O'Brian. Dillon as great as he was drew the color line so Sam never got a chance but he's about the lone guy not a victim on his resume.

This was as more a question than a shot at Sam's light heavy resume.

OBrien was a good win, but he was pretty much shot by the time Langford fought him, and had already been KOd by Ketchell. Plus, Langford seems to have enjoyed a sizeable size advantage, given that he fought as a heavyweight against a fighter who weighed 5lbs below the light heavy limit. Ketchell i would have thought was probably his best light heavy result although he was generally considered a middleweight. I am not sure of the weights, but i presume taht this fight was between two light heavys.

I would have thought that Langford's best years was about 1908 to 1910. And i personally would back against any other light heavy in this time period, but I am not sure he was necessarilly a standout in the actual division he fought in. He seemed to terrorise the heavys (even as a light heavy himself) more than the other light heavys. Of course, this in itself, may be what makes him the standout light heavy of the time!

Still, i would like his fans to answer what is his best light heavyweight victory over another light heavy. Am i correct in suggesting it is Ketchell?

[beaujack]

This is true.

Although, i would like to know by Langford fans, which was his best weight and which period of time.

What Sam did makes him definitely one of the elite. But it is hard to find a division that he was the real stand out dominant fighter. I dont think he was ever a better heavyweight than Jack Johnson. He didnt really standout over Holly and Blackburn. He was probably better as a middleweight or light heavyweight, but never really got a chance to fight the best of these divisions much. (and if i understand the argument made by Saad on a different thread), his wins against non middleweights or light heavys shouldnt be considered in ranking these divisions.

How was Langord not a standout at light heavyweight? He beat all the top fighters from 175 through heavyweight for about 10 years. He KO'd O'Brian. Dillon as great as he was drew the color line so Sam never got a chance but he's about the lone guy not a victim on his resume.

This was as more a question than a shot at Sam's light heavy resume.

OBrien was a good win, but he was pretty much shot by the time Langford fought him, and had already been KOd by Ketchell. Plus, Langford seems to have enjoyed a sizeable size advantage, given that he fought as a heavyweight against a fighter who weighed 5lbs below the light heavy limit. Ketchell i would have thought was probably his best light heavy result although he was generally considered a middleweight. I am not sure of the weights, but i presume taht this fight was between two light heavys.

I would have thought that Langford's best years was about 1908 to 1910. And i personally would back against any other light heavy in this time period, but I am not sure he was necessarilly a standout in the actual division he fought in. He seemed to terrorise the heavys (even as a light heavy himself) more than the other light heavys. Of course, this in itself, may be what makes him the standout light heavy of the time!

Still, i would like his fans to answer what is his best light heavyweight victory over another light heavy. Am i correct in suggesting it is Ketchell?

To say that Sam Langford "beat" Stanley Ketchel in their 1910 6 rd fight is not accurate..It was a ND
bout that some ringside reporters gave to Ketchel, who was a shot fighter by this time. Ketchel soon after went to a ranch in Missouri for rest and recuperation and was shot dead later on...One other point.
Langford for the Ketchel fight weighed about 12 lbs. more than Ketchel..For what it's worth...
Today Ketchel get's overlooked as a great MW...Too bad,because in his heyday Stanley was considered the best MW of all times for many years after...

[raylawpc]

How was Langord not a standout at light heavyweight? He beat all the top fighters from 175 through heavyweight for about 10 years. He KO'd O'Brian. Dillon as great as he was drew the color line so Sam never got a chance but he's about the lone guy not a victim on his resume.

This was as more a question than a shot at Sam's light heavy resume.

OBrien was a good win, but he was pretty much shot by the time Langford fought him, and had already been KOd by Ketchell. Plus, Langford seems to have enjoyed a sizeable size advantage, given that he fought as a heavyweight against a fighter who weighed 5lbs below the light heavy limit. Ketchell i would have thought was probably his best light heavy result although he was generally considered a middleweight. I am not sure of the weights, but i presume taht this fight was between two light heavys.

I would have thought that Langford's best years was about 1908 to 1910. And i personally would back against any other light heavy in this time period, but I am not sure he was necessarilly a standout in the actual division he fought in. He seemed to terrorise the heavys (even as a light heavy himself) more than the other light heavys. Of course, this in itself, may be what makes him the standout light heavy of the time!

Still, i would like his fans to answer what is his best light heavyweight victory over another light heavy. Am i correct in suggesting it is Ketchell?

To say that Sam Langford "beat" Stanley Ketchel in their 1910 6 rd fight is not accurate..It was a ND
bout that some ringside reporters gave to Ketchel, who was a shot fighter by this time. Ketchel soon after went to a ranch in Missouri for rest and recuperation and was shot dead later on...One other point.
Langford for the Ketchel fight weighed about 12 lbs. more than Ketchel..For what it's worth...
Today Ketchel get's overlooked as a great MW...Too bad,because in his heyday Stanley was considered the best MW of all times for many years after...

Do you recall which reporters? I've read a few accounts of the fight, and those accounts opined that Sam won.

[beaujack]

This was as more a question than a shot at Sam's light heavy resume.

OBrien was a good win, but he was pretty much shot by the time Langford fought him, and had already been KOd by Ketchell. Plus, Langford seems to have enjoyed a sizeable size advantage, given that he fought as a heavyweight against a fighter who weighed 5lbs below the light heavy limit. Ketchell i would have thought was probably his best light heavy result although he was generally considered a middleweight. I am not sure of the weights, but i presume taht this fight was between two light heavys.

I would have thought that Langford's best years was about 1908 to 1910. And i personally would back against any other light heavy in this time period, but I am not sure he was necessarilly a standout in the actual division he fought in. He seemed to terrorise the heavys (even as a light heavy himself) more than the other light heavys. Of course, this in itself, may be what makes him the standout light heavy of the time!

Still, i would like his fans to answer what is his best light heavyweight victory over another light heavy. Am i correct in suggesting it is Ketchell?

To say that Sam Langford "beat" Stanley Ketchel in their 1910 6 rd fight is not accurate..It was a ND
bout that some ringside reporters gave to Ketchel, who was a shot fighter by this time. Ketchel soon after went to a ranch in Missouri for rest and recuperation and was shot dead later on...One other point.
Langford for the Ketchel fight weighed about 12 lbs. more than Ketchel..For what it's worth...
Today Ketchel get's overlooked as a great MW...Too bad,because in his heyday Stanley was considered the best MW of all times for many years after...

Do you recall which reporters? I've read a few accounts of the fight, and those accounts opined that Sam won.

I can't recall the reporters names, but in many old ring books of the 30s ,the consensus was that
it was a see-saw battle between the much lighter Ketchel [12lbs] and Langford...The Boxing Register of recent times has it listed as a 6 rd ND win for Ketchel, the much smaller fighter...And by this time
Ketchel was alleged to be on "cocaine",and whoreing around. Ketchel was in bad physical condition by this time and to "save" his career ,went to the ranch of a friend Col. Dickerson in Conway, Missouri.
but fate intervened and Ketchel was shot to death by a Walter Dipley....So for this "fading' Ketchel,to even take a bout with the 12 pound heavier alltime great Sam Langford, was a feat of courage...
Give me Ketchel, Greb and Mickey Walker on my side in a bar fight...Yessir...

[raylawpc]

To say that Sam Langford "beat" Stanley Ketchel in their 1910 6 rd fight is not accurate..It was a ND
bout that some ringside reporters gave to Ketchel, who was a shot fighter by this time. Ketchel soon after went to a ranch in Missouri for rest and recuperation and was shot dead later on...One other point.
Langford for the Ketchel fight weighed about 12 lbs. more than Ketchel..For what it's worth...
Today Ketchel get's overlooked as a great MW...Too bad,because in his heyday Stanley was considered the best MW of all times for many years after...

Do you recall which reporters? I've read a few accounts of the fight, and those accounts opined that Sam won.

I can't recall the reporters names, but in many old ring books of the 30s ,the consensus was that
it was a see-saw battle between the much lighter Ketchel [12lbs] and Langford...The Boxing Register of recent times has it listed as a 6 rd ND win for Ketchel, the much smaller fighter...And by this time
Ketchel was alleged to be on "cocaine",and whoreing around. Ketchel was in bad physical condition by this time and to "save" his career ,went to the ranch of a friend Col. Dickerson in Conway, Missouri.
but fate intervened and Ketchel was shot to death by a Walter Dipley....So for this "fading' Ketchel,to even take a bout with the 12 pound heavier alltime great Sam Langford, was a feat of courage...
Give me Ketchel, Greb and Mickey Walker on my side in a bar fight...Yessir...

Well, the reports I've read opined that Sam won. There was some conjecture that the fighters made it as close as they did by agreement to build up interest in an actual fight between Langford and Ketchel for the latter's middleweight title. In fact, there was some talk of staging Ketchel-Langford as an undercard of the Johnson-Jeffries fight, but Rickard realized he didn't need any preliminaries to draw them in for the fight of the century, so the idea was abandoned as quickly as it was raised.

I drive right by Conway about five times every year on my way to my second home in Barry County, Missouri. I don't know what it was like in 1910, but it's really down on its heels now.

As far as a bar fight, I'd take Carlos Monzon and Sonny Liston as my wingmen.

[keithmoonhangover]

How was Langord not a standout at light heavyweight? He beat all the top fighters from 175 through heavyweight for about 10 years. He KO'd O'Brian. Dillon as great as he was drew the color line so Sam never got a chance but he's about the lone guy not a victim on his resume.

This was as more a question than a shot at Sam's light heavy resume.

OBrien was a good win, but he was pretty much shot by the time Langford fought him, and had already been KOd by Ketchell. Plus, Langford seems to have enjoyed a sizeable size advantage, given that he fought as a heavyweight against a fighter who weighed 5lbs below the light heavy limit. Ketchell i would have thought was probably his best light heavy result although he was generally considered a middleweight. I am not sure of the weights, but i presume taht this fight was between two light heavys.

I would have thought that Langford's best years was about 1908 to 1910. And i personally would back against any other light heavy in this time period, but I am not sure he was necessarilly a standout in the actual division he fought in. He seemed to terrorise the heavys (even as a light heavy himself) more than the other light heavys. Of course, this in itself, may be what makes him the standout light heavy of the time!

Still, i would like his fans to answer what is his best light heavyweight victory over another light heavy. Am i correct in suggesting it is Ketchell?

To say that Sam Langford "beat" Stanley Ketchel in their 1910 6 rd fight is not accurate..It was a ND
bout that some ringside reporters gave to Ketchel, who was a shot fighter by this time. Ketchel soon after went to a ranch in Missouri for rest and recuperation and was shot dead later on...One other point.
Langford for the Ketchel fight weighed about 12 lbs. more than Ketchel..For what it's worth...
Today Ketchel get's overlooked as a great MW...Too bad,because in his heyday Stanley was considered the best MW of all times for many years after...

Ketchel 'shot', what a load of bollocks, do you even know what shot means? FFS.

[klompton]

Ketchel was shot in 1910 and for all intents and purposes he had retired from the ring which is why he was in Missouri buying up land to get in to the ranching business. He was a physical wreck at this point in his life.

[keithmoonhangover]

Ketchel was shot in 1910 and for all intents and purposes he had retired from the ring which is why he was in Missouri buying up land to get in to the ranching business. He was a physical wreck at this point in his life.

Bollocks. How was Ketchel 'shot'? Which performance makes you say that he was shot? Johnson? Langford?

[dempseyfire]

I don't know about Langford never seeking out Dillon, but Dillon did seek out Langford:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 62,6936198

Thanks Ray for your article. It confirms what i had read many moons ago about Sam Langford
never seeking out Jack Dillon who was called Jack the Giant Killer for good reason....A bullish
MW of that time who feared no one and kod heavyweights...

I don't read it to say Sam ducked Dillon, but it does seem to show that Dillon was willing to fight Langford, and didn't draw the color line as suggested . . . at least not in 1910.

The only fighter I'm aware that Sam ever "ducked" was Jim Jeffries. His manager posted an ad in the newspapers that Sam was willing to fight any man in the world "except Jim Jeffries."

Talk is cheap. If Dillon didn't draw the color line, where are his fights vs the other top black fighters of the period who weighed in the 165-195 range? Where's Jeff Clark? Kid Norfolk? Black Bill? Joe Jeannette? There's not ONE!! Dillon was a great fighter and a very tough man but for one reason or the other he refused to face black fighters.

[raylawpc]

Thanks Ray for your article. It confirms what i had read many moons ago about Sam Langford
never seeking out Jack Dillon who was called Jack the Giant Killer for good reason....A bullish
MW of that time who feared no one and kod heavyweights...

I don't read it to say Sam ducked Dillon, but it does seem to show that Dillon was willing to fight Langford, and didn't draw the color line as suggested . . . at least not in 1910.

The only fighter I'm aware that Sam ever "ducked" was Jim Jeffries. His manager posted an ad in the newspapers that Sam was willing to fight any man in the world "except Jim Jeffries."

Talk is cheap. If Dillon didn't draw the color line, where are his fights vs the other top black fighters of the period who weighed in the 165-195 range? Where's Jeff Clark? Kid Norfolk? Black Bill? Joe Jeannette? There's not ONE!! Dillon was a great fighter and a very tough man but for one reason or the other he refused to face black fighters.

"Talk is cheap." So are internet postings.

The article says in December 1910, Dillon was willing to fight Langford. It says what it says. And that's all it says. Dillon could have decided later to draw the color line.

[dempseyfire]

I don't read it to say Sam ducked Dillon, but it does seem to show that Dillon was willing to fight Langford, and didn't draw the color line as suggested . . . at least not in 1910.

The only fighter I'm aware that Sam ever "ducked" was Jim Jeffries. His manager posted an ad in the newspapers that Sam was willing to fight any man in the world "except Jim Jeffries."

Talk is cheap. If Dillon didn't draw the color line, where are his fights vs the other top black fighters of the period who weighed in the 165-195 range? Where's Jeff Clark? Kid Norfolk? Black Bill? Joe Jeannette? There's not ONE!! Dillon was a great fighter and a very tough man but for one reason or the other he refused to face black fighters.

"Talk is cheap." So are internet postings.

The article says in December 1910, Dillon was willing to fight Langford. It says what it says. And that's all it says. Dillon could have decided later to draw the color line.

"so are internet postings?" . .

I have the EVIDENCE on my side. Managers would send out press releases which were basically reprinted in the papers claiming out sorts of nonsense in that time period (and still do), but Dillon never faced ANY top black fighters his entire career (and if I'm not mistaken, any black fightes period). So that article means JACK SQUAT!

[raylawpc]

Talk is cheap. If Dillon didn't draw the color line, where are his fights vs the other top black fighters of the period who weighed in the 165-195 range? Where's Jeff Clark? Kid Norfolk? Black Bill? Joe Jeannette? There's not ONE!! Dillon was a great fighter and a very tough man but for one reason or the other he refused to face black fighters.

"Talk is cheap." So are internet postings.

The article says in December 1910, Dillon was willing to fight Langford. It says what it says. And that's all it says. Dillon could have decided later to draw the color line.

"so are internet postings?" . .

I have the EVIDENCE on my side. Managers would send out press releases which were basically reprinted in the papers claiming out sorts of nonsense in that time period (and still do), but Dillon never faced ANY top black fighters his entire career (and if I'm not mistaken, any black fightes period). So that article means JACK SQUAT!

So the EVIDENCE is what . . . that the article doesn't say what it says? And Dillon wasn't, in December 1910, willing to fight Langford if it meant recognition as a champion? Hmmmm . . .

[The End]

Kind of like Jesus vs. Santa Clause. We know they exist but can only read about how great they were.

[Boilermaker]

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLib ... bm105j.pdf

There is a good article about the greatest middleweight of all time. Take you pick on Sayers and Fitzsimmons depending on the ruleset according to this article.

[Tomasino]

Its a fine tale!

[Boilermaker]

Its a fine tale!

Okay.... So which great middleweight was not covered in the article?

[dempseyfire]

Talk is cheap. If Dillon didn't draw the color line, where are his fights vs the other top black fighters of the period who weighed in the 165-195 range? Where's Jeff Clark? Kid Norfolk? Black Bill? Joe Jeannette? There's not ONE!! Dillon was a great fighter and a very tough man but for one reason or the other he refused to face black fighters.

"Talk is cheap." So are internet postings.

The article says in December 1910, Dillon was willing to fight Langford. It says what it says. And that's all it says. Dillon could have decided later to draw the color line.

"so are internet postings?" . .

I have the EVIDENCE on my side. Managers would send out press releases which were basically reprinted in the papers claiming out sorts of nonsense in that time period (and still do), but Dillon never faced ANY top black fighters his entire career (and if I'm not mistaken, any black fightes period). So that article means JACK SQUAT!

So the EVIDENCE is what . . . that the article doesn't say what it says? And Dillon wasn't, in December 1910, willing to fight Langford if it meant recognition as a champion? Hmmmm . . .[/quote]

That Dillon never fought a black fighter in the 165-190 range in his whole career, that's the evidence. Guys put out press releases ALL THE TIME saying they were willing to fight so and so. But that's all it meant . .marketing. If he really had wanted the fight, Langford showed throughout his career he ducked no-one (and that Jefferies line was more of a wink wink joke; I have no doubt if that bout had ever a realistic proposition-which it wasn't (Langford was still a welterweight/light middleweight at the end of Jim's reign) Sam would have been willing to fight Jefferies)

[raylawpc]

Talk is cheap. If Dillon didn't draw the color line, where are his fights vs the other top black fighters of the period who weighed in the 165-195 range? Where's Jeff Clark? Kid Norfolk? Black Bill? Joe Jeannette? There's not ONE!! Dillon was a great fighter and a very tough man but for one reason or the other he refused to face black fighters.

"Talk is cheap." So are internet postings.

The article says in December 1910, Dillon was willing to fight Langford. It says what it says. And that's all it says. Dillon could have decided later to draw the color line.

"so are internet postings?" . .

I have the EVIDENCE on my side. Managers would send out press releases which were basically reprinted in the papers claiming out sorts of nonsense in that time period (and still do), but Dillon never faced ANY top black fighters his entire career (and if I'm not mistaken, any black fightes period). So that article means JACK SQUAT!

So the EVIDENCE is what . . . that the article doesn't say what it says? And Dillon wasn't, in December 1910, willing to fight Langford if it meant recognition as a champion? Hmmmm . . .[/quote]

That Dillon never fought a black fighter in the 165-190 range in his whole career, that's the evidence. Guys put out press releases ALL THE TIME saying they were willing to fight so and so. But that's all it meant . .marketing. If he really had wanted the fight, Langford showed throughout his career he ducked no-one (and that Jefferies line was more of a wink wink joke; I have no doubt if that bout had ever a realistic proposition-which it wasn't (Langford was still a welterweight/light middleweight at the end of Jim's reign) Sam would have been willing to fight Jefferies)[/quote]

The article says what it says. If you believe that Dillon really didn't offer to fight Langford in December 1910, that is your prerogative.

[Jacopodb]

This was Ring Magazine's list a few years back, Bernard Hopkins would obviously be on the list now:

20. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
19. Joey Giardello
18. Tommy Ryan
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Rodrigo Valdes
15. Gene Fullmer
14. Dick Tiger
13. Emile Griffith
12. Tony Zale
11. Marcel Cerdan
10. Billy Conn
9. Mickey Walker
8. Stanley Ketchel
7. Tiger Flowers
6. Charley Burley
5. Jake LaMotta
4. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
1. Harry Greb

It's a good list (Though I'd have Sugar Ray as the number one)

And I would reccommend checking out some Rocky Grazianio's fights, he was a ballsy guy.

Where would you rate Benvenuti?

[cfang]

Greb, Langford, Robinson, Hagler, monzon.