What is your p4p top 20 ever in order, take time

[Paci]

Im agreeing and disagreeing with you, dummy. I go by rep, you go on pure hard facts about boxers that you can see for yourself. That is my response. In simple english.

To be fair, I did say I didn’t understand your response.

And after reading your previous post a few times, I still don’t quite understand it, but it’s good we at least share some common ground.

I think was ranting about lot of things in that response. Not aimed at you. Amongest them that I seen the same fights about irrelevant fantasy crap in other fandoms just like in boxing. Their among Star Wars with the edited and unedited beef for the first trilogy with Lucas Arts and its creator with more stupid drama. And somethings that are not canon for exemple, like how Fritzsimmons could be the greatest ever back in the day. So will it happen to Robinson also? Since we can't trust that he was that good in the 40s.

Among other things, that Im pissed that most things pre-Robinson is irrelevant for the current crop. Since we know nothing about most of the real oldtimers, like Langford and Willis since the lack of films. But, then you have the stories around them and the records. Still, agreeing with that is pretty meh thing to go by. With the freedom to make an opinion based ones own knowledge rather what people say. That way Im pointing at Robinson that he might suffer the same fate as those that came before him. "The canon changes among the fans" or something like that. More and more causals are saying that Ali was the greatest ever. And have forgot about Robinson.

[RonnyJ]

Bert Sugar lights up like a kid every time he talks about seeing him during the 40s.

Lol, Bert lit up about anything over 50 years ago. Had a few drinks with him once, nice guy but he's too far in the past.

Did u work in the boxing industry or how did u met bert?

[Paci]

Bert Sugar lights up like a kid every time he talks about seeing him during the 40s.

Lol, Bert lit up about anything over 50 years ago. Had a few drinks with him once, nice guy but he's too far in the past.

Cool.
Not strange he is a boxing historian, of course he well get hung up on some weird stories needs to talk about it.

[Duran1970]

Don't think it's right to dismiss fighters from pre tv eras as not being as great as the fighters of today..
One must take into account the conditions then. Smaller gloves, longer fights, fights in extreme conditions, weight differences, fights that weren't stopped early..the hunger and will to win.....fighters today are set for life after a few fights..
Fighters of yesteryear were far more tougher and harder..they had to fight to survive.. these facts shouldn't be ignored when compared with the polished lazy flashy fighters of today who fight once a year and take shortcuts in training (steroids)..
And "cab drivers" have existed in every era..

[Thomastearns]

I can't say who were the greatest top 20 p4p all time boxers, I have no way of knowing.

I can say who were my favourites, memory permitting. Here is, barring no 1, a very fluid list

1 Muhammad Ali
2 Thomas Hearns
3 Mike Tyson

4 Gennady Golovkin
5 Marvin Hagler
6 Roberto Duran
7 Ray Leonard
8 Frank Bruno
9 Manny Pacquiao
10 Nigel Benn
11 Vitali Klitschko
12 Vasyl Lomachenko
13 Naoya Inoue
14 Joe Calzaghe
15 Teofilo Stevenson
16 Jack Dempsey
17 Rocky Marciano
18 George Foreman
19 Roy Gumbs
20 Ray Robinson

[Onetimeonly]

Lol, Bert lit up about anything over 50 years ago. Had a few drinks with him once, nice guy but he's too far in the past.

Cool.
Not strange he is a boxing historian, of course he well get hung up on some weird stories needs to talk about it.

Fun guy, I'm interested in the old timers so not an issue for me. When it comes to his lists they are too way back for me.

[RonnyJ]

I can't say who were the greatest top 20 p4p all time boxers, I have no way of knowing.

I can say who were my favourites, memory permitting. Here is, barring no 1, a very fluid list

1 Muhammad Ali
2 Thomas Hearns
3 Mike Tyson

4 Gennady Golovkin
5 Marvin Hagler
6 Roberto Duran
7 Ray Leonard
8 Frank Bruno
9 Manny Pacquiao
10 Nigel Benn
11 Vitali Klitschko
12 Vasyl Lomachenko
13 Naoya Inoue
14 Joe Calzaghe
15 Teofilo Stevenson
16 Jack Dempsey
17 Rocky Marciano
18 George Foreman
19 Roy Gumbs
20 Ray Robinson

Shame that cuba didnt let teo & savon become pros.

Maybe the history of boxing would have been completly changed.

[RonnyJ]

Amateur boxing gets way to underrated.

A technicly average boxer like foreman, who took 1 hour to swing out for a hook gets considered top 20 ever and a brilliant technician way more athletic savon gets never mentioned amongs the best boxers ever. Savon made david tua or shannon briggs look like below average boxers. Height reach punchin power technique savon is among the 5 best hw ever.

[Paci]

Cool.
Not strange he is a boxing historian, of course he well get hung up on some weird stories needs to talk about it.

Fun guy, I'm interested in the old timers so not an issue for me. When it comes to his lists they are too way back for me.

Would have milked him on anything he knows about Johnson and Langford, two great fighters and great characters among other things.

[Bandog]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Clay/Ali
4. Gene Tunney
5. Sandy Saddler
6. Benny Leonard
7. Sam Langford
8. Joe Louis
9. Archie Moore
10. Harry Greb
11. Joe Gans
12. Mickey Walker
13. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
14. Willie Pep
15. Harry Wills
16. Jack Johnson
17. Roy Jones Jr.
18. Roberto Duran
19. Sugar Ray Leonard
20. Ezzard Charles

[Enlightened-One]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Clay/Ali
4. Gene Tunney
5. Sandy Saddler
6. Benny Leonard
7. Sam Langford
8. Joe Louis
9. Archie Moore
10. Harry Greb
11. Joe Gans
12. Mickey Walker
13. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
14. Willie Pep
15. Harry Wills
16. Jack Johnson
17. Roy Jones Jr.
18. Roberto Duran
19. Sugar Ray Leonard
20. Ezzard Charles

What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

[RonnyJ]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Clay/Ali
4. Gene Tunney
5. Sandy Saddler
6. Benny Leonard
7. Sam Langford
8. Joe Louis
9. Archie Moore
10. Harry Greb
11. Joe Gans
12. Mickey Walker
13. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
14. Willie Pep
15. Harry Wills
16. Jack Johnson
17. Roy Jones Jr.
18. Roberto Duran
19. Sugar Ray Leonard
20. Ezzard Charles

What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

let it go EO. if he like old school boxers so be it.

what is your list?

[Paci]

Yeah, gives us your list EO!

[Onetimeonly]

Amateur boxing gets way to underrated.

A technicly average boxer like foreman, who took 1 hour to swing out for a hook gets considered top 20 ever and a brilliant technician way more athletic savon gets never mentioned amongs the best boxers ever. Savon made david tua or shannon briggs look like below average boxers. Height reach punchin power technique savon is among the 5 best hw ever.

[Enlightened-One]

What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

let it go EO. if he like old school boxers so be it.

what is your list?

My list would be controversial, because I can only express an honest opinion based on what I know and the fights I’ve seen.

And I have to have extensive knowledge of each boxer, coupled with having seen those fighters compete numerous times, as well as being very familiar with their opposition, in order for them to qualify for my personal list.

So the list would likely be dominated by high-profile fighters from the 1970’s onwards.

There may be widely-perceived great fighters that I’m only vaguely familiar of, such as Carlos Monzon & Salvador Sanchez, where I’ve unfortunately only seen a few of their bouts, so they’ll be excluded.

Similarly, the likes of Sam Langford and Harry Greb would never be considered amongst my top twenty greatest pound-for-pound fighters of all-time list, because I don’t know enough about them, since information about these guys is scarce.

I think it’s dishonest and pretentious for anybody to include any fighter(s) amongst their personal favourite top twenty list when they blatantly lack knowledge about them.

And that’s the reason why people become outraged when I ask very simple questions, that they are unable to answer, about their so-called “favourite” fighters that made their professional debuts more than a century ago!

I’ll think about contributing my top twenty list another day.

[gilgamesh]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Clay/Ali
4. Gene Tunney
5. Sandy Saddler
6. Benny Leonard
7. Sam Langford
8. Joe Louis
9. Archie Moore
10. Harry Greb
11. Joe Gans
12. Mickey Walker
13. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
14. Willie Pep
15. Harry Wills
16. Jack Johnson
17. Roy Jones Jr.
18. Roberto Duran
19. Sugar Ray Leonard
20. Ezzard Charles

What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

A lot of these guys have more fights against high level opposition, more fights period, and did it in less time than it took guys in the modern age to fight half that many times or less.

As Boxing fans we owe it to the sport, and to the legends that helped build it to not let these guys simply be buried by time and dust. If not for nerds like us talking about these guys, and keeping their memory alive, they'll fade away.

Ultimately that is probably the fate of these legends as it is the fate of those of us here who discuss them, but it's still worthwhile to rememeber and discuss them as long as we can.

Perhaps a more satisfying list to you EO would be to ask "What is the Top 20 fighters you have SEEN with your own eyes"

With that question people will only be able to go so far back in history, and you may get answers that would be more satisfying to you.

[jas80s]

I am curious as to why it matters that I have seen a fighter versus having not seen a fighter myself? Who is to say that I have any idea what I am talking about when it comes to rating the comparative strengths and weaknesses of a fighter? Furthermore, what should make me believe that my eyes can discern how fighters from different eras compare? That is a variable that simply cannot be defined since such a fight has never taken place. It strikes me as egotistical to think that it is necessary for me to have seen a fighter in order for that fighter's rating to have any merit.

Just as an example, I would regard Eddie Futch's assessment of a fighter none of us have seen much more highly than my assessment of a fighter I have seen many times. One of us knows the game at a very high level, and the other doesn't; who has seen who is of little importance.

I also think that one can glean a good amount from records and I would certainly trust how a fighter performed against other fighters over their career against my ability to breakdown how good their skills are giving them a personal eye test.
Personally, I would be far more likely to trust what the former tells me over the latter, except in a very few instances.

3rd party data can be pretty compelling, especially when one considers how often it is said and who it is that has said it.

[ewenhay]

What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

A lot of these guys have more fights against high level opposition, more fights period, and did it in less time than it took guys in the modern age to fight half that many times or less.

As Boxing fans we owe it to the sport, and to the legends that helped build it to not let these guys simply be buried by time and dust. If not for nerds like us talking about these guys, and keeping their memory alive, they'll fade away.

Ultimately that is probably the fate of these legends as it is the fate of those of us here who discuss them, but it's still worthwhile to rememeber and discuss them as long as we can.

Perhaps a more satisfying list to you EO would be to ask "What is the Top 20 fighters you have SEEN with your own eyes"

With that question people will only be able to go so far back in history, and you may get answers that would be more satisfying to you.

Great Post

[ewenhay]

I am curious as to why it matters that I have seen a fighter versus having not seen a fighter myself? Who is to say that I have any idea what I am talking about when it comes to rating the comparative strengths and weaknesses of a fighter? Furthermore, what should make me believe that my eyes can discern how fighters from different eras compare? That is a variable that simply cannot be defined since such a fight has never taken place. It strikes me as egotistical to think that it is necessary for me to have seen a fighter in order for that fighter's rating to have any merit.

Just as an example, I would regard Eddie Futch's assessment of a fighter none of us have seen much more highly than my assessment of a fighter I have seen many times. One of us knows the game at a very high level, and the other doesn't; who has seen who is of little importance.

I also think that one can glean a good amount from records and I would certainly trust how a fighter performed against other fighters over their career against my ability to breakdown how good their skills are giving them a personal eye test.
Personally, I would be far more likely to trust what the former tells me over the latter, except in a very few instances.

3rd party data can be pretty compelling, especially when one considers how often it is said and who it is that has said it.

Also a good post.

[TheGingerBomber]

Whilst I get what EO is saying and myself couldn’t throw in guys from the 50’s willy nilly, there’s a lot of good arguments being made for us to include say, Robinson even if we haven’t seen enough of him. Other people’s opinions, like those of boxing historians, are deemed more valuable in the eyes of many.

I’d argue whilst yes I’ve seen some amazing footage of fighters like Robinson, Marciano and Louis, you have to take into context who they were fighting. In a lot of cases, I don’t know enough about these opponents.

This is why I’m taken aback by the middle-ish scene of the late 70’s to mid-90’s, there’s a lot of names with impressive results.

[RonnyJ]

let it go EO. if he like old school boxers so be it.

what is your list?

My list would be controversial, because I can only express an honest opinion based on what I know and the fights I’ve seen.

And I have to have extensive knowledge of each boxer, coupled with having seen those fighters compete numerous times, as well as being very familiar with their opposition, in order for them to qualify for my personal list.

So the list would likely be dominated by high-profile fighters from the 1970’s onwards.

There may be widely-perceived great fighters that I’m only vaguely familiar of, such as Carlos Monzon & Salvador Sanchez, where I’ve unfortunately only seen a few of their bouts, so they’ll be excluded.

Similarly, the likes of Sam Langford and Harry Greb would never be considered amongst my top twenty greatest pound-for-pound fighters of all-time list, because I don’t know enough about them, since information about these guys is scarce.

I think it’s dishonest and pretentious for anybody to include any fighter(s) amongst their personal favourite top twenty list when they blatantly lack knowledge about them.

And that’s the reason why people become outraged when I ask very simple questions, that they are unable to answer, about their so-called “favourite” fighters that made their professional debuts more than a century ago!

I’ll think about contributing my top twenty list another day.

I wrote down my list. Page 2 i think.
It was also not your typical list, but my ho est oppinion.

Now your turn

[RonnyJ]

Amateur boxing gets way to underrated.

A technicly average boxer like foreman, who took 1 hour to swing out for a hook gets considered top 20 ever and a brilliant technician way more athletic savon gets never mentioned amongs the best boxers ever. Savon made david tua or shannon briggs look like below average boxers. Height reach punchin power technique savon is among the 5 best hw ever.

You leave me alone. You did not answer my question. Bad behaviour!

[Onetimeonly]

You leave me alone. You did not answer my question. Bad behaviour!

Answering your questions is a waste of time. Your unintentional humor is excellent.

[oogiebe]

I am curious as to why it matters that I have seen a fighter versus having not seen a fighter myself? Who is to say that I have any idea what I am talking about when it comes to rating the comparative strengths and weaknesses of a fighter? Furthermore, what should make me believe that my eyes can discern how fighters from different eras compare? That is a variable that simply cannot be defined since such a fight has never taken place. It strikes me as egotistical to think that it is necessary for me to have seen a fighter in order for that fighter's rating to have any merit.

Just as an example, I would regard Eddie Futch's assessment of a fighter none of us have seen much more highly than my assessment of a fighter I have seen many times. One of us knows the game at a very high level, and the other doesn't; who has seen who is of little importance.

I also think that one can glean a good amount from records and I would certainly trust how a fighter performed against other fighters over their career against my ability to breakdown how good their skills are giving them a personal eye test.
Personally, I would be far more likely to trust what the former tells me over the latter, except in a very few instances.

3rd party data can be pretty compelling, especially when one considers how often it is said and who it is that has said it.

It doesn't matter. EO is just being his usual obnoxious self-aggrandizing self. Boxing history works just like any other history. Recorded accounts of the events as they took place. We learn from it. We glean information from it. Going by EO, do we actually know that Abe Lincoln was actually a decent president? I've never actually seen him preside. lol!

[Enlightened-One]

I am curious as to why it matters that I have seen a fighter versus having not seen a fighter myself? Who is to say that I have any idea what I am talking about when it comes to rating the comparative strengths and weaknesses of a fighter? Furthermore, what should make me believe that my eyes can discern how fighters from different eras compare? That is a variable that simply cannot be defined since such a fight has never taken place. It strikes me as egotistical to think that it is necessary for me to have seen a fighter in order for that fighter's rating to have any merit.

Just as an example, I would regard Eddie Futch's assessment of a fighter none of us have seen much more highly than my assessment of a fighter I have seen many times. One of us knows the game at a very high level, and the other doesn't; who has seen who is of little importance.

I also think that one can glean a good amount from records and I would certainly trust how a fighter performed against other fighters over their career against my ability to breakdown how good their skills are giving them a personal eye test.
Personally, I would be far more likely to trust what the former tells me over the latter, except in a very few instances.

3rd party data can be pretty compelling, especially when one considers how often it is said and who it is that has said it.

It doesn't matter. EO is just being his usual obnoxious self-aggrandizing self. Boxing history works just like any other history. Recorded accounts of the events as they took place. We learn from it. We glean information from it. Going by EO, do we actually know that Abe Lincoln was actually a decent president? I've never actually seen him preside. lol!

Learn to read oogiebe! FFS! You're better than this, because even you must have standards! Siding with stupidity, simply because they're debating with your nemesis, is beneath you!

It’s rather intriguing to see people dishonestly employing red herring and/or strawman debating tactics rather than address the words I actually wrote!

Without being condescending, but if the sentiments of these guys responses to my posts are wholeheartedly sincere, then perhaps they should go to adult literacy classes.

I essentially claimed that peoples’ opinions about fighters are utterly meaningless if:

• They know very little about their careers
• Know almost nothing their opponents
• Without having watched any of their bouts (or only seen a few snippets of them in action)

At no point did I ever claim that fighters from yesteryear cannot be considered great! If you disagree, then prove you can read and quote my words!

Put if this way, if you knew very little about Benny Leonard, then you’d have to be a moron to rate him above Floyd Mayweather Jr., simply because others said so!

I’m sorry, but since when has it been considered a badge of honour to possess an uneducated opinion?