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

[oogiebe]

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!

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 are meaningless 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!

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?

LMFAO!

[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)

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.

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

At no point did I ever claim that fighters from yesteryear cannot be considered great!

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)

This is something I believe, regardless of the era a fighter competed in. The same rule applies to today’s fighters.

[jas80s]

If we were forced to submit a list, I wonder how much agreement we would end up having...It might be a high amount really.

[jas80s]

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.

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

At no point did I ever claim that fighters from yesteryear cannot be considered great!

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)

This is something I believe, regardless of the era a fighter competed in. The same rule applies to today’s fighters.

To be fair, it sounds like you are saying if the person knows nothing about a fighter then you don't rate their opinion as worth much...not exactly earth shattering, but I certainly agree.

So, I guess my more precise question is, at what point do they know something about a fighter? I saw your questions, but they are a bit vague. How much do they have to know? It is possible to know about a fighter based on what is written about them even if you haven't seen them?

[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.

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!

I'm not here to attack anybody, but upon my first read it seemed like he was saying it doesn't matter what you think if you haven't seen the guy actually fight, it's meaningless. But, I'm not sure that's what he is actually saying. Frankly, it seemed like a decidedly un-nuanced view on the accrual of knowledge in general.

[Onetimeonly]

He hasn't seen many guys of the last few decades fight. Love to see jips top 5 savon fights and why 3 gold medals is greater than 1 gold and 2 world professional championship. Put this in history and weed out the clowns.

[jas80s]

I was going to get into a whole thing about how amateur success is no guarantee either with Jorge Luis Gonzalez and Audley Harrison, etc...But, I figure with Jip, there will be no end to the takes that can be elaborated more fully, so I figured I'd pass and wait for another spot...

[Enlightened-One]

To be fair, it sounds like you are saying if the person knows nothing about a fighter then you don't rate their opinion as worth much...not exactly earth shattering, but I certainly agree.

Exactly, but people seem offended by the notion!

So, I guess my more precise question is, at what point do they know something about a fighter? I saw your questions, but they are a bit vague. How much do they have to know? It is possible to know about a fighter based on what is written about them even if you haven't seen them?

For several individuals, if they’ve followed the sport for a moderately long time, would have heard the opinions of others and would automatically deem Sam Langford (and other old-timers) as being great, based on sheer reputation alone, despite them knowing very little about this fighter.

For me, that type of knowledge on its own is inadequate when attempting to evaluate whether Sam Langford is capable of beating fighter A. We need to know much more in order to consider such a scenario.

In order for a person to become capable for formulating such an opinion, they need to acquire a thorough understanding of a fighters’ overall fighting prowess, by:

• Having seen them compete numerous times
• Becoming aware of their accomplishments in the context of the era they fought (i.e. know their careers inside-out, as well as their historical contribution to the sport)
• Acquiring a comprehensive knowledge of all their highest-profile opposition (and we’re taking about several of them, rather than one)

I think of it as a jigsaw, where we need all the pieces to understand what the big picture looks like, with the biggest piece being the proverbial eyeball test.

For sure, it is possible to come to the conclusion that an old timer deserved greatness (based on reading about their exploits), but it would be impossible for anyone to judge whether they would definitely beat another fighter from another era if we’d never seen them compete (or only watched a few snippets of them in action).

Rating fighters based on reputation alone (i.e. having the "others think they're great, so they must be!" mind-set) doesn't suffice - it's stupid to use that criterion on its own without possessing any other real knowledge!

[margaret thatcher]

Funny enough I started a thread in the Brit section recently on how to rate fighters you have never seen, very relevant here, Please excuse the bizarre posts by certain individuals at the beginning

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=238225


Sometimes I do think there is too much of a defaulting of greatness to certain fighters and not enough evaluation and questions about their careers. Some figures are so lionized that any questions immediately make some people way too sensitive and feel like their cherished fighter is being attacked. Jack Johnson is a big one like this for me, he is way high up in so many atg hw lists and even in some of these top 20 p4p lists (somewhat ironic considering he so often fought much smaller guys), but I when I have looked into it I think he's hugely overrated. People confuse an interesting person/story/funny times with his rating as a fighter.

On the other hand, a lot of the time these guys get this status precisely because they were terrific, etc, and it is obvious that knowledge accumulation is possible without actually vieweing something. but I think it's always good to have a look or investigation when you can. The irony is that I trust word of mouth lesser the further time goes back, but then you have to rely on word even more because the footage is so limited

[RonnyJ]

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.

waste of time, it was not polite!

i asked about bert, no answer.

[RonnyJ]

Funny enough I started a thread in the Brit section recently on how to rate fighters you have never seen, very relevant here, Please excuse the bizarre posts by certain individuals at the beginning

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=238225


Sometimes I do think there is too much of a defaulting of greatness to certain fighters and not enough evaluation and questions about their careers. Some figures are so lionized that any questions immediately make some people way too sensitive and feel like their cherished fighter is being attacked. Jack Johnson is a big one like this for me, he is way high up in so many atg hw lists and even in some of these top 20 p4p lists (somewhat ironic considering he so often fought much smaller guys), but I when I have looked into it I think he's hugely overrated. People confuse an interesting person/story/funny times with his rating as a fighter.

On the other hand, a lot of the time these guys get this status precisely because they were terrific, etc, and it is obvious that knowledge accumulation is possible without actually vieweing something. but I think it's always good to have a look or investigation when you can. The irony is that I trust word of mouth lesser the further time goes back, but then you have to rely on word even more because the footage is so limited

few people make sense on this planet. people in the boxing world are exception.

like i wrote before, one historian had fitzsimmons #1 ever, a lot have ali #1 ever, some of todays fans think fmj is #1 ever, than there are those who think greb or langford are the #1 ever, both have little or 0 fight footage and than those who make sense are those who say robinson is #1 ever.

the funny part is, all these people have mostly the same rules how to evaluate the best boxer ever.
most important he has to have a great record and fought & beat atg caliber opponents and he had to not only beat smaller opponents but bigger opponents. than he had to move up in weight and be dominant. also he should not have a lot of losses or controversial bouts. also your era had to be strong!

what top 50 atg did harry greb beat?
what top 50 atg did sam langford beat?
jack johnson was dominant in a weak era, beating smaller opponents!
fitzsimmons had like 6 losses in his first 15 ights
fmj did everything he could to avoid prime elite opponents, got many gifts, with the obvious castillo fight!

historians and boxing people make rules on how to determin the best ever, but than dont apply those rules. they make no sense.

[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

Shame that cuba didnt let teo & savon become pros.

Maybe the history of boxing would have been completly changed.

Yes, Savon was technically possibly better than Stevenson, but Teofilo had that special magic which is why he, and not Felix is on my list.

No doubt that the earlier emergence of Eastern Bloc fighters would have changed things dramatically. Absolutely.

The natural home of pro boxing can be found wherever there are hardships to be overcome. It's a sport mainly for prizefighters - the artists are few and far between.

[Duran1970]

Funny enough I started a thread in the Brit section recently on how to rate fighters you have never seen, very relevant here, Please excuse the bizarre posts by certain individuals at the beginning

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=238225


Sometimes I do think there is too much of a defaulting of greatness to certain fighters and not enough evaluation and questions about their careers. Some figures are so lionized that any questions immediately make some people way too sensitive and feel like their cherished fighter is being attacked. Jack Johnson is a big one like this for me, he is way high up in so many atg hw lists and even in some of these top 20 p4p lists (somewhat ironic considering he so often fought much smaller guys), but I when I have looked into it I think he's hugely overrated. People confuse an interesting person/story/funny times with his rating as a fighter.

On the other hand, a lot of the time these guys get this status precisely because they were terrific, etc, and it is obvious that knowledge accumulation is possible without actually vieweing something. but I think it's always good to have a look or investigation when you can. The irony is that I trust word of mouth lesser the further time goes back, but then you have to rely on word even more because the footage is so limited

few people make sense on this planet. people in the boxing world are exception.

like i wrote before, one historian had fitzsimmons #1 ever, a lot have ali #1 ever, some of todays fans think fmj is #1 ever, than there are those who think greb or langford are the #1 ever, both have little or 0 fight footage and than those who make sense are those who say robinson is #1 ever.

the funny part is, all these people have mostly the same rules how to evaluate the best boxer ever.
most important he has to have a great record and fought & beat atg caliber opponents and he had to not only beat smaller opponents but bigger opponents. than he had to move up in weight and be dominant. also he should not have a lot of losses or controversial bouts. also your era had to be strong!

what top 50 atg did harry greb beat?
what top 50 atg did sam langford beat?
jack johnson was dominant in a weak era, beating smaller opponents!
fitzsimmons had like 6 losses in his first 15 ights
fmj did everything he could to avoid prime elite opponents, got many gifts, with the obvious castillo fight!

historians and boxing people make rules on how to determin the best ever, but than dont apply those rules. they make no sense.

Greb? How bout Gene Tunney. Mickey Walker. Tommy Loughran..
Langford? How bout Joe Gans. Barbados Joe Walcott,. Stanley Ketchel

[RonnyJ]

few people make sense on this planet. people in the boxing world are exception.

like i wrote before, one historian had fitzsimmons #1 ever, a lot have ali #1 ever, some of todays fans think fmj is #1 ever, than there are those who think greb or langford are the #1 ever, both have little or 0 fight footage and than those who make sense are those who say robinson is #1 ever.

the funny part is, all these people have mostly the same rules how to evaluate the best boxer ever.
most important he has to have a great record and fought & beat atg caliber opponents and he had to not only beat smaller opponents but bigger opponents. than he had to move up in weight and be dominant. also he should not have a lot of losses or controversial bouts. also your era had to be strong!

what top 50 atg did harry greb beat?
what top 50 atg did sam langford beat?
jack johnson was dominant in a weak era, beating smaller opponents!
fitzsimmons had like 6 losses in his first 15 ights
fmj did everything he could to avoid prime elite opponents, got many gifts, with the obvious castillo fight!

historians and boxing people make rules on how to determin the best ever, but than dont apply those rules. they make no sense.

Greb? How bout Gene Tunney. Mickey Walker. Tommy Loughran..
Langford? How bout Joe Gans. Barbados Joe Walcott,. Stanley Ketchel

Good point

[boxing_rocks]

few people make sense on this planet. people in the boxing world are exception.

like i wrote before, one historian had fitzsimmons #1 ever, a lot have ali #1 ever, some of todays fans think fmj is #1 ever, than there are those who think greb or langford are the #1 ever, both have little or 0 fight footage and than those who make sense are those who say robinson is #1 ever.

the funny part is, all these people have mostly the same rules how to evaluate the best boxer ever.
most important he has to have a great record and fought & beat atg caliber opponents and he had to not only beat smaller opponents but bigger opponents. than he had to move up in weight and be dominant. also he should not have a lot of losses or controversial bouts. also your era had to be strong!

what top 50 atg did harry greb beat?
what top 50 atg did sam langford beat?
jack johnson was dominant in a weak era, beating smaller opponents!
fitzsimmons had like 6 losses in his first 15 ights
fmj did everything he could to avoid prime elite opponents, got many gifts, with the obvious castillo fight!

historians and boxing people make rules on how to determin the best ever, but than dont apply those rules. they make no sense.

Greb? How bout Gene Tunney. Mickey Walker. Tommy Loughran..
Langford? How bout Joe Gans. Barbados Joe Walcott,. Stanley Ketchel

And who put those guys in top 50 ATG? The same people who put Greb and Langford on top of it.

[boxing_rocks]

First of all, you need to define if this is relative to time or absolute. Greb wouldn't win a round against Calzaghe and would be smashed by Beterbiev.

I wounder how a top 20 ever from you looks like.

At least a top 10

I will not pretend that I know how fighters from 70s and 80s would looks against modern fighters, so I am not creating any "all time" lists. I know for certain though that fighters from 100 years would be totally destroyed by modern ones.

[Duran1970]

Greb wouldn't land a glove on Calzaghe?
Then how did he kick the piss out of Tunney a few times?

[Duran1970]

I wounder how a top 20 ever from you looks like.

At least a top 10

I will not pretend that I know how fighters from 70s and 80s would looks against modern fighters, so I am not creating any "all time" lists. I know for certain though that fighters from 100 years would be totally destroyed by modern ones.

So Errol Spence would destroy ray Robinson

[boxing_rocks]

I will not pretend that I know how fighters from 70s and 80s would looks against modern fighters, so I am not creating any "all time" lists. I know for certain though that fighters from 100 years would be totally destroyed by modern ones.

So Errol Spence would destroy ray Robinson

Yes, he would.

[boxing_rocks]

Greb wouldn't land a glove on Calzaghe?
Then how did he kick the piss out of Tunney a few times?

????? You need to take classes to improve your logical thinking. If a great street fighter dominated a few other great street fighters, it doesn't mean he can beat a top professional boxer.

[oogiebe]

So Errol Spence would destroy ray Robinson

Yes, he would.

Not a chance.

[boxing_rocks]

Yes, he would.

Not a chance.

Correct, Sugar Ray will not have a chance.

[candyslim]

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.

Yes indeed both excellent posts. I understand EO's point of view but it would be criminal to ignore the achievements of these old time fighters simply because cinema was in its infancy. When we learn history we have until recently learned from written accounts frequently written by someone who did not witness the event either.

So you recognize that the account shouldn't be regarded as the word of God, but you incorporate what it says into your body of knowledge about the event. The same goes for the old time fighters but when it comes to rating them in order of ability, greatness, or whatever in comparison to modern fighters then I'd rather not go there, or at least take the list someone has compiled with a pinch of salt and a smile.

[oogiebe]

Not a chance.

Correct, Sugar Ray will not have a chance.

LOL! You need to watch more film.

[margaret thatcher]

The boxing at Sugar Ray's time wasn' t very different from modern boxing in terms of technique, strategy, freak show matchups etc. It's the early 1900s where you get stuff that is just a very different kettle of fish.