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

[jas80s]

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!

So, we're not talking about reputation here, but more how an individual match up might go? In other words, you don't have an issue with Langford being thought of as a great fighter, but more how one can determine that Langford would beat Roy Jones without having ever seen Sam Langford actually fight? I guess that's fair, but I have a couple of thoughts:

First, when talking about cross era match ups it's all speculation, what's with all the scientific method? None of us, you, me, anyone who has ever posted on this board, has any idea what would happen if those two fought. And, incidentally, I don't see how being of the opinion that Langford would win based on 3rd party descriptions of his prowess and his record against contemporary fighters who also achieved success is worse than your opinion based on watching a given fighter in the ring. Again, I think you overrate the value of having seen something without considering the variable of how much the person who is doing the observing actually knows or understands about what they have witnessed.

Second and most importantly, you keep talking about these people that put these guys up there but know very little about them, is there someone you can share who is doing this? The guys on this forum who mention these fighters seem pretty well versed. In fact, they seem to know quite a bit more about boxing than you. That's not meant as an attack on you, after all, boxing is just a sport that we enjoy watching, it's not a big deal. But, your description seemed of these people seemed odd to me and it really differed from my experience. I think its important to simply hear someone out and take it for what it's worth. Some people's opinions mean very little to me, while others interest me and lead me to think more about what I think and why.

Finally, you also wrote of definitely picking an older fighter to win a mythical match up based on, etc...I hope it is clear from my post that my opinion is anyone who expresses their pick as definitive is hard to take seriously. I am just talking about whether or not it's permissible to be inclusive of all fighters in rating regardless of how we know what we know about them. I am not simply seeking to defend older fighters here.

[boxing_rocks]

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.

I can agree to a certain extent, but 147-lb Robinson would be very small compared to Spence. A big good fighter beats a smaller good fighter.

[oogiebe]

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.

I can agree to a certain extent, but 147-lb Robinson would be very small compared to Spence. A big good fighter beats a smaller good fighter.

Maybe you should take some time and watch this.

[jas80s]

Exactly, but people seem offended by the notion!

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!

So, we're not talking about reputation here, but more how an individual match up might go? In other words, you don't have an issue with Langford being thought of as a great fighter, but more how one can determine that Langford would beat Roy Jones without having ever seen Sam Langford actually fight? I guess that's fair, but I have a couple of thoughts:

First, when talking about cross era match ups it's all speculation, what's with the litmus test questions? None of us, you, me, anyone who has ever posted on this board, has any idea what would happen if those two fought. And, incidentally, I don't see how being of the opinion that Langford would win based on 3rd party descriptions of his prowess and his record against contemporary fighters who also achieved success is worse than your opinion based on watching a given fighter in the ring. Again, I think you overrate the value of having seen something without considering the variable of how much the person who is doing the observing actually knows or understands about what they have witnessed.

Second and most importantly, you keep talking about these people that put these guys up there but know very little about them, is there someone you can share who is doing this? The guys on this forum who mention these fighters seem pretty well versed. In fact, they seem to know quite a bit more about boxing than you. That's not meant as an attack on you, after all, boxing is just a sport that we enjoy watching, it's not a big deal. But, your description seemed of these people seemed odd to me and it really differed from my experience. I think its important to simply hear someone out and take it for what it's worth. Some people's opinions mean very little to me, while others interest me and lead me to think more about what I think and why.

Finally, you also wrote of definitely picking an older fighter to win a mythical match up based on, etc...I hope it is clear from my post that my opinion is anyone who expresses their pick as definitive is hard to take seriously. I am just talking about whether or not it's permissible to be inclusive of all fighters in rating regardless of how we know what we know about them. I am not simply seeking to defend older fighters here.

[Onetimeonly]

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.

[jas80s]

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.

I can agree to a certain extent, but 147-lb Robinson would be very small compared to Spence. A big good fighter beats a smaller good fighter.

Not sure I follow you here, Ray Robinson was taller and had a longer reach. Robinson seemed to carry 160 comfortably as he routinely weighed in at 160. It seems like Robinson might actually be bigger.

[ewenhay]

I can agree to a certain extent, but 147-lb Robinson would be very small compared to Spence. A big good fighter beats a smaller good fighter.

Not sure I follow you here, Ray Robinson was taller and had a longer reach. Robinson seemed to carry 160 comfortably as he routinely weighed in at 160. It seems like Robinson might actually be bigger.

Yeah wouldn't make any difference to him. He was hardly a small welterweight and the day before weigh ins would help him nowadays in any case.

With light welter and light middle also as an option to him as well as alphabet belts he'd be looking to be a four or even a five weight champion like many of the modern greats are these days

[boxing_rocks]

So, are we talking about 147-lb or 160-lb Robinson. 160-lb one would have to face opponents like Hagler, RJJ, Hopkins, Golovkin. They would maul him.

[jas80s]

Robinson at 147 and Robinson at 160 are such different fighters. Robinson campaigned at 160 for the most part starting in 1955:

He had a three year layoff
He had well over 100 fights under his belt
And, he had began his career in 1940.

With all that, he still accomplished what he accomplished. He's an interesting case because it's so easy to cherry pick among his 19 losses, among even his 174 wins which understandably contain some dubious opponents, but in the end, I don't think we realize just how dominant he was when he was anywhere near his prime. He has an all time great resume as a damn near shot fighter, that's insane.

[margaret thatcher]

SRR wasnt living in a circus freakshow boxing world like some of the really old timers, he would do very very well in every area competing around 147

[boxing_rocks]

Not sure if your question was directed at my post, but what I meant was that Robinson was just under 6 feet and had a reach of just over 72 inches. Clearly, those measurements wouldn't change at 147. I merely added that he weighed 160 pounds or very close for a lot of his MW fights to underscore that he had little difficulty filling out to 160 pounds meaning that he likely had a pretty sturdy frame at 147. All the evidence would suggest that he was relatively big and strong for a welter, I don't even think that's a mildly controversial statement.

Height and reach are not the same as size and strength.

[jas80s]

Not sure if your question was directed at my post, but what I meant was that Robinson was just under 6 feet and had a reach of just over 72 inches. Clearly, those measurements wouldn't change at 147. I merely added that he weighed 160 pounds or very close for a lot of his MW fights to underscore that he had little difficulty filling out to 160 pounds meaning that he likely had a pretty sturdy frame at 147. All the evidence would suggest that he was relatively big and strong for a welter, I don't even think that's a mildly controversial statement.

Height and reach are not the same as size and strength.

Fair enough, but I submit you don't have the first clue how strong Ray Robinson was.

Moreover, your initial quote was Ray Robinson was very small compared to Errol Spence. He's taller, longer, and campaigned for years at a weight class 13 pounds north, but he's "very small" compared to Spence? No wonder you moved the conversation to strength. I'm not sure at all that strength would really matter that much and, as I say, you don't know if Ray Robinson was strong compared to Spence or not in the first place.

But, hey maybe Spence would kick his ass, I doubt it, but I want to be very clear, I don't know.

[boxing_rocks]

Height and reach are not the same as size and strength.

Fair enough, but I submit you don't have the first clue how strong Ray Robinson was.

Moreover, your initial quote was Ray Robinson was very small compared to Errol Spence. He's taller, longer, and campaigned for years at a weight class 13 pounds north, but he's "very small" compared to Spence? No wonder you moved the conversation to strength. I'm not sure at all that strength would really matter that much and, as I say, you don't know if Ray Robinson was strong compared to Spence or not in the first place.

But, hey maybe Spence would kick his ass, I doubt it, but I want to be very clear, I don't know.

If Spence fully recovers from his accident, we will likely see him campaigning at 154 and possibly even 160. Weight cutting technology now is at a VERY different level from the 50s. I am sure that Spence's muscle mass at 147 is higher than Robinson's was at 160.

[oogiebe]

Fair enough, but I submit you don't have the first clue how strong Ray Robinson was.

Moreover, your initial quote was Ray Robinson was very small compared to Errol Spence. He's taller, longer, and campaigned for years at a weight class 13 pounds north, but he's "very small" compared to Spence? No wonder you moved the conversation to strength. I'm not sure at all that strength would really matter that much and, as I say, you don't know if Ray Robinson was strong compared to Spence or not in the first place.

But, hey maybe Spence would kick his ass, I doubt it, but I want to be very clear, I don't know.

If Spence fully recovers from his accident, we will likely see him campaigning at 154 and possibly even 160. Weight cutting technology now is at a VERY different level from the 50s. I am sure that Spence's muscle mass at 147 is higher than Robinson's was at 160.

[jas80s]

Fair enough, but I submit you don't have the first clue how strong Ray Robinson was.

Moreover, your initial quote was Ray Robinson was very small compared to Errol Spence. He's taller, longer, and campaigned for years at a weight class 13 pounds north, but he's "very small" compared to Spence? No wonder you moved the conversation to strength. I'm not sure at all that strength would really matter that much and, as I say, you don't know if Ray Robinson was strong compared to Spence or not in the first place.

But, hey maybe Spence would kick his ass, I doubt it, but I want to be very clear, I don't know.

If Spence fully recovers from his accident, we will likely see him campaigning at 154 and possibly even 160. Weight cutting technology now is at a VERY different level from the 50s. I am sure that Spence's muscle mass at 147 is higher than Robinson's was at 160.

I appreciate your thinking, I don't agree, but I get why you are saying what you are saying at least.

[RonnyJ]

SRR wasnt living in a circus freakshow boxing world like some of the really old timers, he would do very very well in every area competing around 147

exactly
154
147
he would be a problem for anybody era for era

[RonnyJ]

So, are we talking about 147-lb or 160-lb Robinson. 160-lb one would have to face opponents like Hagler, RJJ, Hopkins, Golovkin. They would maul him.

1949, @154 ssr was at his peak prime. 147 and 154, any atg would have a difficult time with srr. 160 are big strong, hopkins wouldnt do shit, defensive tentative boxer. the others you mentioned would probably wreck robinson.

what we should not forget is, the style you fight somebody, dont brawl with a strong puncher, dont waste your energy the first 4 rds against a boxer with phenomenal stamina. all i am saying is, if robinson moves hit dont get hit tactic than maybe he wins against the slower hagler & GGG, of course if he decides to exchange and stand infront of them they would KO him.

[Enlightened-One]

So, we're not talking about reputation here, but more how an individual match up might go? In other words, you don't have an issue with Langford being thought of as a great fighter, but more how one can determine that Langford would beat Roy Jones without having ever seen Sam Langford actually fight? I guess that's fair...

You’ve nailed it! You’re perfectly described my thoughts on the matter.

First, when talking about cross era match ups it's all speculation, what's with all the scientific method? None of us, you, me, anyone who has ever posted on this board, has any idea what would happen if those two fought.

Yes, I agree with you.

I don't see how being of the opinion that Langford would win based on 3rd party descriptions of his prowess and his record against contemporary fighters who also achieved success is worse than your opinion based on watching a given fighter in the ring.

I disagree with you on this.

The question being posed by this thread, which is typical in nature, is:

• "What is YOUR p4p top 20 ever in order, take time"

People like to fit in and blindly adhere to popular opinions of the mainstream masses, often without performing any research of their own in order to validate the accuracy of the theories they've automatically bought into.

If they keep hearing from others (usually anonymous forum posters) that Sam Langford was an all-time-great, then they automatically believe this to be the case, without question.

When I’ve questioned those who insist on mentioning all-time-great fighters (that competed roughly a century ago) being far superior to their modern day counterparts, they usually can’t cite any boxing historians (the source of their knowledge) nor answer rather simple questions.

Also, considering this thread contains the names of many fighters that made their pro debuts more than a century ago, most (if not all) of the boxing historians who wrote about these guys never saw those all-time-greats fight either.

So that explains the reason why I disagree with you.

The guys on this forum who mention these fighters seem pretty well versed. In fact, they seem to know quite a bit more about boxing than you.

I’m not entirely sure how you’ve come to this conclusion.

Put it this way, people might boast about possessing “expert” knowledge, but mentioning names from yesteryear doesn’t automatically justify the possession of such superior wisdom.

Anyway, it would be rude and perhaps unfair of me to name names, but put it this way, I’ve repeatedly posed the following five simple questions to fellow forum posters in several threads and every single person failed to answer any of them:

• How many [insert fighter’s name] fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch [insert fighter’s name]?
• What are some of your favourite [insert fighter’s name] fights?
• What is [insert fighter’s name]’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did [insert fighter’s name] face that impressed you the most?

Read the threads and you’ll surely realise the people I’m referring to. They mentioned names to be pretentious, rather than possessing any meaningful knowledge about the subject matter they profess to be an “expert” on.

I like to acquire knowledge, so I’d actually prefer to receive reasonable feedback to these questions, but instead people take offence, simply because they openly admit to being unable to answer them.

This is because they feel it’s sufficient for to base their own opinions purely on the "others think they're great, so they must be! " principle.

I am just talking about whether or not it's permissible to be inclusive of all fighters in rating regardless of how we know what we know about them.

I have previously conveyed my opinion on the matter in much more detail.

Anyway, everyone’s got an opinion, which they’re entitled to, but whatever theories they believe would be completely meaningless if they know absolutely nothing about the fighters’ they’re endorsing.

Adhering blindly, in a Lemming-like manner, to the popular opinions of the mainstream masses, doesn’t make someone an “expert” and nor does it validate the accuracy of their claims either.

[jas80s]

So, we're not talking about reputation here, but more how an individual match up might go? In other words, you don't have an issue with Langford being thought of as a great fighter, but more how one can determine that Langford would beat Roy Jones without having ever seen Sam Langford actually fight? I guess that's fair...

You’ve nailed it! You’re perfectly described my thoughts on the matter.

First, when talking about cross era match ups it's all speculation, what's with all the scientific method? None of us, you, me, anyone who has ever posted on this board, has any idea what would happen if those two fought.

Yes, I agree with you.

I don't see how being of the opinion that Langford would win based on 3rd party descriptions of his prowess and his record against contemporary fighters who also achieved success is worse than your opinion based on watching a given fighter in the ring.

I disagree with you on this.

The question being posed by this thread, which is typical in nature, is:

• "What is YOUR p4p top 20 ever in order, take time"

People like to fit in and blindly adhere to popular opinions of the mainstream masses, often without performing any research of their own in order to validate the accuracy of the theories they've automatically bought into.

If they keep hearing from others (usually anonymous forum posters) that Sam Langford was an all-time-great, then they automatically believe this to be the case, without question.

When I’ve questioned those who insist on mentioning all-time-great fighters (that competed roughly a century ago) being far superior to their modern day counterparts, they usually can’t cite any boxing historians (the source of their knowledge) nor answer rather simple questions.

Also, considering this thread contains the names of many fighters that made their pro debuts more than a century ago, most (if not all) of the boxing historians who wrote about these guys never saw those all-time-greats fight either.

So that explains the reason why I disagree with you.

The guys on this forum who mention these fighters seem pretty well versed. In fact, they seem to know quite a bit more about boxing than you.

I’m not entirely sure how you’ve come to this conclusion.

Put it this way, people might boast about possessing “expert” knowledge, but mentioning names from yesteryear doesn’t automatically justify the possession of such superior wisdom.

Anyway, it would be rude and perhaps unfair of me to name names, but put it this way, I’ve repeatedly posed the following five simple questions to fellow forum posters in several threads and every single person failed to answer any of them:

• How many [insert fighter’s name] fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch [insert fighter’s name]?
• What are some of your favourite [insert fighter’s name] fights?
• What is [insert fighter’s name]’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did [insert fighter’s name] face that impressed you the most?

Read the threads and you’ll surely realise the people I’m referring to. They mentioned names to be pretentious, rather than possessing any meaningful knowledge about the subject matter they profess to be an “expert” on.

I like to acquire knowledge, so I’d actually prefer to receive reasonable feedback to these questions, but instead people take offence, simply because they openly admit to being unable to answer them.

This is because they feel it’s sufficient for to base their own opinions purely on the "others think they're great, so they must be! " principle.

I am just talking about whether or not it's permissible to be inclusive of all fighters in rating regardless of how we know what we know about them.

I have previously conveyed my opinion on the matter in much more detail.

Anyway, everyone’s got an opinion, which they’re entitled to, but whatever theories they believe would be completely meaningless if they know absolutely nothing about the fighters’ they’re endorsing.

Adhering blindly, in a Lemming-like manner, to the popular opinions of the mainstream masses, doesn’t make someone an “expert” and nor does it validate the accuracy of their claims either.

Well, I think we've both made our views known, so I am going to give you the last word rather than continue to go over the same ground. Some agreement, some disagreement....

[Bandog]

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

As far as I remember reading, Greb beat Tunney once, and Tunney beat him like 4 times. Greb was smaller, and fought a good part of his career being blind in one eye.

[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

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)

I used to research boxers all the time, and have watched tons of videos, what I could find about the old guys you mentioned. I based some of the ranking on what people said, old timers I have talked to that actually watched them, or if they fought each other. (Tunney vs Greb or Armstrong vs Robinson for example) I didn't start watching boxing until the late 60's, so I have a pretty good handle on what went on from then on, compared to some here.

We were asked to post our opinion on top 20 ever. No one's list will be right until you post one. Sorry if my choices confuse you due to your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

[Duran1970]

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

As far as I remember reading, Greb beat Tunney once, and Tunney beat him like 4 times. Greb was smaller, and fought a good part of his career being blind in one eye.

Greb got the better of Tunney on a few occasions but only got 1 verdict go his way

[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)

I used to research boxers all the time, and have watched tons of videos, what I could find about the old guys you mentioned. I based some of the ranking on what people said, old timers I have talked to that actually watched them, or if they fought each other. (Tunney vs Greb or Armstrong vs Robinson for example) I didn't start watching boxing until the late 60's, so I have a pretty good handle on what went on from then on, compared to some here.

Here are some questions that should be very easy to answer to anyone that believes that Harry Greb is an all-time-great:

• How many Harry Greb fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Harry Greb?
• What are some of your favourite Harry Greb fights?
• What is Harry Greb’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Harry Greb face that impressed you the most?

If you’ve actually done the research and can quickly answer these questions, I’ll be delighted and praise you for your superior knowledge, but if you can’t or refuse to even try, then I will assume you’re being pretentious.

[oogiebe]

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)

I used to research boxers all the time, and have watched tons of videos, what I could find about the old guys you mentioned. I based some of the ranking on what people said, old timers I have talked to that actually watched them, or if they fought each other. (Tunney vs Greb or Armstrong vs Robinson for example) I didn't start watching boxing until the late 60's, so I have a pretty good handle on what went on from then on, compared to some here.

We were asked to post our opinion on top 20 ever. No one's list will be right until you post one. Sorry if my choices confuse you due to your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

My late dad and late uncle were huge fight fans. My uncle did a lot of promoting and was behind the computer fight between Ali and Marciano. I used to spend hours listening to them talk about the old timers. Much of history is handed down from generation to generation. Can't discount that.

[Paci]

I do think that the new p4p from boxrec has changed things.

Pretty cool that Ezzard Charles is the nr.1 of alltime based on records or something. Don't know how. Just find it funny and awesome for Charles.