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

[Onetimeonly]

I wouldn't call them salads. More like junk yards.

How about 'debris fields.'

Lay off the booze!

[mjaco]

I don't usually post on threads like this but since it's along similar lines to something I've been writing for my website recently (and sitting home in lockdown has got me bored), I thought I'd chime in.

A couple of points I'd like to mention that I think people should consider:

First of all, when talking about who is the all time greatest in any sport, you really can't compare on the basis of who would beat who if you plucked people out of time and just matched them up. Modern athletes will almost always have the advantage in those circumstances since their training methods and diet, not to mention the use of performance enhancing drugs, are usually superior to athletes of the past. Plus they have the advantage of having been able to study and imitate the athletes who proceeded them. If you want to call present day boxers the greatest because of that, the whole idea of pronouncing someone the greatest loses all meaning because you can simply argue the next generation will be greater than this generation anyway. So really, the only reasonable way to try and compare athletes from different generations is to first try and determine who was the best within a given era while also attempting to determine which eras had the strongest relative competition. Then maybe you have some reasonable basis for comparison

The second point I'd like to make regards the different eras of boxing themselves. To begin with, in any debate like this, I generally think you have to exclude from consideration fighters, like Bob Fitzsimmons, who fought a major portion of their career prior to the 20th century. The era was just too different from later boxing periods to offer a fair comparison. Add that to the fact there is no movie footage available on almost any of those fighters, save for a couple of the heavyweights, and I'd say the most logical thing is to simply exclude them from the discussion.

Also, boxing itself has continued to evolve through the different eras. Though some historians might laud the superiority of certain early 20th century boxers that has to be taken with a big grain of salt given how small the talent pool was back then. Prior to the latter part of WWI, boxing was almost entirely confined to the English-speaking world. That means almost all boxers came from the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada and Australia. Imagine what modern boxing, particularly in the lighter weight classes, would look like if there were no Latin American or Asian boxers competing and you get an idea of how limited the competition was in that era.

You also have to consider how the color line effected the sport, particularly in the 1910s and 1920s. Though fighters like Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney are considered all time greats, they virtually never faced any top black fighters. While I wouldn't dispute them being great boxers, their accomplishments, and therefore their reputations, were certainly inflated because of this.

Judging from the available film footage, the sport itself also continued to stylistically evolve throughout most of the first half of the 20th century. But boxing is also a fairly limited sport - all you can really do, in terms of offense, is punch above the waist with your fists - so there has only been so much technical refinement that can occur. Personally, I'd say that by the end of WWII, with the emergence of boxers like Willie Pep and Sugar Ray Robinson, the sport had come close to reaching a technical terminus and any improvements since then, in terms of technique, have probably been pretty incremental.

That, plus the fact boxing was still one of the most popular sports of the time, would cause me to rate that period from the middle of WWII up until the mid or late 1950s as the strongest era in boxing history - the fighters had gotten about as technically advanced as they were going to get and there were still a lot of them competing. The depression era from the late 1920s to the early part of WWII, when droves of hungry young men entered the sport, was also probably a very strong period, as was the renaissance period in the late 1970s and 1980s when a lot of the era's top boxers had probably gotten interested in the sport due to the overwhelming popularity of Muhammad Ali. I'd say those are the strongest historical eras the sport's seen and the best fighters of those eras should probably be given slightly more credit than fighters from other eras, though of course that's not the only criteria I'd base a judgement on.

[Onetimeonly]

I don't agree modern boxers are better trained. If they are why can't they keep a pace? The most important reason you can't rate guys on who you think would win is because we're all wrong all the time. Now we're going to kill it with the best of the best?

[candyslim]

I don't usually post on threads like this but since it's along similar lines to something I've been writing for my website recently (and sitting home in lockdown has got me bored), I thought I'd chime in.

A couple of points I'd like to mention that I think people should consider:

First of all, when talking about who is the all time greatest in any sport, you really can't compare on the basis of who would beat who if you plucked people out of time and just matched them up. Modern athletes will almost always have the advantage in those circumstances since their training methods and diet, not to mention the use of performance enhancing drugs, are usually superior to athletes of the past. Plus they have the advantage of having been able to study and imitate the athletes who proceeded them. If you want to call present day boxers the greatest because of that, the whole idea of pronouncing someone the greatest loses all meaning because you can simply argue the next generation will be greater than this generation anyway. So really, the only reasonable way to try and compare athletes from different generations is to first try and determine who was the best within a given era while also attempting to determine which eras had the strongest relative competition. Then maybe you have some reasonable basis for comparison

The second point I'd like to make regards the different eras of boxing themselves. To begin with, in any debate like this, I generally think you have to exclude from consideration fighters, like Bob Fitzsimmons, who fought a major portion of their career prior to the 20th century. The era was just too different from later boxing periods to offer a fair comparison. Add that to the fact there is no movie footage available on almost any of those fighters, save for a couple of the heavyweights, and I'd say the most logical thing is to simply exclude them from the discussion.

Also, boxing itself has continued to evolve through the different eras. Though some historians might laud the superiority of certain early 20th century boxers that has to be taken with a big grain of salt given how small the talent pool was back then. Prior to the latter part of WWI, boxing was almost entirely confined to the English-speaking world. That means almost all boxers came from the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada and Australia. Imagine what modern boxing, particularly in the lighter weight classes, would look like if there were no Latin American or Asian boxers competing and you get an idea of how limited the competition was in that era.

You also have to consider how the color line effected the sport, particularly in the 1910s and 1920s. Though fighters like Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney are considered all time greats, they virtually never faced any top black fighters. While I wouldn't dispute them being great boxers, their accomplishments, and therefore their reputations, were certainly inflated because of this.

Judging from the available film footage, the sport itself also continued to stylistically evolve throughout most of the first half of the 20th century. But boxing is also a fairly limited sport - all you can really do, in terms of offense, is punch above the waist with your fists - so there has only been so much technical refinement that can occur. Personally, I'd say that by the end of WWII, with the emergence of boxers like Willie Pep and Sugar Ray Robinson, the sport had come close to reaching a technical terminus and any improvements since then, in terms of technique, have probably been pretty incremental.

That, plus the fact boxing was still one of the most popular sports of the time, would cause me to rate that period from the middle of WWII up until the mid or late 1950s as the strongest era in boxing history - the fighters had gotten about as technically advanced as they were going to get and there were still a lot of them competing. The depression era from the late 1920s to the early part of WWII, when droves of hungry young men entered the sport, was also probably a very strong period, as was the renaissance period in the late 1970s and 1980s when a lot of the era's top boxers had probably gotten interested in the sport due to the overwhelming popularity of Muhammad Ali. I'd say those are the strongest historical eras the sport's seen and the best fighters of those eras should probably be given slightly more credit than fighters from other eras, though of course that's not the only criteria I'd base a judgement on.

That's a damn fine post in my opinion. A lot of good points and well made. That doesn't mean I agree with everything you've said because some things you've said are speculative, but for the same reason there's nothing there I could say is wrong

[RonnyJ]

I don't usually post on threads like this but since it's along similar lines to something I've been writing for my website recently (and sitting home in lockdown has got me bored), I thought I'd chime in.

A couple of points I'd like to mention that I think people should consider:

First of all, when talking about who is the all time greatest in any sport, you really can't compare on the basis of who would beat who if you plucked people out of time and just matched them up. Modern athletes will almost always have the advantage in those circumstances since their training methods and diet, not to mention the use of performance enhancing drugs, are usually superior to athletes of the past. Plus they have the advantage of having been able to study and imitate the athletes who proceeded them. If you want to call present day boxers the greatest because of that, the whole idea of pronouncing someone the greatest loses all meaning because you can simply argue the next generation will be greater than this generation anyway. So really, the only reasonable way to try and compare athletes from different generations is to first try and determine who was the best within a given era while also attempting to determine which eras had the strongest relative competition. Then maybe you have some reasonable basis for comparison

The second point I'd like to make regards the different eras of boxing themselves. To begin with, in any debate like this, I generally think you have to exclude from consideration fighters, like Bob Fitzsimmons, who fought a major portion of their career prior to the 20th century. The era was just too different from later boxing periods to offer a fair comparison. Add that to the fact there is no movie footage available on almost any of those fighters, save for a couple of the heavyweights, and I'd say the most logical thing is to simply exclude them from the discussion.

Also, boxing itself has continued to evolve through the different eras. Though some historians might laud the superiority of certain early 20th century boxers that has to be taken with a big grain of salt given how small the talent pool was back then. Prior to the latter part of WWI, boxing was almost entirely confined to the English-speaking world. That means almost all boxers came from the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada and Australia. Imagine what modern boxing, particularly in the lighter weight classes, would look like if there were no Latin American or Asian boxers competing and you get an idea of how limited the competition was in that era.

You also have to consider how the color line effected the sport, particularly in the 1910s and 1920s. Though fighters like Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney are considered all time greats, they virtually never faced any top black fighters. While I wouldn't dispute them being great boxers, their accomplishments, and therefore their reputations, were certainly inflated because of this.

Judging from the available film footage, the sport itself also continued to stylistically evolve throughout most of the first half of the 20th century. But boxing is also a fairly limited sport - all you can really do, in terms of offense, is punch above the waist with your fists - so there has only been so much technical refinement that can occur. Personally, I'd say that by the end of WWII, with the emergence of boxers like Willie Pep and Sugar Ray Robinson, the sport had come close to reaching a technical terminus and any improvements since then, in terms of technique, have probably been pretty incremental.

That, plus the fact boxing was still one of the most popular sports of the time, would cause me to rate that period from the middle of WWII up until the mid or late 1950s as the strongest era in boxing history - the fighters had gotten about as technically advanced as they were going to get and there were still a lot of them competing. The depression era from the late 1920s to the early part of WWII, when droves of hungry young men entered the sport, was also probably a very strong period, as was the renaissance period in the late 1970s and 1980s when a lot of the era's top boxers had probably gotten interested in the sport due to the overwhelming popularity of Muhammad Ali. I'd say those are the strongest historical eras the sport's seen and the best fighters of those eras should probably be given slightly more credit than fighters from other eras, though of course that's not the only criteria I'd base a judgement on.

Rankings are about 1) who won against who in a real fight and 2) who would you favour in a fight.

1) trinidad beat convincingly reid, therefore he must be ranked over reid
2) if you imagined a fight between prime jones jr against prime kessler,
who would you favour, the boxer you favour is than the one you rank higher

of course judging from reality real fights is easier than fantasy, but nobody ever said p4p ranks had to be 100 % correct. They should make a litle bit of sense, not can they make 100 % sense, obviously not.

Regarding what u said, that always the future boxers are better than those before. It is correct, boxers became better over time, like any other sport.

But one important thing you should think of is, that there is a limit. A human sprinter will never be as fast as a gepard and a heavyweight boxer would never beat a 1700 pounds kodiak bear. All i amsaying is, human body has its limits.
Boxers as other sports athletes became better in the last 100 years because of nutrition, training and recovery progress. But there is a limit. No vitamines and minerales are better than those of fruits & vegetables, no protein better than of filet steak & kidney beans etc.. training methods and recovery methodes are at a limit. I dont say they perfect, but cloe. From nutrition, taining, sleep, recovery, physiotherapy etc., we at a such high 2020 right now, hard to have significant leaps in height. There wont be much more athletic athletes like lebron james, usain bolt or roy jones jr.

[paddy chavez]

I don't agree modern boxers are better trained. If they are why can't they keep a pace? The most important reason you can't rate guys on who you think would win is because we're all wrong all the time. Now we're going to kill it with the best of the best?

Boxers today train for strength today more than stamina as they did 30 years ago and more . boxers today are more muscled weather this is a good or bad thing I'm not sure it used to be a big no no to lift weights before holyfield bulked up that's why a lot of fighters gas in fights like AJ or even canelo Vs GGG he couldn't keep pace in the first fight.

[mjaco]

To address some of the valid points people made in reply to my post:

Thanks to candyslim for what he said and I agree, much of this is speculative without solid scientific data to support it. And unfortunately boxing, in a lot of ways, lags behind other sports in that regard. Just look at how many fights are, admittedly, missing from the Boxrec database and you get an idea how difficult it is to make definitive statements, backed by data, on the nature of the sport.

Regarding modern boxers not being better trained, I was speaking purely of the physical conditioning aspects. While it is true one could make an argument that because boxers fight far less often than they used to, they do not develop as much experience in how to "pace" themselves during a fight, speaking purely in terms of conditioning (i.e. lung capacity, heart capacity, muscular strength, etc.) if boxers are not better conditioned in the present era that would make boxing literally the only sport in the world whose athletes are not better conditioned now than they were decades ago. Sport science has advanced quite a bit over the years and boxers, at least elite ones, have benefited from that as all other athletes have.

As far as modern fighters not being able to "keep a pace" that's sort of a nebulous statement. Perhaps the only way to prove it would be to compare punchstats which I think they've only been keeping for the last 30-35 years. I've never seen a comparison of punchstats from 30 years ago and the present day but my guess is the average total number of punches thrown per fight has not gone down that significantly. If you're comparing present day fighters to those of 80 years ago, you'd have to go back and watch films of entire fights from that era and count the punches the way punchstat does (and they're not 100% accurate by the way) and do this for hundreds of fights in order to get a fair comparison. Even assuming the punch rate has gone down, that's not necessarily proof fighters are less well conditioned. Stylistically boxing changes from generation to generation. Also, extraneous factors, like the promoters, play into it. As an example from MMA, there are some good winning fighters who are probably not welcome in the UFC simply because their styles are not deemed exciting enough (i.e. they won't engage in toe to toe brawls). So if MMA fighters want to get into the big time of the UFC, it helps if they have all-out action styles. Boxers from decades ago faced similar hurdles. I think it's simply a little easier for a good defensive boxer who goes at a slower pace to get fights in America now than it used to be for a variety of reasons. But I don't believe that's the case in some countries like Japan, Mexico or Thailand where promoters may still have more influence over how boxers fight. In those countries, by the way, I don't think you generally hear complaints most fighters can't keep a good pace.

As far as fighters training for strength, stamina, and being near the limit of their physical capabilities, another thing to remember is the influence of performance enhancing drugs which have, in my opinion, had a far greater influence on the sport over the last 20-30 years than is generally realized. Yes, fighters are probably stronger now and, for some, this can almost certainly be attributed to PED use. They also can fight effectively at higher weights and at a far older age than they used to be capable of, again at least partially because of PED use in my opinion. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they'll continue to develop new scientific methods (both legal and illegal) that will benefit boxers in the future making them superior to present day athletes. As an example, kids playing video games professionally take certain drugs that supposedly increase their reflexes. Who's to say an older fighter might not try something similar to extend their careers or that the drugs they come up with 20 years from now might not be far more potent than the ones currently being used? Add in genetic manipulation, bionic implants and other things that used to seem like sci-fi and you may well be looking at totally different athletes 50 or 100 years from now.

And regarding who beat who in actual fights, while I do think this is an often underrated element in assessing where fighters stand historically, it can also be a hugely misleading one. Muhammad Ali lost to Trevor Berbick in his last fight. Does that mean Berbick was a better fighter than Ali? Of course not because age has to be factored in. Jack Sharkey drew with Mickey Walker. Does that mean that pound-for-pound Sharkey was as good as Walker? No, because Walker was a middleweight fighting up at heavyweight.

My point in this whole long rant, and I apologize for going on at such length, is that all these questions comparing fighters from different eras in terms of conditioning, pound-for-pound or who would beat who are are fairly complex issues and probably require a lot more thought and analysis than the average boxing fan usually wants to put into in what's just a fun debate for most.

[RonnyJ]

To address some of the valid points people made in reply to my post:

Thanks to candyslim for what he said and I agree, much of this is speculative without solid scientific data to support it. And unfortunately boxing, in a lot of ways, lags behind other sports in that regard. Just look at how many fights are, admittedly, missing from the Boxrec database and you get an idea how difficult it is to make definitive statements, backed by data, on the nature of the sport.

Regarding modern boxers not being better trained, I was speaking purely of the physical conditioning aspects. While it is true one could make an argument that because boxers fight far less often than they used to, they do not develop as much experience in how to "pace" themselves during a fight, speaking purely in terms of conditioning (i.e. lung capacity, heart capacity, muscular strength, etc.) if boxers are not better conditioned in the present era that would make boxing literally the only sport in the world whose athletes are not better conditioned now than they were decades ago. Sport science has advanced quite a bit over the years and boxers, at least elite ones, have benefited from that as all other athletes have.

As far as modern fighters not being able to "keep a pace" that's sort of a nebulous statement. Perhaps the only way to prove it would be to compare punchstats which I think they've only been keeping for the last 30-35 years. I've never seen a comparison of punchstats from 30 years ago and the present day but my guess is the average total number of punches thrown per fight has not gone down that significantly. If you're comparing present day fighters to those of 80 years ago, you'd have to go back and watch films of entire fights from that era and count the punches the way punchstat does (and they're not 100% accurate by the way) and do this for hundreds of fights in order to get a fair comparison. Even assuming the punch rate has gone down, that's not necessarily proof fighters are less well conditioned. Stylistically boxing changes from generation to generation. Also, extraneous factors, like the promoters, play into it. As an example from MMA, there are some good winning fighters who are probably not welcome in the UFC simply because their styles are not deemed exciting enough (i.e. they won't engage in toe to toe brawls). So if MMA fighters want to get into the big time of the UFC, it helps if they have all-out action styles. Boxers from decades ago faced similar hurdles. I think it's simply a little easier for a good defensive boxer who goes at a slower pace to get fights in America now than it used to be for a variety of reasons. But I don't believe that's the case in some countries like Japan, Mexico or Thailand where promoters may still have more influence over how boxers fight. In those countries, by the way, I don't think you generally hear complaints most fighters can't keep a good pace.

As far as fighters training for strength, stamina, and being near the limit of their physical capabilities, another thing to remember is the influence of performance enhancing drugs which have, in my opinion, had a far greater influence on the sport over the last 20-30 years than is generally realized. Yes, fighters are probably stronger now and, for some, this can almost certainly be attributed to PED use. They also can fight effectively at higher weights and at a far older age than they used to be capable of, again at least partially because of PED use in my opinion. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they'll continue to develop new scientific methods (both legal and illegal) that will benefit boxers in the future making them superior to present day athletes. As an example, kids playing video games professionally take certain drugs that supposedly increase their reflexes. Who's to say an older fighter might not try something similar to extend their careers or that the drugs they come up with 20 years from now might not be far more potent than the ones currently being used? Add in genetic manipulation, bionic implants and other things that used to seem like sci-fi and you may well be looking at totally different athletes 50 or 100 years from now.

And regarding who beat who in actual fights, while I do think this is an often underrated element in assessing where fighters stand historically, it can also be a hugely misleading one. Muhammad Ali lost to Trevor Berbick in his last fight. Does that mean Berbick was a better fighter than Ali? Of course not because age has to be factored in. Jack Sharkey drew with Mickey Walker. Does that mean that pound-for-pound Sharkey was as good as Walker? No, because Walker was a middleweight fighting up at heavyweight.

My point in this whole long rant, and I apologize for going on at such length, is that all these questions comparing fighters from different eras in terms of conditioning, pound-for-pound or who would beat who are are fairly complex issues and probably require a lot more thought and analysis than the average boxing fan usually wants to put into in what's just a fun debate for most.

you write to much. you making clear things complicated.

remember back than in school, when there was a problem and 2 started fighting, before the fight, you certainly like most would think who would come out as the winner. you would look at A and say to yourself, well he looks stronger, bigger, just fitter than B, thusfar favouring A.

boxing is just like that. i watch a weigh in and look at the boxers, lets say Errol Spence vs Shawn Porter and that id think to myself: both look in tremendous shape, errol got the punching power on shawn, but shawn looks strong in fantastic shape, i favour errol, but will be a tough fight with maybe an upset. so i put errol above shawn, while knowing that an upset could come. in other occasions like Oleksandr Usyk vs Marco Huck, I just look at both boxers and see every advantage on one side. Usyk looks more athletic, is taller, has longer reach, is younger and i just feel Usyk gonne wreck Huck.

Ive been watching boxing for over 30 years, out of 10 times, generaly i have 8-9 times the correct outcome. i mostly know who is better. thats why ranking feels easy to me. again, does that mean my ranks are perfect, of course not. but they good.

[Duran1970]

Wow...picking usyk to beat Huck and Spence to beat Porter??... dazzling.

[Onetimeonly]

Wow...picking usyk to beat Huck and Spence to beat Porter??... dazzling.

Rumor has it he even picked lomachenko to beat crolla!

[Ghost Town Ghost]

Thank you mjaco, I appreciate your posts and agree with a lot of what you say.

[Ghost Town Ghost]

This is OTO's list, which I largely agree with, particularly the top ten :

1. Greb
2. Langford
3. Robinson
4. Armstrong
5. Charles
6. Ali
7. Duran
8. B Leonard
9. Moore
10. R Leonard
11. Canzoneri
12. Louis
13. Griffith
14. Gavilan
15. Tunney
16. Ross
17. Mcclarnin
18. Pep
19. Floyd
20. Hearns

I'd have Louis a tad higher, but this is for sentimental reasons as my dad, who was born in 1919 and saw lots of greats, said he was the best when I asked him. Then I, not knowing much, enthusiastically said "But what about Ray Robinson dad!" lol

[Rocky-]

It's silly to compare eras.

Pre Walker Law headbutting bullrushing 15+ round boxer wearing a thong vs modern WBA super interim super catchweight 12 round champion, who wins?

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

I only recently begun again to find nearly as much interest in boxing as I had a few years ago. Back then I made this list that I have started to idly fiddle with again of late. I might as well post it here:

1. Sam Langford
2. Harry Greb
(Feels like the right 1,2 to me. I go back and forth on the order. Limited or lack of footage is a shame, but less important than the fact that they PROVED they could beat great, great fighters time and again.)
-------------------
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Roberto Duran
6. Henry Armstrong
(Hank might be a bit low for some. Don't put all that much value in his Featherweight title claim, but maybe I'm still underrating him. Duran might be high for some but to me the first Leonard fight might be the best win any fighter has ever had (in sporting terms, ignoring cultural / political factors). SRR doesn't quite have the list of wins to crack my top two.)
---------------------
7. Benny Leonard
8. Muhammad Ali
(I'm pretty comfortable with this as the top 8.)
----------------
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Joe Louis

11. Gene Tunney
12. Willie Pep
13. Archie Moore
(These are all the top ten candidates. Might be overdue a serious re-assessment of Pep and Moore as they seem to be casually dropping down this list every time I look at it again.)
-----------------
14. Marvin Hagler
15. Floyd Mayweather
16. Sandy Saddler
17. Eder Jofre
18. Carlos Monzon
19. Joe Gans
20. Tony Canzoneri

21. Charley Burley
(Am kind of surprised at myself for putting Floyd so high. Does show the ridiculousness of this whole endeavour, trying to compare FMM's career to Joe Gans', of all people.)
------------------

22. Manny Pacquiao
23. Evander Holyfield
24. Holman Williams
25. Roy Jones Jr
26. Tommy Hearns
27. Mickey Walker
(Pacquiao coming back from getting badly KTFO'd to being a fighter that could get the best of a Keith Thurman-level opponent at his age is impressive and bumped him up 4-5 places on this list for now. That might be too much?)
---------------------
28. Jack Johnson
29. Bob Fitzsimmons
30. Jimmy McLarnin
(Might as well give ya the whole top 30. Michael Spinks, Emile Griffith and Pernell Whitaker just missed out.)

I tend to put greater weight on achieving good wins over having long stretches of avoiding defeat (generally but not exclusively). I will admit there is a little bit more whim and guesswork in this list than I'd like there to be, but what the hey? Might as well share it anyway.

[Onetimeonly]

Nicely done. Hard to get to 30 without Whitaker IMO. I forgot him in my 20. Can't see Johnson that high, only real complaint.

[Duran1970]

Ya that's a decent list...one could argue certain placements and shit all over it like usual but not a bad list in my opinion.

[Bandog]

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.

I remember the computer fight, didn't they have Rocky winning? I used to argue with my dad, saying that Ali would have beaten Rocky. He wasn't so sure, but he said Joe Louis would have KO'd Ali. He hated Ali's mouth like most older white guys did back then. They called him a loud mouthed draft dodger. It really pissed him off when Ali beat Foreman. I won a $5 bet with him lol.

[Enlightened-One]

I remember the computer fight, didn't they have Rocky winning? I used to argue with my dad, saying that Ali would have beaten Rocky. He wasn't so sure, but he said Joe Louis would have KO'd Ali. He hated Ali's mouth like most older white guys did back then. They called him a loud mouthed draft dodger. It really pissed him off when Ali beat Foreman. I won a $5 bet with him lol.

I've read that there two outcomes depending where you watched 'The Super Fight' - in the US/Canada (with Marciano winning) as opposed to Europe (where Ali won).

I don't know if this is true or not, because I can't find the alleged European video of Ali KO'ing Rocky in the 13th, but I have seen the US/Canadian version where the result is reversed.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

I remember the computer fight, didn't they have Rocky winning? I used to argue with my dad, saying that Ali would have beaten Rocky. He wasn't so sure, but he said Joe Louis would have KO'd Ali. He hated Ali's mouth like most older white guys did back then. They called him a loud mouthed draft dodger. It really pissed him off when Ali beat Foreman. I won a $5 bet with him lol.

I've read that there two outcomes depending where you watched 'The Super Fight' - in the US/Canada (with Marciano winning) as opposed to Europe (where Ali won).

I don't know if this is true or not, because I can't find the alleged European video of Ali KO'ing Rocky in the 13th, but I have seen the US/Canadian version where the result is reversed.

Had a look on YouTube and found this:



I thought they filmed both knockouts and both decisions before even running the simulation but that's just a hazy memory of something I read a long time ago.

[oogiebe]

I've read that there two outcomes depending where you watched 'The Super Fight' - in the US/Canada (with Marciano winning) as opposed to Europe (where Ali won).

I don't know if this is true or not, because I can't find the alleged European video of Ali KO'ing Rocky in the 13th, but I have seen the US/Canadian version where the result is reversed.

Had a look on YouTube and found this:



I thought they filmed both knockouts and both decisions before even running the simulation but that's just a hazy memory of something I read a long time ago.

They filmed just about every possibility, you are correct.

[Bandog]

If Liston, Frazier, Norton, Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, etc couldn't KO Ali, doubt if Rocky would have. What was he, about 5'10" and 185? A 1964-1967 version of Ali would have made it look like a sparring session.

[Duran1970]

Not according to Ali

[Bandog]

Interesting to see this top 10 list and his reasoning, from boxing scene. I respect this guy's knowledge of the fight game.
https://www.BS.com/daily-bread ... ts--148922

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

You get better at something by doing it often
I think it stands to reason someone who fought great competition and logged over 100 fights and was described by many as a perfect fighter is better than errol spence

[Enlightened-One]

Anybody see a video of Harry Greb sparring?

His resume superficially seems impressive, but there’s no video footage of him competing in real bouts.

And his pugilistic fighting style, as per the limited sparring footage that is available, absolutely stinks! He definitely fails the eyeball test, because he looks deeply unimpressive.

I’m willing to consider Harry Greb as being an all-time-great, based purely on his historical contribution to the sport of boxing, but I find it categorically impossible to compare him to fighters we’re able to apply the proverbial eyeball test.

Greb made his pro debut 107 years ago. Even reputable boxing historians from the last half century have never seen Greb fight, but casual boxing observers passionately believe that Harry beats today’s elite level fighters, which just seems really strange to me!

Boxing has clearly progressed since the 1920’s.