1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Joe Louis
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Benny Leonard
6. Willie Pep
7. Rocky Marciano
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Roberto Duran
10. Jack Johnson
The Ring magazine rated the 10 best boxers of all time, above is what they found from a panel of 25 judges.
Why are 5 of them heavys?
Isn't this a bit biased?
-
SugarRoyRobinson
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 16:30
Pep didn't win the 3 fights, your right, but at least he was beaten by someone llike saddler. Let's face it, Saddler had a very significant reach and height advantage and he jabbed away at him. In my opinion, Pep deserved his ranking, he was just as good as Ali at what he did(OK, he didn't hit hard, but that's because he liked fast 5-jab combos). Saddler did deserve a lot more.
In my opinion, Pep probably started all the dirty tactics, because he probably got immediately frustrated at not being able to get past the jab and "easily outbox" him.
Duran may deserve the 9th place in this "best fighter ever" but he doesn't deserve to be in 99th "best boxer ever".
You're absolutely right on all those boxers, terap. Especially Jimmy Wilde, who obviously isn't brawny enough, in my opinion he should be in the top 5. At least he was rated #1 in "best punchers ever". He was a flyweight then and now would be a straw-weight, so it's obvious he was not big enough.
In my opinion, Pep probably started all the dirty tactics, because he probably got immediately frustrated at not being able to get past the jab and "easily outbox" him.
Duran may deserve the 9th place in this "best fighter ever" but he doesn't deserve to be in 99th "best boxer ever".
You're absolutely right on all those boxers, terap. Especially Jimmy Wilde, who obviously isn't brawny enough, in my opinion he should be in the top 5. At least he was rated #1 in "best punchers ever". He was a flyweight then and now would be a straw-weight, so it's obvious he was not big enough.
-
Tomato-Can
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 656
- Joined: 28 Dec 2001, 20:00