THE GREATEST FIGHTERS OF ALL-TIME (Must Read)

southace · Post by **southace** » 05 Nov 2006, 15:04

Ridiculous lists.

southace · Post by **southace** » 05 Nov 2006, 15:37

steady punchy. i'm the king of all lists.

southace · Post by **southace** » 05 Nov 2006, 16:01

good to meet you too my friend.
did one set of rankings about 8 years ago which i have never posted anywhere. don't think i ever will. . . it gets updated but never altered too dramatically.
my point was that i can argue the list and thougt the ones posted couldn't.

not the king, but in the mix

anyway.
i've had boxing articles published but no site work. . does it pay?
may look for some as i have neglected writing recently. though still work in the sport through my full time job.

theone · Post by **theone** » 08 Nov 2006, 19:26

His lists are horrible. He loses all credibility from the beginning ranking Jefferies the greatest Heavyweight ever. Absolute nonsense.

JC · Post by JC » 10 Nov 2006, 14:43

In terms of the oldtimer vs modern fighter debate I do feel the quality of film plays a big part in how good a fighter appears to be. Colour, close ups, slow motion replays and the fact that you cn actually hear Roy Jones' punches land makes it look a lot more impressive.

I often think if you took Castillo Corrales I, put it in poor quality black and white, only had the 3/4 camera angle and removed the sound. It would end up looking like two guys suffeling around the ring for ten rounds, without the close-ups and different camera angles you wouldn't see half the punches land.

You don't even have to go back that far, if you watch Foreman in the 70s and then his second career in the 90s the punches he lands on Cooney look harder than the ones he lands of Frazier which seems unlikely seeing as it's the same person but 20 years older.

70s Foreman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvirljx6 ... %20Foreman

90s Foreman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msdmekz_ ... %20foreman

I'm not talking about knowledgeable boxing fans, but your average person will often see footage of Benny Leonard and Shane Mosely and think Mosely looks more impressive in the film and is therefore better than Leonard, or Tyson looks more impressive than Louis. You can try and argue with them but as far as the're concerned they've seen the evidence.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Nov 2006, 15:16

J-C wrote: I often think if you took Castillo Corrales I, put it in poor quality black and white, only had the 3/4 camera angle and removed the sound. It would end up looking like two guys suffeling around the ring for ten rounds, without the close-ups and different camera angles you wouldn't see half the punches land.

That’s a very interesting theory. So, are you telling me that if the Lyahkovic-Briggs fight had been shown without sound, only one distant camera and in black and white, that the two of them would have looked bad and we wouldn’t have been able to see many punches land?

JC · Post by JC » 10 Nov 2006, 15:26

In their case it would probably have improved things.

JC · Post by JC » 10 Nov 2006, 17:51

Dec, that's an interesting post and you have swayed my opinion on this to some extent.

However I think my original post may have given the wrong impression so just to explain where my thinking came from.

Well, I consider myself a somewhat knowledgeable fan. I don't see how anyone could watch footage of Louis and Tyson (of a 10+ round fight, rather than a single round) and think that Tyson was better, but the Leonard-Mosley comparison is a little different.

I would have thought so too but for example check out this thread and there have been many like it,

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=#583490

When I watch Mosley fight, I can't help but notice that he's a 150-pound man, while Leonard rarely got much above 135 in his prime.

I wasn't really thinking to a fantasy match-up between the two, I agree that the size difference would have been a huge factor but the fact that Mosely is 15lbs heavier than Leonard doesn't mean hes a better fighter just that he is really in a different weightclass. However the points you make about their respective styles are totally valid ones.

The reason I picked Leonard as the example was because I remebered this post on a previous thread.

I can't imagine how anyone can rank Gans and Leonard as the top LWs ever...have any of the posters on here ever even SEEN film of Gans? OK, some posters might have been around when Gans and Leonard fought, which would make those posters at least 80 years old. Others may have seen film of Leonard (which I have) and if you ask me, there's no way he'd rank as the top LW ever. In fact, If you really look at film of him, he probably wouldn't beat the average clubfighter of today.

The reason I picked Mosely was because the same guy went on to say Mosley was better than Duran.

As I said, I wasn't trying to say Leonard would definately beat Mosely in a match between the two. I was more talking about the skill of older fighters in general being dismissed based on poor quality film. Mosely is a top class fighter and would have been had he fought in an era. The point I was trying to make is that, purely in terms of boxing skill, I don't think he is the lightyears ahead of Leonard some would have us believe based on the film evidence.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 11 Nov 2006, 03:07

..the whole leonard/mosley discussion here just reinforces my firm belief that same day weighins are the only way to get boxers to fight in their correct divisions.

re: leonard/britton.....boxing historians are unanimous (at least as far as i've read) that leonard deliberately hit britton while the latter was down so he would be disqualified,which he was. this was after leading throughout the fight.

reasons? most say that benny didn't want to mix it up with welterweights at that time...others hint at a betting "problem".....

the odd thing is that benny, maybe because of his ego, was really outclassing britton until the foul...which after all, did occur when leonard put britton on the canvas.

i've even read, though it doesn't ring true to me..that both guys were planning to tank it, britton was looking so bad that the foul was the only way benny could find a way to lose.....and was afraid britton was going to stay down for the count.the knockdown was from a body blow, which britton complained was low, and benny swatted him once more whilst britton was making his assertion to the referee.

barry · Post by **barry** » 11 Nov 2006, 04:19

>>>So, you're saying that Ketchel beat Langford now?<<<

Dec---Let's not forget that it was you who use to make that claim constantly until I provided you with a whole slew of various newspaper accounts that favored Langford...so no I don't think Ketchel beat Langford, in fact I'm the one who set you straight on the matter, so when you say crap like that...it's more silly than your comments about Ketchel, Fitzsimmons, Corbett and others of that era!

And if you think Nunn was so great, then why did he so often fail when he really stepped up? Ketchel would get to that fragile chin a lot sooner than Toney did...except it's very doubtful that Ketchel would have taken the licking that Toney got for 11 rounds...Nunn would be covered up too much to land anything and if he did open up that's when...BANG...Ketchel put's him to sleep!!

And again, I will encourage you...learn about the older fighters before yapping about things you know not!!! O'Brien was a hell of a lot better fighter than Nunn ever dreamed of being. Klaus was a lot better than Nunn...but Kelly, Papke and the Sullivan brothers...well they were not better than Nunn, but they sure as hell were not worse then he was!

I got remind you...just because a fighters might look pretty in the ring sure as hell does not mean that he can fight and while fighters like Nunn tried to pose and look pleasing to the eye's fighters like Klaus and Ketchel would just go right in and get the job done and just worry about the win instead of looking pretty, which is one of the biggest faults of a lot of modern fighters...posing and trying to look like they can fight in stance only and when it comes down to guts and heart...well we have seen several exapmles over the past few years where some of the absolute best of today flat out quit...you think fighters like Ketchel would quit on they're stool due to an injury?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 12 Nov 2006, 05:32

I think the greatest fighter of all time was Archie Moore.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 12 Nov 2006, 13:57

DoubleM wrote:I think the greatest fighter of all time was Archie Moore.

I was hoping someone would pick me up on this. Not because I want to cause controversy, but I wondered if anyone would object to it.

I actually don't think Moore was greatest going by traditional ways - accomplishments, ability etc... There, Henry Armstrong comes out at #1.

But you could certainly make a case for Moore if you altered the criteria slightly. He was a very exciting and popular fighter, fought the absolute best over three divisions and twenty seven years, was brave and determined, charismatic and mysterious, flamboyant and even miraculous, not to mention he was a fantastic fighter and a great champion in his own right. When you break it down, boxing is about entertainment - and Moore was perhaps the greatest entertainer of them all. He had it all as a fighter and a person, and was the epitome of the word 'boxer'.

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 12 Nov 2006, 15:16

along the same lines DoubleM, for me it's

Jersey Joe Walcott
Ezzard Charles
Lloyd Marshall

all Brilliant, stood at long periods in the Top - against the greatest opposition, Champions and should/could have been Champion(s) (Marshall) and in the case of Walcott & Charles much sooner...

at their best I would bet these boys against ANYBODY in their 'proper' divisions!

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 12 Nov 2006, 23:22

Decagon wrote:There's no way that Marshall should be considered one of the top 10 fighters of all time, pound-for-pound. He was heavily involved in organized crime, and was known to wear the cuffs, or take outright dives in fights. Further, there's so little footage of Marshall that we can't make a proper judgement of his abilities. For all I know, Harry Greb could be the greatest fighter of all time, pound-for-pound. Looking at his record alone, he's an excellent contender, but I've actually seen his closest rivals, Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali.

How come Muhammad Ali is up there?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Nov 2006, 03:45

Decagon wrote:Why not? His resume's better than Robinson's, and at least the equal of Armstrong's, Langford's and Greb's. Why write him off because he didn't bounce around in weight?

Ha, ha.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Nov 2006, 07:21

I don't know the first thing about Michael Moorer, except he was knocked out by George Foreman and David Tua, and hit pretty good at light heavyweight.

MM stands for ManassaMauler as you well know.

Anyway...

... You seriously think Ali's resume matches up with (or was better than) Greb's and Armstrong's?

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 13 Nov 2006, 09:39

DoubleM wrote:... You seriously think Ali's resume matches up with (or was better than) Greb's and Armstrong's?

Of course it does, Ali dominated 2 eras of heavyweights, the Liston / Patterson era of the 60s, and the Foreman / Frazier era of the 70s. As such he as strong a competition in any one weight division than any fighter ever - Liston, Foreman and Frazier all top 10 HWs of all time in most peoples book. Greb and Armstrong also fought all-time great fighters but Ali couldnt have done any more, and therefore is top 5 p4p IMO

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Nov 2006, 11:03

dr_devious wrote:
DoubleM wrote:... You seriously think Ali's resume matches up with (or was better than) Greb's and Armstrong's?
Of course it does, Ali dominated 2 eras of heavyweights, the Liston / Patterson era of the 60s, and the Foreman / Frazier era of the 70s. As such he as strong a competition in any one weight division than any fighter ever - Liston, Foreman and Frazier all top 10 HWs of all time in most peoples book. Greb and Armstrong also fought all-time great fighters but Ali couldnt have done any more, and therefore is top 5 p4p IMO

Hmm...

Ali dominated 2 eras of heavyweights

No he didn't.

the Liston / Patterson era of the 60s,

He was the best at the tail end of that era. Liston was slowing down, Patterson was ex-champ. Johansson was nowhere to be seen.

and the Foreman / Frazier era of the 70s

Nah. He was the best of that era, but he didn't dominate. An example of 'domination' would be when Carlos Monzon cleaned up the '70s middleweights.

As such he as strong a competition in any one weight division than any fighter ever - Liston, Foreman and Frazier all top 10 HWs of all time in most peoples book. Greb and Armstrong also fought all-time great fighters but Ali couldnt have done any more, and therefore is top 5 p4p IMO

The thing is, heavyweights are plain just not as good as the lighter weights in a pound-for-pound sense. That's the truth of it. I rate Harold Johnson & Joe Frazier about equal within their respective divisions - #10ish, however I would say Johnson was a bit better relative to his weight.

You should check out Ezzard Charles' resume. 80% of classic boxing fans would rate him well below Muhammad Ali, but that simply isn't fair.

Going by my own ratings, Archie Moore was better than anyone Ali ever fought, let alone beat (relative to his division of course). Charles beat him three times. He also beat Jimmy Bivins four times, about my #15 light heavyweight. Joey Maxim five times, my #25ish light heavyweight. Jersey Joe Walcott twice, about #15 on my heavyweight list. Charley Burley twice, who, when talking about head-to-head ability, rates in my top ten at middleweight. Lloyd Marshall tasted it twice as well, about my #15 middleweight. Teddy Yarosz, Joe Louis, both past their primes but legitimate Hall of Famers. I haven't even started to name the contenders who were smashed at this point.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Nov 2006, 11:11

Back to Ali-Armstrong. It's not Ali's fault he was a heavyweight and there were no weight classes above to explore. However, the fact of the matter is that Armstrong fought above his best weight, often fought at a disadvantage and compiled a numerically much more impressive record than Muhammad Ali. He was much less protected and looked after - Ali wasn't steered clear of threats, but he was well groomed and supported by the best trainers and that large entourage. An early Armstrong had none of that, but fought through the bloody wars and dodgy deals and eventually broke through. Check out that 59-1-1 (51) streak in the middle of his career. Just three years it took him, and you could easily argue that it should have been 61-0-0. Nineteen title defenses during that time, eighteen for a division championship well above his best. Barry provided us with Armstrong's complete list of ranked opponents defeated and it is quite astounding.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 13 Nov 2006, 16:46

The argument isnt whether Ali is better P4P than Greb or Armstrong but that he is to be ranked in the same tier. He is. As I said, Ali beat Liston, Foreman and Frazier who are all ranked as consensus top 10 heavyweights.
Neither Greb nor Armstrong cleaned out a division in the way Ali did the heavyweights. Armstrong's biggest scalp was Barney Ross in his last fight, and Greb's was Gene Tunney (once in four fights).

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 14 Nov 2006, 00:28

dr_devious wrote:The argument isnt whether Ali is better P4P than Greb or Armstrong but that he is to be ranked in the same tier. He is. As I said, Ali beat Liston, Foreman and Frazier who are all ranked as consensus top 10 heavyweights.
Neither Greb nor Armstrong cleaned out a division in the way Ali did the heavyweights. Armstrong's biggest scalp was Barney Ross in his last fight, and Greb's was Gene Tunney (once in four fights).

You've given me nothing to work with here. Your arguments are very flawed.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 14 Nov 2006, 00:36

Decagon wrote:
DoubleM wrote:MM stands for ManassaMauler as you well know.
Perhaps, but "MM" isn't your nickname. "DoubleM" is. That's what Michael Moorer has written on the back of his robe.

From Boxrec.com
Michael Moorer
Sex: Male
Nationality: US American
Alias: Double M
Birth Name: Michael Lee Moorer
Federal ID: FL018871
Hometown: Monessen, PA, USA
Birthplace: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Division: Heavyweight
Date of Birth: 1967-11-12
Reach: 78”
Stance: Southpaw
Height: 6' 2
Trainer: Isiah Clark and Benny Collins
Manager: John Davimos
W 47 (37 ko's) | L 4 | D 1 | Total 52

DoubleM wrote:... You seriously think Ali's resume matches up with (or was better than) Greb's and Armstrong's?
Easily. He had eight wins over World Heavyweight Champions (10, if you count Norton), and 32 victories over top-10 heavyweights. I definitely rank it over Armstrong's, because once Armstrong started losing his skills, he never was able to regain the glory he had for those three or so years. Ali never went 0-2 against a man who had 61 losses over his career.

I didn't know Moorer's nickname was 'Double M' when I made this account...

Easily. He had eight wins over World Heavyweight Champions (10, if you count Norton), and 32 victories over top-10 heavyweights. I definitely rank it over Armstrong's, because once Armstrong started losing his skills, he never was able to regain the glory he had for those three or so years. Ali never went 0-2 against a man who had 61 losses over his career.

That is such a load of shit and you know it. That fighter with 61 losses happens to be a Hall of Famer - a very inconsistent one, and not necessarily a super talent, but he was a difficult fight for anybody. Armstrong had around 130 fights and nineteen title defenses under his belt at the time he competitively lost to Zivic.

because once Armstrong started losing his skills, he never was able to regain the glory he had for those three or so years.

What's this? Very weak. Armstrong was a come forward fighter, a totally different animal to Ali. He's obviously not going to have as much longevity. You're saying that because Armstrong didn't have a massive winning streak after the other one, you rate Ali above? Armstrong accomplished more in three years than Ali did in his whole career. Besides, it's not like he went on a straight downward spiral, he went on beating contenders and Hall of Famers.

Stop looking at it in years and start looking at it in fights. Armstrong started declining after about 115 fights - Ali started declining after less than 30.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 14 Nov 2006, 03:02

..okay...back to an earlier post.....i think jimglen lists lloyd marshall among the very greatest because marshall has the record...one more than bivins, i think...in battles against those who at one time or other held a world title.....a remarkable accomplishment. he fought in the best era of light heavies ever......and look at his wins. plus, he was one of the smaller light heavies..closer to middleweight than to heavyweight.....compared to the other greats of that time..charles, bivins, moore...etc.

i don't have him in the top five of my greatest pound for pounds....but he was a great fighter....and sadly is too neglected when the very best fighters are mentioned.....and it's good to see jimglen having him on his list....

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 14 Nov 2006, 04:02

Decagon wrote:That's ignoring the economic aspects of how often a well-paid fighter gets in the ring to how often a poorly-paid fighter gets into the ring. 115 fights? If Armstrong was making six- and seven-figure purses, he wouldn't have been fighting that often in the first place.

We both already know that. You seem to be excusing Ali's low number of fights... I don't want you to do that. I want you to accept Armstrong was the greater fighter.

Personally I rate Ali #13. Louis #14. As great as they were, I see heavyweights as inferior to the lower weights when it comes to 'pound-for-pound'.

The fact is that Armstrong had a VERY short prime, and had no way to change his game once his skills diminished. Take Marco Antonio Barrera. He used to be a brawler/swarmer back in his days at 122, but once he started getting older, he added more boxing to his game. Armstrong didn't do anything like that. He never made the change.

Hmm? He didn't change his style, therefore Ali is greater?

I think you'll find Armstrong carried on beating contenders anyway, regardless of whether he carried on swarming or not.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 14 Nov 2006, 10:33

DoubleM wrote:[You've given me nothing to work with here. Your arguments are very flawed.

How are my arguments flawed? Im saying that Ali beat as good a competition as Greb and Armstrong. In what way didnt he?