The Top 100 Greatest Boxers of All-Time

[BitPlayer]

I'm not sure Marciano deserves a spot. Very good list though.

[Keko]

It's never good to watch those lists with emotions or prejudices.

[elmersalsa]

Harry Greb, the great Pittsburgh Windmill, beat 3 guys in the top 100 ATG pound per pound list:
Gene Tunney
Mickey Walker
Tommy Loughran

According to Ambling Alp, Sugar Ray Leonard should be higher than Greb because he beat 4 great ones:
Roberto Duran
Wilfred Benitez
Thomas Hearns
Marvin Hagler

Then why Ambling Alp protest about Leonard over Greb?

I want to know why, Ambling Alp?

[Kalan]

I'm not sure Marciano deserves a spot. Very good list though.

Yeah...and Vitali Klitsckho deserves a slot... Unlike Marciano he was never knocked down and he fought and won a lot more World Heavyweight Title Fights and was never behind on points after any contest... Plus he didn't specialize in getting knocked down by old Light Heavyweights like Ancient Archie Moore.

[elmersalsa]

I'm not sure Marciano deserves a spot. Very good list though.

Yeah...and Vitali Klitsckho deserves a slot... Unlike Marciano he was never knocked down and he fought and won a lot more World Heavyweight Title Fights and was never behind on points after any contest... Plus he didn't specialize in getting knocked down by old Light Heavyweights like Ancient Archie Moore.

In an era of weak opposition at heavyweight, Vitali Klitschko should have been UNDEFEATED. He didn't. That means he was not that great.

[BitPlayer]

I'm not sure Marciano deserves a spot. Very good list though.

Yeah...and Vitali Klitsckho deserves a slot... Unlike Marciano he was never knocked down and he fought and won a lot more World Heavyweight Title Fights and was never behind on points after any contest... Plus he didn't specialize in getting knocked down by old Light Heavyweights like Ancient Archie Moore.

No, Marciano is still a level above Vitali. Vitali had a nearly absurdly weak resume at this level.

[BitPlayer]

I'm not sure about Peter Jackson deserving a place, especially over John L Sulivan.

Going even further back Jem Mace and Joe Goss from the bareknuckle days maybe deserve some consideration, but I don't really know anything about them.

[elmersalsa]

I'm not sure about Peter Jackson deserving a place, especially over John L Sulivan.

Going even further back Jem Mace and Joe Goss from the bareknuckle days maybe deserve some consideration, but I don't really know anything about them.

It's a shame that the great Peter Jackson's career is totally overlooked. He indeed was better than John L. Sullivan. Sullivan had the color line crap. He probably would have lost his crown to Jackson. A heavyweight that fought over 80 fights.

[BitPlayer]

I'm not sure about Peter Jackson deserving a place, especially over John L Sulivan.

Going even further back Jem Mace and Joe Goss from the bareknuckle days maybe deserve some consideration, but I don't really know anything about them.

It's a shame that the great Peter Jackson's career is totally overlooked. He indeed was better than John L. Sullivan. Sullivan had the color line crap. He probably would have lost his crown to Jackson. A heavyweight that fought over 80 fights.

I don't think it's overlooking it, I just can't see how he is ranked over Sulivan.

1. Achievements I don't see anything Peter Jackson did to match Sulivan here
2. Historical Impact Sulivan is miles ahead here
3. Longevity and Durability Slight edge to Peter Jackson
4. Quality of opposition I don't know of anything Peter Jackson did to match Sulivan's best wins, probably Kilrain and Paddy Ryan
5. Weight division dominance Well, Sulivan was the champion
6. Contributions and Influence in the sport Sulivan and it's not even close
7. What the fighter meant to the sport of boxing Again clearly Sulivan
8. World Championship Boxing Record/Title Defenses Clearly Sulivan

[Kalan]

I'm not sure Marciano deserves a spot. Very good list though.

Yeah...and Vitali Klitsckho deserves a slot... Unlike Marciano he was never knocked down and he fought and won a lot more World Heavyweight Title Fights and was never behind on points after any contest... Plus he didn't specialize in getting knocked down by old Light Heavyweights like Ancient Archie Moore.

No, Marciano is still a level above Vitali. Vitali had a nearly absurdly weak resume at this level.

You're full of nonsense and bias... The Heavyweight Division was pathetically weak when Marciano was champion. He had to fight Light Heavyweights.

Vitali Klitschko's resume includes: Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders (Heavyweight Champon), Larry Donald, Herbie Hide (Heavyweight Champon), Lennox Lewis (ahead on points on all cards following the fight), Chris Byrd (ahead on points on all cards following the fight), Tomasz Adamek (2-Division World Champion), Shannon Briggs (2 time Heavyweight Champion who is younger than Vitali by 2 years.), Odlanier Solis (Olympic Gold Medal winner), Juan Carlos Gomez (World Cruiserweight Champion), Sam Peter (Reigning World Heavyweight Champion) --- won 15 World Heavyweight Championship Fights while never getting knocked down during his entire career... Vitali always ended ahead on points following all his fights... Was never was out-pointed, out-boxed, or out-punched... Was never knocked down... Was a 3-time Heavyweight Champion... Never fought anyone who weighed less than 210 pounds... Was beaten only twice, both due to injuries while leading on points on all scorecards both times... Was a World Military Championships Super Heavyweight Gold Medal Winner in Boxing... Had the 2nd Highest KO ratio of any Heavyweight Champion who's not currently active (87%)... Fought to age 41 and still displayed superb skills by winning his last 13 fights... Shows no ill effects other than leg injuries from 210 amateur boxing matches, 36 professional Kickboxing matches, and 47 professional boxing matches... Won his first 27 professional fights by KO, which included 3 World Heavyweight Championship Fights...

Contrast that with Muhammad Ali who lost more than twice as many fights... Was beaten by a huge underdog who had 7 fights... Was beaten by a 10/1 underdog... Was floored 4 times... Fought 41 opponents who weighed less than 210... Was badly battered and beaten to trash... Had his jaw shattered... Fought many very small Heavyweights and even Light Heavyweights... Fought to age 39 but couldn't complete well because the many head shots he absorbed ultimately ravaged his ability to box effectively... Lost 3 of his last 4 fights...

[Ossyrules]

Yeah...and Vitali Klitsckho deserves a slot... Unlike Marciano he was never knocked down and he fought and won a lot more World Heavyweight Title Fights and was never behind on points after any contest... Plus he didn't specialize in getting knocked down by old Light Heavyweights like Ancient Archie Moore.

No, Marciano is still a level above Vitali. Vitali had a nearly absurdly weak resume at this level.

You're full of nonsense and bias... The Heavyweight Division was pathetically weak when Marciano was champion. He had to fight Light Heavyweights.

Vitali Klitschko's resume includes: Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders (Heavyweight Champon), Larry Donald, Herbie Hide (Heavyweight Champon), Lennox Lewis (ahead on points on all cards following the fight), Chris Byrd (ahead on points on all cards following the fight), Tomasz Adamek (2-Division World Champion), Shannon Briggs (2 time Heavyweight Champion who is younger than Vitali by 2 years.), Odlanier Solis (Olympic Gold Medal winner), Juan Carlos Gomez (World Cruiserweight Champion), Sam Peter (Reigning World Heavyweight Champion) --- won 15 World Heavyweight Championship Fights while never getting knocked down during his entire career... Vitali always ended ahead on points following all his fights... Was never was out-pointed, out-boxed, or out-punched... Was never knocked down... Was a 3-time Heavyweight Champion... Never fought anyone who weighed less than 210 pounds... Was beaten only twice, both due to injuries while leading on points on all scorecards both times... Was a World Military Championships Super Heavyweight Gold Medal Winner in Boxing... Had the 2nd Highest KO ratio of any Heavyweight Champion who's not currently active (87%)... Fought to age 41 and still displayed superb skills by winning his last 13 fights... Shows no ill effects other than leg injuries from 210 amateur boxing matches, 36 professional Kickboxing matches, and 47 professional boxing matches... Won his first 27 professional fights by KO, which included 3 World Heavyweight Championship Fights...

Contrast that with Muhammad Ali who lost more than twice as many fights... Was beaten by a huge underdog who had 7 fights... Was beaten by a 10/1 underdog... Was floored 4 times... Fought 41 opponents who weighed less than 210... Was badly battered and beaten to trash... Had his jaw shattered... Fought many very small Heavyweights and even Light Heavyweights... Fought to age 39 but couldn't complete well because the many head shots he absorbed ultimately ravaged his ability to box effectively... Lost 3 of his last 4 fights...

You're the only guy in the world that thinks Vitali , except maybe Vitali himself, his brother and his mum, is a top 100 fighter.

And you don't know boxing better than the world. This is clear

[elmersalsa]

I'm not sure about Peter Jackson deserving a place, especially over John L Sulivan.

Going even further back Jem Mace and Joe Goss from the bareknuckle days maybe deserve some consideration, but I don't really know anything about them.

It's a shame that the great Peter Jackson's career is totally overlooked. He indeed was better than John L. Sullivan. Sullivan had the color line crap. He probably would have lost his crown to Jackson. A heavyweight that fought over 80 fights.

I don't think it's overlooking it, I just can't see how he is ranked over Sulivan.

1. Achievements I don't see anything Peter Jackson did to match Sulivan here
2. Historical Impact Sulivan is miles ahead here
3. Longevity and Durability Slight edge to Peter Jackson
4. Quality of opposition I don't know of anything Peter Jackson did to match Sulivan's best wins, probably Kilrain and Paddy Ryan
5. Weight division dominance Well, Sulivan was the champion
6. Contributions and Influence in the sport Sulivan and it's not even close
7. What the fighter meant to the sport of boxing Again clearly Sulivan
8. World Championship Boxing Record/Title Defenses Clearly Sulivan

Remember, Peter Jackson was a black fighter ducked by the best fighters of his era. You really can't compare them like that if one never got the opportunity to fight for a world championship.

[BitPlayer]

It's a shame that the great Peter Jackson's career is totally overlooked. He indeed was better than John L. Sullivan. Sullivan had the color line crap. He probably would have lost his crown to Jackson. A heavyweight that fought over 80 fights.

I don't think it's overlooking it, I just can't see how he is ranked over Sulivan.

1. Achievements I don't see anything Peter Jackson did to match Sulivan here
2. Historical Impact Sulivan is miles ahead here
3. Longevity and Durability Slight edge to Peter Jackson
4. Quality of opposition I don't know of anything Peter Jackson did to match Sulivan's best wins, probably Kilrain and Paddy Ryan
5. Weight division dominance Well, Sulivan was the champion
6. Contributions and Influence in the sport Sulivan and it's not even close
7. What the fighter meant to the sport of boxing Again clearly Sulivan
8. World Championship Boxing Record/Title Defenses Clearly Sulivan

Remember, Peter Jackson was a black fighter ducked by the best fighters of his era. You really can't compare them like that if one never got the opportunity to fight for a world championship.

Yeah it's not right that happened, but you can't rank on what he might have done, over someone that actually did far more..

[Ambling Alp II]

Harry Greb, the great Pittsburgh Windmill, beat 3 guys in the top 100 ATG pound per pound list:
Gene Tunney
Mickey Walker
Tommy Loughran

According to Ambling Alp, Sugar Ray Leonard should be higher than Greb because he beat 4 great ones:
Roberto Duran
Wilfred Benitez
Thomas Hearns
Marvin Hagler

Then why Ambling Alp protest about Leonard over Greb?

I want to know why, Ambling Alp?

If one guys beat 4 in the Top 100 and another beat 3, it doesn't automatically mean the guy who beat 4 should be higher. Never said it did. However if one guy beat 4 in the Top 100 and another beat zero or just one, then the guy who beat 4 almost for sure was better. There could be exceptions of course; like if the guy who beat 4 had several bad losses. Somebody like Fritzie Zivic for example, had a lot of good wins but a ton of bad losses.

You have to weigh the good with the bad; whether you like the guy or not.

In the case of Greb, I consider Tommy Gibbons to be in the Top 100 anyway. Greb won a nodecison fight against him.

[Tony1244]

Good evening, folks!

Here is a look of my view of the 100 ATG pound per pound prize fighters that I believe that fought for pay since 1882. My list, like any other, is SUBJECTIVE. I got two ATG pound per pound 100 lists. One for the end of the 20th century and the other list is the one that I am about to show now. Some great fighters in my view that were in my list of the end of the 29th century, for example, Aaron Pryor and John L. Sullivan, are out of it. We are in the year 2017 now, and some TERRIFIC fighters have come since the year 2000. Maybe, seventeen years from now, I will probably have a different list. That happens in the evolution of time. But, it would be very hard right now to call some of these top boxers great even if they win 5 crowns in 5 different classes. Boxing to me, looks kind of DILUTED now. Too many champions. Too many weight classes and too much politics. The best don't fight against the best. Neither the interest in boxing is there anymore like years ago. At least that's what I see in my eyes.

My criteria is different from many. I take into consideration:
1. Achievements
2. Historical Impact
3. Longevity and Durability
4. Quality of opposition
5. Weight division dominance
6. Contributions and Influence in the sport
7. What the fighter meant to the sport of boxing
8. World Championship Boxing Record/Title Defenses

A request for my friend Ambling Alp II, I have promised him that I was gonna put that list to see. I have studied boxers for a long time, and I am surprised of their feats and records. Some of their records were so exceptional that is hard to block them into consideration. I have learned from many posters. I don't call myself a boxing expert, BUT, I KNOW WHAT I KNOW. I know what I am talking about. Let's debate with COURTESY.

With no further due, these boxers, to me, are the top 100 ATG pound per pound ever:

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep
6. Harry Greb
7. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Louis
11. Joe Gans
12. Bob Fitzsimmons
13. Archie Moore
14. Benny Leonard
15. Jack Johnson
16. Tony Canzoneri
17. Carlos Monzon
18. Sugar Ray Leonard
19. Mickey Walker
20. Jimmy Wilde
21. Sandy Saddler
22. Pernell Whitaker
23. Manny Pacquiao
24. Emile Griffith
25. Julio Cesar Chavez
26. Eder Jofre
27. Rocky Marciano
28. Jack Dempsey
29. Stanley Ketchel
30. Alexis Arguello
31. Barney Ross
32. Ike Williams
33. Evander Holyfield
34. Marvelous Marvin Hagler
35. Gene Tunney
36. Panama Al Brown
37. Kid Gavilan
38. Jimmy McLarnin
39. Terry McGovern
40. Tommy Loughran

Very good list. We'd all tweek it some. Someone wrote you hated SR Leonard. You can't hate him too much having him @ 18.

I'd have Robinson #1. Tunney ahead of Dempsey. Duran a little lower, Ali, J. Johnson, Loughran, and Louis higher.

[Ambling Alp II]

That was me who said he hated him. He rips him literally every time his name comes up. He once said that Leonard was not a real fighter. Someone who isn't biased would not say that about him. #18 is way too low. He should be in the Top 10 without any question. He beat 4 fighters in his own Top 100. Most of the guys ahead of him only beat one or none at all.

His favorite fighter is Duran, there fore Duran is rated higher than he should be. He doesn't like Robinson, therefore Robinson isn't number one.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's never good to watch those lists with emotions or prejudices.

We are all human and it's understandable when someone picks their favorite when there is a really close call between two guys. However, yes you are right you need to keep your emotions out of it. Sometimes a guy you like is better and sometimes not.

This is why you clear a formula that you are going to apply to each fighter; as opposed to just cherry picking something good from the guys you like and ignoring there negatives. Likewise you can't just ignore all the positives of someone that you don't like and pick out something negative that you ignore with your favorites.

You have to be smart about the importance of a fighter's wins. The better the opponent that he beat, the more credit. ie. Ali should get a ton of credit for beating Foreman and Frazier, a little for beating Quarry, and none for beating Richard Dunn.

You also have to be smart about losses. The worse the opponent, the more the loss should hurt a guy's rating.

Of course you have to take into consideration how close to his a prime a fighter is as well as his opponent.
To a certain extent you also have to take into consideration how competitive a fight was. Losing a tough 15 round-decision is not the same as losing in the 8th round; or of course the first round.

[elmersalsa]

We can't only go by who you beat. Some fighters didn't get the luxury to fight other fighters at the same time.

Examples:
Charley Burley vs Sugar Ray Robinson.
Eusebio Pedroza vs Salvador Sánchez
Mike McCallum vs any of the Fab 4
Peter Jackson vs John L. Sullivan
Roberto Duran vs Alexis Arguello

But, we could jugdge the fighters according to their accomplishments and what they meant to the sport. Sugar Ray Leonard was great fighter, I recognize that as well as everybody. But to put him on top of the great Archie Moore would be a TRAVESTY. Moore fought more, have more longevity and achieved great accomplishments even though he was blackmailed by top promoters. He was a top contender for a long time before getting a title shot. The title shot came at 36, and he capitalized on it by beating Joey Maxim, a very good fighter, and wins the 175lbs crown.

While Leonard at 36 wasn't even in the picture. He was thrashed by Terry Norris and then by Hector "Macho" Camacho. This is due to a career that was way too short.


Leonard over Moore? That's laughable. Anybody wants to contest that?

[elmersalsa]

Update on my list: I got a change of heart. While studying the great career of Charley Burley, I see that he fought and beat at least 5 hall of fame boxers:
Archie Moore, Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, Fritzie Zivic and Billy Soose. These were terrific fighters!

Burley was on top of the rankings at welterweight and middleweight without getting a title shot for at least 8 years. He was IGNORED by the top men of his time. He even fought great light-heavyweight boxers like Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshall. Black boxers that top men didn't want to scrap with. I had him at #60. By examining his career, he gotta be in the top 50. I have him at #32, now.


Erik "El Terrible" Morales is a great entry. He accomplished a lot. I got him at #80. I couldn't see he did much more than that.

Out is Khosai Galaxy. That is a 20th century great.

[Kalan]

I'm not big on the "fab four"

They all ducked Mike McCallum and they all skirted around a lot of other very skilled boxers.. And they all lost a few fights as well which Floyd Mayweather DIDN'T accomplish.. There was a lot of marketing and hype surrounding the "fab four" and a lot of excuses made for their losses.. Sugar Ray Leonard was 34 when he was completely dominated by Terry Norris and every excuse in the world has been made for that loss.

What people forget is that Leonard was fighting Norris because the alternatives were Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum, and Julian Jackson.

[walshb]

I'm not big on the "fab four"

They all ducked Mike McCallum and they all skirted around a lot of other very skilled boxers.. And they all lost a few fights as well which Floyd Mayweather DIDN'T accomplish.. There was a lot of marketing and hype surrounding the "fab four" and a lot of excuses made for their losses.. Sugar Ray Leonard was 34 when he was completely dominated by Terry Norris and every excuse in the world has been made for that loss.

What people forget is that Leonard was fighting Norris because the alternatives were Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum, and Julian Jackson.

I am a Leonard fand but the likes of Nunn anfd McCallum would have been very difficult fights for him at 154 and 160. I would not back him against either. Leonard was at best a WW. He was never a true MW fighter. Yes, he beat a very plodding and pedestrian Hagler, but Hagler for me was the right size for Leonard, as well as being a little slow.

[Keko]

Sometimes it's amazing how the same people to someone there are excuses for defeat while the other there are no fighters and are saying that there is no justification.

[Ambling Alp II]

We can't only go by who you beat. Some fighters didn't get the luxury to fight other fighters at the same time.

Examples:
Charley Burley vs Sugar Ray Robinson.
Eusebio Pedroza vs Salvador Sánchez
Mike McCallum vs any of the Fab 4
Peter Jackson vs John L. Sullivan
Roberto Duran vs Alexis Arguello

But, we could jugdge the fighters according to their accomplishments and what they meant to the sport. Sugar Ray Leonard was great fighter, I recognize that as well as everybody. But to put him on top of the great Archie Moore would be a TRAVESTY. Moore fought more, have more longevity and achieved great accomplishments even though he was blackmailed by top promoters. He was a top contender for a long time before getting a title shot. The title shot came at 36, and he capitalized on it by beating Joey Maxim, a very good fighter, and wins the 175lbs crown.

While Leonard at 36 wasn't even in the picture. He was thrashed by Terry Norris and then by Hector "Macho" Camacho. This is due to a career that was way too short.


Leonard over Moore? That's laughable. Anybody wants to contest that?

I agree you don't only go by who a fighter beat. you do have consider the losses as well, as I mentioned before.
Sure not every key fight that you would have liked to have seen actually occurred. We don't know what would have happened in those fights. We can only go by what actually happened.

Moore was obviously a great fighter. He fought a long time and is the rare exception to the age rule. But Leonard was better. He didn't have as many fights. But he was better. You often confuse the amount of fights a fighter has with how great he was. That is why we don't just look at the sheer number of how many fights a fighter won. You like to cherry pick it when it helps your case.

In his 20s, Moore lost several fights. It wasn't just Ezzard Charles, Holman Williams and Charlie Burley. He also lost to Johnny Romero, Teddy Yarosz, Shorty Hogue Jack Chase. and Eddie Booker. He two draws with Booker and with Fred Dixon. Good fighters, but come on, imagine if Leonard lost to guys to guys like that.
Leonard not only had better wins, he was much less likely to get upset by an inferior fighter.

[Ambling Alp II]

Sometimes it's amazing how the same people to someone there are excuses for defeat while the other there are no fighters and are saying that there is no justification.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying it is amazing how people pick and choose the excuses. For example, someone might say that Pac, De La Hoya, and Mosley were in their prime when Mayweather fought them. Then they say that Chavez and Whitaker were not when De La Hoya fought them. (They don't like De La Hoya) The net result that De La Hoya gets ripped for fights he lost and no credit for fights he won.

I agree with you on that. Some people have all the excuses in the world for the guys they like and then ignore legitimate for guys they don't.

It's always interesting regarding fights that didn't happen. People will often claim the guy they don't like ducked someone. They don't seem to consider that perhaps be the other guys was doing the ducking. Or the more likely reason that it didn't happen because the two fighters were not available at the same time.

[Keko]

Sometimes it's amazing how the same people to someone there are excuses for defeat while the other there are no fighters and are saying that there is no justification.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying it is amazing how people pick and choose the excuses. For example, someone might say that Pac, De La Hoya, and Mosley were in their prime when Mayweather fought them. Then they say that Chavez and Whitaker were not when De La Hoya fought them. (They don't like De La Hoya) The net result that De La Hoya gets ripped for fights he lost and no credit for fights he won.

I agree with you on that. Some people have all the excuses in the world for the guys they like and then ignore legitimate for guys they don't.

It's always interesting regarding fights that didn't happen. People will often claim the guy they don't like ducked someone. They don't seem to consider that perhaps be the other guys was doing the ducking. Or the more likely reason that it didn't happen because the two fighters were not available at the same time.

I agree ,De La Hoya is one good example.No exuse for DLH.

Those fighters that fans love to them, justifying the defeat and there could be a lot of names to list.
Some have almost 20 defeat but it's not a problem and find excuses.

That's why I say that it should always be taken with a grain of salt, and a list with the fans.
Some better and some worse is made!