The Top 100 Greatest Boxers of All-Time

[Kalan]

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.

Leonard was a better showman, a better marketer, and a better cherry-picker than Moore... Moore was the better fighter at his absolute peak.

I like the 13-fight winning streak Archie Moore went on after the Charley Burley loss... Burley gave Archie a valuable tip on how to avoid clinches when your man is hurt. "I never let a fighter get under a punch. I'd rather miss a punch short than let an opponent duck under one and grab me." Moore used this in several fights, including when he got Harold Johnson hurt and finished him off. Moore won 13 straight including 2 dominant wins over Lloyd Marshall who was the top 160/175 pounder in the country. But that was only 1944-45 from his 76th through his 88th fights.

Moore finally hit his stride in 1948... From his 120th fight through his 177th fight he was never stopped -- and he only lost 1 close decision to Harold Johnson -- a great boxer who he beat 4 times... His other 2 losses in that stretch were ticky-tac DQ's for supposed low blows -- so he could easily have won 58 straight fights -- beating Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim several times each...also Bob Baker, Nino Valdes, Jimmy Slade, Jimmy Bivins, Bert Lytell, Leonard Marrow, Bob Satterfield, and of course Bobo Olson who was an easy KO victim -- besting everybody from the 160's to 224.

Ray Leonard was smarter, more talented, and with a sharper learning curve than Moore -- but he could never have handled the schedule or the stress.

[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.

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!

De La Hoya is the perfect example regarding this list. He himself beat Whitaker and Chavez when they were well past their best. He himself was way past it when he lost to Pac and Mayweahter. Yet the list maker only count the losses to Pac and Mayweater.

You either have to count both the losses and the wins or neither.
In this case I would count neither. Past the prime is real at times. It does get overused. However, I feel you have to use it when it is real. In the De La Hoya example, if you don't use it, then you are giving Mayeather and Pac as much credit as you are giving Shane Moseley who actually did beat a prime DLH. That is minimizing Mosley's win and giving too much credit to Mayweather and Pac.

Many excuse are really lame. ie -The fighter had trouble making weight; he was not a natural at this weight class when he had been fighting at it for years, he was not motivated, he had a tummyache, he had a new trainer etc. Those kind should be ignored.

[Keko]

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!

De La Hoya is the perfect example regarding this list. He himself beat Whitaker and Chavez when they were well past their best. He himself was way past it when he lost to Pac and Mayweahter. Yet the list maker only count the losses to Pac and Mayweater.

You either have to count both the losses and the wins or neither.
In this case I would count neither. Past the prime is real at times. It does get overused. However, I feel you have to use it when it is real. In the De La Hoya example, if you don't use it, then you are giving Mayeather and Pac as much credit as you are giving Shane Moseley who actually did beat a prime DLH. That is minimizing Mosley's win and giving too much credit to Mayweather and Pac.

Many excuse are really lame. ie -The fighter had trouble making weight; he was not a natural at this weight class when he had been fighting at it for years, he was not motivated, he had a tummyache, he had a new trainer etc. Those kind should be ignored.

It is not doubtful that he belongs to the top 100!

[Kalan]

Who says any of them were past their best??? Boxers don't deteriorate as rapidly as that. Mayweather beat a Oscar De La Hoya who just won the 154-Title...

De La Hoya beat a Pernell Whitaker who was 41-1-1 and still the Welterweight Champion of the World...

De La Hoya beat a Chavez who was 96-1-1...

Could weight draining have anything to do with DLH's showing against Pacquiao??? More so than being past it??? ... He looked as energetic as dandelion fluff.

[elmersalsa]

AMBLING Alp is the only one that thinks that SRL was better than the Ol' Mongoose, Archie Moore.

Does anyone else think that way?

If Leonard would have fought in the 40s and 50s or even in the 60s, he would have as many losses as Moore. He is talking like Leonard had super powers or something.

Anybody else in here believe that Leonard was better than Moore? Raise your hands and why?

[elmersalsa]

Oscar De La Hoya's greatest defining win was when he stopped a shopworn great Julio Cesar Chavez. That was it. All the other fights against a very great prime opponent he lost BIG TIME!

He didn't beat the great Pernell Whitaker. No way. He didn't do enough to win that fight.

[Kalan]

AMBLING Alp is the only one that thinks that SRL was better than the Ol' Mongoose, Archie Moore.

Does anyone else think that way?

If Leonard would have fought in the 40s and 50s or even in the 60s, he would have as many losses as Moore. He is talking like Leonard had super powers or something.

Anybody else in here believe that Leonard was better than Moore? Raise your hands and why?

It's not WHEN Leonard fought... It's HOW OFTEN he fought and against WHO!! ... Moore fought 220 fights and scored 132 KO wins... Archie fought every division from Welterweight through Heavyweight and didn't draw any lines in regard to any opponents... He fought them all...big and small...short or tall... if they liked to box or brawl... and when and where they wanted to fight.. And if he lost by KO he was still on the phone the next day lining up his next fight.. 220 of them.. He was one of the truest professional boxers there ever was.

Leonard drew many lines... He abandoned the Middleweight Title because the top contenders were extremely tough... He did NOT want to fight them.. He concocted another "World Title" by forcing an obscure boxer to boil down 7 pounds below his normal fighting weight... bribing him with millions...

Leonard was a businessman more than a boxer... He was a very clever businessman like George Foreman and Floyd Mayweather -- and he should be given credit for his genius for the dollar and great business instincts... But he wasn't a businessman who didn't make mistakes... Terry Norris was a big mistake. Ray reckoned Norris had a weak chin due to his getting smashed out cold but Julian Jackson.. But that China chin was much harder to get hold of then Leonard thought.. Terry was very skilled and very elusive on the scale of guys who Leonard had experience fighting.

[Keko]

You don't need all the emotions of a watch and dont go, 14 journalists gave Whitaker and 11 Hoya win and 4 draw. Obviously more than a one-sided fight was.


Leonard is better boxer,on the technical level of Moore.
The other thing is the strength and length of career.

[Kalan]

I don't need 11 journalists to agree with me that De La Hoya won... All I need to do is watch the fight and see who scored cleaner and more effective punches

Leonard wasn't better technically... Moore had more than 28 years and 220 professional fights to perfect his technique... Leonard was a better athlete, but not a better technician... I think the Norris and Camacho fights bear me out... Leonard faltered at 34... Moore was reigning as World Champion when he was past 40.

[Keko]

A lot of talk about how the different media see the fight Oscar vs. Pernell


I think is better tehnically Leonard!

[elmersalsa]

A lot of talk about how the different media see the fight Oscar vs. Pernell


I think is better tehnically Leonard!

Sugar Ray is not more technically gifted than Sweet Pea or the great Archie Moore. He was faster in his combinations than both of them. He relied in his speed. Take away his speed and he was not as good technically like Moore or Whitaker.

[elmersalsa]

With the exception of Ambling Alp, ANYBODY ELSE BELIEVES that Sugar Ray was better than the Ol' Mongoose?

Explain it to the forum.

[elmersalsa]

Leonard wasn't better technically... Moore had more than 28 years and 220 professional fights to perfect his technique... Leonard was a better athlete, but not a better technician... I think the Norris and Camacho fights bear me out... Leonard faltered at 34... Moore was reigning as World Champion when he was past 40.

I TOTALLY AGREE!

[Keko]

Sugar was better tehnycally from Moore no question!

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard wasn't better technically... Moore had more than 28 years and 220 professional fights to perfect his technique... Leonard was a better athlete, but not a better technician... I think the Norris and Camacho fights bear me out... Leonard faltered at 34... Moore was reigning as World Champion when he was past 40.

I TOTALLY AGREE!

Totally agree? Wow. Counting the Norris fight is bad enough. The fight with Camacho when Leonard was 40 and had not fought in 6 years? What solid evidence against Leonard. I guess we can stop with all the Robeto Duran crybaby excuses and count all of his losses now.

I guess we can also look at Moore;s record and make no excuses. In his first 14 years of boxing, he never had a year with a loss or draw. Never beat a contender until he had been fighting for four years.

Leonard was as technically sound as anyone.

[elmersalsa]

Leonard wasn't better technically... Moore had more than 28 years and 220 professional fights to perfect his technique... Leonard was a better athlete, but not a better technician... I think the Norris and Camacho fights bear me out... Leonard faltered at 34... Moore was reigning as World Champion when he was past 40.

I TOTALLY AGREE!

Totally agree? Wow. Counting the Norris fight is bad enough. The fight with Camacho when Leonard was 40 and had not fought in 6 years? What solid evidence against Leonard. I guess we can stop with all the Robeto Duran crybaby excuses and count all of his losses now.

I guess we can also look at Moore;s record and make no excuses. In his first 14 years of boxing, he never had a year with a loss or draw. Never beat a contender until he had been fighting for four years.

Leonard was as technically sound as anyone.

ONLY YOU is defending the great Sugar Ray Leonard. Anybody else, please?

Does anyone else in this forum believes that SRL was better than the great Archie Moore?

Say it to the forum and why?

[Ambling Alp II]

Great counter argument. As always, you ignore the comments that hurt your case.

Besides, only four people have weighed in on this. Keko and myself picked Leonard over Moore. You and the esteemed Kalan are going with Moore. That makes it 2-2.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'd rate Moore slightly ahead of Leonard. Ray wasn't a technically great defensive fighter, but offensively he literally had every punch and could do everything.

[Give up]

Leonard wasn't better technically... Moore had more than 28 years and 220 professional fights to perfect his technique... Leonard was a better athlete, but not a better technician... I think the Norris and Camacho fights bear me out... Leonard faltered at 34... Moore was reigning as World Champion when he was past 40.

Leonard was as technically sound as anyone.

[Kalan]

Leonard was as technically sound as anyone.

No he wasn't... His defense had holes in it... That's the biggest problem when you start to age.

A technically superior boxer and defender can go for a longer time past his physical best... Bernard Hopkins, Archie Moore, Eder Jofre, Jack Johnson, Larry Holmes, Mike McCallum, James Toney, Floyd Mayweather, Roberto Duran, Emile Griffith, Harold Johnson, Willie Pep, Laszlo Papp, Manny Pacquiao, Tommy Ryan, Juan Manuel Marquez, Bob Fitzsimmons, Charles "Kid" McCoy,

A technically flawed fighter starts to falter when he gets into his mid 30's... Muhammad Ali, Ray Leonard, Roy Jones, Wilfredo Benitez, Marvin Hagler, Oscar De La Hoya, Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Felix Trinidad, Mike Tyson, Nonito Donaire, Nino Benvenuti, Gene Fullmer, Joe Frazier, Jack Sharkey, Jack Dempsey,

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard was as technically sound as anyone.

Leonard was great defensively. His defense was a key reason he beat Benitez, Duran and Hagler.

There is a misconception about defense. A ot of people seem to think that it's just about how much you get hit. However, if many fighters can go into a shell and don't do much offensively, and not get hit a lot. Leonard could have done that. However, was usually much more offensively minded.

As Leonard and Moore, they are hard to compare against each other. During their primes, they were in different weight classes. They foguht in different eras. More importantly, they each had odd careers. Leonard career took a different turn becaue of his eye injury. He doubltess would have had many more fights. He missed five years with the exception of one fight. Even after he came back he was really just a part time fighter.

Moore is the exception to the aging rule. He was actually better in his late 30 and 40s then in his 20s. If you actually look at his record during his first 14 years as a pro, it's actually quite spotty. He did of course have many nice wins but there are several losses and draws as well.
If Leonard had fought during Moore's era and never had an eue injury, he would have many, many more fights. If Moore had fought in Leonard era and missed 5 years because of eye injuries, he would many less fights.

[Kalan]

One reason Leonard sustained that debilitating eye injury is because Hearns beat the sh!t out of his FACE with jabs and straight right hands in their 1st encounter... Hearns was very flawed defensively himself.. Tommy was wide open for straight rights and sweeping overhand rights, so Ray got him.

Neither Leonard nor Hearns were as smooth as Mayweather.. and neither was Benitez.. Benitez ripped Leonard with many punches in a brutally contested war of attrition.. Leonard was physically bigger and tougher and eventually clubbed the hittable Benitez into a wreck.. Wilfredo was so flawed defensively he was washed up in his 20's.. When Hamsho completely dominated Benitez I thought he was done.. He probably should have quit right there.

In contrast to Ray, Tommy, Hagler, and Benitez -- Duran had great defensive instincts.. He showed this in his 3rd De Jesus fight.. But Duran's physical condition when he entered the ring for many of his fights was pudgy and completely screwed.. He stayed out all night and drank and smoked and had the James Toney model for getting into shape and staying in shape... If Duran had the discipline and ambition of a Mayweather he might have been the best ever.

Archie Moore started out as a Welterweight like Leonard.. He was not a boxing genius for a Hell of a long time.. The smaller Charlie Burley dominated Moore in his 75th pro fight.. Moore talked to Burley and learned a Hell of a lot from that fight that he applied to future fights.. If you don't have a great trainer or great natural instincts you do learn more from your fights.. Just from getting hit so much it makes you think how and why you got hit.. If you have trouble with jabs, or left hooks, or uppercuts, or straight shots, or overhand shots, or sweeping power punches or whatever you're getting hit with, you figure it out.

Moore fought so much because he thought he was getting better and learning more from every fight. I read one of his autobiographies about 30 years ago and still remember many of his stories. Between his 119th fight and his 178th fight he had the best stretch of his career. He didn't think he lost any of them -- only losing a couple ticky tack DQ's and a very close fight to Harold Johnson who he beat 4 times and thought he could beat anytime anyway. When he fought Marciano he knew he was getting really old and suffering from a lot of ring wear and tear.. But he felt his greater experience and know-how would always bring him through. He was a great advocate of boxers looking, sounding, and being confident of victory until the last gasp. "One punch can change everything. If you're not absolutely confident of victory you won't land it. The fans don't want to hear from any fighter who's not certain of victory. If you don't feel confident, fake it. Don't be a wimp." Also if you get an opponent going, "You've got to beat him right into the canvas. I've come back many times from assumed defeats."

A curious habit he had was he used to stay up all night writing replies to letters from his fans. Sometimes 30 or 40 letters a night. Then he would go out at 5 or 6 AM and do 14 miles of roadwork.. 7 miles out and 7 miles back.. He would alternate running and walking and this would take him a couple hours and he'd eat breakfast and take a long nap -- and take another nap in the evening.

[elmersalsa]

One reason Leonard sustained that debilitating eye injury is because Hearns beat the sh!t out of his FACE with jabs and straight right hands in their 1st encounter... Hearns was very flawed defensively himself.. Tommy was wide open for straight rights and sweeping overhand rights, so Ray got him.

Neither Leonard nor Hearns were as smooth as Mayweather.. and neither was Benitez.. Benitez ripped Leonard with many punches in a brutally contested war of attrition.. Leonard was physically bigger and tougher and eventually clubbed the hittable Benitez into a wreck.. Wilfredo was so flawed defensively he was washed up in his 20's.. When Hamsho completely dominated Benitez I thought he was done.. He probably should have quit right there.

In contrast to Ray, Tommy, Hagler, and Benitez -- Duran had great defensive instincts.. He showed this in his 3rd De Jesus fight.. But Duran's physical condition when he entered the ring for many of his fights was pudgy and completely screwed.. He stayed out all night and drank and smoked and had the James Toney model for getting into shape and staying in shape... If Duran had the discipline and ambition of a Mayweather he might have been the best ever.

Archie Moore started out as a Welterweight like Leonard.. He was not a boxing genius for a Hell of a long time.. The smaller Charlie Burley dominated Moore in his 75th pro fight.. Moore talked to Burley and learned a Hell of a lot from that fight that he applied to future fights.. If you don't have a great trainer or great natural instincts you do learn more from your fights.. Just from getting hit so much it makes you think how and why you got hit.. If you have trouble with jabs, or left hooks, or uppercuts, or straight shots, or overhand shots, or sweeping power punches or whatever you're getting hit with, you figure it out.

Moore fought so much because he thought he was getting better and learning more from every fight. I read one of his autobiographies about 30 years ago and still remember many of his stories. Between his 119th fight and his 178th fight he had the best stretch of his career. He didn't think he lost any of them -- only losing a couple ticky tack DQ's and a very close fight to Harold Johnson who he beat 4 times and thought he could beat anytime anyway. When he fought Marciano he knew he was getting really old and suffering from a lot of ring wear and tear.. But he felt his greater experience and know-how would always bring him through. He was a great advocate of boxers looking, sounding, and being confident of victory until the last gasp. "One punch can change everything. If you're not absolutely confident of victory you won't land it. The fans don't want to hear from any fighter who's not certain of victory. If you don't feel confident, fake it. Don't be a wimp." Also if you get an opponent going, "You've got to beat him right into the canvas. I've come back many times from assumed defeats."

A curious habit he had was he used to stay up all night writing replies to letters from his fans. Sometimes 30 or 40 letters a night. Then he would go out at 5 or 6 AM and do 14 miles of roadwork.. 7 miles out and 7 miles back.. He would alternate running and walking and this would take him a couple hours and he'd eat breakfast and take a long nap -- and take another nap in the evening.

Archie Moore. He was too great to be true!

[davie]

Add my name to the "Moore is better than SRL" list please

[elmersalsa]

Leonard was as technically sound as anyone.

No he wasn't... His defense had holes in it... That's the biggest problem when you start to age.

A technically superior boxer and defender can go for a longer time past his physical best... Bernard Hopkins, Archie Moore, Eder Jofre, Jack Johnson, Larry Holmes, Mike McCallum, James Toney, Floyd Mayweather, Roberto Duran, Emile Griffith, Harold Johnson, Willie Pep, Laszlo Papp, Manny Pacquiao, Tommy Ryan, Juan Manuel Marquez, Bob Fitzsimmons, Charles "Kid" McCoy,

A technically flawed fighter starts to falter when he gets into his mid 30's... Muhammad Ali, Ray Leonard, Roy Jones, Wilfredo Benitez, Marvin Hagler, Oscar De La Hoya, Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Felix Trinidad, Mike Tyson, Nonito Donaire, Nino Benvenuti, Gene Fullmer, Joe Frazier, Jack Sharkey, Jack Dempsey,

I totally agree, again!