BoxRec

U is brutal, probably Uzcudun.

V is for Villa, though I think Rodrigo Valdez is incredibly underrated.

H seems to be the most debatable letter to me. There are a lot of right answers.

For "W" it's between Barbados Joe Walcott and Mickey Walker. Tough one.

We may as well just skip "X", unless I've missed something.

King Carlos wrote:For "W" it's between Barbados Joe Walcott and Mickey Walker. Tough one.

We may as well just skip "X", unless I've missed something.

I like Whitaker over both of them. Wilde is also in the running.

I can't name an X at all.

Yuh, the Yarosz brothers or Jimmy Young.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:For "W" it's between Barbados Joe Walcott and Mickey Walker. Tough one.

We may as well just skip "X", unless I've missed something.

I like Whitaker over both of them. Wilde is also in the running.

I can't name an X at all.

Yuh, the Yarosz brothers or Jimmy Young.

I actually consider Wilde one of the more overrated fighters. Was he great? Probably. As great as he's made out to be? Not at all, in my opinion. Walker and Walcott both actually accomplished the things Wilde is so reknowned for yet never really did.

Whitaker is my favorite fighter, so I won't argue with anyone who places him.

As for "Z", another tough one. I'll go with Orlando Zulueta until someone comes out with a name I've likely overlooked.

zARATE

What about Ali and Louis?

Armstrong & langford happened to them.

Agreed on Zarate. Zale, Zivic & zapata would be my second string.

I dont think Langford is a given over Louis.
X ?
Israel Xolaltenco
Rolly Xipu
Xabendlini
Damn poor.

Basilio has a strong case for B
M - Marciano or Monzon (I'll go w/ Monzon)

how about X & Y?

tanibanana wrote:Basilio has a strong case for B
M - Marciano or Monzon (I'll go w/ Monzon)

how about X & Y?

SEE ABOVE POST FOR "X" AND "y" JjIMMY YOUNG?
The one that strikes me is "L", I love Langford but over Louis-I think not.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Armstrong & langford happened to them.

Agreed on Zarate. Zale, Zivic & zapata would be my second string.

Orlando Zulueta....I must've been high. Zapata's one of my favorite fighters for Christ's sake.

donnellon wrote:

tanibanana wrote:Basilio has a strong case for B
M - Marciano or Monzon (I'll go w/ Monzon)

how about X & Y?

SEE ABOVE POST FOR "X" AND "y" JjIMMY YOUNG?
The one that strikes me is "L", I love Langford but over Louis-I think not.

Why? Louis was a great Heavyweight champion, but Langford beat some of the best of all time from Lightweight all the way up to Heavyweight. His record is difficult to top. He beat Joe Gans as a 17 year old kid. Narrowly beat Stanley Ketchell in his prime. Knocked out Harry Wills when on the downslide of his career. There aren't many fighters who stand up to those kind of achievements. He has as good a case as any for the #1 pound-for-pound spot.

King Carlos wrote:

donnellon wrote:

tanibanana wrote:Basilio has a strong case for B
M - Marciano or Monzon (I'll go w/ Monzon)

how about X & Y?

SEE ABOVE POST FOR "X" AND "y" JjIMMY YOUNG?
The one that strikes me is "L", I love Langford but over Louis-I think not.

Why? Louis was a great Heavyweight champion, but Langford beat some of the best of all time from Lightweight all the way up to Heavyweight. His record is difficult to top. He beat Joe Gans as a 17 year old kid. Narrowly beat Stanley Ketchell in his prime. Knocked out Harry Wills when on the downslide of his career. There aren't many fighters who stand up to those kind of achievements. He has as good a case as any for the #1 pound-for-pound spot.

I think Sam has a case as one of the best P4P fighters ever but so has Louis. Joe routinely beat fighters 40-60 pounds heavier also and held the title of the best fighter in the world for 10-12 years. He defeated the 5 previous undisputed HW champions on his way to the title and survived 25 challanges to his crown, despite World War 2.
Sam was 20 I believe when he bested Gans, still no mean feat, but Holly, Blackburn, Walcott gave him plenty. His fight with Ketchell was generally considered even and probably was no more than a trailer for a finish or title fight to be held later. Sam campained as a Heavy from about 1908 and was exclusively in that class from 1911 for the greater part of his career. His career in that class, while outstanding does not match Joe's (or come near) IMO.

I love the Brown Bomber, but he wasn't considered the best fighter in the world for over a decade. Hank Armstrong cut into quite a bit of that.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I love the Brown Bomber, but he wasn't considered the best fighter in the world for over a decade. Hank Armstrong cut into quite a bit of that.

You think he beats Joe?

donnellon wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

donnellon wrote: SEE ABOVE POST FOR "X" AND "y" JjIMMY YOUNG?
The one that strikes me is "L", I love Langford but over Louis-I think not.

Why? Louis was a great Heavyweight champion, but Langford beat some of the best of all time from Lightweight all the way up to Heavyweight. His record is difficult to top. He beat Joe Gans as a 17 year old kid. Narrowly beat Stanley Ketchell in his prime. Knocked out Harry Wills when on the downslide of his career. There aren't many fighters who stand up to those kind of achievements. He has as good a case as any for the #1 pound-for-pound spot.

I think Sam has a case as one of the best P4P fighters ever but so has Louis. Joe routinely beat fighters 40-60 pounds heavier also and held the title of the best fighter in the world for 10-12 years. He defeated the 5 previous undisputed HW champions on his way to the title and survived 25 challanges to his crown, despite World War 2.
Sam was 20 I believe when he bested Gans, still no mean feat, but Holly, Blackburn, Walcott gave him plenty. His fight with Ketchell was generally considered even and probably was no more than a trailer for a finish or title fight to be held later. Sam campained as a Heavy from about 1908 and was exclusively in that class from 1911 for the greater part of his career. His career in that class, while outstanding does not match Joe's (or come near) IMO.

Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, and a post-Baer Carnera were the only guys Louis bested that had him outweighed by any significant margin, unless you want to include the portly Galento in that equation. All of the aforementioned being on the slide when Louis got to them. That in comparison to Langford routinely beating the likes of Wills (despite being well past his prime for their series), Jeanette, McVea, Tate, Godfrey, etc. This at a time when Langford was mainly weighing at or around the 200 pound mark due in large part to being out of peak shape, despite the fact that he was the naturally smaller man.

Louis was the Heavyweight king for the period you mentioned, but I'd rate Robinson, Armstrong, Pep, and Charles over him during that time period. At the very least they were on par in a pound for pound sense.

The fact that Langford wasn't as strong a Heavyweight for the larger part of his time there is irrelevant, considering he was past his prime for the vast majority of it and still an elite/world class force much of the way. He was really starting to slip by around 1914. Everything after then is really just icing on the cake, similar to Duran post-Leonard.

Louis was the greater Heavyweight, no question about it. However, with Langford you have a guy who beat some of the best fighters of the era at Light, Welter, Middle, Lt. Heavy, and Heavyweight.

Check this out:

Among the top Lightweights he beat when at or around the limit: Gans (his age on boxrec differs from what I've read elsewhere on this fight), Holly, Blackburn, and McFadden.

Among the top Welterweights: Barbados Joe Walcott (or by all accounts should've won the decision) and Dixie Kid.

Among the top Middleweights: Stanley Ketchell narrowly (you could call it a draw if you wish, I agree with what you say regarding it) and Young Peter Jackson.

Among the top Lt. Heavies: Philly Jack O'Brien and Jeff Clark

And at Heavyweight he beat all of the names I previously mentioned while being constantly avoided by Jack Johnson.

That is a difficult resume to top for any fighter, made all the more impressive by the number of fights he wasn't given due to a combination of race and risk. The man was among the very best in the world from Lightweight all the way to Heavyweight, with most of his losses/draws being past prime, and others being questionable as to whether or not they were on the level.

Again, Louis was no doubt the greater Heavyweight, but Langford was no doubt the better of the two pound for pound, at least in my opinion.

donnellon wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I love the Brown Bomber, but he wasn't considered the best fighter in the world for over a decade. Hank Armstrong cut into quite a bit of that.

You think he beats Joe?

I don't really delve into mythical match ups between Lightweights and Heavyweights. It would be some kind of war. That's really besides the point. Joe didn't carry the mythical title of the worlds best fighter for many of the years you're crediting him with.

It's all subjective, Joe Louis is certainly an acceptable answer, but I have Langford ahead of him and it isn't by a little.

One thing for sure, King Carlos is a solid addition to the forum.
Puts forth an opinion,backs it up. Agree or not, ya gotta respect that.

Expug wrote:One thing for sure, King Carlos is a solid addition to the forum.
Puts forth an opinion,backs it up. Agree or not, ya gotta respect that.

Definitely

Thanks fellas.

Yeah I post in here to learn because I don't have much historical boxing knowledge, and not to pretend I do. This thread has been great for me to hear about fighters I hadn't heard of before :)

Be interested to see what The Ring comes up with.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

donnellon wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I love the Brown Bomber, but he wasn't considered the best fighter in the world for over a decade. Hank Armstrong cut into quite a bit of that.

You think he beats Joe?

I don't really delve into mythical match ups between Lightweights and Heavyweights. It would be some kind of war. That's really besides the point. Joe didn't carry the mythical title of the worlds best fighter for many of the years you're crediting him with.

It's all subjective, Joe Louis is certainly an acceptable answer, but I have Langford ahead of him and it isn't by a little.

My point was that Louis was the best fighter in the World period, for 10-12 years, didn't mention P4P and I never heard anyone disputing that.

Isn't that the same thing? You mean that Louis would have beaten Armstrong in the ring? Is that a point that needs to be made? So Wlad is the best fighter in the world now?

That's silly at best.

King Carlos wrote:

donnellon wrote:

King Carlos wrote: Why? Louis was a great Heavyweight champion, but Langford beat some of the best of all time from Lightweight all the way up to Heavyweight. His record is difficult to top. He beat Joe Gans as a 17 year old kid. Narrowly beat Stanley Ketchell in his prime. Knocked out Harry Wills when on the downslide of his career. There aren't many fighters who stand up to those kind of achievements. He has as good a case as any for the #1 pound-for-pound spot.

I think Sam has a case as one of the best P4P fighters ever but so has Louis. Joe routinely beat fighters 40-60 pounds heavier also and held the title of the best fighter in the world for 10-12 years. He defeated the 5 previous undisputed HW champions on his way to the title and survived 25 challanges to his crown, despite World War 2.
Sam was 20 I believe when he bested Gans, still no mean feat, but Holly, Blackburn, Walcott gave him plenty. His fight with Ketchell was generally considered even and probably was no more than a trailer for a finish or title fight to be held later. Sam campained as a Heavy from about 1908 and was exclusively in that class from 1911 for the greater part of his career. His career in that class, while outstanding does not match Joe's (or come near) IMO.

Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, and a post-Baer Carnera were the only guys Louis bested that had him outweighed by any significant margin, unless you want to include the portly Galento in that equation. All of the aforementioned being on the slide when Louis got to them. That in comparison to Langford routinely beating the likes of Wills (despite being well past his prime for their series), Jeanette, McVea, Tate, Godfrey, etc. This at a time when Langford was mainly weighing at or around the 200 pound mark due in large part to being out of peak shape, despite the fact that he was the naturally smaller man.

Louis was the Heavyweight king for the period you mentioned, but I'd rate Robinson, Armstrong, Pep, and Charles over him during that time period. At the very least they were on par in a pound for pound sense.

The fact that Langford wasn't as strong a Heavyweight for the larger part of his time there is irrelevant, considering he was past his prime for the vast majority of it and still an elite/world class force much of the way. He was really starting to slip by around 1914. Everything after then is really just icing on the cake, similar to Duran post-Leonard.

Louis was the greater Heavyweight, no question about it. However, with Langford you have a guy who beat some of the best fighters of the era at Light, Welter, Middle, Lt. Heavy, and Heavyweight.

Check this out:

Among the top Lightweights he beat when at or around the limit: Gans (his age on boxrec differs from what I've read elsewhere on this fight), Holly, Blackburn, and McFadden.

Among the top Welterweights: Barbados Joe Walcott (or by all accounts should've won the decision) and Dixie Kid.

Among the top Middleweights: Stanley Ketchell narrowly (you could call it a draw if you wish, I agree with what you say regarding it) and Young Peter Jackson.

Among the top Lt. Heavies: Philly Jack O'Brien and Jeff Clark

And at Heavyweight he beat all of the names I previously mentioned while being constantly avoided by Jack Johnson.

That is a difficult resume to top for any fighter, made all the more impressive by the number of fights he wasn't given due to a combination of race and risk. The man was among the very best in the world from Lightweight all the way to Heavyweight, with most of his losses/draws being past prime, and others being questionable as to whether or not they were on the level.

Again, Louis was no doubt the greater Heavyweight, but Langford was no doubt the better of the two pound for pound, at least in my opinion.

You are selling Louis short in stating that Simon(2), Baer(2) and Galento were past it. Buddy was 25 years old, coming off his biggest win, Simon was 28 and Galento was on the streak of his life, ten or more wins over fringe contenders. Even Carnera was only one year after the Baer loss, had won four in a row and would defeat the useful Neusell in his next fight.
Sam's age is verified in Clay Moyle's excellent book on the great Sam, and great he was, only a fool would argue otherwise, but Sam didn't dominate the lower weights like some would have us believe, Blackburn, Holly, Young Peter Jackson, Walcott, Temple all gave him trouble and eventually Sam out-grew these opponents. These opponents were good but there was no racial bias as most were colored. Nobody could make Sam the ATG P4P on these performances, IMO.
We then have the Ketchell contest and after that Sam was a Heavyweight, a very good , maybe great one. His win over O'Brien was when Jack was passed it and 10 pounds lighter than Sam, even though I have no doubt that he would beat a peak O'Brien. He was as heavy as Louis when he tangled with Wills and Godfrey. I know it's dangerous territory to challange Sam in any way but 15 years at the top at Hw with only one avenged loss across a wide weight span takes some beating.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Isn't that the same thing? You mean that Louis would have beaten Armstrong in the ring? Is that a point that needs to be made? So Wlad is the best fighter in the world now?

That's silly at best.

Wlad is the best fighter in the world or Vitali. Simple. P4P is something we do for fun on forums.