BoxRec

Pretty much everyone's top 5 or 10 list can be shuffled and justified, but I agree with the few that said Gene Tunney, even though the first guy that came to my mind was Ray Robinson.

Tunney was something like 65-1? Beat Dempsey twice after moving up to heavy. His only loss was to Harry Greb, which he avenged 4 times. Greb makes many people's top 5 and 10 lists. Tunney was very smart, and had ring smarts and a style that was ahead of his time.

gilgamesh wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:what a lot of you guys do not get is that guy like joe louis, langford, henry armstrong or other you list as #1 ever simply dont have nothing on those 3 listed when it comes down to what matters in boxing and that is speed, power, athletiscm, footwork.

nobody can do anything about his opposition. sure you can fiht the best available, but when it come down to the best available being no atg material than what, than all of the sudden you are no atg. doesnt make sense. it is not wards fault that there is no julian jakson, no prime calzaghe, no prime eubank, no prime mcclellan around. his skills prove he is atg.

when we talk about best boxer ever, we should talk about skills and athletiscm etc, like robinson or jones, leonard.

when we talk about best reccord ever, than we should talk about the boxer who boxed the most top quality oposition, such as robinson or armstrong or who climbed the most division and was the most impressiv doing so, like pac.

record and actual ability (skills, athletiscm, speed, simply the factors that mean something to beat an opponent) are 2 seperated things. chavez had a much better record than pernell and simply lost. donaire beat much better opponents than rigo and simply lost most of the rounds. skills win fights, not records.

Nobody denies that Jones and Leonard were exceptionally skilled fighters, but who you beat certainly factors into your standing in the sport. Leonard has phenomenal wins that certainly stamp him as one of the best fighters of the 1980's...but not one of the 3 best fighters to ever lace up a pair of gloves.

You have to go by resume when discussing a fighters greatness because who they beat, and how great the guys they beat were is the only thing you can really measure a guy against. Whether or not his skills were so great it would've been enough to beat most fighters that ever lived is something you'll never be able to know.

i never asked

who is the greatest boxer

which boxer has the greatest record

my thread question is: who is the bext boxer ever. i say it again, ability wins fights, not records.

now i understand why so many of you write down so much nonsense like wlad best boxer in the world or povtkin beats wilder

a poll with the ultimae of best boxer and 10 votes go to tunney, willie pepp or other...like slow pepp would have any chance of todays athletic superior boxers. vasyl and rigo would beat him easy.

Chepppaaa wrote:now i understand why so many of you write down so much nonsense like wlad best boxer in the world or povtkin beats wilder

a poll with the ultimae of best boxer and 10 votes go to tunney, willie pepp or other...like slow pepp would have any chance of todays athletic superior boxers. vasyl and rigo would beat him easy.

You realize that Willie Pep is basically the Gold Standard to which all defensive mastery is measured right?

gilgamesh wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:now i understand why so many of you write down so much nonsense like wlad best boxer in the world or povtkin beats wilder

a poll with the ultimae of best boxer and 10 votes go to tunney, willie pepp or other...like slow pepp would have any chance of todays athletic superior boxers. vasyl and rigo would beat him easy.

You realize that Willie Pep is basically the Gold Standard to which all defensive mastery is measured right?

yes and he was slow in todays standards...compared to vasyl, garry russel or rigo. they would simply overwehlm him. yes willies record is superior. but in terms of boxing and one beating the other, i would favour the others over him.

Chepppaaa wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:now i understand why so many of you write down so much nonsense like wlad best boxer in the world or povtkin beats wilder

a poll with the ultimae of best boxer and 10 votes go to tunney, willie pepp or other...like slow pepp would have any chance of todays athletic superior boxers. vasyl and rigo would beat him easy.

You realize that Willie Pep is basically the Gold Standard to which all defensive mastery is measured right?

yes and he was slow in todays standards...compared to vasyl, garry russel or rigo. they would simply overwehlm him. yes willies record is superior. but in terms of boxing and one beating the other, i would favour the others over him.

I'd favor Pep in all 3 of those fights. Though Lomachenko or Rigo would certainly give him a tough go of it tactically. I think he'd outbox Gary Russell rather easily.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jas80s wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:what a lot of you guys do not get is that guy like joe louis, langford, henry armstrong or other you list as #1 ever simply dont have nothing on those 3 listed when it comes down to what matters in boxing and that is speed, power, athletiscm, footwork.

nobody can do anything about his opposition. sure you can fiht the best available, but when it come down to the best available being no atg material than what, than all of the sudden you are no atg. doesnt make sense. it is not wards fault that there is no julian jakson, no prime calzaghe, no prime eubank, no prime mcclellan around. his skills prove he is atg.

when we talk about best boxer ever, we should talk about skills and athletiscm etc, like robinson or jones, leonard.

when we talk about best reccord ever, than we should talk about the boxer who boxed the most top quality oposition, such as robinson or armstrong or who climbed the most division and was the most impressiv doing so, like pac.

record and actual ability (skills, athletiscm, speed, simply the factors that mean something to beat an opponent) are 2 seperated things. chavez had a much better record than pernell and simply lost. donaire beat much better opponents than rigo and simply lost most of the rounds. skills win fights, not records.

So, it sounds like you are suggesting that Louis, Langford, and Armstrong were not skilled? To be honest, I have a hard time recalling any credible source suggesting that Joe Louis was somehow deficient when it came to speed, power, athleicism, and footwork, or Armstrong for that matter. In fact, I think it is safe to say that they are widely regarded as among the very best in those areas, hence their names routinely being offered in these discussions.

But, Roy Jones at 160 and 168 was special. Not only did he seem nearly invincible, but he held wins over Hopkins and James Toney, so he beat other tremendous fighters as well. Other than longevity, I don't see why he wouldn't warrant consideration as an all-time type talent. His record and performance at 175 was outstanding to me, but not at a level to be considered an all time great, just my opinion.

it isnt black and white, just because somebody is better than the other, doesnt mean thee other is bad..

Very well, thank you for clarifying, now allow me to clarify my question. It sounds to me then like you are saying there is a decided difference between Jones for example (and other fighters today like Lomachenko and Rigondeaux) and the fighters listed. I guess my question is still the same, what makes you think that the fighters you listed are not exceptionally gifted when it comes to speed, power, athleticism, and footwork? What would you be basing that on? If they are slow like "old Willie Pep" or lacked skills and power, then I guess it was weak opposition that allowed them to win so many fights. And of course, if it was weak opposition, then why would Henry Armstrong warrant consideration as having the best record ever as you suggested above? I can't work around the conundrum.

jas80s wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

jas80s wrote:
So, it sounds like you are suggesting that Louis, Langford, and Armstrong were not skilled? To be honest, I have a hard time recalling any credible source suggesting that Joe Louis was somehow deficient when it came to speed, power, athleicism, and footwork, or Armstrong for that matter. In fact, I think it is safe to say that they are widely regarded as among the very best in those areas, hence their names routinely being offered in these discussions.

But, Roy Jones at 160 and 168 was special. Not only did he seem nearly invincible, but he held wins over Hopkins and James Toney, so he beat other tremendous fighters as well. Other than longevity, I don't see why he wouldn't warrant consideration as an all-time type talent. His record and performance at 175 was outstanding to me, but not at a level to be considered an all time great, just my opinion.

it isnt black and white, just because somebody is better than the other, doesnt mean thee other is bad..

Very well, thank you for clarifying, now allow me to clarify my question. It sounds to me then like you are saying there is a decided difference between Jones for example (and other fighters today like Lomachenko and Rigondeaux) and the fighters listed. I guess my question is still the same, what makes you think that the fighters you listed are not exceptionally gifted when it comes to speed, power, athleticism, and footwork? What would you be basing that on? If they are slow like "old Willie Pep" or lacked skills and power, then I guess it was weak opposition that allowed them to win so many fights. And of course, if it was weak opposition, then why would Henry Armstrong warrant consideration as having the best record ever as you suggested above? I can't work around the conundrum.

to be honest, i didnt understood your question 100 %. but i guess 80 %.

so i will answer. henry was strong, willie was fast. robinson is stronger, roy is faster. you get my point?

to me, those 3 names listed in prime shape in a pound for pound sense are the best boxers who ever entered a ring. no disrespect to henry, willie or any other old school atg. henry has a great record and yes, but than quality of opposition wasnt surely as good as today. cause boxers today are stronger, faster, simlpy more athletic.

mike tyson > rocky marciano

roy jones jr > ezzard charles

floyd mayweather > henry armstrong

vasyl lomachenko > willie pepp

just 4 examples of 4 boxers from the new era 80-2016 who simply are more athletic and overall better, than 4 oldschool atg, not saying that the oldschool greats arent good. lebron james or kevin durant would easily beat elgin baylor or jerry west 1:1, does that make elgin or jerry bad ball players, no, just leb and kev are better. thats all.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jas80s wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:
it isnt black and white, just because somebody is better than the other, doesnt mean thee other is bad..

Very well, thank you for clarifying, now allow me to clarify my question. It sounds to me then like you are saying there is a decided difference between Jones for example (and other fighters today like Lomachenko and Rigondeaux) and the fighters listed. I guess my question is still the same, what makes you think that the fighters you listed are not exceptionally gifted when it comes to speed, power, athleticism, and footwork? What would you be basing that on? If they are slow like "old Willie Pep" or lacked skills and power, then I guess it was weak opposition that allowed them to win so many fights. And of course, if it was weak opposition, then why would Henry Armstrong warrant consideration as having the best record ever as you suggested above? I can't work around the conundrum.

to be honest, i didnt understood your question 100 %. but i guess 80 %.

so i will answer. henry was strong, willie was fast. robinson is stronger, roy is faster. you get my point?

to me, those 3 names listed in prime shape in a pound for pound sense are the best boxers who ever entered a ring. no disrespect to henry, willie or any other old school atg. henry has a great record and yes, but than quality of opposition wasnt surely as good as today. cause boxers today are stronger, faster, simlpy more athletic.

mike tyson > rocky marciano

roy jones jr > ezzard charles

floyd mayweather > henry armstrong

vasyl lomachenko > willie pepp

just 4 examples of 4 boxers from the new era 80-2016 who simply are more athletic and overall better, than 4 oldschool atg, not saying that the oldschool greats arent good. lebron james or kevin durant would easily beat elgin baylor or jerry west 1:1, does that make elgin or jerry bad ball players, no, just leb and kev are better. thats all.

I see what you are saying. I don't see it quite the same way, obviously, but who can ever really know? Thanks for responding.

Though, I do think Lebron James would beat Jerry West at 1 on 1...

Chepppaaa wrote:
mike tyson > rocky marciano

roy jones jr > ezzard charles

floyd mayweather > henry armstrong

vasyl lomachenko > willie pepp

In 3 of those 4 matchups I'd favor the Old Timer. Pep over Lomachenko, Armstrong over Mayweather, Charles over RJJ. Not that the Modern Day fighter is completely outgunned or anything in those matchups. They certainly aren't, but I'd choose the old time fighter if they were to fight in their respective primes.

I do think Tyson would likely stop Marciano though.

jas80s wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

jas80s wrote:
Very well, thank you for clarifying, now allow me to clarify my question. It sounds to me then like you are saying there is a decided difference between Jones for example (and other fighters today like Lomachenko and Rigondeaux) and the fighters listed. I guess my question is still the same, what makes you think that the fighters you listed are not exceptionally gifted when it comes to speed, power, athleticism, and footwork? What would you be basing that on? If they are slow like "old Willie Pep" or lacked skills and power, then I guess it was weak opposition that allowed them to win so many fights. And of course, if it was weak opposition, then why would Henry Armstrong warrant consideration as having the best record ever as you suggested above? I can't work around the conundrum.

to be honest, i didnt understood your question 100 %. but i guess 80 %.

so i will answer. henry was strong, willie was fast. robinson is stronger, roy is faster. you get my point?

to me, those 3 names listed in prime shape in a pound for pound sense are the best boxers who ever entered a ring. no disrespect to henry, willie or any other old school atg. henry has a great record and yes, but than quality of opposition wasnt surely as good as today. cause boxers today are stronger, faster, simlpy more athletic.

mike tyson > rocky marciano

roy jones jr > ezzard charles

floyd mayweather > henry armstrong

vasyl lomachenko > willie pepp

just 4 examples of 4 boxers from the new era 80-2016 who simply are more athletic and overall better, than 4 oldschool atg, not saying that the oldschool greats arent good. lebron james or kevin durant would easily beat elgin baylor or jerry west 1:1, does that make elgin or jerry bad ball players, no, just leb and kev are better. thats all.

I see what you are saying. I don't see it quite the same way, obviously, but who can ever really know? Thanks for responding.

Though, I do think Lebron James would beat Jerry West at 1 on 1...

hehe

Too many and too subjective to really state and have anyone truly agree with one's choice but

SRR
Pep
Armstrong
Mayweather
SRL


I don't consider RJJr in that list because to me he was too flawed fundamentally, he lacked a solid defense and was totally taken out in his prime in devastating fashion by Tarver and finished off by GJ in the subsequent bout.

I thought SRL got hit with too many right hands very easily though he had a flair for the dramatic in the way he won in some of his biggest fights, personally his defense wasn't as fundamentally sound either but still his offense accounted for the way most people viewed him.

SRR was the complete package, he had very sound fundamentals both defensively and offensively, it was hard to find holes in his game but the lack of footage out there on him leaves a big question mark as to how he fared in his losses.

I think when a fighter loses a fight it is easier to assess what his weak points are defensively, most fighters are very capable with their offensive skills but usually their defense is their weak point but I think SRR's transition from offense to defense was only equaled or surpassed in many cases by Mayweather Jr.

Pep had the most sound of defensive abilities but rarely he'd turn that defense into offense in a counterpunching transition so in that vain he and Pernell Whittaker were a lot alike in that they spent too much time being defensive and while making their opponents miss they rarely returned in counters during those moments when Robinson and Mayweather would've been firing immediate counters.

Armstrong was a beast and had a huge heart to move up continually and challenge himself to take on the best despite his smaller size, he had great offensive to defensive transitions but often lacked it in reverse, still the fact that he was able to continually move up and take on bigger opponents and win leaves him very few equals when it comes to being versatile against bigger and bigger opponents.

There just aren't that many pure boxers out there or in this sport as a whole, some either employed great offensive abilities but rarely the entire packet in a truly fundamentally sound way with split second transitions from offense to defense and back again.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:
Armstrong was a beast and had a huge heart.

The funny thing is, I believe I read that Henry Armstrong actually had an abnormally large heart which accounted, in large part, for his insane stamina that allowed him to maintain an otherworldy pace in his fights....

Today, they would say he was on the juice...

Joe Gans is worth mentioning here too...to me at least top 5. Sam Langford said he was the best boxer of all time, Benny Leonard idolized him, Bob Fitzsimmons said he was the cleverest fighter he had ever seen, and Abe Abe Attell said he was the best lightweight to ever enter a ring. I remember reading he died young from tuberculosis.

jones is the most unique and talented fighter although I pick Robinson because he was not only fantastic in all areas of boxing but his incredible achievements through out his carer at his first retirement in 1952 after fighting joey maxim his record was 137W 3L 2D then he comes back in 1955 and wins the middleweight title two more times. he beat great fighter in his day like Jose Basora (who beat Fritzie Zivic and Jake lammotta)kid gavilan , gene fulmer, Carmen basilio, Sammy angott, Henry Armstrong, Fritzie Zivic and Jake lammotta he was also very active and he travelled all over Europe fighting there best challengers that's what true champions do. at a advanced age Robinson took gene fulmer to the distance 3 times and knocked him out in there second fight 37 very old in boxing especially after your body's been through over 100 ring wars. after their last fight gene even said "I'm glad I was fighting this guy when he was over his prime". Robinson boxing skills as well were great, his footwork was beautiful and effortless his hands were fast as lightning he could string the most ridiculous combinations and make theme look easy, his chin was iron his power punches were precise and he sent theme in with venom. he could fight going any direction just ask bobby dykes.

charley burley may make good case in this discussion he spooked the best fighters of his era
harry greb also is a good mention
one fighter that comes to my mind also is jimmy wilde I feel he gets left out
henry Armstrong must also be ranked in at least top 5

Sugar Ray Leonard is the "best" boxer ever in my mind. I can look back fondly on some of these old time greats like Armstrong and Robinson but athletes back in that day were not as fast, strong or talented as the ones in the current day and age. Training, supplements and year of knowledge can be thanked for the difference between modern athletes and the old timers. From Football(use) through Golf, there's just a huge difference in ability across the board.

Sugar Ray took them all on and he was incredible. Floyd can't be considered in my book because he never fought a number one contender in his career and put crowds to sleep with his act inside the ring. No thanks. SRL is the greatest.

Sugar Ray Leonard , Willie pep, Whittaker ,

#1 to me is pretty clear. Notes from ESPN sum it up well.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

Welterweight, middleweight
Ring career: 1940-65 Record: 175-19-6-2 (109 KOs)
Career notes: Won world welterweight title in December 1946, and defended it four times before stepping up in weight and winning, in 1951, first of five stints as middleweight champ. … Attempted to win light heavyweight title from Joey Maxim in 1952, but was stopped in the 14th round. … Born Walker Smith in Ailey, Ga. … Was the most complete boxer yet to grace the squared circle. … Lost just one of first 123 fights, to Jake LaMotta, a defeat avenged five times in a classic ring rivalry. … A near-perfect pugilist at welterweight, was less dominant at middleweight, but was still able to win the title five times, including three times after he had retired for two and a half years. … Only stoppage defeat was when challenging Maxim for light heavyweight crown, and then was leading on points until overcome by heat so extreme that it had forced the replacement of the referee in the 10th.

Robinson had the best combination of speed, power in both hands, size, footwork, and stamina. Joe Louis, Ali, and Patterson said he was the best PFP ever. He would have KO'd Floyd, SRL, Hagler, Hearns, any modern welter, you name em. Was something like 85-0 in amateurs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqCW_O1m8AM

Taansend wrote:Terry Marsh

Bit of a shot in the dark, that.

Badhusker wrote:#1 to me is pretty clear. Notes from ESPN sum it up well.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

Welterweight, middleweight
Ring career: 1940-65 Record: 175-19-6-2 (109 KOs)
Career notes: Won world welterweight title in December 1946, and defended it four times before stepping up in weight and winning, in 1951, first of five stints as middleweight champ. … Attempted to win light heavyweight title from Joey Maxim in 1952, but was stopped in the 14th round. … Born Walker Smith in Ailey, Ga. … Was the most complete boxer yet to grace the squared circle. … Lost just one of first 123 fights, to Jake LaMotta, a defeat avenged five times in a classic ring rivalry. … A near-perfect pugilist at welterweight, was less dominant at middleweight, but was still able to win the title five times, including three times after he had retired for two and a half years. … Only stoppage defeat was when challenging Maxim for light heavyweight crown, and then was leading on points until overcome by heat so extreme that it had forced the replacement of the referee in the 10th.

Robinson had the best combination of speed, power in both hands, size, footwork, and stamina. Joe Louis, Ali, and Patterson said he was the best PFP ever. He would have KO'd Floyd, SRL, Hagler, Hearns, any modern welter, you name em. Was something like 85-0 in amateurs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqCW_O1m8AM

You disagreed with yourself earlier in the thread.

All I'm going to say is Whitaker was clearly > Jones.

An old coked out and fat deLahoya arguably beat prime mayweather. Why not include oscar?

Luckybattles wrote:An old coked out and fat deLahoya arguably beat prime mayweather. Why not include oscar?

He won 3 rounds.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Luckybattles wrote:An old coked out and fat deLahoya arguably beat prime mayweather. Why not include oscar?

He won 3 rounds.

And saying Oscar won 3 rounds is generous