BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:My top 5 consists of Robinson,Armstrong,Ali,Greb and Langford. Robinson is my #1, but the rest are very close and I can see why others would pick one of the instead.

However, what I really wanted to discuss is Ezzard Charles. Most people (including myself )have in their top 10 is Ezzard Charles. Obviously he beat some very good good competition.
The big question for me that is seldom is discussed is his heavyweight record after 4th Walcott fight. I think you can give him a free pass for the losses after the 2nd Marciano fight.
However, he lost to Rex Layne and Nino Valdes. For a fighter considered to be one of the very best, those are embarrassing losses. True, he did beat Layne 2 out of three, but still. He also lost to Harold Johnson but that is much more forgivable.
Of course the wins over Burley,Marshall,Maxim, Moore, Bivins, Walcott etc. are very impressive. If it wasn't for a couple of upset losses, I think you could make a serious case for him being#1.

The Layne fight was widely regarded as a bad decision (Dempsey had something like 6 even rounds or something ridiculous) and by 1953 at 32 he was already past his prime and had the ring mileage of a fighter in their late 30s (Charles was a 90 fight veteran when he lost to Valdez). The fact that with diminished reflexes he could still go 15 in a competitive fight with Marciano is impressive in and of itself.

Most guys that start at Middleweight don't have long stretches at Heavyweight. If anything, I think Ezzard's work in that division is underrated. I can't see the basis for Ali over Charles in an all-time sense.

dempseyfire wrote:Most of Sam's losses to Harry were well past his prime, but I'd argue Sam was still at the very twilight of his prime in 1915, or at least that not far from his peak. Wills should get credit for those initial victories of Sam when no other heavyweight was able to beat him (and I don't think it negates from Sam, since Sam was a natural super-middle/small light HW and Wills was a great heavyweight)

Yes also the boston tar baby was much avoided in his pomp

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:My top 5 consists of Robinson,Armstrong,Ali,Greb and Langford. Robinson is my #1, but the rest are very close and I can see why others would pick one of the instead.

However, what I really wanted to discuss is Ezzard Charles. Most people (including myself )have in their top 10 is Ezzard Charles. Obviously he beat some very good good competition.
The big question for me that is seldom is discussed is his heavyweight record after 4th Walcott fight. I think you can give him a free pass for the losses after the 2nd Marciano fight.
However, he lost to Rex Layne and Nino Valdes. For a fighter considered to be one of the very best, those are embarrassing losses. True, he did beat Layne 2 out of three, but still. He also lost to Harold Johnson but that is much more forgivable.
Of course the wins over Burley,Marshall,Maxim, Moore, Bivins, Walcott etc. are very impressive. If it wasn't for a couple of upset losses, I think you could make a serious case for him being#1.

The Layne fight was widely regarded as a bad decision (Dempsey had something like 6 even rounds or something ridiculous) and by 1953 at 32 he was already past his prime and had the ring mileage of a fighter in their late 30s (Charles was a 90 fight veteran when he lost to Valdez). The fact that with diminished reflexes he could still go 15 in a competitive fight with Marciano is impressive in and of itself.

Can't speak much about the Layne fight since I haven't seen it. Find it hard to believe that Dempsey would be that far off. Wouldn't automatcially assume that just because a judge scores several rounds even that the scoring was bad. He should have been able to beat Layne easily enough so that there would absoultey no doubt.

Charles should have beaten Valdes. Virtually everyone decent that Valdes ever fought beat him. That is an embarrassing loss for Charles and has to hurt him when ranking him on an All-Time basis. He should not have been that far gone at that stage of his career. Greb, Langford, Robinson, and others were still fighting at a higher level with more fights and at an older age. That other fighters were able to still be great when they were older and Charles was not makes it look like weak excuse for Charles. Not saying Chalres was in his prime, but he should have had more than enought to beat Layne and Valdes.

Ulitmately, you have to weigh all the pluses and minuses of a fighters career and compare it to the others. You have to give a fighter credit for a win over a good fighter, more over a great fighter. The worse an opponent is that a fighter lost to, the more has to be taken away when rating him. (Of course you have to take into consideration the stages of fighter's careers and the stages of their oppoents careers, as well as how competitive the fights were.)

Robinson and Ali never had a loss to a mediocre opponent and Greb,Langford, and Armstrong seldom did. (Anywhere near the age of some of Charles losses anyway). I think Charles' key losses are enough to put him behind Robinson, Greb, Ali, Langford, and Armstrong and therefore just outside of the top 5.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Robinson and Ali never had a loss to a mediocre opponent and Greb,Langford, and Armstrong seldom did. (Anywhere near the age of some of Charles losses anyway). I think Charles' key losses are enough to put him behind Robinson, Greb, Ali, Langford, and Armstrong and therefore just outside of the top 5.

Ali never had over 100 fights and Leon Spinks was no better than Nino.

You got it right, Saad, the great Muhammad Ali with time, it seems that his ranking is getting lower in the top 10. Around 30 years ago, Ali was in the top 3 in the all time rankings. But now, i don't even see him as a top 5 great fighter. There are many fighters that should be worth in the top 5 instead of Ali himself.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:My top 5 consists of Robinson,Armstrong,Ali,Greb and Langford. Robinson is my #1, but the rest are very close and I can see why others would pick one of the instead.

However, what I really wanted to discuss is Ezzard Charles. Most people (including myself )have in their top 10 is Ezzard Charles. Obviously he beat some very good good competition.
The big question for me that is seldom is discussed is his heavyweight record after 4th Walcott fight. I think you can give him a free pass for the losses after the 2nd Marciano fight.
However, he lost to Rex Layne and Nino Valdes. For a fighter considered to be one of the very best, those are embarrassing losses. True, he did beat Layne 2 out of three, but still. He also lost to Harold Johnson but that is much more forgivable.
Of course the wins over Burley,Marshall,Maxim, Moore, Bivins, Walcott etc. are very impressive. If it wasn't for a couple of upset losses, I think you could make a serious case for him being#1.

The Layne fight was widely regarded as a bad decision (Dempsey had something like 6 even rounds or something ridiculous) and by 1953 at 32 he was already past his prime and had the ring mileage of a fighter in their late 30s (Charles was a 90 fight veteran when he lost to Valdez). The fact that with diminished reflexes he could still go 15 in a competitive fight with Marciano is impressive in and of itself.

Can't speak much about the Layne fight since I haven't seen it. Find it hard to believe that Dempsey would be that far off. Wouldn't automatcially assume that just because a judge scores several rounds even that the scoring was bad. He should have been able to beat Layne easily enough so that there would absoultey no doubt.

Charles should have beaten Valdes. Virtually everyone decent that Valdes ever fought beat him. That is an embarrassing loss for Charles and has to hurt him when ranking him on an All-Time basis. He should not have been that far gone at that stage of his career. Greb, Langford, Robinson, and others were still fighting at a higher level with more fights and at an older age. That other fighters were able to still be great when they were older and Charles was not makes it look like weak excuse for Charles. Not saying Chalres was in his prime, but he should have had more than enought to beat Layne and Valdes.

Ulitmately, you have to weigh all the pluses and minuses of a fighters career and compare it to the others. You have to give a fighter credit for a win over a good fighter, more over a great fighter. The worse an opponent is that a fighter lost to, the more has to be taken away when rating him. (Of course you have to take into consideration the stages of fighter's careers and the stages of their oppoents careers, as well as how competitive the fights were.)

Robinson and Ali never had a loss to a mediocre opponent and Greb,Langford, and Armstrong seldom did. (Anywhere near the age of some of Charles losses anyway). I think Charles' key losses are enough to put him behind Robinson, Greb, Ali, Langford, and Armstrong and therefore just outside of the top 5.

Charles at the end of his career was physically well past the level that Robinson was (imagine if Robinson had moved up to light HW and stayed there at the end of his career) and by comparison, imagine if Ali kept fighting regularly every few months post Spinks. That was the stage Charles was at, and he went on to die very young from ALS.

Id also rank Valdez over Mick Leahy or Spinks as fighters . . .

Ambling Alp II wrote:Obviously an ATG, but not quite enough to argue for the top 10 in my opinion. He certainly had some great moments, however you have to look at the negatives as well. He did have some losses as a middleweight against fighters sthat weren't legends.

Who were these losses to fighters that werent legends.

Jim Hall? no, Philadelphia Jack O Brien? No James Jeffries?No Mick Dooley? No.

Hall was was a one off loss in series Fitz dominated and strongly suggested to be a dive. Hall was considered the best middleweight in the world outside of Fitz when they fought and was one of the top 10 heavyweights of his era. Fitz dominated him more than Robinson dominated LaMotta.

Dooley is unclear if it even happened, but if it did, it was a 4 round no decision fight and a loss on points in a series of fights that Fitz won. Dooley was a very tough character who won an Australian heavyweight championship (back when it meant something). Would regularly fight with the top Australian heavyweights to 4 round draws, including Peter Jackson, Tom Lees and others. He was dominated overall. He was as dominant as charles was over Jimmy Bivins.

Jeffries was an all time great and a huge heavyweight. Fitz put in a massive performance, certainly excelling what say Moore or charles did against Marciano.

O'Brien was a loss to an all time great light heavyweight by an ancient Fitz who had already knocked him out early in their previous encounter.

Lang, but to put this into perspective, it was a similar performance to Robinson v Maxim against a similar level opponent, at a more advanced age than Robinson, in as hot or hotter conditions. It is actually an underated performance.

He also had a total of one successful title defense in this three title reigns. That hurts his cause. I hate to say this, but he was not a fighting champion.
When you are rating the cream of the crop, you do have to nitpick.

This is not correct.
At middleweight, Fitz beat every major or realistic contender their was and if he didnt beat them he fought 4 rnd no decision fights and got the better of them. His wins as champion included:
Jim Hall - no1 contender and Heavyweight contender.
Dan Creedon - no 1 contender and heavyweight contender
Joe Choynski - no 1 contender and heavyweight contender would have probably been World Light heavy championship if title existed..
The Black Pearl - World Coloured Middleweight champion
Joe (George) Godfrey - World Coloured Heavyweight Champion
Jim Corbett - World Heavyweight Champion
Philadelphia Jack O Brien - World Light heavyweight champion and heavyweight contender.
A string of other fights against average contenders which lasted less than 4 rounds, usually less than one or two.

PLus, you can through into the middle of this reigns, wins agaisnt a string of contenders which not many if any light heavys can match including:
Peter Maher - Irish Heavyweight Champion and alphabet heavyweightchampion.
Tom Sharkeyh - No 1 heavy contender
Gus Ruhlin - No 1 heavy contender
George Gardner - Light heavy champion

That resume, as Middle champion more than stacks up to anything Robinson, Moore, Foster, Charles, Monzon or anyone else ever did at the weight.

I voted for Robinson, not so much based on his achievements but when (IIRC) someone as great as Henry Armstrong says he never would of been able to beat you that makes you pretty special.

But I love Langford as well just his story and the list of names of who he beat is amazing it is a shame he never got a shot at a world title and even so showing the longevity he did is pretty astounding.

On the subject of serious changing in where people are ranked over the past 10-15 years or so does anybody else think the Internet is a huge reason for that with records and articles and clippings etc being much more easier to find. I read lots of boxing books before I got onto this site and I had never heard of Sam Langford and if I had it would of been just a paragraph or so on him but with the knowledge on the net and how easily information is to get surely that is because of the internet. Just realised I missed a page sorry if this ha been covered.

My top 5 consists of Robinson,Armstrong,Ali,Greb and Langford. Robinson is my #1, but the rest are very close and I can see why others would pick one of the instead.

Demspeyfire said "Charles at the end of his career was physically well past the level that Robinson was (imagine if Robinson had moved up to light HW and stayed there at the end of his career) and by comparison, imagine if Ali kept fighting regularly every few months post Spinks. That was the stage Charles was at, and he went on to die very young from ALS.

Id also rank Valdez over Mick Leahy or Spinks as fighters . . .[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Charles was 32 in 1953 when he lost to Valdes. He was born the same year as Robinson. Robinson defeated Olson, Basilio, Fullmer etc. after this.

Robinson (and many others) took a lot of punishment throughout their careers, and still fought at a high level in their early 30s.
Not sure why I should imagine if Robinson as a light heavyweight. It's irrelevant. He fought and beat a lot of great fighters over his career and took a lot of punishment as well. For starterrs he had 6 fights against Jake LaMotta.

There is no comparison to Ali fighting Spinks and Charles losing to Valdes. No, that wasn't the stage that Charles was at. Ali was 36 when he fought Spinks, Charles was just 32. Those four years are huge in boxing. Almost every fighter declines greatly in that time span.
I would hope that we can agree that Ali took an awful lot of punishment in his career and that he was no longer anywhere near the fighter when he fought Spinks as he was when he was 32.

Charles himself had some very good performances after the Valdes and Layne fights. Physically he was much closer to his best when he was 32 than Ali was when he was 36. I give Charles plenty of credit for many wins throughout his career. however, you can't ignore two and pretend he was already way past his prime. He was past it, but certainly not a shot fighter. He just had some off nights that have to be factored in.

Never heard any evidence that Charles was already sufferring from ALS during this time. I think that is next to impossible. He did live to be 63 years old, 14 years after he retired and 23 years after the Valdes fight.

I am not talking about Charles in 1959 when he was in his late 30s. I am talking about Charles in his early 30s. Big difference.

Boilermaker wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Obviously an ATG, but not quite enough to argue for the top 10 in my opinion. He certainly had some great moments, however you have to look at the negatives as well. He did have some losses as a middleweight against fighters sthat weren't legends.

Who were these losses to fighters that werent legends.

Jim Hall? no, Philadelphia Jack O Brien? No James Jeffries?No Mick Dooley? No.

Hall was was a one off loss in series Fitz dominated and strongly suggested to be a dive. Hall was considered the best middleweight in the world outside of Fitz when they fought and was one of the top 10 heavyweights of his era. Fitz dominated him more than Robinson dominated LaMotta.

Dooley is unclear if it even happened, but if it did, it was a 4 round no decision fight and a loss on points in a series of fights that Fitz won. Dooley was a very tough character who won an Australian heavyweight championship (back when it meant something). Would regularly fight with the top Australian heavyweights to 4 round draws, including Peter Jackson, Tom Lees and others. He was dominated overall. He was as dominant as charles was over Jimmy Bivins.

Jeffries was an all time great and a huge heavyweight. Fitz put in a massive performance, certainly excelling what say Moore or charles did against Marciano.

O'Brien was a loss to an all time great light heavyweight by an ancient Fitz who had already knocked him out early in their previous encounter.

Lang, but to put this into perspective, it was a similar performance to Robinson v Maxim against a similar level opponent, at a more advanced age than Robinson, in as hot or hotter conditions. It is actually an underated performance.

He also had a total of one successful title defense in this three title reigns. That hurts his cause. I hate to say this, but he was not a fighting champion.
When you are rating the cream of the crop, you do have to nitpick.

This is not correct.
At middleweight, Fitz beat every major or realistic contender their was and if he didnt beat them he fought 4 rnd no decision fights and got the better of them. His wins as champion included:
Jim Hall - no1 contender and Heavyweight contender.
Dan Creedon - no 1 contender and heavyweight contender
Joe Choynski - no 1 contender and heavyweight contender would have probably been World Light heavy championship if title existed..
The Black Pearl - World Coloured Middleweight champion
Joe (George) Godfrey - World Coloured Heavyweight Champion
Jim Corbett - World Heavyweight Champion
Philadelphia Jack O Brien - World Light heavyweight champion and heavyweight contender.
A string of other fights against average contenders which lasted less than 4 rounds, usually less than one or two.

PLus, you can through into the middle of this reigns, wins agaisnt a string of contenders which not many if any light heavys can match including:
Peter Maher - Irish Heavyweight Champion and alphabet heavyweightchampion.
Tom Sharkeyh - No 1 heavy contender
Gus Ruhlin - No 1 heavy contender
George Gardner - Light heavy champion

That resume, as Middle champion more than stacks up to anything Robinson, Moore, Foster, Charles, Monzon or anyone else ever did at the weight.

First, I want to say that I amy have exaggerrated my claim as Fitz's losses as middleweight. Technically it is true that he had losses at middleweight, but there were only two and one was early in his career.

However, I stand by my statement as his title defenses. He only had one successful title defense in his career. That was his win over Creedon at middleweight.
Most of Fitz's best wins while he was the middleweight champion he was actually a light heavyweight and the middleweight title was not on the line.

His fight against Choynski was not at middleweight. He weighed 175 and Choynski was only 162.


Joe Godfrey was not the colored heavyweight champion. Joe Godfrey was a mediocre middleweight. You are confusing him with George Godfrey; and Fitz never fought him.
He defeated O'Brien, however ahe lmost certainly was well over the middleweight limit for that fight.
Fitz was not a middleweight when he beat Corbett.

Not to say that Fitz didn't have a remarkable career. Obviously he did. I have often wrote positive things about him and think some people severely underrate him. We are comparing him to the very best in a time period well over a 100 years. I just don't he was quite in the Top 10. Reasonable people can disagree.

Nice poll but it's missing as some have mentioned Kid Gavilan and Jimmy Wilde

Ambling Alp II wrote:

First, I want to say that I amy have exaggerrated my claim as Fitz's losses as middleweight. Technically it is true that he had losses at middleweight, but there were only two and one was early in his career.

However, I stand by my statement as his title defenses. He only had one successful title defense in his career. That was his win over Creedon at middleweight.
Most of Fitz's best wins while he was the middleweight champion he was actually a light heavyweight and the middleweight title was not on the line.

There were 2 successful title defences (ie the other guy was confident enough to arrange a side bet and state laws allowed the fight to be called that). There were dozens of KOs and dominating performances, including wins over state champions, average fighters, World coloured champions, Heavyweight and Light heavyweight world ranked fighters. AS good as anyones efforts here. I am not sure why you think it should matter if the fighter weighs a pound or two over the middleweight limit or if the other fighter is heavier than middleweight or even if the fighter has won a world middleweight championship. It didnt seem to stop anyone from ranking Langford and Greb highly (and nor should it) on a pound for pound basis.

His fight against Choynski was not at middleweight. He weighed 175 and Choynski was only 162.

choynski has previously claimed both were middleweights. There was no official weigh in, so no one really knows. either way, it was a fighter between two world class light heavyweights or middleweights. It is a great win, and should be considered as such.

Joe Godfrey was not the colored heavyweight champion. Joe Godfrey was a mediocre middleweight. You are confusing him with George Godfrey; and Fitz never fought him.
He defeated O'Brien, however ahe lmost certainly was well over the middleweight limit for that fight.

Better historians than yourself agree with you on this, but i think they are probably wrong. The undisputed facts are as follows:
George Godfrey (the world coloured champion) was being promoted as 'Joe' Godfrey around the pennslyvania area around the time of the alleged fights.
there are quotes much later though of the Fitzsimmons Godfrey fight which confirm that these two fights were against the former world coloured champion.
There was a middleweight by the name George Godfrey from pennslyvania who fought at this time (though i saw him referred in an article just today, where he was described as a 190lber).
Take your pick on who you believe this fighter was. I tend to think it iwas the world coloured champion.

Fitz was not a middleweight when he beat Corbett.

that is not what Fitz himself says, and he is the only one who would know, because there were no official weights. From memory a Doctor took his weight around 160 a week or two before the fight. Either way, does it really matter when considering things in a pound for pound sense. Even if he wasnt a middleweight (and he probably was), he was still below the supermiddleweight and lightheavyweight limit (and also the only person to win an undisputed world title at these weights, even now 100 years later).

Not to say that Fitz didn't have a remarkable career. Obviously he did. I have often wrote positive things about him and think some people severely underrate him. We are comparing him to the very best in a time period well over a 100 years. I just don't he was quite in the Top 10. Reasonable people can disagree.

You are correct, but leaving Fitz outside the top 10 is harder to justify than leaving Robinson outside it, and certainly Charles. Whether you consider victories during his career, contemporary opinions, fights won, Fighters beating, no matter which way you cut it or which criteria you use, he is going to end up in the top 10 somewhere. the same cant be said about many others.

Boilermaker wrote:
You are correct, but leaving Fitz outside the top 10 is harder to justify than leaving Robinson outside it, and certainly Charles.

Time to bring up Charley Burley.

vagabundo55 wrote:Time to bring up Charley Burley.

Not without Holman Williams.

the circle of life

Wanted to respond to Boilermakers' comments regarding Bob Fitzsimmons.
First I'm not going to get into the weight class that Fitz was in for certain fights or whether he fought George Godfrey. I think you have to take certain things as faith unless you hear evidence to the contrary.
What I really wanted to respond to was the comparison of Fitz's career to Ezzard Charles. fitz had some great wins; but it simply wasn't enough when compared to Charlers.

Charles did lose to Layne (whom he also beat twice) and Valdes. Fitz lost to Hall. Each lost to some great fighters as well. You could give Fitz a slight edge here.

Fitz also had some wins over some very good fighters such as Hall, Creedon, Maher, Ruhlin, Sharkey, Choynski and Gardner. However, Charles beat Yarosz, Lesnevich, Ray, Billy Smith,and Christofordis. I suppose you could Fitz the slight edge here, but it would be close.

They each won several fights against decent fighters that weren't upt to this level. Charles beat more of them.

Fitz had wins over great fighters such as Corbett,O'Brien and Dempsey. However, as impressive as that is, it pales to Charles wins over greats. Charles beat Bivins,Williams,Maxim, Moore, Walcott, and Burley. This includes going 2-0 vs Burley, 3-0 vs Moore, and 4-0 vs Maxim.

To me that is such as overwhelming advantage for Charles that I would have to give Charles the edge for their careers.

Good points Alp. But I gotta go with the great Bob Fitzsimmons over the great Ezzard Charles because his accomplishments were off the roof. Winning the middleweight crown then the heavyweight crown against bigger men, that in itself was remarkable. Both had durable careers, but Charles at the end lost more fights than Fitz.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Fitz had wins over great fighters such as Corbett,O'Brien and Dempsey.

Fitz didn't beat Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. The first fight was a newspaper draw (ND6), the second one he lost.

Senya13 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Fitz had wins over great fighters such as Corbett,O'Brien and Dempsey.

Fitz didn't beat Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. The first fight was a newspaper draw (ND6), the second one he lost.

It was officially a No Decision fight, as opposed to a Newspaper Draw, wasnt it?

I think that the consensus was that it was a close fight with Fitz finishing stronger and doing more damage, but O Brien was busier and landed more often. O Brien i think was knocked down three times in the six round fight, although it is arguable that they were two slips and a light knockdown. This would be fair wouldnt it? Anyway, here is one report i just looked up quickly that is pretty easy to read and has a decent round by round.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... 2&index=18

Yes, it was a no decision bout. The ND6 was a 'no decision' abbreviation, not a 'newspaper draw', but according to several different reports I've seen it was voted a draw. Philadelphia Inquirer - draw. Left Hook of NY Telegraph - 3-2-1 by rounds in favor of Fitz. Bob Edgren of NY Evening World scored first 3 for O'Brien, last 3 for Fitz. The AP report (SF Call was one of the newspapers that printed it) stating that Fitz was stronger at the finish doesn't necessarily mean it voted for Fitz as the winner, it sounds more like a draw to me. Chicago Tribune/NY Herald (same report) thought O'Brien had the better of the first three rounds, but Fitz was the aggressor all through and had the better of the last two rounds, so it also sounds like a draw. Another report, I'm not sure whether it's the UP or not, but it had the first three rounds for O'Brien, and the last three for Fitz. The referee stated his opinion that O'Brien had the better of the first 3 rounds, and Fitz of the last three, and he would have ruled it a draw if a decision were allowed. Of the people who were at ringside, Kid McCoy, Bat Masterson, George Grant, Tom O'Rourke, Yank Kenny, Kid Broad, Sandy Ferguson, Pat Early, Brooklyn Jimmy Carroll, Eddie Fitzgerald voted for O'Brien. John Considine, Billy McCleary, Young Corbett, Australian Jimmy Ryan, Patsy Kerrigan, Jim Wakeley, Jack Fleming voted for Fitz.

A little sad how nobody ever votes for Archie Moore.

vagabundo55 wrote:A little sad how nobody ever votes for Archie Moore.

You can't, Charles was his superior. He should definitely be in the top 10 and clearly accomplished more than a Bob Fiztsimmons. That should be good enough.