The Top 100 Greatest Boxers of All-Time

[Ossyrules]

Elmer I salute anyone who takes the time to do this...

But your list looks like it's been written with your heart not head. It's really not balanced but there's too much to say

All lists are SUBJECTIVE with the most OBJECTIVE WAY possible. I got a rebottle to every post in here that is against my list.

Too many people focus on the modern era. Boxing has been around for centuries. I selected them from the gloved era in 1882 and on.

Pascual Perez was a terrific boxer. So was the Mighty Atom. The problem that a lot us got is that there is NO LOVE WITH THE SMALL GUYS.

Of course they are subjective but if you veer to far and side with your heart, your favourites will get boosted and your list becomes unbalanced.

I've no problem with small guys.

Floyd mayweather top 10 says it all mate

[Give up]

My View


1. Henry Armstrong - NR 2
2. Sugar Ray Robinson - NR1
3. Sam Langford -Top15
4. Roberto Duran -Top 10-12
5. Willie Pep
6. Harry Greb
7. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. -Top 25
8. Ezzard Charles - Top 20
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Louis
11. Joe Gans
12. Bob Fitzsimmons
13. Archie Moore - Top 20
14. Benny Leonard Top 5
15. Jack Johnson - Top 25
16. Tony Canzoneri
17. Carlos Monzon - Top 15
18. Sugar Ray Leonard - Top 10
19. Mickey Walker - Top 10-12
20. Jimmy Wilde
21. Sandy Saddler - Top 15
22. Pernell Whitaker
23. Manny Pacquiao
24. Emile Griffith
25. Julio Cesar Chavez
26. Eder Jofre - Top 20
27. Rocky Marciano
28. Jack Dempsey
29. Stanley Ketchel - Top 20
30. Alexis Arguello
31. Barney Ross
32. Ike Williams - Top 50
33. Evander Holyfield
34. Marvelous Marvin Hagler - Top 25
35. Gene Tunney
36. Panama Al Brown
37. Kid Gavilan
38. Jimmy McLarnin
39. Terry McGovern
40. Tommy Loughran
41. George Foreman
42. Kid Chocolate
43. Larry Holmes
44. Dick Tiger
45. Salvador Sanchez
46. Ruben Olivares
47. Bernard Hopkins - Top 40
48. Joe Frazier
49. Jake LaMotta - Top 75
50. Carmen Basilio - Top 75
51. Thomas Hearns - Top 40
52. Pascual Perez
53. Barbados Joe Walcott
54. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
55. Fighting Harada
56. Billy Conn - Top 50
57. Maxie Rosenbloom
58. Fidel La Barba
59. Wilfredo Gomez
60. Charley Burley
61. Battling Battalino
62. Michael Spinks - Top 50
63. Freddie Miller
64. Roy Jones, Jr. - Top 50
65. Jack "Kid" Berg
66. Juan Manuel Marquez
67. Miguel Canto
68. Jimmy Barry
69. Carlos Zarate
70. Carlos Ortiz
71. Packey McFarland
72. Wilfred Benitez - Top 60
73. Bob Foster
74. Pancho Villa
75. Marco Antonio Barrera
76. Manuel Ortiz
77. Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
78. George Dixon
79. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
80. Azumah Nelson
81. Holman Williams
82. Beau Jack
83. Peter Jackson
84. Ted "Kid" Lewis
85. Joe Brown
86. Tiger Flowers
87. Abe Attell
88. Georges Carpentier
89. Mike McCallum
90. Tommy Ryan
91. Jack Britton
92. Benny Lynch
93. Eusebio Pedroza
94. Gene Fullmer
95. Vicente Saldivar
96. Sonny Liston
97. Mike Tyson
98. Jersey Joe Walcott
99. Marcel Cerdan - Top 75
100. Khoasai Galaxy

Tony Zale Top 75

Harold Johnson, Lewis Lennox, Joe Calzaghe ,Andre Ward, Oscar De La Hoya - Top 100

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Pep over greb is laughable. That will be one where Elmo goes on about the great Willie peps brilliant skills, especially before the plane crash. He certainly can't compare their resumes and come out with pep.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Pascual Perez a Top-100 p4p boxer... and DLH is not??

Lets consider for a moment:

Of Perez's 84 wins only 17 came against opponents with a winning record.
Of Oscar's 39 wins all were against opponents with a winning record.

In his first 22 bouts Perez didn't meet a single opponent, who had registered even one win.
22 fights into his pro career Oscar was already a 3-division title holder.

Perez was 2-3-1 against world champions.
Oscar was 20-6 against world champions.

Perez lost against 6 different men: Sadao Yaoita, Pone Kingpetch, Leo Zulueta, Bernado Carrabalo, Efren Torres and Eugenio hurtado.
Oscar lost against 5 different men: Trinidad, Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao.

Perez never met a boxer, who today is in the IBHOF... though one could possibly be a member some day (Pone Kingpetch).
Oscar met 5 men who are already in - and 4 that are sure to be in a few years (Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao).

Should be a no-brainer, which of the two deserves to be on the list!

The great Pascual Perez, "The Terrier" from Argentina is ranked #2 or possibly #3 @ flyweight. He is definitely a top 5 flyweight of all times. I don't see that regarding Oscar De La Hoya in no particular weight class.

Was he a top 5 @ 135lbs? Not.
At 140lbs? Neither.
How about welter? Not a chance.
And at 154lbs? He is not top 5 there either. So how come we are calling him great when he never dominated a weight class? He never cleaned it up. Not one class!

He wasn't a great fighter. He was a super star manufactured by a gold medal win, tv, good looks and pay per view. If you look at his career, he didn't beat anybody great in an era of so many champions per weight class. He was in an era of diluted championship crowns. Anybody could be champion now of any sort. His greatest win was over a WASHED UP AND SHOPWORN Julio Cesar Chavez. He didn't beat the great Pernell Whitaker. They gave it to him, really. And Whitaker was in the decline. He couldn't beat a guy in decline with all those physical advantages.

Put him in another era and he doesn't become a top flight contender. Let alone win so many world crowns. His boxing style won't make it in a tougher era.

He lost THE BIGGEST FIGHTS OF HIS CAREER:
L12 Felix "Tito" Trinidad
L12 Shane Mosley
LKO 9 Bernard Hopkins...What a theatrical act!
L12 Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
LTKO8 Manny Pacquiao

While Perez was:
1948 Olympic gold medalist
Argentinian and South American Flyweight Champion
World Flyweight Champion for 6 years and 10 title defenses.
He was unbeatable in first 52 fights. He had another win streak of 27 after losing to Pone Kingpetch at age 34.
He won 84 contests! He had more knockouts than De La Hoya had fights.
He fought in an era of ONE WORLD CHAMPION per division. Sometimes he had to go to the challenger's backyards.
He had more longevity than Oscar. Was a more dominant champion.
Not because the men he beat are not recognized doesn't mean they weren't any good. If you want the resume of Perez' top opponents I would share it with you.

Pascual Perez started his pro career late at 26. Imagine if he started much earlier when he won the 1948 Olympic gold medal?

I'm not quite sure, if you're trolling... or you're actually serious!

His 27-fight win streak as an ex-champ? Yes, on paper that looks very good... until you realize, that in that streak he met only one man, who had won even a single fight!

You think Oscar's best win was against a "washed up and shopworn" Chavez? Whether or not that was his best win is of course debatable - but I actually agree, that Chavez by then was way past it.
What is not debatable, is that Perez's best 2 wins were against world champion Yoshio Shirai... who was having his last 2 fights. I wonder how "prime" HE could have been?

What is also not debatable is the fact, that in 54 of his 92 bouts Perez met opponents, who had not scored a single win! And you have "quality of opposition" as one of your criteria??

While I agree with you, keep in mind that the records of a lot of South American fighters back then are incomplete. Highly unlikely any of those guys were winless.

[Ossyrules]

Elmer I salute anyone who takes the time to do this...

But your list looks like it's been written with your heart not head. It's really not balanced but there's too much to say

All lists are SUBJECTIVE with the most OBJECTIVE WAY possible. I got a rebottle to every post in here that is against my list.

Too many people focus on the modern era. Boxing has been around for centuries. I selected them from the gloved era in 1882 and on.

Pascual Perez was a terrific boxer. So was the Mighty Atom. The problem that a lot us got is that there is NO LOVE WITH THE SMALL GUYS.

Lists are absolutely subjective but when your heart is making the calls too strong over your head, the bias shows.

Mayweather at 7, or wherever you've put him. It's quite a way to high by anyone's call

[Ambling Alp II]

I think you have to make your list in two stages. First make a rough draft of your Top 100.
Then take a hard look at everyone. How many of the other guys in your Top 100 has each guy beat close the their prime?

Someone in the Top 10 should probably have multiple "victims" in the Top 100. Really they should have multiple victims in the Top 50. They must prove themselves.
Of course by the time you get down to the guys in the 80-100 range, they might not have any victims in the Top 100. However, they should some solid wins over guys that would not be that far out of it.

Loses to great opponents should not hurt a fighter's rating as losses to weaker opponents. That should be commonsense. It's ridiculous to say a guy "flunked the test" when he lost to quality opponents and then ignore embarrassing losses for another guy.

Lastly, you have to use the same criteria for everyone. For example, you can't use the past his prime excuse for your favorites but ignore it for guys you don't like.

I liked Give up list. (I have small quibbles; Pep and Wilde is too high and I don't think Conn should be moved up. I think Langford and Charles have to be Top 10 and don't think Benny Leonard is quite there.)

It makes a lot more sense that elmer's. To be fair, he listed Harold Johnson, Lewis Lennox, Joe Calzaghe ,Andre Ward, Oscar De La Hoya in his Top 100. I would like to see who on elmer's list Give Up would take out to make room for them.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The rough list should be in tiers. At least 6 or 7 of them. My biggest issue with people's evaluating is that every loss is a blemish. I'd consider hearns/Leonard 1, Duran/Leonard 1, Pryor/arguello 1, Ali/Frazier 1 & 3 and countless others as better results for the losers than just about every win Wilde or Perez had.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes, you can start with tiers; maybe Tier one with 10 guys, Tier 2 with the next ten and so on up to 10-12 tiers. Then after looking through everyone's career, you can move someone up or down a tier or maybe even more. Then once you have your tiers, you can rate everyone with each tier.

I agree with the part about the losses. How competitive the fight was has to count for something. A tough loss to a great fighter is more impressive than a win streak over 30 or 40 stiffs.

[Seamus]

Maybe there is a tendency for guys to unconsciously rate Jimmy Wilde so high because so many of the old time boxing writers did, but isn't that the same exact situation with Jack Johnson ?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Maybe there is a tendency for guys to unconsciously rate Jimmy Wilde so high because so many of the old time boxing writers did, but isn't that the same exact situation with Jack Johnson ?

Johnson faced more top guys, but I'd rate them similarly, both in the 50-75 range. I rate Wilde, he just doesn't have top 20 caliber opposition. Pep, to a lesser extent, gets too much love. He's consensus top 5 or 10 & I could make a strong case for him outside the top 20.

[elmersalsa]

Elmer I salute anyone who takes the time to do this...

But your list looks like it's been written with your heart not head. It's really not balanced but there's too much to say

All lists are SUBJECTIVE with the most OBJECTIVE WAY possible. I got a rebottle to every post in here that is against my list.

Too many people focus on the modern era. Boxing has been around for centuries. I selected them from the gloved era in 1882 and on.

Pascual Perez was a terrific boxer. So was the Mighty Atom. The problem that a lot us got is that there is NO LOVE WITH THE SMALL GUYS.

Lists are absolutely subjective but when your heart is making the calls too strong over your head, the bias shows.

Mayweather at 7, or wherever you've put him. It's quite a way to high by anyone's call

Floyd Mayweather, Jr., beat EVERY SINGLE AND SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER OF HIS ERA. That is a great resume in an era of diluted talent, alphabet soup organizations, and loads of weight classes. He beat the very best of his era and never lost a fight.

[Ossyrules]

All lists are SUBJECTIVE with the most OBJECTIVE WAY possible. I got a rebottle to every post in here that is against my list.

Too many people focus on the modern era. Boxing has been around for centuries. I selected them from the gloved era in 1882 and on.

Pascual Perez was a terrific boxer. So was the Mighty Atom. The problem that a lot us got is that there is NO LOVE WITH THE SMALL GUYS.

Lists are absolutely subjective but when your heart is making the calls too strong over your head, the bias shows.

Mayweather at 7, or wherever you've put him. It's quite a way to high by anyone's call

Floyd Mayweather, Jr., beat EVERY SINGLE AND SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER OF HIS ERA. That is a great resume in an era of diluted talent, alphabet soup organizations, and loads of weight classes. He beat the very best of his era and never lost a fight.

Floyds a great, but he's not 7. In time his resume will be scrutinised and there will be questions still.

You like Floyd that's fine. But put the favourites to one side, he's not the 7th greatest ever

[elmersalsa]

We can't have the thinking or thought that because a fighter beats lots of great boxers means that he should be in the way top.

We gotta see the circumstances of the career. Greats like Willie Pep won and achieved lot, winning 230 bouts. That alone is a hell of a resume. Plus, he cleaned up his weight class with a dominating fashion. Just like the Mighty Atom did at flyweight. Wilde went beyond flyweight and tackled very good bantamweight boxers. He even beat guys that weighed 20 pounds over him. That ain't no cherry picking. How could that be? He bested the very best of his class and then fights god quality boxers above his natural weight class. His talents were tested and he became victorious.

[elmersalsa]

Lists are absolutely subjective but when your heart is making the calls too strong over your head, the bias shows.

Mayweather at 7, or wherever you've put him. It's quite a way to high by anyone's call

Floyd Mayweather, Jr., beat EVERY SINGLE AND SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER OF HIS ERA. That is a great resume in an era of diluted talent, alphabet soup organizations, and loads of weight classes. He beat the very best of his era and never lost a fight.

Floyds a great, but he's not 7. In time his resume will be scrutinised and there will be questions still.

You like Floyd that's fine. But put the favourites to one side, he's not the 7th greatest ever

And tell me reasons why he shouldn't be at #7? He beat and dominated the best fighters of his time. Like him or not, he was the best fighter of almost 2 decades. No fighter has dominated two decades. Floyd Mayweather, Jr is very close of doing that.

[Ossyrules]

Floyd Mayweather, Jr., beat EVERY SINGLE AND SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER OF HIS ERA. That is a great resume in an era of diluted talent, alphabet soup organizations, and loads of weight classes. He beat the very best of his era and never lost a fight.

Floyds a great, but he's not 7. In time his resume will be scrutinised and there will be questions still.

You like Floyd that's fine. But put the favourites to one side, he's not the 7th greatest ever

And tell me reasons why he shouldn't be at #7? He beat and dominated the best fighters of his time. Like him or not, he was the best fighter of almost 2 decades. No fighter has dominated two decades. Floyd Mayweather, Jr is very close of doing that.

As there is more than 6 boxers better than him

There are questions and discussions about a lot of floyds opponents.

I like Floyd ftr I'm no hater

[elmersalsa]

Floyds a great, but he's not 7. In time his resume will be scrutinised and there will be questions still.

You like Floyd that's fine. But put the favourites to one side, he's not the 7th greatest ever

And tell me reasons why he shouldn't be at #7? He beat and dominated the best fighters of his time. Like him or not, he was the best fighter of almost 2 decades. No fighter has dominated two decades. Floyd Mayweather, Jr is very close of doing that.

As there is more than 6 boxers better than him

There are questions and discussions about a lot of floyds opponents.

I like Floyd ftr I'm no hater

I see that you're not a hater. That is fine. Neither I am one of those that hate him. But, I give the credit were it's due. The guy beat every significant boxer of every weight class from 130 to 154. That's a twenty-four pound margin.

Why the other 6 were better?

More historical impact
More fights
More longevity
More unbelievable feats than what he did. Plain and simple.

Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sam Langford, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep and Harry Greb were unbelievable fighters. Their place in history is heavier than Floyd's.

Twenty, thirty and maybe 100 years from now, the name Floyd Mayweather, Jr will be mentioned whenever people talk about boxing history.

His style might not be likable, but effective. He was a winner and never lost fight. This ain't an overrated view like folks did with the great Rocky Marciano. Here, Pretty Boy Floyd fought and beat everybody.

That his opponents weren't top 100? You can only fight what was in front of you. It's a different situation for every boxer. It's how you did against those opponents what matters.

[Ossyrules]

And tell me reasons why he shouldn't be at #7? He beat and dominated the best fighters of his time. Like him or not, he was the best fighter of almost 2 decades. No fighter has dominated two decades. Floyd Mayweather, Jr is very close of doing that.

As there is more than 6 boxers better than him

There are questions and discussions about a lot of floyds opponents.

I like Floyd ftr I'm no hater

I see that you're not a hater. That is fine. Neither I am one of those that hate him. But, I give the credit were it's due. The guy beat every significant boxer of every weight class from 130 to 154. That's a twenty-four pound margin.

Why the other 6 were better?

More historical impact
More fights
More longevity
More unbelievable feats than what he did. Plain and simple.

Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sam Langford, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep and Harry Greb were unbelievable fighters. Their place in history is heavier than Floyd's.

Twenty, thirty and maybe 100 years from now, the name Floyd Mayweather, Jr will be mentioned whenever people talk about boxing history.

His style might not be likable, but effective. He was a winner and never lost fight. This ain't an overrated view like folks did with the great Rocky Marciano. Here, Pretty Boy Floyd fought and beat everybody.

That his opponents weren't top 100? You can only fight what was in front of you. It's a different situation for every boxer. It's how you did against those opponents what matters.

I'll go back to my first response, I salute you doing a top 100 p4p, it's a thankless task.

But to answer your question, off the top of my head, ray Leonard is above Floyd so that would bump him down 1 place

[elmersalsa]

As there is more than 6 boxers better than him

There are questions and discussions about a lot of floyds opponents.

I like Floyd ftr I'm no hater

I see that you're not a hater. That is fine. Neither I am one of those that hate him. But, I give the credit were it's due. The guy beat every significant boxer of every weight class from 130 to 154. That's a twenty-four pound margin.

Why the other 6 were better?

More historical impact
More fights
More longevity
More unbelievable feats than what he did. Plain and simple.

Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sam Langford, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep and Harry Greb were unbelievable fighters. Their place in history is heavier than Floyd's.

Twenty, thirty and maybe 100 years from now, the name Floyd Mayweather, Jr will be mentioned whenever people talk about boxing history.

His style might not be likable, but effective. He was a winner and never lost fight. This ain't an overrated view like folks did with the great Rocky Marciano. Here, Pretty Boy Floyd fought and beat everybody.

That his opponents weren't top 100? You can only fight what was in front of you. It's a different situation for every boxer. It's how you did against those opponents what matters.

I'll go back to my first response, I salute you doing a top 100 p4p, it's a thankless task.

But to answer your question, off the top of my head, ray Leonard is above Floyd so that would bump him down 1 place

Sugar Ray Leonard is one of my favorite boxers. He came and changed boxing forever, especially, when we are speaking below the heavyweights.
At welterweight, he was phenomenal. I rate him #5 at welterweight and #18 p4p. And why? In both cases, he lacked longevity. His prime was way too short and merely had 40 fights. Yes, he beat unbelievable Roberto Duran. Yes, he beat sensational boxers like Tommy Hearns and Wilfred Benitez at 147lbs. And also beat A FADING Marvelous Marvin Hagler. That was his claim to fame and great resume. It's a very enviable resume. The knock on him in my view is that he should have fought more and had more longevity. At welterweight, he was phenomenal and fantastic. But, he can't be a top ten when other boxers had more fights, more longevity and achieved much more.

But, Floyd Mayweather, Jr took it to ANOTHER LEVEL. He was as great as Sugar Ray. He had in talent in my view, as same level as Leonard. He beat everyone from 130 to 154 with dominating fashion. Had more longevity and achieved more. He excelled at least in two weight classes way better than Ray, BIG TIME! We gotta look at his record. Ray might have beaten much better fighters, but it's not what we're talking about. Floyd was more consistent. Floyd did better above his natural weight class than Ray did. Won more titles. Was never beaten. He will be remembered just like we remember the great Joe Gans or Sam Langford or the same Muhammad Ali or Roberto Duran. He is right there in legacy alone.

[Ambling Alp II]

But elmer can't stand Ray Leonard; which is what this really boils down to. His favorites are too high and the guys he can't stand are too low or not rated at all.

He will say the same thing over and over as if you didn't refute it.
ie "Mayweather beat every significant fighter of era" It is often pointed out that those significant fighters (De La Hoya Pac, Mosely etc.) were well past it when he fought them. He always ignores that.

[elmersalsa]

I don't dislike the great Sugar Ray Leonard. What I dislike is posters that think he could never lose a fight with any other fighter you put in front of him. It's laughable, like The Greatest Muhammad Ali. He is another one that never loses to no heavyweight.

But, a lightweight went up two weight classes and beat him. But, no! That wasn't enough. All excuses broke loose: "he didn't box", "he didn't fight his fight", "he did a big mistake slugging with a slugger" blah, blah, blah.

The same with Ali. "He wasn't prime Ali when he lost to Smokin' Joe". "he underestimated Frazier", "he clowned too much in the fight", "he had a three year layoff", etc, etc, etc.

Now, these same people get mad because he's not top ten all time in most lists? Sorry, he didn't do enough to be top ten. Not too many fights. Other guys went for years without a title shot and did much more and beat more champions.

Leonard greatness comes of whom he has beaten. That's it. But the rest of the categories like division dominance, longevity and amount of pro bouts, he comes very short.

[Ossyrules]

I see that you're not a hater. That is fine. Neither I am one of those that hate him. But, I give the credit were it's due. The guy beat every significant boxer of every weight class from 130 to 154. That's a twenty-four pound margin.

Why the other 6 were better?

More historical impact
More fights
More longevity
More unbelievable feats than what he did. Plain and simple.

Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sam Langford, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep and Harry Greb were unbelievable fighters. Their place in history is heavier than Floyd's.

Twenty, thirty and maybe 100 years from now, the name Floyd Mayweather, Jr will be mentioned whenever people talk about boxing history.

His style might not be likable, but effective. He was a winner and never lost fight. This ain't an overrated view like folks did with the great Rocky Marciano. Here, Pretty Boy Floyd fought and beat everybody.

That his opponents weren't top 100? You can only fight what was in front of you. It's a different situation for every boxer. It's how you did against those opponents what matters.

I'll go back to my first response, I salute you doing a top 100 p4p, it's a thankless task.

But to answer your question, off the top of my head, ray Leonard is above Floyd so that would bump him down 1 place

Sugar Ray Leonard is one of my favorite boxers. He came and changed boxing forever, especially, when we are speaking below the heavyweights.
At welterweight, he was phenomenal. I rate him #5 at welterweight and #18 p4p. And why? In both cases, he lacked longevity. His prime was way too short and merely had 40 fights. Yes, he beat unbelievable Roberto Duran. Yes, he beat sensational boxers like Tommy Hearns and Wilfred Benitez at 147lbs. And also beat A FADING Marvelous Marvin Hagler. That was his claim to fame and great resume. It's a very enviable resume. The knock on him in my view is that he should have fought more and had more longevity. At welterweight, he was phenomenal and fantastic. But, he can't be a top ten when other boxers had more fights, more longevity and achieved much more.

But, Floyd Mayweather, Jr took it to ANOTHER LEVEL. He was as great as Sugar Ray. He had in talent in my view, as same level as Leonard. He beat everyone from 130 to 154 with dominating fashion. Had more longevity and achieved more. He excelled at least in two weight classes way better than Ray, BIG TIME! We gotta look at his record. Ray might have beaten much better fighters, but it's not what we're talking about. Floyd was more consistent. Floyd did better above his natural weight class than Ray did. Won more titles. Was never beaten. He will be remembered just like we remember the great Joe Gans or Sam Langford or the same Muhammad Ali or Roberto Duran. He is right there in legacy alone.

The wins you mention for ray in the last post are the reason Leonard is above mayweather.

Beating Hearns is miles better than anything Floyd achieved. When you throw in Benitez, marvellous, Duran. They don't come better than that

[Ambling Alp II]

First, it's an absolute lie that elmer doesn't dislike Leonard. He rips him constantly. He once said that Leonard was not a real fighter.

I agree Leonard's victim list is tremendous. I don't think there are 10 other fighters who beat 4 different Top 100 fighters. However in elmer's book he needs another 20 or 30 wins over South American tomato cans that nobody has ever heard of. That's what the great ones do!

Now elmer says he doesn't like excuses. Fine. He must have overlooked Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran's losses. Duran lost to DeJesus, Leonard 2x, Benitez, the great Kirkland Laing, Hagler, Hearns, Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor, Vinny Pazienza 2x, Hector Camacho 2x, some guy named Castro, William Joppy, and of course the legendary Omar Elizondo Gonzalez. That is 16 losses! He flunked the test way too many times! I'm sure elmer will reevaluate this and take Duran out his top 100.

[Keko]

Now elmer says he doesn't like excuses. Fine. He must have overlooked Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran's losses. Duran lost to DeJesus, Leonard 2x, Benitez, the great Kirkland Laing, Hagler, Hearns, Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor, Vinny Pazienza 2x, Hector Camacho 2x, some guy named Castro, William Joppy, and of course the legendary Omar Elizondo Gonzalez. That is 16 losses! He flunked the test way too many times! I'm sure elmer will reevaluate this and take Duran out his top 100.

He was really great but he's got lots of defeat.
I see him as Leonard close to top 10.

[Ossyrules]

First, it's an absolute lie that elmer doesn't dislike Leonard. He rips him constantly. He once said that Leonard was not a real fighter.

I agree Leonard's victim list is tremendous. I don't think there are 10 other fighters who beat 4 different Top 100 fighters. However in elmer's book he needs another 20 or 30 wins over South American tomato cans that nobody has ever heard of. That's what the great ones do!

Now elmer says he doesn't like excuses. Fine. He must have overlooked Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran's losses. Duran lost to DeJesus, Leonard 2x, Benitez, the great Kirkland Laing, Hagler, Hearns, Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor, Vinny Pazienza 2x, Hector Camacho 2x, some guy named Castro, William Joppy, and of course the legendary Omar Elizondo Gonzalez. That is 16 losses! He flunked the test way too many times! I'm sure elmer will reevaluate this and take Duran out his top 100.

Leonard is one of the most versatile boxers of recent times imo. I have to admit he is a tremendous fighter.

Out of the four kings my favourites are Duran and Hearns though. Probably Hearns first.

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard absolutely has to be in the Top 10. He has 4 wins over guys in the Top 100. 3 should be in the Top 25 , and all four should be in the Top 50.
I don't think some people realize how big of a deal beating four different Top 10 fighters.
There simply are very few guys who you make that claim for. Langford has zero (though there are probably three you could argue for), Moore has zero, Duran has one, Pep has one, (arguably could have another), Louis just two and one was a light heavy.

To me, Robinson, Armstrong, Langford, Greb, Charles, Leonard, and Ali should not even be debatable for the Top 10. Those 7 are locks. After that, it gets real hard for the rest of the top 10. It probably does down to Moore, Duran, Pep, and Louis.

If Hearns didn't have the two losses to Barkley, he would be close. Still, he still has to be in the Top 25.