BoxRec

davie wrote:

Jip wrote:pernell and hagler will tell you that roy is the best ever.

No they wouldn't. They'd probably tell you SRR like any other sane person would

Greb and Langford were greater.

Sweet Pea don't get no love?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:

Jip wrote:pernell and hagler will tell you that roy is the best ever.

No they wouldn't. They'd probably tell you SRR like any other sane person would

Greb and Langford were greater.

I said any other sane person Saad

Chepppaaa wrote:

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.

That remark is very true.. Natural ability combined with studiously acquired skills establishes how good you are.. Size, strength, agility, speed, power, vision, and brainpower give you natrual ability.. Countless hours in the gym, combined with great coaching, sparring, and matchmaking give you the skills..

I believe Tunney was the most disciplined and single minded of all boxers ... Pep had the most wins and the most fights of all top rated boxers in history -- although more than half of Pep's fights came after a horrific plane crash that came within an inch of taking his life. His chin was gone and he had to make adjustments ... Moore had the most KO's of any boxer. That may have been because he fought one fight after another, sometimes 20 in a year. This dilutes your competition a quite bit -- and when Moore fought the Charles's, Burley's, and Patterson's of the world he didn't do well ... Mayweather has the greatest record ever. The only 5-Division World Champion with no losses and the man who won the most World Title Fights without suffering a loss. However Floyd fought select opponents at a time and place of his choosing. He fought Andre Berto who had been knocked down 6 times in his previous 6 fights while suffering 3 losses - rather than undefeated mandatory World Welterweight Champions Keith Thurman and Kell Brook who would have given him Hell.

Lomachenko appears to have the best skills of any boxer to date. Gary Russell and Nicholas Walters are great boxer-punchers who will probably not be beaten by anyone else anytime soon. But they took a hail of incoming without landing effectively ... Ali has the greatest reputation, but his competition wasn't extremely skilled or consistent - except for Larry Holmes ... Ray Robinson always comes up in these discussions, but nobody wants to explain why Robbie was knocked down by Jake LaMotta, Artie Levine, Tommy Bell, Rocky Graziano and others -- or why 2nd rater Ralph Jones lost 5 fights in a row before knocking the crap out of Robinson ... Boxers get bigger and better with each generation, but nobody ever wants to include active boxers in discussions or ATG's -- no matter how much they deserve to be there.

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:
No they wouldn't. They'd probably tell you SRR like any other sane person would

Greb and Langford were greater.

I said any other sane person Saad

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Greb and Langford were greater.

I said any other sane person Saad

Each of those guys has a legit claim at top spot and you wouldn't be alone in claiming either one should top the list,

but to be fair the consensus no1 is Sugar Ray.

Langford has recently been elevated to my no2 and Greb makes 4 on my list behind Hank

I had Robinson in that default position for years. That's what's so great about boxings rich history. You never stop learning.

The three greatest are Robinson, Greb and Armstrong.
The three most skilled are Robinson, Duran and Leonard.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I had Robinson in that default position for years. That's what's so great about boxings rich history. You never stop learning.

I have tried over the last couple years to see it from the other side, but I still can't see past Robinson.

Different folks got different ways of seeing things, different criteria for judging and view certain wins/losses/opponents in different ways

I'll just settle for the fact that there are more agree with me than do with you

I prefer it that way, look at the board. Lots of dimwits! Sam did something nobody will ever do, he beat Atg fighters at lightweight, welterweight, middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight. Ray has nothing for that. Greb just has an absurd resume. I don't have an issue with anyone having Robinson, Langford, greb, Armstrong or Charles. Anyone else is uncivilized.

the best boxer ever, should be very high on those lists, cause these attributes make a great boxer, simple. these are the most important atributes

technique floyd is the best technician ever, he is #1 at that, one big reason why he is top 7 ever
footwork tough to pick one. rigo, floyd, pac, leonard, jones and robinson all had world class elite footwork, thats why all amongs atg top 10
speed prime jones is the fastest boxer ever, nobody had hands like him, this, along with his cat like reflexes make jones #1 ever boxer

nobody can tell me that langford, greb or louis had better atributes than prime jones, come on guys, eyes dont lie. watch film of them, compared to prime jones they look slow, slow feet, slow reflexes, slow hands. i mean come on. just because someone has 200 plus fights doesnt mean he is the best. chavez had twice as much fight as pernell or floyd, does that make chavez a better technician than pernell or floyd? does that make him faster than pernell and floyd? does that make him a better boxer than pernell and floyd? of course not.

you non experts all go by number of fights and have your nostalic glasses on, only someone from the 40, 50 and 60 with over 100 fights except ali and louis can be conisdered one of the 10 best boxers ever.

but when i ask you, is langford faster than leonard? is greb more athletic than pacquiao? than nobody can give me an answer, cause obviously the answer is NO.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I prefer it that way, look at the board. Lots of dimwits! Sam did something nobody will ever do, he beat Atg fighters at lightweight, welterweight, middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight. Ray has nothing for that. Greb just has an absurd resume. I don't have an issue with anyone having Robinson, Langford, greb, Armstrong or Charles. Anyone else is uncivilized.

The top 4 are about right, Charles has to go behind Moore

but that's an argument for another time and place

Jip wrote:
you non experts

I've missed Cheppaaas unique blend of an inflated sense of self importance and cutting put-downs

My day just wasn't the same when I wasn't being called an idiot every time I came on-line

davie wrote:

Jip wrote:
you non experts

I've missed Cheppaaas unique blend of an inflated sense of self importance and cutting put-downs

My day just wasn't the same when I wasn't being called an idiot every time I came on-line

He's a moron, but harmless enough to remain off of my ever growing ignore list. I already told him Whitaker was better than Roy. I would, however, be interested in some of that greb footage. Hilarious he mentions Louis, the most technically sound puncher to ever live.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:

Jip wrote:
you non experts

I've missed Cheppaaas unique blend of an inflated sense of self importance and cutting put-downs

My day just wasn't the same when I wasn't being called an idiot every time I came on-line

He's a moron, but harmless enough to remain off of my ever growing ignore list. I already told him Whitaker was better than Roy. I would, however, be interested in some of that greb footage. Hilarious he mentions Louis, the most technically sound puncher to ever live.

I've still not put anyone on ignore.

I'd get too nosey when I saw they had say something

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:
I've missed Cheppaaas unique blend of an inflated sense of self importance and cutting put-downs

My day just wasn't the same when I wasn't being called an idiot every time I came on-line

He's a moron, but harmless enough to remain off of my ever growing ignore list. I already told him Whitaker was better than Roy. I would, however, be interested in some of that greb footage. Hilarious he mentions Louis, the most technically sound puncher to ever live.

I've still not put anyone on ignore.

I'd get too nosey when I saw they had say something

Half the time I see stuff before logging in anyway. I used to be prone to endless childish arguments so more than anything it's a tool/reminder not to waste time. It also helps scan down a thread quicker.

Jip wrote:the best boxer ever, should be very high on those lists, cause these attributes make a great boxer, simple. these are the most important atributes

technique floyd is the best technician ever, he is #1 at that, one big reason why he is top 7 ever
footwork tough to pick one. rigo, floyd, pac, leonard, jones and robinson all had world class elite footwork, thats why all amongs atg top 10
speed prime jones is the fastest boxer ever, nobody had hands like him, this, along with his cat like reflexes make jones #1 ever boxer

nobody can tell me that langford, greb or louis had better atributes than prime jones, come on guys, eyes dont lie. watch film of them, compared to prime jones they look slow, slow feet, slow reflexes, slow hands. i mean come on. just because someone has 200 plus fights doesnt mean he is the best. chavez had twice as much fight as pernell or floyd, does that make chavez a better technician than pernell or floyd? does that make him faster than pernell and floyd? does that make him a better boxer than pernell and floyd? of course not.

you non experts all go by number of fights and have your nostalic glasses on, only someone from the 40, 50 and 60 with over 100 fights except ali and louis can be conisdered one of the 10 best boxers ever.

but when i ask you, is langford faster than leonard? is greb more athletic than pacquiao? than nobody can give me an answer, cause obviously the answer is NO.

Technique, footwork and speed are important, but there is a lot more that goes into making a great boxer. Ultimately we can't accurately predict how well someone would perform against another unless they have fought someone of a similar calibre. Roy Jones may well have been the most gifted boxer ever, but his fundamentals were lacking and his chin was average. His phenomenal athletic gifts and largely average opposition allowed him to get away with it for years, but once he slowed down, he started to lose. I rate him as the best super middleweight ever, but I don't think he cracks the top 10 at light heavyweight because he never faced stiff enough opposition to truly prove himself at that weight. Based on the available evidence, I would predict that great light heavyweights like Charles, Moore and Michael Spinks would beat him and probably knock him out.

Rigo doesn't belong in ATG discussions - he is fundamentally very good, but has only one good name in his resume and has been knocked down by mediocre opponents.

In conclusion, no, it's not about the number of fights, it's about the number and quality of fights against against great, prime opposition. Pretty much everyone agrees Sugar Ray Leonard is at worst one of the 20 greatest boxers of all time and he only had 40 fights. It's his wins over Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler that define him.

The guys who Leonard beat all had major flaws...Benitez was wide open for jabs and straight rights... Duran sometimes didn't show up... Hagler haggled in the first 5 rounds of their fight, and Marv often fought at a snail's pace so he lost a few.. Hearns was chinny and easy to hit.

People tend to excuse Leonard's loss to Terry Norris when he was only 34... If Floyd or GGG lost at 34, to that caliber fighter, their critics would have a field day.

Kalan wrote:The guys who Leonard beat all had major flaws...Benitez was wide open for jabs and straight rights... Duran sometimes didn't show up... Hagler haggled in the first 5 rounds of their fight, and Marv often fought at a snail's pace so he lost a few.. Hearns was chinny and easy to hit.

People tend to excuse Leonard's loss to Terry Norris when he was only 34... If Floyd or GGG lost at 34, to that caliber fighter, their critics would have a field day.

Age is irrelevant - what matters is how good they were - and what they achieved, who they beat - in their prime years. Leonard had been in a lot of wars and was clearly, well and truly, past his best when he lost to Norris. Floyd and GGG have/had taken far less punishment by the same age, largely due to not having faced such a murderer's row of opponents (and due to Mayweather's superior defense and safety-first style). Modern boxers are typically fighting to a higher standard later in their careers because they aren't being involved in as many wars, generally fighting less often and turning pro at a later age.

jezz is true on that one

Jip wrote:the best boxer ever, should be very high on those lists, cause these attributes make a great boxer, simple. these are the most important atributes

technique floyd is the best technician ever, he is #1 at that, one big reason why he is top 7 ever
footwork tough to pick one. rigo, floyd, pac, leonard, jones and robinson all had world class elite footwork, thats why all amongs atg top 10
speed prime jones is the fastest boxer ever, nobody had hands like him, this, along with his cat like reflexes make jones #1 ever boxer

nobody can tell me that langford, greb or louis had better atributes than prime jones, come on guys, eyes dont lie. watch film of them, compared to prime jones they look slow, slow feet, slow reflexes, slow hands. i mean come on. just because someone has 200 plus fights doesnt mean he is the best. chavez had twice as much fight as pernell or floyd, does that make chavez a better technician than pernell or floyd? does that make him faster than pernell and floyd? does that make him a better boxer than pernell and floyd? of course not.

you non experts all go by number of fights and have your nostalic glasses on, only someone from the 40, 50 and 60 with over 100 fights except ali and louis can be conisdered one of the 10 best boxers ever.

but when i ask you, is langford faster than leonard? is greb more athletic than pacquiao? than nobody can give me an answer, cause obviously the answer is NO.

There is no footage of Greb fighting so how can you come to the conclusion he had slow feet, hands and reflexes compared to Jones?

Definitely Ray Robinson. Can't compare Mayweather to him at all.

Thread Starter sounds like a casual saying Sugar Ray Leonard and Jones Jr

Harry Greb, Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson are the top 3 for me.

I fully expect Lomachenko to be in discussions like this come the end of his career.