The Top 100 Greatest Boxers of All-Time

[walshb]

As for natural born and skilled boxer-fighters James Toney for me is right up near the top. What a brilliant brilliant fighter. And so full of confidence. I honestly think that he of all men is the most difficult to KO or even dominate. I am speaking when at peak or close to peak.

His whole game was superb. Box, punch, slugh defend, take a helluva shot, tremendous inside game, and as cool as a cucumber no matter what the circumstance. He also was ridiculously tough and resilient, as well as a very active and busy fighter. He often gets criticised for some lazy fights. Big deal. When it was put to him he always responded and worked like a demon. Juts look at his fights with Nunn/Jirov/McCallum/Williams and some others....

[Ezzard]

Your top 10 of my lifetime would look like this (unless I accidentally missed someone)...

1. Roberto Duran
2. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
7. Alexis Arguello
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Marvin Hagler
10. Larry Holmes

All great names. Your criteria leans a lot towards historical impact, achievement and transcending the sport. Whittaker probably did that less than anyone in this top 10. But I'm not going to quibble about his ability that's for sure.

[Counter-puncher]

Your top 10 of my lifetime would look like this (unless I accidentally missed someone)...

1. Roberto Duran
2. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
7. Alexis Arguello
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Marvin Hagler
10. Larry Holmes

All great names. Your criteria leans a lot towards historical impact, achievement and transcending the sport. Whittaker probably did that less than anyone in this top 10. But I'm not going to quibble about his ability that's for sure.

I think for my lifetime I'd have a very similar list, probably 8 or 9 of the same names, albeit with a very different order

[Keko]

I see a lot of criticisms on the Willie Pep, but on a lot of these lists that I can see he is in the top 5 and it's not that exception.

[Kalan]

As for natural born and skilled boxer-fighters James Toney for me is right up near the top. What a brilliant brilliant fighter. And so full of confidence. I honestly think that he of all men is the most difficult to KO or even dominate. I am speaking when at peak or close to peak.

His whole game was superb. Box, punch, slugh defend, take a helluva shot, tremendous inside game, and as cool as a cucumber no matter what the circumstance. He also was ridiculously tough and resilient, as well as a very active and busy fighter. He often gets criticised for some lazy fights. Big deal. When it was put to him he always responded and worked like a demon. Juts look at his fights with Nunn/Jirov/McCallum/Williams and some others....

Reggie Johnson... Who was another tough Middleweight Toney fought... James got knocked on his ass... Reggie was an underrated Middleweight.

[Ambling Alp II]

I see a lot of criticisms on the Willie Pep, but on a lot of these lists that I can see he is in the top 5 and it's not that exception.

Pep is tricky. If you watch him on film, he looks great, especially defensively. However, when you actually look at his "victims list", it's not that impressive compared to some other guys. A lot of nice wins but not that many that really get your attention.

If he would have moved up to lightweight and scored a major win it would have really helped his case. That may not sound fair, but when you are comparing to the absolute best ever than it's something he needed to do.

He is borderline Top 10; either just in or outside of it.

[Kalan]

Your top 10 of my lifetime would look like this (unless I accidentally missed someone)...

1. Roberto Duran
2. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
7. Alexis Arguello
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Marvin Hagler
10. Larry Holmes

All great names. Your criteria leans a lot towards historical impact, achievement and transcending the sport. Whittaker probably did that less than anyone in this top 10. But I'm not going to quibble about his ability that's for sure.

Whtaker didn't look good against a very green Oscar De La Hoya. He got out-punched by a good margin. He also lost a few other fights....

Pacquiao got knocked out 3 X, lost 6 X and suffered 2 draws. Good, but I don't see him in the top 5 or top 10. He's a ducker.

Chavez got a few gift decisions so I don't see him as one of the best ever.

Hagler got whipped by a Welterweight. He lost and drew to others guys who weren't real good. I don't see any Daniel Jacobs or Michael Nunn type natural Middleweights on Hagler's resume. Big, tall guys who can really box and punch. Monzon is another I believe would wipe him out.

Alexis Arguello wasn't a good enough boxer to rank that high. Too easy to hit. I wasn't impressed with his being outboxed by Vilomar Fernandez and I predicted Pryor would outbox and out-punch him, which came to pass much as I envisioned. Arguello's jab wasn't real slick for one thing.

Evander Holyfield was an outstanding fighter, but not top-10... When you see how Ruiz boxed him pretty much even -- and Roy Jones boxed Ruiz's ears off, you see the lack of sophistication that allowed a big lug like Riddick Bowe to beat Evander twice... Roy was actually much better.

Mayweather, Duran, Holmes, and Leonard had complete games... You can put them up there or close.. I'm amazed more people don't mention Tunney, Pep, Jofre, and Sanchez more because they were outstanding boxers... Guys like Dempsey and Tyson didn't have staying power because they didn't work real hard on their boxing skills -- and a lot of guys who are often rated at the top had tons of holes in their games.

[elmersalsa]

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.

So, you're saying that Sugar Ray was better than the Ol' Mongoose, Archie Moore for example?

Explain that to me. How can a guy that didn't have a long career is better than Archie Moore?

Sugar Ray better than Willie Pep? Explain that to me.

Sugar Ray better than the great Hands of Stone? Explain that to me.

Just because Archie Moore didn't beat a single top 100 ATG pound per pound fighter does not mean he is INFERIOR to Sugar Ray.

SRL beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters. Is that is the case, why he is not better than the original Sugar Ray or Henry Armstrong? Explain that to me. Because SRR doesn't have 4 ATG pound per pound fighters wins on his resume like Leonard. Neither, Armstrong.

[elmersalsa]

Your top 10 of my lifetime would look like this (unless I accidentally missed someone)...

1. Roberto Duran
2. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
7. Alexis Arguello
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Marvin Hagler
10. Larry Holmes

All great names. Your criteria leans a lot towards historical impact, achievement and transcending the sport. Whittaker probably did that less than anyone in this top 10. But I'm not going to quibble about his ability that's for sure.

According to my friend Ambling Alp, Duran should not be above Leonard.

[elmersalsa]

The great Tony Canzoneri beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters of the 20th century:

Kid Chocolate
Jack "Kid" Berg
Jimmy McLarnin
Johnny Dundee

And two possible top 100 ATGs in Lou Ambers and Billy Petrolle

Why ain't he supposed to be INFERIOR to Leonard because Leonard beat 4 ATGs

I want Ambling Alp to answer that.

[Give up]

It's like with this 10

1.Sugar Ray Leonard
2.Pernel Whitaker
3.Roberto Duran
4.Marvin Hagler
5.Floyd Mayweather Jr
6.. Julio Cesar Chavez
7. Alexis Arguello
8.Manny Pacquaio
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Larry Holmes

[elmersalsa]

The great Battling Battalino beat 4 ATG p4p fighters in the top 100.
He beat:
Panama Al Brown
Freddie Miller
Fidel La Barba
Kid Chocolate

Is that is the case, why he is not even a top 20 ATG like the great Sugar Ray Leonard? Two of them are top 50 pound per pound ATG boxers in Brown and Chocolate.

Why isn't he top 20, Ambling Alp?

[Seamus]

Because Battalino had too many losses. Look at your countryman Davey Abad, he beat Henry Armstrong, Tony Canzoneri, Midget Wolgast, and Benny Bass, and that's pretty damn impressive, but he also lost a big number of fights to lesser opponents.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

The great Tony Canzoneri beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters of the 20th century:

Kid Chocolate
Jack "Kid" Berg
Jimmy McLarnin
Johnny Dundee

And two possible top 100 ATGs in Lou Ambers and Billy Petrolle

Why ain't he supposed to be INFERIOR to Leonard because Leonard beat 4 ATGs

I want Ambling Alp to answer that.

Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez is a noteably better four than McLarnin, Berg, Chocolate, Dundee though, to be fair.

Speaking of Lou Ambers, how far was he from getting into the 100? Never had the patience to do a 100 myself but I'd have him higher rated than at least 15 or so of the names you've got in there.

[elmersalsa]

The great Tony Canzoneri beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters of the 20th century:

Kid Chocolate
Jack "Kid" Berg
Jimmy McLarnin
Johnny Dundee

And two possible top 100 ATGs in Lou Ambers and Billy Petrolle

Why ain't he supposed to be INFERIOR to Leonard because Leonard beat 4 ATGs

I want Ambling Alp to answer that.

Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez is a noteably better four than McLarnin, Berg, Chocolate, Dundee though, to be fair.

Speaking of Lou Ambers, how far was he from getting into the 100? Never had the patience to do a 100 myself but I'd have him higher rated than at least 15 or so of the names you've got in there.

How could Thomas Hearns be better than Jimmy McLarnin?

Wilfred Benitez better than McLarnin and Kid Chocolate? No way!

At least I rate Lou Ambers better than Oscar De La Hoya

[elmersalsa]

And the great Jimmy McLarnin from Ireland beat 5 Top 100 ATG pound per pound boxers, but nobody says nothing, he, he, he, he, he!

He beat:
Pancho Villa
Fidel La Barba
Barney Ross
Tony Canzoneri
And Benny Leonard. But, of course, Benny was not in his prime, right?

Anyway, he beat 5 great ones. Why he's not top 20?

[elmersalsa]

Like your criteria and your list. Very interesting.

Thanks, Ezzard! I tell you, it wasn't easy! I cracked and scratched my skull a couple of times. Believe me, it took me lots of years and research.

[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.

So, you're saying that Sugar Ray was better than the Ol' Mongoose, Archie Moore for example?

Explain that to me. How can a guy that didn't have a long career is better than Archie Moore?

Sugar Ray better than Willie Pep? Explain that to me.

Sugar Ray better than the great Hands of Stone? Explain that to me.

Just because Archie Moore didn't beat a single top 100 ATG pound per pound fighter does not mean he is INFERIOR to Sugar Ray.

SRL beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters. Is that is the case, why he is not better than the original Sugar Ray or Henry Armstrong? Explain that to me. Because SRR doesn't have 4 ATG pound per pound fighters wins on his resume like Leonard. Neither, Armstrong.

I will explain this to you even though you never seem to understand anything.
Yes Leonard was better than Moore. Leonard best wins were better than Moore's. It's not even close. Leoanrd was more consistent; he only had one loss in his prime. Morore ha several and some were to opponents that were not hat good. It doesn't matter how long someones career. It matters what you do in your career.

Leonard has more major wins than Pep. Once again it's not even close. It doesn't matter how many wins Pep had; it matters who they were against.

Duran? Are you frikkin serious? I have only explained this a million times to you and just keep keep coming back with nonsense. In a nutshell, Leonard won the head to head, Leonard was better against common opponents, Leonard beat better fighters. Leoanrd was more consistent. Don't care how many South Americans that nobody heard of that Duran beat.

Quality means more than quantity. Maybe some day you will figure that out.

[Ambling Alp II]

The great Tony Canzoneri beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters of the 20th century:

Kid Chocolate
Jack "Kid" Berg
Jimmy McLarnin
Johnny Dundee

And two possible top 100 ATGs in Lou Ambers and Billy Petrolle

Why ain't he supposed to be INFERIOR to Leonard because Leonard beat 4 ATGs

I want Ambling Alp to answer that.

Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez is a noteably better four than McLarnin, Berg, Chocolate, Dundee though, to be fair.

Speaking of Lou Ambers, how far was he from getting into the 100? Never had the patience to do a 100 myself but I'd have him higher rated than at least 15 or so of the names you've got in there.

Actually Canzoneri could be higher than he is; he did have some losses which keep him out of the top 10.

Lou Ambers is not in his Top 100? That is a major oversight. Good catch.

[Kalan]

I also think that Floyd Mayweather is too high considering that De La Hoya isn't in there and Mayweather only edged past him.

Why would Mayweather be penalized for beating a much bigger 6-Division World Champion like Oscar??? -- and an 8-Division World Champion like Pacman??? -- and two 4-Division World Champions like Marquez and Cotto??? -- and a 3-Division World Champion like Mosley???

If you edge somebody does that count as a win???

Is Reuben Shank on the list??? Shank only had 18 wins in 24 fights when he beat Henry Armstrong... Armstrong didn't edge past Shank. He got beaten... And that was Armstrong's 135th fight, but not his 1st loss to a cherry-picked opponent.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

The great Tony Canzoneri beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters of the 20th century:

Kid Chocolate
Jack "Kid" Berg
Jimmy McLarnin
Johnny Dundee

And two possible top 100 ATGs in Lou Ambers and Billy Petrolle

Why ain't he supposed to be INFERIOR to Leonard because Leonard beat 4 ATGs

I want Ambling Alp to answer that.

Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez is a noteably better four than McLarnin, Berg, Chocolate, Dundee though, to be fair.

Speaking of Lou Ambers, how far was he from getting into the 100? Never had the patience to do a 100 myself but I'd have him higher rated than at least 15 or so of the names you've got in there.

How could Thomas Hearns be better than Jimmy McLarnin?

Wilfred Benitez better than McLarnin and Kid Chocolate? No way!

At least I rate Lou Ambers better than Oscar De La Hoya

Overall they are better, not each one is better than each other one. Even going by your own ratings Duran #4, Hagler #34, Hearns #51 Benitez #72 is better than McLarnin #38, Chocolate #42, Berg #65, Dundee unrated. Besides, no-one is quibbling Canzo's own high standing - he was just a little too inconsistent to rate higher, great fighter nonetheless.

[Keko]

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.

So, you're saying that Sugar Ray was better than the Ol' Mongoose, Archie Moore for example?

Explain that to me. How can a guy that didn't have a long career is better than Archie Moore?

Sugar Ray better than Willie Pep? Explain that to me.

Sugar Ray better than the great Hands of Stone? Explain that to me.

Just because Archie Moore didn't beat a single top 100 ATG pound per pound fighter does not mean he is INFERIOR to Sugar Ray.

SRL beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters. Is that is the case, why he is not better than the original Sugar Ray or Henry Armstrong? Explain that to me. Because SRR doesn't have 4 ATG pound per pound fighters wins on his resume like Leonard. Neither, Armstrong.

Duran? Are you frikkin serious? I have only explained this a million times to you and just keep keep coming back with nonsense. In a nutshell, Leonard won the head to head, Leonard was better against common opponents, Leonard beat better fighters. Leoanrd was more consistent. Don't care how many South Americans that nobody heard of that Duran beat.

Quality means more than quantity. Maybe some day you will figure that out.

Both were great and this is exactly what you just wrote. Leonard looks better with the mutual competition and in by the fighting but has a career and a longer Duran, I really like the LW champion was great.

I think they're the two of them really close on that list and that it's not a big difference.

[Ezzard]

I also think that Floyd Mayweather is too high considering that De La Hoya isn't in there and Mayweather only edged past him.

Why would Mayweather be penalized for beating a much bigger 6-Division World Champion like Oscar??? -- and an 8-Division World Champion like Pacman??? -- and two 4-Division World Champions like Marquez and Cotto??? -- and a 3-Division World Champion like Mosley???

If you edge somebody does that count as a win???

Is Reuben Shank on the list??? Shank only had 18 wins in 24 fights when he beat Henry Armstrong... Armstrong didn't edge past Shank. He got beaten... And that was Armstrong's 135th fight, but not his 1st loss to a cherry-picked opponent.

I don't think he was much bigger. They started in the same weight class. A little bigger.

My point is there wasn't that much between them when they fought other than a couple of rounds... So why would they be 100 places apart?

[elmersalsa]

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.

So, you're saying that Sugar Ray was better than the Ol' Mongoose, Archie Moore for example?

Explain that to me. How can a guy that didn't have a long career is better than Archie Moore?

Sugar Ray better than Willie Pep? Explain that to me.

Sugar Ray better than the great Hands of Stone? Explain that to me.

Just because Archie Moore didn't beat a single top 100 ATG pound per pound fighter does not mean he is INFERIOR to Sugar Ray.

SRL beat 4 ATG pound per pound fighters. Is that is the case, why he is not better than the original Sugar Ray or Henry Armstrong? Explain that to me. Because SRR doesn't have 4 ATG pound per pound fighters wins on his resume like Leonard. Neither, Armstrong.

I will explain this to you even though you never seem to understand anything.
Yes Leonard was better than Moore. Leonard best wins were better than Moore's. It's not even close. Leoanrd was more consistent; he only had one loss in his prime. Morore ha several and some were to opponents that were not hat good. It doesn't matter how long someones career. It matters what you do in your career.

Leonard has more major wins than Pep. Once again it's not even close. It doesn't matter how many wins Pep had; it matters who they were against.

Duran? Are you frikkin serious? I have only explained this a million times to you and just keep keep coming back with nonsense. In a nutshell, Leonard won the head to head, Leonard was better against common opponents, Leonard beat better fighters. Leoanrd was more consistent. Don't care how many South Americans that nobody heard of that Duran beat.

Quality means more than quantity. Maybe some day you will figure that out.

Sugar Ray Leonard COULDN'T BE BETTER than Archie Moore. Moore was a TRUE LEGEND that fought everybody, anybody, anywhere. He fought guys that NOBODY WANTED PART OF. He had a longer career, had much more HISTORICAL IMPACT and value than Leonard, and reign longer as champion.

You just can go by who you beat. Some guys didn't had the chance and luxury to fight great fighters in his own weight class. Some got avoided pretty obviously like Moore. Compare Leonard vs Moore at their respective weight classes. Who was better? Moore was a better light-heavyweight than Leonard was at welterweight. Some believe that Moore was the greatest light-heavyweight ever. Leonard barely made the top 5 welterweights.


Willie Pep was more dominant fighter in his class, at featherweight than Leonard at welterweight. More longevity, more dominant as champion, much more fights, and only had 11 losses in 241 bouts! What fighter today can do that with at least 50 bouts? Not too many. Plus Pep has more historical importance. Pep is considered the best featherweight ever. While Leonard? Is he the best welterweight? No. Did a bantamweight beat Pep? No. But Leonard got beaten by a lightweight, right?

And he was better than the great Roberto Duran? ONLY IN YOUR DREAMS! What happened when BOTH WERE AT THEIR PEAK IN THE BIGGEST AND MOST ANTICIPATED FIGHT OUTSIDE THE HEAVYWEIGHTS? What happened? Duran whupped him...End of story. Who was more dominant as a champion? Who was the better in their own respective class? Duran or Leonard? Duran is the greatest lightweight of all time by all boxing writers. Was Leonard ever called the best welter ever? No. Who got more longevity? That is not even a question that people should answer. Who excelled in weight classes bigger than their class? Duran. He never had to put STIPULATIONS fighting BIGGER MEN about having bigger rings, thumless gloves, shorter rounds, and even catchweight fights like Leonard did with
Donny Lalonde. Duran fought them as is, with no problems.

Leonard had the LUXURY in his own weight class the 147 to fight great fighters. Only one of them was a true welterweight. The other ones, Wilfred Benitez and Duran, weren't. Take Duran and Benitez out of the equation, and then what? Even Marvelous Marvin had guys coming up to fight him. That didn't happen to Duran. NOBODY came up to fight him.

So it's not about beating great opponents, only. What if you don't have great opposition in your class like some heavyweights? Will they get count it against because there were no great fighters in his class. YOU COULD ONLY FIGHT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU.

[elmersalsa]

Now, why Leonard is not better than the original Sugar Ray or Henry Armstrong? I don't see that both of them beat 4 top 100 ATG pound per pound boxers. Why Leonard is not better than them if the case is about beating great fighters. They lost more fights than Leonard did.

Robinson wins against guys that are in the top 100:
Jake LaMotta
Henry Armstrong
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio
Kid Gavilan

Armstrong was not in his prime when Robinson beat him. But, still, that group, according to some, is not as good as the Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler beaten by SRL. Then, why Robinson is not better?

Armstrong wins against top 100 ATG pound per pound boxers:
Barney Ross...That's it? Why Leonard is not better than Homicide Henry in any list of boxing writers? Why is that? Leonard beat 4 great ones. Explain that to me, SOMEBODY or the one that is advocating for Leonard, the one and only Ambling Alp.

I will be waiting for that answer. It will be INTERESTING!