thereverend wrote: ↑03 Dec 2017, 19:39
Pep and Armstrong are better then Lomachenko and Rigondeaux because they fought and beat the best fighters in their era. That is what makes an all time great fighter. It has nothing to do with how good a fighter looks beating B grade fighters. Loma and Rig haven't beaten anyone on a top ten p4p list. This is why Mayweather is worthy of being on a Top 50 list, not old man Mayweather beating Berto, but the Mayweather that beat the p4p best fighters of his era.
Comparing fighters of different eras is a waste of time. We can debate forever and we'll still believe what we want to believe. So we go with something we can all agree on. Who did the best against the other great fighters of their era. That is what makes an all time great. You compare fighters from different eras depending on how they did against other elites. That's what a Top 50 list is. It's not watching You Tube for 40 hours and then deciding who looks coolest.
After the Loma Riga fight people will say he's the winner is the p4p best. It's a nice win but my p4p best is the man who beat the man. That's how boxing rankings are suppose to work. So Loma beats Riga? Who's the great fighter Riga beat? What makes him great?
What makes rigo great. A dumb question. Cause you have the answer right infront of you when you watch him, i give yiu a answer non expert.
Rigondeaux has mind blowing reflexes, good balance, punches fast accurate and hard. Possess elite technique and his timing is superb. Overall hus agility & footwork is up there with the best.
So pepp or armstrong had a better career than loma or rig because they fought more good opponents and had more fights. They had a better pro career, ok i aggree with you.
But what did they do that made them a better boxer than loma for example?
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 04 Dec 2017, 06:04
by Jip
Haha
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 12:37
by Jip
So many examples
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 14:47
by Enlightened-One
gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 13:43
Just for the hell of it. Here's my Top 50 ever. I didn't put a lot of thought into it so things could be changed around, but I'm sure I put a lot more thought into than Jip. He'd apparently just name the first 50 boxers that come to mind.
Top 50 Boxers ever (with old...because if you're talking Best ever, you're talking old school fighters)
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Harry Greb
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Willie Pep
7. Roberto Duran
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Archie Moore
10. Sugar Ray Leonard
11. Joe Louis
12. Benny Leonard
13. Gene Tunney
14. Mickey Walker
15. Barney Ross
16. Joe Gans
17. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
18. Charley Burley
19. Marvin Hagler
20. Sandy Saddler
21. Ike Williams
22. Thomas Hearns
23. Tony Canzoneri
24. Manny Pacquiao
25. Bob Fitzsimmons
26. Evander Holyfield
27. Pernell Whitaker
28. Bernard Hopkins
29. Larry Holmes
30. Michael Spinks
31. George Foreman
32. Bob Foster
33. Stanley Ketchel
34. Harold Johnson
35. Alexis Arguello
36. Roy Jones Jr.
37. Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez
38. Jimmy Wilde
39. Julio Cesar Chavez
40. Emile Griffith
41. Lennox Lewis
42. Erik Morales
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Billy Conn
45. Eder Jofre
46. Mike McCallum
47. Aaron Pryor
48. Carlos Ortiz
49. Nicoline Locche
50. Jack Dempsey
How many Benny Leonard and Harry Greb fights have you watched?
Can you say that you've watched the entirety of several fights that every single one of these fighters you've listed had engaged in, whilst possessing knowledge of their opponents talents, accomplishments amd form?
gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 13:43
Here's my Top 50 ever. I didn't put a lot of thought into it
Looks like you didn't... There's a lack of boxers from the 21st Century on your list... Did Boxing fall off the Planet in the year 2000???
From all reports, the sport has spread about the globe like wildfire and there're more boxers than ever today... Since training methods have improved and evolved, and the sweet science itself has evolved, there's a lot of terrific athletes out there to choose from.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 13:43
Just for the hell of it. Here's my Top 50 ever. I didn't put a lot of thought into it so things could be changed around, but I'm sure I put a lot more thought into than Jip. He'd apparently just name the first 50 boxers that come to mind.
Top 50 Boxers ever (with old...because if you're talking Best ever, you're talking old school fighters)
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Harry Greb
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Willie Pep
7. Roberto Duran
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Archie Moore
10. Sugar Ray Leonard
11. Joe Louis
12. Benny Leonard
13. Gene Tunney
14. Mickey Walker
15. Barney Ross
16. Joe Gans
17. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
18. Charley Burley
19. Marvin Hagler
20. Sandy Saddler
21. Ike Williams
22. Thomas Hearns
23. Tony Canzoneri
24. Manny Pacquiao
25. Bob Fitzsimmons
26. Evander Holyfield
27. Pernell Whitaker
28. Bernard Hopkins
29. Larry Holmes
30. Michael Spinks
31. George Foreman
32. Bob Foster
33. Stanley Ketchel
34. Harold Johnson
35. Alexis Arguello
36. Roy Jones Jr.
37. Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez
38. Jimmy Wilde
39. Julio Cesar Chavez
40. Emile Griffith
41. Lennox Lewis
42. Erik Morales
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Billy Conn
45. Eder Jofre
46. Mike McCallum
47. Aaron Pryor
48. Carlos Ortiz
49. Nicoline Locche
50. Jack Dempsey
How many Benny Leonard and Harry Greb fights have you watched?
Can you say that you've watched the entirety of several fights that every single one of these fighters you've listed had engaged in, whilst possessing knowledge of their opponents talents, accomplishments amd form?
Of course not in the case of a guy like Greb for whom no film exists, but you can look at the frequency of his fights, and the level of competition for his time, and it's obvious he had to have been a fantastic fighter to have achieved what he did. I've watched a great deal of film of several of the greats from the 1950's onward.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 15:02
by Jip
In the 1920-1940 boxing was focused in countrys like usa, mexiko, uk, france. But overall most boxer came from usa.
Now you got a legend in pac in the phillipines, top boxer from thailand like galaxy.
You got lots of olympian gold medalist from Ukraine, usbekistan.
Cuba, mexico, latin america. Even africa.
Boxing over the years has become way more global. Now manny is envolved in devoloping china into a boxing powrrhouse.
Back than champions were mostly from usa. Now you got champions from everywhere.
Heavyweight division is a good example. Liston, louis, ali, frazier, foremon, norton, holmes, tyson, holyfield. All usa.
Now you got champions at hw from russia, england, ukraine...etc.
thereverend wrote: ↑03 Dec 2017, 19:39
Pep and Armstrong are better then Lomachenko and Rigondeaux because they fought and beat the best fighters in their era. That is what makes an all time great fighter. It has nothing to do with how good a fighter looks beating B grade fighters. Loma and Rig haven't beaten anyone on a top ten p4p list. This is why Mayweather is worthy of being on a Top 50 list, not old man Mayweather beating Berto, but the Mayweather that beat the p4p best fighters of his era.
Comparing fighters of different eras is a waste of time. We can debate forever and we'll still believe what we want to believe. So we go with something we can all agree on. Who did the best against the other great fighters of their era. That is what makes an all time great. You compare fighters from different eras depending on how they did against other elites. That's what a Top 50 list is. It's not watching You Tube for 40 hours and then deciding who looks coolest.
After the Loma Riga fight people will say he's the winner is the p4p best. It's a nice win but my p4p best is the man who beat the man. That's how boxing rankings are suppose to work. So Loma beats Riga? Who's the great fighter Riga beat? What makes him great?
What makes rigo great. A dumb question. Cause you have the answer right infront of you when you watch him, i give yiu a answer non expert.
Rigondeaux has mind blowing reflexes, good balance, punches fast accurate and hard. Possess elite technique and his timing is superb. Overall hus agility & footwork is up there with the best.
So pepp or armstrong had a better career than loma or rig because they fought more good opponents and had more fights. They had a better pro career, ok i aggree with you.
But what did they do that made them a better boxer than loma for example?
You just answered your own question. That is what makes a boxer great...winning boxing matches. Just because someone looks like they have skill by the eye test doesn't mean as much as boxing good opponents.
thereverend wrote: ↑03 Dec 2017, 19:39
Pep and Armstrong are better then Lomachenko and Rigondeaux because they fought and beat the best fighters in their era. That is what makes an all time great fighter. It has nothing to do with how good a fighter looks beating B grade fighters. Loma and Rig haven't beaten anyone on a top ten p4p list. This is why Mayweather is worthy of being on a Top 50 list, not old man Mayweather beating Berto, but the Mayweather that beat the p4p best fighters of his era.
Comparing fighters of different eras is a waste of time. We can debate forever and we'll still believe what we want to believe. So we go with something we can all agree on. Who did the best against the other great fighters of their era. That is what makes an all time great. You compare fighters from different eras depending on how they did against other elites. That's what a Top 50 list is. It's not watching You Tube for 40 hours and then deciding who looks coolest.
After the Loma Riga fight people will say he's the winner is the p4p best. It's a nice win but my p4p best is the man who beat the man. That's how boxing rankings are suppose to work. So Loma beats Riga? Who's the great fighter Riga beat? What makes him great?
What makes rigo great. A dumb question. Cause you have the answer right infront of you when you watch him, i give yiu a answer non expert.
Rigondeaux has mind blowing reflexes, good balance, punches fast accurate and hard. Possess elite technique and his timing is superb. Overall hus agility & footwork is up there with the best.
So pepp or armstrong had a better career than loma or rig because they fought more good opponents and had more fights. They had a better pro career, ok i aggree with you.
But what did they do that made them a better boxer than loma for example?
You just answered your own question. That is what makes a boxer great...winning boxing matches. Just because someone looks like they have skill by the eye test doesn't mean as much as boxing good opponents.
So what did they do better since they were better boxer in your oppinion?
You, same as all people in here cant give me an reasonable answer. Now ask yourself, why you and other cant give me an answer on specific what old atg can do better than atg nowadays. It is because they cant do much better things than elite boxers nowadays.
What makes rigo great. A dumb question. Cause you have the answer right infront of you when you watch him, i give yiu a answer non expert.
Rigondeaux has mind blowing reflexes, good balance, punches fast accurate and hard. Possess elite technique and his timing is superb. Overall hus agility & footwork is up there with the best.
So pepp or armstrong had a better career than loma or rig because they fought more good opponents and had more fights. They had a better pro career, ok i aggree with you.
But what did they do that made them a better boxer than loma for example?
You just answered your own question. That is what makes a boxer great...winning boxing matches. Just because someone looks like they have skill by the eye test doesn't mean as much as boxing good opponents.
So what did they do better since they were better boxer in your oppinion?
You, same as all people in here cant give me an reasonable answer. Now ask yourself, why you and other cant give me an answer on specific what old atg can do better than atg nowadays. It is because they cant do much better things than elite boxers nowadays.
They fought better opponents and had better careers. Simply doing something better doesn't mean they're actually better if they haven't proven themselves. I'm a better free throw shooter and might have a better jump shot than Shaquele O'neal, but Shaq has played in the NBA, beaten legendary teams, won championships, and is a sure Hall of Famer. I didn't even try out for my high school team.
You just answered your own question. That is what makes a boxer great...winning boxing matches. Just because someone looks like they have skill by the eye test doesn't mean as much as boxing good opponents.
So what did they do better since they were better boxer in your oppinion?
You, same as all people in here cant give me an reasonable answer. Now ask yourself, why you and other cant give me an answer on specific what old atg can do better than atg nowadays. It is because they cant do much better things than elite boxers nowadays.
They fought better opponents and had better careers. Simply doing something better doesn't mean they're actually better if they haven't proven themselves. I'm a better free throw shooter and might have a better jump shot than Shaquele O'neal, but Shaq has played in the NBA, beaten legendary teams, won championships, and is a sure Hall of Famer. I didn't even try out for my high school team.
So shaq had a better nba career than you.
But you can do 1 specific thing better than shaq and that is freethrow shooting. So you are a better freethrow shooter than shaq but overall shaq is a better basketball player than you cause he is bigger taller stronger more athletic, better at the rim etc than you.
Do you understand what i am trying to Showcase to you?
I named specific reasons why shaq is better than you. He aint a better basketball player than you because of rings (robert horry got 5 rings, lebron james only 3, kevin garnett only 1, would you say horry is a better basketball player than james and garnett?). He is a better basketball player than because he is physicly and techniquly superior than you. Boxer nowadays are techniquly as good if not better and on top physicly superior than old atg and that makes them better boxer.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 16:50
by gilgamesh
There's a lot of old school tricks that not many fighters take the time to learn these days. The few that pick them up often wind up being some of the best fighters of their time.
B-Hop and James Toney are good examples of recent fighters that had a lot of old school tricks.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 17:03
by Jip
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 17:05
by Jip
gilgamesh wrote: ↑06 Dec 2017, 16:50
There's a lot of old school tricks that not many fighters take the time to learn these days. The few that pick them up often wind up being some of the best fighters of their time.
B-Hop and James Toney are good examples of recent fighters that had a lot of old school tricks.
All top boxer have old tricks.
Floyd the shoulder roll that ezzard did. GGG is classic guard punch variation. Lomachenko is matrix, just a better more athletic finnese version of benny & willie. Roman is well rounded...etc.
Like i said i dont hat on old atg, they invented the old school tricks that elite boxer do nowadays. I am just saying that todays (1980 till now) boxers are better than the old school (1910-1970) with exception like robinson. He would f:&.#k up spence or crawford!
So what did they do better since they were better boxer in your oppinion?
You, same as all people in here cant give me an reasonable answer. Now ask yourself, why you and other cant give me an answer on specific what old atg can do better than atg nowadays. It is because they cant do much better things than elite boxers nowadays.
They fought better opponents and had better careers. Simply doing something better doesn't mean they're actually better if they haven't proven themselves. I'm a better free throw shooter and might have a better jump shot than Shaquele O'neal, but Shaq has played in the NBA, beaten legendary teams, won championships, and is a sure Hall of Famer. I didn't even try out for my high school team.
So shaq had a better nba career than you.
But you can do 1 specific thing better than shaq and that is freethrow shooting. So you are a better freethrow shooter than shaq but overall shaq is a better basketball player than you cause he is bigger taller stronger more athletic, better at the rim etc than you.
Do you understand what i am trying to Showcase to you?
I named specific reasons why shaq is better than you. He aint a better basketball player than you because of rings (robert horry got 5 rings, lebron james only 3, kevin garnett only 1, would you say horry is a better basketball player than james and garnett?). He is a better basketball player than because he is physicly and techniquly superior than you. Boxer nowadays are techniquly as good if not better and on top physicly superior than old atg and that makes them better boxer.
To your point, you act like Rigo and Lomachenko are top 10 off of what they've done when there's no proof they could even beat prime Hamed.
They fought better opponents and had better careers. Simply doing something better doesn't mean they're actually better if they haven't proven themselves. I'm a better free throw shooter and might have a better jump shot than Shaquele O'neal, but Shaq has played in the NBA, beaten legendary teams, won championships, and is a sure Hall of Famer. I didn't even try out for my high school team.
So shaq had a better nba career than you.
But you can do 1 specific thing better than shaq and that is freethrow shooting. So you are a better freethrow shooter than shaq but overall shaq is a better basketball player than you cause he is bigger taller stronger more athletic, better at the rim etc than you.
Do you understand what i am trying to Showcase to you?
I named specific reasons why shaq is better than you. He aint a better basketball player than you because of rings (robert horry got 5 rings, lebron james only 3, kevin garnett only 1, would you say horry is a better basketball player than james and garnett?). He is a better basketball player than because he is physicly and techniquly superior than you. Boxer nowadays are techniquly as good if not better and on top physicly superior than old atg and that makes them better boxer.
To your point, you act like Rigo and Lomachenko are top 10 off of what they've done when there's no proof they could even beat prime Hamed.
Do u realise that you write complet nonsense?
I act like rigo and loma are top 10 out of what they ve done. I wrote 1000 times that there record isnt super impressiv but there physical ability and technique is super impressiv.
There is no proof that they could even beat hamed.
That is one of the most stupid sentences ever. There is no prove for nothing in boxing. Nothing is 100 %. Even prime ali could lose to a b level boxer. Anything can happen in boxing. I quit talking to you. You just make no sense.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 19:26
by squiggy
When people say that a fighter like Hopkins knew a lot of "old school tricks," what percentage of that would you guys say just means "he's really good at cheating"? Because the vast majority of times I hear a phrase like that one is in situations like, "Ooh, Jim, did you say how Bernard got into that clinch, used the laces of one glove to rake across the guy's eyes while open-palm-slapping his balls with the other glove?" "Yeah, Max -- he's a classic old school fighter. Knows all the tricks."
So shaq had a better nba career than you.
But you can do 1 specific thing better than shaq and that is freethrow shooting. So you are a better freethrow shooter than shaq but overall shaq is a better basketball player than you cause he is bigger taller stronger more athletic, better at the rim etc than you.
Do you understand what i am trying to Showcase to you?
I named specific reasons why shaq is better than you. He aint a better basketball player than you because of rings (robert horry got 5 rings, lebron james only 3, kevin garnett only 1, would you say horry is a better basketball player than james and garnett?). He is a better basketball player than because he is physicly and techniquly superior than you. Boxer nowadays are techniquly as good if not better and on top physicly superior than old atg and that makes them better boxer.
To your point, you act like Rigo and Lomachenko are top 10 off of what they've done when there's no proof they could even beat prime Hamed.
Do u realise that you write complet nonsense?
I act like rigo and loma are top 10 out of what they ve done. I wrote 1000 times that there record isnt super impressiv but there physical ability and technique is super impressiv.
There is no proof that they could even beat hamed.
That is one of the most stupid sentences ever. There is no prove for nothing in boxing. Nothing is 100 %. Even prime ali could lose to a b level boxer. Anything can happen in boxing. I quit talking to you. You just make no sense.
Anybody can look super impressive physically against the competition that Rigo has faced. Walters looked like a KO artist against the same Donaire that is Rigo's best opponent.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 07 Dec 2017, 03:56
by Heretic
gilgamesh wrote: ↑06 Dec 2017, 16:50
There's a lot of old school tricks that not many fighters take the time to learn these days. The few that pick them up often wind up being some of the best fighters of their time.
B-Hop and James Toney are good examples of recent fighters that had a lot of old school tricks.
Do you wan't to give a example of some of this old school tricks you are talking about?
With all the videos around modern fighters are able to pick up and implement all of the working tricks of the old to their style... If they fit the overall style...
The idea that boxing technique has regressed just seems really weird to me.
To your point, you act like Rigo and Lomachenko are top 10 off of what they've done when there's no proof they could even beat prime Hamed.
Do u realise that you write complet nonsense?
I act like rigo and loma are top 10 out of what they ve done. I wrote 1000 times that there record isnt super impressiv but there physical ability and technique is super impressiv.
There is no proof that they could even beat hamed.
That is one of the most stupid sentences ever. There is no prove for nothing in boxing. Nothing is 100 %. Even prime ali could lose to a b level boxer. Anything can happen in boxing. I quit talking to you. You just make no sense.
Anybody can look super impressive physically against the competition that Rigo has faced. Walters looked like a KO artist against the same Donaire that is Rigo's best opponent.
When donaire was prime and at his fav weight class and beating up montiel, darchynian, arce and nishioki and consideted top 5 p4p and winning fight after fight, back than nobody did to donaire what rigo did to him.
Also never in reascent years anybody looked this good against sosa or walthers like loma did. Ridicouling them like they were c level opponents but in reality they were champions or ex champions.
You realy are stupid. I didnt want to say it. But you realy sound stupid. The nonsense you write. Perfect example of a childish non expert. Stubborn and stupid. And now write hiw walthers, sosa and prime donaire are journeyman type of opponents and anybody can look very impressiv against them.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 07 Dec 2017, 09:53
by thereverend
Jip I suggest you read a biography of Willie Pep because he has a similar size and skill set to Loma and Riga. The two of them have 27 pro fights between the two of them, Pep would do that in one year. The idea that a limited at best B grade fighter like Donaire is comparable to the great champions that Pep fought is laughable. Back then they didn't hand out belts to dozens of fighters. If you won the belt it was THE belt you were a true world champion.
You are making a fool of yourself, learn about boxing history if you're interested in discussing it.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 07 Dec 2017, 10:09
by thereverend
Here's some footage of Pep fighting for you Jip. There's quite a bit of good footage on YouTube.
Very similar to what Rigondeaux does, you see a lot of the same moves. I wish Rigondeaux could have fought professionally in his 20s it's too bad we didn't get to see him in his prime. The difference is that Pep never quits, never takes rounds off. Spends the entire fight coming forward and frustrating the other fighter. To use the Bruce Lee line he flows like water. Rigo doesn't have the energy to do what Pep did, part of it is probably age. No shame in that, Pep is the best ever at what he did.
Do u realise that you write complet nonsense?
I act like rigo and loma are top 10 out of what they ve done. I wrote 1000 times that there record isnt super impressiv but there physical ability and technique is super impressiv.
There is no proof that they could even beat hamed.
That is one of the most stupid sentences ever. There is no prove for nothing in boxing. Nothing is 100 %. Even prime ali could lose to a b level boxer. Anything can happen in boxing. I quit talking to you. You just make no sense.
Anybody can look super impressive physically against the competition that Rigo has faced. Walters looked like a KO artist against the same Donaire that is Rigo's best opponent.
When donaire was prime and at his fav weight class and beating up montiel, darchynian, arce and nishioki and consideted top 5 p4p and winning fight after fight, back than nobody did to donaire what rigo did to him.
Also never in reascent years anybody looked this good against sosa or walthers like loma did. Ridicouling them like they were c level opponents but in reality they were champions or ex champions.
You realy are stupid. I didnt want to say it. But you realy sound stupid. The nonsense you write. Perfect example of a childish non expert. Stubborn and stupid. And now write hiw walthers, sosa and prime donaire are journeyman type of opponents and anybody can look very impressiv against them.
You're the one who said Rigo and Loma are top 10 of all time and are better than Willie Pep. 95% of the people on this forum will say that's stupid.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 07 Dec 2017, 14:09
by Jip
thereverend wrote: ↑07 Dec 2017, 09:53
Jip I suggest you read a biography of Willie Pep because he has a similar size and skill set to Loma and Riga. The two of them have 27 pro fights between the two of them, Pep would do that in one year. The idea that a limited at best B grade fighter like Donaire is comparable to the great champions that Pep fought is laughable. Back then they didn't hand out belts to dozens of fighters. If you won the belt it was THE belt you were a true world champion.
You are making a fool of yourself, learn about boxing history if you're interested in discussing it.
You needed 1 week to answer a simple question and the funny part is, you didnt even give a response to what i asked.
You welcomed to the retard club. Iksert is the president. He even makes less sense than you.
Re: Top 50 ever (without old boxer)
Posted: 07 Dec 2017, 14:16
by Jip
thereverend wrote: ↑07 Dec 2017, 10:09
Here's some footage of Pep fighting for you Jip. There's quite a bit of good footage on YouTube.
Very similar to what Rigondeaux does, you see a lot of the same moves. I wish Rigondeaux could have fought professionally in his 20s it's too bad we didn't get to see him in his prime. The difference is that Pep never quits, never takes rounds off. Spends the entire fight coming forward and frustrating the other fighter. To use the Bruce Lee line he flows like water. Rigo doesn't have the energy to do what Pep did, part of it is probably age. No shame in that, Pep is the best ever at what he did.
I see a slow footed unathletic (compared to rigo and loma) boxer with excellent technique balance and awareness of his stance and opponent. With everything else punch variation, hand and footspeed, agility being inferior to what rigo and loma are showing.
