BoxRec

How many fighters could be legitimately considered for the title of Greatest Ever in the Sport ?

I'm going to say 4

Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Willie Pep

Those are the clear top 4 choices. If one were to expand to 5 I'd throw in Ezzard Charles or Sam Langford. IMO Benny Leonard just misses that cut.

Langford and Charles would be in that debate, for sure.

I think that's a fair first tier...

2nd tier?

Benny Leonard
Sandy Saddler
Mickey Walker
Archie Moore
Joe Gans
Roberto Duran
Eder Jofre
Jimmy Wilde
Gene Tunney

I fvcking hate how over-rated Duran is.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I fvcking hate how over-rated Duran is.

Start a thread then.

A dog can only chase its tail for so long.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:A dog can only chase its tail for so long.

Are you admitting then that you're wrong???

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I fvcking hate how over-rated Duran is.

you think its over-rating him to put him in the 2nd tier?

Cmon GI....Duran is pure gold. What's your problem with this guy? In our lifetime he's hard to top. A lightweight champ who claims a MW crown AND gives one of the TOP TWO MW"S of all time a serious run for his money. His is not a chopped liver resume.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:A dog can only chase its tail for so long.

Are you admitting then that you're wrong???

No need. I'll admit it for him.

BoxBuzz wrote:Cmon GI....Duran is pure gold. What's your problem with this guy? In our lifetime he's hard to top. A lightweight champ who claims a MW crown AND gives one of the TOP TWO MW"S of all time a serious run for his money. His is not a chopped liver resume.

Except I never said he wasn't gold. I never said his resume was chopped liver, either. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying he ain't Superman --- which is what I'm used to hearing from those who grew up watching him.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I fvcking hate how over-rated Duran is.

you think its over-rating him to put him in the 2nd tier?

Probably not --- he was that good. People still find a way to over-rate him, though. Amazingly enough.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Cmon GI....Duran is pure gold. What's your problem with this guy? In our lifetime he's hard to top. A lightweight champ who claims a MW crown AND gives one of the TOP TWO MW"S of all time a serious run for his money. His is not a chopped liver resume.

Except I never said he wasn't gold. I never said his resume was chopped liver, either. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying he ain't Superman --- which is what I'm used to hearing from those who grew up watching him.

True, Duran didn't blink at kryptonite.

Ezzard wrote:Langford and Charles would be in that debate, for sure.

I think that's a fair first tier...

2nd tier?

Benny Leonard
Sandy Saddler
Mickey Walker
Archie Moore
Joe Gans
Roberto Duran
Eder Jofre
Jimmy Wilde
Gene Tunney

How come nobody has mention Joe Louis? I think he deserves a mention here. For me he should be included in the 1st tier.

He was a heavyweight. For whatever reason, many people just assume that pound for pound the smaller guys are better.
Thats fine. We talk about heavyweights way too much anyway.

As for the original question-Of those mentioned, it has to come down to Robinson, Armstrong,Greb, and Langford as the best. Charles would be the only other one that you could make a plausible argument for, but it would be a stretch.

The careers of Pep and the others just don't match up to those guys.

Honestly I think these All-time ratings get a bit chintzy. It's very difficult to rate fighters of distinctly different eras with one another. Who knows if any one of a number of these guys could've been as impressive in other eras. This is why I wonder just how far the likes of Mayweather and Pacquiao have to go in order to even get close to the top 25 all-time, beat Jesus Christ? It just seems like modern fighters will never get due respect until at least a good 20 years post-retirement.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Cmon GI....Duran is pure gold. What's your problem with this guy? In our lifetime he's hard to top. A lightweight champ who claims a MW crown AND gives one of the TOP TWO MW"S of all time a serious run for his money. His is not a chopped liver resume.

Except I never said he wasn't gold. I never said his resume was chopped liver, either. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying he ain't Superman --- which is what I'm used to hearing from those who grew up watching him.

True, Duran didn't blink at kryptonite.

This is why Granberry walks all over you.

Duran comes off as overrated when guys make silly comments like, He's easily the greatest LW of all time. He dominated, took to school, could have kayoed Sugar Ray Leonard if he wanted(in reality he won a very close fight), would stop Chavez, would take Ali in a street fight etc.

Seamus wrote:Duran comes off as overrated when guys make silly comments like, He's easily the greatest LW of all time. He dominated, took to school, could have kayoed Sugar Ray Leonard if he wanted(in reality he won a very close fight), would stop Chavez, would take Ali in a street fight etc.

Don't forget that he once KO'd a bull with a single blow.

Alp, you can't see a case for considering Pep as number 1 Alltime ? This is a guy who was 108-1-1 before the plane crash. After that he still won another 121 fights, and with a no nonsense referee, I don't see him losing 3 of 4 with Saddler. And along with the 3 HOF'ers beat, he has wins over 3 other fighters who merit serious consideration for that select group, i,e Willie Joyce, Paddy DeMarco and Ray Famechon.

Idisagree wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Langford and Charles would be in that debate, for sure.

I think that's a fair first tier...

2nd tier?

Benny Leonard
Sandy Saddler
Mickey Walker
Archie Moore
Joe Gans
Roberto Duran
Eder Jofre
Jimmy Wilde
Gene Tunney

How come nobody has mention Joe Louis? I think he deserves a mention here. For me he should be included in the 1st tier.

I don't include HWs in my p4p ratings. I treat the HWs as spearate because they get so much more attention it's hard to qualify them with the rest.

So just my take on it.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Honestly I think these All-time ratings get a bit chintzy. It's very difficult to rate fighters of distinctly different eras with one another. Who knows if any one of a number of these guys could've been as impressive in other eras. This is why I wonder just how far the likes of Mayweather and Pacquiao have to go in order to even get close to the top 25 all-time, beat Jesus Christ? It just seems like modern fighters will never get due respect until at least a good 20 years post-retirement.

It's difficult but I think it can be done.

I think a top fighter in one era is a top fighter in any era, though they may not be the best of a more talent packed era.

Older guys have an advantage because they fought more often and usually against better opposition. Contemporary fighters have fewer defeats because they are more carefully matched.

In art and literature nobody tries to name 'the greats' for a generation after the work was released. That's the way it should be. Boxing is a little different but I think 20 years or so gives you proper perspective.

I was reading The Ring for the other week and some writer predicted that Mayweather would have beaten Emile Griffith. I almost choked on my Bloody Mary. So it goes both ways...

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Except I never said he wasn't gold. I never said his resume was chopped liver, either. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying he ain't Superman --- which is what I'm used to hearing from those who grew up watching him.

True, Duran didn't blink at kryptonite.

This is why Granberry walks all over you.

really?

As to granberry, I never felt "walked all over". I'm pretty easy going and don't take much that goes on here personally. He simply broke some of the very simple to follow rules once to often. Purely a matter of numbers. I actually like granberry, but his lack of social grace doomed him, not his interesting and always welcomed opinions. I have a sense of humor though I never openly attempted to taunt him, my very style seemed to do so. Though I never felt I needed to change just to appease his sensibilities.

My kryptonite comment was cryptic to you I see. It was just a throw away line based on your throw away line.

Your opinions are equally interesting, and I'm not even sure I completely disagree with this particular one, Duran is sort of popular and for some "popularity" alone gets a bit of push back. Some feel the need to "re-educate" I suppose.

In the case of Duran I think he may be nearly top flight material. Like Frazier vs Ali, Duran beat Ray when both were at their best. and Duran was the natural lightweight, and his run in that division should be given great reverence. Add his loss to Hagler and you have his three crown jewels. So yeah he gets props from me.

I have a simple question for you, do you feel that all of your various assessments are purely objective? You do offer a lot of content, and I'm curious to know how you feel your opinions are formed. Do you have any set of "self recognized" bias? Or do you think you tend to be purely mechanical, and nearly forensic in your judgments?

I will say that I respect both camps of assessment. Bot the purely empirical based on skill set alone, and the more humanity based approach that takes into account other characteristics of the individual that might include intangible's including will power, killer instinct, work ethic and in some cases hypnosis LOL. (The ability to create perceptions within the mind of the opponent that may or may not have a "reality".

I believe granberry would have characterized the latter as "hysteria" or something similar. LOL.

At the end of the day all a fighter has to do is endure, and prevail. And often times fighters assessed more highly in skill set alone, did not always manage those two rather important items against their "lesser" opponents.. So the first set of measurements alone may not be a complete approach.

This is why I will sometimes assess a fighter who is lesser in skill set as being greater as a "practitioner of pugilism."

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Except I never said he wasn't gold. I never said his resume was chopped liver, either. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying he ain't Superman --- which is what I'm used to hearing from those who grew up watching him.

True, Duran didn't blink at kryptonite.

This is why Granberry walks all over you.

Buzz treats everyone with respect (which is more than most of us). Granberry was entitled to his say.

Buzz's light touch makes this forum.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Cmon GI....Duran is pure gold. What's your problem with this guy? In our lifetime he's hard to top. A lightweight champ who claims a MW crown AND gives one of the TOP TWO MW"S of all time a serious run for his money. His is not a chopped liver resume.

Except I never said he wasn't gold. I never said his resume was chopped liver, either. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying he ain't Superman --- which is what I'm used to hearing from those who grew up watching him.

True, Duran didn't blink at kryptonite.

Never seen the two of them in the same room though.