BoxRec

I'm interested to hear who people think fought the highest calibre opponents throughout their careers? There are several contenders for this, Ali, Robinson, Angott, McLarnin, Langford or even De La Hoya to name a few off the top of my head.

So who do you reckon?

It's pretty subjective, but I'd say Armstrong, Greb, Robinson and Langford would be at the top of my list.

I reckon Joey maxim is hard to beat:

Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Ray Robinson, Floyd Patterson, Bobo Olson, Freddie Mills, Gus Lesnevich, Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Jersey Joe Walcott, Curtis Sheppard, Ted Lowry, Phil Muscato, Pat Valentino, Bob Satterfield, Willie Pastrano, Heinz Neuhaus.

And not to mention a string of other Dangerous opponents a heap of whom i am sure i will have left off.

There is arguably 4 top 10 all time pound for pound opponents in that list.

Joey didnt win all of them (although he has a surpisingly good record) but he deserves credit for taking the fights, and several o fthem were fought more than once.

I think Harry Greb is a fairly clear #1, but one could make arguments for Langford and Armstrong. I don't think Robinson's resume, while great, is in the same league as those 3.

I think Jimmy McLarnin wins for best resume under 70 bouts.

No one mentions Emile Griffith!?

He, Charles, Greb, Langford and Armstrong are your top-5 here.

It's hard to venture past Greb here, though McLarnin is a good shout. Villa & laBarba early on at Fly is just a strange piece of history.

What is interesting about De La Hoya is from his pro debut he always fought much experienced fighters.
He didn't face any 0-0-0 fighters, or fighters with more losses than wins or even many fighters on losing streaks. He fought for the WBO title in his 12th fight and pretty much every fight after that was for a title or against a top contender. Maybe not up there with some of the other names mentioned but pretty good going and he can hardly be accused of taking the easy route.

Controversial wrote:What is interesting about De La Hoya is from his pro debut he always fought much experienced fighters.
He didn't face any 0-0-0 fighters, or fighters with more losses than wins or even many fighters on losing streaks. He fought for the WBO title in his 12th fight and pretty much every fight after that was for a title or against a top contender. Maybe not up there with some of the other names mentioned but pretty good going and he can hardly be accused of taking the easy route.

Absolutely. His bitter detractors will never admit as much, mind, but De La Hoya's career deserves (hell, demands) way more respect than someone like Mayweather & his asterisk-tarnished, '0.'

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Controversial wrote:What is interesting about De La Hoya is from his pro debut he always fought much experienced fighters.
He didn't face any 0-0-0 fighters, or fighters with more losses than wins or even many fighters on losing streaks. He fought for the WBO title in his 12th fight and pretty much every fight after that was for a title or against a top contender. Maybe not up there with some of the other names mentioned but pretty good going and he can hardly be accused of taking the easy route.

Absolutely. His bitter detractors will never admit as much, mind, but De La Hoya's career deserves (hell, demands) way more respect than someone like Mayweather & his asterisk-tarnished, '0.'

Why is Mayweather's career "asterisk-tarnished?"

Because Jose Luis Castillo.

That fight was much closer than Oscar's "wins" over Whitaker & Sturm. And Floyd came right back and won wide in the rematch. DelaHoya deserves credit for taking on the best in his career, but mayweather is undoubtedly the greater fighter.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That fight was much closer than Oscar's "wins" over Whitaker & Sturm. And Floyd came right back and won wide in the rematch. DelaHoya deserves credit for taking on the best in his career, but mayweather is undoubtedly the greater fighter.

IMO, that depends on the weight. At 130 and 135, I would favour Mayweather, but at 140, 147 and 154? Give me De La Hoya.

Of course, none of those bouts would be locks for either man.

Jaywheel wrote:Because Jose Luis Castillo.

Well there is that, but I was thinking along the lines of his avoiding Margarito, Pacquiao, and quite arguably Williams and Cotto both.

Archie Moore. And that ends this thread. Let's move on.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That fight was much closer than Oscar's "wins" over Whitaker & Sturm. And Floyd came right back and won wide in the rematch. DelaHoya deserves credit for taking on the best in his career, but mayweather is undoubtedly the greater fighter.

IMO, that depends on the weight. At 130 and 135, I would favour Mayweather, but at 140, 147 and 154? Give me De La Hoya.

Of course, none of those bouts would be locks for either man.

I was talking about actual career standing. I don't know that Oscar would ever have the Ring IQ to handle Floyd. That was really DelaHoya's only weakness because I think his lack of ability to think in the ring led to the anxieties that hurt his stamina.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I don't know that Oscar would ever have the Ring IQ to handle Floyd. That was really DelaHoya's only weakness because I think his lack of ability to think in the ring led to the anxieties that hurt his stamina.

agree on both counts

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That fight was much closer than Oscar's "wins" over Whitaker & Sturm. And Floyd came right back and won wide in the rematch. DelaHoya deserves credit for taking on the best in his career, but mayweather is undoubtedly the greater fighter.

IMO, that depends on the weight. At 130 and 135, I would favour Mayweather, but at 140, 147 and 154? Give me De La Hoya.

Of course, none of those bouts would be locks for either man.

I was talking about actual career standing. I don't know that Oscar would ever have the Ring IQ to handle Floyd. That was really DelaHoya's only weakness because I think his lack of ability to think in the ring led to the anxieties that hurt his stamina.

That was a weakness for sure, but enough to preclude him from beating Mayweather? I wouldnt agree with that --- again, depending on the division.

King Carlos wrote:Archie Moore. And that ends this thread. Let's move on.

Except that there were guys with better opposition faced

Duran's list isn't bad either:
Buchanan, DeJesus x3, Palomino, SRL x3, Benitez, Cuevas, Hagler, Hearns, Barkley, Pazienza x2, Camacho x2, Joppy.

Greb has the best resume ever for me.

Ezzard Charles is a close second. Truly awesome wins

I thinks it's down to Greb, Langford, and Robinson. Charles and Moore would be probably be next.

How about Reggie Strickland, dude fought everybody, but unfortunately lost. Really, no joke it's a friggin rogues list.

Surprised Ali hasn't had more mentions.

Knucklez wrote:Surprised Ali hasn't had more mentions.

He fought incredible opposition doubtless, but hes not a realistic choice for the #1 spot here.