BoxRec

http://www.nowboxing.com/2012/05/the-eu ... ist/24217/

#1 Muhammad Ali

#2 Sugar Ray Robinson

#3 Jake LaMotta

#4 Mike McCallum

#5 Iran Barkley

#6 Marvin Hagler

#7 Roberto Duran

#8 Pernell Whitaker

#9 Thomas Hearns

#10 Joe Louis

Bloody hell this is leftfield even for Chris. Lamotta at number 3 is strange but Iran Barkley at 5...............................

La motta and barkley i cant see, rest are reasonable

Nothing reasonable about McCallum at #4 or Ali over Robinson. This whole thing is trolling.

Adamj1987 wrote:La motta and barkley i cant see, rest are reasonable

I dont care to join in the noob talk, but c'mon Adam

Chris has taken one too many I fear.

His criteria is weird though, based on coming back from losses and 'taking beatings'.

coghaugen11 wrote:His criteria is weird though, based on coming back from losses and 'taking beatings'.

Kind of a pre-requisite for a list this retarded, no?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing reasonable about McCallum at #4 or Ali over Robinson. This whole thing is trolling.

There is nothing too wrong with Ali over Robinson.

In a pound for pound sense, Ali was definitely faster than Robinson, had a better chin and better heart. Robinson obviously fought a lot more regularly than Ali, if you compare Ali's first run at heavy with Robinson's Welterweight career then Robinson obviously had Longevity, but Ali was more dominant in his wins. when you compare Ali's 70s form with Robinson's middleweight run, they are two similar runs, although again, i would have thought that Ali had the more dominant run.

There isnt much in it, no matter how you look at it. To even consider it to be worth mentioning this in the same sentence as mentioning McCallum as the number 4 ranked pound for pound boxer of all time, i would have to say, is trolling.

Is Barkley greater than McCallum??

He did smash out Tommy, give Kalambay, Duran and Nunn hell for 12 rounds (all TOP skilled talents) and grab WBC-WBA-IBF titles from middle to light-heavy. At his very worst, peak Benn couldn't knock him out, peak Toney couldn't knock him out. And this was all past his best as he waited for his chance.

McCallum did knock out Curry, have 50/50ish 12-rounders with Kalambay, Graham and Toney, and do a peak job on a Watson who was at his worst... but he didn't exactly set the world alight. Jeff Harding was there for the taking, extremely limited fighter - Iran beat Tommy for the '75.

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing reasonable about McCallum at #4 or Ali over Robinson. This whole thing is trolling.

There is nothing too wrong with Ali over Robinson.

In a pound for pound sense, Ali was definitely faster than Robinson, had a better chin and better heart.
.

Umm . . . no.

Saad....the opinions are odd....but diversity in opinion is not trolling.....as far as I can tell.


You think it's expressed just to provoke?

That list looks more like a top 10 FAVOURITE p4p list.

dempseyfire wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing reasonable about McCallum at #4 or Ali over Robinson. This whole thing is trolling.

There is nothing too wrong with Ali over Robinson.

In a pound for pound sense, Ali was definitely faster than Robinson, had a better chin and better heart.
.

Umm . . . no.

Umm .... no what?

Do you dispute that Ali, who was allegedly timed as delivering an out and out faster jab than Sugar Ray Robinson was not a faster fighter on a pound for pound level?

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing reasonable about McCallum at #4 or Ali over Robinson. This whole thing is trolling.

There is nothing too wrong with Ali over Robinson.

In a pound for pound sense, Ali was definitely faster than Robinson, had a better chin and better heart. Robinson obviously fought a lot more regularly than Ali, if you compare Ali's first run at heavy with Robinson's Welterweight career then Robinson obviously had Longevity, but Ali was more dominant in his wins. when you compare Ali's 70s form with Robinson's middleweight run, they are two similar runs, although again, i would have thought that Ali had the more dominant run.

There isnt much in it, no matter how you look at it. To even consider it to be worth mentioning this in the same sentence as mentioning McCallum as the number 4 ranked pound for pound boxer of all time, i would have to say, is trolling.

If there is an expert on trolling, it would be you. Ali did nothing better than Robinson.

BoxBuzz wrote:Saad....the opinions are odd....but diversity in opinion is not trolling.....as far as I can tell.


You think it's expressed just to provoke?

Yup, nobody with any knowledge could compile a list like that. The placement of Barkley directly above Hagler is meant to get people riled up. It's 'writer' trolling, just looking to get threads like this started and generate hits.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing reasonable about McCallum at #4 or Ali over Robinson. This whole thing is trolling.

There is nothing too wrong with Ali over Robinson.

In a pound for pound sense, Ali was definitely faster than Robinson, had a better chin and better heart. Robinson obviously fought a lot more regularly than Ali, if you compare Ali's first run at heavy with Robinson's Welterweight career then Robinson obviously had Longevity, but Ali was more dominant in his wins. when you compare Ali's 70s form with Robinson's middleweight run, they are two similar runs, although again, i would have thought that Ali had the more dominant run.

There isnt much in it, no matter how you look at it. To even consider it to be worth mentioning this in the same sentence as mentioning McCallum as the number 4 ranked pound for pound boxer of all time, i would have to say, is trolling.

If there is an expert on trolling, it would be you. Ali did nothing better than Robinson.

Spoken well by the man who resides under a bridge.

Most people consider Muhammed Ali as the greatest heavyweight to have ever lived. Most also consider Ray Robinson as the greatest welterweight whoever lived. To think it is unreasonable to rank one over the other shows a less than 10 out of 10 knowledge. Especially when you are comparing it to ranking Barkley and McCallum in the top 10.

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote: There is nothing too wrong with Ali over Robinson.

In a pound for pound sense, Ali was definitely faster than Robinson, had a better chin and better heart. Robinson obviously fought a lot more regularly than Ali, if you compare Ali's first run at heavy with Robinson's Welterweight career then Robinson obviously had Longevity, but Ali was more dominant in his wins. when you compare Ali's 70s form with Robinson's middleweight run, they are two similar runs, although again, i would have thought that Ali had the more dominant run.

There isnt much in it, no matter how you look at it. To even consider it to be worth mentioning this in the same sentence as mentioning McCallum as the number 4 ranked pound for pound boxer of all time, i would have to say, is trolling.

If there is an expert on trolling, it would be you. Ali did nothing better than Robinson.

Spoken well by the man who resides under a bridge.

Most people consider Muhammed Ali as the greatest heavyweight to have ever lived. Most also consider Ray Robinson as the greatest welterweight whoever lived. To think it is unreasonable to rank one over the other shows a less than 10 out of 10 knowledge. Especially when you are comparing it to ranking Barkley and McCallum in the top 10.

I know very few who would rate Ali ahead of Robinson based on skills and quite frankly I can't see how you could rate Ali ahead on stats either.
As for your "most people consider Ali.." argument all I can say is that most people drink Bud, eat Big Macs and listen to Chris Medina.

Maybe Eubank's just trying to make himself look better because he fought Watson who fought McCallum and Benn who fought Barkley

Chris is a fighter not some geek fan who spends his life locked in a room going over records and creating some pompous set of criteria for himself...like I do...

I think we need to remember that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGMGHa2Jcd4 (2:38-3:00) ;)

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote: There is nothing too wrong with Ali over Robinson.

In a pound for pound sense, Ali was definitely faster than Robinson, had a better chin and better heart. Robinson obviously fought a lot more regularly than Ali, if you compare Ali's first run at heavy with Robinson's Welterweight career then Robinson obviously had Longevity, but Ali was more dominant in his wins. when you compare Ali's 70s form with Robinson's middleweight run, they are two similar runs, although again, i would have thought that Ali had the more dominant run.

There isnt much in it, no matter how you look at it. To even consider it to be worth mentioning this in the same sentence as mentioning McCallum as the number 4 ranked pound for pound boxer of all time, i would have to say, is trolling.

If there is an expert on trolling, it would be you. Ali did nothing better than Robinson.

Spoken well by the man who resides under a bridge.

Most people consider Muhammed Ali as the greatest heavyweight to have ever lived. Most also consider Ray Robinson as the greatest welterweight whoever lived. To think it is unreasonable to rank one over the other shows a less than 10 out of 10 knowledge. Especially when you are comparing it to ranking Barkley and McCallum in the top 10.

Many consider Joe Louis the greatest Heavyweight who ever lived, everybody considers Robinson the greatest Welter who has ever lived. Heavyweights, in general, have inferior skill sets to lighter fighters. Barkley in the top 10 is more egregious, I never said it wasn't. That's just more of your trolling, concocting posts to suit your sad little agenda. Robinson was greater than Ali in every way, skills, resume, you name it. Not even up for debate among knowledgeable and reasonable minds. You sir, are neither.

If Greb and Armstong are not listed in top three let alone not in top ten then list should not even be considered. But at least he admitted not knowing much about history.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong & Langford are the top 4 in any order. I'd add Charles for a definitive top 5. I can't see a case for anyone else.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Robinson, Greb, Armstrong & Langford are the top 4 in any order. I'd add Charles for a definitive top 5. I can't see a case for anyone else.

Absolute rubbish of the highest order, showing a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the sport.

There is no such thing as a definitive top 5, too many great fighters to discount. Granted, you named five of the greatest fighters ever, with very good cases of a top top 10 for each and even a top 1, but plenty of others have every right to better these guys, depending on personal opinion.

Willie Pep is right up there with the guys that you mentioned, as is Benny Leonard. It is interesting that you mentioned Joe Louis earlier, because he was considered a better pound for pound fighter than Ray Robinson, by most, when Ray was fighting. There are a number of fighters who can rub shoulders with these guys depending on your viewpoint. If you like little guys beating big guys, then Someone like Joe Walcott can make your list, if you like length of time as champion, then guys like Tommy Ryan can make your list. If you want dominance of your own natural division, Monzon could be easily on the list. And of course this is without mentioning guys like Whitaker, Duran and co. Or guys with brief but dominant reigns such as McGovern. If you want undefeated guys Jack McAulliffe was good. If there is no way of considering anyone in the same league as the guys you mentioned, then how do you explain some of the followin little known facts:

Ray Robinson in his prime, at his best, as welterweight lost on at least one judges card and was booed by the crowd, in his win over Mary Servo. If he was so unquestionably the greatest, why can someon like this give him such close fights?

Greb great as he was, was considered inferior to Mike Gibbons among others and couldnt get the better of him in their series which was pretty much even. If he was such an all time great why did no one of his time who saw him fight ever seem to think so? Dont get me wrong he was the most underrated fighter of all time when he was fighting and he has one of the greatest (arguably the greatest) records ever, but still to suggest that other fighters cant rank over him is just stupid. In fact, during his time, it is arguable that Mike Gibbons was a better fighter, Gene Tunney was a better fighter and Les Darcy was better fighter all at the same time he was fighting. There are also others who you could put down as arguably better fighters (not saying you have to ) without out it being unreasonable. And that is not mentioning say a Jack Dempsey, who despite the sparring rumours, was still considered by most to be the better fighter (pound for pound or out and out) during their careers.

Sam Langford fought a long series with Jack Blackburn and couldnt get the better of him. why is it impossible to mention Jack Blackburn in the same breath as Langford. And Jack Johnson, who did actually dominate Langford, even though he was admittedly a lot bigger. Considering Langford's best work was probably as a heavyweight, he would have had to have improved an awful lot for jack johnson not to be considered in the same breath and for his lighter weight exploits where he regularly lost or didnt win fights to raise him in the pound for pound stakes to a level above Johnson. Again it is not unreasonable to do so obviously and probably i would myself, but it is certainly not unreasonable to have guys other than those you mentioned above Langford.

And last but not least Ezzard Charles. It is interesting that Ezzard outweighed Rocky Marciano by about 4 or 5 pounds when Rocky Knocked him out. Why is it then that it is impossible not to consider Rocky Marciano in the same class as Ezzard Charles?

And of course, as i say many, many times, there is no criteria that the guys you listed can be placed ahead (or at least a class ahead) of Bob Fitzsimmons. I guess the possible exception is the subjective category of how he looks on film. But considering Fitz was never filmed properly in his prime then you need to have asterisk next to his name as not included. And if you are using this method, i would like to know how you managed to rank greb so highly.

if you think I read that novel.