BoxRec

to in prime shape jones, robinson and leonard are the 3 best boxers who ever existed. the combination of speed, power, footwork, athletiscm these guys had were on another level.

to me, there might never come a boxer as good or better as a prime roy jones jr., sad that he doesnt know when to stop, but what he was in his prime thats from another world.

Robinson is the only one of the 3 you could even make a case for.

Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Henry Armstrong

Are other fighters you could strongly make a case for that title for. Those are the definitive Top 5 all time for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLcYb3o6buE

Roy/Floyd 50/50 hard to really call these are the best I have seen in my lifetime

gilgamesh wrote:Robinson is the only one of the 3 you could even make a case for.

Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Henry Armstrong

Are other fighters you could strongly make a case for that title for. Those are the definitive Top 5 all time for me.

I've always liked Henry Armstrong in these conversations, what he did just boggles the mind, especially when you consider that it is widely believed that he was jobbed in his quest to add the Middleweight Championship to the other three....

Seeing Ezzard Charles and Harry Greb on the list puts me in mind of another fighter who is totally overlooked. How about Gene Tunney? Just a guy who beat Harry Greb four times AND Jack Dempsey twice, maybe not the best ever, but I can think of no fighter with a better case who gets mentioned less often.

Terry Marsh

bnovelist wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLcYb3o6buE

Roy/Floyd 50/50 hard to really call these are the best I have seen in my lifetime

Nice vid, but it's speeded up, so it seems better then it actually is.

jas80s wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Robinson is the only one of the 3 you could even make a case for.

Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Henry Armstrong

Are other fighters you could strongly make a case for that title for. Those are the definitive Top 5 all time for me.

I've always liked Henry Armstrong in these conversations, what he did just boggles the mind, especially when you consider that it is widely believed that he was jobbed in his quest to add the Middleweight Championship to the other three....

Seeing Ezzard Charles and Harry Greb on the list puts me in mind of another fighter who is totally overlooked. How about Gene Tunney? Just a guy who beat Harry Greb four times AND Jack Dempsey twice, maybe not the best ever, but I can think of no fighter with a better case who gets mentioned less often.

Very true. Tunney's resume is phenomenal

Sam Langford

Also Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Jimmy McLarnin, Gene Tunney and Henry Armstrong.

Don't know how people can pick Roid Jones. He let himself down by A) Juicing and B) Ducking opponents such as Collins and Michalczewski.

gilgamesh wrote:Robinson is the only one of the 3 you could even make a case for.

Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Henry Armstrong

Are other fighters you could strongly make a case for that title for. Those are the definitive Top 5 all time for me.

I agree, when we're talking about the GREATEST of all time. BEST of all time is something different - relying less on resume and more on how good they were in their prime. For example, if we're talking about greatest, I think it's arguably that Roy Jones doesn't crack the top 50, but if we're talking about best, then he could arguably be in the discussion.

Where is Guillermo Rigondeaux!?

Chepppaaa wrote:to in prime shape jones, robinson and leonard are the 3 best boxers who ever existed. the combination of speed, power, footwork, athletiscm these guys had were on another level.

to me, there might never come a boxer as good or better as a prime roy jones jr., sad that he doesnt know when to stop, but what he was in his prime thats from another world.

i must say i am not so sure for roy jones as being
in the top three ever. his style was very special,
hands down, no jab and i am not sure if it was not
the lack of ATG competition that made him get
away with it.

roy jones was by no doubt the p4p king in the
world, but ATG p4p is a different subject. i don't
see - p4p - prime leonard/hearns/robinson/hagler
being so relatively easily impressed by roy's power.

to me ray leonard is up there because he shared
with ali and floyd the crown for greatest ring
intelligence.

jas80s wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Robinson is the only one of the 3 you could even make a case for.

Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Henry Armstrong

Are other fighters you could strongly make a case for that title for. Those are the definitive Top 5 all time for me.

I've always liked Henry Armstrong in these conversations, what he did just boggles the mind, especially when you consider that it is widely believed that he was jobbed in his quest to add the Middleweight Championship to the other three....

Seeing Ezzard Charles and Harry Greb on the list puts me in mind of another fighter who is totally overlooked. How about Gene Tunney? Just a guy who beat Harry Greb four times AND Jack Dempsey twice, maybe not the best ever, but I can think of no fighter with a better case who gets mentioned less often.

What Armstrong achieved beggars belief. His reign of Terror at WW was unmatched, he knocked out 19 or 20 opponents as champion. A killer, not as smooth as Robinson, but a ruthlessly efficient destruction machine.

Ricky_ wrote:Where is Guillermo Rigondeaux!?

Still hiding from Jazza Dickens.

bnovelist wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLcYb3o6buE

Roy/Floyd 50/50 hard to really call these are the best I have seen in my lifetime

you make sense. prime roy, prime floyd top of the top

what a lot of you guys do not get is that guy like joe louis, langford, henry armstrong or other you list as #1 ever simply dont have nothing on those 3 listed when it comes down to what matters in boxing and that is speed, power, athletiscm, footwork.

nobody can do anything about his opposition. sure you can fiht the best available, but when it come down to the best available being no atg material than what, than all of the sudden you are no atg. doesnt make sense. it is not wards fault that there is no julian jakson, no prime calzaghe, no prime eubank, no prime mcclellan around. his skills prove he is atg.

when we talk about best boxer ever, we should talk about skills and athletiscm etc, like robinson or jones, leonard.

when we talk about best reccord ever, than we should talk about the boxer who boxed the most top quality oposition, such as robinson or armstrong or who climbed the most division and was the most impressiv doing so, like pac.

record and actual ability (skills, athletiscm, speed, simply the factors that mean something to beat an opponent) are 2 seperated things. chavez had a much better record than pernell and simply lost. donaire beat much better opponents than rigo and simply lost most of the rounds. skills win fights, not records.

Chepppaaa wrote:what a lot of you guys do not get is that guy like joe louis, langford, henry armstrong or other you list as #1 ever simply dont have nothing on those 3 listed when it comes down to what matters in boxing and that is speed, power, athletiscm, footwork.

nobody can do anything about his opposition. sure you can fiht the best available, but when it come down to the best available being no atg material than what, than all of the sudden you are no atg. doesnt make sense. it is not wards fault that there is no julian jakson, no prime calzaghe, no prime eubank, no prime mcclellan around. his skills prove he is atg.

when we talk about best boxer ever, we should talk about skills and athletiscm etc, like robinson or jones, leonard.

when we talk about best reccord ever, than we should talk about the boxer who boxed the most top quality oposition, such as robinson or armstrong or who climbed the most division and was the most impressiv doing so, like pac.

record and actual ability (skills, athletiscm, speed, simply the factors that mean something to beat an opponent) are 2 seperated things. chavez had a much better record than pernell and simply lost. donaire beat much better opponents than rigo and simply lost most of the rounds. skills win fights, not records.

Nobody denies that Jones and Leonard were exceptionally skilled fighters, but who you beat certainly factors into your standing in the sport. Leonard has phenomenal wins that certainly stamp him as one of the best fighters of the 1980's...but not one of the 3 best fighters to ever lace up a pair of gloves.

You have to go by resume when discussing a fighters greatness because who they beat, and how great the guys they beat were is the only thing you can really measure a guy against. Whether or not his skills were so great it would've been enough to beat most fighters that ever lived is something you'll never be able to know.

Taansend wrote:Terry Marsh

There is no blueprint.

Chepppaaa wrote:what a lot of you guys do not get is that guy like joe louis, langford, henry armstrong or other you list as #1 ever simply dont have nothing on those 3 listed when it comes down to what matters in boxing and that is speed, power, athletiscm, footwork.

nobody can do anything about his opposition. sure you can fiht the best available, but when it come down to the best available being no atg material than what, than all of the sudden you are no atg. doesnt make sense. it is not wards fault that there is no julian jakson, no prime calzaghe, no prime eubank, no prime mcclellan around. his skills prove he is atg.

when we talk about best boxer ever, we should talk about skills and athletiscm etc, like robinson or jones, leonard.

when we talk about best reccord ever, than we should talk about the boxer who boxed the most top quality oposition, such as robinson or armstrong or who climbed the most division and was the most impressiv doing so, like pac.

record and actual ability (skills, athletiscm, speed, simply the factors that mean something to beat an opponent) are 2 seperated things. chavez had a much better record than pernell and simply lost. donaire beat much better opponents than rigo and simply lost most of the rounds. skills win fights, not records.

So, it sounds like you are suggesting that Louis, Langford, and Armstrong were not skilled? To be honest, I have a hard time recalling any credible source suggesting that Joe Louis was somehow deficient when it came to speed, power, athleicism, and footwork, or Armstrong for that matter. In fact, I think it is safe to say that they are widely regarded as among the very best in those areas, hence their names routinely being offered in these discussions.

But, Roy Jones at 160 and 168 was special. Not only did he seem nearly invincible, but he held wins over Hopkins and James Toney, so he beat other tremendous fighters as well. Other than longevity, I don't see why he wouldn't warrant consideration as an all-time type talent. His record and performance at 175 was outstanding to me, but not at a level to be considered an all time great, just my opinion.

jas80s wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:what a lot of you guys do not get is that guy like joe louis, langford, henry armstrong or other you list as #1 ever simply dont have nothing on those 3 listed when it comes down to what matters in boxing and that is speed, power, athletiscm, footwork.

nobody can do anything about his opposition. sure you can fiht the best available, but when it come down to the best available being no atg material than what, than all of the sudden you are no atg. doesnt make sense. it is not wards fault that there is no julian jakson, no prime calzaghe, no prime eubank, no prime mcclellan around. his skills prove he is atg.

when we talk about best boxer ever, we should talk about skills and athletiscm etc, like robinson or jones, leonard.

when we talk about best reccord ever, than we should talk about the boxer who boxed the most top quality oposition, such as robinson or armstrong or who climbed the most division and was the most impressiv doing so, like pac.

record and actual ability (skills, athletiscm, speed, simply the factors that mean something to beat an opponent) are 2 seperated things. chavez had a much better record than pernell and simply lost. donaire beat much better opponents than rigo and simply lost most of the rounds. skills win fights, not records.

So, it sounds like you are suggesting that Louis, Langford, and Armstrong were not skilled? To be honest, I have a hard time recalling any credible source suggesting that Joe Louis was somehow deficient when it came to speed, power, athleicism, and footwork, or Armstrong for that matter. In fact, I think it is safe to say that they are widely regarded as among the very best in those areas, hence their names routinely being offered in these discussions.

But, Roy Jones at 160 and 168 was special. Not only did he seem nearly invincible, but he held wins over Hopkins and James Toney, so he beat other tremendous fighters as well. Other than longevity, I don't see why he wouldn't warrant consideration as an all-time type talent. His record and performance at 175 was outstanding to me, but not at a level to be considered an all time great, just my opinion.

it isnt black and white, just because somebody is better than the other, doesnt mean thee other is bad..

gilgamesh wrote:

jas80s wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Robinson is the only one of the 3 you could even make a case for.

Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Ezzard Charles
Henry Armstrong

Are other fighters you could strongly make a case for that title for. Those are the definitive Top 5 all time for me.

I've always liked Henry Armstrong in these conversations, what he did just boggles the mind, especially when you consider that it is widely believed that he was jobbed in his quest to add the Middleweight Championship to the other three....

Seeing Ezzard Charles and Harry Greb on the list puts me in mind of another fighter who is totally overlooked. How about Gene Tunney? Just a guy who beat Harry Greb four times AND Jack Dempsey twice, maybe not the best ever, but I can think of no fighter with a better case who gets mentioned less often.

Very true. Tunney's resume is phenomenal

Thank you for that. I echo those sentiments. Drives me crazy when people say Dempsey was better. Why have fights if you ignore the results?

Ricky_ wrote:Where is Guillermo Rigondeaux!?

Really? He hasn't done anywhere near enough to be included in this conversation.

A couple of other guys who deserve mentioned:

Willie Pep
Benny Leonard
Ted Kid Lewis
Jimmy Wilde

Robinson for me.