Nick Gamble's top 50 fighters of all time

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I wrote [/quote]
1. sugar ray Robinson - Possesed the great boxing ability. Untouchable at welterweight. He dominated welterweight divison and midddleweight divison. Past his prime he beat many hall of famers. Nearly won light-H title. Amazing speed, power, skill, heart, and stamina.
2. sam Langford - Never got to fight for title, 167 wins. Weighed only 175 but beat much larger men. Easily would have been champ at Middleweight and light-H. Beta heavyweight Harry wills, and Joe gans.
3. Joe Louis- greatest heavyweight of all time, most title defenses
4. Henry Armstrong- 151 wins, 3 time world champ, beat ambers, and ross and possed KO power and a warriors attitude.
5. Muhammad Ali- first 3 time world heavyweight champ, superb boxer and amazing speed. Beat many hall of famers.
6. Barney Ross- 72-4. 3 time champ, beat canzoneri twice, ruled 3 divisions
7. Harry Greb- Middle weight champ, beat micky walker and only man to beat gene tunney. USA light-H champ.
8. Willie Pep - One of best stylist boxers ever, dominated featherweight
division. 230-11 record. beat sandy saddler in peak fight to regain title.
9. Roberto Duran- born to fight, best lightweight ever, stepped up to win Welterwight title by beating sugar ray leonard. won WBC midd title at 37.
10. Sugar Ray Leonard-incredible boxer, 5 time champ, Beat Hagler and hearns and duran.
11. Sandy Saddler- Beat Pep 3 times, ruled featherweight divison, possesed a lot of power.
12. Ezzard Charles-greatest light-H all time, dominant heavyweight champ.indredible boxing skills.
13. Mickey Walker- Middleweight and welterweight champion,great brawler, held sharkey to Draw. beat much larger men.
14. Benny Leonard- One of the best lightsweights all time, superb boxer
15. Rocky Marciano- undefeated heavyweight champ, est KO percentage among heavyweights all time.
16. Roy Jones jr- god given boxing ability, dominated 3 weight classes. beat hopkins, toney and outclassed everyone in light heavyweight.
17. Marvin Hagler- never hurt, Ruled Middleweight divison in 80s and beat the likes of duran and hearns.
18. Jack Johnson-best defensive boxer. held title for 6 years. Untouchable in his prime.
19. Archie Moore- all time leader in KOs. Ruled light-H division for 10 years. past his prime when won title.
20. Julio Cesar Chavez- 90-0 before losing. dominated 3 weight classes. showed hes a true warrior.
[/quote]

that was my list back in early june. i now change my list a little

NEW LIST
1. sugar ray robinson
2. sam langford
3. joe louis
4. henry armstrong
5. muhammad ali
6. harry greb
7. barney ross
8. willie pep
9. roberto duran
10. sugar ray leonard
11. bob fitzimmons
12. sandy saddler
13. ezzard charles
14. mickey walker
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Benny Leonard
17. Archie Moore
18. Rocky Marciano
19. Joe Gans
20. Jack Johnson
21. Roy Jones jr
22. Marvin Hagler
23. Salvado Sanchez
24. Alexis Arguello
25. Julio Cesar Chavez
26. Jack Dempsey
27. Kid Gavilan
28. Ike Williams
29. Larry Holmes
30. Carlos Monzon
31. Terry Mcgovern
32. Gene Tunney
33. Wilfredo Gomez
34. Emile Griffith
35. George Foreman
36. Lou Ambers
37. Bernard Hopkins
38. Joe Frazier
39. Tony Canzoneri
40. Ruben Oliveres
41. Pernell Whitaker
42. Charley Burley
43. Jimmy Mclarnin
44. Stanley Ketchel
45. Michael Spinks
46. Aaron Pryor
47. Bob Foster
48. Evander Holyfield
49. Billy Conn
50. Tiger Flowers - very underated
* floyd mayweather - careers not over yet, but he will be high on the list when his career ends if he keeps it up.

i will do 50-100 when i get back. or someone else can do it for me. I HOPE I DIDNT FORGET ANY ALL TIME GREATS.


- i hated doing this list because anyone from 40-50 in placement could have been replaced or moved higher or lower. i left some people i wanted on the list out cause it came down to choosing. thats why i will do top 100 when i get back to not exclude some great fighters.



I WILL SEE U GUYS NEXT MONDAY. I AM HEADED OFF TO HIGH SCHOOL FREESTYLE NATIONALS IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA. I AM LEAVING TOMMOROW AND WONT GET BACK TILL NEXT MONDAY. wish me luck. im going 130(havin trouble makin weight, cut from 147, i wish i had archies secret forumla) SO ONE OF U GUYS IS GONNA HAVE TO STEP UP AND GET THINGS MOVING AND KEEP MAKING NEW TOPICS SINCE IM NOT HERE TO DO THAT. KEEP THE ENERGY GOING, THE "BOXERS OF THE PAST" FORUM HAS BEEN REALLY ACTIVE LATELY WITH LOTS OF POSTS. KEEP IT UP GUYS. [/quote]

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I wrote

1. sugar ray Robinson - Possesed the great boxing ability. Untouchable at welterweight. He dominated welterweight divison and midddleweight divison. Past his prime he beat many hall of famers. Nearly won light-H title. Amazing speed, power, skill, heart, and stamina.
2. sam Langford - Never got to fight for title, 167 wins. Weighed only 175 but beat much larger men. Easily would have been champ at Middleweight and light-H. Beta heavyweight Harry wills, and Joe gans.
3. Joe Louis- greatest heavyweight of all time, most title defenses
4. Henry Armstrong- 151 wins, 3 time world champ, beat ambers, and ross and possed KO power and a warriors attitude.
5. Muhammad Ali- first 3 time world heavyweight champ, superb boxer and amazing speed. Beat many hall of famers.
6. Barney Ross- 72-4. 3 time champ, beat canzoneri twice, ruled 3 divisions
7. Harry Greb- Middle weight champ, beat micky walker and only man to beat gene tunney. USA light-H champ.
8. Willie Pep - One of best stylist boxers ever, dominated featherweight
division. 230-11 record. beat sandy saddler in peak fight to regain title.
9. Roberto Duran- born to fight, best lightweight ever, stepped up to win Welterwight title by beating sugar ray leonard. won WBC midd title at 37.
10. Sugar Ray Leonard-incredible boxer, 5 time champ, Beat Hagler and hearns and duran.
11. Sandy Saddler- Beat Pep 3 times, ruled featherweight divison, possesed a lot of power.
12. Ezzard Charles-greatest light-H all time, dominant heavyweight champ.indredible boxing skills.
13. Mickey Walker- Middleweight and welterweight champion,great brawler, held sharkey to Draw. beat much larger men.
14. Benny Leonard- One of the best lightsweights all time, superb boxer
15. Rocky Marciano- undefeated heavyweight champ, est KO percentage among heavyweights all time.
16. Roy Jones jr- god given boxing ability, dominated 3 weight classes. beat hopkins, toney and outclassed everyone in light heavyweight.
17. Marvin Hagler- never hurt, Ruled Middleweight divison in 80s and beat the likes of duran and hearns.
18. Jack Johnson-best defensive boxer. held title for 6 years. Untouchable in his prime.
19. Archie Moore- all time leader in KOs. Ruled light-H division for 10 years. past his prime when won title.
20. Julio Cesar Chavez- 90-0 before losing. dominated 3 weight classes. showed hes a true warrior.
[/quote]

that was my list back in early june. i now change my list a little

NEW LIST
1. sugar ray robinson
2. sam langford
3. joe louis
4. henry armstrong
5. muhammad ali
6. harry greb
7. barney ross
8. willie pep
9. roberto duran
10. sugar ray leonard
11. bob fitzimmons
12. sandy saddler
13. ezzard charles
14. mickey walker
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Benny Leonard
17. Archie Moore
18. Rocky Marciano
19. Joe Gans
20. Jack Johnson
21. Roy Jones jr
22. Marvin Hagler
23. Salvado Sanchez
24. Alexis Arguello
25. Julio Cesar Chavez
26. Jack Dempsey
27. Kid Gavilan
28. Ike Williams
29. Larry Holmes
30. Carlos Monzon
31. Terry Mcgovern
32. Gene Tunney
33. Wilfredo Gomez
34. Emile Griffith
35. George Foreman
36. Lou Ambers
37. Bernard Hopkins
38. Joe Frazier
39. Tony Canzoneri
40. Ruben Oliveres
41. Pernell Whitaker
42. Charley Burley
43. Jimmy Mclarnin
44. Stanley Ketchel
45. Michael Spinks
46. Thomas Hearns
47. Bob Foster
48. Evander Holyfield
49. Billy Conn
50. Tiger Flowers - very underated
* floyd mayweather - careers not over yet, but he will be high on the list when his career ends if he keeps it up.

i will do 50-100 when i get back. or someone else can do it for me. I HOPE I DIDNT FORGET ANY ALL TIME GREATS.


- i hated doing this list because anyone from 40-50 in placement could have been replaced or moved higher or lower. i left some people i wanted on the list out cause it came down to choosing. thats why i will do top 100 when i get back to not exclude some great fighters.



I WILL SEE U GUYS NEXT MONDAY. I AM HEADED OFF TO HIGH SCHOOL FREESTYLE NATIONALS IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA. I AM LEAVING TOMMOROW AND WONT GET BACK TILL NEXT MONDAY. wish me luck. im going 130(havin trouble makin weight, cut from 147, i wish i had archies secret forumla) SO ONE OF U GUYS IS GONNA HAVE TO STEP UP AND GET THINGS MOVING AND KEEP MAKING NEW TOPICS SINCE IM NOT HERE TO DO THAT. KEEP THE ENERGY GOING, THE "BOXERS OF THE PAST" FORUM HAS BEEN REALLY ACTIVE LATELY WITH LOTS OF POSTS. KEEP IT UP GUYS. [/quote][/quote]

[tonyevs]

Nice to see Barney Ross get a mention

[Sherlock]

Great list BB. Tiger Flowers is severely underrated, and its nice to see Ike Williams, Terry McGovern, and Joe Gans make the list. The only major grievance I have is that Jimmy Wilde should be at least top ten, maybe top five even.

Notable abscences are Kid Chocolate and Panama Al Brown, who should be top 30-40 range fighters. I've never attempted a list like this so its probably difficult to make without leaving off a few great fighters.

[Ambling Alp]

Of course it's difficult to compare boxers from different weight class and different eras' but it's fun.
I thought the list looked pretty good. Of course you aren't going to find two people who have the exact same lists, but that's part of the fun.
My major differences of opinion is as follows:
First Thomas Hearns needs to be on the list. Iknow a lot of people blow him off as a glass jaw, but his record is excellent. Losses to Hagler and Leonard are understandable. Yes he lost to to Iran Barkley twice, but he more than made up for it in other fights. He decapitated Duran and Cuevas, and outpointed Benitez, who was a great fighter.

I would also defintely add Harold Johnson. He seems to be overlooked by a lot of people.He was one of the greatest lightheavyweights of all time. He beat Archie Moore once and lost 4 tough fights with him. He beat Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Cotton, Doug Jones, and Henry Hank. He also beat heavyweights like Charles (before Charles lost to Marciano) Valdes, Satterfield, and Machen.

I would consider putting Dick Tiger, Jose Napoles, Nino Benvenuti and Wilfred Benitez in. They are borderline calls. No one seems to think of these guys either.

Burley and Flowers. I don't quite understand the fascination with Burley. His only wins of note were against Archie Moore and Fritzie Zivic, neither of whom were at their best weight when fighting Burley. Flowers is underrated, but I don't think he is quite Top 50 material. Hopkins probably isn't top 50 either.
Spinks and Monzon should be rated a little better, while Langford, Fitzsimmons, and Williams seem to be too high.

I like some of your picks that I don't think most people wouldn't have thought of, such as Lou Ambers, Terry McGovern and Ike Williams.

[Marciano Frazier]

I think that's a very solid list. I'll just nitpick on a couple things:

I would have Carlos Monzon higher than #30. He was the greatest middleweight of all time, in my opinion. He was undefeated in his last 80 professional fights, lost only three times in 100 professional fights, all by decision in his first 20 fights and all avenged, and was middleweight champion with an extremely impressive title reign of 13 defenses, every one of them against a legitimate opponent.
Monzon was one of the most well-rounded fighters of all time, possibly even moreso than Louis. He could box or slug on par with anyone, he had a strong punch, and his chin was pure granite. I think he belongs in the top 20 for sure.

Also, why isn't Carmen Basilio on the list?? Basilio was two-time welterweight champion and middleweight champion in, in my opinion and most other peoples' as well, the strongest era ever at that weight range. I would definitely have Basilio inside the top 50, probably in the top 30.

I also think Langford, while a legend, is a little too high at #2, Julio Cesar Chavez should be a little higher than 25, Tommy Hearns should definitely be in the top 50, and I'd have Whitaker a little higher than 42.

[elmersalsa]

It is a great list...The ONLY PROBLEM is I cannot picture Roy Jones, Jr in the 21st position and Pernell Whitaker in the 41st position when "Sweet Pea" WAS THE MOST DOMINANT FIGHTER OF HIS GENERATION. I'll SWAP Jones at 41 and Whitaker around position #13-16.

But the first 10, really it is hard to put someone over the other. Like in the case of the great Henry Armstrong, I think he has credentials to be #1.

The other thing I do not see int the list is Tommy Hearns. To me, he was better than Roy Jones, Jr. He won 4 world titles, THE FIRST MAN IN HISTORY TO DO SO, but I do not see many people give him CREDIT just for the fact that he lost the 2 biggest fights of his career.

Also, I see Joe Gans at position 19. I can't see anybody at lightweight with the exception of Roberto Duran greater than him. He was a dominant fighter. I'll put him in the top 10. But anyway, besides that, nice list

[Lefthookhappy19]

Roy Jones was totally dominant for about 13 years or so. He hardly lost any rounds in his fights and knocked out many to go with it. If thats not domination I don't know what is.

[elmersalsa]

Roy Jones was totally dominant for about 13 years or so. He hardly lost any rounds in his fights and knocked out many to go with it. If thats not domination I don't know what is.

Yes, HE WAS DOMINANT, I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT HIS QUALITY OF OPPOSITION compared to Whitaker's is WEAK.

In the other hand, Whitaker was MORE DOMINANT fighting THE VERY BEST:
Julio Cesar Chavez (D12, everybody knows he won that fight clearly...Only with that FIGHT, puts him over Jones!!!),
Azumah Nelson (W12),
Buddy McGirt (twice),
Jose Luis Ramirez (twice, everybody knows he won both fights from here to Japan),
Roger Mayweather (W12)
Julio Cesar Vazquez (W12), not a great champ BUT A GOOD ONE, AND at least had an excellent record. Whitaker jumped to jr middleweight and took his title.
Rafael Pineda (W12)


What else Whitaker had to do to be the most dominant fighter of his time??? He barely lost a fight, or may I say, HE BARELY LOST A ROUND. He made some BRILLIANT MASTERPIECES.

[Boxscribe]

Burley and Flowers. I don't quite understand the fascination with Burley. His only wins of note were against Archie Moore and Fritzie Zivic, neither of whom were at their best weight when fighting Burley. .

So, what was Zivic's best weight? He won the welterweight title from Armstrong after losing twice to Burley - at welterweight!

Moore was as good a middle - at that time - as there was.

This statement demonstrates little insight into the fight game in the 30s and 40s.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

there were a lot of fights that i could hav swtiched from place to place and thats what made it so hard. i hated to leave out fighters like harada, jofre, and basillio.

first of, if theirs 5 guys i want next to me if i am walking in the most dangerous neiborhood in the world, basillio would be one of them. basillio is easily in the top 100 but i left him out of the top 50 in a tough decision. i know he won both welterweight and won middelweight with upset decision over robinson but here were some reasons. basillio after beating graham,lost to kid gavilan for the title then after he won it over demarco, he lost it to johnny saxton who wasnt a great fighter. he regained it from saxton but defended one more timeat welterweight then left. i would have liked to see a longer reign at welterweight. basillio then went up and amazed everyone by upsetting a past his prime but still tough ray robinson. he lost the rematch. 2 fights that really made it were his fights with fullmer. he was by now a full grown middleweight and was twice knocked out by fullmer in one sided fights. now if i dont rate fullmer in top 50, i cant rate basillio. like i said i thought about it and decided not, but on another day i could decide to rate him in top 50, it was a tough decision, could have gone either way.

i also thought a lot about jose napoles, thoma heanrs, and dick tiger, and had hearns on the list then removed him in a last minute changing.
veyr hard decisions, anyone of those guys could be in top 50. i just had to cut guys out of my list.

i look at many things: competetion, domination of the division, long reigns, bigest wins, titles in more than one division.

one guy i did forget and i regret it is harold johnson. i am not sure if i would put him in my top 50, but he should not be overlooked. a greta fighter, who was unfortanute in his prime to have archie moore in his division. he was still able to beat moore once and in the title fight, knocked moore down in the 10th, and was wionning the fight until he was knocvked ou in the 14th. he finally won the light-H title when he was past his prime after moore had been stripped. beat many top heavyweight contenders also.


i am considering replacing aaron pryor with tommy hearns. besides cervantes and arguello, pryory didnt beat or face any serious names. and pryor never moved up to try to get the big fight, if he had pushed he could have got matches with duran or leonard or pipo cuevas.
hearns dominated wleterweight, lost in a classic battle to one of the greatest boxers of all time and hearns was winning the fight. he then dominated junior middle and knocking out duran. he won title i 5 or 6 different weight classes and even showed he was the best middelweight besides hagler even though that wasnt hearns best weight class. hearns fought better comp and won titles at many didfferent weight classes and showed how dominant he was in his prime weight class: welterweight.

i gues pryor could say "i beat hearns in amatuers" lol

[Rory McCloskey]

no jim braddock? does he at least fit into the top 100

[Rory McCloskey]

and i dont see max baer up there or max schmelling or jack sharkey

[BoxBuzz]

Yeah and where is Primo Carnera and Shannon Briggs?

[BoxBuzz]

Ok I will be serious any top 100 of all time without Joe Jeanette is probably not sound. If you have Jack Johnson at number 20 how far can Joe Jeanette be from that rating?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

jeanette is prob in my top 100. but i didnt do top 100, i did top 50.

[BoxBuzz]

My Corona diluted point was that Joe should be in the upper half of any top 100 list.

[elmersalsa]

In reality, there are so many fighters that were great in their eras and is NOT AN EASY task to put the 50 greatest fighters. Every one has their own criteria.

I did a list 3 years ago and I thought That I was correct. teh problem was that in the list I put Sam Langford in position #92. That's to show how IGNORANT I WAS BACK THEN. So I am making a new list and so far I have 42 great fighters chosen in my own criteria.

I did not know Langford's career very well, but when one day I saw his unbelievable record and his boxing story and whom he fought and what he did, THERE WAS NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT THIS MONSTER WAS A TOP 10 ALL TIME GREAT. Now, I got him in position #9 in my list.

The other thing is many people FORGET the accomplishments of Panama Al Brown and Freddie Miller, 2 oustanding boxers that in my view, were OVERLOOKED. Should they be in the top 50??? YES!!!! MILLER AND BROWN SHOLUD BE IN THE TOP 50 BY ANYBODY STANDARDS...Like Pernell Whitaker, they were STRICTLY WORLD CLASS!!!

[Ambling Alp]

Burley and Flowers. I don't quite understand the fascination with Burley. His only wins of note were against Archie Moore and Fritzie Zivic, neither of whom were at their best weight when fighting Burley. .

So, what was Zivic's best weight? He won the welterweight title from Armstrong after losing twice to Burley - at welterweight!

Moore was as good a middle - at that time - as there was.

This statement demonstrates little insight into the fight game in the 30s and 40s.

The point that I am trying to make is that Burley doesn't seem to have enough impressive wins to be considered to be considered one of the top 50 boxers of all-time.
Archie Moore definetly wasn't as good as a middleweight as he would develop into as a light-heavy. Moore had already lost 9 fights before his loss to Burley, none of them against great opponents. He had won only 4 of his previous 7 fights before the Burley fight. Moore had yet to win a really big fight. Burley's win isn't as big a deal as it looks at first glance.

Zivic was a welter weight when he fought Burley, although technically Burley was over the welterweight limit himself when he fought Zivic. You also have to really question how big a win over Zivic is. Zivic was very inconsistent, he did score some big wins, but he lost over 60 fights in his career. Earlier in hios career he lost 8 straight fights!
Then look at the rest of Burley's record. His only other great opponents were Ezzard Charles and Jimmy Bivins. Burley lost to Charles both times and lost to Bivins the only time they fought.

The great majority of Burley's victories were against very ordinary oppnents.
Burley beat Holman Williams 3 out of 5 times and had a draw with Georgie Abrams. He lost to Lloyd Marhall in their only fight. These are good but not great fighters. Burley is closer to their level than he is to the all-time greats.
Yes, Burley should have gotten a title shot somewhere along the line. However, he certainly wasn't one of the top 50 fighters including every weight class over 100 years of boxing. A fighter at that elite level has more big wins. There are simply more than 49 other fighters who were better than him.

[Boxscribe]

Archie Moore definetly wasn't as good as a middleweight as he would develop into as a light-heavy. Moore had already lost 9 fights before his loss to Burley, none of them against great opponents. He had won only 4 of his previous 7 fights before the Burley fight. Moore had yet to win a really big fight. Burley's win isn't as big a deal as it looks at first glance.

Again, you are demonstrating your lack of insight into the fight game during that period. When you are next counting up Moore's wins/losses on boxrec remember to check out the guys he lost to. I can't say too much about Billy Adams, but Bandit Romero, Teddy Yarosz, Shorty Hogue, Aaron Wade, Jack Chase and Eddie Booker were all top-flight fighters during that preiod.

Burley ruined Hogue as a contender (top 3 middle when Burley - a heavy welterweight - Ko'd him. Moore couldn't beat Shorty in 3 meetings).

Eddie Booker was also a great fighter and Moore cites Burley and Booker as the two greatest fighters he ever met.

Zivic was a welter weight when he fought Burley, although technically Burley was over the welterweight limit himself when he fought Zivic. You also have to really question how big a win over Zivic is. Zivic was very inconsistent, he did score some big wins, but he lost over 60 fights in his career. Earlier in hios career he lost 8 straight fights!

The weights for Burley v Zivic on Boxrec do not correspond with press cutting I have from those fights. Burley and Zivic were told that the winner - if inside the welterwight limit - would get a shot at the title. There were rumours at the time that there was something not quite right about the weigh-in as Burley was 3/4 of a pound over the 147. Which is only just outside of the welterweight limit, but this was not a title fight and many, many fighters were over the championship limit for other fights, but were still ranked in that division.

Still, your statement that Zivic was not at his best weight when he lost to Burley doesn't stand up.

Zivic was also well known for taking any fight, any place for any amount of money. How focused or prepared that would make him is anyone's guess. Win some, lose some - still get paid. The fights with Burley were BIG for Zivic, because local pride and supremacy were at stake. Also, Burley was a novice compared to Zivic when it came to contests and experience. On paper at least.

Then look at the rest of Burley's record. His only other great opponents were Ezzard Charles and Jimmy Bivins. Burley lost to Charles both times and lost to Bivins the only time they fought.

The great majority of Burley's victories were against very ordinary oppnents.

Burley beat Holman Williams 3 out of 5 times and had a draw with Georgie Abrams. He lost to Lloyd Marhall in their only fight. These are good but not great fighters.

Charles is an all-time great even without facing him as a substitute and giving away in excess of 12 pounds. Bivins also had weight on Burley and Charley made the mistake of starting very slow. Bivins - according to contemporary press reports was out on his feet from a right hand as the bell rang. The Bivins fight could have been different, the Charles fights even made Burley admit that Ezzard was too big and too good for him. No disgrace there.

Burley did meet some ordinary fighters, but he - like Zivic and every other fighter at the time - had to eat. What fighter didn't meet 'ordinary' opponents in order to stay active and/or get a payday? He cannot be blamed for the quality of opposition his management got him. However, to site Ezzard and Bivins as the only other great fighters on his record is ignoring the other highly rated (at the time) fighters he met.

These fighters may not be Hall-of-Famers (and with some of the inductees lately one has to wonder what the criteria is), but if that is your own criteria then you are ignoring fighters such as Shorty Hogue, Jack Chase, Aaron Wade, Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, Bert Lytell, Eddie Booker and Joe Carter. All top-ten rated when Burley beat them and all deserving of a place in boxing history. Georgie Abrams would also fall into the 'under appreciated' catagory (Burley lost two rounds due to low blows, otherwise press reports state that he handled Abrams - a highly rated and natural middleweight - with comparative ease).

Marshall was often under instructions as to the amount of effort he was expected to put in (and Burley was carrying an injury when they met). Lloyd did defeat 9 of 12 world champions he faced (including Charles), so he must have had something of note.

It is a crime that Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, Lloyd Marshall and Eddie Booker are not in the HOF (though Booker is in the WBHOF).

I just read my reply over before posting it and I feel I am defending Burley maybe a little too much. He is one of my favourite fighters and has been for over 20 years. Before I looked into his career I was ignorant of him and the fighters he met - other than the obvious ones you have mentioned.

Like elmersalsa, who ranked Langford way down his list before discovering more on him, I think you may appreciate Burley more if you know him, his times and the rest of the fighters mentioned here. Just because these guys don't make the never-ending merry-go-round of Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ray Robinson and Ketchel type stories rehashed in many boxing magazines and books doesn't mean that they were not great.

Look at anyone's top 50 list and you will see Robinson - avoided Burley like the plague - you will see Armstrong - Ditto - Archie Moore - not only beaten by Burley but taken to school to such an extent that Moore himself said Charley Burley was the best fighter he ever met. Not Ezzard Charles, not Marciano or Ali (again, in most top fighter lists). Who knows better when it come to Burley's quality and ability - you or Archie Moore?

[Boxscribe]

Follow the link and check out the all time rankings (currently at heavy down to welter)

http://www.ibroresearch.com/

[Ambling Alp]

Boxscribe - Thanks for the link, it was interesting. They have Burley at #10 as a middleweight, do you think that's about right?
They had Holman Williams as "Just missing the cut". Would have had him in the top 20?
They didn't have Moore as a middleweight, or Abrams, Lytell, Cocoa Kid, Booker or Hogue listed at all. Would you have put these guys in? If so, who that they had listed would you have taken out?

[dnahar32]

Boxscribe, that was an excellent post on Burley. If I hadn't read Allen Rosenfeld's book on Burley and those middleweights, I wouldn't have known any of that and boxing fans need to remember.

Frankly, when it comes to the HOF, I don't think any of those other middleweights of the time are HOFs but then I am more strict in my definition of HOF and a lot of these recent inductees don't make the cut either in my book.

It's sad that most people don't know about Burley. As is pointed out in those IBRO ratings, he is considered a better middleweight than Bernard Hopkins and I agree with that.

[Boxscribe]

Ambling Alp

As you rightly pointed out, most of Moores accomplishments were at LHW - hence he is rated there by most. I think Burley belongs in the top 10 and I think he would have held his own with any champion of his day.

Holman Williams may not be top 10, but he should - IMHO - be considered when talking about great fighters. I wouldn't rate Abrams, Lytell or Hogue as great middles (when you look at the company they would have to keep), but I also do not think they were ordinary either and they should be more widely recognised for the outstanding contenders they were.

Booker fought from welter to LHW and was probably a shade below Burley, but if you really study his record and have an idea about the other fighters on it, then I think you get a better idea of how good he was. I would put Booker in the top 20 at middles - but that's just me. The same would go for Cocoa Kid at welterweight. He is one of the best at the weight to never win a title. By most accounts he was a very gifted fighter (at the end of his career he put SR Robinson on his backside in a sparring session).

dnahar32

You may be right about some of these guys not being HOF material, but when you look at some those that have been inducted - and I don't mean to slight anyone in any way here - you have to wonder why Holman Williams, Eddie Booker and Cocoa Kid are not in there. Everyone has their own idea what constitutes greatness and that subjectivity will be used when drawing up lists. No two will ever be identical with regard to actual position, but you can usually get agreement when it comes down to who to include.

It may be that most of these fighters mentioned will not be considered for the HOF by most, but they were very, very far away from being ordinary non-entities.

I would also suggest that you read my book on the subject. It had a good review in the July edition of Boxing Monthly. (Charley Burley and the Black Murderers Row)

another link!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 30-1081450

[/b]

[Ambling Alp]

Boxscribe,
I don't think I would quite have Burley in the top 10. I think the list for the middleweight division isn't very accurrate at all. I would have Burley behind Flowers, Hopkins and Fullmer and possibly Zale. Having Fullmer at #20 is just ridiculaus. I would have Burley slightly ahead of Cerdan and LaMotta. It is too bad that Burely didn't get a chance to fight Zale, Cerdan or LaMotta.

I guess this is a little off the subject, but I think the list is very biased in favor of fighters of a long time ago. There is no way that Monzon and Hagler should be only #5 and #6. Sugar Ray certainly wasn't the # 2 middleweight of all-time. Benevenuti certainly should have been on the list, and Tiger and Griffith could have been higher.

Anyway, as far as Burley goes, I just have always thought that it was odd that he is usually rated fairly high on all-time lists in comparison to other top guys of his era. He didn't seem to dominate his era, so why he is he rated so much higher than the other guys who seemed to be almost as good. For example, you could make the case that Eddie Booker was as good as Burley, but Burley is #10, so why isn't Booker #11? Instead he isn't even mentioned.
Many people would put Burely in the top 50(of all weight classes) all-time, but wouldn't put in Booker, Williams, Abrams,Lytell etc in their top 100.
I just think that seems to be a little odd. It would seem that Burley probably deserves to be rated somewhere around 70-80, and the other top guys of his era somewhere between 80-100.

As far as making all-time lists go, I guess you have to decide if 10 middleweights (I realize he fought a lot as a welterweight) deserve to to be in the top 50? That seems like a lot considering that that there are 8 major weight classes plus all of the other weight classes.
It's tough to not have biases when doing these lists. Most people tend to favor certains eras, weight classes, styles of fighters or just certain guys that they like or don't like.
For whatever reason, some guys just seem to be remembered more positively than others. Why for example is Archie Moore the #1 light-heavyweight and Harold Johnson is only #17? Archie was a little better, but are there really 15 guys not as good as Moore, but better than Johnson?

Anyway, if you haven't fallen asleep by now, let me know what you think. You seem to be someone who likes to put some thought into your opinons.