THE GREATEST FIGHTERS OF ALL-TIME (Must Read)

nyckid · Post by **nyckid** » 31 Oct 2006, 02:17

http://www.fightbeat.com/article_detail.php?AT=205

When my father used to review my report cards he used to tell me "I don't know whether to laugh or cry." Does this list give you the same feeling???

FB

probert24 · Post by **probert24** » 31 Oct 2006, 02:40

This is that same old crap, the guy from 50 or a 100 years ago ALWAYS beats the modern fighter.

DonCorleone · Post by **DonCorleone** » 31 Oct 2006, 03:39

I dare anyone on this forum to defend Charley Mitchells placing on the P4P list.

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 31 Oct 2006, 03:57

Red Medicine wrote:Haha, what the hell is up with all the draws (I counted 23) on this guy's record? "All-time top three middleweight" my ass, even after winning numerous titles he was still fighting guys with 0-0-0 records!

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=010817

First, most of those "draws" were actually recorded as NC which were fights that ended without a KO. Some events didnt declare winners in fights that ended without a ko.

Second, we're dealing with a fighter that faught from the 1890's up until 1912. The unhearalded opponents he faught have incomplete records. I am sure that most of these men faught many times but the fights have yet to be confirmed and recorded.

I thought you might have a better knowledge of the sport Red, although I am not in total agreance with Fightbeats rankings the fighters listed are very well known to any person that has read anything on the history of Boxing.

JC · Post by JC » 31 Oct 2006, 06:08

probert24 wrote:This is that same old crap, the guy from 50 or a 100 years ago ALWAYS beats the modern fighter.

These ratings are equally appauling for the opposite reason

http://www.square-ring.com/middle.htm

http://www.square-ring.com/pound.htm

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 31 Oct 2006, 07:44

J-C wrote:
probert24 wrote:This is that same old crap, the guy from 50 or a 100 years ago ALWAYS beats the modern fighter.
These ratings are equally appauling for the opposite reason

http://www.square-ring.com/middle.htm

http://www.square-ring.com/pound.htm

Benn #3 above Hopkins at MW...

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 31 Oct 2006, 07:59

livingstone cole wrote:The pound for pound list is even worse.

I think you're right. HOW ON EARTH are DLH and Hearns #1 and #2... HOW, HOW, HOW?

JC · Post by JC » 31 Oct 2006, 08:29

Taki... wrote:
J-C wrote:
probert24 wrote:This is that same old crap, the guy from 50 or a 100 years ago ALWAYS beats the modern fighter.
These ratings are equally appauling for the opposite reason

http://www.square-ring.com/middle.htm

http://www.square-ring.com/pound.htm
Benn #3 above Hopkins at MW...

Yeah what did Carlos Monzon (not placed) ever achieve that Michael Nunn (at number 7!) didn't?

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 31 Oct 2006, 10:52

Taki... wrote:
J-C wrote:
probert24 wrote:This is that same old crap, the guy from 50 or a 100 years ago ALWAYS beats the modern fighter.
These ratings are equally appauling for the opposite reason

http://www.square-ring.com/middle.htm

http://www.square-ring.com/pound.htm
Benn #3 above Hopkins at MW...

the absense of Monzon is troubling.

realboy · Post by **realboy** » 31 Oct 2006, 15:14

Square ring has Benn no.3 MW of all time! Must be the WBO reign that does it.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

NYY2424 · Post by **NYY2424** » 31 Oct 2006, 15:16

this list is terrible

Post by **The Law** » 31 Oct 2006, 20:21

The writer's name is TRACY ......... and I'm not surprised!

Just ignore the beard, he's got the boxing knowledge of a woman! He just picked some old names out of a book! (by the way I'm not sexist!

)

End of story!

scottmallon · Post by **scottmallon** » 01 Nov 2006, 00:28

I think alot of wanting to rate current fighters over the old-timers is simply because some of those doing the rankings haven't ever seen the old-timers in action! I used to have hundreds and hundreds of hours of fights, alot of which was stuff from the early 1900's and up to Marciano. Believe me, these guys did as much or more as the current fighters and on a regular basis. Guys like Ray Robinson, Ketchel, Harry Greb, Dempsey, Louis, Walker, J. Johnson would call modern fighters pussies and whiners. Guys have a hard time going 10 - 12 rounds now, bitching if they don't get a title shot after 20 fights.

They aren't willing to pay their dues like the older guys. Jem Mace...I haven't heard that name for quite some time...

Maybe the fighters nowadays are more skilled but the old-timers are tougher than most of the new breed, IMHO....

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 01 Nov 2006, 02:57

J-C wrote:
probert24 wrote:This is that same old crap, the guy from 50 or a 100 years ago ALWAYS beats the modern fighter.
These ratings are equally appauling for the opposite reason

http://www.square-ring.com/middle.htm

http://www.square-ring.com/pound.htm

Leonard behind Hearns after Sugar Ray beat a Prime Hearns?!? WTF!!! Who ever made this list is insane. They don't even have Hearns's first nickname right!!

Its fun to blast an insanely crappy list.

scottmallon · Post by **scottmallon** » 01 Nov 2006, 03:25

Decagon wrote:Sure, the guys you mentioned were pretty good (except Ketchel), but what about Jim Corbett? In all the footage available, he looks like someone out of a Toughman competition. So do most of the pre-1910 fighters. Sure, Johnson, Langford and Gans stood out, but look at the way Ketchel fought and tell me that he wouldn't have a hell of a lot of trouble with a straight-punching fighter like Carlos Monzon. How is Ketchel going to be able to get past the strength and skill of Monzon? I don't see how he could win that one.

Do you think there weren't any straight punchers in his day? I'm not saying he could have beat Monzon but give him a little more credit. The guy fought some damn good fighters in his day and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his abilities. He and Langford fought to a NC and from all accounts he gave as good as he got. We know what happened with Johnson - Ketchel was a crazy bastard who would have given Monzon all he could handle.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 01 Nov 2006, 05:22

Decagon wrote:I agree, and I'd never rank Hearns above Leonard at 147, but haven't you thought, now and then, that Hearns could destroy any man who ever fought at that weight? If Leonard is indeed better than Hearns, how much money would you be willing to wager on Leonard winning an immediate rematch, if it'd happened?

Totally agree. Leonard ahs to be rated over Hearns but an immediate rematch is still a 50-50 or maybe a 52-48 fight.

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 01 Nov 2006, 08:04

Ezzard wrote:
Decagon wrote:I agree, and I'd never rank Hearns above Leonard at 147, but haven't you thought, now and then, that Hearns could destroy any man who ever fought at that weight? If Leonard is indeed better than Hearns, how much money would you be willing to wager on Leonard winning an immediate rematch, if it'd happened?
Totally agree. Leonard ahs to be rated over Hearns but an immediate rematch is still a 50-50 or maybe a 52-48 fight.

In all honesty I think one could argue hearns was a better P4P fighter than Leonard was. Sure the first fight between the two had Leonard come out victorious. But Hearns dominated Leonard for the majority of that fight. In the second most will admit that Hearns beat Leonard, hell even Leonard admitted it on Ringside a few monts back.

I am a tad bias towards Hearns as he is one of my favorite fighters. However, I cant argue with someone who feels he belongs infront of Leonard in a P4P sense.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 01 Nov 2006, 09:38

sockdollanger wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
Decagon wrote:I agree, and I'd never rank Hearns above Leonard at 147, but haven't you thought, now and then, that Hearns could destroy any man who ever fought at that weight? If Leonard is indeed better than Hearns, how much money would you be willing to wager on Leonard winning an immediate rematch, if it'd happened?
Totally agree. Leonard ahs to be rated over Hearns but an immediate rematch is still a 50-50 or maybe a 52-48 fight.
In all honesty I think one could argue hearns was a better P4P fighter than Leonard was. Sure the first fight between the two had Leonard come out victorious. But Hearns dominated Leonard for the majority of that fight. In the second most will admit that Hearns beat Leonard, hell even Leonard admitted it on Ringside a few monts back.

I am a tad bias towards Hearns as he is one of my favorite fighters. However, I cant argue with someone who feels he belongs infront of Leonard in a P4P sense.

Having just watched the interview after the first fight when Ray declines to answer a question regarding a rematch I think Ray knew that fighting Tommy would always be a life and death struggle. There was no way they couldn't have fought again had Ray not retired.

Terrific fighters.

Les Darcy · Post by **Les Darcy** » 03 Nov 2006, 01:14

According to Sqaure-Ring, we've just witnessed one of the best eras in middleweight history.

barry · Post by **barry** » 03 Nov 2006, 20:15

Well considering that Tracy Callis is, in fact, one of the absolute top boxing historians in the world, respected by pretty much all the other actual top boxing historians in the world then I would say that he speaks from a hell of a lot more knowledge than most, I honestly know that he knows more than many that are yapping here. Though I don't agree will a lot of his placings of certain fighters!

It's also pretty funny that most who make claims toward others do so regardless of the fact that they have little clue as to what they are talking about...in fact didn't someone mention that they had not heard of half the fighters on the list?

Also, someone dared someone else to try to defend Charlie Mitchell...well how about this! For starters, Mitchell was more, or less a welterweight who fought heavyweights, not just heavyweights, but the very best heavyweights of his era. Considering that Charlie Mitchell was almost always out-weighed, many times by 30 to 100 pounds and due to the fact that he not only competed right beside the best of his time, but he beat a lot of the best of his time, well then a person who actual knows about the time period, along with other periods instead of just the last 20 years, then a person could make a really strong argument for Mitchell, which of course if you don't know anything about Mitchell then it's going to be difficult to realize! Mitchell was as tough as they come in any era and for the time he was one of the most skilled fighters around. Some say, well he could never beat this modern guy, or he could never beat that modern guy, which put Mitchell in that person's era he probably couldn't win, but I guarantee that he could hang with the best of any era, but put "that" modern fighter in the ring with Mitchell in his time and see who comes out on top, or actually see who can even hang...I hardly doubt any fighter of the past fifty years could go 75 rounds, fighting for three and four hours straight!

Now since several seem to have the ability to complain about others lists lets see some of the lists that you guys can put together, or do you just like to yap about others while not having the balls to put out a list yourself...afraid someone will laugh and call your list ignorant? I'm betting that you simply just don't know enough about boxing to put a list together, but I could be wrong...how about shoving that statement back in my face and proving me wrong!

Dec---What you state about Cupey/fightbeat is absolutely correct...I guess Cupey wants to have a site with no credibility, which is exactly what he will have if he starts insulting some of the historians that are respected around the world, but as I said...like several others, I doubt he has the ball to put up a list of his own, but I would absolutely love to see such a list...I'm sure it would be very laughable to say the least, but maybe I am wrong...does he have the guts to prove it?

However, your view of Ketchel and the other older fighters, as usual, is just laughable...you clearly have yet to do any real research on the era and instead chose to form your opinion on five, or ten minutes of total footage that you have seen on two, or three of the fighters...sorry, but not only were there 100s of other fighters, but these guys had 1000s and 1000s of minutes of fighting which is something that five, or ten minutes of film cannot give you a good grasp of they're career. Now if they had only, two, or threew total bouts then five, or ten minutes could pretty much sum up the fighters career, but fighters that had between 20 and 200 fights of which there are 1000s upon 1000s of ring minutes then trying to take about those guys based on five, or ten minutes is just negligent...especially when there is tons of other sources from people that the fighters live which totally disagree with your view...I think I would chose to believe those that seen 1000s of live minutes of those fighters as opposed to someone that has seen five, or ten minutes of really, really shitty film!

barry · Post by **barry** » 03 Nov 2006, 20:40

lawllb----I suggest maybe you read some of Tracy's many articles from his website and from the CBZ...you might actually learn something! You should also pay attention to who researched the biggest percentage of the older records in the CBZ encyclopedia, but I suspect you would probably think the CBZ is some new bunch of boxing fans!

It's one thing for someone to try an claim to know a lot about boxing without having anything to prove it, but when someone has as much research out there as Tracy does, well someone like him doesn't have to claim...they're work speaks for itself, but then, I wouldn't have to tell that to anyone that actually knows anything about boxing history!!

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Lodge/6525/

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/

JC · Post by JC » 03 Nov 2006, 21:05

Barry, I don't know if your comments were at all aimed at me. I ask because it was me who added the square-ring ratings to the thread (as opposed to Tracy Callis' list). But I agree, if I'm going to rip on the square-ring's lists I should at least add my own.

So, as the lists I added were middleweight and P4P here are mine which I've just put together. Not totally happy with them but still think the're better than the square-ring's lists.

Middleweights

1) Greb
2) Robinson
3) Hagler
4) Monzon
5) Walker
6) Burley
7) Jones
8 ) Hopkins
9) Lamotta
10) Cerdan

P4P

1) Robinson
2) Armstrong
3) Pep
4) Greb
5) Langford
6) Duran
7) Leonard
8 ) Saddler
9) Wilde
10) Jofre

barry · Post by **barry** » 04 Nov 2006, 01:11

NO my post was not directed toward you J-C, your posts made sense and were not flat attacks on others views.

barry · Post by **barry** » 04 Nov 2006, 05:02

Well not as good as Roy Jones, but Philly Jack O'Brien, Frank Klaus, Sam Langford and Jack Johnson were all better than Nunn and on par with Nunn...well Billy Papke, The Twin Sullivan's and Hugo Kelly!!!!

And exactly what is this "in they're prime" footage that you speak of?

southace · Post by **southace** » 05 Nov 2006, 15:04

Ridiculous lists.