All Time Greatest Top 15

First topic message reminder :

In response to Rowleys earlier suggestion and the fact it's been a slow thought I may as well get this start, you know the jist of it by now simply give your all time top 15 then i'll collate the votes and we'll our very own definitive 606V2 all time pound for pound list

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Charles
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Tunney
7. Ali
8. Duran
9. Jofre
10. B. Leonard
11. Langford
12. Pep
13. Leonard
14. Ross
15. Gans

I do normally tend to see quite a few flaws in some of your arguments chris, but in this instance, I must say you present a most convincing case. So hats off.

Get your votes in people

Top 10 ATG list was done a while back for anyone interested:

https://www.606v2.com/t10598-official-606v2-pound-for-pound-greatest-of-all-time-results

Mind if I reference that mate when I get the results to this and hope you don't mind me nicking your idea?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Mind if I reference that mate when I get the results to this and hope you don't mind me nicking your idea?

Of course not! A top 15 will produce a more reliable result. I'll post mine once I've had a think. Good luck

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. B Leonard
5. Jofre
6. E Charles
7. Gans
8. Langford
9. Ali
10. Tunney
11. Whitaker
12. S R Leonard
13. Duran
14. Fitzsimmons
15. Saddler

Give me a top 15 all time movie list any day of the week over having to sort out a list like this. Most of these will change position depending on the day but about 85% will always be in there regardless of number. Still not even sure I'm happy with my list.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Pep
7. Wilde
8. Eder Jofre
9. Roberto Duran
10. Bob Fitszimmons
11. Benny Leonard
12. Sam Langford
13. Gene Tunney
14. Joe Gans
15. Sandy Saddler

only 10 votes so far need far more, come on people.

Ghosty, if you're not getting the required responses to make it worthwhile, I am happy for you to pull the plug on it and just use my list as the finished article.

Your choice.

I would Tino but it has one massively glaring omission that of the Fighting Marine Gene Tunney.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I would Tino but it has one massively glaring omission that of the Fighting Marine Gene Tunney.

I swear to you, he is number 16. I couldn't decide between Louis/Lopez/Tunney and plumped for the other two. Could have gone either way and I do love Tunney to bits. Probably a bit of favouritism on my behalf for numbers 14 & 15 but what is a good list if you can't stick the odd favourite in.

Simply not good enough Tino

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Simply not good enough Tino

Fair enough Ghosty. Suggest you use PBF's lists then. Either one of them has Gene in there!

I didn't really take much notice of his lists to be honest with you.

Ouch!

He will be hurt when he wakes up. What time is it in Vegas anyway!

Probably about 10:30 in the morning i'd have thought, he's must be in training for Ortiz by now so doubt he has as much time to irritate the rest of us on here.

Can't see how you can have Duran above SLR when Leonard beat him twice out of three encounters. Even Hearns who doesn't seem to be on anyone's list beat him.What about Hagler? maybe not the top 15 though.

You have to look at the weight though Hearns/Leonard beat Duran at and what the guy had done before moving up to fight both these guys.

Then what Duran went on to do at even higher weights after those fights, I personally have Leonard a place higher but can see a case for Duran to be above.

rapidringsroad wrote:Can't see how you can have Duran above SLR when Leonard beat him twice out of three encounters. Even Hearns who doesn't seem to be on anyone's list beat him.What about Hagler? maybe not the top 15 though.

It's a very contentious one which has been done to death, rapid, but at the risk of it kicking off again (which I sincerely hope it doesn't) I'll try to explain why I'd subscribe to the notion of having Duran slightly higher than Ray Leonard.

First off, I think we all know that their third and final fight is largely irrelevant, or certainly not an indication of who was greater at their peak. Leonard was slowing by 1989, whereas Duran was pushing forty and was a podgy 168 lb, way above his best weight. Fair enough, I'll give Leonard his kudos for dealing with the challenge in front of him that night, but their first two bouts are far more significant.

Duran's win over Leonard in their first bout stands as one of the greatest single wins in boxing history, for my money. Leonard was in his glorious prime and held most of the advantages, so to speak. For Duran to skip the 140 lb division, jump in to the deep end at 147 lb and dethrone an all-time top three Welterweight (and in his own right, an absolute pound for pound legend) in such a spellbinding fight stands as a pheomenal achievement. I'm not in the least bit interested in all this 'oh, but Leonard only lost because he fought the wrong fight' guff, either. Excuses count for little in the aftermath, and for me it was Duran's performance which forced Leonard to 'brawl' as some put it. The better fighter that night was Duran.

Of course, the rematch counts against him heavily. But I can't subscribe to this theory that it somehow showed that Leonard was lightyears ahead of Duran, either. Those first two fights ended 1-1 because the two of them were precisely that; evenly-matched. Leonard scoring the win second time out doesn't cancel out the first result, and the same goes for the other direction.

Of course, his post-1980 career is hardly the model of consistency, but for me the loss to Hagler is one of those rare examples of a defeat which can count towards a legacy. How many other former Lightweight kings have even contested the Middleweight crown, let alone pushed an all-time top three 160 lb man all the way for fifteen rounds? The loss to Hearns was as emphatic as it gets, but again, I don't see this as too much of a mark against him. For a man of Duran's size (and, by that stage, his age), anything at 154 lb would simply be a bonus on top of what he'd already done at lower weights. When a thirty-three year old former Lightweight well above his best weight class gets knocked out by a twenty-six year old man at the peak of his powers who was big enough to claim a legitimate title at Light-Heavyweight, it shouldn't be held against them too much in my eyes. Duran was primarily a seventies fighter, but in the eighties still claimed wins over Leonard, Mamby, Cuevas, Barkley and Moore. The defeats to Laing (a shocker) and Sims balance the ledger, of course, but I'd still say that overall Duran's eighties exploits did more to add to his legacy than they did to detract from it.

And then, of course, we have his fantastic Lightweight reign. The best 135 lb of all time for my money, and I'd say that his Lightweight career was better than Leonard's Welterweight one and also better than Hagler's Middleweight one. Let's imagine that he retired after beating Leonard in that first fight - he'd be a consensus top five man of all-time, beyond a shadow of a doubt. So I suppose the big question is how much further down does he slide due to what happened after that? Not all that much, for me. No shame in being 1-1 in the two fights which really mattered with Leonard given that they were at Sugar Ray's weight rather than Duran's, and as I said, much of his career after that was a draw, on balance. And to me, that suggests that his legacy shouldn't be all that damaged, although it probably prevents him from taking that automatic top five spot I alluded to earlier.

Leonard and Duran were two fantastic fighters, but I'd always give Duran the edge, personally. Not much in it, though.

Durans losses to Leonard, Hearns and Hagler mean little when you consider his disadvantaged with size he was against all three, he gets labelled a lightweight but he made his name initially at featherweight beating Marcel and Kobayashii,

Ghosty as someone who holds the slightly opposing view and has Duran slightly outside the top ten have to say I do think with Duran there is an element of having your cake and eating it when it comes to him. People are more than willing to give him massive credit for his herculean effort against Hagler but more than willing to airbrush some of his less than stellar performances against guys like Benitez and Laing out of the picture, both of whcih came before the Hagler fight.

For me the thing is both of those fights came only two years after the Leonard performance, which suggests to me he was nowhere near as far from his best as many would have you believe. Guess it comes down to a case of whether you think his work up to and including the first Leonard fight is enough to earn him a top ten berth, personally I don't, for me his lightweight record is not really much better than Benny Leonard's who I personally have above him at that weight (although not by much admittedly) and for my again just personally I have to count losses against an admittedly mercurial and talented guy such as Laing against him to some degree. Great fighter but outside the top ten and one for me who a few too many allowances are made.

The definitive Top 15 of all time - (Boxrec Style)

1 Archie Moore
2 Sugar Ray Robinson
3 Muhammad Ali
4 Joe Louis
5 Ezzard Charles
6 Carlos Monzon
7 Sam Langford
8 Tony Canzoneri
9 Carlos Ortiz
10 Dick Tiger
11 Harry Greb
12 Jimmy Bivins
13 Emile Griffith
14 Young Corbett III
15 Jimmy McLarnin

Hmmmm.

rowley wrote:Ghosty as someone who holds the slightly opposing view and has Duran slightly outside the top ten have to say I do think with Duran there is an element of having your cake and eating it when it comes to him. People are more than willing to give him massive credit for his herculean effort against Hagler but more than willing to airbrush some of his less than stellar performances against guys like Benitez and Laing out of the picture, both of whcih came before the Hagler fight.

For me the thing is both of those fights came only two years after the Leonard performance, which suggests to me he was nowhere near as far from his best as many would have you believe. Guess it comes down to a case of whether you think his work up to and including the first Leonard fight is enough to earn him a top ten berth, personally I don't, for me his lightweight record is not really much better than Benny Leonard's who I personally have above him at that weight (although not by much admittedly) and for my again just personally I have to count losses against an admittedly mercurial and talented guy such as Laing against him to some degree. Great fighter but outside the top ten and one for me who a few too many allowances are made.

Jeff, I have Duran and B.Leonard at 8 & 9 respectively, and you're right, there is not all that much difference between their records, but when I think of herculean efforts and Duran, I think of the Ray Leonard fight and not Hagler. There will always be a degree of favouritism in these lists and it is only really the Sugar Ray fight that seperates Duran and B.Leonard for me.

It kind of reminds me of Joe Frazier, and the fact he gets a bump up in heavyweight rankings for the first Ali fight. That fight and the first Duran v Leonard battle are such enormous efforts of will and skill that they make convincing arguments for me in placing these guys higher than some others.

It's the weight that's the main issue for me, at anything remotely close to his most natural weight he lost to DeJesus and Leonard, it's then above that when into his 30's he became inconsistent. It is for me like using Moores heavyweight tilts against him where he like Duran was out of comfort zone combined with ageing.

Ghosty I am more than willing to consider Duran at welter and lightweight which I obviously agree are his best weights, however it is more than the slight inconsistency I have an issue with in that people will hold up the likes of Barkley and Moore as great wins or praise his losing effort in the Hagler fight but will not even allow any criticism of the likes of the Laing and Benitez fights, despite the fact they come at the same or lower weights and were when he was younger. Just seems a little bit of having your cake and eating it.

Personally for me I think in terms of his greatness his lightweight and welter are what matters and they are enough to have him pushing for the top ten but if people are going to put his eighties peak moments in this cannot be done without mention of some of the troughs, may be misinterpreting peoples views but I do feel this is something some folk are guilty of.

rowley wrote:Ghosty as someone who holds the slightly opposing view and has Duran slightly outside the top ten have to say I do think with Duran there is an element of having your cake and eating it when it comes to him. People are more than willing to give him massive credit for his herculean effort against Hagler but more than willing to airbrush some of his less than stellar performances against guys like Benitez and Laing out of the picture, both of whcih came before the Hagler fight.

In fairness, I can't really understand why this gets levelled at those of us who place Duran in the top ten. Nobody is airbrushing the defeats to Laing, Benitez and Sims out of the picture, just putting them in to perspective, or at least that's my take on it. Had those losses come at Duran's best weight and during his best years, I could understand, but they didn't.

Let's look at some of Duran's challengers for all-time Lightweight supremacy. First off, Benny Leonard. We all know that he and Duran are fairly evenly matched purely at 135 lb, but Duran's post-Lightweight career, regardless of how chequered it is, is still far, far greater than Leonard's. The same can be said when you compare him to Williams and Gans, too.

My point is, I can't subscribe to this idea that Duran's post-Lightweight career is a massive stain against his record when it still, even with those disappointing moments, is a lot better than most other 135 lb greats could muster. Maybe some will think that I'm having my cake and eating it so to speak, but I believe that when a fighter is knocking on in years and is well above his best fighting weight, there is no shame in losing in most cases, and wins count for more as they are largely unexpected and a bonus on top of what they've already done at lower weights.

Yes, Duran has some poor defeats on his record, but none more than the likes of Langford, Fitzsimmons or Armstrong, all of whom are nailed-on top ten men in most people's eyes. As Scott rightly pointed out, we have a tendancy to only look at all the great wins those pre-television greats had, and totally ignore the losses. Even at their best weights and in their younger years those three men's records are littered with losses to fighters who aren't exactly cut from the 'great' mould, something which can't be levelled at Duran, in fact. To me, that's where the double standards come in to play most often, and I'll happily admit that I've been guilty of it in the past.

Seems like Duran gets singled out for it a little bit, too. I don't see anyone degrading Bob Foster because he generally got splattered in his Heavyweight forays, for example.

Chris as I say it is more the tendency to big up the wins from that era that sticks in my craw slightly. For me I see his 80s career as an ageing fighter operating outside his best weight class showing inconsistent form and I personally largely ignore it and assess him pretty much on his light and welterweight form. Is more the write ups you sometimes see, and in this I do not refer to you or Ghosty who are obviously better than this who will say oh pushing Hagler so close outside his weight class and at that age was terrific or beating Barkley at an age when he was written off was spectacular etc.

However whenever anyone counters this with getting splattered by Hearns (nearly said it) was a bit embarassing or losing to Laing was not really befitting an all time great the default defence is often, he was old or too small to operate at that weight etc. Should say I am not anti Duran, I appreciate he is a great fighter and have no issue with anyone having him in their top ten and ask me on another day I may well agree, is more how some people arrive at that conclusion that I struggle with.

I do think his victories at light middleweight and middleweight are more significant than his losses, personally I hold his win over Castro in high esteem than either the Hagler fight or the Barkley victory. The good more than counteracts the bad in Durans case and that Langford seems to be left off to some extent despite his whole career being fairly patchy. Then you have the case of Robinson who's middleweight career was almost as up and down with a loss to Jones comparable to Durans loss to Laing.

He is of course my favourite fighter but he seems to be judged differently to everyone else.

See I'm fighting something of a rearguard action here, never thought I'd say this but where's Truss when you need him.

To me, this discussion highlights the idea that context is everything when we attempt to arrange the elite fighters into some kind of pecking order.

So many different styles, strengths, weaknesses ; the fact that the fighters operated in different weight classes and under different social circumstances ; relative ( perceived ) strength of one period in history compared to another, and plenty else besides, make it a daunting and next to impossible task and, if truths be told, we could probably add another ten or so candidates for consideration, here, depending on the criteria. Context is everything. Heck, I can even make sense of Nat Fleischer's oft - maligned all time heavy rankings from one or two perspectives.

For what it's worth, I could argue for either of Duran or Leonard to pip the other but ( on this occasion, ) I plumped for Duran because I believe his willingness to step outside his comfort zone and test his mettle against all comers trumps Leonard's apparent liking to manipulate circumstances to his own liking and enjoy the fruits with minimal labour. Immense talent, no doubt, and from certain perspectives quite possibly worthy of a higher berth than Duran but, today anyway, Duran gets my nod because of the above.

HumanWindmill wrote: Heck, I can even make sense of Nat Fleischer's oft - maligned all time heavy rankings from one or two perspectives.

Now you're just showing off.

rowley wrote:See I'm fighting something of a rearguard action here, never thought I'd say this but where's Truss when you need him.

I thought it was fairly simple; when you're fighting against the odds a loss isn't such a big surprise. A win is. That's why I was always amazed Truss couldn't grasp it. I mean, he speaks a kind of English doesn't he..?

However, Pernell Whitaker's post-lightweight career is incomparably more consistent and dare, I say it, plain superior to Duran's, Leonard victory or not. When I look at their respective victims at lightweight, I find it quite hard to separate them there as well, although Duran holds a clear 135 edge in longevity. Overall, I've no problem in placing Pea higher than Duran - his performances when way past his best were also on a different plane to the Panamanian's.

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: Heck, I can even make sense of Nat Fleischer's oft - maligned all time heavy rankings from one or two perspectives.

Now you're just showing off.

Well, alright then : All except Corbett's placing. ( ! )

Will admit Captain that Whitaker has never once entered my thinking for a top 15 place, might be his style but I just don't like him.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Will admit Captain that Whitaker has never once entered my thinking for a top 15 place, might be his style but I just don't like him.

That's the crux of it right there. I have Duran higher than Whitaker, who does make my top 15, and I am sure that most of it is down to style and character, and how much that floats your boat. We can pull apart these kind of lists forever and a day but generally the same group of names are there, it is just the order that gets jumbled around. There will always be a few names that crop up that are unexpected but if you have good enough reasoning to justify their position then that just makes for healthy debate. I have Ricardo Lopez at 15 but I am sure many, far more knowledgeable posters than me think that is way too high. But, I could happily defend it for as long as it took. I have noticed a few rogue names appear such as Hearns and Chavez who wouldn't generally be considered automatic candidates for a top 15 but I can well imagine how an argument can be constructed for them.

I think, so long as you don't just stick a name up there for the sake of it, then everyones list is going to be justified to a degree, and when it is debated by the calibre of posters that can be found on 606v2 it makes threads like this all the more interesting.

I hate lists.

I hate people who hate lists.

1) Baltimora
2) The Nazi's

BALTIMORA wrote:I hate lists.

That's a pretty listless remark.

What! No Calzaghe! What kind of an excuse for a list is this!

I understand including Chavez as he's a borderline top 20 fighter but couldn't start to formulate an argument for Hearns' inclusion, great as he was there's not enough on his ledger to counteract the Leonard, Hagler and Barkley losses at weights he was very comfortable at.

Lopez is criminally under rated and deserves far more plaudits than he currently receives, for instance I can imagine some questioning his inclusion into our HOF when the reality is he's a nailed on certainty for it.

Like most people I have fighters who I consider untouchable and they happen to occupy the top ten places in my list, beyond them there's a fairly large gap to the rest who on any given day can occupy places anwhere from 11-25, I must be for instance one of the only posters on here who has Langford outside the top ten let alone the top 6.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:
I must be for instance one of the only posters on here who has Langford outside the top ten let alone the top 6.

Yes you are and should be suitably ashamed of yourself for doing so.

rowley wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:
I must be for instance one of the only posters on here who has Langford outside the top ten let alone the top 6.

Yes you are and should be suitably ashamed of yourself for doing so.

No boxer should be considered good if they can't even win a world title.

rowley wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:
I must be for instance one of the only posters on here who has Langford outside the top ten let alone the top 6.

Yes you are and should be suitably ashamed of yourself for doing so.

Have never understood him being rated higher than Fitzsimmons for instance so a placing of 6th would be the highest I could give him and then the likes of Tunney, Duran, Jofre and Ali simply have to be above him, he's closer to Leonard than he is the others but you can't really argue against the level of fighter Leonard was facing and beating.

Winning a world title becomes so much easier if you get actually get the opportunity to fight for one.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I understand including Chavez as he's a borderline top 20 fighter but couldn't start to formulate an argument for Hearns' inclusion, great as he was there's not enough on his ledger to counteract the Leonard, Hagler and Barkley losses at weights he was very comfortable at.

Lopez is criminally under rated and deserves far more plaudits than he currently receives, for instance I can imagine some questioning his inclusion into our HOF when the reality is he's a nailed on certainty for it.

Like most people I have fighters who I consider untouchable and they happen to occupy the top ten places in my list, beyond them there's a fairly large gap to the rest who on any given day can occupy places anwhere from 11-25, I must be for instance one of the only posters on here who has Langford outside the top ten let alone the top 6.

Hearn's would be a tough one to justify Ghosty and I couldn't do it personally, I was just suggesting that it is not so far out there that we would call it ludicrous. Not like having Mayweather at number one was kind of what I was getting at.

The only thing I think you can possibly get Lopez on his is standard of opposition, and even then I think if it is looked at hard enough then this can be defended if you wish.

I will be honest, it is only after some persuasive arguments I have read on here and other sites/articles that I now rate Langford so highly. I certainly didn't used to have him in such a lofty place, but my understanding of him and his talents is far greater now than it used to be.

rowley wrote:Winning a world title becomes so much easier if you get actually get the opportunity to fight for one.

So you're saying it's down to lack of effort?

rowley wrote:Winning a world title becomes so much easier if you get actually get the opportunity to fight for one.

Walcott... cough

HumanWindmill wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:I hate lists.

That's a pretty listless remark.

Subtle. I like it.

On the subject of lists though; I tend to steer clear. It does tend to go round in circles, and I'd rather skim over the arguments people offer than become embroiled in them.

As someone who does have Sam very highly and to be honest would not raise an eyebrow seeing him at anywhere in a top five am happy to provide my reasoning. Sam, as a mere novice was good enough to beat the great Joe Gans and get a draw against the similarly great Barbados Joe Walcott in a fight many felt he did enough in.

For a guy who fought at welter whilst being no more than 5ft 6 to then be able to go up to heavy and hold winning records against fighters as good as Jeannette and McVea and wins over Wills when on the downslide is unbelievable. In his peak years between 1907 to 1912 Sam fought something like 51 fights and lost only two both of which were avenged, when one considers he was almost always giving away significant weight and size advantages and matching with the best of the heavyweight division outside of Johnson, who turned down massive offers to fight Sam this is again beyond staggering.

Throw into this a very close no decision affair against a middle weight great in Ketchel in a fight it was pretty much universally accepted Sam was fighting well within himself and for me you have a guy comfortably deserving a place at the higher reaches of the top ten, a view echoed by the testimonials of Jeannette, Abe Attell and Jack Blackburn who all proclaimed Sam the finest fighter they had ever seen, with some such as Attell even claiming he would have had too much for even the great Joe Louis.