Are There Any "Perfect" Records

Afternoon all,

I visit this site everyday when I'm in work and the constant of these topics is how a lot of the great fighters are missing particular names from their resume...I was wondering if there is a fighter with a near perfect or perfect resume? For example, everyone is in agreement that Sugar Ray Robinson is an ATG but there are still mentions of him not fighting EVERYBODY at the time that was deemed great around his weight class.

So my question, is there a near perfect or perfect resume and even if there is, would there still be fans picking holes in it?

(I'm sure there would be...)

Edwin Valero!!

I'd say that Harry Greb comes closest to the ideal.

Eighteen world champions, from middle up to heavy, an astonishing win to loss ratio, stopped only twice in 299 fights, ( if we count no decisions, ) and one of these due to a broken arm.

Only man ever to beat Gene Tunney, and many believe that he should have received the decision in their second scrap, also, though Tunney got the nod.

There are a few others, ( Ezzard Charles, for example, ) with a complete ledger, or close to it, but I can't think of a fighter who boasts a better record than Greb.

Hi the Bawwse

In terms of having a zero in the losses column, fighting everyone they could at the right time, I don't believe one exists. Two guys I hold the same merit as Ray Robinson have probably stronger resumes on paper IMO.

HARRY GREB: (all wins)

Gene Tunney
Mickey Walker
Tommy Gibbons
Tommy Loughran
Jimmy Slattery

SAM LANGFORD:
Tiger Flowers
Harry Wills
Jeff Clark
Stanley Ketchel
Joe Gans

Be like asking Mayweather to beat Pacquaio, Martinez, Froch & Haye.

Those are great resumes IMO mate.

Marciano?

I know there was relatively little quality opposition at the time, but you can only beat what's put in front of you and he did that 49 times.

Union Cane wrote:Marciano?

I know there was relatively little quality opposition at the time, but you can only beat what's put in front of you and he did that 49 times.

Its a fair point Union, Rocky has his fair share of doubters but considering Joe Louis,Ezzard Charles 2x,Jersey Joe Walcott 2x,Archie Moore are part of his resume I feel its harsh whatever stage you rank his opponents at in their respective careers, I'll say it again and not just because I'm a massive Louis fan, but Marciano's win over him is underrated IMO.

HumanWindmill wrote:I'd say that Harry Greb comes closest to the ideal.

Eighteen world champions, from middle up to heavy, an astonishing win to loss ratio, stopped only twice in 299 fights, ( if we count no decisions, ) and one of these due to a broken arm.

Only man ever to beat Gene Tunney, and many believe that he should have received the decision in their second scrap, also, though Tunney got the nod.

There are a few others, ( Ezzard Charles, for example, ) with a complete ledger, or close to it, but I can't think of a fighter who boasts a better record than Greb.

Just imagine Haye fighting and beating Martinez. Would that add to his legacy? The fact that middleweights were competing effectively against HW shows the level of skills in those days.

Sven Otkke. Unbeaten record and faced everyone*

*that was willing to go to Germany and be shafted by the officials.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I'd say that Harry Greb comes closest to the ideal.

Eighteen world champions, from middle up to heavy, an astonishing win to loss ratio, stopped only twice in 299 fights, ( if we count no decisions, ) and one of these due to a broken arm.

Only man ever to beat Gene Tunney, and many believe that he should have received the decision in their second scrap, also, though Tunney got the nod.

There are a few others, ( Ezzard Charles, for example, ) with a complete ledger, or close to it, but I can't think of a fighter who boasts a better record than Greb.

Just imagine Haye fighting and beating Martinez. Would that add to his legacy? The fact that middleweights were competing effectively against HW shows the level of skills in those days.

Sure, because Tunney couldn't box, right ?

[/quote]

Just imagine Haye fighting and beating Martinez. Would that add to his legacy? The fact that middleweights were competing effectively against HW shows the level of skills in those days.[/quote]

You weren't saying that when you were praising Jones Jnr and Toney

Only second behind Ali for my money ability wise Windy but didn't fight in colour

The fact that middleweights were competing effectively against HW shows the level of skills in those days.
______________________________________________________

Too right perish the thought that Greb, Langford and Fitz might just have been quite good

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

Just imagine Haye fighting and beating Martinez. Would that add to his legacy? The fact that middleweights were competing effectively against HW shows the level of skills in those days.[/quote]

You weren't saying that when you were praising Jones Jnr and Toney[/quote]

John Ruiz was a joke of a champion. A HW in name only. I haven't once praised Toney as a HW. I mainly praise his choice of words during a fight build up.

I'll add though that RJJ would have beaten most of those names there.

rowley wrote:The fact that middleweights were competing effectively against HW shows the level of skills in those days.
______________________________________________________

Too right perish the thought that Greb, Langford and Fitz might just have been quite good

Or the HW that bad.

Nice article, I'd agree that along with Robinson, Greb and Langford have strong claims, but there are one or two who should be considered.

I think Barney Ross' record is incredible, to be frank. The Lightweight scene (and to a lesser degree, the Welterweight scene) of the early to mid thirties is the strongest divisions at any single time in boxing history, for me, and in a time when those outstanding fighters from it were crossing swords very regularly, Ross' record is a real model of consistency.

He was beaten by Armstrong, but him aside he had the edge over all the other true greates he faced in that era, going 2-1 against McLarnin, 3-0 against Garcia, 2-0 against Canzoneri, 2-0 against Manfredo, 1-0-1 with Frankie Klick and 2-0 with Bobby Pacho.

Benny Leonard, perhaps, is the closest that anyone else can come to matching Greb or Robinson when it comes to having the best record in professional boxing. Untouchable at Lightweight for the best part of a decade (should have added the Welterweight title, but that's another story), fought just about every single worthwhile opponent that was available to him, and usually proved too good for them, even if some did come via 'Newspaper Decision'; Freddie Welsh, Lew Tendler, Rocky Kansas, Richie Mitchell, Johnny Kilbane, Ted 'Kid' Lewis, Charlie White, Johnny Dundee, Jack Britton and plenty others all met in the ring, with him coming out on top much more often than not.

azania wrote:I'll add though that RJJ would have beaten most of those names there.

Which names ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I'd say that Harry Greb comes closest to the ideal.

Eighteen world champions, from middle up to heavy, an astonishing win to loss ratio, stopped only twice in 299 fights, ( if we count no decisions, ) and one of these due to a broken arm.

Only man ever to beat Gene Tunney, and many believe that he should have received the decision in their second scrap, also, though Tunney got the nod.

There are a few others, ( Ezzard Charles, for example, ) with a complete ledger, or close to it, but I can't think of a fighter who boasts a better record than Greb.

Just imagine Haye fighting and beating Martinez. Would that add to his legacy? The fact that middleweights were competing effectively against HW shows the level of skills in those days.

Sure, because Tunney couldn't box, right ?

He could. He was good....for his time.

azania wrote:I'll add though that RJJ would have beaten most of those names there.

Who exactly ??

Considering you have no footage evidence of the names, I can only presume you're going to use the records, which to that conclusion would mean Fitz,Langford & Greb conclusively trump Jones Jnr by 10 weeks of daylight.

I see Azania is doing his best to ruin another good thread with his 'old versus new' debate yet again. Great.

Windy and Jimy

RJJ for my money had more skills that all the names listed above. Too fast and too dynamic for the lot of them.

SLAYER - Reign in Blood

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I'd say that Harry Greb comes closest to the ideal.

Eighteen world champions, from middle up to heavy, an astonishing win to loss ratio, stopped only twice in 299 fights, ( if we count no decisions, ) and one of these due to a broken arm.

Only man ever to beat Gene Tunney, and many believe that he should have received the decision in their second scrap, also, though Tunney got the nod.

There are a few others, ( Ezzard Charles, for example, ) with a complete ledger, or close to it, but I can't think of a fighter who boasts a better record than Greb.

Just imagine Haye fighting and beating Martinez. Would that add to his legacy? The fact that middleweights were competing effectively against HW shows the level of skills in those days.

Sure, because Tunney couldn't box, right ?

He could. He was good....for his time.

Well, his ' time ' was captured on film, and anybody with an open mind and without prejudice can see that Tunney was a superb boxer ; fast, accurate, tough as nails and with good stamina.

In short, a true ALL TIME great.

Az for a bloke who claims not to want to have the old timers vs modern debate over and over again, you seem intent on bringing it up ad nauseum.

azania wrote:Windy and Jimy

RJJ for my money had more skills that all the names listed above. Too fast and too dynamic for the lot of them.

How well do you know the others ?

RJJ and Tunney being debated on the same thread, where's Coxy when you need him

azania wrote:Windy and Jimy

RJJ for my money had more skills that all the names listed above. Too fast and too dynamic for the lot of them.

You haven't seen them mate, plus what rules are you going to allow them to fight Jones Jnr at. Put Roy in with Fitz of his time, small gloves etc I'd have no doubt Jones Jnr would be threw around like a rag doll.

Its a pretty lame analysis if you ask me you're adopting.

DAVE667 wrote:SLAYER - Reign in Blood

Never been a fan. Now, 'Master of Puppets'...THERE's a damn fine record.

What you are forgetting, az, is that many fighters, trainers, journalists, etc., who were around in Tunney's day - for example - lived to see the moderns, too, and STILL regarded the old masters as great fighters.

I'd say that their experience gives them the edge in judgement, wouldn't you ?

HumanWindmill wrote:What you are forgetting, az, is that many fighters, trainers, journalists, etc., who were around in Tunney's day - for example - lived to see the moderns, too, and STILL regarded the old masters as great fighters.

I'd say that their experience gives them the edge in judgement, wouldn't you ?

Windy we all know by now that boxing didn't evolve until a young Cassius Clay put on his gloves.

HumanWindmill wrote:What you are forgetting, az, is that many fighters, trainers, journalists, etc., who were around in Tunney's day - for example - lived to see the moderns, too, and STILL regarded the old masters as great fighters.

I'd say that their experience gives them the edge in judgement, wouldn't you ?

Probably senile by the time they said such things though...

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:What you are forgetting, az, is that many fighters, trainers, journalists, etc., who were around in Tunney's day - for example - lived to see the moderns, too, and STILL regarded the old masters as great fighters.

I'd say that their experience gives them the edge in judgement, wouldn't you ?

Windy we all know by now that boxing didn't evolve until a young Cassius Clay put on his gloves.

Nonsense Jimmy boxing didn't evolve until he was filmed in colour, try and keep up

I'm going to back out of this now as I dont want to sound repetitive (for a change). But it was only in that era could small guys compete effectively with HW. In today's game it would be paughed at. As for RJJ, he fought an utter bum in Ruiz. Granted RJJ would have given any heavy champ a decent argument due to his style, but that would have lasted no more than 3 rounds as the heavy punches took their toll.

Windy - its called nostalgia. Even if someone comes in better than Ali and Duran combined, I would still argue the case for Ali.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:What you are forgetting, az, is that many fighters, trainers, journalists, etc., who were around in Tunney's day - for example - lived to see the moderns, too, and STILL regarded the old masters as great fighters.

I'd say that their experience gives them the edge in judgement, wouldn't you ?

Windy we all know by now that boxing didn't evolve until a young Cassius Clay put on his gloves.

Right, Jimmy.

But, ehm, Time was moving until then, which means that anybody fighting before 9 : 57pm on 23rd. April 1956 was rubbish, but Time has stood still since 1964 when Ali beat Liston ?

Why, it's so simple ! Why didn't I understand before ?

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost but now I'm found
Was blind, but now I see.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

azania wrote:Windy and Jimy

RJJ for my money had more skills that all the names listed above. Too fast and too dynamic for the lot of them.

You haven't seen them mate, plus what rules are you going to allow them to fight Jones Jnr at. Put Roy in with Fitz of his time, small gloves etc I'd have no doubt Jones Jnr would be threw around like a rag doll.

Its a pretty lame analysis if you ask me you're adopting.

Just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. I have seen footages of that era or as close as dammit. They were slow, ponderous and gave advanced warning when throwing a punch. Yes skilled for their time though I'll accept. But no comparison to anything today. Its almost a new sport.

azania wrote:Windy - its called nostalgia. Even if someone comes in better than Ali and Duran combined, I would still argue the case for Ali.

Sure it is, az.

Roberto Duran asked Ray Arcel, ( who had trained Benny Leonard in the twenties, ) to train him in the seventies because he was gripped by ' nostalgia.'

Sure he did.

rowley wrote:

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:What you are forgetting, az, is that many fighters, trainers, journalists, etc., who were around in Tunney's day - for example - lived to see the moderns, too, and STILL regarded the old masters as great fighters.

I'd say that their experience gives them the edge in judgement, wouldn't you ?

Windy we all know by now that boxing didn't evolve until a young Cassius Clay put on his gloves.

Nonsense Jimmy boxing didn't evolve until he was filmed in colour, try and keep up

Ha cheers Jeff, I thought it was those fancy protein shakes and modern nutritionists.

And the fact the 100metre record has been broken

DAVE667 wrote:SLAYER - Reign in Blood

That is a great song, not as good as Blood Red which took me 3 long weeks to master

azania wrote:

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

azania wrote:Windy and Jimy

RJJ for my money had more skills that all the names listed above. Too fast and too dynamic for the lot of them.

You haven't seen them mate, plus what rules are you going to allow them to fight Jones Jnr at. Put Roy in with Fitz of his time, small gloves etc I'd have no doubt Jones Jnr would be threw around like a rag doll.

Its a pretty lame analysis if you ask me you're adopting.

Just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. I have seen footages of that era or as close as dammit. They were slow, ponderous and gave advanced warning when throwing a punch. Yes skilled for their time though I'll accept. But no comparison to anything today. Its almost a new sport.

Of course they were !

Do you have any idea of camera technology ? and how many frames a second those camera were working at !

Do you think Charlie Chaplin really walked like that ??

imperialghosty wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:SLAYER - Reign in Blood

That is a great song, not as good as Blood Red which took me 3 long weeks to master

Three weeks ?

Never worth it, Ghosty. After three weeks, with modern nutrition and training methods, the song was rubbish.

What struck me was that despite the fact i've had an extra 20 years of evolution on Kerry King (slayer guitarist) I couldn't physically get my fingers to move quick enough to play it. Surely with modern nutrition, training methods and evolution I should be able to play it far quicker than the ponderous guitarists of the 80's.

Do you have any idea of camera technology ? and how many frames a second those camera were working at !

Do you think Charlie Chaplin really walked like that ??
________________________________________________________

Excellent point Jimmy, remember watching the series Paul Merton did on silent comedians such as Harold Lloyd and Buser Keaton and he showed some footage as it was originally shot and it looked ridiculous, he then showed the same footage that had been restored and fetched to normal speed and pacing, to say the difference was noticable understates things by some degree.

Footage is obviously useful but without context it is more misleading than instructive.

Guys, are we not bored of proving this fanciful theory wrong yet?

There was a boxer in the 80's called Prime Mike Tyson. Wasn't his record perfect?

I was going to get myself down to a gym this week and learn the basics. Do you think I should wait a couple of weeks and evolve a bit first?

Goes without say Sean, to be honest think most now try and leave PRIME Mike Tyson out of these debates because to compare mere mortals to him isn't really fair

Footage is obviously useful but without context it is more misleading than instructive.
_____________________________

Thanks Jeff, yeah very true, as you know we've seen the grainy footage round 2 merges in with round 11 its impossible to judge a fighter on the little footage.

However we can record in High definition and 3d nowadays must obviously mean camera tech has come on leaps and bounds the same must apply to boxing.

Joey, to be honest as long as you eat a couple of protein bars and do some weight training you'll be better than Henry Armstrong within a week without waiting

Jimmy Adam Pollack goes through this whole subject in detail in one of his books and he outlines so many reasons the footage of the real old timers does more harm than good it is unreal, as you rightly say rounds were often merged. Cameras were hand wound so speed was variable and inconsistent, it was also not uncommon for film to decay to such a degree fairly quickly that the fighters would meet up and re-enact the missing action, so in many cases you can't even be sure your watching the original fight.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

azania wrote:

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

azania wrote:Windy and Jimy

RJJ for my money had more skills that all the names listed above. Too fast and too dynamic for the lot of them.

You haven't seen them mate, plus what rules are you going to allow them to fight Jones Jnr at. Put Roy in with Fitz of his time, small gloves etc I'd have no doubt Jones Jnr would be threw around like a rag doll.

Its a pretty lame analysis if you ask me you're adopting.

Just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. I have seen footages of that era or as close as dammit. They were slow, ponderous and gave advanced warning when throwing a punch. Yes skilled for their time though I'll accept. But no comparison to anything today. Its almost a new sport.

Of course they were !

Do you have any idea of camera technology ? and how many frames a second those camera were working at !

Do you think Charlie Chaplin really walked like that ??

He didn't?

So its camera technology that made them chicken their hand like some pub fighter waiting for the most opportune moment to throw a punch? They were good for their time as I maintain. Styles changed. Tunney if I recall, changed styles and was considered almost gay because he boxed rather than slug. Boxers of today would make them look stupid imo.