606v2 Greatest fighters of all time, Results !

Morning all

As few will remember we ran a thread on the back of boxing news greatest fighters of all time, to find out who we at 606v2 thought were the best 10 fighters to date, the results were based on a points system for instance the no 1 spot fighter voted got 10 pts, 2nd 9pts etc. Votes can be seen on the thread below

https://www.606v2.com/t30507-606v2-10-greatest-fighters-of-all-time

So this is how the votes panned out and 606v2 greatest fighters of all time.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson 156 pts
2. Henry Armstrong 130 pts
3. Harry Greb 112 pts
4. Muhammad Ali 107 pts
5. Ezzard Charles 73 pts
6. Sam Langford 49 pts
7. Bob Fitzsimmons 43 pts
8. Roberto Duran 34 pts
9. Benny Leonard 33 pts
10 Sugar Ray Leonard 33 pts

The two Leonard's actually tied, but Benny gets the 9th spot due to having more overall votes in the top 10, although Ray was actually voted as the GOAT in one members list.

Thanks for participating, maybes run this again in the last quarter of the year and see if our results change at all.

Many thanks

Rodders

Cheers Rodders, think I am right in saying those are the exact ten names I had in my top ten, albeit in a different order so not too many complaints from me.

No worries, thanks Jeff.

Yeah good going mate it's actually a very good list IMO, seems to have a good balance.

Cheers

Rodders

People mark Ali down just to be snobbish and show off their supposed boxing knowledge. Kind of like the chattering classes Guardian readers at dinner parties just before the canopes are served.

azania wrote:People mark Ali down just to be snobbish and show off their supposed boxing knowledge. Kind of like the chattering classes Guardian readers at dinner parties just before the canopes are served.

Or maybe they simply actually rate the guys they put above him more...

For the record I had Ali at 2.

I agree Az because perish the thought that anyone on a boxing forum could possess actual boxing knowledge and have decided on the back of that knowledge that Ali does not deserve to be number one.

Perish the thought indeed. FYI I had his 3rd behind the 2 Sugars. But Greb ahead of Ali? Ridiculous. Armstrong is a contentious one also. Yes he won at 3 weights at the same time. Should be 4. Would have been 7 had there been Jnr divisions. But ahead of Ali? Not for me. We are talking about P4P and not who has the better eecord, ie if they were at the same weight, who would win.

Now looking at that list, if all boxers were at the same weight, in a league, who would finish on top? I reckon SRL, then SRR, then Ali.

Not like 4 is an affront to his greatness. He said himself he's #2 behind SRR, therefore, given the ego of the man, two places lower doesn't seem unreasonable - especially when one of those is taken by a legend like Homicide Hank.

List looks good to me, can't find much to argue with.

For what it is worth the IBRO, whose membership have a cumulative knowledge of the sport we could only dream of have Ali at 4, funnily enough behind the three guys we have him behind

azania wrote:Perish the thought indeed. FYI I had his 3rd behind the 2 Sugars. But Greb ahead of Ali? Ridiculous. Armstrong is a contentious one also. Yes he won at 3 weights at the same time. Should be 4. Would have been 7 had there been Jnr divisions. But ahead of Ali? Not for me. We are talking about P4P and not who has the better eecord, ie if they were at the same weight, who would win.

Now looking at that list, if all boxers were at the same weight, in a league, who would finish on top? I reckon SRL, then SRR, then Ali.

Where does it say we are talking about p4p or shrinking the fighters to the same weight? (a concept I always think is ridiculous) From what I can see Rodney asked for the greatest fighters of all time. Surely that includes their records and achievements as well as their actual skill etc?

azania wrote:Perish the thought indeed. FYI I had his 3rd behind the 2 Sugars. But Greb ahead of Ali? Ridiculous. Armstrong is a contentious one also. Yes he won at 3 weights at the same time. Should be 4. Would have been 7 had there been Jnr divisions. But ahead of Ali? Not for me. We are talking about P4P and not who has the better eecord, ie if they were at the same weight, who would win.

Now looking at that list, if all boxers were at the same weight, in a league, who would finish on top? I reckon SRL, then SRR, then Ali.

If that's the way you've created your list then that's fine, but if Ali had known problems each time he met Frazier a known pressure fighter, how are you convinced he would deal with Armstrong a much cleverer all round better pressure fighter than smokin Joe.

As for Greb we've had this a million times, no footage to be seen, but his record is unbelievable even something Ali would struggle to do.

Cheers

Rodders

Greb beat more hall of fame opposition than any other fighter while Armstrong is the only man to hold 3 simultaneous world titles (should have been 4).

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:Perish the thought indeed. FYI I had his 3rd behind the 2 Sugars. But Greb ahead of Ali? Ridiculous. Armstrong is a contentious one also. Yes he won at 3 weights at the same time. Should be 4. Would have been 7 had there been Jnr divisions. But ahead of Ali? Not for me. We are talking about P4P and not who has the better eecord, ie if they were at the same weight, who would win.

Now looking at that list, if all boxers were at the same weight, in a league, who would finish on top? I reckon SRL, then SRR, then Ali.

If that's the way you've created your list then that's fine, but if Ali had known problems each time he met Frazier a known pressure fighter, how are you convinced he would deal with Armstrong a much cleverer all round better pressure fighter than smokin Joe.

As for Greb we've had this a million times, no footage to be seen, but his record is unbelievable even something Ali would struggle to do.

Cheers

Rodders

That's a good point. But I tend to believe the 60s version of Ali would not had gone life and death with Frazier. And that type of fighter would have handled Armstrong.

Ghosty, I am aware of their achievements. If this was based on records alone then it wouldn't be an issue.

Imagine they were all the same size in a Super 10 tournament. Who would finish on top etc.

That's not the point of this list but I'd give Armstrong a very good chance against Ali, as well as the likes of Duran, charles, Tunney and the Leonard's, his talent was very good for a heavyweight but in absolute sense was lesser than the smaller men.

As paperbag has already said the list asked for greatest not pound for pound, which lets face it is a ridiculous concept virtually impossible to speculate on with any degree of accuracy. Ali has a lot of assets but shrink him to middle and all of a sudden his speed ain't all that, likewise you make Greb 200lb and he ain't maintaining his output.

It depends on your definition of "greatest". The greatest boxer even is without doubt Ali in terms of his impact, influence and world wide appeal. Pretty skillful also.

In my opinion this list is about who has the best record. But that is a moot point. What I am getting at is, as I mentioned above, in a Super 10 league, how will they fare against one another, assuming they all weighed the same. Take into account their relative skill-sets etc.

The P4P was drawn up to give SRR the credit he deserved. So it is not such a ridiculous concept.

azania wrote:The P4P was drawn up to give SRR the credit he deserved. So it is not such a ridiculous concept.

Urban myth and common misconception.

The phrase was first coined by US newspapermen with regard to lightweight champion Benny Leonard, ‘The Ghetto Wizard’.

It doesn't work compiling a list because who beats who doesn't work in a ladder, too much is dependent on style. 2 beats 5 doesn't mean 1 beats five because he beats 2.

That could also be a misconception union as some sources say it was in fact said about mclarnin.

Canadians don't count...

Eder Jofre is the one glaring omisison. Swap Fitzsimmons out for Jofre and bump Duran up a couple of places and the list is just about perfect.

Greb has to be in the top 3, Az. Come on, the man didn't exist and yet he still compiled an incomparable record. Can't ask any more of a figment of our collective imagination.

Fitzsimmons can't be outside the top ten, would possibly swap ray Leonard or Langford for jofre.

I struggly with Fitz, ghosty. I agree that it's almost perverse that he's not in my top 10 but since deciiding that Langford has to be in there, I can't find a place for Bob. At a push - I could omit Benny Leonard but that also seems perverse.

Anyone removes Langford I will ban them.

Fitzsimmons beat the better fighters than Langford, Dempsey, choynski, Corbett, gardner and o'brien are a step above while beyond that sharkey, Ruhlin, maher and creedon are very much comparable to langfords conquests (gans aside).

I am advocating they both stay in Ghosty, I personally tend to favour Sam over Bob because think firstly the physical disadvantages he tended to give up were greater than Bob, have to remember Sam was not over 5ft 7 and whilst we were not in the era of the behemoth heavy by the time he was fighting guys like Jeannette were a good old size. Also prefer Sam's activity and the sheer frequency with which he beat guys who so outweighed him. Would also add there are some pretty decent names on Sam's ledger even if we put the heavies to one side, held his own with Walcott, pushed Ketchel all the way when holding plenty in reserve and gave Blackburn some great tussles whilst barely a novice, as all three of those are greats in their respective divisions I am happy to have Sam above Fitz, but to be honest would not argue too greatly if someone saw it different.

For whatever reasons though jeff he didn't beat either Walcott or ketchel, aside from which fitz more than held his own against Jeffries which is a greater achievement. I would have Langford nailed on for top 15 but not neccesarily top ten.

Swings and roundabouts though ghosty because if we're going to say "for whatever reason" we would also have to say Fitz did not beat Sharkey

Aside from THAT loss, fitzsimmons did beat sharkey in the return lest we forget.

azania wrote:It depends on your definition of "greatest". The greatest boxer even is without doubt Ali in terms of his impact, influence and world wide appeal. Pretty skillful also.

In my opinion this list is about who has the best record. But that is a moot point. What I am getting at is, as I mentioned above, in a Super 10 league, how will they fare against one another, assuming they all weighed the same. Take into account their relative skill-sets etc.

The P4P was drawn up to give SRR the credit he deserved. So it is not such a ridiculous concept.

Id have to disagree. I think this idea of shrinking or enlarging fighters to an equal weight is next to impossible to predict and just ceases to even be relevant.

I think pound for pound was more likely intended to just be a measurement of who was the best fighter, ignoring the obvious issue of weight. I dont think it was ever intended to speculate on shrinking or enlarging fighters to equal weight because you are simply changing the whole spectrum of the fighter and their abilities in that case.

Fair enough. Well it still make it interesting to look at their comparitive skill and talk about who would win were they the same size. Styles make fights etc.

With Ali if you shrink him down his speed would be less evident than it were at heavyweight.

I would just find it so insanely difficult to contemplate. Like if made Khosai Galaxy the same size as Lennox Lewis for arguments sake. If Galaxy carried even half his flyweight power to heavyweight then he would be like the incredible hulk. What equal size do you make them? welterweight size? middleweight size?

I think the closest you can probably get to analysing it with getting into overly speculative terittory is to actual look at fighters who did move through many weight classes as case studies. Slightly easier to do in modern times because the disparity in weights are not as big. Hearns for instance or Pacquiao.

I know what you mean Manos - how do you adjust styles to suit the fight? Wlad for instance. Ghosty wouldnt a smaller Ali increase in speed as presumably we'd have to easure the speed of the punch and the speed of his movement by weight and increase it as he got lighter? It boggles the mind, where would you even start

You're then changing the fighter if you start changing attributes which is why the whole Ali would win if they were the same size argument doesn't work.

ShahenshahG wrote:I know what you mean Manos - how do you adjust styles to suit the fight? Wlad for instance. Ghosty wouldnt a smaller Ali increase in speed as presumably we'd have to easure the speed of the punch and the speed of his movement by weight and increase it as he got lighter? It boggles the mind, where would you even start

If I had to go down the route of picking two fighters vastly apart in weight and trying to shrink or enlarge one I would probably try and use averages.

Say for example you took Wlad and wanted to pitch him against Hatton at LWW. Say for example the average LWW is 5'8, weighs 145 on fight night and has an average reach of 70 inches.

I would make Wlad a 5'10 LWW, weighs 150 on fight night and has a 74 inch reach. That shoud try and replicate the kind of style he uses with reach, heigh and jab. And would Hatton be able to beat him in those circumstances?

Still ridiculously far fetched but I think if you go down the route of taking away all the attributes Wlad has and giving him short arms, no height etc then you basically cease to have anything like the fighter you started with.

At least if you take someone like Hearns you can actually map what they are like because he did go from weighing 147 all the way up to 190 odd. There are issues with "natural" weight classes but its as close to viewing shrinking or enlarging a fighter as you can get I think. Hearns natural weight class clearly changed as he got older. He would never have made welterweight beyond his late 20s.

I think it's a very, very sound list we've created. Bearing in mind that I change my mind on such issues almost constantly, if asked today I might edge Ray higher than Benny in the battle of the Leonards and then slide Benny just out of the top ten by the smallest of margins to make way for Whitaker, but that'd be splitting hairs, I think!

Thanks for doing this, Rodders.

Interestingly when I did this many months ago the results came out as

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Charles
6. Langford
7= Fitzsimmons
7= Jofre
9. Duran
10. B Leonard

So almost identical with Jofre dropping out altogether and Ray Leonard taking his place at number ten. So when we always say our opinions change from day to day, it doesn't change all that much, in hindsight think I omitted Jofre when I didn't mean to.

though I see Rocky Marciano in the top 10

paulscholes wrote:though I see Rocky Marciano in the top 10

Do you want to take this one, Az?

88Chris05 wrote:

paulscholes wrote:though I see Rocky Marciano in the top 10

Do you want to take this one, Az?

He had Ezzard Charles's number

Not really a fair reflection on Charles who was still very able but not at his sparkling best not to mention being a far better 175lber than heavyweight.

Whatever the weather, I think we can all agree that our list is a damn sight more reasonable, realistic and accurate than Boxing News' offering was. A tenner served up in good faith, and then they serve up that dross in return!

What was the boxing news list?

On a Seperate note I'd have mayweather one very good win away from the top ten.

paulscholes wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

paulscholes wrote:though I see Rocky Marciano in the top 10

Do you want to take this one, Az?

He had Ezzard Charles's number

It's a running joke with Az, Paul, don't worry about it!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What was the boxing news list?

On a Seperate note I'd have mayweather one very good win away from the top ten.

What win would that be tho? Pac, or has that shipped sailed now as Pac looks a spent force? Alvarez?

Pacquiao would still be a very good win not neccesarily a great one any more but another win at light middle against an Alvarez or Lara type would do it.

Beating Alvarez would make him the fully fledged champion in four different weights, no mean feat. His opposition could have been better at times but it's still very very good.

paulscholes wrote:though I see Rocky Marciano in the top 10

Correct. Marciano is the only heavyweight champion to go unbeaten. To be honest there is so much strange with the list I dont know where to begin. Ali at 4? The Greatest! He has simply got to be at number 1 or 2 with only Sugar Ray Robinson possibly being better (Ali said so himself).

Seems incredible that only one of the great heavyweights are on the list. No Foreman? Marciano? Frazier? Lewis? Tyson?. Heavyweights have always been the kingpins of boxing. Maybe the current era of heavyweights being so bad has made people forget all the great ones!

Sugar Ray Leonard and Duran on the list, no complaints there but where is Hagler or Hearns both of who beat Duran? Hagler also beat Leonard when they fought but boxing politics robbed him of the result so he should be higher on the list than Leonard.