606v2 Greatest fighters of all time, Results !

First topic message reminder :

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

Don't have the issue at hand, Ghosty, but I imagine you'll be able to find it somewhere online. Off the top of my head, I remember Charles languishing somewhere around the twenty-five mark, there being a huge bias towards career Heavyweights (with eleven of them featuring in the top forty, I think) and then some terribly off-base placings of certain fighters without much reason.

I think they had Floyd at forty-odd, in fact, which I think was incredibly harsh on him. I think right now Floyd would be something like fourtheenth for me, a little off my top ten but certainly in the mix with the likes of Jofre, Ross etc.

He's made it a little difficult for himself to go any higher right now, as he's left it so long with regards to Pacquiao that the fight has lost much of its relevance. That said, if it happens in 2013 (on the condition that Pacquiao looks good in winning a rematch with Bradley) and Mayweather wins it, he'll be right on the cusp of the ten, I'd think.

Not sure who should make way for any of the names you've mentioned Gordy especially hagler, hearns, Tyson, Marciano, lewis or Frazier. They simply aren't top ten material with only hearns and hagler having a shot at top twenty.

Hearns was a chin away from Top 10 GOAT, pity, he was one of my favourite ever boxers.

And Gordy, Duran is there more for his exploits at LW and maybe WW than the middle-weights.

88Chris05 wrote:Don't have the issue at hand, Ghosty, but I imagine you'll be able to find it somewhere online. Off the top of my head, I remember Charles languishing somewhere around the twenty-five mark, there being a huge bias towards career Heavyweights (with eleven of them featuring in the top forty, I think) and then some terribly off-base placings of certain fighters without much reason.

I think they had Floyd at forty-odd, in fact, which I think was incredibly harsh on him. I think right now Floyd would be something like fourtheenth for me, a little off my top ten but certainly in the mix with the likes of Jofre, Ross etc.

He's made it a little difficult for himself to go any higher right now, as he's left it so long with regards to Pacquiao that the fight has lost much of its relevance. That said, if it happens in 2013 (on the condition that Pacquiao looks good in winning a rematch with Bradley) and Mayweather wins it, he'll be right on the cusp of the ten, I'd think.

You have said nothing Chris of Fitzsimmons in the mid 60's, coffee well and truly spluttered all over the place at that one

Gordy wrote:

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.

Take a look at the gulf in quality that Joe Louis had to fight in order to become a Heavyweight great and then compare it to the opposition someone such as Carlos Monzon squared off against to secure a place as a Middleweight legend, Gordy, and then try to say with a straight face that all of those Heavyweights should be in a top ten.

The money men? Yes, absolutely. But the 'kingpins' of boxing? In terms of great fighters produced, depth of the proverbial talent pool etc, the Heavyweights are kings north of 175 lb but nothing more.

In fact, the likes of Foreman and Marciano, in terms of big-name opponents and title fights, actually had only very short tenures at the top of the sport for two men considered 'greats' of their profession. Jimmy McLarnin came nowhere near to making this list; neither Foreman or Marciano's records will be gaining any kind of parity with his, I can assure you!

During his middleweight reign monzon faced one man not rated in the ring magazines top ten and that was the great welterweight champion Jose napoles. Tell which other fighter can lay claim to well and truly clearing out his division. Not like benvenuti, griffiths, Moyer, napoles and valdes were nobodies.

In all fairness Ghosty Foreman beat Jose Roman and Alex Shultz

I forgot about those luminaries jeff, I like Marciano but his reign really doesn't come close to getting him near a top thirty spot anyway.

I find it difficult to rank any fully-fledged Heavyweights outside of Ali and Louis in a top thirty, perhaps even a top forty.

Ali, I think, is a nailed-on top tenner, but Louis is a little more tricky. I can see the case for him missing out on a top twenty or twenty-five altogether, but at the same time I wouldn't object to anyone who had him inside a top ten, either. His opposition (particularly before winning the title) is actually far better than the common man thinks, but still of a lower rank than at least fifteen to twenty men from across the weights. But his consistency was outstanding, his skill set incredible (I don't think there's been a better Heavyweight technically since, with Holmes and Tyson perhaps the closest ones in that regard) and, I suspect, that he'd have handily dealt with the sterner challenges had they been around at the time.

I think on the cusp of a top twenty, but probably a little outside it, might be fairest for Louis, but I'm always willing to hear arguments to the contrary, be it for better or worse positions.

Chris, do you have Ali#1 and Louis#2 in your top 10 HW list then?

I certainly do, TH. Do you plump for a different duo at the top?

Nope, I sit on the fence and pair them #1 (probably as much to do with my depth of boxing knowledge [or lack thereof] as for general indecision).

Was just curious as I sometimes feel people have Louis#1 and Ali#2 at HW but then place Ali higher in ATG lists.

Well I'm firmly in the camp which supports Ali as the greatest Heavyweight of the lot, mate, though there are numerous people whose opinions I respect a hell of a lot who plump for Louis.

I don't recall seeing anyone placing one of them higher at Heavyweight and then giving the other man the edge in an overall list spanning all divisions, mind you - I'd be sure to politely question them on it if I did, as there's no way it can be justified in my mind!

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

This is the Boxing News list, for anyone who wants to compare and contrast.

Spoiler:

Some shockers there, which I'm sure a lot of us would like to get our teeth in to...

Cheers Chris like you I bought the book. One of my bug bears but for the life of me I struggle to understand why so many of these lists seem to favour heavyweights, I realise the division captures the imagination but these lists are not put forward by star struck teenagers they are put together by experts who should be able to be objective.

Take Marciano for instance, now when it comes to the Rock I am far from Az, but do wins over Charles, Moore and Walcott really justify him being 19 places above Mclarnin with his wins over Mandell, Ross, Petrolle, Ambers and Corbett amongst others.

rowley wrote:Cheers Chris like you I bought the book. One of my bug bears but for the life of me I struggle to understand why so many of these lists seem to favour heavyweights, I realise the division captures the imagination but these lists are not put forward by star struck teenagers they are put together by experts who should be able to be objective.

Take Marciano for instance, now when it comes to the Rock I am far from Az, but do wins over Charles, Moore and Walcott really justify him being 19 places above Mclarnin with his wins over Mandell, Ross, Petrolle, Ambers and Corbett amongst others.

Theo?

Given your views on Rocky's opposition Az I am sure you would consider that a step up in class.

To be brutally honest, I think a number eight ranking is wildy generous to Wilde. Great, great fighter, of course, who'd probably have enjoyed a Lopez-esque dominance of Strawweight (as well as Light-Fly and Fly) had the division existed in his day, but he simply can't be anywhere near that high, for me.

[quote="Gordy"]

paulscholes wrote:

To be honest there is so much strange with the list I dont know where to begin.

Yeah i just don't get how we could get it so wrong..... Wheres Lennox Lewis for crying out loud?

Gordy wrote:

To be honest there is so much strange with the list I dont know where to begin.

Yeah i just don't get how we could get it so wrong..... Wheres Lennox Lewis for crying out loud?

Just noticed they have got Johnson at 12!!

I'm off for a lie down.

Indeed, Jeff, Johson belongs - along with Wilde, Ketchel, Holyfield, Lynch, La Motta, Cervantes, Carpentier (!), Wills (!!!) and a host of other Heavyweights - in the 'too high' bracket, for sure.

Hopkins at 77, with Ruby Robert only a few spots higher? Rough justice indeed.

Hopkins is top 25 easily, his light heavyweight exploits lift him above monzon and hagler overall despite being lower at middleweight. Fitzsimmons is a certainty for top ten, he's among 7/8 who's inclusion is beyond doubt.

Oh and look Wolgast is at 94, only me whos heard of him apparently.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hopkins is top 25 easily, his light heavyweight exploits lift him above monzon and hagler overall despite being lower at middleweight. Fitzsimmons is a certainty for top ten, he's among 7/8 who's inclusion is beyond doubt.

Well as we've both said, Hopkins should definitely be much, much higher. Can't say I'd have him troubling Monzon, mind you. Wouldn't object to anyone edging him ahead of Hagler, though I can't quite make up my mind on that one for definite just yet! But either way, Hopkins deserves serious consideration for a top thirty spot.

Thanks for posting that list Chris, I don't like to pull anyone's list apart as we know it's subjective. But Ezzard Charles at 26 come on that's ridiculous, it's strange because they've got Archie Moore at 10, Ezzard as we know had Archie's number, had a better overall record at light heavy and captured the heavyweight crown, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

As well as others as Chris,Ghosty and Jeff pointed out need addressing, how about Hagler ? I grew up watching Marvin and I'm his biggest fanbut he seems to enjoy favourable ratings IMO,

Marciano above Chavez, I'm ready to blow my fuse! Maybes the boxing fraternity should look at our list as more reliable and at least a little more sensible.

Cheers Rodders

In regards to Halger and Hopkins it's a bit of a no brainer for me Chris to have BHOP the higher of the two.

A record number of defences at middleweight with his wins over De La Hoya and Trinidad more than matching Haglers two over Duran and Hearns whilst his losses to Taylor aren't as damaging as losing to a semi retired Ray Leonard.

Longevity is with Hopkins all day long, he's been an elite level fighter for over 20 years which blows Hagler out of the water.

His exploits at light heavyweight although slightly over rated can only help his cause considering his age when he made the jump; Pavlik, Pascal, Tarver and Wright only go to improve his rating while losing to Calzaghe and Dawson doesn't really damage it.

The tendency to inflate the ratings of the heavyweights is ludicrous, i'm a fair fan of Marciano but considering he's only a bottom end top tenner in a notoriously weak heavyweight division doesn't lead me to think he deserves a particularly high rating overall. He may be pushing for a top 50 spot but any higher than that is too high.

To be higher than Mclarnin for instance is a travesty, i'd have babyface troubling the top twenty, when you disect his record in some detail you realise what a great fighter he actually was. Starting out as a flyweight he had within 25 fights taken on Pal Moore, Villa and and LaBarba scoring wins over the aforementioned Villa and LaBarba. LaBarba was a relative novice in the pro ranks but had a big reputation having secured olympic gold, within a few fights of losing to McLarnin he himself beat the great Genaro for the flyweight crown. His win over Villa looks good on paper but what condition he was in can only be imagined as he soon died of difficulties following surgery.

Taking that into account a flyweight moving up to beat men like Canzoneri, Ross, Ambers, Thompson, Corbett, Mandell, Singer and a soon to retire Leonard blows Pacquiaos recent achievements out the water. He did it all with a damaging but largely non devastating punch although some of his opponents may disagree. In Mclarnin you're talking of a boxer who deserves strong consideration for the top ten not languishing down at 40.