100 greatest pound for pound boxers

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/557861-the-100-greatest-pound-for-pound-boxers-of-all-time#/articles/557861-the-100-greatest-pound-for-pound-boxers-of-all-time/page/101

Came across this link today showing the top 100 p4p boxers, if you have a bit of time to go through any of these it would be good to see your thoughts.

Some great boxers in here and id like to see if you agree on the top 10.

It was a good read for me and i got some good info i never knew, like willie pep fought 229 fights and completed a stagerring 1,956 proffesional rounds!

As i say if you ahve a bit of time to look through this it would be good to hear your thoughts on the list.

My immediate reaction would be that the names are the right ones, ( in my opinion, of course, ) but that the order has some anomalies. Greb too low, for example, and Eder Jofre CRIMINALLY low.

Interesting, nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.

Cracking list bit surprised Calzaghes in it though also think B-Hop should be a bit higher was and still is one of the best fighters in the world.Totally agree with Sugar Ray being number 1 aswell.

I was abit suprised to see Roberto Duran feature so highly, from what ive seen personaly i would have the likes of Dempsey & Greb above him after recently watching some new DVDs of their fights and genraly how people speak of them.

This list varies betweent being very good at times, and absolutely shocking at others. Like a lot of offerings, I think it's a wee bit too biased towards the Heavyweights; as highly as I rate Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey, they simply aren't anywhere near being top ten pound for pound fighters, at least not in my eyes. I think their 'big' reputations help the Heavyweights, somewhat.

A few rankings really do bug me - Foreman (24), Cerdan (26), La Motta (36), Frazier (39), Conn (48) and Schmeling (95) all seem far too high to me, whereas the likes of Greb (11), Charles (23), Jofre (30), Whitaker (41), Arguello (45), Burley (56), 'Barbados' Walcott (70), Carlos Ortiz (76), Fitzsimmons (79) and Mike Spinks (82) are, for my money, shockingly low.

The worst omissions? Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall and Lou Ambers, in my opinion. I'd have the three of them in or around the low end of a top fifty personally, but they're nowhere to be seen in this list. Other notable names missing are Gibbons, Elorde, Steele, Fullmer, Ramey, Ryan, Rosenbloom, Harold Johnson and Britton, who'd all probably make my top hundred.

That said, it's all about opinions and you're never going to be able to please everyone with something so subjective.

Greb should be above Duran for sure, his record speaks for itself even if we have no footage of him but I can't envisage a way Dempsey would be higher and for me Duran is a nailed on top ten guy.

Wins over Kobayashi, Marcel, Buchanan, De Jesus, Palomino, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley and Castro speak for itself as well as all the top contenders at lightweight at the time.

88Chris05 wrote:This list varies betweent being very good at times, and absolutely shocking at others. Like a lot of offerings, I think it's a wee bit too biased towards the Heavyweights; as highly as I rate Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey, they simply aren't anywhere near being top ten pound for pound fighters, at least not in my eyes. I think their 'big' reputations help the Heavyweights, somewhat.

A few rankings really do bug me - Foreman (24), Cerdan (26), La Motta (36), Frazier (39), Conn (48) and Schmeling (95) all seem far too high to me, whereas the likes of Greb (11), Charles (23), Jofre (30), Whitaker (41), Arguello (45), Burley (56), 'Barbados' Walcott (70), Carlos Ortiz (76), Fitzsimmons (79) and Mike Spinks (82) are, for my money, shockingly low.

The worst omissions? Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall and Lou Ambers, in my opinion. I'd have the three of them in or around the low end of a top fifty personally, but they're nowhere to be seen in this list. Other notable names missing are Gibbons, Elorde, Steele, Fullmer, Ramey, Ryan, Rosenbloom, Harold Johnson and Britton, who'd all probably make my top hundred.

That said, it's all about opinions and you're never going to be able to please everyone with something so subjective.

Nice to hear you give Bivins and Marshall a shout Chris, just started learning about these great fighters recently. Will have a look at the list when i get a minute.

As Chris has said the issue with these lists is they all tend to over rate the heavyweights horrifically. I rate Johnson but seriously his title reign at heavy is flawed, wins over an ageing Jeffries and a middle weight Ketchel amongst others are not really befitting a top ten all time fighter, particularly as there were eminently more qualified opponents passed over.

Not sure where that last sentence came from, certainly wasn't me that wrote it.

The Galveston Giant wrote:Not sure where that last sentence came from, certainly wasn't me that wrote it.

I believe that you wrote your post between the start and the end of the ' quoted ' post from Chris, Galveston.

Thanks Windy, certainly confused me a bit.

The Galveston Giant wrote:Thanks Windy, certainly confused me a bit.

You're welcome, mate.

It can be edited, or I could do it for you, if you wish.

That would be great Windy cheers, technology isn't my strongest point but i'm getting better.

The Galveston Giant wrote:That would be great Windy cheers, technology isn't my strongest point but i'm getting better.

Mine neither, mate, but that one I can do, and will straight away.

Excellent, thanks mate.

Pleasure, Galveston.

I'm just on #60. Tyson ahead of Lewis?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm just on #60. Tyson ahead of Lewis?

Not surprising they both only fought at heavyweight - any sane man would rate Tyson ahead of Lewis in the Heavyweight rankings so it stands to reason he rates above Lewis p4p

apart from the ones already mentioned two that jump out at me are fitzsimmons and holyfields placings

The amount of heavies in that list is ridiculous

It is pretet Heavy rich isnt it!

*pretty

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm just on #60. Tyson ahead of Lewis?

Don't start on that one!

A few travesties

Pancho Villa being so low is one

Sanchez another

Would be here all day trying to rearrange the list though

I should imagine that many of you will have seen these, but just for the sake of comparison, The IBRO's top twenty are as follows :

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

2. Harry Greb

3. Henry Armstrong

4. Muhammad Ali (Tie)

4. Joe Louis (Tie)

6. Sam Langford

7. Roberto Duran

8. Benny Leonard

9. Willie Pep

10. Bob Fitzsimmons

11. Joe Gans

12. Ezzard Charles (Tie)

12. Sugar Ray Leonard (Tie)

14. Jimmy Wilde

15. Eder Jofre

16. Mickey Walker

17. Archie Moore

18. Jack Dempsey

19. Jack Johnson

20. Gene Tunney

Just missing the cut: Stanley Ketchel, Barbados Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Ike Williams, George Dixon, Sandy Saddler, Roy Jones Jr., and Larry Holmes.

On the face of things these lists always look shocking and always favour the heavyweights, no top ten should be without R. Leonard, Jofre, Charles, Fitzsimmons or Greb.

The Mighty Atom wrote:On the face of things these lists always look shocking and always favour the heavyweights, no top ten should be without R. Leonard, Jofre, Charles, Fitzsimmons or Greb.

I agree, Ghosty.

This is also interesting.

Historian Monte Cox picks these, ( declining to put them in order, ) as the greatest ten non - heavyweights of all time :

Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson, Eder Jofre, Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard.

I'm can only guess that he's counting Charles and Fitzsimmons among the heavyweights in selecting those, but whether he is or isn't it's a mighty tight squeeze for places. Fabulous fighters, all of them.

Think people tend to forget how dominant Charles was at middleweight and light heavyweight despite never winning either title.

Would probably see Gans, Langford and Benny make way for Charles, Fitzsimmons and Ali with Louis 11th.

Think people tend to forget how dominant Charles was at middleweight and light heavyweight despite never winning either title.


Maybe the people that make the lists, but definitely not the people on this forum

fearlessBamber wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm just on #60. Tyson ahead of Lewis?

Not surprising they both only fought at heavyweight - any sane man would rate Tyson ahead of Lewis in the Heavyweight rankings so it stands to reason he rates above Lewis p4p

What? There must be many insane people around then because I don't see many people sticking Tyson in the top ten heavies whereas Lewis seldom troubles the top five. More longevity, beat better fighters, beat everyone he faced, no blueprint on how to defeat him. I must be outta my mind buddy because it's not even close for me.

I think Lewis troubles the top 5 on the bbc and possibly here.

I dont see how and why Foreman is rated so highly. And its beyond a joke that SR Leonard is not in the top 10. ATGs are stacked in favour of oldies.

fearlessBamber wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm just on #60. Tyson ahead of Lewis?

Not surprising they both only fought at heavyweight - any sane man would rate Tyson ahead of Lewis in the Heavyweight rankings so it stands to reason he rates above Lewis p4p

What?!! On what planet should Tyson be ranked above Lewis on either an all time HW list, or p4p list such as this?

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm just on #60. Tyson ahead of Lewis?

Not surprising they both only fought at heavyweight - any sane man would rate Tyson ahead of Lewis in the Heavyweight rankings so it stands to reason he rates above Lewis p4p

What?!! On what planet should Tyson be ranked above Lewis on either an all time HW list, or p4p list such as this?

Maybe because Tyson was better?

azania wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm just on #60. Tyson ahead of Lewis?

Not surprising they both only fought at heavyweight - any sane man would rate Tyson ahead of Lewis in the Heavyweight rankings so it stands to reason he rates above Lewis p4p

What?!! On what planet should Tyson be ranked above Lewis on either an all time HW list, or p4p list such as this?

Maybe because Tyson was better?

Except he wasn't.

I reckon he was. Miles better in fact. But that's just my opinion.

One you're entitled to. I just really can't understand it.

licence_007 wrote:One you're entitled to. I just really can't understand it.

Why not? Not only was Tyson the better boxer, but imo he would have despatched Lewis relatively easily as Tyson was all wrong for Lewis. Not only that, I would also have picked Bowe to beat Lewis.

azania wrote:

licence_007 wrote:One you're entitled to. I just really can't understand it.

Why not? Not only was Tyson the better boxer, but imo he would have despatched Lewis relatively easily as Tyson was all wrong for Lewis. Not only that, I would also have picked Bowe to beat Lewis.

Namely that Tyson seemed to lose to anyone that showed the audacity to stand up to him. Something I think Lewis would have done. Take the intimidation factor away from Iron Mike and he seemed to crumble. No doubt he was exciting, but nowhere near as good a boxer as Lewis.

licence_007 wrote:

azania wrote:

licence_007 wrote:One you're entitled to. I just really can't understand it.

Why not? Not only was Tyson the better boxer, but imo he would have despatched Lewis relatively easily as Tyson was all wrong for Lewis. Not only that, I would also have picked Bowe to beat Lewis.

Namely that Tyson seemed to lose to anyone that showed the audacity to stand up to him. Something I think Lewis would have done. Take the intimidation factor away from Iron Mike and he seemed to crumble. No doubt he was exciting, but nowhere near as good a boxer as Lewis.

The reason Tyson intimidated opponents was the way he beat them. His losses came after he was mentally broken. Not saying that he would have beaten Holy in his prime (I reckon he would). Lewis had a decent jab and imo relatively poor footwork. To beat Tyson you needed to have a very good jab and excellent footwork, plus the ability to fight inside. Something Lewis could not do well enough. I would give Bowe a better chance of beating Tyson that Lewis. Bowe to me was the biggest waste of talent I have seen.

It is that mental fragility that means for me Tyson can't be ranked above Lewis.

As an aside, I haven't seen much of Bowe (relatively new to watching boxing, serious fan for maybe the last 8 months at most), so any recommendations?

I dont know why people always go on about Tyson losing to anyone who wasnt afraid of him.

He lost once prior to his incarceration proving that, like Lewis, he wasnt invincible and, like Lewis, he could be guilty of taking a fight lighly and underpreparing.

After that he wasnt the same and his problems are pretty well documented. Is it not more likely that several years imprisonment, a failed marriage, numerous psychological problems, failing skills, legal problems lack of mental focus and lack of application in training were far more likely the cause of his decline than simply boxers not being intimidated by him?

I dont think there is world of difference between Tyson and Lewis in terms of ability. Lewis acheived more and deserves to be ranked higher in terms of greatness as acknowledgement. In p4p terms there isnt a great deal in it if you are talking about the 80s version of Tyson and the late 90s version of Lewis. I could entertain a case either way.

licence_007 wrote:It is that mental fragility that means for me Tyson can't be ranked above Lewis.

As an aside, I haven't seen much of Bowe (relatively new to watching boxing, serious fan for maybe the last 8 months at most), so any recommendations?

The Bowe v Holyfield (especially first encounter) is a great trilogy.

I think Bowe v Holyfield 1 when they were both unbeaten is Bowe at his finest. He was very talented (better than Lewis or Tyson for me) but hadnt got the dedication and his career tailed off pretty badly.

licence_007 wrote:It is that mental fragility that means for me Tyson can't be ranked above Lewis.

As an aside, I haven't seen much of Bowe (relatively new to watching boxing, serious fan for maybe the last 8 months at most), so any recommendations?

That mental frailties is an over statement also. People point to the Holy fight as proof. In that fight he snaped after being butted continuously. Bad decision for him. In other fights he lost he took his beating without complaining. In the Douglas fight he hardly trained and under-estimated a man who fought like a man possessed. Tyson was not unbeatable. In the holmes fight, for a few moments, Larry got on his toes and jabbed Tyson's head off. But Lewis did not have the style or the jab to keep a rampaging Tyson at bay.

Look at the Bowe/Holy trilogy. Awesome. And in particular round 10 of their first fight. Welcome to boxing and boxing forums where the talk is almost as painful to read as taking a beating can be.

Hypothetical head2heads have nothing to do with ATG ranking anyway. Who did more with their career? Lewis.

I could well imagine that Audley beats Ali (I don't obviously) but that doesn't mean anything because it never actually happened. You can't rank fighters based on your imagination.

Leonard just wasn't active enough for top tenship for me.

Thanks for the welcome! I've already seen some of the Manny/Floyd debates, and I see where you're coming from with the pain!

I'll check out those fights.

licence_007 wrote:

azania wrote:

licence_007 wrote:One you're entitled to. I just really can't understand it.

Why not? Not only was Tyson the better boxer, but imo he would have despatched Lewis relatively easily as Tyson was all wrong for Lewis. Not only that, I would also have picked Bowe to beat Lewis.

Namely that Tyson seemed to lose to anyone that showed the audacity to stand up to him. Something I think Lewis would have done. Take the intimidation factor away from Iron Mike and he seemed to crumble. No doubt he was exciting, but nowhere near as good a boxer as Lewis.

I think that that he was a more exciting fighter than Lewis puts him higher in some peoples eyes, Lewis for me rarely set the world alight. Also Lewis's lack of charisma doesn't help. When it comes down to who wins 'peak' Lewis vs 'peak/prime' Tyson I can never make my mind up, I usually think Tyson early or Lewis pts/late. Take nothing from Lewis as a Boxer just never really took to him although I always supported him, if that makes sense.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Hypothetical head2heads have nothing to do with ATG ranking anyway. Who did more with their career? Lewis.

I could well imagine that Audley beats Ali (I don't obviously) but that doesn't mean anything because it never actually happened. You can't rank fighters based on your imagination.

Leonard just wasn't active enough for top tenship for me.

The list is based on pound for pound, not overall greatness. There is a subtle difference for me.

Greatness reflects on all aspects and acheivements of a fighters career. Pound for pound is merely who was a better fighter accounting for weight. There will invariably be a huge amount of overlap but they arent always the same to me.

Lewis was "greater" than Tyson because he acheived more. But Im not convinced he was a better fighter in pound for pound terms. Certainly the gap is closer than in overall greatness terms anyhow.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Hypothetical head2heads have nothing to do with ATG ranking anyway. Who did more with their career? Lewis.

I could well imagine that Audley beats Ali (I don't obviously) but that doesn't mean anything because it never actually happened. You can't rank fighters based on your imagination.

Leonard just wasn't active enough for top tenship for me.

Lewis was unfortunate in that his defining fight did not take place (Bowe) and when he fought Holy and Tyson, they were past it. V.Klit remains his best win. But for 4 years, Tyson was simply (almost) unbeatable. You never had the fear that he may lose. You did with Lewis. That to me is the difference maker.

There's some old time heavyweight who had about 16 fights and losing 4. He's in the top 100. I mean, wtf. Leonard beat 4 guys in the top 100. You dont have to be very active to claim a spot in the top 10. Based on achievement alone, he warrants it. Based on who he beat, its warranted. Based on talent alone he should be No 2 after Robbo. Plus I absolutely detested the little sh.t.

What was Tyson's defining fight? Knocking out a light heavy (Ali and Frazier did that too, they did alot else as well though) or getting whipped by Evander?

At least remember his name.
Corbett fought in a totally different era (active defense of the title wasn't as common) whereas guys around Leonard's time were still racking up nearly a hundred fights. Also Corbett isn't anywhere close to the top ten so I don't see how he's relevent. There need to be many things to get a fighter into the top ten, and I feel Leonard misses out.