50 fighters that must be considered

I think we agree that after the first few names, it's an almost impossible job to try and compile a precise top 50 from 130 years or so of boxing history under Queensberry rules. There's so little between so many great fighters.

However, in a bid both to collect my own ideas and perhaps to stimulate a bit of debate among some of you, I thought that I would jot down the fighters from whose ranks a credible top 50 might be drawn. There is a top 8 or so with which I'm fairly content - after that, it's almost a matter of personal taste.

See what you think and whether you consider any of the inclusions here to be suspect or any omissions to be perplexing or just plain wrong:

My "set in stone" top 8 are Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Charles, Ali, Langford, Jofre and Fitzsimmons After that, the names that I would need to sort out would be, I stress in no order: Benny Leonard, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Joe Gans, Julio Cesar Chavez, Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler, Manny Pacquiao, Roy Jones Jr, Barney Ross, Bob Foster, Salvador Sanchez, Alexis Arguello, Thomas Hearns, Bernard Hopkins, Michael Spinks, Tony Canzoneri, Jimmy McLarnin, Mickey Walker, Oscar de la Hoya, Jimmy Wilde, Ted Kid Lewis, Jack Britton, Carlos Zarate, Pancho Villa, Ricardo Lopez, Juan Manuel Marquez, Wilfredo Gomez, Wilfred Benitez, Kaosai Galaxy, Ike Williams, Terry McGovern, Carlos Ortiz, Charley Burley and Azumah Nelson.

Does anyone see any major discrepancy here? Have I missed someone? Been too kind to someone else? Interested to hear your views.

Fine list captain - as I said on the other thread, there's always more worthy names than there are available spots when trying to do this kind of thing. All of your picks are entirely justified but other names would be as well, and if I had to offer up a couple I'd maybe suggest Tommy Ryan and Fighting Harada.

Ryan is still one of the few men to have done the legitimate Welterweight / Middleweight double and would have reigned for longer had McCoy not effectively 'conned' him out of his title. Nevertheless, he has a supremely consistent record and warrants some consideration here.

Harada should have become the first fighter to have done the 'little man' treble of Flyweight, Bantamweight and Featherweight champion had it not been for Pep's refereeing incompetence when he boxed Famechon first time out. He's too often remembered as merely the man who upset Jofre in '65 but, for me, he deservedly won the rematch and fell victim to another slight injustice in losing the Bantamweight crown to Kingpetch (who he'd already beaten in any case).

But as I say, who could you say should make way for them from that lot!?

Where is don Curry??

With Harada, I think you're absolutely right, Chris; much as I'm a fan of Galaxy, he would have to make way for the Japanese, I think. Reckon that Ryan is a reasonable shout too; someone like Benitez might be the man to make way there. Precisely the sort of food for thought that I'm after.

50, not 150, Truss!

It's a fine list, Captain, but would you consider a place for Jack Johnson?

His record prior to been champion is pretty good, his defensive skills were way ahead of the time and could be a nasty so and so when the mood took him. He obviously has that 'intangible' facet of being the first black heavyweight champion but I would understand if that didn't really come into your thinking.

Not sure who would make way for him, mind.

Thought about him, Tino, but just considered that his title reign was so shabby that I would be doing some of the others a disservice by including him here.

Have to say that the Boxing News top 100 compilers seem to have taken leave of their senses at times. Moore at 10 and Charles at 26! LaMotta at 56 and Fitzsimmons way down at number 73. Foreman, Frazier and Lennox Lewis at 33, 34 and 35, 5 or 6 spots in front of Ross, McLarnin, Mayweather and Pacquiao. Frightening!

I know that there are shades of opinion, but some of those seem wilfully perverse. Someone there has an awfully high opinion of the heavyweight division.

Id have Tunney one of the set in stone guys ahead of Langford of Fitzsimmons. I could envisage either of those two not making a top 10 but Id have to have Tunney as a cert I think.

I don't think there are any really glaringly obvious names missing, to be honest. Maybe you could argue that some of the following could scrape in to a 45 - 50 spot at a push, but with no great conviction behind the arguement.

Dick Tiger, who must be a serious contender for the title of Africa's greatest ever fighter, usually given to Nelson.

Jeff Fenech, who I think I probably underrated for a long, long time. He had a fall from grace not that much less sudden and devastating than Roy Jones had, but from the mid eighties to early nineties had nigh-on trounced all before him, shipping no losses as he claimed titles at Bantam, Super-Bantam and Feather. And it would have been four weight classes (keep in mind that, at this stage, only Leonard, Hearns and Duran had ever done this) had the judges been on form for his 1992 Super-Featherweight title clash with the great Azumah. That win would certainly have been classed as a great one, I think, and had he got it he'd be in real contention here for my money. Alas, the judges conspired against him and he went from looking indomitable to hopeless all of a sudden, which probably counts heavily against his claims here.

Vicente Saldivar. Top five Featherweight, beat - if not a great - a very, very good Lightweight champion in Laguna before he'd even graduated in to the championship class and had a title reign at 126 lb stacked with quality throughout. One of the Mexican elite but his burn out while still relatively young, despite his fairly successful comeback, means he's probably the most fanciful shout I could make and his inclusion really would be stretching matters to their breaking point!

Any thoughts given to Ketchel? Swept all before him in his division with some good names on his record and is widely considered in the top 5 middleweights of all time.

I'm not entirely convinced that he's top 50 material, but perhaps one for consideration.

Fenech just fell apart too quickly, and not just against Grade A fighters, at a time when he should still have been in his prime for me to add him to the list, Chris. Losing to Zoomy is one thing, but getting KO'd by Grove! It's not as though he'd compiled a massive number of fights by then to account for the burn-out. He was exceptional at 126, I thought, but overall, his title reigns don't feature as much really top opposition as one would want from a top 50 man.

Tiger and Saldivar would be among the next cabs off the rank for me. I couldn't argue against the inclusion of either, especially Tiger, but unlike Harada, I don't feel too mortified about excluding them.

Maybe McFarland and Ketchel are worth a shout. The Gibbons brothers maybe? Non Pareil Jack?

Cant see much wrong with the list though.

Oscar De la Hoya? That looks a distinctly odd one. Was he even any better than his peers Mosley and Trinidad? I'd argue that he wasn't.

How about:

Kid Gavilan
Dick Tiger
Emile Griffith
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Carmen Basilio
Ruben Olivares
Jimmy McLarnin
Carlos Ortiz

Is Mayweather any more special than Aaron Pryor?

Any potential list is huge but I don't feel Oscar belongs above anyone I've listed here.

Thought really hard about Ketchel before just deciding against him, super. There must be an argument for him, but I reasoned that I made him 6th best at the weight, and with the other single division greats to consider, plus the marvellous weight-jumpers, I couldn't quite see who to exclude for him. Maybe Ike Williams or Zarate, I suppose, and there is a comparison to be made with someone like Salvador Sanchez, but I felt that a 2-1 ledger against Papke (his best middleweight opponent, I'd think) wasn't enough to displace Lopez x2, Gomez and Nelson.

I've got Ortiz and McLarnin, haz. Foreman and Holmes were quickly dismissed for me. Would argue that in achievements, quality of opposition and longevity, what Oscar accomplished exceeded both by some way. Tiger, as I say, I accept is pretty close, and Griffith would also be in my 50-60 pile, I think (Oscar in the 40-50 bunch).

Basilio no - tough and wonderful fighter, but on the short side (against great fighters, I concede) just as often as he won at the highest level. Same has been said of Oscar, but the range of weights in which he excelled was quite something, while Basilio's middleweight career was pretty good, but not outstanding. As for Olivares, no single fighter of my lifetime has given me more cause to re-evaluate his career. Looked like a giant for a couple of years and then came a succession of spectacular croppers against a number of fighters who don't get anywhere near this list. Spectacular style much in his favour, but I question his overall CV in the final analysis.

That leaves Gavilan, another about whom I agonised before omitting him. As a top 5 welter, I might have made an error there, and will yield the point to you. Along with Harada, he'd go into my 50, although not at Oscar's expense. Benitez may be the one to go.

The only untouchables for me are:

Ali, Louis, Robinson, Pep, Duran, Armstrong.

How do you split Nelson from the likes of Barrera and Morales?

There are other fighters, men such as Tiger Flowers, Kid Chocolate, Panama Al Brown, Freddie Miller and Beau Jack that may have been overlooked (however, I'll admit I don't know enough about any of them to make a call).

Oh and yes, Mayweather is undoubtedly more special than Pryor, in my opinion. Grand fighter, the Hawk, but a shortish career at the very top in just the one division, with Arguello by far the stand-out name among his victims (Cervantes a fairly old man when they met).

Couldn't not include Nelson - all-time top-tenner in two divisions for me. Not the case for Barrera or Morales - Barrera, especially, drops house points for the Junior Jones debacles, and Morales, just outside the 50 for me, is one boxer about whom I will admit a blind spot, I'm ashamed to say.

I've long had a gripe with Oscar -- he seems wholly overrated to me.

He was superbly matched early in his career and looked a wonderful talent against the likes of Ruelas and Hernandez -- almost machine-like. As he rose through the weights, though, and, perhaps more importantly, shifted from trainer to trainer (on an almost annual basis), he lost something.

Close fights against Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad and Mosley mark him out as a top fighter but he wasn't as good as Pryor (plus Whitaker was on the down side when they met and above his best weight).

hazharrison wrote:Oscar De la Hoya? That looks a distinctly odd one. Was he even any better than his peers Mosley and Trinidad? I'd argue that he wasn't.

They would arguably be better in a head to head list, but I think it is easy to overlook just what Oscar achieved. Between the John John Molina fight in 1995 and the second Mosley fight in 2003, he has a stellar record and beat a who's who of late 90's and early 2000's fighters, one or two efforts not withstanding. Only dropping a controversial decision to Trinidad and Mosley themselves. Even after that point when he started losing with more frequency, he was still capable of producing some really sound performances, particularly against Vargas.

He picked up belts from Super Featherweight to Middleweight and everything in between. It is far easier to pick holes in his record than actually say, 'you know what, he beat a consistently good level of opposition throughout the best part of a decade'.

If it was a top 50 based on who beats who, then drop him and replace him with Mosley, but any list that encompasses a much wider criteria would have him in there, for me.

As Nelson just about makes your cut, captain, then may I put forward the case for Mike McCallum to perhaps steal a place between 45 and 50?

I say this because his career at world title level ran remarkably parallel to Nelson's; both won their first world titles in 1984 and both were still featuring in competitive title bouts a dozen years later or so. Going from memory, Nelson's days as champion stretched to '97 while Mike was maybe upset by Tiozzo a year or eighteen months earlier, but to counter that Nelson did disappear for a year and a half after losing to Leija in 1994.

I'd say that McCallum's best wins - Curry, Kalambay, Harding (given that it was at 175 lb, that Mike was not far off forty and that Jeff was a nasty, rough 'n' tough campaigner in any case), Jackson, Graham, Watson, Collins etc - match up pretty well with Zoomy's, which are along the lines of Villasana, Gomez, Cowdell, Leija, Ruelas, Fenech, Martinez and La Porte. The names on Nelson's record carry a little more oomph, perhaps, but Gomez was above his treasured 122 lb and La Porte was incredibly on-off by the time he boxed the man from Ghana.

Both men were highly respected during those aforementioned years, but never quite considered amongst the very, very elite stars of the sport, and both were prone to the odd slip up and struggle here and there; Nelson against Fenech and Leija, McCallum against Kalambay (I) and Graham. I can forgive Mike's defeat against Tiozzo, all things considered. Both carried on a little too long, but both had enough about them to avoid ever being disgraced and while Super-Feather is a stronger and older 'junior' weight class than Light-Middle, it's worth noting that Mike is probably the consensus number one at the latter. Nelson has a real legacy as a Feather, of course, but McCallum picking up titles at both 160 and 175 at such an advanced age shouldn't be overlooked.

Given the little cavaet that McCallum was never top dog at Middle or Light-Heavy, then I agree that Nelson belongs higher, but food for thought all the same. If Nelson is top fifty then Mike can't be outside the top sixty by much, perhaps?

Benitez is a great fighter..

But I'd be controversial and have Mike Mccallum instead....Palomino to me was pretty ordinary......Duran was better at a lighter weight than 154...

Never seen Curry better than he looked the night Mccallum beat him.......Graham was a fabulous win as was watson.......He cleaned up at 154......avenged Kalambay

and the jump from 154-175 is bigger than 140-154....

Longevity wise he was at the top longer..

Not that I'm going to argue....too much!!

Nice case, well made Chris. yes, Mike in the 60-70 range for me, with Nelson on the very edge of the 50. A great light-middle, Mike and it's one of my great missing fights that we don't actually know the result of McCallum-Hearns. Might have sorted out quite a lot of maybes.

As a middle, Mike was so-so - his best performance was probably against Watson, but he had terrible struggles with Kalambay, who has to be seen as roughly his equal at 160. I can easily forgive Zoomy's display in the first Fenech fight; did remarkably well to compete at all with the after-effects of malaria, I'd say. His performance in the return is one of my most treasured boxing moments of the 90s.

Overall, though, think that your assessment of the two fighters is about spot on.

Sorry chris...we are on the same wavelength but want to replace different guys!!

I've booted Benitez into the 50-60 group to make way for Gavilan, Truss! Just ahead of Mike seems fair for El Radar, bearing in mind, for example, that incredible win over Cervantes at 17 is probably better than anything on McCallum's record. Not much in it.

I guess you've hit another nerve as to why Nelson has to be a little higher than McCallum there, captain, when you mention the second Fenech fight. McCallum has some damn good wins on his record, but usually they were in highly competitive fights in which his margin of superiority wasn't particularly great; he was slower than Curry out of the blocks (though was getting to him in the third and fourth a bit, so the knockout wasn't totally out of the blue), was hurt in the first against Jackson and edged past Graham, for instance; he never handed a peak pound for pounder an absolute thrashing from start to finish the way Nelson did against Fenech in Melbourne.

I agree that Zoomy was unbelievable in that fight and Fenech must have been wondering if this was the same man he'd been in control against only a few months beforehand.

Also frustrated the hell out of Jeff, evidently - I can vividly remember him clearly attempting to knee Zoomy in the town halls as the referee broke them up at the bell of one of the mid rounds! Nasty piece of work was Fenech, but Nelson absolutely stood him on his head in that one. Had him down in the first and just never let up from there.

Very similar job to Sanchez's against Gomez, Chris. The first-round counter to knock down the bully; the ensuing technical masterclass against an increasingly desperate opponent; the picture-perfect 8th round finish.

And to cap it all...I was there, in amongst all the squally showers at Princes Park, listening to the most absolute silence that I can ever remember at a big fight after Fenech tasted the canvas in the first.

The knockout was completely out of the blue....

come on Chris....

Great win but he was getting well outboxed....Curry started the 5th superbly..

You love the Sanchez-Gomez fight don't you Captain!!!

I think the 1st round knockdown spoilt it....Gomez never recovered...

Whilst I believe Sanchez would have won I think we missed an awesome fight by Gomez getting caught cold...

Certainly Sanchez finest hour..

Were scheduled to fight again I believe when his porsche hit the embankment....

I have to go with Chris on this one, Truss. To my eye, McCallum took the fourth comfortably and was having increasing success to the body, which is why Don's hands weren't as high as they might have been. Never expected a one-punch KO from Mike, but I could definitely sense a shift in momentum.

I do love it, Truss. I still think that it's the finest individual performance I've ever seen, given the opponent and the circumstances at play.

The knockout was unexpected I agree Truss, as McCallum wasn't known for icing anyone with a single shot. And as you say, Curry was looking pretty sharp. I just don't agree with this idea that McCallum didn't lay a glove on him before that big left hook. Curry walked the first two rounds, the third was closer (can still make a case for Don, but I thought it was very tight and maybe a 10-10) but I thought McCallum took the fourth and he was beginning to work his way in to the fight.

Donaire must be knocking on the door of a top 50 place, the man is immense and if he clears out what is possibly the best division in boxing this year like most expect him to that would be some achievement. Already a 3 or 4 weight world champ and has spectacular KO wins over the likes of Montiel and Darchinyan. I also think he matches up very well on a head to head bases with just about everyone from Super flyweight up to Super Bantam.

I alluded to that a little earlier, bellchees. I feel that he might threaten the top 20 by the time he's done. I just don't want to think yet about ranking someone whose career still has some way to run. It's different for Mayweather, Pacquiao and Marquez, whose CVs are now about dotting i's and crossing t's.

We can agree to disagree...without that shot I fancy Curry over 12 and Mccallum over 15....

Then again it was scheduled for 15....

Two judges had it 40-36.....

Think Sanchez-Gomez...was a bit like Chavez - Rosario.......Once the punch power was taken out of the equation and also the lack of intimidation a 95% ko record brings with it....

They were always going to struggle...

However his legs didn't recover from the 1st round knockdown..

Sanchez death is for me Boxing's greatest loss!!!!

Camacho, Chavez, Nelson, Mcguigan, Mancini on the horizon....maybe unification with Eusebio.........

Sanchez death is for me Boxing's greatest loss!!!!

Camacho, Chavez, Nelson, Mcguigan, Mancini on the horizon....maybe unification with Eusebio..........

... and possibly a super fight against Arguello?

Think the timeframe for Arguello is just out...super

Think he was campaigning at 140 against Rooney and Pryor (might be wrong)

Think Sanchez was booked up till spring 83 with Gomez/Nelson returns.....

But your a lawyer I'm sure you can find a technicality to prove me wrong!!!

Have to pull your memory up slightly there, Truss, One judge (the sole American, as it happens!) had it 40-36; the other two made things 38-37 and 39-38.

Agree about Sanchez's premature death. Could he have kept up his unbelievable form for another 3 or 4 years? if so, he'd have been knocking on the door of the all-time top 10.

My mind plays tricks on me.....How the heck can you have it 38-37!!

Must mean he had it 2-2 with the rocking in the 2nd counting as 10-8!!

Curry 3-1 at worst......for me.....but you're right I've just checked....

Just what I thought - 38-37 is one score that is just wrong. If you awarded a 10-8 for every time that a fighter got buzzed by a punch, a lot of fights these days would be scored 112-110! I agreed with the 39-38 card, but would also go along with 39-37.

Where would you have Billy Conn range-wise ???

and If he'd not been stupid against Louis surely he'd be top 50 If not 20/30 even!!! Even when he lost the return!!

Would you agree???....

.Amazing how just rocking somebody and momentarily losing your head can cost you an enormous legacy...

Billy Conn probably the BIGGEST loser in history!!! (Boxing wise!!)

Good question. As you say, the difference between lasting those three rounds v Louis and getting all gung-ho is huge to Billy's standing. Certainly top 50 if he had held on, even if he had lost the return quickly and everything else in his life was exactly the same.

As it is....well, I've got Loughran, whom I rate slightly above Billy, around the 60-70 mark, so perhaps top 75 for Conn, if that doesn't seem excessively harsh?

Are we doing José Napoles a disservice here, seeing as his name hasn't even been mentioned so far? Might well be the fifth greatest Welterweight of the lot behind the Sugar Rays, Armstrong and Gavilan, which is remarkable for two reasons. First off, he was closer to being a natural Lightweight (he achieved a high ranking in that division for years, but Carlos Ortiz never got round to facing him) or perhaps a Light-Welter than he was a full 147 pounder, and secondly he didn't get his hands on the title until he was about thirty. Held it virtually uninterrupted for six years but for a brief hiccup (his cuts loss to Backus, emphatically avenged) and, aside from Backus, took care of some impressive names such as Griffith, Hedgemon Lewis, Cokes etc. Was mauled by Monzon in his Middleweight title bid, but I deduct him no points for that, all things considered.

Great, great fighter, should at least be in the running, for me.

Maybe it is because the 10 best non champs series is still fresh in my mind but can make a case for Mike Gibbons and Packey McFarland, also like Manos' suggestion of Non Pareil Jakc Dempsey, easy to forget the ten year of absolute dominance that preceded the Fitzsimmons loss. As to who makes way, like Haz I have no great attachment to DLH but beyond that it gets tough.

Probably be a bank holiday celebration in Thailand with Galaxy making the list!!!

Good to see him honored..........

Oh hell. Now that really is a colossal error on my part, Chris. Well done for pointing that one out. Must be in the top 50, probably the 40-50 range, almost alongside Gavilan.

Thanks to the amendments of various folk, I've had to reassess Galaxy down to something like Number 61, Truss! Napoles, Gavilan and Harada move into the 50 at the expense of Benitez, Zarate and Galaxy. McFarland sits in the 50-60 range beside Benitez, Tiger, Saldivar, Zarate, Tommy Ryan, Ketchel, Morales, Griffith and Basilio. Galaxy sits beside Mike Gibbons, McCallum, Mosley, Holmes, Foreman, Jack Johnson, Elorde, Loughran and Freddie Miller in the 60-70 range, while from 70-80, you find guys like Barrera, Fenech, Abe Attell, Billy Conn and (whisper it quietly) Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis.

How am I doing?

Much better than Boxing News did, that's for sure captain.

Going back to their monstrosity of a list, I think one of the worst ones has to be their placing of Hopkins at a lowly (relatively speaking!) 77. Rough justice for a man who reigned as a title holder for a decade at Middleweight - including a four year stretch at the end of that in which he was the division's top man without any shadow of a doubt - has twice been the 'man who beat the man' at Light-Heavy, has become the oldest man to ever win a title belt outright and who has never been stopped in a professional career spanning nearly a quarter of a century, much of that spent mixing it with the very best in the world.

I mean, they had Harry Wills one spot ahead of him, for Gawd's sake!

and (whisper it quietly) Rocky Marciano

To quote The Joker in the Dark Knight "... and here we go".