RESULTS: 606 V2 Pound for Pound TOP 10 Greatest of All Time!

The results are in! Please find below the top 10, and a further breakdown of the full listing. Many Thanks to all those who voted, a very good list IMO.

1 Sugar Ray Robinson (173W – 19L)
Robinson held the world welterweight title from 1946 to 1951, and won the world middleweight title in the latter year. He retired in 1952, only to come back two and a half years later and regain the middleweight title in 1955. He then became the first boxer in history to win a divisional world championship five times.

2 Harry Greb (261W – 19L)
World Middleweight boxing Champion from 1923 to 1926 and American Light Heavyweight title holder 1922–1923. He fought a recorded 303 times in his 13 year-career, against the best opposition the talent-rich 1910s & 20s could provide him, frequently squaring off against light-heavyweights and even heavyweights.

3 Henry Armstrong (149W – 21L)
Henry Jr. was a boxer who not only was a member of the exclusive group of fighters that have won boxing championships in three or more different divisions (at a time when there were fewer weight divisions than today), but also has the distinction of being the only boxer to hold three world championships at the same time.

4 Muhammad Ali (56W – 5L)
As an amateur, he won a gold medal in the light heavyweight division at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. After turning professional, he went on to become the first boxer to win the lineal heavyweight championship three times.

5 Ezzard Charles (93W – 25L)
Charles was an excellent fighter - Middleweight, Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight; He fought up through the ranks, tangled with the very best long the way and gained victories over them all - Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, "Jersey" Joe Walcott, Freddie Beshore, an older Joe Louis and Lee Oma - to name a few.

6 Roberto Duran (103W – 16L)
Durán is the only man in boxing history to win fights in 5 separate decades. He registered wins in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s. Many consider him the greatest lightweight of all time.

7 Sam Langford (200W – 47L)
Langford was a boxer who fought greats from the lightweight division right up to the heavyweights, beating many champions in the process. However, he was never able to secure a world title for himself. Called the "Greatest Fighter Nobody Knows," by ESPN.

8 Sugar Ray Leonard (36W – 3L)
Leonard was the first boxer to earn more than $100 million in purses, and he is widely considered to be one of the best boxers of all time, winning world titles in five weight divisions and defeating future fellow International Boxing Hall of Fame inductees Wilfred Benítez, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Durán and Marvin Hagler.

9 Willie Pep (229W - 11L)
Pep held the featherweight title for six years and outboxed all comers. He is best remembered for his physical four-fight series against fellow Hall of Famer Sandy Saddler.

10 Bob Fitzsimmons (51W - 8L)
A British Cornish boxer who made boxing history as the sport's first three-division world champion. He also achieved fame for beating Gentleman Jim Corbett, the man who beat John L. Sullivan, and is in The Guinness Book of World Records as the Lightest heavyweight champion.

Please find the full results below:

1 Sugar Ray Robinson
2 Harry Greb
3 Henry Armstrong
4 Muhammad Ali
5 Ezzard Charles
6 Roberto Duran
7 Sam Langford
8 Sugar Ray Leonard
9 Willie Pep
10 Bob Fitzsimmons
11 Eder Joffre
12 Joe Louis
13 Benny Leonard
14 Jimmy Wilde
15 Gene Tunney
16 Pernell Whittaker
17 Bernard Hopkins
18 Barney Ross
19 Floyd Mayweather
20 Roy Jones Jr.
21 Manny Pacquiao
22 Jack Johnson
23 Juan Manuel Marquez
24 Archie Moore
25 Lennox Lewis
26 Salvador Sanchez
T27 Marco Antonio Barrera
T27 Erik Morales

Top 10 looks pretty good.

Well, as eight of the ten we've collectively formed would make my personal top ten, it's a fairly good outcome for me. I maintain that Benny Leonard simply has to be top ten and should be ahead of his namesake Ray, but it looks as if he didn't miss out by that much.

Surprised to see Moore so low, and also a wee bit shocked that Mayweather has come out higher than Pacquiao, as board opinion seemed to be with the latter in recent months.

Good work, ATG; although I have to say, I'm absolutely shocked, disgusted, angered and amazed that Mickey Walker doesn't feature at all!

I'll echo Chris' sentiments that, all in all, there isn't much to complain about with the top ten and that Mickey Walker is a notable omission overall. Joe Gans, also.

Nonetheless, very interesting. Good work, ATG. Thanks for taking the trouble to collate all the votes.

88Chris05 wrote:Well, as eight of the ten we've collectively formed would make my personal top ten, it's a fairly good outcome for me. I maintain that Benny Leonard simply has to be top ten and should be ahead of his namesake Ray, but it looks as if he didn't miss out by that much.

Surprised to see Moore so low, and also a wee bit shocked that Mayweather has come out higher than Pacquiao, as board opinion seemed to be with the latter in recent months.

Good work, ATG; although I have to say, I'm absolutely shocked, disgusted, angered and amazed that Mickey Walker doesn't feature at all!

Thanks Chris88, but I merely counted the results- good list IMO.

I think Mickey Walker was a victim of the scoring system. The likes of Mayweather etc. only featured as a result of some posters only basing their top 10's on fighters they are currently aware of.

B. Leonard did actually miss out on a top 10 spot by a considerable distance in terms of votes casted. However, it was an either/or scenario for the no.3 spot between Ali and Armstrong though, only a few votes separated these two.

Thanks for taking the time ATG, top 10 looks pretty good.

I think Mickey Walker was a victim of the scoring system

I was thinking of putting mickey walker in but have him at 11 or 12ish, maybe others had the same opinion and he just missed the cut

also I'm not suggesting chavez is top 10 but surprising he had o votes when hopkins and whitaker have many and the 3 modern mexicans got votes


Did anyone's list of 10 feature all of the top 10?

9 for me.

Only differences are Charles/Ali switched, Langford/Duran switched (I might be inclined to agree), and Fitz in for Tunney.

What does it say about the state of boxing in those times when a lightweight can compete against heavyweights?

azania wrote:What does it say about the state of boxing in those times when a lightweight can compete against heavyweights?

About the same as today when a flyweight can win a belt at lightmiddle.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:What does it say about the state of boxing in those times when a lightweight can compete against heavyweights?

About the same as today when a flyweight can win a belt at lightmiddle.

Not really. We are talking about a boy (at flyweight) growing into a man who boiled down to make super-feather.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:What does it say about the state of boxing in those times when a lightweight can compete against heavyweights?

About the same as today when a flyweight can win a belt at lightmiddle.

Not really. We are talking about a boy (at flyweight) growing into a man who boiled down to make super-feather.

So Sam Langford got younger as the years went by, then ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:What does it say about the state of boxing in those times when a lightweight can compete against heavyweights?

About the same as today when a flyweight can win a belt at lightmiddle.

Not really. We are talking about a boy (at flyweight) growing into a man who boiled down to make super-feather.

So Sam Langford got younger as the years went by, then ?

Paq was a boy (17) when he was a flyweight. He grew out of the division. Plus he has the height of most Ww. Unless Langford was a freakishly tall LW, then how could he develop the frame and physique to go up to 190? Unless he fought HW when weighing as a middleweight. Which also imo says much about the state of boxing then.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:What does it say about the state of boxing in those times when a lightweight can compete against heavyweights?

About the same as today when a flyweight can win a belt at lightmiddle.

Not really. We are talking about a boy (at flyweight) growing into a man who boiled down to make super-feather.

So Sam Langford got younger as the years went by, then ?

Paq was a boy (17) when he was a flyweight. He grew out of the division. Plus he has the height of most Ww. Unless Langford was a freakishly tall LW, then how could he develop the frame and physique to go up to 190? Unless he fought HW when weighing as a middleweight. Which also imo says much about the state of boxing then.

If you knew anything at all about Langford you wouldn't need to ask.

Of course, if a lightweight moved up to beat heavies today you'd be chirping that none of the old timers could have done it and that proves that they were inferior.

Chappie Blackburn, who trained Joe Louis and had fought Langford, was asked how good Louis was just before Joe took the title. He replied with words to the effect : " In a couple of years he'll be as good as Sam Langford. "

Guess he would know.

I cant imagine any lightweight moving up to beat a LHW let alone a HW.

As for what trainers say, I always take it with a pinch of salt. They are prone to hyperbole. You just have to listen to Roach, Richardson, Manny Steward and others.

azania wrote:I cant imagine any lightweight moving up to beat a LHW let alone a HW.

As for what trainers say, I always take it with a pinch of salt. They are prone to hyperbole. You just have to listen to Roach, Richardson, Manny Steward and others.

But we should listen to you, in preference to Blackburn, even though he fought Langford and you don't know the first thing about Sam.

I see.

By the way, Toney is just one modern day example of a fighter who piled on much more weight than Langford ever did.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I cant imagine any lightweight moving up to beat a LHW let alone a HW.

As for what trainers say, I always take it with a pinch of salt. They are prone to hyperbole. You just have to listen to Roach, Richardson, Manny Steward and others.

But we should listen to you, in preference to Blackburn, even though he fought Langford and you don't know the first thing about Sam.

I see.

By the way, Toney is just one modern day example of a fighter who piled on much more weight than Langford ever did.

Nope. Take what trainers say with a pinch of salt and not gospel.

As for Toney, he had to boil himself down to SMW. The rest is just fat. Also Toney was naturally bigger than Langford. Its almost saying Duran had a chance against Holmes.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I cant imagine any lightweight moving up to beat a LHW let alone a HW.

As for what trainers say, I always take it with a pinch of salt. They are prone to hyperbole. You just have to listen to Roach, Richardson, Manny Steward and others.

But we should listen to you, in preference to Blackburn, even though he fought Langford and you don't know the first thing about Sam.

I see.

By the way, Toney is just one modern day example of a fighter who piled on much more weight than Langford ever did.

Nope. Take what trainers say with a pinch of salt and not gospel.

As for Toney, he had to boil himself down to SMW. The rest is just fat. Also Toney was naturally bigger than Langford. Its almost saying Duran had a chance against Holmes.

Well, since you're such an authority on the oldies why don't I just save myself the trouble and say that you are right and everybody who has seen Langford, fought Langford and trained Langford couldn't possibly be right.

I wouldn't mind debating it with you if you actually knew something about the man but you don't, and I've got better things to do than discuss the benefits of creatine, colour TV and rowing machines.

You dont have to be an authoroty on oldies to know that a LW would never challenge for the HW title or fight HW boxers. Its simply inconceivable.

azania wrote:You dont have to be an authoroty on oldies to know that a LW would never challenge for the HW title or fight HW boxers. Its simply inconceivable.

No, you don't, and I don't claim to be an authority. However, those who are or were authorities in the subject of Langford have opinions considerably more valuable than someone who knows absolutely nothing about him, has never seen him fight, and has a bizzare and utterly illogical bias against old timers.

Just read some of these opinions from folks who fought him or saw him live :

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/Article-SamLangford.htm

By the way, according to Boxrec Roy Jones Junior weighed 157 on his debut, yet ended up turning over Ruiz for the heavyweight title. Langford weighed 156 when he fought Johnson in 1906, and generally came in around 180 during his prime years.

I am not doubting Langford's skills. I am questioning the standard of boxing in general when a lightweight can compete effectively with heavyweights. It cant happen today.

RJJ bulked up to 200lbs of muscle to fight Ruiz. Many have questioned how he did it also. But as you say RJJ started at 157 not 135.

azania wrote:I am not doubting Langford's skills. I am questioning the standard of boxing in general when a lightweight can compete effectively with heavyweights. It cant happen today.

RJJ bulked up to 200lbs of muscle to fight Ruiz. Many have questioned how he did it also. But as you say RJJ started at 157 not 135.

How's your arithmetic ?

200 minus 157 equals 43.

180 minus 135 equals 45.

Now, Langford was short, but he had long arms, 15 in. biceps, 43in. chest and 17in. neck.

Sorry, az, but I really can't be bothered with this. You'd swear black is white that no prewar fighter is any good, and I'd be happy to debate it with you if you actually knew something about the fighters in question but, by your own admission, you don't. How, then, do we have grounds for debate ? You have no interest in the boxers of the period and I have no interest in your creatine / nutrition / rowing machine, etc.

MW are naturally bigger so they can carry the weight far better.

Can you point to any LW over the past 50 years who could compete with HWs?

azania wrote:Can you point to any LW over the past 50 years who could compete with HWs?

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it ? Langford was such a great fighter that, by the time he fleshed out to a natural 180lb. he was able to kayo much bigger men. Your insistence on calling him a lightweight is illogical and absurd. As a mature fighter he was a lightheavy, period.

You know, like Spinks was when he stepped up to beat Holmes. Why don't you read the article for which I provided a link instead of regurgitating this lightweight nonsense ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Can you point to any LW over the past 50 years who could compete with HWs?

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it ? Langford was such a great fighter that, by the time he fleshed out to a natural 180lb. he was able to kayo much bigger men. Your insistence on calling him a lightweight is illogical and absurd. As a mature fighter he was a lightheavy, period.

You know, like Spinks was when he stepped up to beat Holmes. Why don't you read the article for which I provided a link instead of regurgitating this lightweight nonsense ?

He fought from LW to HW. I cant imagine it happening over the past 50 years. It could only happen in by-gone days where everyone fought everyone regardless of weight and often to get a wage.

Spinks beat Holmes only in the eyes of 3 men.

azania wrote:He fought from LW to HW. I cant imagine it happening over the past 50 years.

If your ' arguments ' concerning old time fighters are anything to go by I would seriously doubt that your imagination could stretch beyond the last fifty minutes.

azania wrote:MW are naturally bigger so they can carry the weight far better.

Can you point to any LW over the past 50 years who could compete with HWs?

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, that's more of a reflection of what an outstanding fighter Langford was, rather than an indictment of the older generation?

Just because nobody has emulated such a feat in the modern era doesn't mean that the achievement can be dismissed as having taken place in a poor era. And likewise, just because nobody from the modern era has done it simply means that, ultimately, there hasn't been a fighter as freakish, talented and basically great as Langford, rather than the standard simply being too high for anyone to do it.

Until 2003, it had been 106 years since any former Middleweight champion had taken the Heavyweight crown, or a portion of it. See my point? Just because something isn't repeated for a long time doesn't mean is should be dismissed, and doesn't mean it's impossible for it to happen again one day.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:MW are naturally bigger so they can carry the weight far better.

Can you point to any LW over the past 50 years who could compete with HWs?

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, that's more of a reflection of what an outstanding fighter Langford was, rather than an indictment of the older generation?

Just because nobody has emulated such a feat in the modern era doesn't mean that the achievement can be dismissed as having taken place in a poor era. And likewise, just because nobody from the modern era has done it simply means that, ultimately, there hasn't been a fighter as freakish, talented and basically great as Langford, rather than the standard simply being too high for anyone to do it.

Until 2003, it had been 106 years since any former Middleweight champion had taken the Heavyweight crown, or a portion of it. See my point? Just because something isn't repeated for a long time doesn't mean is should be dismissed, and doesn't mean it's impossible for it to happen again one day.

Chris. I have not doubting Langford's skills. In fact I said that above. He may have been the most outstanding fighter ever, but its only in that era can we have HWs regularly fighting LWs or MW on a regular basis. They fought for wages. It stands to reason that the standards was not as high as later years if such competition could take place.

It sometimes irks me when people bring up the RJJ issue. He fought a very weak champion who held a portion of the best and one not recognised as the best HW. Calling RJJ HW champ is akin to calling Frabcesco Damiani world champ when Tyson was causing havoc with the title. But it is conceivable for a former MW to fight for the HW title. Their bodies can acrry the weight far better. Their frame is naturally bigger.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:MW are naturally bigger so they can carry the weight far better.

Can you point to any LW over the past 50 years who could compete with HWs?

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, that's more of a reflection of what an outstanding fighter Langford was, rather than an indictment of the older generation?

Just because nobody has emulated such a feat in the modern era doesn't mean that the achievement can be dismissed as having taken place in a poor era. And likewise, just because nobody from the modern era has done it simply means that, ultimately, there hasn't been a fighter as freakish, talented and basically great as Langford, rather than the standard simply being too high for anyone to do it.

Until 2003, it had been 106 years since any former Middleweight champion had taken the Heavyweight crown, or a portion of it. See my point? Just because something isn't repeated for a long time doesn't mean is should be dismissed, and doesn't mean it's impossible for it to happen again one day.

Chris. I have not doubting Langford's skills. In fact I said that above. He may have been the most outstanding fighter ever, but its only in that era can we have HWs regularly fighting LWs or MW on a regular basis. They fought for wages. It stands to reason that the standards was not as high as later years if such competition could take place.

It sometimes irks me when people bring up the RJJ issue. He fought a very weak champion who held a portion of the best and one not recognised as the best HW. Calling RJJ HW champ is akin to calling Frabcesco Damiani world champ when Tyson was causing havoc with the title. But it is conceivable for a former MW to fight for the HW title. Their bodies can acrry the weight far better. Their frame is naturally bigger.

Out of interest Az, what era (decade) do you consider to have the most talented fighters??

Just by looking at the above list it appears many seem to be going for the old timers. No one can deny that the 1920's had some exceptionally talented fighters.

azania wrote:It sometimes irks me when people bring up the RJJ issue. He fought a very weak champion who held a portion of the best and one not recognised as the best HW. Calling RJJ HW champ is akin to calling Frabcesco Damiani world champ when Tyson was causing havoc with the title. But it is conceivable for a former MW to fight for the HW title. Their bodies can acrry the weight far better. Their frame is naturally bigger.

Well like it or not, he was the first man in 106 years to win titles at both Middleweight and Heavyweight. The Heavyweight division has been mostly fragmented since the late seventies, and still it took until 2003 for anyone to do it. Even with the proliferation of titles then, it's evident that this is still one serious feat. The fact that it took so long for anyone to do anything close to repeating it simply shows how outstanding Fitzsimmons' achievement was in the first place, and likewise the same goes for Langford's unique record.

Yes, of course a Middleweight will be larger than a Lightweight naturally. But now and then a physical anomaly (or for want of a better term, a freak of nature) such as Langford will emerge. You tell us over and over and over again that boxing prior to the days of Ali was only a poor relation to what it is now - so why then, did nobody emulate Langford's feats between his retirement and the emergence of Ali? You can tell us all you like that beating great Lightweights and then later on beating great Heavyweights was easier back in Langford's day, but it obviously couldn't have been that much easier as nobody repeated it.

Hi ATG

Its not a question of what decade had the most talented fighters. But seeing as you asked, I would say the 1950s-1980s.

But can you think of any former lightweight who could conceivable fight for the HW title? Yes they had some talented fighters in the 1920s. Probably more talented than now. But things have moved on. Boxers of that era set the blueprint. Boxers of later generation used that blueprint as a basis and have moved on.

Can anyone with any seriousness believe Fitz would beat RJJ? I cant see it. RJJ simply had too much variety and movement to his game. Now that is not to say that Fitz was useless. Far from it. It is simply a case of styles changing with the times. Fitz's style wouldn't carry him too far in later years (yes he had a thump on him). But for the period he was competing, he was the best.

You guys seem to be under the impression that I believe oldies were useless. Far from it.

I'll give 2 examples. The 1970 Brazil team is considered the best team ever assembled. I agree. But they would struggle to get out of the group stages in the last world cup. The game has changed.

Another example is MMA. I am a huge Royce Graceie fan. He weighed under 170lbs and regularly fought and beat people much heavier than hi, using brazilian ju jitsu. In the infancy of MMA he was considered unbeatable. But MMA has changed and Royce's style would simply not cope with that change. It doesn't make him any less the greatest MMA fighter (after Fedor) who ever lived.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:It sometimes irks me when people bring up the RJJ issue. He fought a very weak champion who held a portion of the best and one not recognised as the best HW. Calling RJJ HW champ is akin to calling Frabcesco Damiani world champ when Tyson was causing havoc with the title. But it is conceivable for a former MW to fight for the HW title. Their bodies can acrry the weight far better. Their frame is naturally bigger.

Well like it or not, he was the first man in 106 years to win titles at both Middleweight and Heavyweight. The Heavyweight division has been mostly fragmented since the late seventies, and still it took until 2003 for anyone to do it. Even with the proliferation of titles then, it's evident that this is still one serious feat. The fact that it took so long for anyone to do anything close to repeating it simply shows how outstanding Fitzsimmons' achievement was in the first place, and likewise the same goes for Langford's unique record.

Yes, of course a Middleweight will be larger than a Lightweight naturally. But now and then a physical anomaly (or for want of a better term, a freak of nature) such as Langford will emerge. You tell us over and over and over again that boxing prior to the days of Ali was only a poor relation to what it is now - so why then, did nobody emulate Langford's feats between his retirement and the emergence of Ali? You can tell us all you like that beating great Lightweights and then later on beating great Heavyweights was easier back in Langford's day, but it obviously couldn't have been that much easier as nobody repeated it.

It showed how outstanding Fitz was and how poor the boxing scene was. It took an exceptional fighter like RJJ to do the same thing and to capitalise on a very poor HW champ also.

Nobody repeated Langford because boxing as a skilled sport improved to the point where it was practically life threatening for a LW to compete with a HW. Can you imagine it being sanctioned at any time after WW2? Can ou imagine Duran against Rocky? No matter howlow I rate Rocky and how much I rate Duran, it would be slaughter.

azania wrote:Hi ATG

Its not a question of what decade had the most talented fighters. But seeing as you asked, I would say the 1950s-1980s.

But can you think of any former lightweight who could conceivable fight for the HW title? Yes they had some talented fighters in the 1920s. Probably more talented than now. But things have moved on. Boxers of that era set the blueprint. Boxers of later generation used that blueprint as a basis and have moved on.

Can anyone with any seriousness believe Fitz would beat RJJ? I cant see it. RJJ simply had too much variety and movement to his game. Now that is not to say that Fitz was useless. Far from it. It is simply a case of styles changing with the times. Fitz's style wouldn't carry him too far in later years (yes he had a thump on him). But for the period he was competing, he was the best.

You guys seem to be under the impression that I believe oldies were useless. Far from it.

I'll give 2 examples. The 1970 Brazil team is considered the best team ever assembled. I agree. But they would struggle to get out of the group stages in the last world cup. The game has changed.

Another example is MMA. I am a huge Royce Graceie fan. He weighed under 170lbs and regularly fought and beat people much heavier than hi, using brazilian ju jitsu. In the infancy of MMA he was considered unbeatable. But MMA has changed and Royce's style would simply not cope with that change. It doesn't make him any less the greatest MMA fighter (after Fedor) who ever lived.

Erm, no I use to think the 1970s Brazil team was the greatest of all time, however I think the current Spannish side is more talented than the Brazilian side evidenced by their record unbeaten run.

I guess it goes to show fighters can come along and surpass achievements from the past, albeit in the case of Langford it hasn't happened yet.

If you put a side with say the likes of Banks, Gullit, Platini, Charlton, Maradona and Pele in they would still destroy any current team of players put together today.

Well you see, I will argue to the death and say that the 1970 team was better. But take the current spain team back to 1970 and Spain would win by a street. The same example applies to boxing re: old timers.

azania wrote:Its not a question of what decade had the most talented fighters. But seeing as you asked, I would say the 1950s-1980s.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:Its not a question of what decade had the most talented fighters. But seeing as you asked, I would say the 1950s-1980s.

Was supposed to read 1950s thru to 1980s. Too lazy sometimes.

azania wrote:Well you see, I will argue to the death and say that the 1970 team was better. But take the current spain team back to 1970 and Spain would win by a street. The same example applies to boxing re: old timers.

In your opinion, Azania. In your opinion. Considering that you admitted at the start of this thread that your knowlegde of Langford isn't great, I don't know how you can be so confident that he should be lumped in to that generalisation.

Like it or not Az your in the minority and unlike the majority you don't know about the fighter in question so can't really understand why your trying to discuss it.

Having a former bantamweight beating a former middlweight champion at 168lbs shows how poor the 1990's scene was

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Well you see, I will argue to the death and say that the 1970 team was better. But take the current spain team back to 1970 and Spain would win by a street. The same example applies to boxing re: old timers.

In your opinion, Azania. In your opinion. Considering that you admitted at the start of this thread that your knowlegde of Langford isn't great, I don't know how you can be so confident that he should be lumped in to that generalisation.

Morning.

Of course it is my opinion. I dont pass opinion off as fact. Regardless it is hypothetical anyway. You do not have to have encyclopedic knowledge of any boxer to realise that it is impossible for a lightweight to compete effectively against a heavyweight unless that heavyweight was poor. Why do you think RJJ chose Ruiz to fight and not the legit world champ?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Like it or not Az your in the minority and unlike the majority you don't know about the fighter in question so can't really understand why your trying to discuss it.

Having a former bantamweight beating a former middlweight champion at 168lbs shows how poor the 1990's scene was

I am very much aware that I am in the minority. I dont do nostalgia.

Duran beating Barkley showed how poor barkley was at that age and weight. But Langford taking on the HW champ is akin to Pernell fighting Tyson. Do you give him a hope in hell against any heavyweight contender let alone champ?

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Well you see, I will argue to the death and say that the 1970 team was better. But take the current spain team back to 1970 and Spain would win by a street. The same example applies to boxing re: old timers.

In your opinion, Azania. In your opinion. Considering that you admitted at the start of this thread that your knowlegde of Langford isn't great, I don't know how you can be so confident that he should be lumped in to that generalisation.

Morning.

Of course it is my opinion. I dont pass opinion off as fact. Regardless it is hypothetical anyway. You do not have to have encyclopedic knowledge of any boxer to realise that it is impossible for a lightweight to compete effectively against a heavyweight unless that heavyweight was poor. Why do you think RJJ chose Ruiz to fight and not the legit world champ?

You do have to have knowledge of the boxer who did before dismissing it, if you don't know the precise circumstances how can you have an opinion on it

As for my point I wasn't talking Barkley about, this was an even more embarrassing win for Duran in the context

Last time I checked Whitaker didn't have the power to knock out any world level lightweights let alone heavyweights so it's not akin to that at all, Langford is the most powerful 'former lightweight' who has ever graced a boxing ring while Fitzsimmons is the most powerful middleweight. There are currently nor have there been many since capable of knocking out legitimate heavyweight contenders, this is what stands them apart from the rest as well as their ability to take a pretty good punch.

They along with Jimmy Wilde were true freaks of the sport

Once again you are passing opinion as fact regarding the relative power of Langford and Fitz.

If a boxer as skilled as Hearns with his punch power were fighting in that era, we would be talking about a collosus of the sport and not just a great boxer.

How anyone can claim that boxers in the infancy of the sport are as skilled and good as the later boxers is beying me.

I gave an example of Royce Gracie in MMA who fought and beat guys much larger than him. They were not as well rounded as current MMA fighters who wouls absolutely destroy Gracie. That is not to say Gracie was not great. He was and his is an ATG in MMA. Well deserved also. But his time has gone where styles are now more well rounded. His style would not compete now.

Does that make Gracie rubbish? Only a fool would say that. The same principle applies.

Sugar Ray Robinson started out at lightweight in the pro ranks, and was a feather in the amateurs. He later fought Maxim for the lightheavy title. Langford didn't have the amateur pedigree that Robinson had, so as a rookie he was a pro, starting out at lightweight.

Very little difference in their circumstances. Robinson was a career welter / middle and Langford was a career middle / lightheavy.

HumanWindmill wrote:Sugar Ray Robinson started out at lightweight in the pro ranks, and was a feather in the amateurs. He later fought Maxim for the lightheavy title. Langford didn't have the amateur pedigree that Robinson had, so as a rookie he was a pro, starting out at lightweight.

Very little difference in their circumstances. Robinson was a career welter / middle and Langford was a career middle / lightheavy.

Morning windy.

The point is being missed. I would like someone to address my point about Royce Gracie. The point is that in the early years of the 20thC boxing was in its infancy with styles and techniques evolving. It is perfectly understandable that a small guy could challenge and beat the biggest if the smaller guy had better technique. It wouldn't happen in the last 50 years. Especially when moving up to HW. It could only happen it the HW in question is poor. (Ruiz).

Another point for you to consider, az.

Stan Ketchel was a welter who moved up to be one of the greatest middles of all time. When he challenged Johnson for the heavyweight title he weighed around 170lb. Johnson carried him for a while but when Stan got a little too ambitious Johnson pole axed him. Proof, if proof had been required, that not every smaller man - even among the great ones - could compete with heavies of the day.

Sam Langford was a freak of nature, and instead of trashing his achievements without context and on the back of ill - informed prejudice he deserves at least some investigation by genuine boxing fans if they are to make comparisons between him and the moderns. There is film of the man in action - including a complete fight against Jeannette in surprisingly good quality - and a mountain of eye witness evidence concerning his abilities.

azania wrote:The point is being missed. I would like someone to address my point about Royce Gracie. The point is that in the early years of the 20thC boxing was in its infancy with styles and techniques evolving. It is perfectly understandable that a small guy could challenge and beat the biggest if the smaller guy had better technique. It wouldn't happen in the last 50 years. Especially when moving up to HW. It could only happen it the HW in question is poor. (Ruiz).

Morning, az.

It is you who is missing the point. You know nothing about Langford and so you are in no position to dismiss him. Go watch him and then tell me he didn't have equal or better skills than most of today's lightheavies.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The point is being missed. I would like someone to address my point about Royce Gracie. The point is that in the early years of the 20thC boxing was in its infancy with styles and techniques evolving. It is perfectly understandable that a small guy could challenge and beat the biggest if the smaller guy had better technique. It wouldn't happen in the last 50 years. Especially when moving up to HW. It could only happen it the HW in question is poor. (Ruiz).

Morning, az.

It is you who is missing the point. You know nothing about Langford and so you are in no position to dismiss him. Go watch him and then tell me he didn't have equal or better skills than most of today's lightheavies.

Can you point out where I have dismissed him?

dont agree that b hop is the greatest ever p4p modern fighter

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The point is being missed. I would like someone to address my point about Royce Gracie. The point is that in the early years of the 20thC boxing was in its infancy with styles and techniques evolving. It is perfectly understandable that a small guy could challenge and beat the biggest if the smaller guy had better technique. It wouldn't happen in the last 50 years. Especially when moving up to HW. It could only happen it the HW in question is poor. (Ruiz).

Morning, az.

It is you who is missing the point. You know nothing about Langford and so you are in no position to dismiss him. Go watch him and then tell me he didn't have equal or better skills than most of today's lightheavies.

Can you point out where I have dismissed him?

No. I don't have the patience.

What I will do is ask you why you think you know better than Chappie Blackburn, who fought Langford and lived to train Joe Louis.

I'll also refer you to these assessments :

" Langford’s boxing skills were almost unlimited. He could fight at close quarters or a long range. He would attack the head or body with a two-handed barrage of punches that packed power in both fists. He would duck, feint, block, move in, move out, and shift his attack quickly upstairs or down. His timing was excellent. He used jabs, hooks, combinations, wide swings, short chops and mixed his punches beautifully. Also, he was as game as they come with a great capacity for taking punishment."

and :

“Langford had all the attributes of a great fighter, speed, punching power, an amazingly elusive defense, the ability to absorb punishment, and unlimited endurance”.


Joe Jeannette once called Langford “the best all-around heavyweight” and said Sam hit him harder than anyone he ever fought. Harry Wills called Langford the best fighter he ever fought. “Fireman” Jim Flynn, who fought such men as Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Luther McCarty, Ed “Gunboat” Smith, and many others said “the hardest hitter I ever faced was Langford”. Cannon (1978 p 89) quoted Jack Dempsey as saying “Sam probably would have knocked me out”.

Hugh McIntosh, famous promoter of that period, rated Sam Langford as the greatest fighter of the time, even better than Jack Johnson. Grombach (1977 p 51) said Langford was probably the only fighter who could have extended Jack Johnson.

“Dumb” Dan Morgan, famous fight manager, once compared Langford with Joe Louis by saying “Langford, who was a scientific knocker-outer, would crowd Louis, either lead to him or counter him, and take whatever Joe could dish out. I think Sam would finish Joe in about six or seven rounds of real slugging”

Another respected historian, in 1954, wrote “Sam Langford was a great fighter in an age of great fighters. In proportion to his height and weight there never was a greater fighting man. He was not the greatest of fighters but undoubtedly was one of the best”.

But, of course, you know better and this despite the fact that what you know about Langford could be written several times on a postage stamp.

It's pointless discussing this with you because we cannot debate it on the basis of BOXING. It's always evolution, Rolls Roycie, rowing machines, creatine, time machines, moisturizing cream, designer sunglasses, Pelé, Gadaffi, Paul McCartney and Kevin Bacon.

I'd rather discuss boxing.

HumanWindmill wrote:Another point for you to consider, az.

Stan Ketchel was a welter who moved up to be one of the greatest middles of all time. When he challenged Johnson for the heavyweight title he weighed around 170lb. Johnson carried him for a while but when Stan got a little too ambitious Johnson pole axed him. Proof, if proof had been required, that not every smaller man - even among the great ones - could compete with heavies of the day.

Sam Langford was a freak of nature, and instead of trashing his achievements without context and on the back of ill - informed prejudice he deserves at least some investigation by genuine boxing fans if they are to make comparisons between him and the moderns. There is film of the man in action - including a complete fight against Jeannette in surprisingly good quality - and a mountain of eye witness evidence concerning his abilities.

I've seen the Johnson/Ketchell fight. Stan KD Johnson and the very next punch JJ KO'd him. That he was carried speaks volumed and if JJ hadn't got up from that punch he would be talking about Kethcell being the best who ever walked. Too many intangibles.

I've heard that Fitz was a freak of nature, now Langford is a freak of nature. Maybe in the early days of boxing, they were freaks of boxing. But when boxing became more organised as a sport they would not be considered freaks, but good fighters.