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

First topic message reminder :

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

Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

So how did Wills get to be number one contender, then ?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

Battling Siki beating Carpentier really showed the colour line was in effect at light heavyweight didn't it, just sounds like another excuse to discredit the old timers to me, still waiting for you to say whom Tunney should have fought that he didn't and when?

Do we put an asterisk next to Ali then because the eastern block couldn't fight profressionally?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

So how did Wills get to be number one contender, then ?

Why didn't he fight for the title? One would assume that being #1 would qualify you for the title shot.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

So how did Wills get to be number one contender, then ?

When didn't he fight for the title? One would assume that being #1 would qualify you for the title shot.

But you claimed that he wouldn't have been ' trying ' because there was no title chance. So, again, how did he become top contender ?

But then again the reason Wills didn't fight for the title was not because he was black rather it was because Dempsey wasn't given the monetary assurance that he wanted to make the fight happen.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

Battling Siki beating Carpentier really showed the colour line was in effect at light heavyweight didn't it, just sounds like another excuse to discredit the old timers to me, still waiting for you to say whom Tunney should have fought that he didn't and when?

Do we put an asterisk next to Ali then because the eastern block couldn't fight profressionally?

Look, did you read my question to you when I asked if the colour line applied to the HW division only? I presumed it didn't but I just wanted quick clarification instead of googling.

At that time many LHW fought ast HW (Tunney obviously). Siki knew he couldn't. Hardly fair. So who knows what may have happened? The fact is that when the bar was lifted a plethora of black HWs came to the fore (discount Louis). Without that bar, who knows who would have come to the fore knowing that they could fight for the title.

Are you seriously comparing a racist bar to the non professionalism of eastern euro countries (and Cuban)? Please dont tell me you are.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

So how did Wills get to be number one contender, then ?

When didn't he fight for the title? One would assume that being #1 would qualify you for the title shot.

But you claimed that he wouldn't have been ' trying ' because there was no title chance. So, again, how did he become top contender ?

By beating the best available. Perhaps other fighters saw how far he went and wondered why bother.

The Mighty Atom wrote:But then again the reason Wills didn't fight for the title was not because he was black rather it was because Dempsey wasn't given the monetary assurance that he wanted to make the fight happen.

He knew the outcome and wanted financial rewards for losing it to a black man.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

Battling Siki beating Carpentier really showed the colour line was in effect at light heavyweight didn't it, just sounds like another excuse to discredit the old timers to me, still waiting for you to say whom Tunney should have fought that he didn't and when?

Do we put an asterisk next to Ali then because the eastern block couldn't fight profressionally?

Look, did you read my question to you when I asked if the colour line applied to the HW division only? I presumed it didn't but I just wanted quick clarification instead of googling.

At that time many LHW fought ast HW (Tunney obviously). Siki knew he couldn't. Hardly fair. So who knows what may have happened? The fact is that when the bar was lifted a plethora of black HWs came to the fore (discount Louis). Without that bar, who knows who would have come to the fore knowing that they could fight for the title.

Are you seriously comparing a racist bar to the non professionalism of eastern euro countries (and Cuban)? Please dont tell me you are.

Between the defeat of Johnson in 1915 to the defeat of Greb by Tiger Flowers in 1926 ( I think, ) NO fighter of African extraction held ANY world title, and I don't believe any contested one.

Who specifically could Tunney have fought that he didn't, answer me that question before we go any further but will add you history of Siki is very wrong for starters.

Who knows what would have happened were the cubans and eastern block fighters allowed to fight profressionally, remember it wasn't their choice not to.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

Battling Siki beating Carpentier really showed the colour line was in effect at light heavyweight didn't it, just sounds like another excuse to discredit the old timers to me, still waiting for you to say whom Tunney should have fought that he didn't and when?

Do we put an asterisk next to Ali then because the eastern block couldn't fight profressionally?

Look, did you read my question to you when I asked if the colour line applied to the HW division only? I presumed it didn't but I just wanted quick clarification instead of googling.

At that time many LHW fought ast HW (Tunney obviously). Siki knew he couldn't. Hardly fair. So who knows what may have happened? The fact is that when the bar was lifted a plethora of black HWs came to the fore (discount Louis). Without that bar, who knows who would have come to the fore knowing that they could fight for the title.

Are you seriously comparing a racist bar to the non professionalism of eastern euro countries (and Cuban)? Please dont tell me you are.

Between the defeat of Johnson in 1915 to the defeat of Greb by Tiger Flowers in 1926 ( I think, ) NO fighter of African extraction held ANY world title, and I don't believe any contested one.

Thank you for that info. I didn't know. It gets worse.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Who specifically could Tunney have fought that he didn't, answer me that question before we go any further but will add you history of Siki is very wrong for starters.

Who knows what would have happened were the cubans and eastern block fighters allowed to fight profressionally, remember it wasn't their choice not to.

It doesn't matter who he could have fought. Dont you find it strange that as soon as the bar was lifted, many black HWs came to the fore? What does that tell you? Coincidence?

I'd liked to have seen Teofilio Stephenson as a pro. I reckon he would have dominated the scene and beaten Ali.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

So how did Wills get to be number one contender, then ?

When didn't he fight for the title? One would assume that being #1 would qualify you for the title shot.

But you claimed that he wouldn't have been ' trying ' because there was no title chance. So, again, how did he become top contender ?

By beating the best available. Perhaps other fighters saw how far he went and wondered why bother.

Clutching at straws.

You adamantly claimed that Tunney should have fought Wills. I proved that the time line was wrong so now you see fit to move the goalposts. Wills was finished by losses to Sharkey and Uzcudan, was thirty eight years old, and only fought about five times after the Uzcudan loss.

He was NEVER a contender for Tunney's crown.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

So how did Wills get to be number one contender, then ?

When didn't he fight for the title? One would assume that being #1 would qualify you for the title shot.

But you claimed that he wouldn't have been ' trying ' because there was no title chance. So, again, how did he become top contender ?

By beating the best available. Perhaps other fighters saw how far he went and wondered why bother.

Clutching at straws.

You adamantly claimed that Tunney should have fought Wills. I proved that the time line was wrong so now you see fit to move the goalposts. Wills was finished by losses to Sharkey and Uzcudan, was thirty eight years old, and only fought about five times after the Uzcudan loss.

He was NEVER a contender for Tunney's crown.

I'm not moving the posts windy. I acknowledged that at the time Tunney would have beaten him. I actually agreed with your posts. But my point is that during the bar period, there were no genuine black contenders. As soon as it was liften within 5 years (after the war) you had many black contenders and a black champion. My opinion is it happened because black fighters knew they couldn't fight for the title and as such had an adverse effect on their performance.

In short, why weren't there any black contenders?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

Battling Siki beating Carpentier really showed the colour line was in effect at light heavyweight didn't it, just sounds like another excuse to discredit the old timers to me, still waiting for you to say whom Tunney should have fought that he didn't and when?

Do we put an asterisk next to Ali then because the eastern block couldn't fight profressionally?

Look, did you read my question to you when I asked if the colour line applied to the HW division only? I presumed it didn't but I just wanted quick clarification instead of googling.

At that time many LHW fought ast HW (Tunney obviously). Siki knew he couldn't. Hardly fair. So who knows what may have happened? The fact is that when the bar was lifted a plethora of black HWs came to the fore (discount Louis). Without that bar, who knows who would have come to the fore knowing that they could fight for the title.

Are you seriously comparing a racist bar to the non professionalism of eastern euro countries (and Cuban)? Please dont tell me you are.

Between the defeat of Johnson in 1915 to the defeat of Greb by Tiger Flowers in 1926 ( I think, ) NO fighter of African extraction held ANY world title, and I don't believe any contested one.

I should have been more clear.

No AMERICAN fighter of African extraction, etc., etc.......

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

So how did Wills get to be number one contender, then ?

When didn't he fight for the title? One would assume that being #1 would qualify you for the title shot.

But you claimed that he wouldn't have been ' trying ' because there was no title chance. So, again, how did he become top contender ?

By beating the best available. Perhaps other fighters saw how far he went and wondered why bother.

Clutching at straws.

You adamantly claimed that Tunney should have fought Wills. I proved that the time line was wrong so now you see fit to move the goalposts. Wills was finished by losses to Sharkey and Uzcudan, was thirty eight years old, and only fought about five times after the Uzcudan loss.

He was NEVER a contender for Tunney's crown.

I'm not moving the posts windy. I acknowledged that at the time Tunney would have beaten him. I actually agreed with your posts. But my point is that during the bar period, there were no genuine black contenders. As soon as it was liften within 5 years (after the war) you had many black contenders and a black champion. My opinion is it happened because black fighters knew they couldn't fight for the title and as such had an adverse effect on their performance.

You are moving the posts, az.

You claimed Tunney should have fought Wills. He shouldn't have. Timeline all wrong.

HumanWindmill wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney wasn't at Heavyweight at the time those guys were at the top, he was a light heavyweight, his greatness is based on beating the best at his weight and beating Dempsey twice, don't quite see how his greatness can be questionned by the colour line.

The fact that one was there is enough imo. You can never tell who would have come to the fore without that. Black boxers knew the bar on them so probably would not have given their best because they knew they would never achieve their aim.

Battling Siki beating Carpentier really showed the colour line was in effect at light heavyweight didn't it, just sounds like another excuse to discredit the old timers to me, still waiting for you to say whom Tunney should have fought that he didn't and when?

Do we put an asterisk next to Ali then because the eastern block couldn't fight profressionally?

Look, did you read my question to you when I asked if the colour line applied to the HW division only? I presumed it didn't but I just wanted quick clarification instead of googling.

At that time many LHW fought ast HW (Tunney obviously). Siki knew he couldn't. Hardly fair. So who knows what may have happened? The fact is that when the bar was lifted a plethora of black HWs came to the fore (discount Louis). Without that bar, who knows who would have come to the fore knowing that they could fight for the title.

Are you seriously comparing a racist bar to the non professionalism of eastern euro countries (and Cuban)? Please dont tell me you are.

Between the defeat of Johnson in 1915 to the defeat of Greb by Tiger Flowers in 1926 ( I think, ) NO fighter of African extraction held ANY world title, and I don't believe any contested one.

I should have been more clear.

No AMERICAN fighter of African extraction, etc., etc.......

No worries. I knew what you meant.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Who specifically could Tunney have fought that he didn't, answer me that question before we go any further but will add you history of Siki is very wrong for starters.

Who knows what would have happened were the cubans and eastern block fighters allowed to fight profressionally, remember it wasn't their choice not to.

It doesn't matter who he could have fought. Dont you find it strange that as soon as the bar was lifted, many black HWs came to the fore? What does that tell you? Coincidence?

I'd liked to have seen Teofilio Stephenson as a pro. I reckon he would have dominated the scene and beaten Ali.

We can't question Tunney if there was no specific fighter whom he should have fought can we?

Do you agree that we can question Ali because the communist states didn't allow profressional boxing, Laszlo Papp for instance was one of the most notable who fell foul of this

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Who specifically could Tunney have fought that he didn't, answer me that question before we go any further but will add you history of Siki is very wrong for starters.

Who knows what would have happened were the cubans and eastern block fighters allowed to fight profressionally, remember it wasn't their choice not to.

It doesn't matter who he could have fought. Dont you find it strange that as soon as the bar was lifted, many black HWs came to the fore? What does that tell you? Coincidence?

I'd liked to have seen Teofilio Stephenson as a pro. I reckon he would have dominated the scene and beaten Ali.

We can't question Tunney if there was no specific fighter whom he should have fought can we?

Do you agree that we can question Ali because the communist states didn't allow profressional boxing, Laszlo Papp for instance was one of the most notable who fell foul of this

The difference is that they were not professional. Black fighters were professional and active and were refused because of the colour of their skin. A huge difference.

There is only a difference because it goes against your opinion that we should discredit the old timers for yet another reason

Laszlo Papp was a profressional for some time but was prevented from fighting for the world title by the Hungarian state who did not permit profressional.

Aside from the Heavyweight divsion which I think we're all in agreement did fall foul of the colour line which black fighters in the lower divisions were denied title fights?

Imagine how good Sam Langford would have been if he'd actually been trying eh, az ?

The Mighty Atom wrote:There is only a difference because it goes against your opinion that we should discredit the old timers for yet another reason

Laszlo Papp was a profressional for some time but was prevented from fighting for the world title by the Hungarian state who did not permit profressional.

Aside from the Heavyweight divsion which I think we're all in agreement did fall foul of the colour line which black fighters in the lower divisions were denied title fights?

In what way am I descrediting old timers. This is about the effect the bar had on black fighters. Try and remain calm please and dont personalise things.

Why do you think that within 5 years of the bar being lifted, many black fighters came to the fore? The answer to that question also answers your question unless you believe it is simply coincidental.

HumanWindmill wrote:Imagine how good Sam Langford would have been if he'd actually been trying eh, az ?

Ha. Windy you are terrible. He wouldn't have won the HW title though.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:There is only a difference because it goes against your opinion that we should discredit the old timers for yet another reason

Laszlo Papp was a profressional for some time but was prevented from fighting for the world title by the Hungarian state who did not permit profressional.

Aside from the Heavyweight divsion which I think we're all in agreement did fall foul of the colour line which black fighters in the lower divisions were denied title fights?

In what way am I descrediting old timers. This is about the effect the bar had on black fighters. Try and remain calm please and dont personalise things.

Why do you think that within 5 years of the bar being lifted, many black fighters came to the fore? The answer to that question also answers your question unless you believe it is simply coincidental.

I don't see how their can be an asterix next to Tunney because of it, if he does then Ali and everyone til the fall of iron curtain does as well

The difference is that those in the commie states were not active professionals. African Americans during the colour bar time were active professionals. If a boxer knows that no matter how good he is or what he does he will never get a title shot, I doubt very much he will perform at the peak of his powers. That is another why I am in awe of boxers like Langford who regardless of whatever obstacle, they gave it their all and took on everyone.

It's the same thing Azania

Fighters from communist states were given the opportunity to fight profressionally this judging by the emergence of many russian, ukranian, german champions since the fall of the Berlin wall suggests their counterparts would have competed in any era.

Still waiting for you to tell me who Tunney could and should have faced, your astounding lack of knowledge of previous eras is coming to the fore again

azania wrote:The difference is that those in the commie states were not active professionals. African Americans during the colour bar time were active professionals. If a boxer knows that no matter how good he is or what he does he will never get a title shot, I doubt very much he will perform at the peak of his powers. That is another why I am in awe of boxers like Langford who regardless of whatever obstacle, they gave it their all and took on everyone.

Professionals or not doesn't make a difference. The key factor is that potentially great fights were missed, and potential great were denied their chance at becoming stars. Just like Cuba.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:The difference is that those in the commie states were not active professionals. African Americans during the colour bar time were active professionals. If a boxer knows that no matter how good he is or what he does he will never get a title shot, I doubt very much he will perform at the peak of his powers. That is another why I am in awe of boxers like Langford who regardless of whatever obstacle, they gave it their all and took on everyone.

Professionals or not doesn't make a difference. The key factor is that potentially great fights were missed, and potential great were denied their chance at becoming stars. Just like Cuba.

They were not pro boxers whose govt denied them their opportunity to turn pro. Black Americans were already pro but were denied their chance to fight for the biggest prize. Black and white Cubans did not turn pro unless they defected. Black Americans were denied because of their colour. A huge difference.

The Mighty Atom wrote:It's the same thing Azania

Fighters from communist states were given the opportunity to fight profressionally this judging by the emergence of many russian, ukranian, german champions since the fall of the Berlin wall suggests their counterparts would have competed in any era.

Still waiting for you to tell me who Tunney could and should have faced, your astounding lack of knowledge of previous eras is coming to the fore again

Imagine if Patterson followed Cus's advice and refused to fight Liston. Would he have gained the respect he got?

Who Tunney would have fought is not the point. If you read my last few posts directed at you, you should see how and why I answered that question. Also as for my lack of knowledge, a simple google search can provide the answers. But who he could have fought is not the point.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:The difference is that those in the commie states were not active professionals. African Americans during the colour bar time were active professionals. If a boxer knows that no matter how good he is or what he does he will never get a title shot, I doubt very much he will perform at the peak of his powers. That is another why I am in awe of boxers like Langford who regardless of whatever obstacle, they gave it their all and took on everyone.

Professionals or not doesn't make a difference. The key factor is that potentially great fights were missed, and potential great were denied their chance at becoming stars. Just like Cuba.

They were not pro boxers whose govt denied them their opportunity to turn pro. Black Americans were already pro but were denied their chance to fight for the biggest prize. Black and white Cubans did not turn pro unless they defected. Black Americans were denied because of their colour. A huge difference.

Not really. What you're insinuating is that black boxers came to the fore once they were given opportunity, because the standard wasn't so great. The difference between black American boxers and the communist situation is minimal, negligible even.

Who he should have fought is exactly the point, the rest is yet another baseless assumption that guys like Langford, Wills and others weren't trying, anything to back that up or you just trying to sound clever?

Use google and provide me with these answers because I know i'm right, Tunney fought the best available and saying there were no black light heavyweights is exactly the same as saying there were no communist state heavyweights during Alis day.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:The difference is that those in the commie states were not active professionals. African Americans during the colour bar time were active professionals. If a boxer knows that no matter how good he is or what he does he will never get a title shot, I doubt very much he will perform at the peak of his powers. That is another why I am in awe of boxers like Langford who regardless of whatever obstacle, they gave it their all and took on everyone.

Professionals or not doesn't make a difference. The key factor is that potentially great fights were missed, and potential great were denied their chance at becoming stars. Just like Cuba.

They were not pro boxers whose govt denied them their opportunity to turn pro. Black Americans were already pro but were denied their chance to fight for the biggest prize. Black and white Cubans did not turn pro unless they defected. Black Americans were denied because of their colour. A huge difference.

Not really. What you're insinuating is that black boxers came to the fore once they were given opportunity, because the standard wasn't so great. The difference between black American boxers and the communist situation is minimal, negligible even.

No. I'm insisting that they came to the fore because they knew they had the opportunity to do so when the bar was lifted. The greatness of the era or not, is irelevant in this instance.

The difference between the two is that one was pro and already active whereas the other was never active. Its like the Champ continuously ducking the No1 contender always. How will history remember that champion?

Do you know the real reason why Dempsey didn't fight Wills or are you just assuming it's because he was black?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Who he should have fought is exactly the point, the rest is yet another baseless assumption that guys like Langford, Wills and others weren't trying, anything to back that up or you just trying to sound clever?

Use google and provide me with these answers because I know i'm right, Tunney fought the best available and saying there were no black light heavyweights is exactly the same as saying there were no communist state heavyweights during Alis day.

That may be the point for you, but its not the point for me.

If you are in a place of work and know (in fact written in your contract) that you will never progress, do you think you will perform to the best of your ability or do just enough to get a paycheque?

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:The difference is that those in the commie states were not active professionals. African Americans during the colour bar time were active professionals. If a boxer knows that no matter how good he is or what he does he will never get a title shot, I doubt very much he will perform at the peak of his powers. That is another why I am in awe of boxers like Langford who regardless of whatever obstacle, they gave it their all and took on everyone.

Professionals or not doesn't make a difference. The key factor is that potentially great fights were missed, and potential great were denied their chance at becoming stars. Just like Cuba.

They were not pro boxers whose govt denied them their opportunity to turn pro. Black Americans were already pro but were denied their chance to fight for the biggest prize. Black and white Cubans did not turn pro unless they defected. Black Americans were denied because of their colour. A huge difference.

Not really. What you're insinuating is that black boxers came to the fore once they were given opportunity, because the standard wasn't so great. The difference between black American boxers and the communist situation is minimal, negligible even.

No. I'm insisting that they came to the fore because they knew they had the opportunity to do so when the bar was lifted. The greatness of the era or not, is irelevant in this instance.

The difference between the two is that one was pro and already active whereas the other was never active. Its like the Champ continuously ducking the No1 contender always. How will history remember that champion?

Seeing as Tunney ducked no one he's not relevant to this discussion then surely?

Its like the Champ continuously ducking the No1 contender always. How will history remember that champion?
______________________________________________________

Jack Johnson seems to do OK out of it

That champ/contender analogy is a bit irrelevant. The idea these guys didn't try because they were black and therefore unlikely to be recognised due to the colour line is silly. More likely is that they'd try HARDER, to help their rise to prominence.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Do you know the real reason why Dempsey didn't fight Wills or are you just assuming it's because he was black?

Good grief. Once again that is irrelevant. Was Wills permitted to fight or the title? But in answering the question I do know the reason why. Dempsey wanted to fight but could not be guaranteed his purse. Also Tex Rickard was against it for racist reasons (not saying Tex was racist at all).

rowley wrote:Its like the Champ continuously ducking the No1 contender always. How will history remember that champion?
______________________________________________________

Jack Johnson seems to do OK out of it

JJ is remembered for many different reasons other than that.

BALTIMORA wrote:That champ/contender analogy is a bit irrelevant. The idea these guys didn't try because they were black and therefore unlikely to be recognised due to the colour line is silly. More likely is that they'd try HARDER, to help their rise to prominence.

In an ideal world you could be correct. But in reality when you know that no matter what you do you will never got your opportunity, your performance will suffer because of it. Not all boxers were social campaigners. Most 'knew their place' at the time. Lynching was still common especially for "uppity" blacks.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:That champ/contender analogy is a bit irrelevant. The idea these guys didn't try because they were black and therefore unlikely to be recognised due to the colour line is silly. More likely is that they'd try HARDER, to help their rise to prominence.

In an ideal world you could be correct. But in reality when you know that no matter what you do you will never got your opportunity, your performance will suffer because of it. Not all boxers were social campaigners. Most 'knew their place' at the time. Lynching was still common especially for "uppity" blacks.

'Uppity blacks' is massively different to boxers who win. If they win, their career will progress irrespective of the colour line. What you're suggesting is daft.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Do you know the real reason why Dempsey didn't fight Wills or are you just assuming it's because he was black?

Good grief. Once again that is irrelevant. Was Wills permitted to fight or the title? But in answering the question I do know the reason why. Dempsey wanted to fight but could not be guaranteed his purse. Also Tex Rickard was against it for racist reasons (not saying Tex was racist at all).

Yes Wills was permitted to fight for the title

Why is it irrelevant? You seem to be moving goalposts left right and centre on this one

Wills was permitted to fight for the title, the New York commission even went as far as preventing Dempsey fighting in the city for a time until he fought Wills. The issue was no city was willing to put the fight on and promoter Rickard was loath to put another heavyweight title fight on with the memory of Johnson Jeffries and the ensuing fall out still fresh in his memory.

Think I am right in saying Jack actually signed for the fight at least once but without scouring the books I can't be 100% on this and I really can't be bothered to do this at the minute.

Not like Wills got a £150,000 purse for the Firpo fight or anything is it, to say he wasn't trying is a ludicrous statement, he did everything he could to try and make a title fight happen, do you honestly think it jeopardise that by not preparing 100% at all times?

Again waiting for an answer on why we put an asterix next to Tunneys name?

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:That champ/contender analogy is a bit irrelevant. The idea these guys didn't try because they were black and therefore unlikely to be recognised due to the colour line is silly. More likely is that they'd try HARDER, to help their rise to prominence.

In an ideal world you could be correct. But in reality when you know that no matter what you do you will never got your opportunity, your performance will suffer because of it. Not all boxers were social campaigners. Most 'knew their place' at the time. Lynching was still common especially for "uppity" blacks.

'Uppity blacks' is massively different to boxers who win. If they win, their career will progress irrespective of the colour line. What you're suggesting is daft.

Their careers will progress up to a point when the bar kicks in. Knowing this must have had an effect on their performances and career.

rowley wrote:Wills was permitted to fight for the title, the New York commission even went as far as preventing Dempsey fighting in the city for a time until he fought Wills. The issue was no city was willing to put the fight on and promoter Rickard was loath to put another heavyweight title fight on with the memory of Johnson Jeffries and the ensuing fall out still fresh in his memory.

Think I am right in saying Jack actually signed for the fight at least once but without scouring the books I can't be 100% on this and I really can't be bothered to do this at the minute.

Therefore the colour bar was used in another way. The bottom line being that if Wills was white, there would not have been a problem.

If Teofilo Stevenson wasn't Cuban he'd possibly have been a successful profressional

The Mighty Atom wrote:Not like Wills got a £150,000 purse for the Firpo fight or anything is it, to say he wasn't trying is a ludicrous statement, he did everything he could to try and make a title fight happen, do you honestly think it jeopardise that by not preparing 100% at all times?

Again waiting for an answer on why we put an asterix next to Tunneys name?

Who says he wasn't trying?

You may as well wait for godot.

An asterix should be around the names of every single HW champ between Johnson and Louis.